Thursday, August 19, 2010

Science's Blind Spot

A friend of mine likes to invest in stocks. He understands computer companies so he trades only those stocks. This limitation makes for a simple and straightforward investing strategy. Evolutionists also limit themselves. They investigate only those phenomena that are the result of strictly natural causes. This limitation makes for a simple and straightforward research strategy, though it does create a blind spot.

An investor who buys only computer company stocks can easily identify those companies. He can find companies that build computers, computer components, computer software, and so forth. But how can evolutionists know whether the causes of a past event are strictly natural? How can evolutionists decide which phenomena fall into their research program?

The answer is they can't. Evolutionists have no test for naturalism. They have no way of knowing whether a phenomenon is the result of strictly natural causes.

Imagine an evolutionist using natural laws and processes to describe a phenomenon that does not follow such laws and processes. By searching and searching, he may find a partial fit. So he may have some success, but there are always unexplained observables—data anomalies for which the naturalistic explanation cannot account. Naturalistic explanations will always be problematic. More data will be collected, further analysis will be done, and theories will be modified or replaced altogether. All good scientific research and—in this hypothetical example of a non natural phenomenon—wrong.

When problems are encountered there is no way to tell whether the correct naturalistic solution has simply not yet been found, or whether the phenomenon itself is non natural. Non natural phenomenon can be confused with natural ones, and science has no tools for detecting this, for there is no mechanism within science to detect non natural phenomenon.

Consider the following example. What if it were found that a code existed in all living species and that, within each organism, complicated machinery was used to read vast amounts of stored information via the code? The machinery was so complicated that it automatically (i) read the information, (ii) used the code to interpret the information, and (iii) acted on the instructions.

And what if, after decades of research, no naturalistic explanation could be found for how the code and machinery arose? Even in this example, scientists could not know if naturalistic explanations have been exhausted. There are many problems with naturalistic explanations for the existence of the code and associated machinery. The problem seems to defy naturalistic explanation. But there could be a plausible explanation for how the code arose which has not yet been discovered. And how could anyone prove otherwise? To prove that a plausible explanation does not exist is far more difficult than simply continuing the search for such explanations. For to prove that no explanation exists requires knowledge about all possible explanations.

And what if there were hundreds of other such problems for which naturalistic explanations offered little more than speculation and were consistently falsified?

The answer is, of course, "so what?" Evolutionists cannot consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation. This is science's blind spot. If a theory of natural history has problems—and many of them have their share—the problems are always viewed as research problems and never as paradigm problems.

Evolutionists continue to search for naturalistic explanations for hard problems because they must. Like Sisyphus forever pushing the stone up the hill, they must pursue naturalistic explanations no matter how unlikely. Imagine if they did not. What if, at some point, they were to give up? If they did, then they might miss an undiscovered solution. They might have been on the cusp of a stunning new discovery. One cannot stop trying because the problem seems too difficult—this would be stopping science in its tracks.

Consider the problem of the planet Uranus. After its discovery Uranus did not seem to orbit the sun correctly. Could there be an unknown force perturbing the planet? Uranus's orbit could be explained by the presence of yet another planet. This was one idea to explain the strange orbit of Uranus, and it led to the discovery of the next planet, Neptune.

Imagine if astronomers had considered that Uranus's anomalous path was due to non naturalistic causes. Perhaps an invisible giant was blowing on the planet. Then the prediction and subsequent discovery of Neptune would not have occurred. Deciding on non naturalistic causes can be a science stopper.

How can we decide when a scientific problem is not a research problem, but a paradigm problem? Naturalism has no criteria, no set of rules by which to make such a judgment. And no one wants to turn science's attention away from the future discoveries. In fact, phenomena that are more daunting for naturalism are also more tantalizing, for their explanations will be more surprising and dramatic. Not only does science have a blind spot, not knowing if it has stumbled upon an unsolvable problem, but there is a certain allure of such problems. No one knows what will be science's next "Neptune."

This helps to explain the hesitancy of scientists to admit that non natural phenomena might exist. In science we follow Descartes' prescription and approach everything using naturalistic explanations. It also helps to explain the tolerance for improbable theories. Historical theories, no matter how erroneous they may seem, could be just a "Neptune" away from falling into place.

All of this helps to explain how such an implausible theory as evolution persists. It is underwritten not only by theological conviction that natural causes must suffice, but by a philosophy of science that cannot abide any other possibility, no matter how implausible evolution becomes.

50 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter:

    "Consider the following example. What if it were found that a code existed in all living species and that, within each organism, complicated machinery was used to read vast amounts of stored information via the code? The machinery was so complicated that it automatically (i) read the information, (ii) used the code to interpret the information, and (iii) acted on the instructions."

    "And what if, after decades of research, no naturalistic explanation could be found for how the code and machinery arose?"

    "There are many problems with naturalistic explanations for the existence of the code and associated machinery. The problem seems to defy naturalistic explanation."
    ======================

    But Cornelius, don't you admire the way Bill Gates and Paul Allan worked so hard using their brain sweat intelligence to create Microsoft Windows, only to later discover an easier way of using Evolutionary Applications consisting of a magical formula using nothing more than Physics and chemicals only to invent an even more superior Microsoft = Windows 7 (a Dawkian Happy chemical Accident) compared to the original ??? Can you imagine all the Billion$$$ lost at the beginning by their not using those Evolutionary Applications and doing things the antiquated (Dark Ages) hard way of using the collective intelligence of their hired staff ???

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

    Actually the Evolutionists do have a backup plan for your line of arguement about the origins of a Code.

    1) They don't have to argue or explain anything. That burnden of proof is on you.

    2) Simply debate the definition of exactly what constitutes a Code anyway ??? Hurricanes, snowflakes, gravity, etc are all codes. Codes in DNA are nothing more than Fractals and Patterns for which spontaneous crystal formation and replication is a vaild natural proof. There is no language inside or information within DNA, we only use Linguistic Analysis programs for deciphering the genome for nothing more than our own research benefits when writtings papers about our discoveries for which you should just accept without question.

    Thus far, it's a successful strategy since the power and wealth is on their side for which an unspoken mandated agenda continues to rule whether or not you like it. Sure nature is screwed up globally and yes of course real benefical scientific discoveries have been stifeled, so what ??? At least the true Theology is still alive and well, your (false religion) isn't and that's what counts.

    Does that about sum it up ???

    ReplyDelete
  2. Evolutionists cannot consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation. This is science's blind spot... All of this helps to explain how such an implausible theory as evolution persists. It is underwritten not only by theological conviction that natural causes must suffice, but by a philosophy of science that cannot abide any other possibility, no matter how implausible evolution becomes.

    When you say "science" you just mean evolutionary biology, right? I assume you don't think it would be a good option to pursue supernatural causes in medicine. And that would be despite our inability to cure cancer or even the common cold. And further despite our imperfect ability to model the spread of infectious disease. We are scientifically blind to the possbility that satanic forces are spreading influenza and interfering with the effectiveness of chemotherapy.

    Despite all this - and correct me if I'm wrong - but I assume you wouldn't suggest heavy investment in finding supernatural alternatives to chemotherapy for example, despite its shortcomings.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paul:

    "When you say "science" you just mean evolutionary biology, right?"
    =====================

    Well you may be partially right, but we are informed by Atheists that there are no such research branches of the wonderful scientific tree that do NOT recognize the Evolutionary fogma. Therefore Cornelius' use of the word "Science" was totally accurate when viewed through the splitpea prebiotic-soup coloured glasses of Atheism's theology.
    -----------------------------

    Paul:

    "I assume you don't think it would be a good option to pursue supernatural causes in medicine. And that would be despite our inability to cure cancer or even the common cold. And further despite our imperfect ability to model the spread of infectious disease?"
    ==================

    Hmmmmmmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the supernatural (Biblical version = God) approach have a more preventative approach as opposed to the Materialist approach of treating consequences of bad behavior ???

    Here's an example: AIDS

    Biblical recommendation: Do not have random sex before marriage, get married and sex with one partner and remain faithful to that partner. Do not engage in homosexual sex which not only go against biblical laws, but also goes against the unwritten laws of nature (see plumbing section).

    Materialist recommendation: Live life as you see fit. Sure there are consequences but we are inventing a "Fix-It-All-Pill" approach through "Big-Pharma" so behavioral changes won't have to be a necessary option, but until we actually find something that is a real viable product, use a condom. Not only will we one day eventually invent a fix, we'll make a healthy profit too. Keep in mind, that any fix will be tempopary since the AIDS virus will evolve and mutate into something else and we'll be back to scratch, but eventually cycling all over again by yet another profit making discovery. This will also be a beneficial help for our ongoing Global Economy.
    -------------------------

    Paul:

    "We are scientifically blind to the possbility that satanic forces are spreading influenza and interfering with the effectiveness of chemotherapy."
    ====================

    Actually, Satanic/Demonic forces do nothing more than influence the intelligent material substrate here on Earth.
    On another curious note, is Big-Pharma now combating the Flu, not by failed profit making mass vaccination hysteria hype promoted by pseudo-medical shills with huge stock options in the manufacturing (Big-Pharma) companies, but by actually using Chemotheropy ???

    Wow is there no end to the wonders of scientific materialist theology ???

    Selfishness and greed drive science and it does matter. Ask the victims.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul:

    "Despite all this - and correct me if I'm wrong - but I assume you wouldn't suggest heavy investment in finding supernatural alternatives to chemotherapy for example, despite its shortcomings."
    =====================

    Never underestimate the power of Marxian Biology coupled with Capitalist drive and motivation as a fixall cure for all of mankind's problems. And besides, it's good for the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dr Hunter:

    Evolutionists cannot consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation.

    I don’t know about the rest of those bozos, but I, for one, would be glad to consider such a possibility…if it’s testable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dr Hunter:

    How can we decide when a scientific problem is not a research problem, but a paradigm problem?

    According to Kuhn (as paraphrased in http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/),

    A crisis in science arises when confidence is lost in the ability of the paradigm to solve particularly worrying puzzles called ‘anomalies’. Crisis is followed by a scientific revolution if the existing paradigm is superseded by a rival.

    So, at present, are the implausibles (anomalies) that Dr Hunter writes about sufficiently critical to shatter the current evolutionary paradigm in biology?

    Apparently not: biology is thriving on the current paradigm, as attested in part by the wonderful examples that Dr Hunter posts on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cornelius,

    "All of this helps to explain how such an implausible theory as evolution persists. It is underwritten not only by theological conviction that natural causes must suffice, but by a philosophy of science that cannot abide any other possibility, no matter how implausible evolution becomes."

    Physicists have long had a mechanism for dealing with something that may be non-natural. It is called a singularity. This is a fancy term to mean that they do not have a clue about something. The origin of the universe is one such event. Biologists, if they weren't ardent atheists would recognize the limitations of their science and label the origin of species as singularities.

    Also, I have read a paper by a Muslim scientist who said that God was in the infinite, either large or small. That is were science breaks down. He has a good point but singularities are more germane to this post.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cornelius Hunter: Non natural phenomenon can be confused with natural ones

    In order to evaluate that statement, we would need phenomena of known supernatural origin for comparison. Cornelius, do you have any examples?


    and science has no tools for detecting this, for there is no mechanism within science to detect non natural phenomenon.

    If the nonnatural creator produced life that looked like a natural creation explicable by natural law, chance, and contingency, and yielded testable and confirmed hypotheses associated by common descent, then there is no advantage to science of knowing that the creator exists. Further, if this is indeed the nature of the creation, we would have to conclude about the creator that she did not want to be found out.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Eocene says:Hmmmmmmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the supernatural (Biblical version = God) approach have a more preventative approach as opposed to the Materialist approach of treating consequences of bad behavior ???

    This is a rather odd response to a statement about the common cold! For some things the bible has some solid practical advice, sure. I just wouldn't seek medical advice from its pages.

    Actually, Satanic/Demonic forces do nothing more than influence the intelligent material substrate here on Earth.

    Assuming that you hold the bible to be the basis for this statement, you would be wrong. Demons are the purported cause of plenty of physical illnesses in the bible.

    But anyways, I guess my point is that it is either foolish or dishonest to hold evolution to a different standard of evidence than the rest of science, e.g. medical science as per my comment. Foolish or dishonest - which will it be?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cornelius Hunter said...

    The answer is, of course, "so what?" Evolutionists cannot consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation. This is science's blind spot. If a theory of natural history has problems—and many of them have their share—the problems are always viewed as research problems and never as paradigm problems.


    So you want to include the supernatural in problem solving? Great!

    Please tell us how you would treat an infection if on the whim of some supernatural entity an antibiotic that was 100% safe and effective on one day became a deadly poison to humans the next?

    How would you design an airplane if on the whim of some supernatural entity the force of gravity suddenly and randomly changed by +/- 50%?

    How could you trust any science experiments if you assume a supernatural Loki is randomly fiddling with the results?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dr. Hunter this is a nice post I hope the people at UD read it carefully. You explain convincingly why there is no alternative to methodological naturalism. Therefore I wonder why you still have problems accepting the ToE?

    @Eocene: Condoms.

    ReplyDelete
  12. When you say "science" you just mean evolutionary biology, right?

    Biologists are perhaps the most adept at turning science into a form of modern nature based paganism but other scientists sometimes seek to do the same as well.

    Causing one to comment:
    You’ve either got a God of the gaps or a natural law of the gaps. So you look at what kind of gaps they are. Some gaps are pretty large. In those cases, when you have to theorize billions or trillions of universes for natural law to fill those gaps, then I begin to suspect that we’re really looking at evidence of some kind of intervention.
    (By Design: Science and the Search for God by Larry Witham :52)


    I assume you don't think it would be a good option to pursue supernatural causes in medicine.

    Perhaps you do not have to pursue them, as they might arise naturally. Or is that simply impossible?

    After all, we already admit to transphysical causes and transcendent realities in medicine all the time. It is by our innate sense of form that we call some things in nature deformities. The reason that we call some physical events "diseases" is generally merely because they cause a lack of ease and so on. In contrast, history shows that Darwinism and evolutionary creation myths simply dissolve the practice of medicine as we know it. (See generally: The Nazi Doctors by Robert Lifton)

    We are scientifically blind to the possbility that satanic forces are spreading influenza and interfering with the effectiveness of chemotherapy.

    Even if Satanic forces* were doing those things we could still study physical reality and seek "physical" cures in so far as physical regularities could be observed. The belief that evil exists never stopped progress in medicine in the past, yet nature based paganism and a survival of the fittest mentality clearly did. Hospitals tended to arise in Christian cultures and among "noble pagans" and not as a result of nature based paganism, many bear Catholic names to this day and so on. History indicates that to the extent that nature based paganism emerges again there will be conflict between the "Jewish influence" of charity and a survival of the fittest mentality.

    And if believing that a transcendent form of evil exists stops science and medicine as we know them then why didn't it stop progress in Christian hospitals? Why is it that Darwinists and other proponents of evolutionary creation myths always seem to be lost in their own mythologies of "natural" progress (whatever natural means) and never seem to deal with historical evidence in the real world?

    *Or if stating the same thing in another language would help religious bigots: "Aliens that evolved in another universe that reached a technological singularity." In any event, you would never catch them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You explain convincingly why there is no alternative to methodological naturalism.

    The irony of the notion of methodological naturalism is that it only makes sense if its falsification, i.e. supernaturalism might actually be detected in some way. Yet its proponents argue that this is impossible as a matter of principle and surround this claim with the arguments and so on that Hunter pointed out.

    There is no alternative to naturalism, whatever it is, because there never could be. The subsequent arguments and mythologies of progress that you find so convincing are actually unnecessary.

    Therefore I wonder why you still have problems accepting the ToE?

    Your argument reads like this: There is no alternative to naturalism, therefore evolution is true.

    I guess you can't even understand why that is a problem but others might note that the "theory of evolution" is unlike other scientific theories which are open to falsification and which actually require experimental and empirical evidence.

    Looking at your argument again (There is no alternative to naturalism therefore evolution.) apparently the only way it would be falsified is if a supernatural being appeared in a test tube or some such. Their incarnation would put them in nature, naturally. So it would all still be natural and therefore one would have no alternative but to imagine an evolutionary creation myth to explain it. Interesting logic... I just wonder why evolutionists sometimes seem "overwhelmed" by it all or "surprised" that the always and inevitably see the sort of things that they're looking for. After all, there is no alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So you want to include the supernatural in problem solving? Great!

    We already do this if Darwinian definitions of natural are granted.

    Please tell us how you would treat an infection if on the whim of some supernatural entity an antibiotic that was 100% safe and effective on one day became a deadly poison to humans the next?

    The reason that science and medicine as we know it in the West arose is because of the "Jewish influence" that the Nazis sought to eliminate. It is a theology that includes regularities as well as singularities, as well as an awareness of the reality of good and evil.

    How could you trust any science experiments if you assume a supernatural Loki is randomly fiddling with the results?

    Islamic, Jewish and Christian scientists have won many battles against superstition due to their theology and yet now supporters of modern forms of nature based paganism seek to play pretend that theism is the equivalent of the old superstitions.

    Here is the pattern:
    The scholars whom we shall quote in such impressive numbers, like those others who were instrumental in any other part of the German pre-war and war efforts, were to a large extent people of long and high standing, university professors and academy members, some of them world famous, authors with familiar names and guest lecturers abroad...
    If the products of their research work, even apart from their rude tone, strike us as unconvincing and hollow, this weakness is due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values and, by standing order, knows exactly its ultimate conclusions well in advance.
    (Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in
    Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People
    By Max Weinreich
    (New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7)


    And yet:
    ... the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.
    (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History
    of Nazi Germany
    William L. Shirer
    (Simon and Schuster) 1990 :239)


    Let's not play pretend that naturalism inevitably leads to progress, which then leads to the elimination of superstition, naturally. That is merely a mythology of Progress. History indicates that science is linked to monotheism (e.g., repeatable results, a universe governed by language/law which is therefore amenable to human language/theory, etc.) and that the rejection of theism may be linked to a reversion to superstition and pseudo-science.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Larry Witham apparently said: You’ve either got a God of the gaps or a natural law of the gaps. So you look at what kind of gaps they are. Some gaps are pretty large. In those cases, when you have to theorize billions or trillions of universes for natural law to fill those gaps, then I begin to suspect that we’re really looking at evidence of some kind of intervention.

    Or you could look at the history of science, in which the totality of the gap filling has come from that evil methodologically natural science and none of it as been explained (except in name only and only by adherents) by gods, pixies, or demons.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Paul philosophized:

    "But anyways, I guess my point is that it is either foolish or dishonest to hold evolution to a different standard of evidence than the rest of science, e.g. medical science as per my comment. Foolish or dishonest - which will it be?"
    ====================

    Unfortunately Paul, that is what Cornelius' blog subjects have clearly exposed. There is a different standard for proving evolution theory than any other science subject. Why don't Evolutionists and the subject, theory of evolution have to be held accountable for their figuratively spitting and urinating on the "Scientific Method". Why do other sciences have to use the Scientific Process ???

    http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm

    Why do the Media (forget the Panel of Peers since they excuse, what attempts to prop up the official mandate) allow evolutionists to get a pass on many of the stupid fraudulant stunts they pull like "Lucy:Evolution by Power Saw" ???

    Why does most of the made up storytelling, yeah you know, like the Walt Disneyland method of bringing to life through the use of cartoon animations the magic unproven fictional spoof called evolution when they can't even perform and provide for us just one repeatable testable verifiable experiment by which anyone else can see with their own eyes the so-called pseudo-FACTS of the deep time continuum of Evo-World ???

    In the text book examples given in this series of articles Cornelius' has posted about "The Living world" [up to Part 4 now], why do the clearly misleading statements, lies and definition shell games diliberately and knowingly created by supposedly respected men of science with absolutely no embarrassment whatsoever regarding their actions get a pass by the "Panel of Peers" ??? Why is fraud simply excused and brushed off as a necessary evil to combat a bunch of Old Guard Evolutionists consider the old Dark Ages false religion replacing it with a newer enlightened religion ???

    There are actually a number of questions you should ask Paul, because thus far your world is failing to accomplish all the wonderful things it claimed it was going to do back in the 1950s Green Revolution golden years. Life on planet Earth can't afford welfaring the Geniuses anymore Paul. The Natural world is almost bankrupted and the Geniuses haven't come through as yet with their promises of a wonderful Utopian world society.

    Do you even break away from the philosophical debate forums long enough to watch the World News to see what's happening Paul ??? Here's todays News Flash to get you started.

    http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20100819/ap_on_sc/us_sci_warming_plants.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. If science cannot identify or recognize the existence of the "supernatural". Then use of the term should be scraped from the scientific vocabulary! God a creator could be open to scientific explanation, because such a God could be "only natural". It would only be the word "natural" that has to be nailed down with a more accurate explanation. Then just "materialistic". And what does cutting edge science tell us about matter. It has immaterial origins.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mynym said: rejection of theism may be linked to a reversion to superstition and pseudo-science.

    If you look at a recent sample of metaphysical mumbo jumbo, such as The Secret, The Bible Code, Eckhart Tolle, etc., you find that while they are not exclusively religious ideas, their proponents make sure that they are at least compatible with and often supportive of Christianity.

    It seems as if the authors know that if someone logically rejects the most socially accepted (to the point of being expected) form of superstition, then there is little hope for their new agey, short half-life, money-making drone memes to hook in.

    ReplyDelete
  19. David:
    I, for one, would be glad to consider such a possibility [of no naturalistic explanation for evolution]…if it’s testable.

    I commend you for being open to the possibilty of a non-natural explanation. The question of testability is an interesting one and one that is very difficult to answer with regards to origins and evolution. After my comments, I would be interested in your response.

    There are different criteria for testability that depend on the phenomenon being tested.

    The prosaic truths of science can be tested by running to the laboratory and conducting experiments that are pertinent to the pheomenom being considered. That is what my college labs were all about.

    The really interesting truths such as our origins and the evolvability of life are lost to history in the sense that science can not conduct a direct laboratory experiment to verify them.

    You have framed your testability question in terms of testing for a non-natural explanation for evolution. The complementary question could also be asked.

    How could science test that the putative natural explanation for evolution is indeed capable of accomplishing what is claimed for it?

    Since there is the choice of only natural and non-natural explanations for the history of life, demonstrating that natural explanations are sufficient would be tatamount to ruling out non-natural explanations.

    Science already knows that intelligent agents can build extremely complex things. Does science really know that natural processes can build complex things -- things that are arguably more complex than anything man has built? If so, how does science know this? Can science really infer mechanism from the fossil record and genetic sequencing, for example? All that static evidence is the result of the putative mechanism.

    You and I are after the same thing albeit from different sides of the debate. If science is really about finding the truth about the natural world, then someone much smarter than I should be able to come up with a protocol, that if followed, would give science reason to believe that one explanation is more plausible than the other.

    I sense that we can go no father with the explanation than determining its degreee of plausibility. The answer will never be a fact as certain as the fact of gravity.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dr. Hunter you state, "A friend of mine likes to invest in stocks. He understands computer companies so he trades only those stocks. This limitation makes for a simple and straightforward investing strategy."

    The stock market is based mainly on assumptions and emotions of the investors rather than how they understand certain companies. Something unrelated to a company can affect the stock in a negative way even though it's making a good profit. How investors responded emotionally towards Greece is an example...

    This is how evolution is played as well. Secular scientists conceptualized and then make assumptions from the data or lack thereof and then if most of them feel good about it, the establishment will believe it to be a factual conclusion. So how evolution is being played to the public and themselves is similar to that of how the stock market is being played!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Doublee,

    Thank you for your comment, but I’m not clear about whether you’re asking a question of me or delivering an argument about the limits of science.

    With respect, when you can or wish to present a testable hypothesis offering a non-natural explanation for the history of life, I will welcome it and consider it carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Eocene states:Unfortunately Paul, that is what Cornelius' blog subjects have clearly exposed. There is a different standard for proving evolution theory than any other science subject. Why don't Evolutionists and the subject, theory of evolution have to be held accountable for their figuratively spitting and urinating on the "Scientific Method". Why do other sciences have to use the Scientific Process ???

    There is not a different standard of evidence. That is simply untrue. Cornelius singles out evolution because it is pursued as a valid paradigm for understanding earth's diversity. There is no naturalistic alternative - and just like medicine etc., we need a (methodologically) naturalistic framework to investigate scientific questions.

    You never answered my points regarding demons causing physical illnesses in the bible. Do you believe that is a legitimate approach to understanding illness?

    Why do the Media (forget the Panel of Peers since they excuse, what attempts to prop up the official mandate) allow evolutionists to get a pass on many of the stupid fraudulant stunts they pull like "Lucy:Evolution by Power Saw" ???
    The mass media - if you'll suspend your disbelief for just a moment - are an enormous part of the problem on the side of understanding evolution and all of science. The media operate in a framework where findings must be 'new' and 'unexpected' and preferably 'controversial'. Most of all, the story must be simple and unambiguous.

    So when a scientist tells a story to a news journalist, they look for the angle to make it an exciting and entertaining read. If the scientist doesn't use the words "This was unexpected because..." or "This is a major breakthrough..." it doesn't get published.

    Of course science is largely about incremental breakthroughs, degrees of uncertainty, and things remaining not disproven.

    The media mangles evolution just like it does 'breakthroughs' in curing cancer, the dire threat of some food you always thought was safe, and the superfood status of some food you never heard of. It's exhausting.

    There are actually a number of questions you should ask Paul, because thus far your world is failing to accomplish all the wonderful things it claimed it was going to do back in the 1950s Green Revolution golden years.

    I tend to agree. There is a clear capitalist incursion and derailing of science, whereby much of the well-funded research goes into profiteering for irresponsible people.

    You can't blame the theory of evolution for that, it is a political and an economic issue.

    Do you even break away from the philosophical debate forums long enough to watch the World News to see what's happening Paul ??? Here's todays News Flash to get you started.

    I don't engage in forums very much actually. I tend to find them rather unproductive. Most of my time, I am researching the effects of population size on the long-term genetic dynamics of species, a topic with great relevance to conservation biology. Cheers.

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

    ReplyDelete
  24. CH: "They investigate only those phenomena that are the result of strictly natural causes. This limitation makes for a simple and straightforward research strategy, though it does create a blind spot."

    OK, so why don't you tell us what a research strategy would look like that doesn't have this limitation? You obviously think it must be feasible. Describe in detail to us how exactly a non-naturalistic research strategy would work. I suspect there are many here who would be interested in knowing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It seems as if the authors know that if someone logically rejects the most socially accepted (to the point of being expected) form of superstition, then there is little hope for their new agey, short half-life, money-making drone memes to hook in.

    Not really, whatever things "seem" like to you historical facts show that those most anxious to do away with the Jewish influence tended toward pseudo-science and superstition. It would also "seem" that this pattern continues to this day, e.g.:
    The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition.* And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.
    "What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.
    Look Who's Irrational Now (emphasis added)


    *E.g.
    It is hard to explain what the neopagans....believe. They do not know themselves. Their movement is a part of the new nationalism and of a peculiar National Socialist mysticism. It has no articles of faith and it parades its lack of dogma. All of the various types of neopagans are agreed only in one thing-their rejection of Christianity and the established churches...
    (The Nordic Pagan Chant Grows Louder
    By Albion Rossberlin
    The New York Times, Aug 4, 1935; pg. 3-4)


    It was ironic that a proponent of evolutionary creation myths chose to use a norse god as an example of superstition. If history is any measure then the elimination and marginalization of Jewish tradition by those who would turn science into the equivalent of nature based paganism* will lead back to superstition, not away from it.

    *E.g.The Christian churches build on the ignorance of people and are anxious so far as possible to preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the populance as possible; only in this way can the Christian churches retain their power. In contrast, national socialism rests on scientific foundations.
    (The German Churches Under
    Hitler: Backround, Struggle, and Epilogue
    by Ernst Helmreich
    (Detriot: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979) :303)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Cornelius singles out evolution because it is pursued as a valid paradigm for understanding earth's diversity.

    He singles it out because the "theories" of biologists are often quite unlike scientific theories. Since when have physicists ever argued that gravity can be verified because God wouldn't make things fall on people? When did they ever argue that it must inevitably be verified due to the history of science itself? When did they argue that the only other alternative was supernatural, therefore gravity must be preferred merely because it seemed "natural" to them?

    There is no naturalistic alternative - and just like medicine etc., we need a (methodologically) naturalistic framework to investigate scientific questions.

    Natural is largely a term empty of meaning, although in the minds of some pagans it apparently means something along the lines of: "Anything and everything, as long as it is not the God of the Jews."

    Berlinski comments:
    In many respects the word naturalism comes closest to conveying what scientists regard as the spirit of science, the source of its superiority to religious thought.
    ….
    What, after all, could be more natural than being natural? Carl Sagan’s buoyant affirmation that “the universe is all that is, or was, or will be” is widely understood to have captured the spirit of naturalism, but since the denial of this sentence is a contradiction, the merits of the concept so defined are not immediately obvious. Just who is arguing from the pulpit that everything is not everything? ….
    If naturalism is a term largely empty of meaning, there is always methodological naturalism. Although naturalism is natural, methodological naturalism is even more natural and is, for that reason, a concept of superior grandeur. Hector Avalos is a professor of religious studies at Iowa State University, and an avowed atheist. He is a member of good standing of the worldwide fraternity of academics who are professionally occupied in sniffing the underwear of their colleagues for signs of ideological deviance. Much occupied in denouncing theories of intelligent design, he has enjoyed zestfully persecuting its advocates. “Methodological naturalism,” the odious Avalos has written, “the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the natural sciences.”
    Now a view said to be foundational can hardly be said to be methodological, and if naturalism is the foundation of the natural sciences, then it must be counted a remarkable oddity of thought that neither the word nor the idea that it expresses can be found in any of the great physical theories.
    (The Devil’s Delusion by David Berlinksi :52)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Or you could look at the history of science, in which the totality of the gap filling has come from that evil methodologically natural science...

    That has more to do with your imaginary mythologies of progress than history. Most scientists have not had the sort of sharply limited intellect it takes to try to divorce the natural from the supernatural. Instead, many did the exact opposite, e.g.:

    Nicolaus Copernicus, Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System:
    “How exceedingly vast is the godlike work of the Best and Greatest Artist!”

    “The Universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

    Johannes Kepler, Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion:
    “Praise and glorify with me the wisdom and greatness of the Creator, which I have revealed in a deeper explication of the form of the universe, in an investigation of the causes, and in my detection of the deceptiveness of sight.”

    “God who is the most admirable in his works.. .deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”

    Galileo Galilei, Laws of Dynamics, astronomical confirmation of the heliocentric system:

    “The holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word.”

    Isaac Newton, Optics, Laws of Motion, Gravitation.... Below is an excerpt from his classic work,the Principia Mathematica:

    “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called ‘Lord God’… or ‘Universal Ruler.’… And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent and powerful Being… he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He endures forever, and is everywhere present…”
    (The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God by Roy Abraham Varghese :103-106)


    You make sarcastic claims about an "...evil methodologically natural science..." and yet ironically a "natural"/amoral science is evil. For example, it was evil when Nazi scientists put Jews in tubs of cold water in order to observe how long they would survive.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Maybe Cornelius may actually have some evidence to support his assertions when the next edition of the bible gets released.

    ReplyDelete
  29. mynym recounted:

    "You make sarcastic claims about an "...evil methodologically natural science..." and yet ironically a "natural"/amoral science is evil."

    " For example, it was evil when Nazi scientists put Jews in tubs of cold water in order to observe how long they would survive. "
    =======================


    While I can agree on some things you post, let's be honest, fair and truthful on that second sentence above. Yes the Nazi idealogy was evil and in philosophy used extremist Darwinian principles to justify their genocide. But the question has to be asked in the light of a census taken in 1926 of how many were claiming Christianity and what denomination they were. 40+ million said they were Evangelical and 20+ million claimed to be Catholic and this was strictly Germany and didn't include Austria and other axis countries. Again, the question must be asked: Why did these 60+ million claiming to be Christ-like support such an openly evil idealogy with the resulting consequences of bloodguilt later on ???

    Sure atheists were equally at fault , but they were also massively outnumbered by those claiming to be Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mynym said: Not really, whatever things "seem" like to you historical facts show that those most anxious to do away with the Jewish influence tended toward pseudo-science and superstition. It would also "seem" that this pattern continues to this day,

    Not really, your "historical facts" appear to be a couple of newspaper editorials, one drawing most of its support from a survey conducted at the behest of Baptist Baylor University.

    There are multiple problems here. The first is correlation not equaling causation. Those Christians who still believe in God and want to hold on to their traditional denomination, but whom are not satisfied with Biblical explanations, are not likely to regularly attend church and are likely to adopt other forms of superstition. The correlation is not necessarily the result of religious "education" stamping out belief in other types of acceptance of the paranormal.

    Second, of course, is the very strained definition of paranormal that would allow the surveyors to acquit the religiously conservative of paranormal belief. Certainly the vast majority of them believe in 1. abiogenesis of humans and other multicellular organisms; 2. an immortal "soul" that lives beyond the expiration date of its user; 3. the divinity of a historical personage; 4. multiplication of loaves and fishes, parting of the Red Sea, kangaroos hopping to the Holy Land to get their ark tickets, and various other parlor tricks.

    Saying that religious adherence eliminates superstition is like saying acanthocephalans have eliminated parasitism because they produce alcohols to flush out competing tapeworms.


    I would agree with you, however, that if the mass of humanity were to be stripped of their sanctioned beliefs, they would turn to other forms of superstition because they cannot handle the uncertainty that a strictly scientific worldview leaves us with.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mynym said: That has more to do with your imaginary mythologies of progress than history. Most scientists have not had the sort of sharply limited intellect it takes to try to divorce the natural from the supernatural. Instead, many did the exact opposite

    If scientific progress were a myth, you would be due for an annual bloodletting soon. The scientists you cite happened to believe in God, but that does not mean that their scientific contributions were a result of their supernatural beliefs. Furthermore, all of these examples lived in a time when it really didn't pay to think outside the box religiously.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mynym said: yet ironically a "natural"/amoral science is evil. For example, it was evil when Nazi scientists put Jews in tubs of cold water in order to observe how long they would survive.

    Methodological naturalism does not require researchers to be amoral. They simply cannot derive conclusions from unsubstantiated moral beliefs. The scientific process itself is amoral, and that is why society must place bounds on the type of research that scientists may ethically conduct. Moral philosophy is one type of metaphysics that is common to the atheist as well as the believer.

    And of course, Hitler was no atheist. Many Christian church thinkers have long histories of antisemitism, including Martin Luther who seems to have been an important influence on Hitler. Some of the researchers working for him may well have been amoral, or they may have thought what they were doing was morally justified. Either way, this does not imply that they were atheists.

    ReplyDelete
  33. David:
    Thank you for your comment, but I’m not clear about whether you’re asking a question of me or delivering an argument about the limits of science.

    In retrospect, I guess I was making an argument for the limits of science. My conscious intent, however, was to recognize how difficult it is to test for historical scientific phenomena. And since science can get at the explanations for those phenomena only inferentially, their epistomological status cannot be equivalent to knowledge gained from direct experimentation. All this is probably a distinction without a difference.

    With respect, when you can or wish to present a testable hypothesis offering a non-natural explanation for the history of life, I will welcome it and consider it carefully.

    What I was hoping you would do is elucidate what you mean by "testable". I tend to think of a testable hypothesis as a hypothesis that can be directly verified by a laboratory experiment.

    Obviously, the mechanisms responsible for the great morphological transformations observed in the fossil record cannot be subjected to direct experimentation. (Yes, there are the on-going multigenerational lab experiments with bacteria, but they seem to suggest that there are limits to what evolution can do.)

    Stephen Meyer has explained Darwin's and Lyell's methods of reasoning for historical scientific hypotheses. Simply put, science uses causes known to be operating in the present as explanations for phenomena that occurred in the past.

    This, as I use the phrase "testable hypothesis", is not a testable hypothesis, but it is what I offer in its place. Intelligent design is an inference using the method of historical reasoning. Strictly speaking, it is not an inference to a non-natural cause, but obviously the non-natural cause is the blinking neon sign on the building.

    From my viewpoint, the burden is on the evolutionists to demonstrate that non-intelligent causes can explain the great morphological transformations recorded in the fossil record.

    We know that intelligence agents can build complex things. We don't know yet if purely natural processes can do the same thing.

    If evolutionists don't agree with Darwin's method of historical reasoning, what method do they propose to take its place? Even more importantly, what is the method of reasoning that they do use to justify their assertion that evolution is as much a fact as is gravity?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Doublee:

    What I was hoping you would do is elucidate what you mean by "testable". I tend to think of a testable hypothesis as a hypothesis that can be directly verified by a laboratory experiment.

    A testable hypothesis is one that can be supported or contradicted by experience. It need not be limited to laboratory experiment, and can be used to deal with historical questions. I gave an example this morning on another of Dr Hunter’s threads, in which the lights went out when I was using my toaster. I hypothesized that a fuse had blown. The test is to check the fuse box. That was a historical question that did not require a laboratory experiment.

    From my viewpoint, the burden is on the evolutionists to demonstrate that non-intelligent causes can explain the great morphological transformations recorded in the fossil record.

    It’s a burden that has been taken up by tens of thousands of workers. Go online and peruse the contents of some of the scientific journals and you will see plenty of successful efforts by those workers.

    You and other evolution deniers, however, face the burden of demonstrating that an intelligent agency explains the history of biological diversity on the planet Earth. It doesn’t suffice to simply assert intelligent causation by analogy to human agency.

    If evolutionists don't agree with Darwin's method of historical reasoning, what method do they propose to take its place? Even more importantly, what is the method of reasoning that they do use to justify their assertion that evolution is as much a fact as is gravity?

    But they do agree with Darwin’s reasoning. Regarding the factual nature of evolution, see, for example:

    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

    ReplyDelete
  35. Doublee:

    We know that intelligence agents can build complex things. We don't know yet if purely natural processes can do the same thing.

    Is a forest a complex thing? Is a hurricane a complex thing? Is an oil deposit in the Gulf of Mexico a complex thing?

    What intelligence built those things?

    ReplyDelete
  36. David illusioned:

    "Is a forest a complex thing? Is a hurricane a complex thing? Is an oil deposit in the Gulf of Mexico a complex thing?"
    ==================

    The talkorigins.org - infidels.org usual canned answer would be that these are nothing more than Codes.

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

    David was searching:

    "What intelligence built those things?"
    ==================

    Off hand I guess the spin answer would be "Natural Selection" (Tinker Bell w/magic-wand or "Unspecified Natural Magic")

    ReplyDelete
  37. David boldened:

    "It’s a burden that has been taken up by tens of thousands of workers. Go online and peruse the contents of some of the scientific journals and you will see plenty of successful efforts by those workers."
    ========================

    I don't really believe that the combination of forum memberlists from talkorigns.org, infidels.org, atheistforums.com, talkrational.com, richarddawkins.net really constitutes an honest quality group of world reknown researchers. You may want to research again.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Doublee observed:

    "If evolutionists don't agree with Darwin's method of historical reasoning, what method do they propose to take its place? Even more importantly, what is the method of reasoning that they do use to justify their assertion that evolution is as much a fact as is gravity?"
    ======================

    Interestingly they do have radical differences of opinion amongst themselves, although this is denied and insisted that they ARE ALL UNITED and on the same dogma page (which couldn't be further from the truth). Evolutionary Religion has as many denominations, sects and cults as any other historical religion that ever has or presently exists on Earth. Most of the differnces come when one of their believers, trying to attain celebrity status Ascention in one of the published science notoriety rags, will publically state a finding for which he/she hopes to becomes the next Evo-Darling celeb, only to be attacked by other researcher wannabes jealous of their spotlight fame.

    Just a few months back I watched a documentary about a massive fossil rich flood plain in Northern Alaska towards the Arctic ocean where several prominent scientists and their teams were fighting amongst themselves over who found what area and had the right to dig there. Tho such ones are always promoted as mature intellectual cream of the crop men/women the science world has ever known, their clear ego infected adulescent behavioral issues spoke volumes as to their true character.

    ReplyDelete
  39. CH wrote:

    Evolutionists cannot consider the possibility that there is no naturalistic explanation. This is science's blind spot. If a theory of natural history has problems—and many of them have their share—the problems are always viewed as research problems and never as paradigm problems.

    Are you suggesting that miracles be introduced into science?

    Miracles are defined in a way that makes them bad explanations for what we observe. This becomes even more problematic when miracles are claimed to be the caused by an intelligent agent who intentionally chooses to bring them about.

    For the sake of argument, let's assume that biological ID is correct in that the appearance and subsequent development of live we observe was due to the miraculous intervention of an intelligent agent. While this accounts for what we observe, it does not actually explain what we observe.

    Would this knowledge inform us if biological life, including human beings, will or will not continue to change? It does not. The agent might choose to continue making positive mutations that cause further changes, or it may not. We simply cannot know. Claims to the contrary are unwarranted assumptions due to the way miracles by defined. We cannot know when future interventions will happen again, if ever.

    Would this knowledge somehow enable *us* to make changes to biological life? No it does not. Again, by definition, we cannot hope to understand the method this agent used to determine which changes to make to reach specific outcomes. Nor does it tell us how the agent made changes to just the right parts of the genome, while leaving others unchanged.

    Would this knowledge inform us of the designers purpose for specific biological features, if any? No, it would not. For example, It could be that the designer's method of changing the genome has some unintended effects, which result in other features the designer did not what. Which features were desired and which were the byproduct? You need to know the method used by the designer, what is important to the designer, etc. However, by either posting an abstract agent or a "non-natural" agent that is "beyond our understanding" these thinks are unknowable, so we're left in the dark.

    As such, it's unclear introducing miracles into science actually improves the situation.

    Instead, ID appears to be a convoluted elaboration designed to explain away Darwinism.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I wrote:

    Go online and peruse the contents of some of the scientific journals and you will see plenty of successful efforts by those workers.

    Eocene commented:

    I don't really believe that the combination of forum memberlists from talkorigns.org, infidels.org, atheistforums.com, talkrational.com, richarddawkins.net really constitutes an honest quality group of world reknown researchers. You may want to research again.

    I was referring to scientific publications, the contents of which are liberally available online.

    For example:

    http://sciencemag.org/

    http://www.nature.com/

    http://www.pnas.org/

    Take a look. You might learn something.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Science already knows that intelligent agents can build extremely complex things. Does science really know that natural processes can build complex things -- things that are arguably more complex than anything man has built? If so, how does science know this? Can science really infer mechanism from the fossil record and genetic sequencing, for example? All that static evidence is the result of the putative mechanism.

    Science and all of us know that humans and many other animals build things, that are simple. All examples of built" things we have are made by humans and animals. But evolutionists/Darwinists like Cornelius and his friends, the ones who believe evolution is ideology, or have created a phantom called Darwinism that they like to toss around (along with other phantoms like intelligent-agent etc) insist on using the passive voice to avoid any discussion of what or how this design phantom is all about. There 's all the equivocation about natural; intelligent and supernatural - again meaningless drivel. Intelligence has a very limited operational definition in science and the "intelligence" peddled by evolutionist-Darwinists has nothing to do with it. Which is why despite repeated calls, Cornelius hasn't attempted any operational definition of the term. Because (1) there isn't one, (2) an operational definition would open up questioning so intense that DiscIn would have to go off the web!

    To be sure when we humans make something we constitute a natural cause, a beaver building a dam is a natural "cause" - a natural agent. So there is no difference at all between intelligent and natural agents. So that leaves only supernatural agents, and that we scientists have no use for. We know there aren't any supernatural causes, and we don't care if someone insists there are supernatural causes. We also know that Cornelius will only talk about the supernatural. He has no plan to show its action. So all that evolutionist-Darwinists have to do now is to tell us scientists who is that intelligent agent who made the allegedly complex thing. We also have a quiet chcukle every time we hear about that guy Paley who0 walked down the heath. We can't stop laughing that Paley concluded that the watch of all things is designed, not the stone he tripped over or the grass all over the heath!

    ReplyDelete
  42. David:
    A testable hypothesis is one that can be supported or contradicted by experience. It need not be limited to laboratory experiment...

    I agree with what you say here. A laboratory experiment is merely a special case of what can be supported or contradicted by experience. There are many disciplines in science, such as astronomy, that are conducted beyond the confines of the laboratory. Of course, an astronomical telescope is a laboratory in the general sense of the word.

    ...and can be used to deal with historical questions.

    I do have a problem with this assertion.

    One definiton of experience is this:
    "knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has observed, encountered, or undergone."

    Please explain how your definition of a testable hypothesis can be used to test a historical question. The phenomenon to be observed or encountered is lost to history.

    Specifically, how would you test the hypothesis that unintelligent processes, that is natural processes, can account for major morphological transformations?

    You and other evolution deniers, however, face the burden of demonstrating that an intelligent agency explains the history of biological diversity on the planet Earth. It doesn’t suffice to simply assert intelligent causation by analogy to human agency.

    Neither does it suffice to simply assert that the consilience of evidence demonstrates that the history of biological diversity is due to natural causes.

    An inferential trail has to be established between that evidence and the mechanism.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Doublee:

    One definiton of experience is this:
    "knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has observed, encountered, or undergone."

    Please explain how your definition of a testable hypothesis can be used to test a historical question. The phenomenon to be observed or encountered is lost to history.


    Your quoted definition provides an explanation. Historians encounter and observe written records and artifacts and extract knowledge of the past from them. Paleontologists encounter and observe fossils in geologic strata and extract knowledge of the past from them. Astronomers encounter and observe celestial objects and extract knowledge of the past from them. Etc., etc. Such encounters and observations constitute evidence. Evidences are tests of hypotheses in science just as in courts of law.

    Surely you must have known these things…

    Specifically, how would you test the hypothesis that unintelligent processes, that is natural processes, can account for major morphological transformations?

    Paleontology, a historical science, provides evidence thereunto, in concert with geology, another historical science. Other evidence comes from molecular biology laboratories in studies of genes that control morphology. If you really want to learn, there are many resources available. A particularly accessible one is Sean Carroll’s Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

    Neither does it suffice to simply assert that the consilience of evidence demonstrates that the history of biological diversity is due to natural causes.

    No, a simple assertion is not enough. One would have to examine and evaluate the evidence. Try it, you might like it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Doublee: Please explain how your definition of a testable hypothesis can be used to test a historical question.

    The same way all hypotheses are tested. A hypothesis is a tentative claim. From the hypothesis, we deduce specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. We then test those predictions. From those results we may modify or discard our hypothesis, or if confirmed, we attempt other, independent tests. We publish so that others may validate and extend our results.

    Doublee: Specifically, how would you test the hypothesis that unintelligent processes, that is natural processes, can account for major morphological transformations?

    You seem to have trouble understanding how the scientific method applies to historical claims, so let's start with a simpler case: Dinosaurs once roamed the Earth. Do you agree that fossils represent scientific evidence of this claim? Is there any reasonable scientific doubt about the claim?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Zachriel:
    From the hypothesis, we deduce specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. We then test those predictions.

    You have described the general process of hypothesis testing; that I understand.

    It seems to me that Dawkins' definition of biology -- the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose -- would lead to the hypothesis that indeed those complicated things were designed for a purpose.

    Yet, the contrary hypothesis is put forth.

    No matter which hypothesis is put forth, it somehow has to be tested. I will admit that I can't at the moment evision what kind of empirical test could be conducted that could demarcate between the two hypotheses.

    Now if you could decribe how evolutionists arrive at the hypothesis that random variation and natural selection is the mechanism of evoluton and how that hypothesis would be empirically tested, that would be the first step in helping my understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Doublee: It seems to me that Dawkins' definition of biology -- the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose -- would lead to the hypothesis that indeed those complicated things were designed for a purpose.

    Purpose, in this context, may simply mean function. But if you have a testable hypothesis, let us know.

    Doublee: I will admit that I can't at the moment evision what kind of empirical test could be conducted that could demarcate between the two hypotheses.

    What two hypotheses? ID has never proposed a testable hypothesis.

    Doublee: Now if you could decribe how evolutionists arrive at the hypothesis that random variation and natural selection is the mechanism of evoluton and how that hypothesis would be empirically tested, that would be the first step in helping my understanding.

    We start by outlining the overall history of Common Descent and descent with modification.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Zachriel:
    What two hypotheses? ID has never proposed a testable hypothesis.

    I was exploring the thinking behind how one arrives at an emprically testable hypothesis.

    I suggested that Dawkins' definition
    of biology would lead to a hypothesis of intelligent agency as an explanation for the history of life. An observation of apparent design would logically lead to a hypothesis of real design, I would think.

    That is why I found it interesting that in spite of the appearance of design in biology, the hypothesis of random variation and natural selection is proposed.

    It may be that I am misconstruing or don't understand what you mean by an empirically testable hypothesis. For me an empirically testable hypothesis is one that is amenable to direct testing and observation.

    If that is what you mean, then, as an example, would you consider the multigenerational, multi-year tests with bacteria populations as an empirical test of the evolution hypothesis?

    We start by outlining the overall history of Common Descent and descent with modification.

    The real question is where do we end up? Again, using my undersanding of an empirically testable hypothesis, what emprical test do you propose to discover and verify the mechanism of modification if not the mutligenerational bacteria tests mentioned above?

    Such a test, if properly and rigorously constructed, could in principle fail to confirm the hypothesis. If it shows that the putative mechanism of evolution cannot do the job, then what?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Doublee: I was exploring the thinking behind how one arrives at an emprically testable hypothesis.

    That's a very interesting question. Most hypotheses are derived as extensions of established theories. Sometimes by deep thought. But they can come from deep in the human imagination.

    Doublee: That is why I found it interesting that in spite of the appearance of design in biology, the hypothesis of random variation and natural selection is proposed.

    Darwin made a circumnavigation of the globe and collected a huge amount of biological and geological evidence. Once he struck on the idea, and saw how well it fit the data, he began the decades-long task of collecting additional evidence to support his theory. Since then, entire fields of study have developed to extend the theory.

    Meanwhile, the design 'hypothesis' was and is scientifically sterile.

    Doublee: It may be that I am misconstruing or don't understand what you mean by an empirically testable hypothesis. For me an empirically testable hypothesis is one that is amenable to direct testing and observation.

    Dinosaur fossils are empirical evidence. Evolution in bacteria is empirical evidence.

    Doublee: The real question is where do we end up?

    Given Common Descent, we can directly observe mechanisms of evolution, compare them to the established history and determine if they are consistent with that history. In particular, natural selection requires incremental and selectable changes. Rates of novel variation have to be robust enough to provide the raw material for selection to work.

    Doublee: Again, using my undersanding of an empirically testable hypothesis, what emprical test do you propose to discover and verify the mechanism of modification if not the mutligenerational bacteria tests mentioned above?

    One test is the rate of evolutionary change. The rate observed acting in nature today has to be at least as fast as the fastest historical rate. Indeed, observed rates of evolution are much faster than required to explain the historical record.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Zachriel:
    Evolution in bacteria is empirical evidence.

    [W]e can directly observe mechanisms of evolution, compare them to the established history and determine if they are consistent with that history.

    The rate observed acting in nature today has to be at least as fast as the fastest historical rate.

    During the many times that I have pursued the question of how evolutionists reason from the evidence to the conclusion that evolution is true, your answer is the first one that outlines the reasoning that leads to the "evolution inference."

    But the point is, it is still an inference to a grand mechanism derived from observation of a petite mechanism. You have also discussed corollary observations that are consistent with the hypothesis.

    The question remains: Can microevolution be extrapolated to explain macroevolution?

    Would you not agree that bacteria’s evolving antibacterial resistance is a problem substantially different from a land mammal evolving into a whale?

    The former requires a simple genetic change; the latter requires not only the evolution of many new "parts" but parts that must be coordinated with each other so that the resulting system actually works. The evolution of a whale is an extraordinarily difficult "engineering problem", that any scientist would be hard pressed to reverse engineer.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Doublee: The question remains: Can microevolution be extrapolated to explain macroevolution?

    When you look at the history(Remember? Common Descent!), we can identify many transitions that result in complex adaptation that came about through incremental and selectable changes.

    Doublee: Would you not agree that bacteria’s evolving antibacterial resistance is a problem substantially different from a land mammal evolving into a whale?

    No, because we can show that the transitional adaptations were reasonably due to incremental and selectable changes.

    ReplyDelete