Tuesday, July 5, 2011

What Evolutionists Don’t Understand About Methodological Naturalism

OK let’s try this again. One more time, this time with pictures. In their celebrated volume  Blueprints, evolutionists Maitland Edey and Donald Johanson argued that “What God did is a matter for faith and not for scientific inquiry. The two fields are separate. If our scientific inquiry should lead eventually to God … that will be the time to stop science.” Similarly for evolutionist Niles Eldredge, the key responsibility of science—to predict—becomes impossible when a capricious Creator is entertained:

But the Creator obviously could have fashioned each species in any way imaginable. There is no basis for us to make predictions about what we should find when we study animals and plants if we accept the basic creationist position. … the creator could have fashioned each organ system or physiological process (such as digestion) in whatever fashion the Creator pleased. [The Monkey Business, p. 39, Washington Square Press, 1982.]

Or again, evolutionist Paul Moody explains that:

Most modern biologists do not find this explanation [that God created the species] satisfying. For one thing, it is really not an explanation at all; it amounts to saying, “Things are this way because they are this way.” Furthermore, it removes the subject from scientific inquiry. One can do no more than speculate as to why the Creator chose to follow one pattern in creating diverse animals rather than to use differing patterns. [Introduction to Evolution, p. 26, Harper and Row, 1970.]

Likewise Tim Berra warns that we must not be led astray by the apparent design in biological systems, for it “is not the sudden brainstorm of a creator, but an expression of the operation of impersonal natural laws, of water seeking its level. An appeal to a supernatural explanation is unscientific and unnecessary—and certain to stifle intellectual curiosity and leave important questions unasked and unanswered.” In fact, “Creationism has no explanatory powers, no application for future investigation, no way to advance knowledge, no way to lead to new discoveries. As far as science is concerned, creationism is a sterile concept.” [Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, pp. 66, 142, Stanford University Press, 1990.]

In his undergraduate evolution text Mark Ridley informs the student that “Supernatural explanations for natural phenomena are scientifically useless,” [Evolution, p. 323, Blackwell, 1993] and commenting on the Dover legal decision Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education explains that supernatural explanations:

would be truly a science stopper, because once we allow ourselves to say, “Gee, this problem is so hard; I can’t figure out how it works—God did it,” then we stop looking for a natural explanation; and if there is a natural explanation, we’re not going to find it if we stop looking.

Over and over evolutionists today agree that science must strictly be limited to naturalistic explanations. One finds this throughout the evolutionary literature and it is a consistent refrain in discussions and debates about evolution.

But this sentiment by no means arose with today’s evolutionists. In 1891 UC Berkeley professor Joseph LeConte argued strenuously for this philosophical mandate:

The origins of new phenomena are often obscure, even inexplicable, but we never think to doubt that they have a natural cause; for so to doubt is to doubt the validity of reason, and the rational constitution of Nature. So also, the origins of new organic forms may be obscure or even inexplicable, but we ought not on that account to doubt that they had a natural cause, and came by a natural process; for so to doubt is also to doubt the validity of reason, and the rational constitution of organic Nature.

Likewise Darwin argued that whether one “believes in the views given by Lamarck, by Geoffroy St. Hilaire, by the author of the ‘Vestiges,’ by Mr. Wallace or by myself, signifies extremely little in comparison with the admission that species have descended from other species, and have not been created immutable: for he who admits this as a great truth has a wide field open to him for further inquiry.”

Explanations needed to be naturalistic for scientific inquiry. And as usual the foundations for this evolutionary mandate long predate 1859. Miracles were increasingly eschewed by leading thinkers and a century before philosopher David Hume had made persuasive arguments against miracles. Much of Hume’s material came from theological debates earlier in the century. On the continent leading Lutherans had already discarded the supernatural.

Method, completeness and realism in pictures

So when an evolutionist today insists that science must be naturalistic he is standing on a deep foundation of ideas. But setting aside this history for a moment, what about this argument? Remember that these same evolutionists claim their idea is also a fact. Is there not something curious about these tandem claims? I was once in a debate where the evolutionists claimed that we know evolution is a fact, and that it also is necessary in order to do science. How did they know that? Let’s have a look.

First, imagine the set of all possible explanations, as represented by the blue area below:


Because the blue area contains all possible explanations, it includes false as well as true explanations, lousy as well as good explanations, aesthetic and clumsy ones, and natural and non natural ones. It is every possible explanation in one set.

Now consider the set of all solutions that are according to a particular method, such as naturalism, as illustrated in the orange area below. All explanations that are strictly naturalistic are in the yellow area, and all other explanations are outside the orange area. Because the blue area contains all possible explanations, the orange area is a subset—it is wholly within the blue area.


Next consider the set of all true explanations as represented by the green circle below. These true explanations provide realistic models of nature. Again, this set of explanations must be wholly within the blue area, but otherwise we don’t know just where this green circle is. It could be in the orange area, it could be outside the orange area, or it could overlap. We don’t know what the true solutions all are, which is why we do science.


I have drawn the green circle above as partly inside and partly outside the orange area merely to illustrate the possibilities. But we don’t know where it is, and therefore whenever we mandate, a priori, a method such as naturalism, we automatically exclude a set of explanations that might be true.

In the early days of modern science philosophers were keen to this issue. Francis Bacon, for instance, wanted science only to pursue true explanations. But Bacon also wanted science to restrict itself to naturalistic explanations. Bacon realized that the restriction to naturalism would exclude any realistic, true, explanations that were not strictly naturalistic.

Bacon said that such non naturalistic phenomena should not be pursued by science. So Bacon insisted on naturalism and realism, but forfeited completeness. Science would not investigate all things. The thick black line below illustrates how this position limits itself to explanations that are both realistic and naturalistic, while potentially forfeiting some true explanations (depending on where exactly the green circle really is).



Like Bacon, another early philosopher, Rene Descartes, also insisted on naturalism. But he didn’t like the idea of forfeiting completeness. Descartes wanted science to be able to investigate all phenomena. But what if some realistic, true, explanations fall outside of naturalism? So what.

Descartes solution was to forfeit realism. Science, according to Descartes, would occasionally produce untrue explanations that otherwise could very well be useful. This approach is illustrated by the thick line below that encompasses all the naturalistic explanations, but misses some of the true explanations. Science might produce useful fictions along the way. Descartes mandated method and completeness, but in doing so had to forfeit realism.


After Descartes several scientists did not like this idea of forfeiting realism, as Descartes did, or forfeiting completeness, as Bacon did. These empiricists were interested in true solutions for all phenomena. This approach is illustrated below with the thick line encompassing the true solutions. But in order to maintain such realism and completeness, this approach cannot guarantee what method would be necessary. They might require non naturalistic explanations, for instance. So this approach provides realism and completeness, but forfeits any guarantee of method, such as naturalism.


Bacon, Descartes and the empiricists represent three different approaches to doing science. All are logically consistent. And who knows, the different methods might yield different insights—let a thousand flowers bloom.

But of course all three approaches have a limitation. Like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, you cannot have realism, completeness and method all in one. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

This brings us back to the evolutionists. Unlike Bacon, Descartes and the empiricists, evolutionists do have their cake and eat it too. They claim evolution is a fact, they mandate naturalism, and their science knows no limits. They have realism, method, and completeness all together. How can this be?

The answer is simple. One cannot have realism, method, and completeness simultaneously without some extra, non scientific, knowledge. Evolution’s gnosis is, of course, that true solutions are, indeed, naturalistic. This is illustrated below by the thick line that encompasses all true explanations, but it is also wholly naturalistic. How so? The trick is that the green circle has been moved. It is completely within the orange area. Knowing the location of the green circle, even before doing the science, is evolution’s gnosis—their secret knowledge.



It is this secret knowledge the evolutionists possess that allows them to have their cake and eat it too, and this brings us back to the history of the idea. There is no great mystery here, for evolutionists have for centuries made strong theological arguments that the world must have arisen naturalistically. The true explanations are all naturalistic. Therefore it is little wonder that, while not knowing how the world could have evolved, evolutionists are sure it did evolve. Evolution, one way or another, is a fact.

It is here that many fail to appreciate evolution’s conundrum. They often criticize evolution’s method mandate. Have not evolutionists been wrong to insist on methodological naturalism? No, such a method is perfectly fine.

The problem with evolution is not its insistence on method, but on its underlying theology. By insisting on method and realism and completeness, evolutionists are literally not equipped to consider other legitimate possibilities. They have already made a metaphysical commitment, without knowing whether or not it is true. They have confined themselves to a box. For 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. Of course evolutionists must always opt for the former, no matter how absurd the science becomes.

So the problem with evolution is not that the naturalistic approach might occasionally be inadequate. The problem is that evolutionists would never know any better. The evolutionists truth claims, and the underlying theology, have immense consequences. Religion drives science, and it matters.

66 comments:

  1. Now Cornelius, all you have to do is explain why your reasoning only applies to the theory of evolution and not to all sciences and scientific theories as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One cannot have realism, method, and completeness simultaneously without some extra, non scientific, knowledge. Evolution’s gnosis is, of course, that true solutions are, indeed, naturalistic. This is illustrated below by the thick line that encompasses all true explanations, but it is also wholly naturalistic. How so? The trick is that the green circle has been moved. It is completely within the orange area. Knowing the location of the green circle, even before doing the science, is evolution’s gnosis—their secret knowledge.

    Saying what the cause is is like knowing where the treasure is buried. ~ Elliott Sober

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The set of all possible solutions" is a rather dubious construct.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It might be true that fairies set their breaths on fire when I turn on my gas stove. I had never entertained the possibility. How metaphysical of me to assume that it is just natural gas being piped in from a rather extensive network. It is possible that the gas company have been feeding me such a lie so that I pay their bills. Bastards. It's possible that the gas company pay the fairies nothing at all, making them a huge profit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius -- please tell us your method for detecting/testing/refuting miracles, or else scientists have no reason to listen to you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If I've said it once I've said it a million times. And yet it deserves repeating (yet again). Not that I really think Cornelius is even capable of processing the question but hey ho, hope springs eterenal:

    Cornelius, WHY ARE YOU LEVELLING THIS ACCUSATION AT TOE SPECIFICALLY, AND NOT THE WHOLE OF SCIENCE?!?!?!?!?!

    EVERY scientific theory is unable to investigate non-naturalistic phenomenon. If it's outside the orange circle, then it is beyond the ability of science to test.

    What you also need to do is suggest a method by which we could actually TEST non-naturalistic phenomenon. HOW are we to investigate non-naturalistic phenomenon? HOW are we to seperate true non-natural explanations from false non-natural explanations?

    Because at the moment it all sounds very much like you're trying to make science allow for the possibility that non-natural explanations MIGHT be true so that you can legitimately throw 'It was a miracle' around as an explanation whenever you feel like it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. NickM:

    "Cornelius -- please tell us your method for detecting/testing/refuting miracles, or else scientists have no reason to listen to you."
    ===

    You mean like the Evolutionist word/term for miracle called 'emergence' ???

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ritchie:

    "Cornelius, WHY ARE YOU LEVELLING THIS ACCUSATION AT TOE SPECIFICALLY, AND NOT THE WHOLE OF SCIENCE?!?!?!?!?!"
    ===

    *cough-cough*
    This is humorous because none of the other sciences[botany, geology, physics, astronomy, etc, etc, etc] attempt to emmerse itself into politics to have the personal worldview of it's associates legislated on all others to conform. None of those other sciences were ever invented BECAUSE OF RELIGION. The list of it's failings is rather endless and evident Ritchie. But then you already knew that. I understand. The comment had to be made.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Eocene -

    You are quite wrong. The Thoery of Evolution by Natural Selection behaves, and is treated, exactly as every other theory in science - the theory of gravity, germ theory, atomic theory, you name it.

    All these theories were drawn up on the assumption that naturalism is true.

    The difference is that ToE is the only theory under attack by religious fundamentalists and their followers (which may include the mere scientifically ignorant who happen to swallow the religious propaganda).

    The more interesting question is why the religious aren't challenging the theory of gravity. After all, it dismisses out of hand the possibility that everything is pulled down because of some divine being's will. Or why they aren't challenging germ theory which, after all, dismisses out fo hand the possibility that disease and illness is the result of demonic possession.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They did in fact in the past dismiss germ theory. Only it's rather hard to keep that up when everyone with, what today is a toy microscope, can see them.

      Delete
  10. Ritchie:

    "The more interesting question is why the religious aren't challenging the theory of gravity. After all, it dismisses out of hand the possibility that everything is pulled down because of some divine being's will. Or why they aren't challenging germ theory which, after all, dismisses out fo hand the possibility that disease and illness is the result of demonic possession."
    ===

    I love it. Perfect example of a "therefore evolution is true" factoid. You guys clearly cannot dismiss religion from your retorts. LOL
    You stepped right into the Metaphysical dogpile, something your side insists they never do. Truly there is no need for response by myself, Cornelius or anyone else since you clearly are quite capable of proving the metaphysical point all on your own.

    Thanks for playing Ritchie. *smile*

    ReplyDelete
  11. Eocene -

    I got nothing from your last post by hot air. The quote you lifted from me is not meant to show 'therefore evolution is true'. I was making the point that ToE behaves like every other theory in science!

    If you condemn ToE because it assumes naturalism, then you have to condemn every theory in science for assuming naturalism.

    Assuming naturalism doesn't make a theory unscientific. It is exactly what DOES make it scientific.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ritchie:

    "If you condemn ToE because it assumes naturalism, then you have to condemn every theory in science for assuming naturalism.

    Assuming naturalism doesn't make a theory unscientific. It is exactly what DOES make it scientific."
    ===

    If science by the definitions given above by Cornelius quoting the so-called genius experts who insist that ONLY NATURAL EXPLANATIONS be used, then why don't evolutionists follow their own sacred dogma on this ???

    I don't have alot of time to enter these discussions[because I actually have a life as opposed to some on these boards] which often have turned into mud throwing contests by the usual suspects, but scanning thru these past weeks of Cornelius posts and the following comments, it is clear that the best your side can ever come up with are nothing more than faith-based statements supposedly backed by scientific experiments which in reality are nothing more than speculations, assertions, assumptions loaded and weighted down with mountains of nothing more than imagination and then calling these facts.

    So what has the viewing public here on Cornelius' blog been graced with these past weeks when it comes to evolutionary evidence ??? Bacteria turning into another kind of bacteria. Finches turning into other kinds of finches, then oscillating back again. Clams turning into other types of clams, Cichlids turning into other ciichlids and finally the local flavourite, a salamander turning into[you guessed it] another type/variation of a salamander. If you actually has ANY evidence for the ultimate in evolutionary philosophy[MACRO-EVOLUTION], then you all would have presented it. But you haven't. Instead we've been treated to the usual bitterness, anger, foul language and insults from these same usaul suspects and you know what? , that's actually a dead giveaway that you guys have nothing. Just a clue Ritchie.

    If evolutionists actually did give real world naturalistic explanations[without tripping off into a netherworld of parallel universes where definition shell gaming is the popular sport of choice], then that would actualy be ideal, refreshing and preferable. But instead we get nothing more than faith-based mythologies from Soothsaying philosophers driven with the same religious hatred and fervor of any modern day islamic jihadist.

    Sorry Ritchie, but maybe you should start policing your own side if you still disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Eocene -

    "If science by the definitions given above by Cornelius quoting the so-called genius experts who insist that ONLY NATURAL EXPLANATIONS be used, then why don't evolutionists follow their own sacred dogma on this?"

    'Evolutionists' DO insist on naturalistic-only explanations. That is exactly the point. Cornelius is complaining that ToE assumes naturalism, and therefore resticts itself in terms of potential, possible explanations. He also claims that doing so is 'religious' as we assume to know in advance that correct explanations are naturalistic.

    What he misses is that EVERY scientific theory assumes naturalism. Assuming naturalism is exactly what every scientific thory should do. And it does not stem from a religious bias - it stems from necessity. It is impossible to test non-naturalistic hypotheses.

    Assuming naturalism is not unique to ToE, it is not religiously motivated, and it absolutely is not unscientific. Three points on which he is absolutely wrong, and yet he somehow cannot grasp them no matter how many times it is pointed out to him.

    "So what has the viewing public here on Cornelius' blog been graced with these past weeks when it comes to evolutionary evidence ??? Bacteria turning into another kind of bacteria.... and finally the local flavourite, a salamander turning into[you guessed it] another type/variation of a salamander. If you actually has ANY evidence for the ultimate in evolutionary philosophy[MACRO-EVOLUTION], then you all would have presented it."

    You have apparently totally missed the point of these studies. They demonstrate all the key mechanisms of evolution in action. And yes, that's MACROEVOLUTION. Macroevolution consists of exactly the same mechanisms as microevolution. The only difference is one of scale. Prove microevolution and you thus prove macroevolution.

    These bacteria and salamander studies, provide evidence for speciation. From them we witness new information entering genomes without the intervention of a designer, the assembly of apparently 'vastly improbably' gene cominations and even the assembly of apparently 'irreducibly complex' features. All brought about through the mechanisms of evolution before our eyes. It sounds like you simply do not understand the significance or relevance of them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If you're not studying living things then you're not doing biology. If you're not studying language then you're not doing linguistics. If you're not studying religion then you're not doing theology.

    Each school of thought is limited to a specific area of study by definition, and by necessity. It allows us to differentiate the areas of study, to isolate the important factor or factors that we wish to concentrate on.

    Pay attention, because this is important. If you're not studying the natural world, then you're not doing science. Is it somehow unfair that science is limited to the natural world? Only if it's unfair that linguistics is limited to language. Only if it's unfair that theology is limited to religion.

    The problem is that people have this mistaken idea that science is after The Truth. If that were the case, then they might have a legitimate complaint since The Truth may very well include a supernatural component. Instead science aims for much lower hanging fruit; a subset of The Truth known as The Verifiable Truth. No, even lower than that, it aims for The Reasonably Verifiable Truth. No, actually even lower than that, it aims for The Minimally Verifiable Truth. The supernatural by definition is not even minimally verifiable.

    There's a saying amongst skeptics about alternative medicine. "Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proven to work? Medicine!" Well, do you know what they call the supernatural that has been verified to exist? Natural!

    ReplyDelete
  15. To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,
    To throw a perfume on the violet,
    To smooth the ice, or add another hue
    Unto the rainbow, or with taper-light
    To seek the beauteous eye of heaven to garnish,

    I reply to Hunter:

    For 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.

    Anyone is at liberty to search for an alternative to evolutionary theory as a naturalistic explanation for the history of life on earth.

    If one claims that the history of life on earth is not a natural phenomenon, how would she go about searching for such an explanation? Is there a search methodology for explaining non-natural phenomena?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cornelius Hunter: So the problem with evolution is not that the naturalistic approach might occasionally be inadequate.

    That's fine. Explanations derived from the scientific method, we call science. The Theory of Evolution is the strongly supported scientific explanation of biological patterns. If you don't like science, that's fine. You can posit fairies making the flowers grow, it's just not science.

    As we've posted before, the difference between natural and supernatural is not well-defined. If we simply define the scientific method in terms of hypothetico-deduction and empirical verification, we can avoid the philosophical conundrum.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hawks said, "It might be true that fairies set their breaths on fire when I turn on my gas stove"

    ---

    Of course not! Your stove evolved from your toaster in your kitchen while you were on vacation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Neal -

    "Of course not! Your stove evolved from your toaster in your kitchen while you were on vacation."

    A fatuous retort and you know it. Evolution is a theory of biology. Inanimate objects do not evolve. Your comparison is flawed.

    Meanwhile Hawks' holds. He is pointing out (in case it's too subtle for you) that it is not innately metaphysical or unscientific to discount supernatural explanations for observed phenomena - a point Cornelius is apparently unable to grasp.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Zachriel:"If we simply define the scientific method in terms of hypothetico-deduction and empirical verification, we can avoid the philosophical conundrum."

    True, but if we assume there is no unnatural events we have to take incount any anomal observation. This make this unscientific behavior:

    "Variations in congruence between cladograms and stratigraphic data result from several factors:
    1. differences in the quality of cladograms;
    2. differences in the quality of the fossil record;
    3. stratigraphic problems;
    4. categorical (taxonomic) focus; and
    5. sampling density.
    Only by looking at each case in some detail can we hope to determine the reasons for particularly good or particularly bad matching."(Benton, Hitchin and Wills 1999).

    And all non observed fenomena should be taken as an assumption or an extrapolation given the assumption. All the darwinists gives as a fact that earth is 4,5 Gy old, but that is an assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ritchie said, "A fatuous retort and you know it. Evolution is a theory of biology. Inanimate objects do not evolve. Your comparison is flawed."

    ---

    Of course toasters are not living organisms, but inanimate objects do indeed evolve (via intelligent design). A simple google search on automobile evolution or computer evolution will yield results.

    What you have is an assumption that all biological systems and organisms have evolved from the warm little pond or whatever. What is lacking is sound scientific verification of the hypothesis. Evolutionists have replaced fairies with natural selection and mutation. While they sound more scientific, they ascribe miracle-like powers to them.

    This is about the failure of evolutionists to verify their hypothesis. Bottom line. Everything else is just a distraction from this failure.

    It is also a failure on Hawks and you to distinguish between origins and normal natural operations.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Neal -

    "Evolutionists have replaced fairies with natural selection and mutation."

    Wow, I found a comment from one of your posts which is insightful and true. I'm so proud.

    "While they sound more scientific, they ascribe miracle-like powers to them."

    Damn, ruined it with the nest sentence.

    They do not ascribe miracle-like powers to them. We have a vast cache of information on how exactly they work and the boundaries they operate within.

    Ignorance is not refutation.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Zachriel: If we simply define the scientific method in terms of hypothetico-deduction and empirical verification, we can avoid the philosophical conundrum.

    Blas: True, but if we assume there is no unnatural events we have to take incount any anomal observation.

    If we use strict hypothetico-deduction, we don't have to distinguish between natural and unnatural events.

    Blas: All the darwinists gives as a fact that earth is 4,5 Gy old, but that is an assumption.

    It's a finding from Earth science.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Neal Tedford: Evolutionists have replaced fairies with natural selection and mutation.

    Bravo!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ritchie said...

    Ignorance is not refutation.


    Ignorance is the warm little blanket that protects Tedford from the cold harsh world of reality. That's why he wraps himself in it so tightly.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It seems that a more appropriate title would be "What Cornelius does not understand about explanations and science".

    CH: OK let’s try this again. One more time, this time with pictures.

    Clarification provides the opportunity for progress. However, I'm not holding my breath.

    CH: Remember that these same evolutionists claim their idea is also a fact.

    Of course, this represents equivocation on your part, but let's take one fallacy at a time, shall we?

    CH: Because the blue area contains all possible explanations, it includes false as well as true explanations, lousy as well as good explanations, aesthetic and clumsy ones, and natural and non natural ones. It is every possible explanation in one set.

    Again, drawing pictures doesn't help unless we define fundamental terms, like true, explanation, possibility, non-natural, etc. It's unclear how we can have a reasonable discussion in absence of such clarifications an disclosures. In fact, I'd suggest that you're not interested a reasonable discussion, as you're argument smuggles in assumptions which you share with your audience.

    For example…

    CH: All explanations that are strictly naturalistic are in the [orange] area, and all other explanations are outside the orange area.

    You've failed to define what you mean by a non-naturalistic explanation.

    For example, un-conceived explanations are, well, not explanations. They are mere possible states of affairs that exist in reality. you cannot use an un-conceived explanation to explain anything in particular, let alone the biological complexity we observe.

    While a definition of the supernatural is unclear, the implications of anything that supposedly has a supernatural cause is not. They must be unexplainable by nature of having an unexplainable, supernatural cause.

    Furthermore, we have convoluted elaborations of existing theories that "spoil" existing theories while failing to explain the phenomena in question. An example is Solipsism, which is a convoluted elaboration of realism. We cannot rule it out as a state of affairs, in reality, but we can objectively say it fails to meet the criteria of an explanation.

    Without a solution for the problem of induction, Truth, in the sense that you're implying it doesn't exist. Nor is it implied by the scientific method, as you're implying.

    As such, the problem with this example is that we start out with the blue circle including possible states of affairs that we cannot rule out with 100% certainty, in addition to explanations.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Zachriel:"It's a finding from Earth science."

    No. You do not understand strict hypotetico-deduction.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ritchie said, "They do not ascribe miracle-like powers to them. We have a vast cache of information on how exactly they work and the boundaries they operate within."

    ---

    Yes, we do have a vast cache of information and that's the problem with the evolutionary fairy tale. Evolutionists have ascribed unrealistic powers to natural forces. That's the stuff of superstition. The bottom line is that neo-Darwinism has failed.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Blas: No. You do not understand strict hypotetico-deduction.

    I apologise if I butt in your conversation, but this is a very curios sentences of Blas. Of course the Zachriel's statement is correct; "4,5 Gy is a finding from Earth science". Which other finding have you in mind?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Blas: You do not understand strict hypotetico-deduction.

    You'll need to provide more than just a wave of your hands. The hypothesis is that the Earth is billions of years old. This is supported by a large number of observations, including from geology, planetology and radiometic dating.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Neal: Evolutionists have ascribed unrealistic powers to natural forces.

    Neal, This would require you to know what is or is not unrealistic for natural forces.

    Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how you make this distinction, in detail.

    It wouldn't happened to have anything to do with divine revelation, would it?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I said:" earth is 4,5 Gy old, but that is an assumption. "

    Zachriel said:"It's a finding from Earth science."

    Germanicus said:" "4,5 Gy is a finding from Earth science""

    and now Zachriel said:"The hypothesis is that the Earth is billions of years old."

    I found hypothesys or assumption as equivalents. Do you think finding is also equivalent?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Scott and Ritchie,

    Limitations of neo-Darwinism?

    Here's a start if you're interested from Douglas Axe of Biologic Institute.

    http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/#more-66

    ReplyDelete
  33. Tedford the idiot said...

    Scott and Ritchie,

    Limitations of neo-Darwinism?

    Here's a start if you're interested from Douglas Axe of Biologic Institute.

    http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/#more-66


    You have no idea what Axe's work even is, do you idiot. Axe calculated that it would that too long, billions of years, for one enzyme (Kbl2) to directly evolve into another enzyme (BioF2). Only problem is, no one in the scientific community thinks BioF2 evolved from Kbl2. The enzymes are in the same general family but at best each evolved along very different paths from a hypothesized common ancestral enzyme. Trying to evolve one directly into another is like trying to claim common descent falsified since it's too hard for a cow to evolve directly into a whale. Axe therefore 'falsified' a nonsensical hypothesis that has nothing to do with actual evolutionary theory.

    But keep up the good work idiot. Some of the stupid things you post are an absolute riot!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Neal -

    "Yes, we do have a vast cache of information and that's the problem with the evolutionary fairy tale. Evolutionists have ascribed unrealistic powers to natural forces. That's the stuff of superstition."

    So the basis of your complaint is that you don't think the variety and richness of life on Earth is beyond the capability of evolution to produce?

    You don't actually disagree that the mechanisms of evolution do actually work?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thorton:

    SO how long will it take for an enzyme to evolve from this hypothetical common ancestor?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Blas: I found hypothesys or assumption as equivalents. Do you think finding is also equivalent?

    A finding is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly confirmed and is considered well-established.

    ReplyDelete
  37. squid ink schuster said...

    Thorton:

    SO how long will it take for an enzyme to evolve from this hypothetical common ancestor?


    You're slipping squiddy. Your normal troll is "what is the exact number of mutations it took? If it took a bajillion then ToE is impossible!!"

    I see you dropped the troll about wanting to understand the scientific method. Too much trouble for you to Google "scientific method" and read the results I guess. Plus you were probably terrified that you might actually learn something.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Okay, fine. I googled. It seems there is no set scientific method that everyone agrees upon. Which is what I suspected all along. So when people say that we can't question scientists because they use the Scientific Method, which is the Way to the Truth, I get a little skeptical because there is no agreed upon Scientific Method.

    Now can you adress my question about how many mutations it would take for the hypothetical common ancesto to evolve into the modern protein? Or will you say that we don't know but it must have happened so its okay?

    ReplyDelete
  39. squid ink schuster said...

    Okay, fine. I googled. It seems there is no set scientific method that everyone agrees upon. Which is what I suspected all along. So when people say that we can't question scientists because they use the Scientific Method,


    LOL! at "we can never question scientists". You should look into the real scientific world sometime squiddy. Scientists harshly questioning other scientists - peer review - is the backbone of the system, but do go on

    ...which is the Way to the Truth, I get a little skeptical because there is no agreed upon Scientific Method.

    That's funny squiddy. What reference did you read? The very first hit from Googling 'scientific method' is the Wiki article. It's pretty well written and comprehensive, and goes to point out that the scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, not a single list of discrete steps to be followed like a cookbook. It also lists the four main elements of the method

    Characterizations (observations,[41] definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
    Hypotheses[42][43] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)[44]
    Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[45] from the hypothesis or theory)
    Experiments[46] (tests of all of the above)

    Which is the same thing that all those textbook passages you posted said.

    But that's OK. I know you're a dimbulb Creationist not interested in learning who feels he needs to troll to make baby Jeebus happy.

    Now can you adress my question about how many mutations it would take for the hypothetical common ancesto to evolve into the modern protein? Or will you say that we don't know but it must have happened so its okay?

    My my, you're a demanding little beeyotch, aren't you? Why don't you go count them yourself and find out instead of whining for everyone else to do your thinking?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Ritchie said, "You don't actually disagree that the mechanisms of evolution do actually work? "

    Work to do what?

    ReplyDelete
  41. In fact, one of the books I listed on the earlier thread did say that there is no one set Scientific Method. Just as I thought.

    Now, please please address my question.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Living Enviroment" by Ratzh and Colvert doesn't mention the Scientific method, but it does discuss scientific inquiry, It says scientific inquiry includes questions, observations and inference, experimentation, collecting and organizing data, repeating experiments, and peer review.

    I don't see hypothesis here. Nor do I see predictions. Of course they may be talkin about scientific enquiry, and not the scientific method. It's confusing.

    ReplyDelete
  43. squid ink schuster said...

    In fact, one of the books I listed on the earlier thread did say that there is no one set Scientific Method. Just as I thought.


    That can't be right, because there's no evidence you've ever thought. About anything.

    I suppose you'll use this as an excuse to screw your students again and skip the section on 'scientific method' in their science textbooks, right?

    Now, please please address my question.

    LOL! Go bake me a pie.

    ReplyDelete
  44. squid ink schuster said...

    I don't see hypothesis here. Nor do I see predictions. Of course they may be talkin about scientific enquiry, and not the scientific method. It's confusing.


    We know squiddy. Thinking is sooooooo hard!. That's why you avoid it like the plague.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Here it is.


    "Evironmental Science" by Karen Arms says that there are scientific methods.
    That is, there is more then one method. These can include observing, hypothesizing and predicting, experimenting, organizing and interpreting information, using graphs and sharing information, and communicatiing results.

    The other books didn't say anything about predicting.

    And I never skipped the chapters on scientific method because they don't contain inaccurate information. I only skipped pages that had faked embryo drawings.

    Now, I've done everything you've asked. Now, please address my question. That is, if it is even possible.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Neal -

    "Work to do what?"

    Work to create at least SOME level of biological diversity?

    ReplyDelete
  47. People have told me that I, a layperson, cannot question scientists because scientists use the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method is the Way to the Truth. But if there is no agreed upon Scientific Method, saying it is the Way is just IMHO, epistomologically silly. That's why I'm asking.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Wow, I can't believe you guys are still here going at it. Too bad it's mostly just back and forth insults.

    ReplyDelete
  49. squid ink schuster said...

    Here it is.

    "Evironmental Science" by Karen Arms says that there are scientific methods.
    That is, there is more then one method. These can include observing, hypothesizing and predicting, experimenting, organizing and interpreting information, using graphs and sharing information, and communicatiing results.

    The other books didn't say anything about predicting.


    From Wiki:

    "Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

    Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context."

    Squiddy, do you have aphasia?

    Now, I've done everything you've asked.

    Except think. That's too hard for you, I know.

    Now, please address my question. That is, if it is even possible.

    What was wrong with the answer you were give the last six times you asked the same nonsensical trolling question?

    ReplyDelete
  50. squid ink schuster said...

    People have told me that I, a layperson, cannot question scientists because scientists use the Scientific Method.


    Bullcrap. Support this or retract.

    The Scientific Method is the Way to the Truth.

    Empty rhetoric. Show us a reference in a science textbook that says that (with capitalization included).

    But if there is no agreed upon Scientific Method, saying it is the Way is just IMHO, epistomologically silly. That's why I'm asking.

    There is an agreed upon definition of scientific method. You were shown what it is. There is more than one specific procedure. You are deliberately and dishonestly equivocating between the overall method and specific procedures.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Fil said...

    Wow, I can't believe you guys are still here going at it. Too bad it's mostly just back and forth insults.


    Well, one you've explained something the first dozen times and been ignored every time, explaining again seem superfluous. All that's left is poking fun at the trolls for entertainment.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Fil:

    I asked a simple question about the scientific method. All Thorton had to do was give an answer and that would have ended it. Now I understand that there is a difference between "method" and "procedure."

    Thorton:

    The answer I recall to my question was "we don't know. But its okay because evolution must have happened."

    ReplyDelete
  53. Ritchie,

    Work to create at least SOME level of biological diversity?

    Does natural selection and mutation cause some level of biological diversity?

    Who ever said that they didn't? No one is debating that. The problem with evolutionists is that they make the ungrounded assumption that change occurs at all levels.

    What evolutionists have is this ungrounded assumption, a fossil record that does not confirm that assumption, and real time observations that contradict that assumption.

    Neo-Darwinism is an "archaic" (credit goes to Craig Ventor for that term http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate-what-is-life/what-is-life-panel) theory of the 19th century that is failing under the weight of 21st century scientific knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Blas: I found hypothesys or assumption as equivalents. Do you think finding is also equivalent?

    Zachriel: A finding is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly confirmed and is considered well-established.

    So, the statement: "4,5 Gy (age of Earth) is a finding from Earth science" is a correct one. But I assume that Blas had more in mind in his/her claim, "You (Zachriel) do not understand strict hypotetico-deduction"?

    ReplyDelete
  55. squid ink schuster said...

    Fil:

    I asked a simple question about the scientific method. All Thorton had to do was give an answer and that would have ended it. Now I understand that there is a difference between "method" and "procedure."


    You asked a misleading trolling question that you could have answered yourself with a 10 second Google search. But you don't want to learn. You want to push BS creationist propaganda.

    Thorton:

    The answer I recall to my question was "we don't know. But its okay because evolution must have happened.


    You recall that because you never bothered to read the whole answer given. You're looking for Creationist spin you can cling to, not understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Neal -

    "Does natural selection and mutation cause some level of biological diversity?

    Who ever said that they didn't? No one is debating that."

    Good.

    "The problem with evolutionists is that they make the ungrounded assumption that change occurs at all levels."

    What do you mean 'that change occurs at all levels'? All levels of what?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Germanicus:""4,5 Gy (age of Earth) is a finding from Earth science" is a correct one. But I assume that Blas had more in mind in his/her claim, "You (Zachriel) do not understand strict hypotetico-deduction"?"

    Yes, and adding words like finding and well-established confirm to me that Zachriel is not using strict hypotetico-deduction method.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Ritchie, perhaps a comparison will help. Newtonian physics is accurate and helpful on some levels, but fortunately physicists in the early 20th century saw its limitations and were open to the general theory of relativity. Similarly, neo-Darwinist mechanisms explain a little, but they have severe limitations and certainly fall far short supporting a supposed universal common descent.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Thorton:

    I never saw the my question on any ID website. I asked the question because I encountered what appeared to be different explanations of the Scientific Method. Now I understand that they are the same method, just different procedures. A simple person like myself might not understand the difference at first.

    And I recall you saying things like "we don't know the answer to how many mutations are needed, or how long it will take. We would like to have the answers, but science can't answer those questions now."

    ReplyDelete
  60. Blas: Yes, and adding words like finding and well-established confirm to me that Zachriel is not using strict hypotetico-deduction method.

    You might want to explain what *you* mean by hypothetico-deduction, and why that excludes findings.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Blas: Yes, and adding words like finding and well-established confirm to me that Zachriel is not using strict hypotetico-deduction method.

    Sorry, but your answer is still too vague. I have understood that you claim that "Zachriel is not using strict hypotetico-deduction method", but you have not explained us why?
    By the way, you have also not answered clearly if the statement "4.5 Gy (age of Earth) is a finding from Earth science" is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Neal -

    "Similarly, neo-Darwinist mechanisms explain a little, but they have severe limitations and certainly fall far short supporting a supposed universal common descent."

    I certainly don't have a problem with tweaking existing theories. Scientists do it all the time. Every tmie there is a surprising, unpredicted piece of data, our theories must be tweaked to accommodate it or be flat-out falsified.

    However, the idea that the mordern theory of evolution is INSUFFICIENT to explain the diversity of life on Earth is quite a claim. And I do not see why you believe it to be true. What are these 'severe limitations' and where does ToE fall 'far short'?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Zach/Germanicus:

    Curious - How many sockpuppets can a online virtual world gaming god own ???

    ReplyDelete
  64. Eocene: Curious - How many sockpuppets can a online virtual world gaming god own ???

    You have a nice way to introduce yourself. Have you also some contributions to the discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  65. GERMANICUS:

    Eocene: 'Curious - How many sockpuppets can a online virtual world gaming god own ???'

    Germanicus: 'You have a nice way to introduce yourself. Have you also some contributions to the discussion?'
    ===

    Sure let me bring something to the discussion since science is the last thing going on here.

    "Volksrepublik Germanicus A Political Online Game and Economic Simulation. Lead
    your own Nation to happiness and prosperity. The affairs of state of Germanicus, formerly Germany, were taken over by the regent JayLuther in Autumn 1990. Observers classify the midsize state as conservative social liberal plutocracy, known for its high national debt and the low crime rate.

    Most of the educated and reasonable citizens are very content with the circumstances. They have the reputation to be sportive and freedom-loving and enjoy an outstanding infrastructure. The biggest difference to other countries lies in the range of Civil rights.

    The regent succeeded in increasing his influence compared to the year before.

    Germanicus is not a member of an alliance.
    ----

    LOL - Isn't make believe in a Socialist Utopia wonderful. Say hi to your girlfriend, *cough**cough* , I mean your partner, Zachriel for me.

    *eyes rolling*

    ReplyDelete