tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2926837067890663845..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: A Question for Joe Felsenstein (and Everyone Else)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger216125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23330032322735921672010-04-25T20:43:53.962-07:002010-04-25T20:43:53.962-07:00Jonathan:
===
Perhaps, but I don't see how I ...Jonathan:<br /><br />===<br />Perhaps, but I don't see how I am sacrificing completeness, realism or introducing my own metaphysics. <br />===<br /><br />You are mandating a method. When you mandate a method you exclude some potential theories. Think of the set of all possible explanations / theories. A particular scientific method (MN, testability, etc) constrains you to a subset of the set of all possible explanations. The truth is yet another subset. A priori, you have no guarantee that your method subset is a superset of the truth set. You may only overlap part of the truth subset, for instance. In that case, you would be excluding some truth from your science, and you have no guarantee this won't happen when you mandate a method. So you have three ways to handle this:<br /><br />1. Claim that your method subset is a superset of the truth (that requires metaphysical premises, unavailable to science). Given such premises, then you have realism and completeness. But your research program is contingent on your metaphysics. If you want to avoid such metaphysics, then you have two alternatives.<br /><br />2. You want to apply your method to all problems, so you accept the fact that your method may produce false answers. So you forfeit realism.<br /><br />3. You want your method to produce true or approximately true answers, so you accept the fact that your method cannot be applied to all problems. So you forfeit completeness.<br /><br /><br /><br />===<br />Science gives you complete freedom to propose any hypothesis you wish, no constraints, no limitation.<br />===<br /><br />I thought you said the hypotheses had to be testable?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />===<br />I acknowledge that the scientific method uses testing to give weight to a hypothesis. Without this, aren't you are just asking people to trust you that your hypothesis is correct?<br /><br />In those circumstances I and most scientists will give any alternative hypothesis for which there are some testable predictions much higher credibility. I don't think that is an unreasonable position to take. <br />===<br /><br />Agreed. But then to claim to have simultaneously: completeness, realism and objectivity is unreasonable.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-16369736441618682172010-04-25T19:39:44.776-07:002010-04-25T19:39:44.776-07:00I think you may have missed the point of the post....I think you may have missed the point of the post. Your replacing MN with testability doesn't improve things. You still have the question of whether you are sacrificing completeness (c), realism (b), or introducing your own metaphysics (a). <br />===============<br />Perhaps, but I don't see how I am sacrificing completeness, realism or introducing my own metaphysics. Science gives you complete freedom to propose any hypothesis you wish, no constraints, no limitation.<br /><br />Maybe you could explain a little more in the context of an example. As I said if you wish to propose a hypothesis regarding human consciousness and that it depends on a soul, I'm fine with that. What do you then do after you propose that hypothesis to give it credibility?<br /><br />I acknowledge that the scientific method uses testing to give weight to a hypothesis. Without this, aren't you are just asking people to trust you that your hypothesis is correct?<br /><br />In those circumstances I and most scientists will give any alternative hypothesis for which there are some testable predictions much higher credibility. I don't think that is an unreasonable position to take. Otherwise aren't all competing hypotheses equally valid making them somewhat pointless and useless?Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15145832914029315406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25142350800739922882010-04-22T21:20:37.273-07:002010-04-22T21:20:37.273-07:00Jonathan:
I think you may have missed the point o...Jonathan:<br /><br />I think you may have missed the point of the post. Your replacing MN with testability doesn't improve things. You still have the question of whether you are sacrificing completeness (c), realism (b), or introducing your own metaphysics (a).Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30692556632376058582010-04-22T15:19:13.076-07:002010-04-22T15:19:13.076-07:00=============
Making stuff up? I thought that'...=============<br />Making stuff up? I thought that's what evolutionists do. How is it that only 1 and 2 constitutes "making stuff up"? Ah, because it is not testable. So let's see, you have decided that reality must conform to your definition of science, but it is others who "make stuff up."<br /><br />=====================<br /><br />As I said I'm more than happy for people to make stuff up, evolutionists, ID ers, flat earthers or otherwise. It is not an issue of "reality". If you want to do science (as oppossed to say philosophy) and if you want to show why your scientific hypothesis is more appropriate than another then you do this through testing the predictions of that hypothesis.<br /><br />If what you are saying is that you want to propose a hypothesis but then just have people believe you that it is true, then your hypothesis is of course going to be given less weight (if any) than others than have done testing that shows their alternative hypothesis works. The more testing the better.<br /><br />However you are not in anyway excluded from proposing a supernatural based hypothesis and applying the scientifc method to it. <br /><br />=========<br />Concerns? What concerns were those? I don't recall expressing any such concerns. Please be specific so I can fix what I wrote.<br /><br />===========<br />I interpreted your post as "concern" but perhaps it is more just a "musing". However, I interpreted your post as putting forward a "concern" that the scientific method as it stood is not able to deal with investigating the supernatural due to MN.<br /><br />As I said, I agree largely with your answer D, its just that I disagree with you that the scientific method is presently constrained in the way you suggest.<br /><br />While many scientists like Joe F might choose to ignore a hypothesis which is not founded in MN because from experience they have found they go nowhere and don't want to waste their time, nothing in the scientific method stops you from demonstrating otherwise.<br /><br />=====<br />My post? What did I say in the post about having such hypotheses at hand, or is this just the usual evolutionary canard?<br /><br />=========<br /><br />My apologies, I assumed that you were putting forth your views as you had your own hypothesis that you had been reluctant to put forward because you felt constrainted by MN. As you rightly point out, you could well be doing this for someone else's hypothesis.<br /><br />I'd still like to see one.Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15145832914029315406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43396388917523293522010-04-22T08:31:44.331-07:002010-04-22T08:31:44.331-07:00Jonathan:
===
Despite the above 200 or so posts, ...Jonathan:<br /><br />===<br />Despite the above 200 or so posts, I don't think that science does restrict the scientific method to naturalism.<br /><br /> In short the scientific method is basically the following (with credit to Lenny):<br /><br /> 1. Make an observation.<br /><br /> 2. Form a hypothesis that hopefully explains that observation.<br /><br /> 3. Make some testable predictions based on that hypothesis.<br /> 4. Make some observations or conduct experiments that test those predictions.<br /><br /> 5. Modify the hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br /> If you can only do step 1 and 2, you are not doing science, you are just making stuff up for the fun of it (or perhaps philosophy at best). <br />===<br /><br />Making stuff up? I thought that's what evolutionists do. How is it that only 1 and 2 constitutes "making stuff up"? Ah, because it is not testable. So let's see, you have decided that reality must conform to your definition of science, but it is others who "make stuff up."<br /><br /><br /><br />===<br />So don't let your concerns that you are somehow being mandated not to consider the supernatural stop you from making a hypothesis, proposing some testable predictions, conducting some experiments and refining your hypothesis. <br />===<br /><br />Concerns? What concerns were those? I don't recall expressing any such concerns. Please be specific so I can fix what I wrote.<br /><br /><br />===<br />Judging by your post there must be hundreds you have had stored up waiting until you convinced the science community to consider the supernatural.<br />===<br /><br />My post? What did I say in the post about having such hypotheses at hand, or is this just the usual evolutionary canard?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55611782710339154962010-04-22T06:16:06.880-07:002010-04-22T06:16:06.880-07:00Cornelius
Despite the above 200 or so posts, I do...Cornelius<br /><br />Despite the above 200 or so posts, I don't think that science does restrict the scientific method to naturalism.<br /><br />In short the scientific method is basically the following (with credit to Lenny):<br /><br />1. Make an observation.<br /><br />2. Form a hypothesis that hopefully explains that observation.<br /><br />3. Make some testable predictions based on that hypothesis.<br />4. Make some observations or conduct experiments that test those predictions.<br /><br />5. Modify the hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions.<br /><br />None of the above require that you refuse to take into account any supernatural cause and science won't object if you do. I and most scientists are perfectly happy if you want to propose a hypothesis that involves some supernatural aspect. For example, there have been scientific studies conducted on whether or not prayer has a demonstrable effect on healing people in hospitals.<br /><br />However, you have to do all 5 steps for the science community to consider it a useful hypothesis (and for it to be of any use to anyone).<br /><br />To consider your example:<br /><br />1. You make an observation that perhaps there is more to human consciousness than mere atoms in motion.<br /><br />2. You make a hypothesis that a supernatural soul transcends this world and that forms a key part of our consciousness.<br /><br />Now what? If the soul or where it is, cannot be tested for, what testable prediction do you want to make? Take the soul away and x happens to our consciousness? <br /><br />What scientists often do in addition to the testable prediction is propose some instances that would falsify the hypothesis and test for those too. What would you suggest as a test to falsify your hypothesis?<br /><br />If you can only do step 1 and 2, you are not doing science, you are just making stuff up for the fun of it (or perhaps philosophy at best). I guess there are worse ways to waste your time. I'm not sure I'd want to give you research funds or hire you as a scientist though.<br /><br />To take the SETI example you like to profer as something that should also not be considered science, it is science and it follows all 5 steps.<br /><br />1. Humans generate electromagnetic transmissions with patterns unlike the large majority of transmissions we see generally from the universe.<br /><br />2. If there were aliens somewhere in the universe they may do the same.<br /><br />3. If we find some electromagnetic transmissions with a pattern, that could be evidence of aliens.<br /><br />4. Do some scanning of a part of the universe.<br /><br />5. You didn't find any, have a look at another part of the universe,or you found some but they are too regular to be like ours, modify the hypothesis to look for more complicated patterns and test again.<br /><br />Unfortunately the time necessary to search the whole universe makes it a difficult for the experiment to end and generate a hypothesis useful to others, unless of course they find one! For this reason some scientists consider that SETI is not the most useful expenditure of resources and that perhaps the money should be spent on a hypothesis that can be tested more quickly with something useful learned, but they still regard it as science.<br /><br />So to answer your question, D is almost the correct answer. Science has never been constrained by MN, so to say it "should not be" contains an incorrect assumption that it currently does.<br /><br />So don't let your concerns that you are somehow being mandated not to consider the supernatural stop you from making a hypothesis, proposing some testable predictions, conducting some experiments and refining your hypothesis. You might even get published in a peer reviewed journal. Judging by your post there must be hundreds you have had stored up waiting until you convinced the science community to consider the supernatural. <br /><br />Can we see one tomorrow?Jonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15145832914029315406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29543635254121668862010-02-18T05:48:52.830-08:002010-02-18T05:48:52.830-08:00Cornelius -
"When I argue against a positio...Cornelius - <br /><br />"When I argue against a position, I try to understand what the proponents are saying, especially their strong points."<br /><br />Indeed? Please briefly outline the theory of evolution to demonstrate your understanding of it, and specifically point to its strong points - the ones which have presumably persuaded the vast majority of the scientific elite that it is true.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17196355108421279282010-02-17T00:44:11.951-08:002010-02-17T00:44:11.951-08:00Joe:
====
Your position amounts to a complaint th...Joe:<br /><br />====<br />Your position amounts to a complaint that science will not allow investigation of supernatural phenomena.<br />====<br /><br />Yeah, that's what's really going on. Even though I never said that, and in fact I've opposed such sentiment, nonetheless, that's what my position *really* is. No need to answer the question.<br /><br />When I argue against a position, I try to understand what the proponents are saying, especially their strong points. But with evolutionists, it's all about knocking down strawmen.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55577074440602873802010-02-11T05:08:35.003-08:002010-02-11T05:08:35.003-08:00Cornelius --
you wrote:
=========================...Cornelius --<br /><br />you wrote:<br />============================<br />This is a false dichotomy. IOW, you're saying you want to march ahead with your MN mandate until and unless you are shown a method for modeling the supernatural that meets with your approval.<br />============================<br /><br />That makes sense, anyway.<br /><br />===========================<br />Sure, if someone comes up with that let's consider it. But of course there's a good chance that is not going to happen<br />===========================<br /><br />If there were a method of including supernatural causes, you would be complaining loudly that it wasn't being used by scientists.<br /><br />========================<br />So until and unless that happens, we're still left with the question of what exactly the MN mandate means.<br />========================<br /><br />It means that we haven't got any way of finding out about supernatural causes. You just said that yourself.<br /><br />==========================<br />IOW, the absence of a supernatural modeling method does not imply that all phenomena are strictly and necessarily fully naturalistic.<br />==========================<br /><br />Obviously. It could be that leprechauns or djinn are intervening. But as long as their actions cannot be investigated, science can do little about that.<br /><br />===========================<br />So we're back to square one with our question: What does the MN mandate mean?<br />===========================<br /><br />This is getting endlessly circular. Your method, on display endlessly in this blog, is to find phenomena that you feel evolutionary biology cannot explain, but <i>never</i> to put forward any scientific explanation of your own, or any proof that science cannot in principle explain them in the future. Your position amounts to a complaint that science will not allow investigation of supernatural phenomena.<br /><br />But you <i>never</i> indicate how it <i>could</i> allow such investigation. Never. I see no point in continuing this ridiculous thread, so this will be my last post in it.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53107477264882624822010-02-10T12:34:21.348-08:002010-02-10T12:34:21.348-08:00Joe:
=====
I would not pick any of your four alte...Joe:<br /><br />=====<br />I would not pick any of your four alternatives. I would instead say that we should use natural forces to make scientific explanations of natural phenomena. If someone wants to use supernatural forces as part of a scientific explanation, we should ask them to explain how we can make scientific investigations of supernatural phenomena. So far, no one has been able to explain how.<br />====<br /><br />This is a false dichotomy. IOW, you're saying you want to march ahead with your MN mandate until and unless you are shown a method for modeling the supernatural that meets with your approval. Sure, if someone comes up with that let's consider it. But of course there's a good chance that is not going to happen. So until and unless that happens, we're still left with the question of what exactly the MN mandate means.<br /><br />IOW, the absence of a supernatural modeling method does not imply that all phenomena are strictly and necessarily fully naturalistic. So we're back to square one with our question: What does the MN mandate mean?<br /><br />A. Don't worry, methodological naturalism never fails because nature is always fully materialistic.<br /><br />B. If methodological naturalism ever fails then science, constrained to methodological naturalism, will lead to the wrong answer. Don't worry, it is fine if science is sometimes incorrect.<br /><br />C. If methodological naturalism ever fails then science should back away from the problem at hand. Science should only address phenomenon that are fully naturalistic.<br /><br />D. Science should not be constrained to methodological naturalism.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55530362184115135372010-02-09T19:58:57.693-08:002010-02-09T19:58:57.693-08:00Joe:
=====
It seems to me that you started out
#...Joe:<br /><br />=====<br />It seems to me that you started out<br /><br /># complaining about Methodological Naturalist (MN), then moved to<br /><br /># complaining about the mandate of methodological naturalist, then moved to<br /><br /># saying MN was OK and so was the mandate, but complaining about lack of clarity in supporting the mandate.<br /><br />Glad to see your position is converging on mine.<br />=====<br /><br />Actually it is the evolutionist's characterization of concerns over mandating MN that are evolving, not those concerns themselves.<br /><br /><br /><br />=====<br />I would not pick any of your four alternatives.<br />=====<br /><br />And so here we are, after 200+ comments, back where we started. Evolutionists mandate MN and do not explain what they mean. No surprise because that would be awkward. (A) is metaphysical; and the other answers open dangerous doors.<br /><br />The failure to answer this question speaks volumes.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33799734718733383072010-02-09T08:38:58.825-08:002010-02-09T08:38:58.825-08:00Cornelius --
It seems to me that you started out ...Cornelius --<br /><br />It seems to me that you started out <br /><br /># complaining about Methodological Naturalist (MN), then moved to<br /><br /># complaining about the <i>mandate</i> of methodological naturalist, then moved to<br /><br /># saying MN was OK and so was the mandate, but complaining about <i>lack of clarity</i> in supporting the mandate.<br /><br />Glad to see your position is converging on mine.<br /><br />I would not pick any of your four alternatives. I would instead say that we should use natural forces to make scientific explanations of natural phenomena. If someone wants to use supernatural forces as part of a scientific explanation, we should ask them to explain how we can make scientific investigations of supernatural phenomena. So far, no one has been able to explain how.Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63893946109046522542010-02-08T00:15:14.355-08:002010-02-08T00:15:14.355-08:00Joe:
=================================
MN is nece...Joe:<br /><br />=================================<br />MN is necessary to do science. Question: how do we do science with supernatural forces allowed? From you I have seen lots of arguments that something is wrong with a “mandate” of Methodological Naturalism, but never any explanation of how we integrate supernatural events into a research program. Talk about not being careful about explaining ...<br /><br />Once again ... how do we do science with supernatural events as part of our explanation? Talk about not being careful about explaining ...<br />=================================<br /><br />I don't think we need to integrate supernatural events into a research program--I wouldn't. Nor did I say there is anything wrong with mandating MN, in spite of what you say. But there is something wrong with mandating MN and not explaining what we mean. Here are the obvious choices:<br /><br />A. Don't worry, methodological naturalism never fails because nature is always fully materialistic.<br /><br />B. If methodological naturalism ever fails then science, constrained to methodological naturalism, will lead to the wrong answer. Don't worry, it is fine if science is sometimes incorrect.<br /><br />C. If methodological naturalism ever fails then science should back away from the problem at hand. Science should only address phenomenon that are fully naturalistic.<br /><br />D. Science should not be constrained to methodological naturalism.<br /><br /><br /><br />=================================<br />Oh yes, and as always you say that it is “evolutionists” who enforce MN. You have been corrected on this here many times by me and others ... it is scientists who mandate MN. But you have never explained why it is only evolutionists who do all this mandating. Talk about not being careful about explaining ...<br />=================================<br /><br />Because only evolutionists mandate as fact a theory that is so scientifically weak. The failure of evolutionists to answer this question is directly tied to the overall failure of their theory.<br /><br /><br /><br />=================================<br />Once again, evolutionists. Not scientists? And of course you're not criticizing MN, just criticizing mandating it. So let's see: you think its a good thing to use, except when you don't want to, but you can't explain how we use anything else. Talk about not being careful about explaining ...<br /><br />Just explain what else we do other than MN. Burn incense and cast chicken entrails?<br />=================================<br /><br />Well that's what the question is all about. It gives the different ways MN can be used. Take your pick, but at least pick. What do you mean by your MN mandate?Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33096380475206087272010-02-06T09:08:36.684-08:002010-02-06T09:08:36.684-08:00Cornelius --
You said:
==========================...Cornelius --<br /><br />You said:<br />====================================<br />The problem is evolutionists are not careful about explaining (i) what they mean by their MN mandate and (ii) why it is not a metaphysical claim. Indeed, there is a history of non scientific, metaphysical, thought underwriting MN. This is what I pointed out in the Dec. 5 post:<br />====================================<br /><br />Whatever history of metaphysical thought there is, MN is necessary to do science. Question: how do we do science with supernatural forces allowed? From you I have seen lots of arguments that something is wrong with a “mandate” of Methodological Naturalism, but <i>never</i> any explanation of how we integrate supernatural events into a research program. Talk about not being careful about explaining ...<br /><br />And again, you say:<br />=================================<br />People laugh at the MN mandate as a not-too-subtle attempt by evolutionists to enforce their metaphysics. But while that probably is true in many cases, I don't think that need be the case. I'm all for MN as a way of doing science, but I'm also mindful that *mandating* MN raises an important question that must be answered. That question is asked here:<br />=================================<br /><br />Now you are invoking laughing masses -- I haven't noticed them. And you are “all for MN as a way of doing science” but don't want us to “mandate” it. Once again ... how do we do science with supernatural events as part of our explanation? Talk about not being careful about explaining ...<br /><br />Oh yes, and as always you say that it is “evolutionists” who enforce MN. You have been corrected on this here many times by me and others ... it is <i>scientists</i> who mandate MN. But you have <i>never</i> explained why it is only evolutionists who do all this mandating. Talk about not being careful about explaining ... <br /><br />=================================<br />But evolutionists resist answering this question. So if I seem to be criticizing MN, it is because there is a history of metaphysics behind it, <br />=================================<br /><br />Once again, evolutionists. Not scientists? And of course you're <i>not</i> criticizing MN, just criticizing mandating it. So let's see: you think its a good thing to use, except when you don't want to, but you can't explain how we use anything else. Talk about not being careful about explaining ...<br /><br />=================================<br />it seems to persist to this day, and evolutionists don't help any by obstinently refusing to answer this simple, important, question.<br /><br />This is where those critics are proved right. When evolutionists refuse to answer this question, it becomes obvious that they are hiding some cards, or at best haven't thought through their MN mandate.<br />=================================<br /><br /><i>Scientists</i>, Cornelius, <i>scientists</i>. OK, so don't “mandate”. Just explain <i>what else we do other than MN</i>. Burn incense and cast chicken entrails?Joe Felsensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359126552631140000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68328030257507333862010-02-04T18:06:35.904-08:002010-02-04T18:06:35.904-08:00(cont)
"although science can not prove there...(cont)<br /><br />"although science can not prove there is a God, we can still conclude from the creation of the universe, and the abundance of design, and the suitablity of life for us; that God has created life for us and life is very God. It is not science, but it is knowledge, and it is reasonable. It is also well supported by science."<br /><br />You are right it is not science, but it is neither knowledge, reasonable, nor well supported by science either. It is faith. Pure and simple. Which is belief in the absence of (or even in direct contradiction to) the evidence.<br /><br />Now whilst I do agree there is more to the world than can be studied simply through science (ethics, art, beauty, etc.,) this in no way necessitates a God. There is nothing about the world which suggests it was built by a divine creator. There is no reason to think such a being is likely, or even possible! <br /><br />I realise we are drifting into theology here, but I believe you yourself are exposing the true heart of ID - you WANT it to be true because you WANT there to be evidence for a God. You WANT it to be reasonable to look at nature and see a divine creator's handiwork. That is what ID is all about. And it is simply not science. Because that is NOT the way the world works. It is baseless, religious faith and nothing else.<br /><br />"I see your problem now. Richard Dawkins is an idiot. He may have degress, but he is still an idiot."<br /><br />Hang on a moment, you asked who I was to question a man as educated as Cornelius Hunter! Who are you to question one of the most prominent, decorated and influential scientists of our time? Dawkins is a scientific A-list celebrity. The cream of the crop. He has forgotten more about biology than most of us will ever know. Not that I'm advocating the argument from authority, of course, but what exactly is your basis for calling him an adiot? It's like calling Robert De Niro a crap actor...<br /><br />"Do you remember Karl Marx? He had degrees but all his work was wrong and millions died because of him."<br /><br />Ummm, no I'm pretty sure Marx was just a philosopher and political theorist. Communist regimes inevitably go bad because they always find tyrants at the top of the heap.<br /><br />"Dawkins has no proof of evolution."<br /><br />He doesn't claim to.<br /><br />"He is an ardent athiest bending science to prove his point."<br /><br />An atheist he is, but that alone proves nothing. What exactly do you think the flaw in his reasoning is?<br /><br />"only a moron could force themselves to believe that such an inadequate collection of evidence could prove evolution."<br /><br />No-one has said anything about PROVING anything! Nothing is EVER proved in science! There is, however a VAST mountain of supporting evidence for the theory of evolution. Evidence which, by the way, ID is totally without.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20006219574867199512010-02-04T18:06:01.380-08:002010-02-04T18:06:01.380-08:00Peter -
"This shows me that you really don&...Peter - <br /><br />"This shows me that you really don't understand what Cornelius is saying. What makes you more qualified to know about evolution than him. Did you learn more in high school than Cornelius did gettin his Ph.D. and all his years of work experience?"<br /><br />I must admit, when you put Cornelius and myself side by side, I imagine I cut a poor figure academically by comparison. I have a great interest in biology in general, and the debate between evolution and ID in particular, but no I do not possess qualifications in science beyond A-level standard.<br /><br />However, the flip side is that neither of us are advancing arguments which are entirely our own creation. We are each merely vocalising our understanding of common issues. To be blunt, when it comes to ID vs evolution, the scientists are overwhelmingly on the side of the latter. In short, I am the one with the scientific community on my side.<br /><br />Cornelius Hunter, as I understand it, is a Fellow of the Discovery Institute - an institution steeped in religion masquerading (and not very well) as sceince. The actual scientific output of the Discovery Institute is negligible.<br /><br />Much as ID proponents would have us belive otherwise, the VAST majority of biologists (ie, people who really should know) DO accept the theory of evolution. <br /><br />The Discovery Institue itself released a petition of professional scientists who were 'skeptical of the claims' of evolution. In response, the National Center for Science Education put together a similar petition for professional scientists who accepted evolution - but only if their name was Stephen (or Steve/Stevie/Stephanie).<br /><br />Here's a link crunching some numbers:<br /><br />http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/05/cfac-steve-statistics.html<br /><br />So in short, if it were just Cornelious and I arguing, the letters after Cornelius' name might give me pause to stop and think. But the fact that he is arguing against such a massive scientific concensus, and is linked with an organisation that does such bad pseudo-science, it looks a Hell of a lot more like he is the one whose view on this matter is wonky.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34287117962432203212010-02-04T15:33:55.645-08:002010-02-04T15:33:55.645-08:00Ritchie,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your reverence (and this ...Ritchie,<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />Your reverence (and this is the right word, for many reasons) of Cornelius is very touching, but allow me to point out a few howlers the 'best evolutionary scientist in the world' has made in the few short weeks I've been on his blog...<br /><br />- The work of Gregor Mendel somehow contradicts that of Darwin. <br />- "Today, evolutionists define life as that which evolves." (from the OP of http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-is-evolution-according-to.html)<br />- Criticizing 'evolutionists' for mandating methodological naturalism, and describing this practice by calling it 'unscientific).<br />- Calling evolution a theory 'unsupported by evidence'.<br /><br />All of which (and more) show a tenuous grasp of the theory of evolution which is bordering on embarrassing. The fact that you think he is so amazing is a poor reflection on your own understanding of it too, I'm afraid.<br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />This shows me that you really don't understand what Cornelius is saying. What makes you more qualified to know about evolution than him. Did you learn more in high school than Cornelius did gettin his Ph.D. and all his years of work experience?<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />Extra-natural explanations are unscientific. You cannot propose 'God did it' as an explanation because it is untestable and thus, not science. <br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />As you have discovered from our dialogue that science can not teach you everything. So what is left. We can not know for certain, but reason allows you to come to an understanding of life that is not provable by science. This happens all the time: love is good, happiness is good, etc. So. although science can not prove there is a God, we can still conclude from the creation of the universe, and the abundance of design, and the suitablity of life for us; that God has created life for us and life is very God. It is not science, but it is knowledge, and it is reasonable. It is also well supported by science. After all if there is a God, then God created the universe, the laws of science, and our ability to understand it. <br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />You think so? In his book The Greatest Show On Earth, - an entire book devoted to the evidence for evolution - Professor Richard Dawkins<br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />I see your problem now. Richard Dawkins is an idiot. He may have degress, but he is still an idiot. Do you remember Karl Marx? He had degrees but all his work was wrong and millions died because of him. Dawkins has no proof of evolution. He is an ardent athiest bending science to prove his point. I saw his youtube video on whale evolution. What a joke. No proof. Just a diagram of similara fossils. He says "Look at the nice similarities." I am paraphasing of course. Anyway, only a moron could force themselves to believe that such an inadequate collection of evidence could prove evolution. If you follow the blind then you will never know were you are going.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05067396087460502962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85638326087782089202010-02-04T10:17:00.200-08:002010-02-04T10:17:00.200-08:00(cont)
"Original, put completely wrong. No o...(cont)<br /><br />"Original, put completely wrong. No one in evolution has that point of view. I will give you credit for your creativity, but not unfortunately your understanding."<br /><br />You think so? In his book The Greatest Show On Earth, - an entire book devoted to the evidence for evolution - Professor Richard Dawkins, author of a dozen popular science books and several dozen peer-reviewed scientific articles, fellow of the Royal Society, distinguished with the Zoological Society Silver Medal (1989) Faraday Award (1990) and Kistler Prize (2001) to name a mere few awards, Lecturer and Reader of Zoology and Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at no less a university than Oxford, discoverer of at least two key features of modern biology - memes and extended phenotypic effects, and generally one of the most distinguished and prominent biologists of our time, devotes and entire chapter to saying exactly what I have.<br /><br />Criticize me for plagiarism if anything. But much as I would like to, I really cannot take the credit for this insightful and intelligent observation of 'transitional species'.<br /><br />Not that I'm simply advancing an argument from authority of course. Let's see if I can make my point more obvious...<br /><br />The gene pool of a species changes only in tiny degrees. A bit like looking at a wall with red paint at one end, orange paint at the other, but the length of the wall is one long gradual blend from red to orange.<br /><br />Asking for a 'transitional species' is like asking for a 'transitional colour'. What you get is gradual changes of shade as slowly but inevitably, one colour gradually becomes the other.<br /><br />So it is with animals. Pick any two species of animals in history where one is the direct ancestor of the other, and what you will find is the gradual blending where the ancestor species slowing becomes the descendant species over time.<br /><br />For example, we have a rich fossil history of man's evolution from the common ancestor we share with apes. We can lay out the fossils in a line and we see such a gradual blending of features, from ape to man, over time.<br /><br />But what Creationists and ID-ers all too often do is insist that each of these specimens is wholly either human or ape, and then still insist that there are no 'transitional fossils' between humans and apes. This would be like looking at tiny points on our red-orange wall, deciding that the specific shade we are examining is either wholly red or wholly orange and then declaring that there are no 'transitional colours' between red and orange.<br /><br />Typically, though the Creationists claim such ape-human fossils are either fully ape or fully human, they cannot agree which fossils fall on which side of the divide. Here is a very telling table:<br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html<br /><br />This total lack of cohesion of opinion is exactly what we would expect from these people if their black-or-white species classification was wrong.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56052281307779489662010-02-04T10:16:38.682-08:002010-02-04T10:16:38.682-08:00Peter -
"It is clear that you have not gras...Peter - <br /><br />"It is clear that you have not grasped anything on this blog. Cornelius Hunter is THE best evolutionary scientist in the world."<br /><br />Your reverence (and this is the right word, for many reasons) of Cornelius is very touching, but allow me to point out a few howlers the 'best evolutionary scientist in the world' has made in the few short weeks I've been on his blog...<br /><br />- The work of Gregor Mendel somehow contradicts that of Darwin. <br />- "Today, evolutionists define life as that which evolves." (from the OP of http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-is-evolution-according-to.html)<br />- Criticizing 'evolutionists' for mandating methodological naturalism, and describing this practice by calling it 'unscientific).<br />- Calling evolution a theory 'unsupported by evidence'.<br /><br />All of which (and more) show a tenuous grasp of the theory of evolution which is bordering on embarrassing. The fact that you think he is so amazing is a poor reflection on your own understanding of it too, I'm afraid.<br /><br />"Not in the slightest. If evolution could prove anything then a natural explanation would rule out an extra-natural explanation."<br /><br />Extra-natural explanations are unscientific. You cannot propose 'God did it' as an explanation because it is untestable and thus, not science. <br /><br />"No one argues that God pushes the earth around with his hand."<br /><br />Is the idea any crazier than God magicking different species of animals or anatomical features for them up from nothing?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27589105459002174392010-02-03T17:12:51.154-08:002010-02-03T17:12:51.154-08:00Ritchie,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any anyone with high sc...Ritchie,<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />Any anyone with high school biology should grasp evolution, but it is becoming clear that you do not.<br /><br />Not true in the slightest. The Cambrian Explosion was a surprise when first discovered, but the theory of evolution is in no way at a loss to account for it. There was a thread on this very topic here a few posts back. I suggest you take a look at that.<br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />It is clear that you have not grasped anything on this blog. Cornelius Hunter is THE best evolutionary scientist in the world. He understands the whole field from the most abstract mathematical biology to the philosophical underpinnings of evolution. I do not think you understand anything he has said. You certainly did not understand his blog on the Cambrian explosion as your post clearly indicates.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />That explanation would account for ANY CONCEIVABLE pattern of evidence. That does not make the explanation an accurate one - just an untestable one.<br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />Not in the slightest. If evolution could prove anything then a natural explanation would rule out an extra-natural explanation. No one argues that God pushes the earth around with his hand. <br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />A beautiful example that you do not understand evolution. EVERY species is a transitional species - transitional between its ancestors and its descendants (unless it goes extinct. In which case it doesn't have descendants...). The very concept of 'transitional fossils' makes no sense.<br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />Original, put completely wrong. No one in evolution has that point of view. I will give you credit for your creativity, but not unfortunately your understanding.Peter Wadeckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396555091658593382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55599336288327981112010-02-02T07:03:41.717-08:002010-02-02T07:03:41.717-08:00Peter -
"Well, yes, that's the way it w...Peter - <br /><br />"Well, yes, that's the way it works. Anyone with high school physics should know about Heizenberg's uncertainty princlple."<br /><br />Any anyone with high school biology should grasp evolution, but it is becoming clear that you do not.<br /><br />"A very admirable point of view, and a doorway to learning."<br /><br />Thank you. I hope you would do the same when faced with new information?<br /><br />"Darwin could not explain the Cambrian explosion."<br /><br />Not true in the slightest. The Cambrian Explosion was a surprise when first discovered, but the theory of evolution is in no way at a loss to account for it. There was a thread on this very topic here a few posts back. I suggest you take a look at that.<br /><br />"It does however match the description of a creation by God, rapid, complex, and requiring a God-like infusion of information."<br /><br />That explanation would account for ANY CONCEIVABLE pattern of evidence. That does not make the explanation an accurate one - just an untestable one.<br /><br />"The greatests scientists ackowledge that the fossil record is almost complete absent of transitional fossils."<br /><br />A beautiful example that you do not understand evolution.<br />EVERY species is a transitional species - transitional between its ancestors and its descendants (unless it goes extinct. In which case it doesn't have descendants...). The very concept of 'transitional fossils' makes no sense.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35009815636318830922010-02-01T18:13:42.499-08:002010-02-01T18:13:42.499-08:00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You think just because you know a...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />You think just because you know a fact that I didn't you therefore understand how science works better than I do? <br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />Well, yes, that's the way it works. Anyone with high school physics should know about Heizenberg's uncertainty princlple. I take it you don't have that yet.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />Not that I want to burst your bubble or anything, but it was not a big admission at all. I do not claim omniscience. There are plenty of facts I don't know. And it is no shame to learn something new.<br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />A very admirable point of view, and a doorway to learning.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />This is where you fall. You DON'T know where the limits are. You just assume you do.<br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />No. My point of view is the most complete explanation of all the data. Darwin could not explain the Cambrian explosion. It is only more difficult to explain after 150 years of fossil research. It does however match the description of a creation by God, rapid, complex, and requiring a God-like infusion of information.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />This is unashamed nonsense. The fossil record does not contradict this claim. It verifies it! <br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />I see you have studied as little of paleontology as you have of physics. The greatests scientists ackowledge that the fossil record is almost complete absent of transitional fossils.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05067396087460502962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33381286559291650552010-01-31T23:58:49.928-08:002010-01-31T23:58:49.928-08:00Peter -
"I am facing the problem?? It is I ...Peter - <br /><br />"I am facing the problem?? It is I that understand the science or you would not be correctly retracting your claim."<br /><br />You think just because you know a fact that I didn't you therefore understand how science works better than I do? <br /><br />"That is a big retraction and I commend you for it. I am glad I helped further your education."<br /><br />Not that I want to burst your bubble or anything, but it was not a big admission at all. I do not claim omniscience. There are plenty of facts I don't know. And it is no shame to learn something new.<br /><br />"I understand naturalism. I believe it is very useful. However, like Newton's mechanics you have to know the limits of were to apply it."<br /><br />This is where you fall. You DON'T know where the limits are. You just assume you do.<br /><br />Even here, in the study of quantum mechanics, scientists still apply naturalism! They have to - if they didn't, it wouldn't be science. There are no limits to naturalism as far as science is concerned.<br /><br />It seems to me as though you think the fact that we cannot know both the mass and position of a particle is un-/sub-/super- natural? It is not. There will be a NATURAL explanation for this or no explanation at all. If the latter, how are we to distinguish whether it is a mystery we can never solve because we insist on methodological naturalism while the answer is un-/sub-/super natural, and a mystery that has a natural answer and that we WILL solve if we keep working on it?<br /><br />Surely only time will tell. That is, only time will tell IF we, as good scientists, assume naturalism and keep trying to work it out. If we scrap MN and declare it a miracle we will never know...<br /><br />"I am not asking for absolute proof. I am asking for experimental proof resembling the claim. Claim: all creatures evolve from on into another. Fossil record contradicts this. Biology contradicts this. Statistics contradict this."<br /><br />This is unashamed nonsense. The fossil record does not contradict this claim. It verifies it! Biology does not contradict this claim. It verifies it. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the theory of evolution is somehow un-evidenced. It is not. It is as well evidenced as any theory in science.<br /><br />"Ad hominin attacks are not rebuttals. Nowhere do you dispute my claim because it is the truth."<br /><br />Yes I did dispute your claim - in the paragraphs directly following that sentence you just quote-mined from me.<br /><br />"You should try reading some of Cornelious' blogs that discuss the religious arguments of atheist evolutionists. They are right here at his blog. Did you miss them? Athiest beliefs were the motivation for the firing"<br /><br />For one thing, why do you trust Cornelius as an informed, impartial source. No offence to our good blog host here, but why do you suppose his accounts of what happened are going to be more insightful/informed than any other? Or is it just because he is saying what you want to believe?Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57444457917487867212010-01-31T16:07:19.358-08:002010-01-31T16:07:19.358-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30386990550156824922010-01-31T15:50:13.779-08:002010-01-31T15:50:13.779-08:00Cornelius -
"The problem is evolutionists a...Cornelius - <br /><br />"The problem is evolutionists are not careful about explaining (i) what they mean by their MN mandate and (ii) why it is not a metaphysical claim."<br /><br />In answer to your first question, I'd say simply that MN is a necessary assumption to do science. That's it really. If you are not progressing under the assumption of MN, then what you are doing is not science.<br /><br />In answer to your second question, it is not a metaphysical claim because it does not insist that no supernatural realm/phemonena exist. Science simply seeks to understand how the world works assuming that miracles don't happen - in effect, there may be a supernatural, but it does not interact with the material world in any detectable way.<br /><br />Why does science mandate this? Because if it did not, we could just pose 'a miracle' as the answer to any particular mystery. Which automatically kills investigation, research and experimentation stone dead.<br /><br />"People laugh at the MN mandate as a not-too-subtle attempt by evolutionists to enforce their metaphysics."<br /><br />MN is not a metaphysical position.<br /><br />"I'm all for MN as a way of doing science, but I'm also mindful that *mandating* MN raises an important question that must be answered."<br /><br />How could we possibly do any kind of science without mandating MN?<br /><br />"But evolutionists resist answering this question."<br /><br />Not evolutionists. Scientists.<br /><br />Evolutionists are no more guilty of insisting on MN than scientists who work in any other field, or on any other topic. <br /><br />"This is where those critics are proved right. When evolutionists refuse to answer this question, it becomes obvious that they are hiding some cards, or at best haven't thought through their MN mandate."<br /><br />But you did receive answers to your question - the first dozen or so posts contain several people's answers.Ritchiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03494987782757049380noreply@blogger.com