Global Myths - Evolution spin-off

[Detritus]

Final note before bedtime, for any hardcore nitpickers:

The hammer/feather experiment should not be done on Earth, as I said, but on the moon, due to obvious atmospheric-resistance issues. But heavier objects will fall infinitesimally faster than less massive objects on Earth, all other things being equal, due to the basic laws of gravitational attraction.

The relevance to the topic is that many myths taught to schoolchilden are simplifications of otherwise sound and experimentally verifiable principles.

The number of melanin-deficient moths crushed by falling hammers during the Industrial Revolution remains unknown.

[SeanG]

Starboy,

Can I suggest something? Order the book Of Moths and Men, you don’t have to buy it… because most book stores give you the option of viewing the book first. When it comes in, ask to view it, go grab a coffee and a chair and read chapter six. That is all the parameters directly from Kettlewell’s paper. It will amaze you. You wouldn’t think that moths are an interesting read, and most people look at me like I’m mad when I say they are. I believe if you do this Starboy, you will thank me for such an interesting read.

As for species. Species is a hard thing to define (take my canus lupis and canus domesticus example). I believe that natural selection can change the size of a finch’s beak by a few millimeters during a dry season… and one may call this a new species, but I do not believe that natural selection can through such changes change a cat to a dog, if you will. One is inference, the other is science.

Rez,

You said:

This sounds silly to me as well, and I assure you it sounds silly to Starboy, but what sounds more silly is thinking a MAN that has human features created the universe BECAUSE he loves us and if we don’t follow him we will face horrible consequences.

Rez, lets stay with the topic. I am not discussing theology here, I am discussing the veracity of a few examples that Dr. Coyne, in a review of a book in Nature (the premier evolutionary peer-reviewed science journal) said were the prized horse in the stable of evidences used to prove evolution. If you wish to revert to a discussion about theology and philosophy about the existence of god, I will do so… but you cannot jump from Darwin’s thesis that natural selection is the mechanism for all the change in the world to God having a face.

Rez, you said:

If I mate two dogs, one dog is white and the other is black and the two dogs reproduce a grey dog what does that mean? If I mate two dogs, one dog is white and the other is black and the two dogs reproduce a black dog, does that mean evolution is FALSE! What kind of reasoning are you following here?

This is not my reasoning, my reasoning is that many of the proofs that are used to indoctrinate my son in public school, and one day at a university, are really not much of a proof after all. A point came up while watching the National Geographic channel the other day about the baby in the womb. They had a early camera view of the fetus and they mentioned that a trained embryologist couldn’t tell the difference (at that stage) between a human, a pig, a dog, etc. Besides this being rehashed recapitulation, this is a red-hearing. For I could just as easily say that no one could tell the difference between a elephant, a platypus, or a man at this stage…. Therefore what?




You cannot infer an evolutionary (recapitulated) history. For if that same embryologist were to look at the DNA, or chromosome makeup of that zygote I pictured above, he would KNOW (I am using caps since you used caps) that the human zygote has 46 human chromosomes – 23 from dad, 23 from mom. All the information about eye color, height, fingerprints, eye-color, and the like are wrapped up in that zygote. No information for a dog or cat for the DNA and cell splitting is in that human zygote. It is 100% human.

So while someone can say that around the same time a creature that has a spine and eyes may look similar during the fetus stage looks similar, they cannot infer an evolutionary ancestry from it. It is begging the question.

[SeanG]

Detritus,

I will respond to your post in a day or two (or three). “Welcome!”, by–the-by. I would like you to think on one subject though before I respond, while science may be lef-correcting, you must acknowledge a difference between operating science. There is a difference between the chemical makeup of a persons finger-nail for instance, or the nuclear weight or hardens scale of something, versus someone saying that because a moth changed a percentage in their color population, therefore this proves that man came from a rock, which is what this proof was used for – along with other “proofs.”

And while Popper retracted – later in his life under pressure from what I call interest groups – his thinking on this, his point is still valid and stands:

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory… but a metaphysical research programme." Professor Popper is severely critical of attempts to turn evolution theory into scientific fact. "There can never be a law of evolution…. The idea of a law which determines the direction and character of evolution is a typical 19th century mistake arising out of the general tendency to ascribe to the natural law the functions traditionally ascribed to God." Karl Popper, Unended Quest (Glasgow: Fontana, Collins. 1976), p.151. Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutation (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1972), p.340.

Or as Dr. Ruse states:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality [a worldview in other words]. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today…. Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.” Michael Ruse, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post (May 13, 2000), B3.

So quickly Detritus, I do believe science is self-correcting… however, I do not believe that the way evolution and Darwinism is today presented in the popular culture is science or self-correcting.

C. S. Lewis was astounded at Watson’s frank admission and responded: “Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?”[1] Evolutionists Gould and Eldredge are not reluctant to admit that “The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance embedded in the modern history of Western cultures: it is not a high-order empirical observation, induced from the objective study of nature.”[2] Gould adds: “But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology.” [1] C.S. Lewis, They Asked for a Paper (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1962), 163. [2] Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, ‘Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered,’ in Paleobiology 3 (1977), 145. [3] Gould, Stephen Jay, ‘In the Mind of the Beholder,’ Natural History (February 1994), 103:14. From: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...30religion.asp

[JamesMcBride]

Evolution is a proposition of science, albeit a very convincing one. That said though, Isn't "good" science just like "good" religion - That which is the most convincing?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Detritus SeanG, as I understand it there are several arguments going on here. I would boil them down to three basic disputes. You maintain that: 1) Current evolutionary theory has more holes in it than many scientists are willing to admit. That may well be the case. I am not an evolutionary biologist nor a lay expert and am not really qualified to argue this point. But scientists have been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. That said, science is not perfect and tends to be self-correcting thanks in large part to peer review, as has been pointed out several times in this thread, if memory serves. Paradigm shifts in science are not uncommon and are a strength, not a weakness, of the method as they demonstrate its ability to evolve ideas in response to the selective pressure of new data. There have been famous frauds in science and theories are constantly being challenged and revised. But the fallibilty of science does not lend weight to Intelligent Design. The fact that scientific theories are vulnerable to disproof is, in fact, what makes them science. ID is not in competition with evolutionary theory because ID is not science. More on this presently.

Nice post Detritus. I would only add that all scientific theories have more holes in them than many scientists would like to admit. That goes from electromagnetism to economics. But the difference here is that for the most part scientists do not claim that their knowledge is perfect. They do not claim that it came from a god's eye view of the universe. And as imperfect as any of them may be they all represent the best explanations to date. And if anyone thinks that they have a better explanation then they are welcome to do science by the rules of science and if they are right to then go get their Nobel Prize.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: SeanG Starboy, Can I suggest something? Order the book Of Moths and Men, you don’t have to buy it… because most book stores give you the option of viewing the book first. When it comes in, ask to view it, go grab a coffee and a chair and read chapter six. That is all the parameters directly from Kettlewell’s paper. It will amaze you. You wouldn’t think that moths are an interesting read, and most people look at me like I’m mad when I say they are. I believe if you do this Starboy, you will thank me for such an interesting read. As for species. Species is a hard thing to define (take my canus lupis and canus domesticus example). I believe that natural selection can change the size of a finch’s beak by a few millimeters during a dry season… and one may call this a new species, but I do not believe that natural selection can through such changes change a cat to a dog, if you will. One is inference, the other is science.

SeanG, you haven't answered my question! It is not enought to shoot something down unless you got something better to replace it with. It is like the man who burns down his house because he finds a defect and then stands there in the cold and the rain like an idiot. The theory of evolution to date is the best explanation for the natural history of the biota of the planet. It is a foundational and crucial theory in just about every area of biology from medicine to ecology. Biologists would be lost without it.

Now answer the question. If you do not think that natural selection accounts for speciation then what do you think accounts for it?

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: SeanG There is a difference between the chemical makeup of a persons finger-nail for instance, or the nuclear weight or hardens scale of something, versus someone saying that because a moth changed a percentage in their color population, therefore this proves that man came from a rock, which is what this proof was used for – along with other “proofs.”

And you would have a point if that is what the author of the moth study claimed (Kettlewell, H.B.D. 1955. Selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera. Heredity 9: 323-342). All he claimed is that the pigmentation of the moth changed due to natural selection. He made no claims that a new species was created. The moth study was a classic study in natural selection not speciation. What you would call "micro" evolution.

There are myriad other papers that show speciation in hundreds of species.

And while Popper retracted – later in his life under pressure from what I call interest groups – his thinking on this, his point is still valid and stands:Or as Dr. Ruse states:

Who cares what Popper said? He was a philosopher not a scientist. For some reason people think that philosophers know anything about science let alone much of anything else except maybe logic. I have no idea why they would think this since it was and still is philosophers that think that metaphysics is a germane study. Most scientists today will tell you that Popper was full of it. Feynman would tell you that philosophers in general are full of it. They can't help it. They are like theologians, they make all sorts of reality claims but there is nothing in their traditions that requires them to actually back up those claims in reality itself. I would only consider a study of science done by scientists to be a reasonable study, the science of science if you will. They would at least be required to back up their claims with experiments and evidence and to test those claims in myriads of ways.

So quickly Detritus, I do believe science is self-correcting… however, I do not believe that the way evolution and Darwinism is today presented in the popular culture is science or self-correcting.

Hey you may have a point there but the problem you allude to is not restricted to evolution. I would contend that string theory has been given more credibility than it deserves from a scientific point of view. But I would also say that for the most part the general population is clueless as to the scientific enterprise. For many they have simply superimposed the magical thinking of religion onto science. That the issue is not with science but with the basic thought processes of people and how they engage in certain unjustified and irrational beliefs and behaviors.

Starboy

[Detritus]

Quote by: SeanG No information for a dog or cat for the DNA and cell splitting is in that human zygote. It is 100% human.

The question of genetic similarity is more complicated than that. Here's an interesting link: http://www.apologeticspress.org/modu...mid=2070&cat=5

This is a Christian apologetics site arguing against the idea that genetic similarity indicates shared ancestry. They pull out a lot of interesting sources but unfortunately they make a characteristic leap of faith at the end. This article is a good illustration of the problem I'm talking about. The sources they cite offer a picture of science working, with new data being gathered and pet theories being revised. This shows the rigor of the method. The authors point out that educators tend to hold onto sound bites such as "we are 98% genetically identical to chimps" long after working scientists have changed their conclusions, and I think this is a good point. But, being Christian apologists, they cannot resist ending their essay with this:

"Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differences—differences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God...."

Yes, those differences can be attributed to God. They can also be attributed to Mr. Bimbo, the little man who lives in my finger. But there is no scientific evidence for either proposition. Among the vulgar, I believe this is known as "pulling a conclusion out of your ass."

Theists can attribute natural phenomena to Divine intervention, if they like, but it's not a disprovable theory and it is not science. SeanG, if you are arguing that science education is not all it is cracked up to be and that popularizers of science often present misleading or outdated information to the general public, I agree with you. If you are saying that this situation makes Intelligent Design more scientifically plausible, I strongly disagree, because no matter how wrong current science may be, it is based on testable evidence and ID is based on people's tendency to embrace an anthropocentric worldview.

Which leads me to another question: What do you say to the proposition that intelligent design is true, but that humans are not the centerpiece of the design? Because last night I dreamed that we are living in the Beetle Paradise intelligently designed by the Great Sky Beetle for the comfort and convenience of beetles, and I'm worried that I haven't been doing enough to glorify He Whose Carapace Shines Most Brightly.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Detritus Which leads me to another question: What do you say to the proposition that intelligent design is true, but that humans are not the centerpiece of the design? Because last night I dreamed that we are living in the Beetle Paradise intelligently designed by the Great Sky Beetle for the comfort and convenience of beetles, and I'm worried that I haven't been doing enough to glorify He Whose Carapace Shines Most Brightly.

Good point but I would say that god's favorite is bacteria. They can exist for hundreds of millions of years in spore form. They can live in far more environments than man. They have been found living in the cooling coils of nuclear reactors. They are the perfect form to travel in deep space. And I mean deep space. Forget intra galactic, they can travel inter galactically. They can live on a much wider variety of energy sources than beetles and they can reproduce at a very fast rate. Mankind has great conceit thinking that the universe was made for mankind; if it was made for anything at all.

Starboy

[SeanG]

Starboy, you said:

But the difference here is that for the most part scientists do not claim that their knowledge is perfect.

So you would agree with me that the following quotes are scientists that are wrong?

In 1998 the National Academy of Sciences published and distributed a book to public schools entitled Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. This publication was designed to persuade and assist teachers to present the theory of evolution as fact. I know, cause I “persuaded” my sons principle to make me a copy of the thing. They teach it at the second grade level as fact. I will give a few of a hundred or so quotes I have on the subject. American Society of Parasitologists: “Evolution is believed by nearly all professional life scientists. Virtually all scientists accept the evolution of currant species from fewer, simpler, ancestral ones as undisputed fact.” North Carolina Academy of Science: “Evolution is an established law of nature.” Society for Amateur Scientists: “That life has adapted and changed through time is as well established as the fact that the earth goes around the sun.” Society of Vertebrate Paleontology: “Evolution has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity… Scientists do not argue about whether evolution took place, that is a fact.” Similar statements are made by the Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada; Alabama Academy of Science; American Association of Physical Anthropologists; American Astronomical Society; American Chemical Society; American Geological Institute; American Geophysical Union; American Physical Society; American Psychological Association; American Society for Biological Chemists; California Academy of Science; Iowa Academy of Science; Kentucky Academy of Science; Louisiana Academy of Science; National Academy of Sciences; New York Academy of Sciences; Society for the Study of Evolution; Southern Anthropological Society; and the West Virginia Academy of Science, as well as numerous educational, religious, and civil liberties organizations. So you see, I have shown that true laws have been said to be universal – i.e., Second Law of Thermodynamics. As well as the scientific community saying that evolution is a fact, or law, when evolution is neither repeatable nor observable in the sense that true science demands.

Starboy, you said:

And if anyone thinks that they have a better explanation then they are welcome to do science by the rules of science and if they are right to then go get their Nobel Prize.

I believe it has been done. A DVD presentation that was the 3rd best seller two Christmas’ ago on the “Science and Math” section of PBS’s web site was Unlocking the Mystery of Life. This is a great DVD (all they have left are VHS) that shows how lacking current evolutionary thinking is on this subject and how well the Design model better explains what we find in the laboratory. Another great DVD presentation is The Privileged Planet. See Amazon reviews:

• http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...v=glance&s=dvd
  
  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...v=glance&s=dvd

However, you are setting up a red hearing when you say, “…to do science by the rules of science…” What you really mean is this:

“Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.” That was the Kansas School Board’s definition of science as before the attempted change that caused all the fervor. This is how I view true science, and how the School Board, which was reflecting what the parents wanted (most parents in my area would wish for science to be taught or defined as the following, it is very Animal Farm or 1984’ish to have an ideology that Popper and Ruse spoke of guiding the state): “Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.” This simple word change illustrates the embedded philosophy in current science (materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you want to call it).

Starboy, you are wrong!

…you haven't answered my question! It is not enough to shoot something down unless you got something better to replace it with.

I do not have to replace the “Moth” story with anything? It is wrong from top-to-bottom. Nor do I have to replace Darwinism with anything if I am being critical of it?

"The proponents of a theory, in science or elsewhere [in criminal court], are obligated to support every link in the chain of reasoning, whereas a critic or skeptic may peck at any aspect of the theory, testing it for flaws. He is not obligated to set up any theory of his own or to offer any alternative explanations. He can be purely negative if he so desires." (Norman MacBeth in Darwin Retried: An Appeal To Reason He is a Harvard Trained Lawyer; this statement appeared in the Yale Review in 1967 as well)

Please. Not to mention that when you tell me to go to the sources – original papers – what books have you read again that lay out the Design Hypothesis? How about the Design Inference; or, The Creation Hypothesis? Both of these are “original” thinking that more than enough replaces naturalism as thee paradigm for truth. Because... “science as the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us” is not science… it is a philosophical ideology.

[Detritus]

Quote by: Starboy Mankind has great conceit thinking that the universe was made for mankind; if it was made for anything at all.

Have you seen this piece? http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babins...telligent.html

It's the "Divine Tinkerer Hypothesis." It basically asks the question, "what's so intelligent about this design?"

The late Douglas Adams said:

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in -- fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

[Starboy]

SeanG, you are making a very common mistake that people who do not understand the science make. In your defense I would have to say that the biologists have brought this on themselves by confusing the name of the theory with the phenomenon. It would be like calling Newtonian Mechanics "Gravity" and then saying that the overwhelming number of people believe in "Gravity". Evolution is a phenomenon and "The Theory of Evolution" AKA "Evolution" is a theory. That fact that species change over time is the "fact" that they are alluding to. That there is this vast tree of evolution (change in species over time) that resulted in life on earth as we see it, including humans. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation for how these changes occurred. Just as gravity is something that we see everywhere and is not in dispute, but the particular explanation of gravity may be in dispute. One century it may be Newtonian Mechanics, the next century it may be General Relativity and the next century who knows maybe Quantum Loop Gravity, but the phenomenon of gravity itself is not in dispute. So when those biologists say that evolution is a fact they mean it in the same way that gravity is a fact not that the particular explanation of Newtonian Mechanics is a fact. It is a very common mistake and I think that biologists should make efforts to call the phenomenon a different name than the explanation so that the uneducated layman will not be so confused. But you have to cut the biologists some slack. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is their first major theory and they are not very good at the theory business as of yet. Not like physics is.

I also have to say SeanG that I am becoming very disappointed with you. You put words in my mouth. The Kansas School Board speaks for them selves and not for me. If I lived in Kansas I would be ashamed of that board of morons. They have an agenda to push creationism and that is what they will do but they want people to think that they are being politically correct about it. Fact is science is not up for a vote. We do not get to change the way things are in the universe by voting on them. In any case their take on science is not mine. This is my take on science. I have posted this at least a hundred times, science is the human endeavor to honestly explore and explain reality. The key word here is honestly. What keeps it honest is that any claims about reality must be supported by reality. Also you will not find the term "truth" anywhere in there. That is because an explanation is only that. And the current explanations represent the best attempt at explaining reality. However scientists do not get to pick and choose what will be explained and what will not. They must try to account for as much of reality that they can. And most do no claim that their explanations are perfect explanations. In fact whenever you see a scientist doing that you should call them on it. An honest scientist should be the first one to tell you the limits and problems with their explanations. A scientific explanation does not rest on being perfect; all that is needed is that it does a better job at explaining reality than any other known explanation.

In any case anyone that advocates a scientific explanation based on their religious faith is not being honest. Just as anyone that advocates a religious explanation based on science is also not being honest. The Kansas School Board should be ashamed of them selves. They set and awful example for the children of the State of Kansas.

And when I say the rules of science I am talking about how science is already done. Those scientists make observations, they discover phenomenon, they propose explanations, and they make new discoveries based on those explanations. They discover problems with those explanations. They look for better explanations. In fact the way science proceeds by preferring one explanation over another, but not for religious reasons but for scientific reasons. A scientific reason would be that the new theory explains phenomenon in more detail than previous theories or describes new phenomenon that was previously unknown or replaces a more difficult set of explanations with a more overarching theory. They do not do it because it jibes with some holy book.

But this brings up a very important point about this entire debate. And it is something that you should give great thought to. This entire tussle between the religious and science exists because religion claims to explain reality. And because science also claims to explain reality and those explanations do not match each other. Because of this the godbots have got a very serious problem. So rather than adjust their holy teachings they must now adjust science. Well I got news for you. It is not just evolution that conflicts with supernatural religion, it is all of science. Every bit of it. So my suggestion to those that are allergic to science is that they go live in a cave. Take your bible with you. You can read it as much as you like and you will find nothing conflicting with it in that cave.

I do not have to replace the “Moth” story with anything? It is wrong from top-to-bottom. Nor do I have to replace Darwinism with anything if I am being critical of it?

You don't even know what was in that paper and yet you think that you have a valid criticism of it? It is very funny really because if you knew what was in that paper you would probably find nothing wrong with it. And of course you still have not answered my question and it looks like you have no intention of answering the question. What I see here is somebody that thinks that an honest point of view is to copy the arguments of others. Arguments that they do not even understand and have not done their homework to investigate thoroughly. All I see is yet another dishonest godbot copying the work of other dishonest godbots.

But even so this still leaves you with a major disconnect. Because species do change over time. That is a fact. That all the animals on the planet including humans are the result of those changes. Even if the theory of evolution is completely wrong that places any creation story in your bible in the same category. Completely wrong. So think on that.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Detritus Have you seen this piece? http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babins...telligent.html It's the "Divine Tinkerer Hypothesis." It basically asks the question, "what's so intelligent about this design?"

No I haven't. But I'll read it. The IDiots have a fundamental problem if they want to insist that they have a scientific theory. At a minimum they will have to produce the plans if not the designer itself because after all they are contending that it was designed. Until then it is just religion dressed up as science.

The late Douglas Adams said: "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in -- fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

Yes I like that Adams observation. Have you read the entire piece:

Is there an artificial god? - Douglas Adams

I like his classification of our current age, the fourth age of sand. It makes it very clear that we no longer live in the Bronze Age. Apparently the godbots never got the memo.

Starboy

[Detritus]

Quote by: SeanG This is how I view true science, and how the School Board, which was reflecting what the parents wanted (most parents in my area would wish for science to be taught or defined as the following, it is very Animal Farm or 1984’ish to have an ideology that Popper and Ruse spoke of guiding the state): “Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.” This simple word change illustrates the embedded philosophy in current science (materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you want to call it).

Let me try this again. Science is about forming theories based on empirical data and testing those theories through the use of replicable experiments. (Logic may be used as a tool but there is no requirement that a theory be "logical." Is the dual nature of light logical?) Intelligent Design asks for acceptance without testable evidence. The test of scientific validity is not whether something appeals to the "common sense" of PTA members, however well-intentioned they may be. If it cannot be measured, it ain't science.

Science does not deal with the supernatural because anything susceptible to scientific measurement is part of the natural world by definition. If the Designer could be measured, if replicable experiments could be conducted that would demonstrate the existence of a Designer, then the Designer would become part of the natural world (and would stop being God, as I understand the rules of the religion game). But you do not get to construct a theory that rests on supernatural forces beyond mortal ken and ask for this theology to be considered as science. Because it isn't science.

The public schools should not be in the business of pandering to parents who do not understand what science is and resent their children being exposed to ideas that conflict with the parents' beliefs. Science does not care how well your theory fits the facts unless that theory can be tested by experiment. The theory that we are in The Matrix fits the facts. But the "completely convincing illusion" family of theories cannot by their very nature be tested, and I do not want my local public school teaching that we live in a constructed reality enslaved by robot overlords just because my neighborhood has been overrun by Wachowski fanatics.

I am going to say this one more time, because I really want you to grasp this.

If it cannot be measured, it is not science.

This is not negotiable. It is the very essence of what science is. If you feel this is unfair to theories that depend on the unknowable, all I can say is, that is not science's problem. If you manage to construct a functional God detector outside your own nervous system, give science a call. Until then, please continue to fight for higher standards of science education, but leave intelligent design to the religious studies department.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Detritus I am going to say this one more time, because I really want you to grasp this. If it cannot be measured, it is not science. This is not negotiable. It is the very essence of what science is. If you feel this is unfair to theories that involve the unknowable, all I can say is, that is not science's problem. If you manage to construct a functional God detector outside your own nervous system, give science a call. Until then, please continue to fight for higher standards of science education, but leave intelligent design to the religious studies department.

I think a better way to look at this is to look at the distinction of natural vs. supernatural. To a scientist there is no such distinction. If it is a verifiable observable phenomenon it is natural. Where the supernaturalist and the naturalist part company is that the naturalist requires that all explanations of what can be observed be based on what can be observed whereas the supernaturalist will ask for a special pleading. They will posit a set of supernatural explanative constructs (such as angels, souls, sin, heaven, hell, god, devils, ghosts, demons and so forth) that they will demand not be held to the same standards of enquiry as that which even they would allow if it were natural. What they are asking for is a recipe for foolery. It results in all sorts of dishonesties and deceits. It creates a system where it is now acceptable to take things on "faith". And yet these advocates of "faith" are very selective in how this "faith" may be used. It may only be used to accept and support their magic and not the magic of any other superstition. It is all a crock and any honest person would be repulsed by its gross deceit. In a word science is about utter honesty. It is a human attempt to understand reality by trying not to fool one's self, not fool others and not be fooled by others. Supernatural religion is just one huge multi millennia long party of deceits, frauds and lies of all kinds.

Here is an essay by Feynman you might find interesting.

Cargo Cult Science - Richard Feynman

Starboy

[Starboy]

SeanG, if you want to read the other side of the story you might want to read this:

Why the Peppered Moth Remains an Icon of Evolution

Starboy

[Detritus]

Starboy, I am sad for you, because you are blind to the beauty of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her.

Mr. Bimbo and I weep for you.

Seriously, though, I feel like science is in the middle of a game of chess and the ID people are demanding to play checkers on the same board. When someone says "but my theory of spooky invisible forces is so much more logical than your painstakingly developed empirical structure" I don't know whether to laugh or cry. :eek:

Thanks for the link.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Detritus Starboy, I am sad for you, because you are blind to the beauty of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her. Mr. Bimbo and I weep for you. Seriously, though, I feel like science is in the middle of a game of chess and the ID people are demanding to play checkers on the same board. When someone says "but my theory of spooky invisible forces is so much more logical than your painstakingly developed empirical structure" I don't know whether to laugh or cry. :eek: Thanks for the link.

I weep. The work of giants is just pearls before swine.

Starboy

[Lilith]

I like Starboy. Godbots...LOL! Go live in a cave with your bible...LOL! If I wasen't so sleepy I would probably make a longer reply to this. Godbots...classic, I love it!

[Detritus]

Quote by: Lilith I like Starboy. Godbots...LOL! Go live in a cave with your bible...LOL! If I wasen't so sleepy I would probably make a longer reply to this. Godbots...classic, I love it!

It's too bad that SeanG seems to have dropped the thread, however. I was enjoying that discussion. Feelings tend to run high in these areas and I'm afraid he felt personally attacked, although I thought Starboy was using a generic "you" and I was trying not to be hostile to SeanG as an individual. In fact I respect his involvement in his son's education and I agree with several of his positions on the sorry state of pedagogy in the US.

Not everybody who adheres to a faith is a mental robot; whenever I feel in danger of forgetting this I listen to my audiobook of John Cleese reading CS Lewis' The Screwtape Letters. Lewis had humanity squarely in his crosshairs in that book, and I tip my hat to him. Humans cannot live on science alone (although I did always wish that McCoy would acknowledge that Spock was right most of the time!).