Intelligent Design case decided - Dover, Pennsylvania, School Board loses [Fox News Alert]

Fox News | 12/20/05

[snarks_when_bored]

Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.

[Dimensio]

1822, 1824, 1830, 1892, 1906

I expect that you'll find yet another exuse to weasel your way out of it.

[RunningWolf]

I don't know about atheists and slavery. But atheists on the whole support abortion.

Abortion is THE MOST VIOLENT ACT ever devised by man. In as many words you have said you are an atheist. As an avowed atheist do you support abortion?

Wolf

[Protagoras]

Out of what?

[Dimensio]

Clearly you have no honest argument to make, so you're playing semantic games. Have a nice day.

[Protagoras]

Don't tell me you got tired of childish off topic semantics games too?

A little slow on the uptake. But then again, you are obtuse.

[Dimensio]

Don't tell me you got tired of childish off topic semantics games too?

A rare admission; Protagoras admits using childish, off-topic semantic games.

[Protagoras]

Post number please

[VadeRetro]

This claim that Hitler was a ceationist is a false and unsupported one.

How do you get away with calling it "unsupported" knowing that anyone having read this far knows it has been wonderfully supported?

BTW, the Roman emperors weren't atheists either that I know of. Essentially all of them were polytheists and would have considered the typical modern creationist as being one god away from atheism.

[VadeRetro]

A rare admission; Protagoras admits using childish, off-topic semantic games.

The Lord will forgive, and RunningWolf will never notice in the first place.

[VadeRetro]

BTW, the Roman emperors weren't atheists ...

OK, Seneca was a playwright. What's he got to do with anything?

[unlearner]

You debate science much better than theology, if I am correctly remembering religious discussions with you in the past. However, what we are debating is more philosophical than scientific.

"But not in this case, because the perjury to hide the material involvement of a specific local religious sect was uncovered in court."

This judge follows the modern interpretation which is not original intent. That someone perjured himself does not change what the law is. In this country we do not use guilt by association in the application of law.

"Eh? So...you want to include the anthropomorphic theory under the umbrella of ID? Behe, who testified at trial, doesn't require acknowledgment of the anthromorphic theory to make his case."

I am unsure how intelligence can exist apart from life, but I do not assume that is impossible. I refuse to concede history and science should be commingled whether it be for the assertion of common descent or the assertion of ID proponents.

"as is the case with your base theory--the set of possible ways to naturally build anything demonstrably built is infinite."

I don't call mine a theory. And this is not my argument, it is the argument of those who claim I must test infinite possibilities to falsify my premise.

"Biological systems are mathematically continuous, and the processes that utilize DNA are tightly coupled in chemical feedback loops. You can't make Shannon information theory apply usefully to biological processes"

I am not applying the information analogy to reproduction or replication. I am applying it to the speculative assumption of life originating. You may be able to use this argument to counter arguments against speciation, but it does not apply to this. You cannot even know how it might apply to a hypothetical event which has never been observed even once.

"No, not in any reasonable sense"

In a "reasonable sense" DNA contains information. If we described life just using a list of ingredients, it would be pointless. DNA contains specific instructions that direct biological pathways. Any reasonable person recognizes that it is information. Information does not necessarily imply intelligence. Computers and machines are often directed by information which is intrinsically meaningless.

"most any not-obviously self-contradictory hypothesis whatsoever is, in some sense, verifiable or falsifiable... Did I not say 'most'?"

Then cite three examples since they are so readily available.

"That is not true--it is quite easy to make false statements in any abstract formal mathematics, to which you have not attached a set-theoretic domain of discourse, much less mapped that domain to the real world"

False statements are not the same as falsifiable statements. Something can be false and not falsifiable. It can be true and falsifiable. It can be true and not falsifiable. It is possible to prove math statements by working backwards to the underlying axioms, but you cannot falsify them. What I meant by my earlier statement was that math cannot be falsified in general. I was not saying that there is no such thing as a mathematical error. You essentially reduce statements to tautologies which are "true" within the assumed theorem. A theorem cannot be falsified in the same way as a theory.

"You just long-windedly agreed with me that it did not qualify for inclusion in high school textbooks. I guess I agree with you that, in the sense that everything under the sun is a science, ID is also a science."

I do not have strong feelings about its inclusion in such texts, other than I am a firm believer in parental rights. I think local communities should decide this for themselves and parents should be able to opt out their kids from whatever the communities decide.

I feel it is more important for teenagers to get a basic foundation in the philosophy of science in order to contextualize the function of science and how it fits within a broader epistemology.

The main reason many feel threatened by my assertion around here is because they make too much of "science". Maybe you are not one of them. The fact that my assertion does meet the qualifications of a scientific hypothesis is only threatening to those who regard scientific theory as fact and empiricism as truth.

"Many natural sciences engage in meaningful falsification by predicting things that can be discovered, before they are discovered."

That's verifiability not falsifiability.

"If we really took it seriously, we wouldn't be able to perform meaningful experiments at all, as soon as you stop running the oscilloscope, all it's accumulated data becomes historical."

Well at least you are thinking the point through rather than just giving a preconceived opinion. The difference is that there is a sort of chain of custody when we turn off the oscilloscope, and historical events are not part of a controlled environment.

But your point does underscore an essential truth. Science is predicated upon faith. (Of course I must clarify that the definition of faith often proposed around here is unworkable.) Whatever we do not experience firsthand for ourselves we can only accept on the basis of faith. So empirical evidence for one must be accepted by another on the basis of "take my word for it". This is even true of repeatable experiments because it is not possible to retest every piece of accumulated information, nor is it necessary, nor is it reasonable.

"Than there is no way to demonstrate the formation of stars from dust. No one has ever observed the formation of a star from dust, nor has anyone actually observed a star undergoing more than one step of its Hertzsprung-Russel fate. There are only isolated static snapshots throughout the universe of dust in various degrees of concentration, and stars in various locations on the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram. Obviously, the notion of stars being born and dying is an unfalsifiable fantasy. You can only demonstrate micro-stellar evolution."

These may be verifiable without being falsifiable. I personally do not limit science to what is falsifiable, but it is a popular standard of demarcation.

"So...once again the burnt hand goes wobbling back to the fire: to do science, since science is about stuff, you need some stuff to look at. There's such a thing as being so 'open to falsification', that your brains bleed right out."

Well it is either falsifiable or it isn't. How meaningful or useful a statement is is a separate debate.

"To the extent that abiogensis is about specific, tangible things... it's may be possible to do science about it."

Which is why I am not opposed to pursuing it. But the debate continues about what is scientific, and ID opponents keep wanting to move the line when it is no longer convenient. When the debate is over a Creator, suddenly falsifiability is the gold standard. When something is proposed that is falsifiable and verifiable, the standard is no longer important. What is important? Where do you draw the line?

"This [abiogenesis]is not science, this is theology, and can only remain theology, until something occurs in the way of specific, positive, tangible forensic evidence you can draw inferences with sufficient specificity about to allow you to make verifiable predictions as to what you will find next."

Excellent (if I am not misconstruing your words). But does this mean you do not wish for abiogenesis to be pursued via scientific investigation?

"Things that you do not know that you know, are not part of the set of things one ought to teach under the rubric of 'science' in high school, or fund specific research projects for at your local university."

You misunderstood my tag line. If we think we know the answer we will be unwilling to explore other possibilities. For example, I would prefer to be treated by a doctor who knows what he does not know, rather than one who thinks he knows the answer for every medical condition. Thus, I am an "unlearner" in the sense that I must unlearn any false preconceptions I have and, if I am to help anyone else do the same, I must identify and prove their errors.

[unlearner]

"How can you simultaneously believe I have no clue what science is and yet might be a scientist? Is it because you're a pig-ignorant luddite who thinks no one outside of a few cults knows what real science is?"

Because many scientists do not know what science is. Science is defined by the philosophy of science - a subject matter which is not required even for advanced degrees in science. If you had a grasp on the function of the philosophy of science you would recognize my claim (of some scientists not knowing what science is) to be true.

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today -- and even professional scientists -- seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is -- in my opinion -- the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574, excerpted from The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Princeton University Press, 1986-present.)

[unlearner]

"There is a reason warm ponds do not fill up with proto-life chemicals waiting for a second, third, or ten-thousandth abiogenesis event."

But why is this important? OK. It is unlikely we will soon observe life originating outside of a lab. If so, it would be more likely somewhere other than on Earth. But this has little to do with my basis for testing my hypothesis.

We must go beyond understanding why a certain environment is not conducive to the formation of life, and identify exactly what environment might be.

Can you give me any reason why assembling life in a lab would be more difficult than allowing it to form spontaneously after identifying what conditions might allow it to do so?

Do you think assembling life is going to be easy to figure out, but a self-organizing principle will be hard?

Which came first, understanding the self organizing principles behind the periodic table or the creation of new forms of matter? If there is a self organizing principle for life, why would you expect it to be so difficult to find?

When life is some day formed in the lab, it will be via either intelligent assembly or by creating an environment conducive to some not yet known self organizing principle. (Or both may happen.)

If a self organizing principle is discovered and observed, my assertion will be disproved. If intelligent assembly is ever accomplished it will support my assertion in the limited sense that it will prove it is possible to assemble life.

[unlearner]

"Your Law of Gravity makes a specific prediction that can be tested for any two given masses. If the force is along the center of mass, the hypothesis is supported, if not, the hypothesis is falsified... Your Law of Life lends itself to no test that can support or falsify with each result. They are not equivallent."

So far you have been the only one to actually reason through this logically and come up with a logical argument against my position - which is all I ask. However, I can still demonstrate why my assertion meets the standard.

I have already stated that my assertion differs from the law of gravity in that my statement has not found supporting evidence. I must add that the law of gravity also has a specific mathematical model, which is not duplicated in my assertion. (Although it might be possible for one to be developed.)

Your point requires me to admit the possibility that we may not ever observe life forming (from nonliving matter). But I regard this as a matter of difficulty rather than impossibility. If it is impossible, then my assertion would not be testable in any sense. I cannot think of any reason to assume it is impossible to observe such an event.

So, to answer your question, we must observe this event and understand how it occurs in order to test my statement.

"Now please explain how the failure to observe the above will support your hypothesis."

Failure to observe any instance of life forming (from nonliving matter) serves no useful purpose to my statement. It neither supports nor falsifies it.

If, however, such an event does occur, and the way it occurs is observed well enough, it will either support of falsify my statement.

Your example of failure to generate life would have no bearing. Perhaps you might argue that each failed attempt supports the idea that life was never formed but has always existed. But such a statement cannot be falsified even if it is true.

Success or failure of a test would be defined by the premise. For example, the "successful" creation of life from the right combination of ingredients at the right temperature, etc., would be a "failure" of my premise.

The law of gravity can be observed in operation. Formation of new life has never been observed. It is likely that whatever means by which life originates, such events are less frequent than those indicating a the law of gravity.

In order to support or falsify my assertion, we must observe at least one instance of life originating. The way it originates will either support or falsify my statement.

[unlearner]

"But what is the justification of this statement? And if you can't justify such exclusivity, then you don't have a statement that merits scientific inquiry; you just have meaningless conjecture."

This is the kind of convoluted reasoning that typifies this debate. To justify the statement in the sense you are asking would be to provide supporting evidence. It might be in the form of empirical data or it might be a mathematical or other functional model. But the effort necessary to develop such a model or locate supporting evidence would require me to violate your premise that it is not worth investigating. Catch 22. That is why science starts with hypotheses - you must start somewhere.

You are right that it is only a conjecture. It is a hypothetical one. What differentiates it from other conjectures is verifiability and falsifiability.

It is not meaningless. You might be able to debate the definitions of life, intelligent, complexity, etc. But they are understood well enough to make the concept meaningful.

Your argument boils down to that you just don't like it. It is not attractive to you. It does not appear elegant to you. It does not coincide with your intuition.

A hypothesis does not need to meet your criteria. A theory should "justify" the exclusivity claim with testing or at least a model. I will give you that much.

For ages, ID opponents have thrown about the unscientific label and qualified their opinion with clear cut standards of demarcation. When presented with a simple hypothesis that meets those standards, opponents want to change them.

I am not claiming my conjecture rises to the level of a theory at this time. What I am claiming is that it meets any fair standard for being scientific, even if it proves to be false in the long run.

[Dimensio]

What differentiates it from other conjectures is verifiability and falsifiability.

But without any supporting information to justify making the conjecture in the first place, it's still fundamentally worthless to science. That it is falsifiable is meaningless if you still don't have any actual evidence to justify making the statement in the first place. I can make plenty of hypothetical statements that are potentially falsifiable. That doesn't make them meritious of scientific inquiry.

[VadeRetro]

But why is this important? OK. It is unlikely we will soon observe life originating outside of a lab. If so, it would be more likely somewhere other than on Earth. But this has little to do with my basis for testing my hypothesis.

I didn't bring it up. You did. I have all but told you why it is a strawman to say that if it ain't happenin' now, it didn't happen then. What is different now?

It's an integrity test and you're still flunking. Prove me wrong about you and say the words. Why can't you say the words?

[highball]

But without any supporting information to justify making the conjecture in the first place, it's still fundamentally worthless to science. That it is falsifiable is meaningless if you still don't have any actual evidence to justify making the statement in the first place. I can make plenty of hypothetical statements that are potentially falsifiable. That doesn't make them meritious of scientific inquiry.

That's an excellent point - unlearner's hypothesis fails to address the evidence. That's the first test of a hypothesis - before any serious study can be made, it must first address the evidence that we already have.

[VadeRetro]

If there is a self organizing principle for life, why would you expect it to be so difficult to find?

The first experiment ever done made amino acids from simple stuff. Were you expecting a salamander? Was there a deadline?

The real thing probably took 300K to half a billion years. If you aren't modeling that, you're just blowing smoke. (And you're staying militantly ignorant of the very subject matter you hope to dismiss, current scientific thinking on the origins of life.)

[Condorman]

To justify the statement in the sense you are asking would be to provide supporting evidence. It might be in the form of empirical data or it might be a mathematical or other functional model. But the effort necessary to develop such a model or locate supporting evidence would require me to violate your premise that it is not worth investigating. Catch 22.

I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case.
--Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, April 12, 2002

I am not aware of any evidence that invisible, flatulent elves are lighting their farts to power the sun. Should we launch a scientific investigation to determine if it's true? Why is your unsupported assertion more worthy of investigation than mine? Or Congresswoman McKinney's?

That is why science starts with hypotheses - you must start somewhere.

No. Science starts with observations. Hypotheses attempt to explain them. In your haste to exclaim "Eureka!" you forgot a step.