Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by 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.
I am somewhat surprised to hear that I ever engaged in a theology debate. Perhaps you are remembering an argument about the history or sociology of the christian churches.
"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.
Already addressed on this thread--I do not agree, and I argument is threadbare, and that my counter-argument has not been answered.
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.
uhh...when penetrating the perjury established your guilt in an attempt to engage in establishment, by covering up the collusion of your church, it does--as in this case.
"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.
OK, I gave it the college try, but I give up on this one...it doesn't seem at all related to the argument it's attached to.
"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.
Yea, I caught that peculiar exchange. The fact that you can draw conclusions by means of inductive reasoning about partial evidence (and that that's how science generally works), is not an argument you can stretch to cover the case where you insist that the complete lack of positive evidence in an infinite set of possible evidences, means something remotely scientific. Your thesis is entertaining, but it ain't remotely science.
"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.
So...before there was DNA, to provide even a weak analogy to a discrete mathematical system, information theory somehow means something biological?
You cannot even know how it might apply to a hypothetical event which has never been observed even once.
...and so, you cannot know IF it applies to a hypothetical event which has never been observed even once.
In a "reasonable sense" DNA contains information.
DNA is a chemical catalyst, which creates a wide array of other chemical catalysts, whose production regulates the chemical composition of a body, which controls the rate at which DNA produces chemical catalysts. Engineers call this a negative feedback loop, and they don't apply discrete mathematical structures, such as information theory, to it, because it's mathematically discrete.
It's in a feedback loop, and it's not discrete. It can't remotely be modeled as an information theory problem.
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.
Other than an engineer or a scientist who actually has to work with these substances, I presume you mean.
Information does not necessarily imply intelligence. Computers and machines are often directed by information which is intrinsically meaningless.
Doubtful, but at any rate, Not relevant, and not my bailywick.
"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.
Pinnochio is a real live boy.
Philosophy's greatest contributor was Plato.
Animals spoke the king's english in the year 10,000bc.
"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.j
The distinction is not so clear as you seem to think. There was once a proof of 4 color theorem that lasted about a decade before a flaw was found in it. Then the 4 color theorem went unproved for about 100 years, and then a proof came into existence, part of which only a computer has ever read and comprehended, in any reasonable sense. Is the four color theorem more reliable, or less reliable, in people's estimations, when it is proved? Proof is not an entirely distinct thing from varification, and hence, disproof is not an entirely distinct thing from falsification.
"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.
Do you think an all black gang neighborhood should be allowed to opt for illiteracy and rhythm over literacy and grammar?
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.
And the best way to do that is to put up a big, glaring sign right on the cover of the book, that lies to them about the opinion of the science community about the reliability of much of what lies within?
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.
Were your theory, in fact, a scientific hypothesis, in the sense that we mean that when we write science textbooks, we could entertain that notion, however, I do not find your claim in science textbooks.
"Many natural sciences engage in meaningful falsification by predicting things that can be discovered, before they are discovered."
That's verifiability not falsifiability.
No, it's not. If it's possible to fail the test, that's falsifiability, and it is possible to predict what you find at a dig, and fail to find it.
"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.
There's a better "chain of custody", then any court could ever dream of, when you dig up evidence wrapped in tons of solid rock, contiguous with a worldwide stratigraphic layer of rock.
"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.
I do not understand how this is responsive. I think you are blowing me off because you don't have an answer regarding similarities I have drawn between the way biological and stellar sciences assess and utilize historical events.
"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.
No, it's not a separate debate: It is inadequate to qualify to be a science just because you can make statements that may be falsifiable. "Useful" is a touchstone of scientific concern--the very one your thesis succumbs to.
"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?
Right at the point where you can actually find some positive, specific, tangible forensic evidence to begin doing useful science with. Woese does science for precisely that reason. Behe does not, for precisely the same reason.
"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?
It is being persued by scientific investigation, by Woese, among others BECAUSE they have some tangible, specific, positive forensic evidence which they can prod at to produce falsifiable predictions as to what they will find next.
"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.
Very praiseworthy, I favor being open-minded in general, however, when it comes to writing science textbooks, we should stick with what scientists pretty much all agree is important mainline science about which little scientific doubt is currently being entertained.
it, because it's mathematically discrete.
when I should have said:
it, because it's mathematically continuous.
Sorry.
Hmph. I've been looking for that sort of phrase for a while now. Well written.
Ironic how most have become unaware that ALL the great scientists had an extremely strong belief in the fact that the universe was created by intelligent design. Many scientists today, think they should take the place of God.
Well, it would be ironic, if it were true.
Yes we do. See the RICO statutes. Giving material aid, association, or support to groups conspiring to break the law is illegal.
For example, insisting on suggesting, in a science book, in a public school, that students read a book supplied by a church that advocates a foundational tenate of that church's religion.
Advocating religious theology in public schools is bad enough, putting the unwarranted seal of scientific and school administration approval on it is flagrantly partisan.
Ironic how most christian partisans conveniently forget that scientists have been imprisoned and burned by christian authorities for showing any sign of not believing in intelligent design. Modern courts don't give much credence to testimony achieved at gunpoint.
I am aware of coersion taking place with regards to Christianity. This type of thing, is quite simply, a sin. It however, does not change the fact that God created us. The Bible will tell you this if you choose to read it.
I have no quarrel with that, provided you don't start shoving it down my children's throat in public schools. Science has no quarrel with it, either, incidently, except in the case of a certain sect of science cranks who call themselves creation scientists, and insist on contradicting science's best current explanations of the fossil and DNA records.
If the Pope can get along with current biological science, possibly you could to, if you gave it a little more thought.
There is no more thought required on my part. The facts are in the Bible if you choose to read them.
All things being equal, I'll take the Pope's word over yours that there is no significant conflict between belief in science and belief in God.
Very well-said.
Even if you say it with sugar on top, and even if you dance away from your original point at lightning speed, the fact remains that a fair number of "all the great scientists" who believed in intelligent design, did so at gunpoint.
The vast majority of scientists, however, have no trouble understanding that Intelligent Design does not remotely qualify as a scientific theory.
Personally, when someone announces that they will do no more thinking, I tend to take them at their word ;)
Very true, but I'm sure you won't be expecting any more thought from that particular quarter ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.