Replies

I know it won't happen, but I would highly suggest learning about the scientific method, preferably from those whose business it is to teach scientists, before you continue to try to impose bizarre beliefs and motivations on scientists.

Well, the scientific method ain't exactly rocket science, exDemMom. It all boils down to seven steps:

(1) Make observation(s);
(2) Ask a question about what is observed;
(3) Do research (background);
(4) Formulate a hypothesis;
(5) Test the hypothesis;
(6) Analyze the results;
(7) Communicate the results.

I'm scratching my head trying to see what the scientific method has to do with Darwin's theory.... The question reminds me of something Bacon said:

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects [e.g., as "no data," as Stephen Jay Gould put it]; in order that by this great and pernicious predeterminism the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.... [W]hat a man had rather be true he more readily believes....

Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626, English philosopher, statesman, scientist, lawyer, jurist, literary artist — an absolutely brilliant, amazing personality) is usually credited as the originator of the scientific method, an inductive method based on empirical observation, rather than a deductive one; i.e., one based on logical reasoning. He opined that Aristotle "made his natural philosophy a mere bondservant to his logic, thereby rendering it contentious and well nigh useless." Purely logical processes are ineluctibly "subjective" ones. On the one hand, Bacon wanted to expunge "subjectivity," indeed all of "metaphysics," from science. On the other, he also recognized this:

The sciences which we possess come for the most part from the Greeks. For what has been added by Roman, Arabic, or later writers is not much nor of much importance; and whatever it is, it is built on the foundation of Greek discoveries.

Arguably Bacon's own method was built on the Greeks, specifically including Aristotle's theories of causation. There are four Aristotelian causes: formal, material, efficient, and final. Bacon retains the first three, but banishes the fourth — final cause. Of final cause, Bacon wrote: "...final causes...have relation clearly to the nature of man rather than to the nature of the universe, and from this source have strangely defiled philosophy." Thus, he suggests, they are "subjective" — that is, relating to the human sphere exclusively.

Formal cause in science refers to "initial conditions"; material cause to "matter"; efficient cause to "energy." Final cause has been banished, on the ground that it clearly relates "to the nature of man," and presumably not to the nature of the universe.

But this is a rather sweeping claim. In Aristotle, final cause is "the cause for which all the other causes exist." Translation: Final cause refers to purposes, goals. While I agree with Bacon that a scientist must be ever aware of how his own preferences and presuppositions shape his science, he seems to reject out of hand the notion that nature is purposeful in its operations. Yet I for one cannot conceive of a biological function absent the idea of final cause — to purposes, ends, goals to be met.

You yourself, exDemMom, point to just this problem:

To me, what is absolutely mind-boggling is that life is maintained in every single organism through the process of countless gadzillions of chemical reactions, and those reactions occur when and where they are needed without any conscious input at all. The fact that gadzillions of chemical reactions can coordinate so well in such a manner that seems so unlikely, however, does not suggest to me that God is up there in Heaven directing all those reactions... I'd think that even for God, that would get boring.

A couple of observations. (1) You cannot show/demonstrate that "all those reactions" occur "without any conscious input." (I'm not talking about God's consciousness here.) (2) Absent direction toward a global purpose, how do you explain how "gadzillions of chemical reactions can coordinate so well" in biological situations? Does DNA bark out the orders here, or what?

I have read that DNA is not directly "information," but an encoding of information from a non-local "source." A set of mechanical processes is too information poor to account for the staggering complexity, cooperation, and "success" of the astronomical number of biological processes that must be dynamically coordinated at all levels of the bodily system in order for the "global" organism to maintain its existence.

But we know from Newton that there are no such things as "non-local" causes in nature.... Generally, objects have to be in close proximity in order to affect each other.

However, quantum theory puts non-locality at center stage — along with the critically important (subjective) observer....

Well, enuf for now. I'd love to do a little turn re: Sir Isaac Newton. Maybe another time!

Oh just one more thing before I sign off: You wrote —

The premise of creation is that it is a perfect creation made by a perfect God. It therefore has no need to adapt because it is perfect. I see no evidence that that is the case. What I see is that biological systems are full of features that make no sense unless one accepts that they arose through random events (which aren't as random as creationists try to portray them; they do conform to physical laws which are quite constraining).

I'm afraid I have to agree with Gourmet Dan that this is a total strawman. For God did not create a "perfect" creation at all, just a "good" one. Had God made creation "perfect," everything would be determined; there'd be no room for human free will in it.

Plus where do the "quite constraining" physical/natural laws come from? Do they not fall into the category of "non-observables," intangible, immaterial entities?

Among the "bizarre beliefs and motivations of scientists" seems to be the idea that only that which can be directly observed — material objects — can be said to truly exist. So how does science account for the existence of the physical laws?

In closing, the scientific method can give you "fact"; but it cannot give you "value" — what the facts actually mean. And this is why I do not share your belief that "expert science" is an adequate or desirable guide to public policy.

Thank you so much for writing, exDemMom!

I'm scratching my head trying to see what the scientific method has to do with Darwin's theory....

Darwin's theory was formulated on the basis of countless observations, i.e., as a result of application of the scientific method. His theory, as any theory, provides a logical framework that ties all the observations together. He wasn't even the first to formulate a theory of evolution; previous iterations of the theory had flaws.

I would point out that your seven steps of the scientific method aren't exactly in the correct order. I've never started off with making observations; I need to have a hypothesis in place first, or I won't even know what observations to make.

There are all kinds of processes that coordinate the reactions--they occur or are shut down in response to signals; they're controlled on the basis of feedback mechanisms. There really is no conscious thought behind them; they just occur. Each reaction taken alone is actually fairly simple. The complexity, and the wonder, of the system is that, at any given moment, countless gadzillions of those reactions are occurring within each organism, and life is maintained.

Plus where do the "quite constraining" physical/natural laws come from? Do they not fall into the category of "non-observables," intangible, immaterial entities?

Among the "bizarre beliefs and motivations of scientists" seems to be the idea that only that which can be directly observed — material objects — can be said to truly exist. So how does science account for the existence of the physical laws?

I do not know why the physical laws are as they are, nor do I spend much time contemplating the issue. I can only observe their effect.

I often hear Rush Limbaugh describe himself as living in "Literalville," and I'm going to have to say that I think I may live there, too. Because I'm attuned to the world around me, and I want to know everything about it--abstract thought just does not have a lot of interest to me. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a metaphysical universe outside of this one; the only thing that can be accomplished with science is to describe the physical world we live in.

In closing, the scientific method can give you "fact"; but it cannot give you "value" — what the facts actually mean. And this is why I do not share your belief that "expert science" is an adequate or desirable guide to public policy.

I never expressed an opinion one way or the other on whether science should inform public policy, or how much influence it should have in that arena. I do know that science is often misused to try to force policy that people would otherwise reject (e.g. using global warming as an excuse to try to inhibit technological advancement). But that's an issue for other threads (where I have expressed plenty of opinion).

Yet I for one cannot conceive of a biological function absent the idea of final cause — to purposes, ends, goals to be met.

That is an illuminating look into your thought process. True science (and reality) doesn't have 'causes', 'purposes', 'ends', 'goals', etc., people do.

It is easy to see patterns in complex, chaotic, interacting systems and misinterpret those 'patterns' as a 'cause' or a 'goal'. Early man found 'patterns' or 'causes' all around him. He noticed for example that if he killed someone rains often followed, cause and effect, but he didn't understand the linkage so he invented God to provide the means. That is where sacrifices came from culminating with the sacrifice of God himself.

I know it is tough for you, but just try and imagine a complex ecosystem that isn't in anyway planned. It is hard because it is so interconnected and patterns pop out everywhere for us (our memories are based on association and pattern recognition). If you can make the leap of understanding, then you can see that each individual organism in the ecosystem is just doing it's own little thing and by chance it is there.

That is reality. I know it is hard to see sometimes, because we are so good at finding patterns. Correlation is not causation.

If you need to see a pattern, look for belief systems based on causation. Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming comes to mind (and I bet you thought I was going to pick on a religion didn't you?)

Most bad science is based on 'cause and effect,' be very careful basing anything on 'cause and effect'.