Posted on 06/10/2006 4:33:28 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Gentle FReepers, herewith I present a few conclusions I have reached after uncounted creation/evolution debates:
1. Creationism is a religious doctrine. This is not, as many claim, the arbitrary result of ACLU-inspired Supreme Court decisions like Epperson v. Arkansas, and Edwards v. Aguillard. Rather, those court decisions are inevitable, given the faith-based nature of creationism.
Is creationism really faith-based? Of course it is. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's nothing scientific about it either. Imagine a competent scientist from Japan or India or some other place where no one studied the creation account in Genesis (or its Islamic counterpart). If he were to honestly and systematically consider the objectively verifiable evidence in reaching scientific conclusions, then:
a. it would never occur to him that the world is only 6,000 years old [How Old is the Earth];
b. it would never occur to him that there had been a miles-deep global flood about 3,000 years ago [The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood];
c. it would never occur to him that all species lived at the same time [The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"]; and
d. he would inevitably conclude that all species are related by common descent, and that the relationships are becoming more clear all the time [Tree of Life Web Project ].
2. Regardless of the claims of some, creationism isn't the same thing as Christianity. Why do we say this?
a. First, because not all Christians are creationists, and therefore -- obviously -- creationism isn't essential to their conception of Christianity. We are very much aware that some denominations teach otherwise, and this essay isn't intended to be a debate among denominations. Further, this essay doesn't pretend to be a learned discourse about theology. It is unfortunate that we have a denominational (not scientific) dispute about evolution, but it exists.
In stating that creationism isn't essential, we are relying entirely on the statements of thousands of Christian clergy, e.g., The Clergy Letter Project, a strong, pro-evolution statement signed by over 10,000 Christian clergymen; Statements from Religious Organizations, a list of Christian and Jewish denominations, including Roman Catholics, that accept (or at least don't dispute) evolution; and the recent statement opposing creationism by the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the 70-million-member Anglican Communion.
Clergymen are usually not scientists; therefore their opinions (whether pro or con) have no special significance regarding the scientific validity of evolution. What the above-referenced opinions do indicate is that for all of these clergymen and their denominations, evolution is compatible with their religion.
b. Second, because not all creationists are Christians. To begin with, there are the Raelians, a sect based entirely on ID.
There are also a billion followers Islam. See: Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design, By Mustafa Akyol.
The Hare Krishnas also reject Darwinian evolution. Their website has this article: The Intelligent Designer.
There is also the Unification Church, founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. One of Moon's followers, Jonathan Wells, is a leading intellectual in the ID movement. He is the author of Icons of Evolution, and is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Wells has written movingly about how Rev. Moon motivated his career in ID: Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
2. Intelligent Design (ID) is not science. This is quoted from the Dover decision:
[After a page of references to expert testimony] It is therefore readily apparent to the Court that ID fails to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations. (3:101-03 (Miller); 14:62 (Alters)). Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program, as advocated by Professor Fuller, for a view that has been unable to gain a foothold within the scientific establishment. Although ID's failure to meet the ground rules of science is sufficient for the Court to conclude that it is not science, out of an abundance of caution and in the exercise of completeness, we will analyze additional arguments advanced regarding the concepts of ID and science.
[snip]
The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Both Drs. Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical-electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian); 11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).
After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents', as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID's backers have sought to a void the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.
Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.
3. ID is creationism. Consider the ID text, Of Pandas and People, which is favorably regarded by ID advocates such as the Discovery Institute, as indicated by their link to this article: A Report on the ASA Conference Debate on Pandas and People Textbook. This is the book that the Dover school board recommended and made available to science students, with these results:
As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards [Edwards v. Aguillard], which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;
(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and
(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.
This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's [FTE = the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of Pandas] argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions.
Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..
4. There is no virtually dispute about evolution in scientific circles. Therefore there is no "controversy" that needs to be taught in science classes.
As Project Steve indicates, over 700 scientists named Steve (or Stephanie, Esteban, or Stefano, etc.), about two-thirds of whom are biologists, have signed on to a statement that says:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
These Steves are only the tip of the scientific iceberg, because the name "Steve" is given to only about 1% of the population. Therefore, the 700 Steves probably represent about 70,000 scientists. See also Project Steve update.
The Steves alone are greater in number than all the scientists (of every name) who have signed statements questioning evolution, and most of the evolution skeptics aren't biologists. For example, the much-publicized list of 500 names (compared to 70,000) collected by the Discovery Institute includes only about 154 biologists, less than one-third of the total. Those 500 signed a rather ambiguous statement, which says:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
[Note what a hollow statement that is, compared to the statement signed by the Steves; and also note what the hollow statement doesn't say: It doesn't say that those who sign it are creationists or advocates of ID (although some probably are). It doesn't even say that they reject evolution (although some probably do). It merely says they're "skeptical," presumably a term chosen to permit as many as possible to sign.]
In contrast, two-thirds of the 700 Steves are biologists, so the biologist-Steves are about 466 in number. The Steves being about 1% of the population represent approximately 46,600 biologists. Compare that number to the 154 biologists' names collected by the Discovery Institute. Those 154 are the totality of biologists who are evolution skeptics. Did you get that? The actual comparison is 46,600 biologists who accept evolution and a mere 154 who are "skeptical."
These competing lists clearly tell us that evolution skeptics are a tiny fringe group -- about one-third of one percent of biologists. Therefore, notwithstanding the unending demands to "teach the controversy," there literally is no scientific controversy about the basic principles of evolution. Scientists, especially those in the biological fields, are all but unanimous in their acceptance of evolution.
For more information, see The List-O-Links.
Word of advice: if you want the scientifically literate to take you seriously, abjure the phrase 'Darwinists', which is used largely if not overwhelmingly by creationists.
The only assumption that ID posits is that it's possible to make design inferences based on the specified complexity one finds.
That's not an adequate basis for a scientific theory. Could we ground a scientific theory on the assumption that it is possible to travel to Alpha Centauri?
But a more basic criticism is that in fact your definition of ID is disingenuous. ID isn't really a nebulous statement about detecting design; it's a prevarication. There is massive empirical evidence that ID is simply a stealth attempt to introduce elements of creationism into science teaching. We have multiple statements to that effect from its principal exponents. We have the Wedge Document. We have the proven fact that a text on 'ID' were created by taking a creationist text and doing a global find/replace of ID for creation. You can wish it weren't so. But it is.
"abjure the phrase 'Darwinists'"
Where did he use the word 'Darwinists'? I would abjure the word abjure. But hey, that is just me.
'Abjure' is a useful word.
Thanks for the advice. However, I can't help but think if my using the term "Darwinist" makes someone decides I'm not to be taken seriously, he couldn't have been taking me all that seriously in the first place. Clarity is preferable to disagreement, even if it's with the scientifically literate who avoid the term at all costs. Of course, you know and I know that I could look up examples of well respected scientists who describe themselves as Darwinists.
Besides, there's nothing wrong with the term "Darwinist" any more than there's anything wrong with the term "Freudian". Neither is derogatory or meant to be, and the former term is used in discussions of neural Darwinism and even neo-Darwinism without any assumption of such.
The Wedge Document is one document-- it is not holy writ. Neither it nor Pandas and People can define what ID is anymore than the Project for an American Century's "Statement of Principles" defines conservative or Bush Administration or even neo-conservative foreign policy. To assume that claims by IDers to the effect that they are "steath creationists" attempting to take over schools is simply a failure to apply the principle of charity, without which all intellectual debate is useless. That doesn't mean one must like or even respect the arguments one deals with-- it simply means that accusations of liar aren't productive in any discussions of theory. For instance, Communists tend to lie a lot, especially members of the Communist Party. But if someone asks me what Communism is and I say "Communists lie" that's not too helpful, especially if I'm not speaking to the converted-- that is, someone who already agrees with me that Communism sucks. I would do better to make substantive points (as I know you often do) rather than ad hominem ones.
As for your statement that "the only assumption that ID posits is that it's possible to make design inferences based on the specified complexity one finds" isn't an adequate basis for a scientific theory, I agree, Alpha Centauri not withstanding--- and perhaps I should have called the design inference a hypothesis rather than an assumption. The point of ID is to discover whether that assumption is justified--- whether there is adequate evidence for it. An IDer could very easily discover evidence for intelligent design and then reject it, as Crick did when he decided DNA must have been the result of design and then rejected that hypothesis based on the development of RNA world scenarios. The point is, an IDer is someone who believes design inferences are possible outside of those we make based on Humean reasons, i.e. we know what design looks like in some instances only because as humans we design things and therefore are conditioned to identify like instances. That may be a silly belief. It may overestimate science and what human abduction is capable of. But, even if I were arguing with a liberal, I would owe it to him and myself to not conflate liberalism with Communism--- even though Communists often pretend to be liberals. Doesn't mean I'm a liberal. Doesn't mean I'm a Communist. It just means that I believe in fairness and conceptual clarity as best as I'm capable of managing them.
It's turning a theory which began with Darwin but which has been greatly modified, into a cult of personality. The 'theory of evolution' is a far better descriptor; using 'Darwinism' or 'Darwinist' is a pretty good cue you're a creationist, at least in the United States
In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is sometimes used by creationists as a somewhat derogatory term for "evolutionary biology". Casting evolution as an "ism" — a doctrine or belief — is used to strengthen calls for "equal time" for other beliefs such as creationism. However, in other countries — such as the United Kingdom — "Darwinism" carries no such derogatory connotations and is freely used by evolutionary scientists. A notable example of a scientist who uses the term in a positive sense is Richard Dawkins.
The Wedge Document is one document-- it is not holy writ. Neither it nor Pandas and People can define what ID is anymore than the Project for an American Century's "Statement of Principles" defines conservative or Bush Administration or even neo-conservative foreign policy. To assume that claims by IDers to the effect that they are "steath creationists" attempting to take over schools is simply a failure to apply the principle of charity, without which all intellectual debate is useless.
Ok, I'll grant you your wish. I'll stipulate that despite repeated statements by its major adherents, ID is not stealth creationism, not a religious movement, and is nothing more than what you state. Problem is, it's clear enough what ID is as a political movement; whereas trying to pin it down as an idea is like trying to pin down water. We have the assumption - and it's no more than an assumption, and not unlikely an entirely erroneous one - that one could, conceivably, be able to detect design in nature. There have been no successful algorithms to do so; there isn't even what Popper called a scientific research program. And then, there are (at the insistence, again, of its major protagonists, so let me know if you want to abandon these) specifically anti-scientific limits placed on ID; we can't infer anything about the nature of the designer or the mechanism of the design from the design itself. So what we have is an assertion that we can tell one thing about living organisms, and then we can tell nothing more than that one thing.
Let's contrast that with common descent. If I hypothesize that humans and macaques have a common ancestor, I can first of all test that hypothesis by comparing the macaque and human genomes, close relatives, and an outgroup. I can also look at the fossil record to see if it supports common descent. I can examine palaeogeography to see if our hypothesized ancestors and those of macaques lived in the same place at the appropriate time. But once I've established common descent to my satisfaction, I can go much further. I can reconstruct what the common ancestor looked like, physically and genetically. I can, remarkably, infer the gene sequence of many of the genes of the common ancestor even if that sequence is different from any living descendant. I can piece together how human and macaque chromosomes have been rearranged since the common ancestor. In the future, I believe we will be able, by expressing the reconstructed gene products, be able to tell a great deal about the physiology of the common ancestor, based on purely inferred genetic information.
So not only does ID not give me such predictive power, Behe and Dembski forbid me from even speculating that if the human and macaque genomes were designed, what the designer must have been like.
Since 1859, natural selection has been recognized as a liklier explanation--- in fact, it has replaced design as the de facto explantion for complex phenomena. That's why I refer to "Darwinism". It's the extent to which Darwin's proposed mechanism for evolution is accepted that divides William Dembski from Richard Dawkins, or even Noam Chomsky from Daniel Dennett, not a difference over evolution or common descent.
Now, as to successful algorithms for deriving design, obviously the Design Inference was an attempt in that direction and yes, it seems to me it's pretty clear he and others have a research program in Popper's sense (even though the thinker David Stove showed Popper had some of the same limitations Popper had criticized Thomas Kuhn as having). What I don't see is why that should be hard to admit. Popper's definition covers quite a bit of ground--- it's not really giving much if anything up to admit that ID makes predictions (such as about "junk" DNA)and searches for ways to disprove those predictions.
I'm surprised you would claim that refusing to infer traits about a supposed designer is "anti-scientific". Number one, it's hard enough to establish any evidence for design in the first place-- in fact, according to you, we know it can't be done, period. So speculation about the psychology of a purported designer would compound the error you're describing ID as making. Although Darwin did believe that if a designer existed, if he was anything like man, he must be like an evil man, he expressed this belief after he had rejected design and I doubt he would have considered it scientific... not that I'm claiming he's your guru or anything!:) I think we can agree such an attempt would purely speculative--- what Popper would label as metaphysics because, having been based upon such scanty evidence, it wouldn't have sufficient "explanatory power" to be falsifiable. Look, your proposed standard of science amounts to "disregard a phenomenon if you can't explain it satisfactorily". As a mind-body dualist who worked with the Nobel Prize winner and Freeper namesake J.C. Eccles who nonetheless recognized his limitations in describing the mechanisms by which he believed oen's consciousness affected one's brain, Popper would have been the last person to agree with the approach you describe. After all, Newton himself didn't propose a mechanism by which to explain gravity and in Euprope, scientists continued believing in Descartes’ vortex theory on account of the fact that it did provide a mechanism. As for what will be able to be done inferred based on present genetic information regarding the physiology of a common ancestor between the macaque and human, I don't know. That seems quite worthwhile but far off. Do we know that a phylogenetic relationship will be reflected that precisely by purely genetic inofrmation? At any rate, the answers one derived regarding said ancestor would be pretty hard to falsify, which shows why Popper's standards (or at least those standards narrowly construed)aren't always appropriate.
You DO remember that that was your own assertion. What "really settled it for you.". Oh yeah, baby.
Scientifically speaking, that is.
See Blackstone for example (Source: Yale Law's Avalon Project, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch4.htm):
All crimes ought therefore to be eftimated merely according to the mifchiefs which they produce in civil fociety: and, of confequence, private vices, or the breach of mere abfolute duties, which man is bound to perform confidered only as an individual, are not, cannot be, the object of any municipal law ; any farther than as by their evil example, or other pernicious effeccts, they may prejudice the community, and thereby become a fpecies of public crimes. Thus the vice of drunkennefs, if committed privately and alone, is beyond the knowlege and of courfe beyond the rach of human tribunals : but if committed publicly, in the face of the world, it's evil example makes it liable to temporal cenfures. The vice of lying, which confifts (abftractedly taken) in a crimanal violation of truth, and therefore in any fhape derogatory from found morlity, is not however taken notice of by our law, unlefs it carries with it fome public inconvenience, as fpreading falfe news ; or fome focial injury, as flander and malicious profecution, for which a private recompence is given. And yet drunkennefs and lying are in foro confcientiae as thoroughly criminal when they are not, as when they are, attended with public inconvenience. The only difference is, that both public and private vices are fubject to the vengeance of eternal juftice ; and public vices are befides liable to the temporal punifhments of human tribunals.Blackstone arguably most the foremost legal commentator on the law as our Founders understood it -- they learned from Blackstone.ON the other hand, there are fome mifdemefnors, which are punifhed by the cunicipal law, that are in themfelves nothing criminal, but are made fo by the pofitive conftitutions of the ftate for public convenience. Such as poaching, exportation of wool, and the like. Thefe are naturally no offences at all ; but their whole criminality confifts in their difobedience to the fupreme power, which has an undoubted right for the wellbeing and peace of the community to make fome things unlawful which were in themfelves indifferent. Upon the whole therefore, though part of the offences to be enumerated in the following fheets are againft [1] the revealed law of God, others againft [2] the law of nature, and fome are [3] offences againft neither ; yet in a treatife of municipal law we muft confider them all as derving their particular guilt, here punifhable, from the law of man.
HAVING premifed this caution, I fhall next proceed to diftribute the feveral offences, which are either directly or by confequence injurious to civil fociety, and therefore punifhabel by the laws of England, under the following general heads : firft, thofe which are more immediately injurious to God and his holy religion ; fecondly, fuch as violate and tranfgrefs the law of nations ; thirdly, fuch as more efpecially affect the fovereign executive power of the ftate, or the king and his government ; fourthly, fuch as more directly infringe the rights of the public or common wealth ; and, laftly, fuch as derogate from thofe rights and duties, which are owing to particular individuals, and in the prefervation and vindication of which community is deeply interefted.
FIRST then, fuch crimes and mifdemefnors, as more immediately offend Almighty God, by openly tranfgreffing the precepts of religion either natural or revealed ; and mediately, by their bad example and confequence, the law of fociety alfo ; which conftitutes that guilt in the action, which human tribunals are to cenfure.
This evidence is from one narrow field of study, archaeology--there is a lot more evidence from archaeology and there are a lot more fields of study. They all fail to support a global flood at 2300 BC.
Why? Becuase that is the time period given in a legal document of the most careful and continual keeping.
Now now, a little reciprocity here, please. If you want me to pretend that ID isn't a stealth form of creationism, stick to discussing ID as an idea, and let's not get into demographics. It's been my observation that the majority of IDers are creationists who have hoisted ID as a flag of convenience - which of course is consonant with the general phoniness of the concept. But you said you wanted to avoid that. So, let's avoid it.
Also, if you want to argue why you are justified in using the term Darwinism, you can argue with yourself. I told you my objection; I backed up my objection to show my observation isn't a personal peculiarity. If I'm a Darwinist, you're a creationist. Is that how you want it, or is all the courtesy supposed to go one way?
Now, as to successful algorithms for deriving design, obviously the Design Inference was an attempt in that direction and yes, it seems to me it's pretty clear he and others have a research program in Popper's sense (even though the thinker David Stove showed Popper had some of the same limitations Popper had criticized Thomas Kuhn as having)
Dembski has a research program? When's he going to start publishing? I thought his current occupation was technical, spiritual and menu adviser to Ann Coulter. Behe has written one paper recently, that wasn't relaated to ID but was merely trying to refute gene duplication as an evolutionary mechanism. Who else is there that I've missed?
I'm surprised you would claim that refusing to infer traits about a supposed designer is "anti-scientific". Number one, it's hard enough to establish any evidence for design in the first place-- in fact, according to you, we know it can't be done, period. So speculation about the psychology of a purported designer would compound the error you're describing ID as making
Again, I graciously stipulated that ID might not be an outright impossibility, and went on to examine where we would go from there. You throw that stipulation back in my face and use my skepticism about ID to prove we can't go any further! Give me a break here!
Let's go back to Paley's watch. You find the watch. You infer it's designed. Is that the only thing you can tell? Of course not; it was made by a being conscious of the idea of time; one capable of metallurgy and fine machining; one disposed to use a base 12 system of numerals, and we can identify some of those symbols; one who is approximately the same size as us, neither microscopic nor planetary in size; one who does not live in a corrosive fluorine atmosphere or at temperatures far different from our own. Once we've established the watch is designed, there are a billion things we can say about the designer! We can tell his technological state of development! If we were Sherlock Holmes, we might even to be able to tell he was a one-legged older gentlemen who lately spent some time in the orient and had a daughter married to a parson!
I think we can agree such an attempt would purely speculative--- what Popper would label as metaphysics because, having been based upon such scanty evidence, it wouldn't have sufficient "explanatory power" to be falsifiable.
I agree to no such thing. If the designer designed life, say, at the RNA world stage, the designer had a command of RNA based technology. The designer most certainly had far more computing power than we have, since merely predicting the structure of RNA is beyond our means at the moment. The designer worked under conditions where RNA was stable, etc. The designer worked X billion years ago. Etc.
BTW, Popper and Kuhn are the only two modern philosophers of science most people have heard of, but few philosophers of science take Popper seriously any more except as a historical figure.
As for what will be able to be done inferred based on present genetic information regarding the physiology of a common ancestor between the macaque and human, I don't know. That seems quite worthwhile but far off. Do we know that a phylogenetic relationship will be reflected that precisely by purely genetic inofrmation?
Oh, the phylogeny is easy, and for a species as close as the macaque, precise. We can map human chromosomes, segment for segment, onto macacque chromosomes. We're within a matter of years of a full genetic history.
This very nice post on Pharyngula tells you how to map human gemones onto pufferfish genomes, a far more difficult task than humans onto macaques.
At any rate, the answers one derived regarding said ancestor would be pretty hard to falsify, which shows why Popper's standards (or at least those standards narrowly construed)aren't always appropriate.
Naive falsificationism is long dead.
The probability that a maximum parsimony common ancestral gene is correct can be calculated mathematically, and it has all sorts of internal checks. For example, does it make a stable, functional protein, that can be expressed in a primate?
Sorry, I don't understand a word of that post. Were you traveling at c when you wrote it?
Wow. So the best you can do (and call it science) is to attempt to mix the theory of relativity, traveling at the speed of light, and creation all into one? Maybe you should just stick to "Poof" and leave it at that. I thought the bible was a history of the Jews. What makes it a legal document?
"OK, he used the word Darwinism. My mistake.
'Abjure' is a useful word."
Just jokin' around. lol
No. Only thing traveling at c (nearly) are these wee photons now entering your eye, where the signal seems to *really* slow down.
And the preservation of the details has been amazing -- better correlation of details even amongst the variants held by Christian sects than most correlation between geological datings of strata. At least that's my guess.
Thanks for the link! Not getting into demographics is fine by me-- I was simply responding to your broad brush strokes. As for calling me or someone else a creationist, that's okay--- my point wasn't about courtesy but clarity (it's a pretty thinly veiled pretense at any rate, if it's preceded by lines like "I'll grant your wish or ending with "But you wanted to avoid that" after you've said "that":)). Similarly, I brought up Popper and his "naive falsiifcationism" simply because you were employing it. Your Sherlock Holmes example is funny, but it misses the point I was making, which was that while the lack of an explanatory mechanism is a serious absence, a gap in its causal story does not by itself render a research program "unscientific".
Look, don't you think this deal about atheists wanting to be called brights and Darwinists not wanting to be called Darwinists is kind of silly ? When I was growing, up "Darwinist" was fine. Even today, Lynn Margulis (not a Brit) says of herself that "... I greatly admire Darwin's contributions and agree with most of his theoretical analysis and I am a Darwinist ..." I remember when Jesse Jackson decided that black people should be called African-American. As a black man and a black reporter (anyone who's listened to Phil Hendrie knows what I'm talking about!)that seemed dumb to me then and still does. The reason I used "Darwinism" is because "theory of evolution" is too broad. Theories of evolution are thousands of years old-- it's Darwin's theory that's relatively new. If you give me a term that means the same thing as "Darwinist" and isn't too hard to spell, though, I'll use it--- it's not as though I've ever used it as a term of approbrium anyway. Yes, I know I'm arguing with myself-- it's my brain's neural Darwinism afflicting me.
As for a research program, Dembski's own contribution, such as it is, is in probability theory, as I said. I've read other books in the Cambridge series his book was published in and with guys like Richard Jeffery the series is about as high quality as you can get. Another ID research project is, as I understand it, being done at the level of enzymes to determine how sparsely populated islands of a given functional enzyme type are within the greater sea of non-functional polypeptides. The idea is that if they turn out to be sparsely populated, this would serve as a confirmation (not absolute proof) of an instance of hitting the called shot i.e. "specified complexity", while The idea behind Dembski's design filter is to refine it so it doesn't give false positives. In both cases it seems to me legitimate goals are being worked on of the sort a research program should include.
David, you're better than this. Isn't you I've seen post about how damaging it is when creationists distort evidence and quotes? When does a scientist do this ... and it isn't immediately torn to shreds by other scientists?
From all I've ever seen, creationists are only interested in those bits of science they can use to support their a priori position. Scientists, including those in the evolution field, follow the evidence. This is why scientific theories change over time ... and why scientists are mocked by creationists. "Can't you make up your mind?" This is exactly why creationism isn't science. Creationism doesn't change because it can't change. It won't change, no matter what the evidence.
With bait like this? No...
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.