RE:
consider previous knowledge
apply the theoretical considerations to that knowledge and make a hypothesis
design an experiment to specifically test the hypothesis
do the experiment and analyze the results
determine whether the results support the hypothesis or not
if yes -> go back to step one and devise a new hypothesis
if no -> go back to step two and figure out how the hypothesis did not fit the theory, then revise the hypothesis
_______________________
I am not sure if those who doubt the theory of evolution and are seeking an alternative explanation of origins are NOT using the same methodology you just described.
The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.
Those who doubt Darwin’s theory begin with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). That is a consideration of PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE as you put it. If I see a complex design such as a computer or a program using the principles of neural network, I KNOW that it was designed by an intelligent CREATOR. How is that not a consideration of previous knowledge?
Now, if I observe the human body and its numerous intricate working parts more complex than anything I have ever seen designed, how is that not a consideration of previous knowledge?
Those who believe in an intelligent creator then, based on this previous knowledge hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION (CSI).
Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.
One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function.
When such researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
I see that as using scientific principles based on information theory and observations about intelligent action.
Those who believe in an intelligent Creator make inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligent being.
Now, I will concede that some 6 day creationists would insist that this is the creator God of the Bible. But hey, I’ve spoken to others who are not Christians who leave the identity of this creator (or even creator(s)) open.
Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
Now Dawkins would say that natural selection is what actually did the “designing,” however Those who oppose Dawkins notes that in all cases where we know the causal origin of ‘high information content, experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role.
So, I don’t see how those who believe in an intelligent creator are being unscientific in their approach at all. They in fact BEGIN empirical observations from the natural world.
RE: FOSSIL RECORDS
I have heard many Darwinists say that 99.99% of species that have ever lived have gone extinct.
Well, I am not sure about that really.... There are roughly 250,000 species that have been identified in the fossil record, and well over 1,000,000 species that exist today.
Taken at face value, even if every species in the fossil record has gone extinct (which they haven’t), that means that 80% of species that ever existed ARE STILL ALIVE.
That’s quite a stretch.
So where do Darwinists get their number? By assuming that innumerable species existed in the transitional spaces. Why? Because they _must_ have existed there for their theory to be true.
Those who oppose Darwinism insist that it is simply an unnecessary hypothesis.
We should take the fossil record AS IT COMES TO US, measure its completeness on its own terms, and determine its limits as we can determine apart from Darwinism.
After doing so, we might find certain features of the fossil record to be consistent with Darwinism, or we might not.
The problem is that the Darwinists interprete what they see to fit into their picture of Darwinism.
There are also a set of Silurian trackways which were thought to be arthropods…why? Because it was thought that tetrapods hadn’t existed yet.
Basically, Darwinism has been forcing the way in which we view the fossil record and earth history. When it is in conflict with the data, over and over again, the data gets modified to fit with Darwinism.
So the alternative view makes a clean break with the Darwinistic picture, and would allow us to take the animal distributions within the fossil record much more on its own terms.
As for common descent, well, how about common DESIGN? I am not sure if that idea is as repugnant as some people think.
Consider this : A software engineer creates a new program. Shortly thereafter, another program enters the market that is very similar. Turns out that the underlying programming is very similar ( after all, Object Oriented programming is all about polymorphism and code inheritance )
In a suit for copyright infringement, a jury would infer that it is likely that there is common design in the programming, and therefore plagarism. This is a reasonable inferrence.
With those who believe in creation, the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or specific processes used- in the absence of direct observation or designer input - is by studying the design in question.
IOW based on PREVIOUS OBSERVATION, they try to demonstrate that intelligent agencies can put together irreducibly complex machines and produce Complex Specified Intelligence.
We have direct observation and a vast amount of experience with that.
However no one has ever observed blind and undirected processes doing that.
Going back to the fossil records, I sadly conclude that Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument.
For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History has been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox.
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with Darwinian gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
Unfortunately, the fossil record is proving to be less and less Darwinian as we examine the details. We have modern body plans where there should be primitive body plans. We have primitive ‘relict’ species living on when they should have become extinct. We have to invoke ‘convergence’ to explain similar structures that do not fit the linear model. (But convergence is ubiquitous – here).
I am not sure if we should we live with such an unwieldy interpretative framework.
But hey, if people want to stick with this paradigm, this is a free country....
I am personally FOR teaching Darwinism in school. What I am against is BANNING the teaching of alternative explanations.
I would be just as opposed to creationists lobbying to ban the teaching of evolution.
Global Warming = Evolution 2.0
Planck's dictum is still in force ;o)
“Now Dawkins would say that natural selection is what actually did the “designing,” however Those who oppose Dawkins notes that in all cases where we know the causal origin of ‘high information content, experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role.”
Very true. Isn’t it rather strange that while, to date, the only observed explanation for the origin of complex, specific information is the action of intelligence, this explanation is not allowed in the science classroom as an explanation for the origin of complex, specific information in origins and diversity of lifeforms?
First of all, the theory of evolution is *not* evolution: it is the best explanation we have so far devised to describe the process of evolution. While the theory describes our observations about the apparent progression and diversity of biological life over time, it really doesn't explain how life began. We only have hypotheses for that.
That said, those who "doubt" the theory of evolution (ToE)give no indication that they actually have a science-based alternative to the accepted explanation of the evidence. It is clear that the only alternate explanation they have, whether they overtly use the word "creator" or "intelligent designer", or avoid the use of such words altogether, *is* the creation story of Genesis. The totality of young earth creationist (YEC) objections to the ToE consist solely of misinterpretations or misrepresentations of the science involved; no one has ever scientifically established that evolution does not happen.
Put it this way, had the Genesis story of creation been devised to explain observations, there would be similar stories from all over the world. But there are not. Creation stories seem as diverse as the cultures that produced them.
Now, if I observe the human body and its numerous intricate working parts more complex than anything I have ever seen designed, how is that not a consideration of previous knowledge?
Those who believe in an intelligent creator then, based on this previous knowledge hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION (CSI).
The whole problem with this example is that it takes a preconceived belief and interprets evidence to fit the belief. That isn't science.
This whole concept of "complex specified information", which I gather from your text is another way of saying "irreducible complexity", is not a scientific concept.
As for your example of reverse-engineering biological systems to see if they "require all their parts to function", I'll just say that there are at least two ways to falsify the idea of "irreducible complexity". One, is through observation of various organisms: the deduced process of evolution is well-represented among living organisms, so that you can find examples of nervous systems, for examples, at any stage of complexity. Some primitive animals have a few nerves which respond to stimuli (for instance, clams can open and close their shells), but no brain. As you examine more and more complex animals, you see more and more complex nervous systems, until you reach mammals, some of which have highly complex, organized systems. Another is the observation that a featureless single cell can, over the period of just a few weeks, develop all of the organs and structures characteristic of fully formed humans. If a system is not too complex to develop from a single cell, it is not "irreducibly complex".
Now, I will concede that some 6 day creationists would insist that this is the creator God of the Bible. But hey, I’ve spoken to others who are not Christians who leave the identity of this creator (or even creator(s)) open.
The problem with trying to leave open the identity of a creator, or of trying to present a scientific version that leaves out mention of a creator altogether, is that the literal creation story of Genesis becomes utterly ridiculous when divorced from the religious component. Everything just popped into being 6,000 years ago? Who thinks that is a legitimate scientific theory? Clearly, that is a thinly disguised religious story that does not belong in schools which are supposed to remain religion-neutral.
Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”
It is a characteristic of human beings to anthropomorphize just about anything. I used to grow mammalian cells, and I describe them as if they had real personalities. One cell line, for example, doesn't like physical contact, and the more cells there are on the plate, the more each cell tries to avoid touching other cells by pulling itself into the smallest space possible. Another type of cell doesn't like being alone, and when they are sparse on a plate, they reach out very long tendrils to try to find other cells; when they find each other, they crawl together to form little clumps. Although my descriptions imbue very human traits to those cells (and the cells *were* human cells), the fact is that they have none of those traits; they only respond to chemical signals and are incapable of thought or feeling.
I'm not going to say much more on the science of evolution, except to point out that the ToE is wonderfully coherent and consistent, and has proven to be a valuable tool for me and countless of my colleagues. Consistency is important, because the truth is always consistent. The number of scientists whose work directly deals with aspects of evolution (which would be mainly the life scientists and geologists) who do not accept the validity of the ToE is so small as to be statistically insignificant (~0.15%). It is also impossible to refute every single YEC pseudoscientific claim--it's a game of whack-a-mole, where, as soon as one pseudofact is shot down, another pops up to take its place.
You have to be careful with creationist websites or publications. They have no interest in science; they're trying to tear down science for their own reasons. Because of that, they present very little valid science, and a lot of pseudoscience. I suggest looking at other sources; Wikipedia is usually pretty accurate when describing scientific topics or any website maintained by a major research university would be fairly accurate. As a starting point, I suggest looking at this article and its links; it is not written by a scientist, but the author does have a good grasp of the issues.