Unsurvival of Unfit Theory

discovery.org ^ | Jan. 5. 2005 | discovery institute

[mike182d]

I don't know how many more times I can say the same thing. The theory of evolution is completely independent of how the cosmos, the planets, the stars, and the first form(s) of life came to be. Evolution is indifferent to how these things came to be. You could claim that the universe was created when someone dropped a glass in a higher dimensional space, evolution doesn't care.

Perhaps I misunderstand your argument. When I touch a hot stove and burn my hand for the first time, I have every reason to believe it will do so in future instances. You cannot say the whole of the cosmos was created by a process of design for billions of years, until new life which is created solely by evolution. On what legitimate, scientific grounds could one accept a divine cause for the first instance of creation and attribute later instances of creation to a purely naturalistic "force" or random mutation? Its a Deistic approach that is not logically sound.

As I said earlier, God is an all or nothing proposition.

[mike182d]

And you can't go around saying that ID theories should be taught alongside evolution, as if they had the same level of scientific rigor and backing. Because they don't.

You're right, they aren't equally scientific in nature. ID is falsifiable, evolution is not. Thus, ID is far more legitimate scientific theory than evolution.

[munchtipq]

Perhaps I misunderstand your argument. When I touch a hot stove and burn my hand for the first time, I have every reason to believe it will do so in future instances. You cannot say the whole of the cosmos was created by a process of design for billions of years, until new life which is created solely by evolution. On what legitimate, scientific grounds could one accept a divine cause for the first instance of creation and attribute later instances of creation to a purely naturalistic "force" or random mutation? Its a Deistic approach that is not logically sound.

There is a fundamental disconnect here. A scientific theory, by necessity, must limit itself to what is testable and what is not. Newton's laws of motion don't explain how atoms bond together into molecules. Evolution is a theory about how living, reproducing species develop. It's not a philosophy for how the universe works as a whole. It can't be, because you could never get outside to test it.

[munchtipq]

You're right, they aren't equally scientific in nature. ID is falsifiable, evolution is not. Thus, ID is far more legitimate scientific theory than evolution.

ID isn't even a theory. It's a class of theories. Some are even scientific. To my knowledge, however, no significant experiments have verified any of their predictions, except of course those predictions which are the same as the predictions of evolutionary theory.

[narby]

ID is falsifiable, evolution is not.

You've got it exactly backward.

A believer can point to anything and say "God did it". But since God is unseen, untestable, no measurement tool can measure Him, then anything attributable to God is not falsifiable.

Evolution is certianly falsifiable. The predictions it makes could have been shown invalid, they weren't. Fossils of modern species could have been found in ancient layers. They haven't been. Evolution is falsifiable on many different levels, yet it has not been in a hundred years of so of trying by a few religious zealots who interpret the first two chapters of Genesis in a particular fashion.

[narby]

I see nothing in this short description of Aristotle's religious ideas that precludes evolution:

from here: http://library.thinkquest.org/18775/aristotle/religar.htm Aristotle was further than Plato in subscribing to conventional religious views, though he gives theology the highest place in the rank of possible studies. Aristotle speaks of theology as "the most divine knowledge" and the "most worthy of honor." If we think of religion as a relationship between humans and the divine with implications for human behavior, what we have of Aristotle's philosophy is virtually devoid of any traces of religion. His "God" is the Unmoved Mover, a metaphysical principle, the casual source of our world, not personally related to it and caring nothing for us or for our worship.

Since you're going to pray to the Unmoved Mover for me, I won't expect any positive outcome, since "it" cares "nothing for us or for our worship".

If you want to teach ID in your philosophy class alongside Aristotle, that'd be great. But the science of evolution is intact, and I have far more respect for it than the raw thinking of philosophers long before the scientific method was adopted.

[Aquinasfan]

I see nothing in this short description of Aristotle's religious ideas that precludes evolution:

But it precludes the blindly-guided evolution of the materialist variety, which is pretty much what's taught in government schools.

[Aquinasfan]

"it" cares "nothing for us or for our worship".

The Unmoved Mover, First Cause and Pure Actuality describe a "thick slice" of God.

Aristotle was apparently unfamiliar with God's revelation to the Hebrews and obviously unfamiliar with Christ's revelation. Considering what Aristotle had to work with, simply his observation of nature and the theorizing of past philosophers (like his teacher, Plato), his philosophical insights are astonishing.

St. Thomas perfected Aristotle's philosophy when he synthesized it with Catholic dogma in the Middle Ages.

[mike182d]

It can't be, because you could never get outside to test it.

Funny, that sounds exactly like what science is. There is no way to "step outside" our subjective experience to verify any scientific results. We can only do so with more science, and thus it is a tautology, of sorts (science is true because science says so). Fundamentalists work in this way too, in that they say the Bible is true because it is, but generally religion and relious experience as a whole can make an appeal to reason to verify the validity of its claims. St. Thomas Aquinas is a prime example. Modern science, on the other hand, does not seek verification from other disciplines or schools of thought (i.e. philosophy). It has divorced itself from such disciplines mostly as a result of animosity, althought undue, felt between it and religion during the Renassaince.

Secondly, ID is certainly falsifiable as it posits the truth of its claim in the presence of perceived design. If it can be shown that design in the universe (or life) does not exist, then ID can be thrown out the window. This is not so with macro-evolution. When evidence is shown against darwinism, the response is "well, sure, we don't have the evidence now, but we will in the future. We just don't have enough data available yet."

[js1138]

The one I was given in high school (1978)?

I suspect you are lying about this. Feel free to prove me wrong. Surely the vast array of creationist websites can produce a quote for one of these books showing them teaching Haeckels' theory as valid.

No one teaches Haeckel except as an interesting moment in the history of science.

I suspect you could find science textbooks with drawings of a geocentric universe. Doesn't mean they are teaching this.

If you are so revved up about Haeckel, tell me in your own words, exactly where his drawings are wrong. No generalities: be specific about the details that are wrong.

[narby]

The Unmoved Mover of Aristotle that cares nothing for our worship could be described by a scientist as "randomness", which certianly does play a very important role in evolution.

Using philosophy to critique science just doesn't compute with me. It's like using a software spreadsheet to describe how I put on my pants in the morning. The tool doesn't match the job.

[munchtipq]

Funny, that sounds exactly like what science is. There is no way to "step outside" our subjective experience to verify any scientific results. We can only do so with more science, and thus it is a tautology, of sorts (science is true because science says so).

Okay, if you want to deny science altogether, fine. Then to you, evolution is worthless. Take your kids out of science classes. It is true that the scientific method, which is based on prediction and observation, is not perfect. We have no way of assuring the level of objectivity of our own observations. The impartial observer is an axiom of science. It must exist for any of science, including gravity, motion, meteorology, etc., to be considered. If we refuse to accept this, we refuse science, and that may be fine for you, but not me. Science explains too much and works too well for me to dismiss it because the observer can never be totally objective.

Fundamentalists work in this way too, in that they say the Bible is true because it is, but generally religion and relious experience as a whole can make an appeal to reason to verify the validity of its claims.

This is an important point. Science does not deal in reason and logic. It deals in prediction and observation. A logical argument carries no scientific weight whatsoever. If it doesn't make a prediction of some observation that will be made, it's not scientific.

Modern science, on the other hand, does not seek verification from other disciplines or schools of thought (i.e. philosophy). It has divorced itself from such disciplines mostly as a result of animosity, althought undue, felt between it and religion during the Renassaince.

Science is a closed system. If another discipline makes an observable prediction, science considers that to be part of itself. As such, any "verification" of science from another school of thought IS science, so it can't really be verified from another discipline. This has nothing to do with animosity to religion, but the nature of the beast.

Secondly, ID is certainly falsifiable as it posits the truth of its claim in the presence of perceived design. If it can be shown that design in the universe (or life) does not exist, then ID can be thrown out the window.

Okay, this is not a falsifiable proposition. The reason is that there is no set of evidence, no set of physical observations, that can be made that will falsify this claim. If you disagree, please provide such a set of empirical (objective) observations.

This is not so with macro-evolution. When evidence is shown against darwinism, the response is "well, sure, we don't have the evidence now, but we will in the future. We just don't have enough data available yet."

What evidence has been met with this response?

[mike182d]

Okay, if you want to deny science altogether, fine.

Please understand that my case is not against science altogether. Its just that I preferred the days of Aristotle in which all science's were considered part of philosophy. :-) Modern science explains the "how," philosophy explains the "why" and together the two make for a well rounded, a deeper understanding of the universe. Instead, we have science that attempts to undermine philosophy/religion and also religion that attempts to undermine science and its just not healthy. This is also why I love ID. It applies everything we know from physics, astronomy, biology, et cetera to what we've also gathered from philosophy.

What evidence has been met with this response?

The Cambrian explosion - the "Big Bang" of biology. The fossil record prior to this event only provides us with evidence of single-celled organisms. Almost spontaneously after this event, we have evidence of several different phylum of organisms. Darwinism is dependent upon slow gradual change over time. The fossil record does not support this and the reponse commonly given is that "once we complete the fossil record in its entirety, we'll know." There's a presumption that the theories true, and the assumption that evidence in the future will back it up now.

[mike182d]

I should also mention that I did not get a degree in typing or revision...so I apologize for my errors :-)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which:

• supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;

• supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;

• supports research by scientists and scholars in the social sciences and humanities exploring the impact of scientific materialism on culture.

• encourages schools to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the theory's scientific weaknesses as well strengths.

It's going to be tough to improve science education if you can't talk about science.

[munchtipq]

Please understand that my case is not against science altogether. Its just that I preferred the days of Aristotle in which all science's were considered part of philosophy. :-)

Your case is exactly against science altogether. If you reject the impartial observer, you reject science. Without this, there is no science. The fact that science rejects logic and relies only on observation makes it fundamentally different from philosophy. The conclusions of one have no value in the other.

Modern science explains the "how," philosophy explains the "why" and together the two make for a well rounded, a deeper understanding of the universe.

Actually, science doesn't care about the "how". "How" is usually logical arguments tacked on to scientific results, e.g. "It might happen this way because...". Science is the "what, where, and when". It's observational, not explanatory.

Instead, we have science that attempts to undermine philosophy/religion and also religion that attempts to undermine science and its just not healthy. This is also why I love ID. It applies everything we know from physics, astronomy, biology, et cetera to what we've also gathered from philosophy.

Science (as far as I can tell) doesn't try to undermine anything, but rather is independent. And religion doesn't undermine science. It just denies it. And that's all fine. They're different, and I wouldn't recommend that anyone take just one as their entire basis for understanding their world. What you say about ID is fine, but by including ideas from outside of the scientific (i.e. logical arguments), it is irretrievably outside of science. And because it is outside of science... you guessed it... it shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.

[munchtipq]

The Cambrian explosion - the "Big Bang" of biology. The fossil record prior to this event only provides us with evidence of single-celled organisms. Almost spontaneously after this event, we have evidence of several different phylum of organisms. Darwinism is dependent upon slow gradual change over time. The fossil record does not support this and the reponse commonly given is that "once we complete the fossil record in its entirety, we'll know." There's a presumption that the theories true, and the assumption that evidence in the future will back it up now.

The problem here is that this is not evidence, but rather an absence of evidence. And you'll probably hear the same thing you've been hearing in my comments, but unless you can show that such evidence does not exist (and proving absence is always very hard), the fact that we haven't found it doesn't mean that we won't, and it doesn't mean that it wasn't there, even if we never find it. Science is one-sided in that way, to the frustration of many people, scientists included. For whatever reason, if your theoretical prediction ever posits the non-existence of something, you know you're in trouble, because proving that something isn't there is almost always incredibly hard. Almost all successful scientific theories center around things that *will* be found, things that we *will* see. Almost never around what *won't* be found or what we *won't* see. Current ID theories rely too heavily on the latter, in my opinion, to ever gain enough evidence to be scientifically viable. That's not to say I'm not missing something in some ID theory that will form a verifiable prediction that differentiates it from evolution, but I don't see any.

[metacognative]

Yes, all the old fashioned darwinites want to talk about is religion!