Only science can give us the real truth

The other day I heard a woman talking to a group of people around her about the failures of science and the need to accept “other ways of knowing” as legitimate sources of truth. I was bothered not so much by the fact that she was saying it—lunacy and ignorance abound, after all, often densely concentrated in individuals—but because others around her were nodding their heads in agreement. I wondered to myself what these people—indeed what most people—understand of science, and what precisely was meant by an “other way of knowing.” The likely answer to both questions was very little.

I say this not out of arrogance, but because science is the only meaningful and reliable method of determining what is true that has or will ever exist.

To understand this, it must first be understood that science is nothing more than systematized observation and common sense. “Science,” according to George Henry Lewes, “is the systematic classification of experience.” While many people attach much more emotional or mental baggage to the word, science is nothing more than a means of organizing observations and drawing logical conclusions based upon them. It must also be understood and accepted that without having observed or experienced a phenomenon in some way, it is meaningless to claim that it exists.

As David Hume famously concluded in his Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, all knowledge and all reason are based upon experience and induction. It follows then that nothing can be known without first being observed or experienced, and that that which we say is true is merely that which most closely coincides with our observations. Anything that runs contrary to observations, then, has no right to the title of truth.

Therefore, by its very definition, any idea or belief which is supported by science is supported by observation and experience—themselves the only justifiable criteria for determining truth. These are points that should be understood by everyone. They should forever colour our thoughts and influence our actions. No one should accept propositions that are not grounded in fact and experience, yet the vast majority of people do exactly that. Why is this so?

The answer is that most people think their own beliefs are, in fact, supported by fact and experience. I suspect that what the advocate of “other ways of knowing” really meant was that she had knowledge rooted in experience which was dismissed by the men and women of science, and that therefore science itself was a failure, as it did not really recognize the truth.

Had her quarrel been with the scientific establishment, with scientists’ individual failings and experimental inadequacies, her thoughts might have merited some consideration. But by naïvely flailing against science itself, she exposed herself as a feeble and imprecise thinker, bitter that the scientific community had passed judgment on some issue or idea important to her.

It is for this reason that such people advocate “other ways of knowing.” Lacking a skeptical disposition, they will be unduly swayed by situations or experiences which would not survive the rigour of scientific scrutiny. Over time, they will develop a deep emotional attachment to the conclusions that are drawn from their faulty experiences.

Thus, when they learn that experiments, studies, or scientists have denied the validity of their experiences and the lifestyles drawn from them, they become understandably resentful and conclude—wrongly—that science itself must be based upon faulty principles. In an effort to justify their beliefs, they will then begin to attach great significance to meaningless or banal phenomena. Dreams, premonitions, voices, omens, prophecies, palm reading, astrology: these are the children of the scientifically disenfranchised. These are all “other ways of knowing,” and fly blithely in the face of our collected observations. They have nothing to support them but the desire to do so.

Does it follow then that whatever scientists claim is true must be so, or that science can divine all the answers of life? Emphatically, no. Scientists are human, experiments may be faulty and imprecise, and some very meaningful questions do not lend themselves to scientific inquiry. Yet for any question that has observable phenomena as a component, science is the only place—the only way—to seek an answer.

There are billions and billions of gaps.

Not that I've noticed. Perhaps you could support your claim by naming, say, twenty million or so of them. We'll wait.

But I see what you're driving at. You're saying that it would be premature for anyone to see any sort of pattern at all in the following, due to all those "gaps", so it must be just a meaningless scattering of dots, and no rational person would conclude that the dots indicate anything, or that closely spaced dots appearing to form a lines are anything more than a wild coincidence, since those pesky "gaps" preclude any sort of sensible connection whatsoever:

You're saying that until every single gap is filled, you can't possibly draw any conclusions from the relative positioning of the available data samplings, even when they seem to form clear patterns of connections, and fall into recognizable, meaningful results:

You're saying that it's impossible for the distribution and pattern of data points to suggest an underlying form, because the "gaps" between the data points could possibly make the final picture turn out to be something entirely different, if eventually filled in, and that the indications of the current data points mean nothing, and may just give the chance *appearance* of pattern, which anyone can mentally form into any shape through mental bias:

You're saying that while some of the pieces of the puzzle are still missing, it would be foolish, presumptuous, or impossible to make informed assumptions about what the "big picture" indicates, and what the missing pieces might look like:

I understand your point -- it's a common one among creationists/anti-evolutionists. I just think it's naive and goofy, that's all.

The actual composition of life is highly coupled

True.

and explanations for the development of life are a bunch of just so stories.

False. Where did you "learn" such a ridiculous thing, anyway? Please answer, that wasn't a rhetorical question.

In fact (and I use the word fact quite deliberately), the "explanations for the development of life" are based on over a century of accumulated knowledge, evidence, and experiments. Perhaps you should start reading more *science* sources, and fewer creationist ones. Trying to learn about science from creationists is rather like looking to Michael Moore to learn about conservatism.

The probability is too small making the development highly unlikely given the allowable time.

Feel free to show your math. And yes, I've seen just about all of the creationist "probability of life" calculations. They're ludicrously, childishly simplistic and take into account none of the realities of biochemical processes, reproductive amplification, and selective forces. I swear, creationists haven't read any research papers since about 1945 or so -- in some cases, they're even entirely ignorant of what Darwin himself wrote in 1859. You'd think they'd try to actually *learn* about a topic before they attempt to critique it...

Start here: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations.

How many mutations would be required to develop man -- from the first single cell to the actual man?

Within an order of magnitude, about a hundred million.

Of course this occurs in a population, but this figure would be enlightening.

Well there you go then.

I doubt any biologist would dare to guess this figure -- the assumptions would have all kinds of holes in it if they did attempt to guess it.

Ahem -- the genome size gives a *really* good indication of the number of changes necessary, in case that has escaped your attention. And so does the observed rate of acquired mutations which "fix" in populations over time. This is like Evolution 101 -- if you're unfamiliar with even *that* level of information in this field of science, why on Earth are you attempting to "teach" us about it?

Also, the development of life does pose problems thermodynamically.

No it doesn't.

Without the thermodynamic mechanism -- which needs to be very precise -- you will not get advancement.

And you "learned" this non-fact where, exactly?

Hint: The *real* laws of thermodynamics aren't the same as the creationists' cartoon version of them. If you'd actually like to, you know, *LEARN* something about the subject before you parrot more creationist twaddle without knowing what in the hell you're talking about, start here: Thermodynamics, Evolution and Creationism.

The number of ways to deteriorate far exceed the number of ways to advance.

And yet, "advancement" still can and does occur. So what was your point again? And while you're at it, please attempt to point out the portion of the laws of thermodyamics which deal with, or define, "advancement" -- that should keep you out of trouble for a while...

Also, given that life is coupled, the number of mutations required must be large to explain the advancement.

The number of mutations "required" for *what*, exactly? (And there you go throwing around that word "advancement" again...) Many known beneficial mutations involve a single nucleotide change, for example:

Boyden, Ann M., Junhao Mao, Joseph Belsky, Lyle Mitzner, Anita Farhi, Mary A. Mitnick, Dianqing Wu, Karl Insogna, and Richard P. Lifton, 2002. High Bone Density Due to a Mutation in LDL-Receptor–Related Protein 5 New England Journal of Medicine 346: 1513-1521, May 16, 2002.
A mutation in humans which results in extremely strong, dense bones. From the abstract: "Genetic analysis revealed linkage of the syndrome to chromosome 11q12–13 (odds of linkage, >1 million to 1), an interval that contains LRP5. Affected members of the kindred had a mutation in this gene, with valine substituted for glycine at codon 171 (LRP5_V171)."

Here's part of an article about the mutation:

By identifying a genetic mutation that causes extremely high bone density in people, Yale researchers have found a potential target for the prevention or treatment of osteoporosis, it was reported Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The finding was made when the senior investigators, Richard Lifton, M.D., chair of the Department of Genetics at Yale School of Medicine, and Karl Insogna, M.D., professor of internal medicine and director of the Yale Bone Center, identified a Connecticut family with bones so strong they rival a character in the recent movie, "Unbreakable." Osteoporosis is a loss of bony tissue that leads to fragile bones.
"If there are living counterparts to the character in ‘Unbreakable,’ who is in a terrible train wreck and walks away without a single broken bone, it’s members of this family," Lifton said. "They have extraordinarily dense bones and there is no history of fractures. You find this maybe once in a million people."

...So your assertion that "advancement" necesarily "requires" a "large" number of mutations is trivially disproved by counterexample. Care to try again?

Mutations without increase in function will not bring about selection.

You *really* need to learn more about selection. Any non-silent change whatsoever, be it an "increase in function" (you *really* need to use more precise terms), a decrease in function, or a *change* in function which neither "increases function" nor "decreases function" will "bring about selection". This essentially kills Neo-Darwinian evolution.

LOL -- in what way? Even if your claim had been correct, which it most certainly isn't, it still wouldn't be a "killer" for evolution.

The models used to test this are a real joke in that they don't contain the real physics of the system.

You're not making any sense here. Could you be more specific?

Also, the adaptation/selection processes in the evolutionary programs have unrealistic increases of function programmed into the models -- at least the ones I've seen.

...and you've seen which specific ones, exactly?

Also, Neo-Darwinism has an assumption built into it. The theory assumes that the most probable mutations will lead to advances and dead ends can be overcome.

ROFL!!!! No, "Neo-Darwinism" has no such assumption in it, "built in" or otherwise. Although apparently your misunderstanding of "Neo-Darwinism" has a lot of *your* assumptions "built into it". But do feel free to cite *any* competent science site, book, or curriculum which actually says such a thing... Go for it. (Hint: What creationists *say* about evolution is not the same as the real thing.)

On the contrary, son, "Neo-Darwinism" actually is aware (via real-world evidence) that most mutations are neutral (because the're "silent", phenotypically), the majority of non-silent mutations are detrimental, and the remainder (the *minority*) are beneficial.

So are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about?

The basis for this assumption is that Neo-Darwinian evolution did happen -- a circular argument.

Wrong again, but why break your streak now?

The notion of designing without foresite is ridiculous.

...and yet, it provably happens despite your uninformed notions about what might be "ridiculous".

Evolutionary engineering design programs always have some intelligence programmed into them to allow feasible designs to be developed

No they don't, but hey, don't let facts slow down your rant. I've built "evolutionary engineering design programs" (try "genetic algorithms", save yourself some typing *and* sound more like you're actually familiar with the field), and I don't recall having to "program in some intelligence" in order to "allow feasible designs to be developed". But hey, I only have degrees in this kind of stuff, what do *I* know?

-- unlike Neo-Darwinian evolution.

Ooh, an unsupported, petulant insult. How... creationist of you.

Come back when you can manage to discuss something resembling *actual* evolutionary biology, instead of the cartoon straw-man version you've been beating up here...

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.