Posted on 08/20/2005 5:45:53 PM PDT by Nicholas Conradin
By SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars.
After toiling in obscurity for nearly a decade, the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country. Pushing a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution, the institute has in many ways transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
My own sentiments largely sympathize with your views, particularly the phrase which I emphasized in the quote above.
However, being an atheist, I find nothing useful in the creationist fantasy. But there appears to me to be something lacking in rigid Darwinian schemas. I suspect that there is some mechanism for the inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarck).
Found this on physicsforum and thought it pertinent: The Fundamental Concepts of Physics Are All Based Upon Metaphysics: The fundamental concepts of physics are all based upon metaphysics. The paradigms only "work" within contrived parameters. The lack of a general understanding that the fundamental principals of physics are entirely dependent upon faith . . . that is: Metaphysics (that which requires much faith to understand the logic of its postulates) . . . is largely because: The certainty of applied scientific method, concerning said fundamental principles, ............... None of this is a surpise to scientists. The elements of metaphysics and faith do not alter the requirements I have recently enumerated for a thing to be a science. It is also unsurprising to hear that all natural science theories are in a state of temporary acceptance, until better theories that explain more come along. This also does not alter the requirement for vigorously vetted, positive forensic evidence of a thing, for it to be a well-accepted natural science theory. As I pointed out to you earlier, many things get SOME scientific consideration, like SETI, and cold fusion, and in that sense, origins problems do get a bit of a lick and a promise from time to time. To get star billing in, say, your introductiory high school biology class, such fancies do not make the grade, only wide acceptance, and plentiful refereed publication, leading to rigorous and plentiful concrete attempts to dis-confirm. So to answer your long-running question: yes, origins questions, like UFO questions and Cold Fusion questions, can be a subject of scientific inquiry, but that and a dime (well, a a buck and a half) will only buy you a cup of coffee--it won't put the thumbscrews to Darwinian theory.
There probably are several, but when they are discovered, it won't make a dent in the evidence that the largest part of the story is variation and selection. Biological science apologizes for not knowing everything. Somehow, this does not seem to persuade most scientists of their rigidity.
Cited attempts to offer rigorous refutations of what someone is saying is, or correcting the misconceptions inherent in their responses, is not exactly ignoring it. Ignoring said attempts, however, is rather discourteous.
What "gross errors of reasoning", by which I presume you mean logical fallacies, can you specifically point to in, say, Darwin's "Origin of Species" or the publications "Science" and "Nature"?
Goodness sakes, the accusation of metaphysics might seem devastating in your mind, but it doesn't make much of a dent in scientist's minds. The fact that science has metaphysical foundations, and God has metaphysical foundations does not make them identical peas in a pod. the Easter Bunny has metaphysical foundations, but that doesn't make easter bunny research equivalent in scientific respectability to gravatational, plate tectonic, or evolutionary science research.
That said, science is nonetheless, always ready for a better formulation to displace the old one. Newton's observations about gravity were, and are, adequate to most questions we could have come up with in the 18th century. When the problems being faced are outside the paradigm for which the old formulation worked, a new formulation with a more universal foundation is going to be the very likely, and very unsurprising result. This, however, will not come about because some religeous zealots are willing to hold their breath until they turn blue. It will come about through the annoyingly clumsy, paintstakingly agonizing grind through the refereed tools of scientific reasoning that we've become accustomed to.
In college, sure. In high school? I'd call it a push at best, there's too much else to cover that is more reliable, more important, and already is getting too little coverage. In Jr. high? No. The underlying issues are too complex, and the foundations too lacking in experimental verification.
I'm speaking primarily of advocates for evolution. Sites like TalkOrigins, and TalkReason books like Dawkins works etc. They are so filled with "begging the question" and "Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc", straw man arguments and others they are laughable. This does not mean their ultimate positions are incorrect, but they fail to support their positions in a logical manner when discussing the relative merits of orthodox evolutionary theory against creationism.
For instance both creationist and evolutionist positions would predict the oldest fish to be older than the oldest man. When an evolutionist finds that fossil evidence supports his theory that the oldest fish would be older than the oldest man he points to this as evidence in support of his theory. This is true. Therefore, the evolutionist in writing for Science or Nature, need not make any reference to creationism and could simply say, "The fossil evidence is consistent with the hypothesis."
HOWEVER, if the evolutionist is arguing the relative merits of their respective views with a creationist, the fact that the oldest fish is older than the oldest man does NOT in any way support his position over against the creationist position-unless that person has stated that he is a young earth creationist. Failure to understand this difference and clarify assumptions about the age of the earth before proceeding in the discussion is evidence of an unschooled mind. It is hard to take folks like this at their word when they claim to fully grasp the implications of data I myself don't understand.
This is not an example from this particular thread but one I've seen rehearsed in numerous online exchanges. For the record, creationists are about equally inept at following logical trails in online forums.
Would that someone would have done either of these things. Then this comment might be helpful.
I have to admit I have never read any peer-reviewed journal articles aimed at creationists, or crop circle believers, or astrologers, or ...
In fact the entire idea seems ludicrous in the extreme. As does your so-called argument.
HOWEVER, if the evolutionist is arguing the relative merits of their respective views with a creationist, the fact that the oldest fish is older than the oldest man does NOT in any way support his position over against the creationist position-unless that person has stated that he is a young earth creationist.
Since this is the only example you offered, I will comment on it:
This is not the argument that science makes. It is a comic book version of it creationists adore to address in place of the real argument, since that gives the impression that 13th century modes of pure logical reasoning are an adequate approach to understanding (and disregarding) scientific theories.
The strength of the scientific argument does not rest on the unadorned notion that fish is older than folks; it rests on an enormous web of independently derived evidence of morphological, geological, and paleo-microbiological co-ordinated continuity of evidence, that fish fossels form a tiny set of data points within.
Would that someone would have done either of these things. Then this comment might be helpful.
This is so removed from the reality of the situation in this thread, that I have to conclude that I am talking to a post-bot, whose only concern is to find excuses to paste up creationist propaganda, rather than engage in discussion.
Humility does not trump having actual facts, and arguments derived therefrom. You've been offered science's arguments. Anti up, or you don't get dealt cards. Whining because the exact right person to show you science's hand isn't available is transparent avoidance.
And why should I care what you, a simple Apprentice Goatherder, thinks? Science's arguments? And who are you to evaluate "science's arguments?" Are these not the same people who think George Bush a terrorist? The majority are anti-simites, also. But, I understood when I posted my response that there are those whose arrogance and narcissism is so overbearing that they would just repeat their pompous taunts. Thank you for making my point.
But I must say, your only contribution to the debate seems to be "look at all these people I think are smart, and if you don't listen to them, you're a dummy!" Folks like you are simply chatter to the real debaters. Unless you make some real point, and refrain from childish insults, I shall ignore you henceforth. And be careful not to step into any goatpoop. I'm sure it smells up the shanty.
Well, I believe I can return the complement. Science has been weathering authority figure worshippers for about 300 years with pretty good success, and will weather your celebrity-based notions of reliable argumentation.
Science's arguments? And who are you to evaluate "science's arguments?" Are these not the same people who think George Bush a terrorist? The majority are anti-simites, also.
The majority of scientists are anti-simites who think George Bush is a terrorist. Have I got that right?
But, I understood when I posted my response that there are those whose arrogance and narcissism is so overbearing that they would just repeat their pompous taunts. Thank you for making my point.
And I understood when I signed on to this gig, that I would be talking to people who wouldn't address the evidence if it fell on them like a ton of bricks, preferring to engage in a constant barrage of distracting perseflage and personal slurs about, say, goatherding, to coming to grips with any concrete issue they might actually have to reason about.
But I must say, your only contribution to the debate seems to be "look at all these people I think are smart, and if you don't listen to them, you're a dummy!"
Really? I thought you were the science-celebrity worshiper here? Aren't you the one unwilling to take pointers to the evidence from a mere goatherder? Can you show me an example where I said something approximating "look at all these people I think are smart, and if you don't listen to them, you're a dummy? Or is this just another episode in your endless steam of rude, billious empty rhetoric?
Folks like you are simply chatter to the real debaters. Unless you make some real point, and refrain from childish insults, I shall ignore you henceforth. And be careful not to step into any goatpoop. I'm sure it smells up the shanty.
We've grown quite used to lightweight creationist wannabe's here at FR, who try to dress up their irresponsible, substanceless ramblings with a laughable attempt to pretend that they are the Adult to our Child. The fact is, you are just about utterly ignorant of the situation you would be trying to criticize, and show no sign of intending to remedy the situation, as long as you can shoot off your mouth instead.
Unless you make some real point, and refrain from childish insults, I shall ignore you henceforth.
Sure you will. Seing as how you are such a careful and scrupuous arguer.
And be careful not to step into any goatpoop. I'm sure it smells up the shanty.
Thank you for the carefully reasoned, fact-filled argument. I stand in awe of your rhetorical clarity, charity and honesty.
And of course I didn't say it did. This was presented as a very simple example of a case where evolutionist and creationist approaches predict the same things in data. It is a common rhetorical device to construct a simple case on which both sides can agree and then use it as a springboard to address more complex questions.
If evolutionary advocates so quickly jump to all kinds of conclusions not inherent in the discussion at hand, no progress is ever made in the discussions.
Be that as it may, the scientific argument does not rest of "fish is older than folk". A "common rhetorical device" is irrelevant to the scientific argument, and the scientific arguement is the argument that supports evolutionary theory.
If evolutionary advocates so quickly jump to all kinds of conclusions not inherent in the discussion at hand, no progress is ever made in the discussions.
Well, we don't bank on progress in discussions, we bank on progress in scientific knowledge.
Wow, you are really reading about this stuff. Hey, betty boop, we have a live one!! (grin) Ms. Boop and I have been discussing this in these threads, but we have been using "The Whole Shebang" by Timothy Ferris. In large measure the reason is that my graduate school textbook: "Structure and Evolution of the Stars" by Martin Schwarzshild is hopelessly out of date. I have also copied a couple of other experts on this.
A couple of points though.
First, there may be a difference between science and philosophy on these issues. The science community never considered the oscillating universe to be one where the physics constants would gradually change. The real reason for either the steady state universe (asymptotically approaching infinity, gravitational mass just balances outward energy) and the collapsing universe was that the continually expanding universe was asymmetric. That is, it had a definite starting point but no definite end.
The idea of the multiverse has nothing to do with the oscillating (expand, collapse, expand...) universe, at least in the scientific community. The idea of the multiverse comes from the following observations:
1. The universe is accelerating in its expansion.
2. The constants in nature are exact and the likelihood is 10^123, as you point out.
3. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are inconsistent in observable black holes, yet we know both theories are correct everywhere else. As a result of this we have been developing quantum gravity theories and those involve multiple dimensions, and
4. Inflation. Inflation is theorized because of the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background. In the early universe, the universe was in quasi-equilibrium with itself. As the universe expanded, this equilibrium shifted to different, longer range and weaker forces. Finally, the universe expanded to the point where it was in radiative equilibrium (the same physics as the Planck black body radiation law). The matter was in equilibrium with the radiation field. Now, at this point the universe was in radiative quilibrium (e.g. it was optically thick), but it was sufficiently cool that gravity should have begun to coalesce the matter into dense gaseous clouds, perhaps even protostars. Then, the universe continued to expand to become optically thin, and the radiation field was no longer in equilibrium with the matter. (The radiation field cooled due to the expansion of the Universe and became the microwave background today). If the coalescing had occurred, it would have caused "lumpiness" in the microwave background. But that is not observed. So the current theory is that the universe inflated, meaning it expanded much more rapidly, so the gravitational process did not have time to produce the clumpiness. Such an inflation would be consistent with present observation.
Personally, I have a little trouble with this. The expansion of the universe is first fast, then slow, and is now speeding up again. I wish it would make up its mind. :}
Nevertheless, these four issues lead to the idea of the multiverse, which would be a higher dimensional fabric in which universes begin and expand like bubbles in boiling syrup. Lots of bubbles. Lots of universes. All separated by higher order dimensions.
And these universes would have different physical constants because there would be no reason for them to be the same. Indeed, there could/would be higher dimensional physics that would provide the conservation laws (i.e. if this much were true, we would expect the constants to be different).
The point of this is that you can, most definitely have multiple universes with different constants. And you could have the one universe where everything just worked out so that life, intelligent life could evolve. And we would observe this one universe. However, it would be a fallacy for us to assume that we were the only universe in existance, because only in the "proper" universe would anyone exist to observe it. Namely, the probabilities do indeed cancel out.
Well, that's the science. Now, what about opinion and faith??
Personally, I don't believe in the multiverse and I don't believe that this particular universe was created just by happenstance. The reason is my personal faith and also my observation that God's creation is unbelievably economical and elegant. I just don't see lots of universe where the constants are wrong just to get one that is right.
But that is my opinion and faith only.
And, as a scientist, I also know that science and faith are different. They can speak to one another, but they are still separate. So, my faith is my faith and my science is my science. In the final analysis I believe, as a matter of faith, that the 10^123 argument indicates this universe was created by God, but as a scientist I know this is not proof.
OTOH. I find that God's creation of evolution to create life a much more subtle, intricate, and elegant creation than that postulated by either ID or creationism. IT is much more beautiful. Perhaps because it is more difficult to design the system that produces the life than to just design the life itself. Perhaps, God did create the multiverse, and He used cosmic evolution to find the right physics constants to produce the evolutionary system that then produced life.
Now, that would be some creation!
Thank you, 2ndreconmarine. Well put. Especially:
"In the final analysis I believe, as a matter of faith, that the 10^123 argument indicates this universe was created by God, but as a scientist I know this is not proof." That's it, in a nutshell, isn't it? And if it IS a Creation, then He knew this would happen! I can almost hear Him chuckling.
PS - I have just ordered a copy of "The Whole Shebang" from Amazon (Used book: 65 cents. Shipping & Handling: $3.49. The Irony: Priceless.)
2ndreconmarine, I'll reply further as soon as I get the chance. This a truly excellent essay/post! Thank you so very much!
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.