Let the visions begin!
Posted on 09/20/2005 7:02:45 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
ITHACA, N.Y. - Lenore Durkee, a retired biology professor, was volunteering as a docent at the Museum of the Earth here when she was confronted by a group of seven or eight people, creationists eager to challenge the museum exhibitions on evolution.
They peppered Dr. Durkee with questions about everything from techniques for dating fossils to the second law of thermodynamics, their queries coming so thick and fast that she found it hard to reply.
After about 45 minutes, "I told them I needed to take a break," she recalled. "My mouth was dry."
That encounter and others like it provided the impetus for a training session here in August. Dr. Durkee and scores of other volunteers and staff members from the museum and elsewhere crowded into a meeting room to hear advice from the museum director, Warren D. Allmon, on ways to deal with visitors who reject settled precepts of science on religious grounds.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Uh, actually, I didn't know that. If you would, could you tell me about "Bookmark"? And you are permitted to call me "Mrs. CyberKlutz" and I won't take offense!
It's not scientific because it's not falsifiable. It could be falsifiable if some characteristics of the designer were hypothesized, but this is scrupulously avoided, mainly because the whole motivation for the ID movement has nothing to do with science, but rather with inserting itself into public schools, which it couldn't do if the designer's characteristics were specified. However, if ID'ers were truly interested in formulating a testable hypothesis, they could hypothesize that certain features of life are designed, and if that's the case, then the designer could not or would not do X, where X can be any potential observation. If X were actually observed, then ID would be shown to be false, or at least that particular ID hypothesis would.
The reason that ID in general cannot be testable, however, is that for ID to be held seriously, X must be something that is not observed. Therefore, ID must be found to be consistent with all known observations. However, evolution is also consistent with all known observations. Therefore, ID and evolution would predict the same things, at least with regard to known observations. If ID'ers want to go out on a limb and predict something that evolution doesn't, then maybe ID can be taken seriously as science. That seems pretty unlikely, however. I will admit that, in part, ID'ers now might have a testable hypothesis, but it's not the one that they want. ID'ers, as far as I can tell, seem to make several related, but distinct claims. Namely:
1. There exists some feature in biological systems. This claim is obviously testable, and in most cases is not disputed by non-ID'ers.
2. The feature referred to in claim 1 could not possibly have formed via evolution. This is also a testable claim. To falsify it, an evolutionary mechanism must be put forth. I have yet to hear a claim of this type that hasn't actually been falsified.
3. The first two claims taken together imply that life must have been designed. This is the claim that is untestable. It's possible, after all, that there is some other natural process other than evolution that could have produced the feature in question without the need for a designer. You would have to find an observation that conclusively proves that some natural explanation is correct in order to falsify this claim. Conclusive proof of the truth of an explanation is impossible and not something that science ever claims. Therefore, falsifying this claim is not possible.
You don't need anything to speculate, but having a known history certainly adds credibility to speculation. That is why the known history of animal breeding has more explanatory power than speculation about alien intervention or micromiracles.
Coming up on 1000. I've never started a 1000 post thread.
That's because you don't cheat, like this.
That's not the point of contention. The point of contention is whether ID is Real® Science or not.
All in all, it's been a fairly civil thread.
One more bump.
ID will be real science when it puts forth an alternative history that can be tested. It might stand or fall, but it would be science.
The problem with this line of argument is how do you calculate the probabilty of mutation and natural selection forming a given biological system? In the case of the coins, it's easy to calculate the probabilty of a given sequence of coins. However, natural selection provides a non-random input to biological systems. In your analogy, this would be akin to replacing some number of nickels with two-headed ones. If we replaced, for example, 950 of the 1000 nickels with two headed ones, is it still more reasonable to conclude that the pile is a result of design? How about replacing 990 of them? At what point do you draw the line?
However, the real problem with your whole argument is really that you consider some equally probable events to be more improbable than others. Which events are considered more improbable? Namely, those that result in a recognizable pattern. Humans are good at pattern recognition. The problem is that we are so good at it that we recognize patterns where none really exist. Just for another example, if you play the Powerball lottery, I'll bet you've never played a ticket with the numbers 1,2,3,4,5 and a powerball of 6. If not, why not? That ticket is equally unlikely to win as any other. Just intuitively, we consider such recognizable patterns as unlikely to happen randomly. However, given enough drawings of the Powerball, it becomes likely that this set of numbers will indeed be drawn.
Similarly, I once had a statistics professor assign a class the task of flipping a coin 10000 times and recording the results. Inevitably, some people didn't actually flip the coin and just made up results. Just as inevitably, the prof could always tell who faked it and who really did it. How could he do this? In a series of 10000 coin flips it's almost inevitable that there should be some sequence of 6 or 7 heads in a row. It's also human nature that if you were trying to fake such a random sequence, you would NOT put 6 or 7 heads in a row in the sequence because you would consider this unlikely to happen.
The point is that arguments based on improbabilty are weak ones. Very frequently, we have no real basis for calculating the probability in the first place. Even if we do, we have little basis for saying that a particular configuration for a biological system is any more unlikely to have happened by stochiastic processes than any other configuration for that system. If that's the best that ID can do, then biology will undoubtedly never take it seriously. It's akin to stating that the Powerball drawing must be fixed because the numbers drawn were 1,2,3,4 and 5 with a Powerball of 6, and this is exceptionally unlikely to have happened without fixing the drawing.
I do as well. Anyone using science to "prove" that God doesn't exist is wrong in so doing. However, don't confuse individual scientists with science as a whole. That's the mistake that many creationists make. They state that the theory of evolution implies that God doesn't exist, when it does no such thing. Some individual scientists may believe this as individuals, but the theory itself does not make that implication. That's no more than an individual belief and has nothing whatsoever to do with actual science.
The same objection could be raised to the theory that an object you find on the ground was intelligently designed. How would you falsify it?
Yes, well, one can't have everything ;-)
The same could be true if one of the Mars rovers found evidence that could be traces of life but also could have been formed by an unknown natural process. In such a case, would science prohibit NASA researchers from creating a hypothesis about the presence of life in the past on Mars, simply because we may never be able to confirm or falsify that the evidence in question was the result of life or a natural process? Similarly, paleontologists develop all sorts of theories about past life form based on scant evidence that may never be enhanced or improved, and thus never be confirmed or falsified. Does science prohibit this sort of speculation?
The only characteristic that really matters for ID is that the designer was intelligent and parts of the design were deliberate. The evidence that would prove it are features that could not have been produced by natural selection. The falsification involves showing that those features did, in fact, arise through natural processes. Where the data is inconclusive, one could speculate either way. But that sort of thing is hardly uncommon in science.
but this is scrupulously avoided, mainly because the whole motivation for the ID movement has nothing to do with science, but rather with inserting itself into public schools, which it couldn't do if the designer's characteristics were specified.
This suggests that your problem is with the messenger, not the message. The motivations of the advocates of ID are entirely independent of whether ID is legitimate science or not.
However, if ID'ers were truly interested in formulating a testable hypothesis, they could hypothesize that certain features of life are designed, and if that's the case, then the designer could not or would not do X, where X can be any potential observation. If X were actually observed, then ID would be shown to be false, or at least that particular ID hypothesis would.
The hypothesis is that the designer would incorporate features that could not arise simply through natural selection or some other natural process. The falsification of any particular feature as proof of ID is to demonstrate how it did arise through a natural process, which is, in fact, what some evolutionists are doing who are actually engaging the idea that features exist which could not have evolved rather than wranging with the motivations of the advocates.
The reason that ID in general cannot be testable, however, is that for ID to be held seriously, X must be something that is not observed.
What would falsify evolution?
Therefore, ID must be found to be consistent with all known observations. However, evolution is also consistent with all known observations.
Actually, several ID advocates argue that it isn't. Specifically, the whole idea of irreducable complexity -- that is, a complex system that could not have been the result of natural selection -- is based on the idea that evolution is not consistent with all known observations.
Therefore, ID and evolution would predict the same things, at least with regard to known observations. If ID'ers want to go out on a limb and predict something that evolution doesn't, then maybe ID can be taken seriously as science.
ID is predicting something that evolution doesn't -- that biological systems may contain features that cannot be explained by evolution. In many ways, the prediction of ID is that evolution is falsifiable by looking for features that evolution cannot explain.
That seems pretty unlikely, however. I will admit that, in part, ID'ers now might have a testable hypothesis, but it's not the one that they want. ID'ers, as far as I can tell, seem to make several related, but distinct claims. Namely:
Again, you are confusing the message and the messanger. That's entirely irrelevant to how legitimate ID is as a theory.
1. There exists some feature in biological systems. This claim is obviously testable, and in most cases is not disputed by non-ID'ers.
2. The feature referred to in claim 1 could not possibly have formed via evolution. This is also a testable claim. To falsify it, an evolutionary mechanism must be put forth. I have yet to hear a claim of this type that hasn't actually been falsified.
Some of the falsifications are weak while others are persuasive. Some of them (such as the eye lens example posted her today) are very speculative and declare victory simply because a possiblity can be imagined, which really hinges on a leap of faith as much as evidence. But, yes, that's the general mechanism at work here.
3. The first two claims taken together imply that life must have been designed. This is the claim that is untestable. It's possible, after all, that there is some other natural process other than evolution that could have produced the feature in question without the need for a designer.
There is a point where assuming that a natural process must exist becomes begging the question. It's possible, after all, that reality is simply an illusion and that we are all brains in a vat on an alien spaceship. That does not make it probable or a reasonable theory to build your life around. At some point, it all winds up in Postmodern Wonderland.
You would have to find an observation that conclusively proves that some natural explanation is correct in order to falsify this claim. Conclusive proof of the truth of an explanation is impossible and not something that science ever claims. Therefore, falsifying this claim is not possible.
But aren't you also claiming that the assumption that everything is the result of a natural process is also not falsifiable?
Put another way, under what circumstances would you believe that life didn't arise and develop through natural processes, alone?
This has of course, already happened.
You keep saying it over and over again but you never really address the inconvenient details of my problems with this assertion or the answers I give to your claim. ID's alternative history is that an intelligent agent had some role in the deliberate creation of life and that this theory can be tested by looking at complex biological systems to determine if they could have arisen through a natural process or not. This is almost exactly like looking for evidence of life on Mars by looking at geological or chemical features to determine if they could have arisen through a natural process or as the byproduct of life. Do you consider the search for life on Mars science or not? Please answer this question. Would you object to having students in a public school being taught that some scientists believe that Mars may have once had life or believe that life exists on other worlds in the universe without direct evidence to support them? Please answer this question.
What's really frightening me is how much this is reminding me of debating abortion...
If you are an ID advocate, that's your job. Science is busy and productive teasing out the natural causes. It makes no sense for science to stop and say, "You know, we're stumped. We might as well give up."
The issue is not how weak or strong it is but how legitimate it is.
Very frequently, we have no real basis for calculating the probability in the first place. Even if we do, we have little basis for saying that a particular configuration for a biological system is any more unlikely to have happened by stochiastic processes than any other configuration for that system. If that's the best that ID can do, then biology will undoubtedly never take it seriously. It's akin to stating that the Powerball drawing must be fixed because the numbers drawn were 1,2,3,4 and 5 with a Powerball of 6, and this is exceptionally unlikely to have happened without fixing the drawing.
It's akin to suspecting that the Powerball drawing might have been fixed because the numbes drawn were 1,2,3,4 and 5 with a Powerball of 6. Perhaps it was random, but if it wasn't there might be evidence of tampering. And if the Powerball people fought an investigation of that unusual drawing tooth and nail rather than cooperating with it, do you think that would convince people that it was a legitimate random drawing or do you think it would make them think the Powerball people have something to hide?
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.