Faith in Theory (Great article by great conservative)

Opinion Journal ^ | December 26 2005 | James Q Wilson

[RightWingAtheist]

When a federal judge in Pennsylvania struck down the efforts of a local school board to teach "intelligent design," he rightly criticized the wholly unscientific nature of that enterprise. Some people will disagree with his view, arguing that evolution is a "theory" and intelligent design is a "theory," so students should look at both theories.

But this view confuses the meaning of the word "theory." In science, a theory states a relationship between two or more things (scientists like to call them "variables") that can be tested by factual observations. We have a "theory of gravity" that predicts the speed at which two objects will fall toward one another, the path on which a satellite must travel if it is to maintain a constant distance from the earth, and the position that a moon will keep with respect to its associated planet.

[MRMEAN]

The Theory of Evolution is just that - A Theory. The Theory of Intelligent Design is just that - A Theory.

The ToE is a theory; perhaps the best established major theory in modern science. It explains how evolution occurred; that evolution occurred is as well established a fact as anything in science.

As pointed out by others on many prior threads, "The Theory of Intelligent Design" is not a theory; it lacks the attributes of successfully explaining data and making testable predictions.

And just what is "Intelligent Design Theory"? How does it explain how evolution occurred? All I see them saying is that "We don't like Darwin," and "I don't believe that natural selection could have produced this or that biological structure, so Godthe Intelligent Designer did it"; without any scientific evidence, or evidence of process.

From the Wikipedia "Theory" article, the following are the characteristics of a scientific theory--how does "Intelligent Design Theory" meet them?:

---

Characteristics

In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified,

though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,

is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and

is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's Razor

[edsheppa]

The theory of evolution has not been proved as fully as the theory of gravity.

I disagree. TOE has survived 150 years of testing largely intact albeit modified. OTOH, Newton's theory is known now to be wrong and Einstein's theory is generally understood to be, at the least, incomplete and is expected to be transcended by unification with quantum theory.

So, it seems to me that, right now, TOE is stronger that the orthodox theory of gravity.

[2banana]

The Theory of Evolution (OF MAN) is just that - A Theory. The Theory of Intelligent Design is just that - A Theory.

No one is disputing animals adapting to their surroundings...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The Theory of Evolution (OF MAN) is just that - A Theory. The Theory of Intelligent Design is just that - A Theory."

ID is not a scientific theory. It is an untestable claim. It belongs to philosophy and theology, not science.
There is nothing above the *theory* level in science; no higher level to attain.

[Dimensio]

Is it true that this Court also ruled that instructors are forbidden to question, criticize or challenge evolution theory?

No.

[Dimensio]

There were presumably many species swimming in the same sea as the Celocanth. And yet only the Celocanth displays no significant change over a 100 million years? Nice try but it doesn't explain the data.

What environmental changes do you assert should have driven the Celocanth order to complete extinction?

[Dimensio]

The Theory of Evolution (OF MAN) is just that - A Theory. The Theory of Intelligent Design is just that - A Theory.

What hypothetical observation would falsify "The Theory of Intelligent Design"?

[Dimensio]

Sorry, gravity is a law.

No, the "law of gravity" is a (inaccurate but mostly useful) mathematical relationship defining the resulting gravitational force between two masses. The cause of that force and the exact nature of the force itself is theory.

It's proven to exist.

No, there's no "proof" that the force is actually a direct result of the distortion of space-time between two masses. There's a lot of evidence in that regard, but no "proof".

[PatrickHenry]

There is nothing above the *theory* level in science; no higher level to attain.

There is, of course, the highly-prized and rarely-granted Darwin Central Seal of Approval^tm ...

[Coyoteman]

It seems like "The Theory of Intelligent Design" has a couple of steps to go before it is ready to take on the theory of evolution.

One such step is determining Who did it? Seems like an in-house battle to determine if Zeus, Thor, Old Man Coyote or ??? is responsible for the I in ID.

This should serve to illustrate the problem science has with ID as well. How do you get a grasp on any data? It is all based on belief.

[SalukiLawyer]

"Useless" wings don't provide any benefit. Then again, how do you know it was useless?

Well, unless I am mistaken, useful in the context of a discussion about natural selection would mean a new quality or characteristic of a physical organism that has arisen by means of random genetic "mistake" that, happily, aids in the individual's survival. When you can survive better, you can breed more, and thus your offspring will thrive, and the original mutation will be reinforced, improved, whatever.

How do I know it was useless? I guess I don't, but I bet I can come up with more arguments against its usefulness (for definition of "usefulness" please see above) than you can come up with a supposed benefit.

For instance, I don't imagine it could run as well as a non-mutated lizard with four normal legs. It would probably be more awkward, and thus more easily caught and eaten. What imagined benefit could it provide? Why would it survive better than normal lizards?

I don't know if the question is Perry Masonish or not -- I'm not sure what that means. I think it is a fair question, don't you? If no one can answer it, just say:

"You know, that's a good question. There is really no good answer according to the facts we have at the moment, but like many scientific "problems," future discoveries will undoubtedly clear that up."

[oneofmany]

Secular Humanism was declared a religion by the SCOTUS.
Torcaso v. Watkins

Out of curiosity, what are the arguments answering why apes aren't extinct if humans evolved from them?

[SalukiLawyer]

"But I think penguins are birds who are able to live in an extreme environment by flying underwater." We like to call it swimming.

When you see a bird do that underwater, I think "flying underwater" is a more interesting way of expressing it, but perhaps I am so ignorant I don't know the difference between the use of the words "fly" and "swim" and so all of this science-stuff is simply going to be forever beyond me.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"When you see a bird do that underwater, I think "flying underwater" is a more interesting way of expressing it, but perhaps I am so ignorant I don't know the difference between the use of the words "fly" and "swim" and so all of this science-stuff is simply going to be forever beyond me."

Good assumption. Flying is flying, and swimming is swimming. No amount of wishing will make a penguin capable of flight.

[Coyoteman]

Secular Humanism was declared a religion by the SCOTUS. Torcaso v. Watkins

Wrong. This was a comment in a footnote, not part of the decision. An opinion of one individual, no legal standing.

Out of curiosity, what are the arguments answering why apes aren't extinct if humans evolved from them?

The answer to this one is in PatrickHenry's List-O-Links. It has been explained many times on these threads, and I don't feel like doing it again, so you will have to check it out on your own unless someone else will post a direct link.

[Revolting cat!]

Let's face it, "Darwinism has become Naturalism" and it is just as much religion as Christianity, Judaism, etc. Naturalists "worship" the idea that matter is all there is. What you see is what you get. Humanity is a product of time, chance, and natural selection. There can be nothing else outside of the natural system. Period. Any other claim is nonsense and nothing but superstition.

Actually, when you think of it - quite an intolerant religion at that.

As the cat doesn't have a monkey in this fight, and cares little about the details, the paragraph above pretty much sums up for me the essence of this debate, weak denials on the thread above notwithstanding. "the idea that matter is all there is" Yep, our friends the Naturalists can't weasel their way out of this one!

[SalukiLawyer]

Depends how you define 'more capable'. If by 'more capable' you mean tree-climbing ability, chimps have us beaten, hands-down. Both intelligence and tree-climbing ability are adaptations for survival; both have worked.

There are parasites that live in people's and animal's intestinal tracts and do very well for themselves, thank you. Roundworms are quite capable too. When it comes to living in a dog's gut, they have both us AND chimps beat hands down.

If we really have to start from the premise that chimps and human beings are equal, then my failure to understand the way natural selection really was supposed to work is the least of my handicaps.

[Senator Bedfellow]

"Fair question" apparently means something else in lawyerland than for the rest of the world - fair questions aren't worded in such a way as to assume an answer, particularly an answer not currently supported by any evidence ;)

That being said, it is not particularly necessary that every intermediate step be a net gain - often, it is merely enough that it not be a net loss to have some trait. Many species of cave fish and insects have lost their ability to see by no longer having eyes, despite having evolved from sighted ancestors. Since they live in the dark, there is no particular advantage to having eyes or not having them - you can't see either way. But there's no disadvantage to not having eyes, and so there's no selective pressure that would work against the eyeless.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[PatrickHenry]

The folks who brought you Intelligent Design now bring you Intelligent Geography Theory.