Posted on 02/22/2007 6:22:34 PM PST by Boxen
In a thought-provoking paper from the March issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology , Elliott Sober (University of Wisconsin) clearly discusses the problems with two standard criticisms of intelligent design: that it is unfalsifiable and that the many imperfect adaptations found in nature refute the hypothesis of intelligent design.
Biologists from Charles Darwin to Stephen Jay Gould have advanced this second type of argument. Stephen Jay Gould's well-known example of a trait of this type is the panda's thumb. If a truly intelligent designer were responsible for the panda, Gould argues, it would have provided a more useful tool than the stubby proto-thumb that pandas use to laboriously strip bamboo in order to eat it.
ID proponents have a ready reply to this objection. We do not know whether an intelligent designer intended for pandas to be able to efficiently strip bamboo. The "no designer worth his salt" argument assumes the designer would want pandas to have better eating implements, but the objection has no justification for this assumption. In addition, Sober points out, this criticism of ID also concedes that creationism is testable.
A second common criticism of ID is that it is untestable. To develop this point, scientists often turn to the philosopher Karl Popper's idea of falsifiability. According to Popper, a scientific statement must allow the possibility of an observation that would disprove it. For example, the statement "all swans are white" is falsifiable, since observing even one swan that isn't white would disprove it. Sober points out that this criterion entails that many ID statements are falsifiable; for example, the statement that an intelligent designer created the vertebrate eye entails that vertebrates have eyes, which is an observation.
This leads Sober to jettison the concept of falsifiability and to provide a different account of testability. "If ID is to be tested," he says, "it must be tested against one or more competing hypotheses." If the ID claim about the vertebrate eye is to be tested against the hypothesis that the vertebrate eye evolved by Darwinian processes, the question is whether there is an observation that can discriminate between the two. The observation that vertebrates have eyes cannot do this.
Sober also points out that criticism of a competing theory, such as evolution, is not in-and-of-itself a test of ID. Proponents of ID must construct a theory that makes its own predictions in order for the theory to be testable. To contend that evolutionary processes cannot produce "irreducibly complex" adaptations merely changes the subject, Sober argues.
"When scientific theories compete with each other, the usual pattern is that independently attested auxiliary propositions allow the theories to make predictions that disagree with each other," Sober writes. "No such auxiliary propositions allow … ID to do this." In developing this idea, Sober makes use of ideas that the French philosopher Pierre Duhem developed in connection with physical theories – theories usually do not, all by themselves, make testable predictions. Rather, they do so only when supplemented with auxiliary information. For example, the laws of optics do not, by themselves, predict when eclipses will occur; they do so when independently justified claims about the positions of the earth, moon, and sun are taken into account.
Similarly, ID claims make predictions when they are supplemented by auxiliary claims. The problem is that these auxiliary assumptions about the putative designer's goals and abilities are not independently justified. Surprisingly, this is a point that several ID proponents concede.
###
Sober, Elliott. "What is Wrong with Intelligent Design," The Quarterly Review of Biology: March 2007.
Since 1926, The Quarterly Review of Biology has been dedicated to providing insightful historical, philosophical, and technical treatments of important biological topics.
Window dressing peole who are highly regarded in science and have contributed greatly to scinec they are window dressing? come on gummybearlegs! you crack me up homes! and I cant help but picture you with gummybearlegs! Peace!
Thats funny ill agree, but it still isnt a scientific response!
Thats funny ill agree, but it still isnt a scientific response!
Thats funny, but you do know its unfactual! Of course you dont know, you believe in the religion of escapeism of conviction evolutionism.
I have not been part of this thread, but it is obvious to me that there was a creator. He (get that, He) obviously used some sort of evolution as a tool.
That is just my opinion.
Just think, out of all of everything, this may be the only place anywhere in the entire universe that has blue sky, birds, dogs, cats, beautiful women, spring breezes, fine wine, etc. How could you not believe that there was an overwhelming intelligence to give us all this.
PS, where there is intelligence, there is design.
let me give you another SCIENTIFIC source, Radiometric dating deception, www.cs.unc.edu
This leads you to "Department of Computer Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" - and that is a relevant scientific source. So we don't see anything about "Radiometric Dating Deception" on it. But if you dig deeper, you'll find David Plaisted, Ph.D., a professor of the department. Has he published an article about the "Radiometric Dating Deception"? Not according to his list of his publications... But, alas, on the private part of his site, unlinked, is the article sleeper quoted: "Radiometric Dating Deception". A small sample:
The geological column has too little erosion to allow for such long time periods. Also, there is too little sediment on the sea floor for the oceans to have existed for hundreds of millions of years, and the continents would have worn away many times in this time period at current rates of erosion. Just the fact that there are so many fossils shows that the great sedimentary deposits on earth had to have formed rapidly, because well-preserved fossils do not form under conditions of gradual sedimentation.
He even dishes out "Quotations about Small Evolution", including this:
Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."Where to start, oh, where to start....
Evolution has almost 0 predictability and the same amount of explanatory power. Do you know, given a specific population in a specific environment what will happen to the population? Does evolution predict how the population's DNA will change? No. Evolution only predicts that at some point, the DNA will change and whatever changes will be selected from based on an undetermined fitness ratio.
Nice summation. Here are some past gems I was able to glean from these boards several years ago. See if any of them look familiar. :)
"Evolution is an observed fact."
Depends on how one defines "evolution." I give you another "best-hits" compilation of evolution's "morphing definitions." See if you can follow the "changing" chameleon!
Here we see one definition of evolution.
"Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to tile view that the whole of reality is evolution—a single process of self-transformation."2
2. Julian Huxley: "Evolution and Genetics" in What is Man? (Ed. by J. R. Newman, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1955), p.278.
And here we see another:
"Evolution does NOT proceed towards greater complexity. If anything, it meanders towards fitness within the species' environment. (And of course there's a big question of just how well it does that!)"
130 Posted on 10/30/1999 15:14:23 PDT by jennyp
"Maybe Darwin thought it was neat & linear. But it turns out it's actually quite a chaotic (unpredictable in advance) process. Wild & bushy, more like. Kinda like the dynamic free-market economy vs. the intelligently designed Soviet economy."
98 Posted on 10/03/1999 22:23:54 PDT by jennyp
"evolution is usually defined as any shift of allele frequencies in a population. Scientists don't usually make value judgments on whether or not a particular shift in frequency is "upward" or "downward". In fact in a book by Gould that I read, he gives an example of a plankton species that got smaller over time. While it's a common misstatement among even many of those who accept evolution as fact that evolution is "progress" it's not really a part of evolutionary theory."
49 Posted on 10/21/1999 07:40:16 PDT by garbanzo (garbanzo@worldnet.att.net)
Although 90 percent of Americans believe in God, "no divine intervention" is what their kids have been learning in public schools. As late as 1995, before yielding to anti-Darwinian pressure, the National Association of Biology Teachers made this clear when it described evolution as "impersonal, unsupervised, unpredictable."
Published: 08.22.99 Author: JACK CASHILL
If, as you imply, evolution is ongoing, where, exactly is it headed?
"We'll never know until we get there. Evolution doesn't have a predetermined goal, in the sense that we could predict beforehand. I guess you could say that it's headed in the direction of optimal fitness of each species to its local ecology. Of course, ecologies change all the time."
71 Posted on 10/03/1999 00:12:01 PDT by jennyp
The sheer dishonesty with which evolutionists approach the whole subject is quite clear.
When they want to prove evolution, they simply call it "change." When they want to attack creationists for distorting evolution, they trot out "improvement." And yet, "improvement" must have been part of the "change," or we wouldn't be discussing this right now.
And note the following:
"Evolution does NOT proceed towards greater complexity. If anything, it meanders towards fitness within the species' environment. (And of course there's a big question of just how well it does that!)"
130 Posted on 10/30/1999 15:14:23 PDT by jennyp
Now I ask you all to consider the quote, above, in the light of this oft-repeated evidence on these threads:
"...RNA strands of as little as six units is enough to provide a template for the creation of new copies of itself. Six units!"
166 Posted on 01/15/2000 21:42:28 PST by jennyp
I wonder how one gets from "RNA strands of as little as six units" to HUMANS, CELLS, DNA, a protein with a process that "does NOT proceed towards greater complexity."
"Six units!"
All life from RNA strands as little as "Six units!" by a process that "does NOT proceed towards greater complexity."
Is any of this getting through?
And a few more quotes that illustrate the illogic by which evols push their world view.
garbanzo: we can tell that horses have changed over time - that part seems quite clear - but what isn't known is exactly who ancestors of horses were. The fact that we don't know exactly what the ancestry was doesn't change the fact that horses developed from somewhat horselike progenitors.
watchin:
1) We know horses have changed.
2) We don't know what they looked like before
3) It is a fact that horses developed from somewhat horselike progenitors.Okay. How can #1 and #2 be true at the same time? That's like meeting someone for the first time and telling him he looks like he's lost weight. And the basis for #3 is that you know horses evolved because evolution is true?
160 Posted on 11/03/1999 13:14:15 PST by watchin"It's clear humans evolved from something, just what is isn't yet clear." "The law of biogenesis probably breaks down at the molecular level. Exactly how it breaks down isn't yet known though."
94 Posted on 08/22/1999 20:59:27 PDT by garbanzo
Ah, good times, good times. O.o
He (get that, He) obviously used some sort of evolution as a tool...PS, where there is intelligence, there is design
Actually, design is evidence of intelligence. The inverse does not necessarily hold true.
Evolution is only obvious based on how broadly one chooses to define it, and how much someone is willing to view the evidence without wearing their materialist blinders.
The adherents of both use ad hominems and various other hystrionics to shout down their opposition.
When the adherents of both are not using outright frauds to prop up their respective world views, they resort to questionable research, controversial evidence, logical fallacies and contradictions and specious arguments to confuse the issues and change the subject.
Darwin was a racist. Gould was a Marxist. Al Gore is a Socialist. The "science" was and is used to perpetuate their respective world views of man and his relationships to other men and the world around them. Neither Darwin nor Gore were qualified to write scientifically on their respective subjects. And while Gould was a scientist, even he questioned the mechanics of natural selection and the fossil record as "proofs" of Darwinian evolution. (In other words, there is hardly a consensus - even among evolutionists - just how all this evolution occured, only that - like all "true believers" - they assert it's true).
Both evolution and man-caused global warming exist to ensure one thing: that research grants keep flowing into university coffers. Both are big business.
The only difference between the two is that evolution as a world view has been around a lot longer. That, however, does not make it any more true than the incessant screaming lefties make about their beloved dogma, human-caused global warming.
You haven't addressed squat. You have made outlandish statements, refused to back them up even when challenged, and given a couple of links (often incorrect) to creationist "science" on apologetic websites.
Your record on these threads is so pathetic that I am wondering if you are an evolutionist deliberately trying to make creationists look bad, or if you are actually a group of college students sitting around drinking and trying to see how ridiculous a poster can get before somebody gets wise.
...bring up one point at a time, make a specific comment regarding science pointing to evolution, and you will be easily shown that it is not scientific fact. just one point at a time.
One point? OK, here is a point.
Homo ergaster is a transitional between earlier, more ape-like forms and later, more human-like forms.
...you are unwilling to do this because it makes it very clear when it is done this way. And thats just what evolurtionist propagandists are about making things anything BUT clear and specififc.
BS.
OK, I have made a clear point about evolution. Lets see the quality of your scholarship in rebutting that point. But be warned, creationist websites do not do science; they distort science to make the result come out the way they they "believe" it should. Posting a link to some half baked creationist website does not rebut my point. For that you need some real facts, not apologetics.
But be warned, creationist websites do not do science; they distort science to make the result come out the way they they "believe" it should.
Put another way:
But be warned, evolutionist websites do not do science; they distort science to make the result come out the way they they "believe" it should.
There. That's better.
I once read a Creationist website, which tried to, quite miserably, discredit a scientific point, made by a scientist who supported evolution...they did this by saying that since this scientist was a Catholic, and since we all know that Catholics believe in transubstantiation, therefore this scientist cannot really be a true Christian, therefore his scientific findings are suspect...
Good grief, how can anyone believe drivel like that?....but this was a creationist website, that tried to argue the merits of scientific conclusions, based on nothing more than ones religious beliefs...if one was a Catholic(wink, wind, nod, nod), then they cannot be a Christian, and therefore they cannot be truthful about science...they actually expected that rational people would actually buy into such nonsense...and obviously some do..
More to the point Stingray...Coyoteman had it right the first time...your version is completely incorrect...
You tried, but like these creationist websites, which do no science, but try to argue against science using nothing but their personal interpretations from the Bible(and these are nothing but personal interpretations, as no one here actually does speak for God), your attempt to change Coyotemans statement, was really quite poor...
Illustrations of so-called evolutionary "science" cited in my reply a few posts up.
I have read your posts...they are nothing but nonsense...I have also read your anti-evolution views on another thread late tonite...I have the same response...they are nothing but nonsense...
The hour is late, time to turn in...
I am sure, you and I will be in the same place tomorrow...
But so far, I am quite unimpressed by anything you have said...
"your attempt to change Coyotemans statement, was really quite poor..."
Actually, had I simply tried to change the original post, I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of quoting it. The point was to illustrate how his statement - when viewed from another perspective - cuts both ways.
Unfortunately, your knee-jerk reaction (as typified by many evols I've dealt with over the years) indicates an utter lack to understand subtlety and nuance.
"...they are nothing but nonsense...I have also read your anti-evolution views on another thread late tonite...I have the same response...they are nothing but nonsense..."
Another typical comeback: dismiss without so much as a sound reason for doing so.
The same could be said of everything I've read from you so far. O.o
Oh, do give it a rest...my statement stands...not a knee jerk reaction all...just the plain truth...if you dont like it, tough...
Who actually cares how many times you have dealt with this with other people who support evolution, and who cares for how long you have dealt with it...you were obviously wrong then, and you are wrong now...
And I understand subtlety and nuance a good deal more than you realize...the fact that you dont grasp that, shows your lack of undertanding...
As I said, tomorrow is another day, and sure enough, we will all be here...this can continue another time, as it surely will...
Typical comeback?...too bad, isnt it..
Apparently all your efforts to change peoples minds about evolution, have not been successful...if all you can do, is say, 'typical comeback', you have already lost...
Keep talking about how you did this and that in the past, and how everything is typical, and you lose again...
Amusing...
'amusing' placemarker
illustrate the illogic by which evols push their world view.
Surprise, individuals - even adherents to the same position - hold different views; sometimes slightly like these two, sometimes more grave (have a look at the Religious Forum) ...
But, amusingly, there isn't so much of a contradiction in the quotes you gave...
prime?
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.