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.
prime?
Take it, it's yours.
Sigh....
I think I'm beginning to understand the problem here. Not only are you incapable of using syntax, grammar, spelling or punctuation correctly, you apparently don't understand sentences that do.
I didn't call the names in your posts "window dressing." Here's what I posted:
Given the duplicitous nature of most of them, it's more like cross-dressing.Before your attempt your next response, please have someone tell you what the words mean.
Evolution is, has, and does possess all the scientific merit and scholarship of that other "religion" curently masquerading as "science": human-caused global warming. Look at the parallels...
Human-caused global warming is not a religion, nor are either science or the study of evolution. The current hysteria over human-caused global warming is beginning, after only a few years, to yield to the evidence to the contrary. The theory of evolution is doing just find.
The adherents of both use ad hominems and various other hystrionics to shout down their opposition.
Ad hominems? Histrionics? Your post is full of both. Calling evolution a religion, for example, and calling Darwin a racist for another. Then we have "frauds, questionable research, controversial evidence, logical fallacies, contradictions, and specious arguments." Wassamatter you? You can't debate the merits of the theory so you have to resort to name calling?
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.
Lets have a little quiz. Name five "outright frauds" perpetrated by evolutionists.
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.
Darwin not qualified to write scientifically on evolution? Then I suppose the fellow who invented fire was not qualified to do so either. Your ideas concerning these scientists are nonsense. (Gore is on his own; I'm not defending him.)
And while Gould was a scientist, even he questioned the mechanics of natural selection and the fossil record as "proofs" of Darwinian evolution.
Science debates matters using the scientific method, which relies on scientific evidence and well-reasoned theories. Scientists often have differences of opinions on some of the fine points of any theory. The fact that Gould saw some differences, as opposed to some other scientists, in how evolution occurred does not 1) discredit either science or the theory of evolution or 2) support creation.
Further, there are no "proofs" for evolution, nor are there proofs for any other scientific theory. It is dishonest for creationists to require "proof" of a theory before trusting in its accuracy, when they know, or should know, that science does not deal in proof. Try whiskey or mathematics.
(As an aside, creationists require the most stringent of "proof" for evolutionary theory, while accepting creation "science" -- which generally consists of numerous scientific terms strung together using the flimsiest of evidence and reasoning, along with copious quantities of apologetics, all masquerading as real science in hopes of fooling the unwary. Creation "science" makes junk science look accomplished!)
(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).
BS. How much study of the technical journals in the broad fields of evolutionary theory have you done? Any? Or did you dial up a creationist website and stay at a Holiday Inn Express?
Are you familiar with any of these? (They are only a small fraction of the literature)
American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Anthropological Science
Anthropologie
L' Anthropologie
Archaeometry
Behavior Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biological Psychology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Current Anthropology
Current Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolutionary Anthropology
Forensic Science International
Gene
Genetical Research
Genetics
Genome Research
Heredity
Homo
Human Biology
Human Heredity
Human Genetics
Human Genomics
Human Molecular Genetics
Human Mutation
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature
Nature Genetics
Nature Reviews Genetics
PLoS Biology
PLoS Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Science
Trends in Genetics
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.
Sorry, that happens not to be the case. The hysteria over "human-caused global warming" is already coming apart because of significant evidence to the contrary.
The theory of evolution has been getting stronger for 150 years, and shows no signs of fading even in the face of increasing attacks from creationists and their latest Trojan Horse, ID.
coyoteman you are posting stuff that we are aware of from evolutionists but the problem is evolutionists dont tell the whole story, they dont show all the evidence and there procedures of science are biased, for instance in carbon dating if a date comes back that doesnt fit an evolutionists preconceived idea of how old something should supposedly be i.e. not found in the supposed date of the no evidence geologic column then what do they do? theythrow it out as a bad date. Thats junk science!
some may have been duplicates but not most, but I can still give you more names if you like?
Thats not the only problems to carbon dating!
Natural selection has nothing to do with the farse of macro evolution, which does not exist anywhere.
Variety is nothing more than natural selection, it has nothing to do with a supposed macro evolution process, genetics in is genetics out variety is just a reshuffling of already existing genetics. Peace!
And dont forget THE EARTH HAS A FEVOR! maybe we should fill the oceans with dayquil! Global temperture changes are solar every ten to twenty years we have cooling and then we have warming, that what the evidence shows, but Al Gore is a propagandist hollywood phony just like James Cameron, their all the same pretenders! What I dont get is how someone/evolutionists and evironmentalists can look in the mirror everyday and know they are living a lie! What a waste! even the main founder of green peace turned from the nonsense and admitted the political lies they were propagandising.
your right about the global warming stuff coyoteman but the evidence for evolution is not getting stronger as a matter of absolute fact it is getting much weaker, if it was even strong at all, only in biased universities has evolution been touted as strong.
Your ignorance is astounding!
First, radiocarbon dating is not used for the vast majority of evolutionary studies. You must be mistaking radiocarbon dating for radiometric dating (yes, there is a difference!).
Second, most studies using radiocarbon dating employ a lot of samples, not just one! DUH!
What would you do if you sent off 30 samples and 29 came back in a nice consistent pattern, but one was an outlier?
Knowing your anti-science approach, you would probably believe the outlier discredited all of the rest of the samples and proved creationism or something.
Given the lack of knowledge you exhibit in your posts, you have no business lecturing anybody on what science is or how it should work.
As I posted earlier,
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.
Oh, Bravo,Coyoteman...well said...
Did anyone hear about the student wanting a recomendation and a certain Dr. Micheal Dini of texas tech university only gives recomendations if the student gets good grades and is known personaly by him and what wlse? You have to swear that humans came from apelike creatures. What a laugh!!1 to the nth degree!!!! this is what Im talking about the absolute biased garbage from universities. LET ALL READ AND GET WISE! Evoluion in the news Feb, 2003 www.ridgecrest.ca.us another good site for all to read www.harrypottermagic.org/evolution it tells about the life of Charles Darwin and some other good tidbits! very funny also! Peace!
Not really. Evolutionary theory is thoroughly, and crucially, entwined and woven together with numerous "auxiliary" principles, as Sober calls them, which render it rich in testable implications. See, for instance, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
ID by contrast is almost completely vacuous. Indeed it is intentionally vacuous. "ID proponents" systematically refuse to entertain or propose, even speculatively, any claims whatsoever about how, when, where, by what agency or in what specific forms "intelligent design" events are actually instantiated.
This intentional lack of empirical content is, I believe, due to the fact that ID is not and never was intended to function as a scientific theory. (Or a scientific program, rather. Even many IDers admit it's not sufficiently developed to qualify as a "theory".)
Instead ID's role is to serve as an inoffensive "umbrella" ideology for antievolutionists and creationists who traditionally have bitterly disagreed about numerous issues such as: the age of the earth, progressive versus sudden/fiat creationism, the "canopy" theory, the global nature (or not) of Noah's flood, the flood's geological significance, and etc, etc, etc.
In a real science, of course, such substantive disagreements would be considered fruitful. But of course creationism is concerned with putting a scientific gloss on "correct" dogma, so such disagreements are intolerable and have led to multiple schisms and/or the dissolution of antievolution orgs affected by them. (See Henry Morris' A History of Modern Creationism for many examples.)
"Intelligent Design" is, then, a "lowest common denominator" that nearly all antievolutionary creationists can support, precisely because it says almost nothing about anything.
aconsistant pattern according to what cause I can show you a consistan pattern of errors, cause thats the only real pattern, what is your pattern contrived of, preconceived procedures of bias preconceived dating ideology. Cause thats not honest! that is pure bias!
Given the ridiculous nature of your posts I can no longer believe you are for real.
Did anyone hear about Micah Spradling that picked Dr. Micheal Dini out of 36 other Biology professors at Texas Tech only to drop out of class after the first week? Micah Spradling then transfered to that medical powerhouse Lubbock Christian University to complete his biology course and get his recommendation for medical school; Naturally, he stopped by the the Liberty Legal Institute to let the lawyers now he was being "oppressed".
If you want a recommendation from Dr. Dini you need an 'A' in at least one of his classes, a leadership role or special project so that he gets to know you; and answer, in person, the question: "How do you think the human species originated?"
On his site, Dini cautions students: "If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences."
In his complaint, Micah Spradling states, "I'll never be able to affirm that I believe human evolution is true. My faith prohibits that."
So, his religious beliefs require him to reject science? Maybe a change in majors would have been the better choice. Like Theology or Criminal Psychology? Something that doesn't require the heavy lifting of science.
Or maybe he could try one of the other 35 Biology professors on the TT staff.
Micah, I'm sure one of them will let a whining slacker such as yourself slide by, hell you might even get a letter of recommendation ... Shmuck.
(and you're talking to yourself, Wakeup Sleeper)
I made a specific point, as you asked for in post #551. Can you address my critique or will you stick to make this a kind of whack-a-mole? To repeat:
What happens if you pour a gallon of water into a 1 litre measuring cup? You may get a result, something between zero and one - depends on how forceful you were. Of course the reading is worthless.... And your mom will come to complain about the mess you made - again - though everyone has told you that it doesn't work... and you will say: you have a reading, so hasn't been a gallon in the first place...
That's what the main point of The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods
is about:
They know, that carbon dating won't give meaningful results for samples which are older than ~50,000 years. They do it non the less. And they do it again. And they claim that they have proved either that the world is less than 50,000 years old or that carbon dating doesn't work.
To get back to our little analogy: this is like claiming that their is either less than one litre of liquid or that it is impossible to measure the amount of one gallon...
I didn't call the names in your posts "window dressing." Here's what I posted:
Given the duplicitous nature of most of them, it's more like cross-dressing.
Before your attempt your next response, please have someone tell you what the words mean.
You then responded,
some may have been duplicates but not most, but I can still give you more names if you like?
I see you didn't take my advice.
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.