Jonathan Wells Hits an Evolutionary Nerve (over origin of functional genetic information)

Discovery Institute ^ | October 14, 2009 | Casey Luskin

[GodGunsGuts]

When intelligent design (ID) proponents press neo-Darwinian evolutionists on the inability of Darwinian evolution to produce new functional genetic information, a common response from evolutionists is that they get angry and engage in name calling. That’s what happened when...

[tacticalogic]

Unless the investigation will be open to questioning them (e.g. geometric physics, cosmology) it is enough to state that "For the purposes of this investigation, physical laws, constants and causation are given as inviolable."

Is it reasonable to assume that unless explicitly declared otherwise, this is a "given" in any investigation?

[betty boop]

"Direct observation" isn't possible in any investigation that involves phenomena outside our range of sensory perception, or happens in timescalse outside our lifespan. Currently the standard is that those direct observations are not required where they are not possible, but indirect evidence is allowed.

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that what you like about methodological nanturalism is its presupposition (i.e., that all natural phenomena have exclusively natural causes); but that the "nuts and bolts" of what constitutes it as a method of scientific investigation — direct observation, replicability of experiments, etc. — is really quite optional.

Can you understand why I and my dearest sister in Christ, Alamo-Girl, say that the ToE is lacking in scientific rigor — as compared with, say, physics or chemistry?

In an earlier post, you suggested that what motivates A-G and me and others who find the ToE wanting is that we want to undermine it, so philosophical arguments can then be introduced to criticize it.

But jeepers tacticalogic, can you not see that the ToE is already more philosophy than science already — for it does not hew to generally accepted scientific standards — or at least not those that would be applied in any other scientific field?

[tacticalogic]

So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that what you like about methodological nanturalism is its presupposition (i.e., that all natural phenomena have exclusively natural causes); but that the "nuts and bolts" of what constitutes it as a method of scientific investigation — direct observation, replicability of experiments, etc. — is really quite optional.

And if I understand you correctly, you are taking an observatation about the practical necessity of methodoligical naturalism as being motivated by a belief in philosophical naturalism, and an underlying hostility to supernaturalism.

[tacticalogic]

But jeepers tacticalogic, can you not see that the ToE is already more philosophy than science already — for it does not hew to generally accepted scientific standards — or at least not those that would be applied in any other scientific field?

Is ToE any more speculative about past events than geology, vulcanology, plate tectonics, "deep time" radiometrics, or astro-physics? All involve theories based on evidence of events that were not directly observed and cannot be replicated.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very much for all of your wonderful insights, dearest sister in Christ!

But jeepers tacticalogic, can you not see that the ToE is already more philosophy than science already — for it does not hew to generally accepted scientific standards — or at least not those that would be applied in any other scientific field?

Precisely so. As you say, it lacked scientific rigor.

Historical sciences such evolution, anthropology, Egyptology, archeology and paleontology deal with a spotty historical record simply because not every creature that ever lived left a complete record of itself. All of them rely on some philosophy or reasoning to fill in the blanks.

I find it amusing to watch some of the serious animations of dinosaurs. The scenes are presented without explanation of the extent to which the artists have 'filled in the blanks.' Who really knows whether the creature was brown or gray, striped or solid, etc.? And yet the viewer is left with the false impression that what he is seeing is factual.

[tacticalogic]

Historical sciences such evolution, anthropology, Egyptology, archeology and paleontology deal with a spotty historical record simply because not every creature that ever lived left a complete record of itself. All of them rely on some philosophy or reasoning to fill in the blanks.

And they no longer exist. This means that it is impossible to apply criteria of direct observation and repeatability to them.

Does that mean that it is impossible to apply the scientifice method to these fields of study, and therefore declare there is nothing scientific about them?

[betty boop]

And if I understand you correctly, you are taking an observation about the practical necessity of methodological naturalism as being motivated by a belief in philosophical naturalism, and an underlying hostility to supernaturalism.

Yes tacticalogic; I think that’s fair to say. The “practical necessity” exists in that the scientific method cannot directly address the nonphenomenal (i.e., immaterial) aspects of the universe. This is fine; but it may not then turn around and say — as I gather Richard Dawkins does — that the nonphenomenal aspects of reality are simply not really there; they may “look like” they are, but this is an illusion. Certainly in Dawkins’ case there is decidedly a “hostility to supernaturalism” (that word to be understood as a deprecation). Science eventually will either be able to explain these aspects in naturalistic terms, or failing this, the failure itself will be taken as proof of their unreality: The “naturalistic terms” are their “acid test” of reality.

But this is to reduce the entire universe to an extraordinarily limited concept, a human imagining. Also the expectation that the scientific method is the only reliable tool for the investigation of reality has no foundation in fact. People who claim such things are the very ones who do the most poaching on the domain of philosophy — but of course they’d never admit it.

[betty boop]

Is ToE any more speculative about past events than geology, vulcanology, plate tectonics, “deep time” radiometrics, or astro-physics? All involve theories based on evidence of events that were not directly observed and cannot be replicated.

Yes, I think the ToE is more speculative than these other sciences, and I think it is positively unlike astrophysics. For astrophysics (and “deep-time” radiometrics) is intensively direct-observation oriented. Such investigators are directly “seeing” or “hearing” the echoes of a past event. The astrophysicist realizes when he sees a new celestial object that it may already be long gone by billions of years; it is/was so far away that it took all this time for its light to reach his eyes….

Compared to which the ToE has the fossil record. But the fossil record itself is entirely “spotty” and thus ambiguous, depending on human interpretation in a way that light from a dead star reaching us over billions of years is not.

The difference between ToE and the other sciences is captured in the difference between the idea of “working hypothesis” and “holy writ.” A working hypothesis can change over time, modified in light of advancing empirical evidence. Or it can be dispensed with, and another working hypothesis adopted that seems more fruitful for the elucidation of the accumulating evidence. A working hypothesis is geared to the idea of ultimately being subjected to replicable tests, and if the tests pan out, then you may have a theory (i.e., something with predictive value).

On the other hand, with ToE, you have a quasi-sacred shibboleth that must not be challenged, or modified in any way!!! Dang it, there is a Common Ancestor, and the rest of it is random mutation and natural selection!!! Period. So do not — I repeat, do not — ever think of tampering with or challenging this view. It is sacred to many….

Thanks so much for writing, tacticalogic.

[tacticalogic]

Yes tacticalogic; I think that’s fair to say. The “practical necessity” exists in that the scientific method cannot directly address the nonphenomenal (i.e., immaterial) aspects of the universe. This is fine; but it may not then turn around and say — as I gather Richard Dawkins does — that the nonphenomenal aspects of reality are simply not really there; they may “look like” they are, but this is an illusion. Certainly in Dawkins’ case there is decidedly a “hostility to supernaturalism” (that word to be understood as a deprecation). Science eventually will either be able to explain these aspects in naturalistic terms, or failing this, the failure itself will be taken as proof of their unreality: The “naturalistic terms” are their “acid test” of reality.

Dawkins has an exterme view that goes far beyond the the affirmation of practical necessity. I do not, but it seems there is a default assumption of it absent any evidence to the contrary.

[tacticalogic]

Yes, I think the ToE is more speculative than these other sciences, and I think it is positively unlike astrophysics. For astrophysics (and “deep-time” radiometrics) is intensively direct-observation oriented. Such investigators are directly “seeing” or “hearing” the echoes of a past event. The astrophysicist realizes when he sees a new celestial object that it may already be long gone by billions of years; it is/was so far away that it took all this time for its light to reach his eyes….

There seems to be some disagreement on what constitutes "rigorous" science. YEC proponents regularly submit that "deep-time" radiometrics and astrophysics are no less speculative than ToE. By their account, those sciences are no less "atheistic" than evolutinary biology, and need their methodology adjusted accordingly.

[Alamo-Girl]

The difference between ToE and the other sciences is captured in the difference between the idea of “working hypothesis” and “holy writ.” A working hypothesis can change over time, modified in light of advancing empirical evidence. Or it can be dispensed with, and another working hypothesis adopted that seems more fruitful for the elucidation of the accumulating evidence. A working hypothesis is geared to the idea of ultimately being subjected to replicable tests, and if the tests pan out, then you may have a theory (i.e., something with predictive value).

On the other hand, with ToE, you have a quasi-sacred shibboleth that must not be challenged, or modified in any way!!! Dang it, there is a Common Ancestor, and the rest of it is random mutation and natural selection!!! Period. So do not — I repeat, do not — ever think of tampering with or challenging this view. It is sacred to many….

Excellent analysis, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you!

Truly, I think it should be called the paradigm of evolution because it is treated like a framework into which all subsequent theories must fit.

In my view all historical sciences (evolution, anthropology, archeology, Egyptology, paleontology) are inferior by their inability to falsify alternative explanations for the spotty historical record. In archeology, anthropology and Egyptology the scientists argue amongst themselves all the time - but with evolution, there is to be no argument except on the details, the big picture is considered "settled." And thus I again aver it should be called a paradigm. If not that, then maybe a dogma.

[betty boop]

There seems to be some disagreement on what constitutes "rigorous" science. YEC proponents regularly submit that "deep-time" radiometrics and astrophysics are no less speculative than ToE. By their account, those sciences are no less "atheistic" than evolutinary biology, and need their methodology adjusted accordingly.

Well I'm probably the wrong person to ask about such issues. Ask the YEC proponents.

[betty boop]

...with evolution, there is to be no argument except on the details, the big picture is considered "settled." And thus I again aver it should be called a paradigm. If not that, then maybe a dogma.

"Dogma" sounds about right to me, dearest sister in Christ!

Thank you ever so much for your insights.

[Alamo-Girl]

Ok, then, I'll try to remember to call it "the dogma of evolution."

Thank you for your insights and encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!

[tacticalogic]

Well I'm probably the wrong person to ask about such issues. Ask the YEC proponents.

Then I'm the wrong person to talk to about Dawkins.

[hosepipe]

The dogma of evolution..... Hmmm..
I think it has legs... and a bark...

[betty boop]

Then I'm the wrong person to talk to about Dawkins.

We don't have to talk of him personally, for he is a cultural spokesman with a large following. We could talk about this following, to which you seem to belong. Or would you rather speak of Richard Lewontin, or Jacques Monod? Or of Ernst Mayr perhaps? Stephen Jay Gould?

In whatever case, it seems to me that getting into the personalities would be a distraction from the questions I raised in my earlier posts.

Thank you for the conversation, tacticalogic....

[betty boop]

I think it has legs... and a bark...

I think so too, dear brother in Christ! It seems we live in a wolfish age....

[betty boop]

Ok, then, I'll try to remember to call it "the dogma of evolution."

Or in the shorthand, "Darwin's Dogma." LOL!

I just have the strangest feeling that the ToE (or "DD") is something frozen in time, like its fossils.

I just figure it may need some updating....

Thanks so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!

[tacticalogic]

We don't have to talk of him personally, for he is a cultural spokesman with a large following. We could talk about this following, to which you seem to belong. Or would you rather speak of Richard Lewontin, or Jacques Monod? Or of Ernst Mayr perhaps? Stephen Jay Gould?

If you want to make it an exercise in taxonomy, what are your criteria for assigning people to this "following"?