Evolution Debate creates monster [Flying Spaghetti monster, to be exact]

The debate over teaching evolution in Kansas public schools has caught the attention of a cross-country Internet community of satirists.

In the past few weeks, hundreds of followers of the supreme Flying Spaghetti Monster have swamped state education officials with urgent e-mails.

They argue that since the conservative majority of the State Board of Education has blessed classroom science standards at the behest of intelligent design supporters, which criticize evolution, they want the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster taught.

“I’m sure you realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory,” writes Bobby Henderson, a Corvallis, Ore., resident whose Web site, www.venganza.org, is part FSM tribute and part job search. Karl Gehring/Journal-World Illustration

“It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster,” he wrote to the education board.

Henderson did not return a telephone call for comment. He says in his letter that it is disrespectful to teach about the FSM without wearing “full pirate regalia.”

Board member Bill Wagnon, a Democrat, whose district includes Lawrence, said he has received more than 500 e-mails from supporters of FSM.

“Clearly, these are just supreme satirists. What they are doing is pointing out that there is no more sense to intelligent design than there is to a Flying Spaghetti Monster,” Wagnon said.

Intelligent design posits that some aspects of biology are so complex, they point toward an intelligent creator.

ID proponents helped shepherd a report and hearings that have resulted in science standards that criticize evolution and have put Kansas in the middle of international attention on the subject.

John Calvert, of Lake Quivira, the lawyer who was instrumental in writing the science standards that criticize evolution, said he had seen the FSM e-mails, and was not impressed.

“You can only use that misinformation so long,” Calvert said. Calvert said the science standards do not promote intelligent design, but show that evolution has its critics.

Wagnon and the three other board members who support evolution have written Henderson back, saying they appreciated the comic relief but that they were saddened that the science standards were being changed to criticize evolution.

Thank you for your response.

If the only thing that needs to be done to falsify the claim that life was intelligently designed is to show that an irreducibly complex system could have evolved naturally, then ID has in fact been falsified. Irreducibly complex systems can in principle evolve naturally via a stepwise process.[emphasis mine]
-Imagine an organism...
- It is easy to imagine that a stepwise evolutionary process might produce...
-Now imagine that the system is such that A and B are redundant parts...
-It is easy to see that it would be possible for system CDE to arise...

- I have shown above that this system could have arisen via an unintelligent stepwise evolutionary process...

I'll need more than imagination to accept the conclusion that such a system could have arisen via an unintelligent stepwise evolutionary process, and further, that such a thing has been demonstrated in fact and that therefore ID has been falsified. The fact is that no biologist has come even remotely close to reconstructing the history of something like a bacterial flagellum in Darwinian terms.

If the tables were turned, could Darwinism be potentially falsified with respect to some alertedly IC biological system? I think it is not falsifiable. One would have to show that no conceivable Darwinian pathway could have led to that system, which seems effectively impossible.

Cordially,

Re:some physicists might disagree...
The physical process and physics of that representation are not dependent on what the nonphysical subject of the representation is. The physical element of the representation for elephant is the same as it is for bucket. IOWs your still talking about the machine's physics. THe physics of the perception of light, sound, pain, memory, emoiton, concept and logic process, ect... are part of the machine. What is percieved, or conjured up, is not.

The nonphysical representation of the elephant held by the machine can be anything. The elephant can have smooth, thin skin. It can talk when other folks are not around. It might even be a former tree on it's way to nirvana. That's some example for the nonphysical component of the not necessarily rational set, that includes such things as A != A, (A = A or!= A depending on some arb cliam), ect... set.

I appreciate the attempt at discourse, but I didn't offer it as my own opinion, nor do I wish to step into the role of advocatus diaboli. I will say though, that you're making some serious errors in logic. As Diamond has pointed out, if you start with the premise that the human body is a machine, literally rather than metaphorically, then you have no choice but to postulate that all of it's mechanisms are deterministic.

Also, the phrase non physical representations, is a contradiction in terms.

"I could direct to a forum wherein resides a Physicist with just such qualifications."

That would be interesting. Thanks.

James Randi Educational Forum (JREF)

I'd post a link, but they seem to be down at present. Probably just temporary maintenance. Anyway, the members moniker is Stimpson J. Cat. His real name is Dr. Kevin Dolan, and if you click on his homepage, you'll see his qualifications. You'll also notice (for matters of credibility) that I've been a member there since 2001.

Your best bet is post on the "Religion and Philosophy" foum, or the "Science and Mathematics."

The relevant word is "demonstrate", not "exist". You can't prove a negative. All you can do is show that there is no evidence for whatever is claimed, and/or in addition show the proposiiton is illogical. Pink elephants might exist, but not on this planet. Things that can't be demonstrated to physically exist have no consequence.

You're statement intimates that exist is already defined objectively. Therefore, if it is true that sentience can not be objectively demonstrated, then it stands to reason that the definiton of the term "exist" is not contingent to sentience.

Given that, your statement can only be objectively true, if you can provide a clear and concise defintion of term exist, without utilizing and aspect of sentience , either in method or substance...and this time, instead of saying good luck, I'll state in no uncertain terms that an objective definition of the term "exist" is impossible. I don't know why you're off on a tangent with proving a negative,

...but to suggest that there are aspects of the mind that, according to physics, can not be reduced to physical phenomena, is simply not true.

Is that idea of "something not comporting with the truth" itself a physical phenomena? If so, then your statement is self-refuting. What is truth? How do you reduce the concept of truth to a physical phenomena? How can the brute forces of colliding atoms and molecules in your head or anyone else's head be "true" or, for that matter "false"?

Do you think that that word "the", for example, could be found in the atoms and molecules of your brain?

Cordially,

"...intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems..." Michael Behe

This was the original claim to which I was responding. This is meant to be a falsification criterion for ID. This claim is that no unintelligent process (emphasis mine) be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, not that no unintelligent process that can actually be demonstrated to have formed a biological system be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems. I have demonstrated that the first claim, the one actually put forth is incorrect. I assume you are not willing at this point to give up on ID. Therefore, this claim cannot represent a falsification criterion for ID.

" Notice that NONE of these definitions include the capacity of sentience."

None of the defs included the capacity to saw logs either. A machine is simply a material assemblage that utilizes energy to perform some function. That general function is the output of the machine. That is my definition. So the function/output can be anything. It's an open set. It fits Websters def #f. An electrical(energy) comsuming device that performs a task. The scientific, engineering and math lit also contain this def.

"You'll have to come up for another word for that which you are trying to cram into the word machine. What you have in mind is bigger than the word."

There is nothing special about any of the functions included in the set "sentience" that make them special and differentiates them from all the rest in the general set function/output. See any lit on artificial intel to see that this is so and the word machine has the meaning I have given. I'll note here as a caution, that just as the circle is not a function, it is when the appropriate constraints are applied.

Re: Those are objects of the mind. Of course they are real...The variable "intent" is arbitrary both in scope and existence
"This dualism is not consistent with the presupposition of man as machine.

Proper constaints provide for Free will and T/F answers. In general I envision a random output generator constrained by the decisions of a learning process. Value based decisions depend on choices which are dependent on the results of prior deciisons in the learning process. If your interested see, the discussion of Free will and determinism in Universal Artificial Intelligence, Marcus Hutter, '05.

" With man as machine nothing could 'objectively' be demonstrated because man would be nothing but a little machine that is part of the universe; the big Machine.

The universe is not a machine. It simply provides the landscape, material and physical laws for the machines. Objective determinations are always possible when the functions of mind are present.

"Man could not stand outside the machine. The soul is the machine that provides for Heavenly existence. The soul is not a proper subject for science. Nor is the physics of Heaven. That's an exercise in pure thought and speculation.

"Your premise logically excludes the possibility of rational knowledge and freedom and leaves you a universe in which "nature" itself precludes the existence of the kind of free mind you wish to believe in."

If that were true, then I wouldn't exist. See the passage from Hutter also.

The bare assertion that 'mind' exists somehow over and above nature cannot bring it into being. Mother machine can only produce baby machines.Yes. Without the physics to support them, there is machine to support the functions of mind.

"As Diamond has pointed out, if you start with the premise that the human body is a machine, literally rather than metaphorically, then you have no choice but to postulate that all of it's mechanisms are deterministic."

No. See the relevant part in my reply to Diamond, #388. THanks for the link.

"if it is true that sentience can not be objectively demonstrated"

Sentience can be objectively demonstrated. SImple evidence is this back and forth posting.

"Given that, your statement can only be objectively true, if you can provide a clear and concise defintion of term exist, without utilizing and aspect of sentience , either in method or substance."

LOL! Dude! The function of sentience is required to give any definition whatsoever. If there is no sentience, the function sentience doesn't exist. Definitions are functions of sentience. Hence there are no definitions.

Here's the objective def of exist: exist=whatever is. The physical does not depend on the function sentience. It exists whether sentience exists, or not. Definitions however don't exist if there's no sentience.

This is meant to be a falsification criterion for ID. This claim is that no unintelligent process (emphasis mine) be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, not that no unintelligent process that can actually be demonstrated to have formed a biological system be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems.

The whole question turns on what constitutes 'sufficient' in Behe's criterion. If we are talking about science, it seems to me that the mere logical possibility of imaginary scenarios cannot be equivalent to the ontological status of empirical data. As Behe specifies, all that would be necessary to falsify a claim of ID is to actually demonstrate an unintelligent process that produces or produced a biological system. Any number of logical possibilities that are coherent and internally consistent in which an unintelligent process is sufficient to produce an irreducibly complex and specified system can be imagined, but if no such scenario is ever demonstrated experimentally, exactly how does this type of imagination serve as a defeater of scientific falsification?

Cordially,

The fact is that no biologist has come even remotely close to reconstructing the history of something like a bacterial flagellum in Darwinian terms.

That's a strange statement, because a little googling turned up quite a bit of information about the flagellum. I doubt you'll find it convincing, because if you did then there would be one fewer irreducibly complex things in nature. That's a hazard of the designer-of-the-gaps philosophy.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Asking as an atheist, isn't this debate a little insulting to people of faith? I wouldn't want my faith reduced to grasping at flagellum or clotting cascades or whatever to prove that science wasn't omniscient, that there is still a necessity for the god I pray to. It seems to miss the point of the Sermon on the Mount. But then again I'm not a believer, and if I was, I don't think I'd be a literalist. Oh well, the world takes all kinds.

I looked over a few of the essays at idthink.net and found them interesting. The problem is that no matter how exhaustively someone documents why they think something is irreducibly complex, I can't get around the basic logical error underpinning the argument. The argument from incredulity is inherently weak, because it's just a god-of-the-gaps repackaged as creator-of-the-gaps. The argument is weak when used in theology, and it is still weak when used in the philosophy of science. Scads of science-speak don't help a logically unsound argument.

At a basic level, the argument is still, "I don't understand how this could have evolved, so therefore there must be a creator guiding development." I'm supposed to be a hard-nosed skeptic concerning natural explanations, but then credulously entertain the possibility that there is some mysterious, unidentified something consciously guiding the molecules so a bacteria can move around? How do I get from not fully understanding the cause of a flagellum to positing a sentient super-being who guides bacteria bits around by some unknown method, through some unknown super-power, and for unknown reasons? Isn't "I don't know" a much more honest answer?

In the absence of conclusive evidence, I find it entirely reasonable to assume that the answer lies somewhere within the natural world, because that is a simpler, more plausible answer than this mysterious super-being that ID proponents are relying on.

If my socks go missing, it makes more sense to say that they are somewhere in my house than to posit a sock-gnome, or, worse, an unidentified sock-vanishing force. That I don't know where the socks are doesn't mean my naturalistic, "they're probably in my house somewhere" argument is invalid. It's an inherently more credible argument than any one invoking a supernatural cause. Someone bemoaning my naturalistic assumptions, concerned about the gaps in my theory, upset that I can't give a conclusive, step-by-step picture of where my socks went and how they got there, is still a silly ninny if they propose "an intelligent sock-vanishing theory." We would know right away that this person is an idiot. Sock-vanishing and flagella-development aren't the same, but the analogy is, I think, relatively sound. In each case the natural assumption is more reasonable, and positing a supernatural guiding super-duper something-or-other is pointless.

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.