The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[js1138]

What I asked was, to provide me the name of a person who was born to non-human parents.

Perhaps you will provide us with the names of the people who married Adam's children.

[PatrickHenry]

the names of the people who married Adam's children

I believe they called each other "Bro" or "Sis" as the situation required.

[js1138]

In the Bible, I believe the name of the first person descended from a non-human was Adam -- reportedly the image of his father, but apparently a poor facsimile. In any case, a definite genetic bottleneck.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Does that help?

Yes. I was sure that we agreed on this point and that it was just a misunderstanding.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

the theory of evolution is testable, and thus scientific, even though it is not reproduceable in the laboratory, because it predicts that we will find certain things and not others.

I would not agree that just because a theory makes predictions that it is testable. These are two different phases of the scientific method. And, without controlled experimentation (a crucial part of the scientific method), an hypothesis cannot be considered scientific.

Controlled experimentation is crucial. Given a set of observations, it is possible to conceive of an hypothesis to explain them. And, while it is true that the hypothesis can make both positive and negative predictions, it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove the hypothesis if you cannot control the conditions. You are at the mercy of a data set over which you have no control. In fact, virtually every data set is actually just a sample of the true data set of all possible observations. There is no guarantee that the sample data set is representative of the whole thing.

For this reason, I consider evolution to be more anecdotal than scientific.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Meaningless, meaningless, all is meaningless! This is off the point, but your tagline is actually a better translation of the Hebrew text of Ecclesiastes 1:1 than the usual "vanity."

"Vanity" was used in the King James Version. "Meaningless" is used in the New International Version. I suspect that vanity was probably very accurate for the time, but it's usage has changed. Then again, I'm not a scholar of King James English.

[PatrickHenry]

And, without controlled experimentation (a crucial part of the scientific method), an hypothesis cannot be considered scientific.

This will be big news to professionals in astronomy, geology, anthropology, paleontology, climatology, archaeology, and cosmology. And of course, evolution.

[Condorman]

Again, every new fossil is a test of evolution. Evolution provides an explanatory framework that fits the known fossils. If a new fossil fits within that framework, evolution is strengthened. If not, the theory is altered to account for it.

Not incidentally, many of the major fossil frauds and hoaxes were exposed because they didn't fit the existing framework.

[Lurking Libertarian]

"Vanity" was used in the King James Version. "Meaningless" is used in the New International Version.

I didn't know (or had forgotten) that the NIV used "meaningless." I do read Hebrew, but not well enough to be able to consistently get by without translations. I have the two Jewish Publication Society versions; the 1917 edition used "vanity" and the revised JPS uses "futility."

[balrog666]

Maybe "Rachumlakenschlaff" is Middle German for "Forrest Gump".

[PatrickHenry]

I think it's something about vengence, but I can't figure it out.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Again, every new fossil is a test of evolution. Evolution provides an explanatory framework that fits the known fossils. If a new fossil fits within that framework, evolution is strengthened. If not, the theory is altered to account for it.

Not incidentally, many of the major fossil frauds and hoaxes were exposed because they didn't fit the existing framework.

The problem with this model, and the problem with calling this science, is that it is guaranteed that evolution will never be disproven; because all you have to do is change the model to fit the new discoveries. That's what Gould did with punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism was disproven by the fossil record so, poof!, change by macromutation replaces micromutation and it's still called evolution!!!

Evolution in the broad sense is philosophy. However, the underlying mechanisms (the scientific part of evolution) that have been proposed over the years have one by one shown to be wrong or have serious problems. But, since it is allowed that any underlying mechanism can be changed to fit the facts and it is still labeled "evolution", it can never be disproven by definition. So the philosophy of evolution remains while the science of evolution changes as needed to suppport the philosophy. Conveniently, both are labeled evolution.

[VadeRetro]

That's what Gould did with punctuated equilibrium. Gradualism was disproven by the fossil record so, poof!, change by macromutation replaces micromutation and it's still called evolution!!!

From Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium:

What Is The Mechanism Of Evolution In These Cases?

The theory of Punctuated Equilibrium does not say, and it shouldn't. There are a number of known evolutionary mechanisms, such as the Founder Effect, Natural Selection, neutral drift, sexual selection, and so on. Other mechanisms may be discovered in the future. There is no particular reason to expect that cases of Punctuated Equilibrium must all use the same mechanism. The point of the theory is only that evolution is more likely to happen to small groups, isolated from the homogenizing effect of the larger main group.

You're really not that familiar with this stuff. You only know what Duane Gish or someone of that ilk told you about punctuated equilibrium and it's wrong.

As for your larger point that science keeps changing its story, a particular scenario (gradualism) was found to be inadequate by itself. Another model came to the fore, although it probably doesn't apply in all cases either. (However, it almost certainly does apply in many.) That the newer model is still evolution is not too shocking to those in the know. There's a lot of evidence for evolution.

Science converges upon ever-more accurate modeling of reality. If a step doesn't take you that way, you don't move.

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Rachumlakenschlaff said:
And, without controlled experimentation (a crucial part of the scientific method), an hypothesis cannot be considered scientific.

PatrickHenry wrote:
This will be big news to professionals in astronomy, geology, anthropology, paleontology, climatology, archaeology, and cosmology. And of course, evolution.

Ah... the psuedo sciences! Don't forget parapsychology. Actually, your list is very accurate in that all of these disciplines suffer from the same problem. While it is quite possible to practise science within them, and knowledge is definitely gained when this is done, none of their major tenants are ever proven or subject to the scientific method. They are all glorified exercises in pattern matching and statistical correlation, and they all keep changing the underlying science but continue to give their new theories the same name.

As a reminder, the scientific method requires experimentation:

The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

The study of evolution consists of the above minus the experimentation, i.e., observation, hypothesis, conclusion. Therefore, it is not science. I fail to understand how scientists can claim to be practicing science when they do not follow the scientific method. If you would like to learn the value of experimentation, I would suggest talking with a physicist or aeronautical engineer. You should be very thankful that the planes you fly on were designed by and based on the principles derived by people who tested their theories with experimentation, and not by people who drew conclusions after observing the fossils of dead birds.

Astronomy: no one's figured out how to experiment on stars and galaxies.

Geology: anyone made an earthquake or moved a continent lately?

Anthropology: all the scientists that were around at the origin of man are dead and they didn't leave any notes.

Paleontology: how do you experiment on fossils? By definition, they're all past tense.

Climatology: the weather has been shown to be a chaotic system, unpredictable beyond a few days even with millions of data points. But that doesn't stop meteorologists from giving out 14-day forcasts that would, if they advertised for profit on TV, find themselves in the same trouble as Miss Cleo. As far as global climate change models are concerned, I seem to remember everyone predicting global cooling not that long ago... Fascinating how you can make a totally opposite prediction and people will still believe you. But it's science!!

Archaelogy: like paleontology, the study of the past. No one's figured out how to experiment on the past yet.

Cosmology: if we're talking astrophysics, then it has the same problems as astronomy. If were talking origins, then experiments on the past are once again the problem.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...change the model to fit the new discoveries...

The essence of science is to make the model fit the discovery. This is why Creationism (even in the vanity of ID) is not science and should not be taught as such. Many a beautiful theory is raped by an ugly fact.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Forensics: No one observed OJ kill Nicole and no controlled experiment was done. By Creationist reasoning, OJ must have been innocent.

[HairOfTheDog]

You guys getting anywhere on this issue?

[Rachumlakenschlaff]

Forensics: No one observed OJ kill Nicole and no controlled experiment was done. By Creationist reasoning, OJ must have been innocent.

The scientific theory of OJ. Are you teaching classes on it? Where can I sign up?

Forensics is not the study of OJ. However, Design Theory borrows heavily from forensics. Perhaps it's not an argument from ignorance after all.

[edsheppa]

If I may recommend this reference; it's rather more pertinent to technical discussion. It contains an interesting sentence:

Pure and unqualified information is an unwarranted abstraction.

In any case, as has been pointed out to you, there are processes, accepted as natural, that increase so-called biological information.

Consider another case. Water is unoriented but ice has a crystaline orientation. This orientation is information about the ice, right? When water freezes to ice, where does this information come from?

A photon is polarized. You pass it through a polarizer at 45deg. With equal probability it either passes or is absorbed. This is information about the photon, right? Where did it come from?

[unspun]

You guys getting anywhere on this issue?

Yes. OJ did it.