Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 151 of 198 (203555)
04-29-2005 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-28-2005 7:19 PM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
Lets put this simply.
1) The peppered moth story is a valid example of natural selection.
Even if other factors were involved it is still clear that there was a selective force related to industrial pollution (and it is very likely that bird predation was the major part of that selective force).
2) Thus it is evidence for evolution in that it establishes that one of the mechanisms proposed works in the wild
3) If I use it as EVIDENCE for evolution as expained in 2) it is a misrepresentation to claim that I am asserting that it is proof of evolution
4) To accuse me of dishonesty based on a clear misrepresentation of my claims would itself be dishonest.
5) To dishonestly make accusations of dishonesty is hypocritical.
And that is what Johnson is doing.
And if you want the basic equations of evolution you need to look into Population Genetics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-28-2005 7:19 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-30-2005 11:33 AM PaulK has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 152 of 198 (203666)
04-29-2005 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-28-2005 9:13 PM


Is there any way an experiment like this could be modified so as to be less unethical?
With sufficient computing power and greater knowledge of proteinomics, we could perform the experiment virtually.
I guess I was looking for some kind of genetic map displaying the pathways that would need to be modified, added or deleted in order to perform some kind of experiment like this.
I'm not sure that's something that would fit on a discussion board. We're talking about a significant amount of genetic data; sorting through that and annotating the needed changes is simply beyond the capacity of people to do in their spare time. You're talking about something it would take a full-time research geneticist to do. Just so you know.
Can I do the same thing with the theory of evolution so as to express random mutations and natural selections in mathematical formulae, test them thousands of times, and result in very accurate predictions as to where the species, alleles and other objects in the evolutionary heirachy will be in the past or in the future?
To say that the biosphere is considerably more complicated than your average calculation of moving Newtonian/relativistic bodies would be to engage in the understatement of the century. Nonetheless certain situations in population genetics are amienable to mathematical modeling.
Hardy—Weinberg principle - Wikipedia
Then why sould I be expected to accept the greater claims of evolution if they are something we won't ever be able to know?
But those greater claims are something we're able to know. It's the lesser claims, the micro-details, that simply don't leave the kind of evidence that is likely to survive. That said, our investigations get better all the time. Of course it's fallacious to rely on future knowledge, but who knows?
Then, to restate the inital outcome of the experiment, is it possible to design an experiment (on paper) that would essentially validate that human could indeed be descended from another "species" of primate?
Sure. That experiment would proceed as follows:
1) Genetic sequences that have no phenotypical effect are not likely to be selected for or against, and therefore, are not affected by environmental influences.
2) These genetic sequences, therefore, are not likely to be outcomes of convergent evolution or of "common design" or somesuch.
3) Therefore we can safely conclude that two organisms will share these sequences if and only if they have inhereted them from a common ancestor.
4) Hypothesis: If humans and chimpanzees share genetic sequences that have no phenotypical effect, then they are decended from a common ancestor.
5) Method: Analysis/comparison of human and chimpanzee genetic sequences.
6) Result: Humans and chimpanzees share genetic sequences that have no phenotypical effect.
7) Conclusion: Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
As I noted before, the oldest members of family Hominidae is considered to have diverged from the common human-chimpanzee ancestor. Admittedly, family Hominidae can simultaneously be considered to be monophyletic and to exclude all of the chimpanzees.
Er, I don't see how this is true. If Homindae is monophyletic then it contains all decendants of the original Homindae ancestor, including chimpanzees. Members of genus Pan are not, to my knowledge, ever considered to be in any family but Hominidae.
The oldest member of family Hominidae is not considered to have diverged from the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. Rather that ancestor decended from the oldest member of Hominidae, because Homindae is monophyletic and contains all members of both genus Homo and genus Pan.
At the very least it would prove that a human could be descended from another "species" of primate -- something which has never been empirically demonstrated in the lab.
Er, not so. The experiment I detailed above has been performed in the lab, and it not only demonstrates that humans and chimps could share a common ancestor, but that the do.
I've been consistently effecitlvey asking, "How can we tell the theory of evolution from some aspects of pseudoscience?"
Well, that's easily answered - evolution makes no claims that cannot be tested and falsified.
However, going past this observation, can at least some mathimatical formulae be "glimpsed" in the eroded fossil record, a formula which could at least partially lead to predictive statements which could then be validated with new discoveries?
There's no way to truly mathematically model all aspects and inputs and effects of evolution short of a model precisely as complex as the physical universe itself. That said sometimes we can simplify things or look at specific, narrow cases and derive predictive models. I think the area you're looking for is called "bioinformatics."
So, is evolution random or is it not random?
Evolution is very not random. Environment exerts an enormous, determining influence on the development of species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-28-2005 9:13 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 153 of 198 (203941)
04-30-2005 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by PaulK
04-29-2005 2:45 AM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
PaulK writes:
Lets put this simply.
1) The peppered moth story is a valid example of natural selection.
Yes. I agree. It is a valid example of natural selection in action.
PaulK writes:
Even if other factors were involved it is still clear that there was a selective force related to industrial pollution (and it is very likely that bird predation was the major part of that selective force).
Yes.
And it is also probable that, in testing how likely light and dark moths were to be eaten, he placed moths on the sides of tree trunks, a place where they rarely perch in nature.
It is also probable that it has become clear that birds see ultraviolet much better than we do, and therefore what seems well-camoflaged to the human eye may not be to a bird.
In addition, it is also probable that neither Kettlewell nor those who checked his work were able to compensate for the degree to which migration of moths from surrounding areas might have affected the actual numbers of light and dark moths he counted in various regions of the countryside.
As Majerus explains, to be absolutely certain of exactly how natural selection produced the rise and fall of the carbonaria form, we need:
a) better experiments to show that birds (in a natural environment) really do respond to camoflage in the ways we have presumed,
b) that the primary reason the dark moths did better in polluted areas was because of camoflage (and not other factors like behavior),
c) and that migration rates of moths from the surrounding countryside are not so great that they overwhelm the influence of selection in local regions by birds.
Until these studies are done, the peppered moth story will be incomplete. Not wrong, but incomplete.
PaulK writes:
2) Thus it is evidence for evolution in that it establishes that one of the mechanisms proposed works in the wild
Yes. But we already know that natural selection is a fact of life.
What we have not established with 100% certainty is that the factors, such as camoflage for example, are the primary reasons for this case of natural selection to have happeneded in the first place.
PaulK writes:
3) If I use it as EVIDENCE for evolution as expained in 2) it is a misrepresentation to claim that I am asserting that it is proof of evolution.
And in 2) you said, "Thus it is evidence for evolution in that it establishes that one of the mechanisms proposed works in the wild."
Yes, but some would argue that the true argument lies in the distinction between the mechanism and the statistical trend of natural selection.
Page not found – College of Arts and Sciences
If I'm to derive some basic formula for the theory of evolution like one can do for power (as noted above), are the two factors of evolution considered solely mutation and natural selection so that we could express it this way?
evolution equals natural selection divided by random mutation.
Or, would it be expressed oppositely as follows?
evolution equals random mutation divided by natural selection.
In other words, what is the basic mathematical formlua for evolution?
Furthermore, how would we test it to make predictions that could accurately be compared to the the fossil record?
I've been reading thorugh the information provided by crashfrog, but I haven't yet noticed any predictive nature to it in regards to the evolution of life as displayed within the fossil record.
Admittedly, I'm still reading through it and I may have overlooked the relevant information. But it seems to be more likely applied to our modern knowledge of population and not not being specifically applied to the fossil record. At least, I haven't noticed any predicitons as to how our missing gaps of knowledge sould be filled in the event that new knowledge is acquired.
PaulK writes:
4) To accuse me of dishonesty based on a clear misrepresentation of my claims would itself be dishonest.
Yes, however, there has been some misrepresentation within some circles.
I've already noted the imcomplete nature of the peppered moth experiment.
However, there are worse examples. As Johnson also notes, a standard textbook example of natural selection involves a species of finches in the Galapagos, whose beaks have been measured over many years.
In 1977 a drought killed most of the finches, and the survivors had beaks slightly larger than before. The probable explanation was that larger-beaked birds had an advantage in eating the last tough seeds that remained.
A few years later, however, there was a flood, and after that the beak size went back to normal. Nothing new had appeared, and there was no directional change of any kind.
Nonetheless, that is considered one of the most impressive examples of natural selection at work that researchers have been able to find after nearly a century and a half of searching.
To make the story look better, the National Academy of Sciences removed some facts in its 1998 booklet on "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science."
This version omits the flood year return-to-normal and encourages teachers to speculate that a "new species of finch" might arise in 200 years if the initial trend towards increased beak size continued indefinitely.
As Johnson notes, if the Academy meant to teach scientific investigation, rather than to inculcate a belief system, it would encourage students to think about why, if natural selection has been continuously active in creating, the observed examples involve very limited back-and-forth variation that doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
PaulK writes:
5) To dishonestly make accusations of dishonesty is hypocritical.
And that is what Johnson is doing.
I thought he was just asking some honest questions -- honest questions biased in favor of Intelligent Design.
PaulK writes:
And if you want the basic equations of evolution you need to look into Population Genetics.
Fair enough, if we remove the simplistic "gravitational assist" model I used before, and replace it with our knowledge of "population genetics", what could be determine from the fossil record alone?
Or, to restate the other questions I noted before -- but applying them to "predictions" of population genetics as displayed within the fossil record -- how would the following questions be answered?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Is there any indication in the fossil record that as a species respective bioshpere is itself evolving the species also evolves in accordance within its respective biosphere? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
Looking through the fossil record, is there a consistant pattern of various species matching the pace of their biosphere's evolution? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
Looking through the fossil record, is there a consistant pattern where specific biospheres are lined up corretly for evoltution to work? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
Note: I admit that, just like meteorology only predicts effectively maybe a week into the future, evolution cannot be used to precisely predict what will happen in the future. This isn't what I'm talking about though.
For example, as noted in EvoWiki, there are many predictions that can be extrapolated from the theory of evolution even if they are not explicitly stated by Darwin. Here are some examples of predictions that one could argue would be extrapolated from the theory of evolution.
Species with high reproductive rates will have a better chance of surviving environmental change than species with low reproductive rates.
Species from a common gene pool separated into group A and group B and isolated for generations over a longer period of time and exposed to different environmental conditions will eventually become unable to reproduce with members of the other group.
Now, looking through the fossil record, can things like this be displayed? If so, do they display any consistent mathematical pattern?
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 04-30-2005 11:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2005 2:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2005 11:54 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 154 of 198 (203945)
04-30-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-30-2005 11:33 AM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
Well that's a very long post that manages to say almost nothing of relevance. None of it manages to dispute the fact that the pepperred moth case is evidence for natural selection and therefore for evolution.
The point under discussion is Johnson's assertion (as paraphrased by you)
Because "evolution" means so many different things, almost any example will do. The trick is always to prove one of the modest meanings of the term, and treat it as a proof of the complete evolutionary system.
So your claim that Johnson was
quote:
just asking some honest questions
Obviously does not apply to the material under discussion which includes no questions at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-30-2005 11:33 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-30-2005 3:40 PM PaulK has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 155 of 198 (203975)
04-30-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by PaulK
04-30-2005 11:54 AM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
Well that's a very long post that manages to say almost nothing of relevance. None of it manages to dispute the fact that the pepperred moth case is evidence for natural selection and therefore for evolution.
You are correct. None of it manages to dispute the fact that the pepperred moth case is evidence for natural selection and therefore for evolution.
It manages to distinguish between the fact that the observed pepperred moth case being considered evidence for natural selection is not also considered a fact for evidence for the grander claims of evolution, such as common ancestry from primordial organmisms.
Fact: That natural selection was observed in the peppered moth case is certainly a fact.
Theory: That the natural selection observed in the peppered moth case contributes significantly to the overall case for the common ancestry of all species from priordial cells is not a fact -- and is still quite within the realm of the theoretical.
PaulK writes:
The point under discussion is Johnson's assertion (as paraphrased by you)
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Because "evolution" means so many different things, almost any example will do. The trick is always to prove one of the modest meanings of the term, and treat it as a proof of the complete evolutionary system.
So your claim that Johnson was
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
just asking some honest questions
Obviously does not apply to the material under discussion which includes no questions at all.
ok. He was making some honest statements.
As Raymond G. Bohlin, Ph.D. notes, primarily through his study of evolution, Johnson learned that the academic community's primary intellectual commitment is to the philosophy of naturalism. If the "facts" contradict materialistic conclusions, then the "facts" are either explained away, ignored, or just plain wrong.
Therefore, evolutionists like Richard Dawkins can say things like "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose," and actually say it with a straight face. The appearance of design is an illusion, you see, because we "know" that organisms evolved and the primary reason we "know" this is because naturalistic philosophy demands it.
Johnson's primary task seems to be continually provoking the scientific community into facing the reality of its naturalistic presuppositions. In earlier years, the scientific establishment was able to dismiss creationists and not officially respond. But when a tenured law professor from Berkeley starts messing with your head, people start answering back.
Incidently, what Johnson seems to have noticed was that both the rules of debate about the issue as well as the word evolution itself were defined in such a way as to rule out objections from the start.
Science is only about discovering naturalistic causes of phenomena, therefore arguing against the sufficiency of natural causes is not science.
Also the "fact of evolution" is determined not by the usual definition of fact such as collected data or something like space travel which has been done, but as something arrived by majority vote.
Steven J. Gould said, "In science, fact can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2005 11:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2005 3:45 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 158 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2005 4:04 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 156 of 198 (203976)
04-30-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-30-2005 3:40 PM


Science is only about discovering naturalistic causes of phenomena, therefore arguing against the sufficiency of natural causes is not science.
What kind of science could encorporate non-naturalistic causes of phenomena? Johnson acts like science's naturalistic basis is a bad thing. In fact, it's the only way to do science.
You want to speculate about the supernatural? Knock yourself out, but it'll never be science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-30-2005 3:40 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2005 3:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 157 of 198 (203979)
04-30-2005 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by crashfrog
04-30-2005 3:45 PM


Just science?
You want to speculate about the supernatural? Knock yourself out, but it'll never be science
It isn't just "science" defined in some pretty strict way. It really is "knowing" anything about anything.
If there is another way to arrive at conclusions that have some moderate degree of assurance of being correct what is it?
It is off topic here to go into it but there might be room in one of these threads or a PNT would do it.
The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"
What is Science?
What is it to know?
How do we know?
What is Objective Evidence? (Evidence for More than One)
The question is:
If I want to know (that is to be able to bet that something is proobably true) something what approach do I use?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2005 3:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by JonF, posted 04-30-2005 4:19 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 158 of 198 (203980)
04-30-2005 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-30-2005 3:40 PM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
quote:
It manages to distinguish between the fact that the observed pepperred moth case being considered evidence for natural selection is not also considered a fact for evidence for the grander claims of evolution, such as common ancestry from primordial organmisms.
i.e. having established that my claim is correct YOU introduce what might be considered a "different definition" of evolution in Johnson's sense. In other words YOU are using Johnson's trick.
quote:
ok. He was making some honest statements.
Where's the honesty in misrepresentation and false accusations ?
quote:
As Raymond G. Bohlin, Ph.D. notes, primarily through his study of evolution, Johnson learned that the academic community's primary intellectual commitment is to the philosophy of naturalism. If the "facts" contradict materialistic conclusions, then the "facts" are either explained away, ignored, or just plain wrong.
Well Bohlin WOULD agree with Johnson - but that wouldn't make it true. There are plenty of Christians who support evolution against Creationism and Intelligent Design. Kenneth Miller, for instance is one of the biggest critics of ID.
quote:
Therefore, evolutionists like Richard Dawkins can say things like "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose," and actually say it with a straight face. The appearance of design is an illusion, you see, because we "know" that organisms evolved and the primary reason we "know" this is because naturalistic philosophy demands it.
And how would you know that it is based on "the philosophy of materialism" rather than the FACT that evolutionary theory offers a better explanation of what we actually observe ?
quote:
Johnson's primary task seems to be continually provoking the scientific community into facing the reality of its naturalistic presuppositions. In earlier years, the scientific establishment was able to dismiss creationists and not officially respond. But when a tenured law professor from Berkeley starts messing with your head, people start answering back.
No, Johnson's primary task is to create that false impression ot muster polticial support for the ID movement
quote:
Incidently, what Johnson seems to have noticed was that both the rules of debate about the issue as well as the word evolution itself were defined in such a way as to rule out objections from the start.
Science is only about discovering naturalistic causes of phenomena, therefore arguing against the sufficiency of natural causes is not science.
Clearly false - it is easy to argue against the adequacy of known mechanisms IF YOU HAVE A CASE. Johnson doesn't. The ID movement have utterly failed to build any such case.
quote:
Also the "fact of evolution" is determined not by the usual definition of fact such as collected data or something like space travel which has been done, but as something arrived by majority vote.
Except that evolution IS based on collected data. Huge mountains of data. And ALL non-obvious theories are decided by the consensus of the scientists working in the field
quote:
Steven J. Gould said, "In science, fact can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'"
And Gould was describing evolution as a fact when he said that. What do you know that he didn't ? Or is it that he knew a lot more about the data supporting evolution than you do ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-30-2005 3:40 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-30-2005 7:27 PM PaulK has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 159 of 198 (203982)
04-30-2005 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by NosyNed
04-30-2005 3:59 PM


Re: Just science?
If I want to know (that is to be able to bet that something is proobably true) something what approach do I use?
A little OT, but I bet you can make your head hurt if you work through The Gettier Problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2005 3:59 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2005 12:23 AM JonF has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 160 of 198 (204006)
04-30-2005 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by PaulK
04-30-2005 4:04 PM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
It manages to distinguish between the fact that the observed pepperred moth case being considered evidence for natural selection is not also considered a fact for evidence for the grander claims of evolution, such as common ancestry from primordial organmisms.
PaulK writes:
i.e. having established that my claim is correct YOU introduce what might be considered a "different definition" of evolution in Johnson's sense. In other words YOU are using Johnson's trick.
Do you believe that the fact that the observed pepperred moth case being considered evidence for natural selection is also considered a fact for evidence for the grander claims of evolution, such as common ancestry from primordial organmisms?
If you do, then I don't think Johnson is wrong in making this distinction.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
ok. He was making some honest statements.
PaulK writes:
Where's the honesty in misrepresentation and false accusations ?
Where's the honesty when someone simply avoids answering the following questions?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Is there any indication in the fossil record that as a species respective bioshpere is itself evolving the species also evolves in accordance within its respective biosphere? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
Looking through the fossil record, is there a consistant pattern of various species matching the pace of their biosphere's evolution? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
Looking through the fossil record, is there a consistant pattern where specific biospheres are lined up corretly for evoltution to work? Or is the process totally random and not following any mathetmatical formula?
PaulK writes:
As Raymond G. Bohlin, Ph.D. notes, primarily through his study of evolution, Johnson learned that the academic community's primary intellectual commitment is to the philosophy of naturalism. If the "facts" contradict materialistic conclusions, then the "facts" are either explained away, ignored, or just plain wrong.
PaulK writes:
Well Bohlin WOULD agree with Johnson - but that wouldn't make it true. There are plenty of Christians who support evolution against Creationism and Intelligent Design.
There are also plenty of Christians who support young-earth creationism -- and that certainly wouldn't make it true either.
My point in quoting Bohlin was to more accurately portray Johnson's position from another intelligent design theoriest's perspective.
PaulK writes:
Kenneth Miller, for instance is one of the biggest critics of ID.
On the other hand, my quoting Miller was to validate that the peppered moth case was not wrong, but rather incomplete.
Why are you lumping my references to Bohlin and Miller into one theory when I quoted them for two distinct reasons -- or is this how proponents of evolutionary theories usually perceive data?
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Therefore, evolutionists like Richard Dawkins can say things like "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose," and actually say it with a straight face. The appearance of design is an illusion, you see, because we "know" that organisms evolved and the primary reason we "know" this is because naturalistic philosophy demands it.
PaulK writes:
And how would you know that it is based on "the philosophy of materialism" rather than the FACT that evolutionary theory offers a better explanation of what we actually observe ?
I "know" this because whenever people like Dawkin's or Gould make the claims that appearance of design is an "illusion", they are revealing a naturalistic bias. This naturalstic bias is even more true whenever someone basically says that they "know" this is so because thier naturalistic philosophy demands it.
This isn't to say that naturalistic causes cannot explain everything -- because they may in fact might be able to do so. However, if one perceives something akin to design, they may in fact be actually observing design -- and not being victims of a illusional Rorshach pattern in life.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Johnson's primary task seems to be continually provoking the scientific community into facing the reality of its naturalistic presuppositions. In earlier years, the scientific establishment was able to dismiss creationists and not officially respond. But when a tenured law professor from Berkeley starts messing with your head, people start answering back.
PaulK writes:
No, Johnson's primary task is to create that false impression ot muster polticial support for the ID movement.
And maybe your perception is simply an illusion based on your own mental constructs.
See what I'm saying?
I don't really care what your "impressions" are.
I'm also not interested in trying to engage in philosophy for philosophy's sake.
When I engage in epistimological questions concerning knowledge, I'm doing it with the precise point of discerning between what it factually known and what is perceived to be known so that further experimental methods can be engaged which will bring what is perceived to be known within the sphere of knowledge that is factually known.
I'm really trying to get past the "perception" or design either by deity or nature and simply construct a valid experimental method (or precise mathematical formula which can be compared to the fossil record) which concretely displays evolution as being proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Incidently, what Johnson seems to have noticed was that both the rules of debate about the issue as well as the word evolution itself were defined in such a way as to rule out objections from the start.
PaulK writes:
Science is only about discovering naturalistic causes of phenomena, therefore arguing against the sufficiency of natural causes is not science.
Then why do researchers who engage in the scientific method sometimes conclude that God doesn't exist or wasn't involved via their own scientific observations?
For example, Gould did (and Dawkins still does) engage in research into dysteleology -- the doctrine of purposelessness in nature. In fact, both have gone on record saying that, based on the evidence of "purposelessness" in natural structures (as supposedly manifested by the existence of vestigial or nonfunctional organs or parts), that God is either evil, stupid, or simply non-existent.
I thought that God was outside the scope of scientific inquiry?
PaulK writes:
Clearly false - it is easy to argue against the adequacy of known mechanisms IF YOU HAVE A CASE. Johnson doesn't. The ID movement have utterly failed to build any such case.
I think this is more because they've never been able to present a valid definition of "intelligent design" that is acceptable by science. In other words, they're only still in the planning stage as far as I'm concerned.
Valid criticisms levelled against IDers will most likely enable ID theorists to redefine their intial premise of "intelligent design' more clearly before it can even get to an adequate stage of scientific inquiry.
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
Also the "fact of evolution" is determined not by the usual definition of fact such as collected data or something like space travel which has been done, but as something arrived by majority vote.
PaulK writes:
Except that evolution IS based on collected data. Huge mountains of data. And ALL non-obvious theories are decided by the consensus of the scientists working in the field.
And yet, Darwin's method is not generally experimental, for singular and complex events are not so explained by any historical science. The theory of evolution relies heavily upon inference and "not on steel balls rolling down inclined planes in a laboratory."
Steven J. Gould said, "In science, fact can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'"
And Gould was describing evolution as a fact when he said that. What do you know that he didn't ? Or is it that he knew a lot more about the data supporting evolution than you do ?
Well, I think he knew a lot more about evolution that I do.
That's why I noted him before when he said the theory of evolution relies heavily upon inference and "not on steel balls rolling down inclined planes in a laboratory."
Likewise, in stating that, "...Darwin's method is not generally experimental, for singular and complex events are not so explained by any historical science," Gould tacitly admitted that Darwinism is outside of the Baconian concept of natural science.
Notwithstanding this, Gould still claimed that Darwinism is "science" because of the methodology Darwin used in arriving at his conclusions. And I've never said that Gould said that Darwinism is not science for that matter.
What are you getting at?
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 05-01-2005 03:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by PaulK, posted 04-30-2005 4:04 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by PaulK, posted 05-01-2005 5:38 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 163 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2005 9:46 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 164 by mick, posted 05-02-2005 12:28 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 161 of 198 (204031)
05-01-2005 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by JonF
04-30-2005 4:19 PM


Re: Just science?
A little epistomology is a dangerous thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by JonF, posted 04-30-2005 4:19 PM JonF has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 162 of 198 (204147)
05-01-2005 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-30-2005 7:27 PM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
quote:
Do you believe that the fact that the observed pepperred moth case being considered evidence for natural selection is also considered a fact for evidence for the grander claims of evolution, such as common ancestry from primordial organmisms?
If you do, then I don't think Johnson is wrong in making this
distinction.
Of course it is not direct evidence of common ancestry. And I am not aware of anyone who has suggested that it is. So where is the evidence that Johnson's accusation has any merit at all ?
quote:
Where's the honesty when someone simply avoids answering the following questions?
There's no dishonesty in pointing out that irrelevant questions are irrelevant and refusing to deal with them in this context. The honesty of asking them in this subthread is what you should be questioning.
quote:
PaulK writes:
Well Bohlin WOULD agree with Johnson - but that wouldn't make it true. There are plenty of Christians who support evolution against Creationism and Intelligent Design.
There are also plenty of Christians who support young-earth creationism -- and that certainly wouldn't make it true either.
However the fact that there are knowledgable people who are definitely NOT materialists and yet accept evolution IS evidence against Bohlin and Johnson's assertion.
quote:
Why are you lumping my references to Bohlin and Miller into one theory when I quoted them for two distinct reasons -- or is this how proponents of evolutionary theories usually perceive data?
I didn't lump together YOUR references. I simply mentioned Miller as a Christian who accepts evolution and is prominent in opposing creationism and ID - and therefore as evidence against Bohlin.
I won't bother to ask whether the tactic of grabbing any excuse to make false attacks on opponents is typical of anti-evolutionits. I already know that it is.
quote:
I "know" this because whenever people like Dawkin's or Gould make the claims that appearance of design is an"illusion", they are revealing a naturalistic bias. This naturalstic bias is even more true whenever someone basically says that they "know" this is so because thier naturalistic philosophy demands it.
i.e. your claim of bias is based on a dislike for their conclusions. In other words it is your bias that is showing.
quote:
And maybe your perception is simply an illusion based on your own mental constructs.
See what I'm saying?
I don't really care what your "impressions" are.
Except the part you were replying to did not deal with MY impressions but the impression Johnson is trying to create.
So what you are really saying is that you don't care if what Johnson says is true or not. You're going to support it anyway.
quote:
Then why do researchers who engage in the scientific method sometimes conclude that God doesn't exist or wasn't involved via their own scientific observations?
Do they publiush such claims in the formal scientific literature ? If not your claim is irrelevant since that omission concedes that the conclusion is beyond science.
quote:
Notwithstanding this, Gould still claimed that Darwinism is "science" because of the methodology Darwin used in arriving at his conclusions. And I've never said that Gould said that Darwinism is not science for that matter. What are you getting at?
Since you didn't get it the first time the point is that Gould said that evolution was a fact, as he defined it. In the very essay you took the definition from. And yet here you are taking a position that Gould identified as "perverse". If he knew more than you on the subject how can you be so certain that Gould was wrong ?
This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-01-2005 05:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-30-2005 7:27 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 05-09-2005 11:09 PM PaulK has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 163 of 198 (204199)
05-01-2005 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-30-2005 7:27 PM


Design "types"
I "know" this because whenever people like Dawkin's or Gould make the claims that appearance of design is an "illusion", they are revealing a naturalistic bias. This naturalstic bias is even more true whenever someone basically says that they "know" this is so because thier naturalistic philosophy demands it.
We have examples of two forms of "design" available for us to examine. One is the design that known human designers create. The other are the "designs" that the process described by evolutionary theory produces.
When we compare what we see in nature we find the "designs" there are closer to those produced by evolutionary processes than those produced by human designers.
This is the reason that we conclude that the "designs" in nature only give the "illusion" of human like design not because of a preconception of a general nature. Dawkins is one who does carry some pretty strong personal opinions about the existance of a god -- however, as has been pointed out, others who have strong personal opinions that a god exists arrive at exactly the same conclusion about the type of design that we find in nature.
Your argument does not hold water when you consider the very large number of believers who arrive at the same conclusion as the unbelievers. This suggests that there is some other reason than a naturalistic bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-30-2005 7:27 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by paisano, posted 05-02-2005 1:24 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4976 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 164 of 198 (204313)
05-02-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-30-2005 7:27 PM


Re: Why you shouldn't trust Philip Johnson
For example, Gould did (and Dawkins still does) engage in research into dysteleology -- the doctrine of purposelessness in nature. In fact, both have gone on record saying that, based on the evidence of "purposelessness" in natural structures (as supposedly manifested by the existence of vestigial or nonfunctional organs or parts), that God is either evil, stupid, or simply non-existent.
Surely "dysteleology" is attempting to find evidence against teleology in nature, rather than evidence against god. For example if you believe in a God without a plan or purpose in the natural world, then evidence against teleology doesn't amount to evidence against God. But if you believe in God's plan for the natural world, then evidence against teleology is evidence against your belief.
So it isn't that Dawkins disproves the existence of God. He is trying to disprove teleology, and whether you see that as a challenge to your religious beliefs just depends on what your beliefs happen to be. Dawkins has a problem with the major world religions, which all happen to have a purposeful God, so he is correct to say that evidence against teleology is also evidence against this conception of God. But that is just a logical consequence of the results of his research. It is not THE result of his research. The results of dysteleological research are that vestigial parts are nonfunctional, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-30-2005 7:27 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6413 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 165 of 198 (204332)
05-02-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by NosyNed
05-01-2005 9:46 PM


Re: Design "types"
In recent years, there exist human products designed using processes that model or mimic evolutionary processes, such as genetic algorithms. An example of this is the layout of integrated circuits.
I have to doubt that even Dawkins would argue that an integrated circuit ,designed in part using genetic algorithms, is a device that "only has the illusion of having been designed for a purpose". IMO Dawkins and his ilk go beyond the purely scientific in making such statements about biostructures.
If by "naturalistic processes" we include the "evolutionary algorithms" of nature, which are of course still ill-understood in total, one can make no scientific statement that there is, or is not, an underlying purpose reflected in these algorithms.
The question of "purpose" is simply not a scientific question.
On the other hand the hardcore ID advocates, IMO, err in denying the power of nature's evolutionary algorithms to generate design, and are revealing a theological bias of their own in so doing. They seem to think divine action is limited to using human engineering techniques of the 1940s.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by NosyNed, posted 05-01-2005 9:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024