The Importance of Potentially Disconfirming Evidence

The fuel of scientific endeavor is evidence. Support for a hypothesis must be in the form of coherent, verifiable facts from the lab or field. The existence and interpretation of the existing evidence can determine how the hypothesis will fare in peer review. However, the most important evidence conceivable is the observation that can falsify the hypothesis.The essential difference between Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection and alternative ‘theories of origins’ is the conceivable existence of evidence that could falsify the theory: if natural selection had no bearing on the frequency of alleles in successive populations, if alleles or traits were not transmitted through heredity, or if populations were never observed to change through time, the theory would lose its basis. As quoted above, Darwin himself imagined how his own theory could conceivably be falsified. Every person to have taken up Darwin’s challenge has been unable to meet it. Both his theory and his challenge still stand.The Intelligent Design creationists, in their attempt to find Darwin wanting, ended up producing demonstrations of not only the strength of natural selection and other Darwinian processes, but also the power of the concept of disconfirming evidence. In attacking what they considered the entrenched scientific orthodoxy, the IDC camp made clear the weakness of their own ‘design inference,’ namely the lack of any conceivable disconfirming evidence. Nowhere amongst the rhetoric of Behe and Dembski concerning such vague concepts as irreducible complexity and complex specified information was any mention made of evidence that could refute the design inference as a whole. Dembski’s deceptive ‘explanatory filter,’ after all, was supposed to be applied on a case-by-case basis, and the failure of any number of ‘discrete combinatorial artifacts’ to qualify as evidence for Intelligent Design would not discourage the ID creationists from proposing additional cases they feel justified in claiming are evidence supporting the hypothesis of design.The lack of any conceivable disconfirming evidence is what ultimately disqualifies creationism from being considered scientific. We should be sure to ask creationists what evidence they would consider persuasive in refuting the hypothesis of ‘divine design’ or ‘special creation,’ or their corollary hypotheses that ‘all evolutionists are atheists’ or ‘Darwinism is Nazism.’ We shouldn’t be surprised at the lack of satisfactory responses. The ICR website, for example, claims that creation is just as falsifiable as evolution by natural selection. However, nowhere on the site does it specify what observations or evidence would constitute such a falsification. Darwin was more forthright in his challenge than the creationists have ever been. Then again, he proposed a theory that warranted such honesty.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Just out of idle curiosity, what's the chance of any of the following happening?1) That WillowTree would provide us a figure for how many Western academics would have to testify that they do not support anti-Israeli terrorism in the Middle East before he would admit that his hypothesis in "The New Neo-Nazis" has been falsified.2) That Syamsu would give a number for the amount of primary-literature evolutionary biology papers that he could be cited (all curiously lacking the ideological agenda he considers essential to Darwinism) which would be sufficient to disconfirm his long-held belief that Darwinism and Nazism are inextricably linked.3) That John Paul would put a number on the amount of (even Nobel Prize-winning) biologists whose testimony describing the importance of Darwin's theory to their work would be enough to disconfirm his assertion that evolutionary theory is irrelevant to biology.regards,
Esteban "Wishful Thinking" Hambre

John Paul,

quote:

---

What I am saying, and it hasn't been refuted yet, is that the notion that all of life's diversity owing its collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms (that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate) is not necessary for biological research- including the medical field. We could, in all reality, stretch that to any research venue.

---

I note you never have to substantiate your own assertions. What facts do you have to back this up?Like I said in the "RATE group" thread, people can brew beer (and did for millennia) without knowing every technical nuance of microbiology. Exhaustive study of the discovery, life cycle and activity of the Sacchomyces organisms is not necessary to an amateur homebrewer. However, if I claim that Pasteur's work is irrelevant to the practical reality of fermentation, I can be justifiably contradicted. This assumes that I am a rational person who wouldn't dismiss all evidence as unforgiveably tainted by the Pasteurist scientific paradigm.This thread is about disconfirming evidence. I outlined in the OP what specific observations or evidence would falsify the theory of evolution by natural selection. If you're not prepared to support your assertion, I'd like to know what evidence would disconfirm the assertion.regards,
Esteban Hambre

John Paul says,

quote:

---

MRHambre, If you can't refute my statement just say so. Can I substantiate my claim? The fact that evolutionists haven't been able to refute it speaks volumes.

---

JP, it only speaks volumes about your ability to close your eyes, stick fingers in ears, and whine "I don't see or hear any evidence, la la la..."If you won't provide support for your claim, and you won't tell us what evidence or observations could possibly disconfirm the assertion, then I guess your airtight argument speaks for itself. As I mentioned in the OP, Darwin laid out precisely the evidence that would refute his theory. That's what separates responsible scientific endeavor from the sort of shit-flinging you call debate.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

Ignorance is one thing, willful ignorance is a shame.

---

So what are we supposed to call what you do, JP, since you've claimed since Day 1 that there's no evidence for evolution, evolution isn't scientific, scientists are biased, naturalism doesn't work, etc., etc. The shit-flinging that you think passes for rational discourse ignores the plethora of evidence that patient folks offer you.The irony isn't that we can't show you the evolution of humans from proto-bacteria before your eyes, JP, it's that even that wouldn't convince you that creationism is a crock. You could always claim that something else (pick a species, an organism, a biological structure) is the product of special creation. It's all or nothing.So where is your evidence (a paper, an experiment, whatever) that shows special creation is a valid mechanism? Oh, that's right, JP never has to offer any evidence. He just demands it of the evolutionists, then ignores it when it's presented.regards,
Esteban Hambre

John Paul,The reason no one here is impressed with the IC argument is that we have never been given a reason to consider irreducibly complex natural phenomena or biological structures evidence for the inadequacy of natural mechanisms. The BacFlag or the human heart or eye may be IC, and we may or may not currently understand fully the developmental pathway of such organs. However, we consider that the same mutation-selection process that creates organisms and their organs is a more plausible explanation for their origin than a mechanism we've never seen create a human heart or eye or bacterial flagellum.regards,
Esteban Hambre

This is a perfect example of the way proponents of ID creationism like to twist analogies to fit their aims.This particular IDC'er likes to harp (a la Behe) on the fact that since 'irreducible complexity' is the hallmark of intelligently designed systems, if DNA or the human eye is IC, then it was intelligently designed. All that is needed to refute this inference, he says, is (presumably eyewitness) evidence that DNA or the eye evolved via natural processes. In actual fact, all that is necessary to deflate this bizarre claim is a good look at the basis of the analogy itself, with which IDC proponents first assume what they're supposed to be proving.The claim that certain man-made artifacts (like an outboard motor or a mousetrap) share the property of IC with natural systems (like a human eye or the bacterial flagellum) is not the same as claiming that anything we could say about a mousetrap can also be said of the BacFlag. The conclusion that both man-made artifacts and natural systems are the products of intelligent design hinges on the assumption that this property of IC is the hallmark of intelligent agency whether in artifical or natural systems.I could just as easily point to the BacFlag as a refutation of the design inference, since no independent knowledge exists of the intelligent agency that produced this artifact. In other words, you can't use IC as the litmus test for intelligent design before you prove that natural IC systems are by definition designed.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

Again as I have posted several times- whenever we observe information rich systems and/ or specified complexity it is always at the hands of an intelligent agency. ALWAYS. We have NEVER observed nature giving rise to such- NEVER.

---

So DNA is an information-rich system? And the bacterial flagellum is an example of specified complexity? Instead of proving that these natural systems are the products of intelligent agency, you assume they are and expect us to agree.You've never observed intelligence creating DNA or a BacFlag. It's more rational to assume that Nature can create information-rich systems, because that's exactly what we observe.regards,
Esteban Hambre

quote:

---

MrH:
Instead of proving that these natural systems are the products of intelligent agency, you assume they are and expect us to agree.

​

John Paul:
Science is NOT about proving things. If it were we wouldn't have the ToE in our science classrooms. Science is about inference. We do NOT assume DNA and the flagellum are the products of an intelligent agency, we infer they are based on our current level of knowledge.

​

MrH:
You've never observed intelligence creating DNA or a BacFlag.

​

John Paul:
We didn't observe anyone designing or building Stonehenge either.

---

But the reason we're right to infer that Stonehenge was built by humans is that humans are known to build complex stone structures and Nature isn't. Now do we have that same knowledge about self-replicating molecular systems or bacterial appendages? It seems intelligent agents aren't ever responsible. EVER. And as a result, we can't really infer that DNA or the BacFlag are the products of intelligence, now can we?regards,
Esteban Hambre

John Paul sez:

quote:

---

We have and do observe intelligent agents designing and building complex structures every day. We NEVER observe or observed nature doing that.

​

Can you point out one instance of nature creating specified complexity or information-rich systems?

---

Aren't DNA and the BacFlag good enough? Lots of those in Nature. Like I said, we have never, NEVER seen intelligent agents creating bio-replication systems or bacterial appendages. Please give me the 'current knowledge' that leads you to believe they do so, or admit that your inference is based on assuming what you intend to prove.regards,
Esteban Hambre

John Paul keeps saying:

quote:

---

We have NEVER seen nature creating anything that has specified complexity.

---

If I always see computers being designed and manufactured by intelligent agents, and never being produced naturally, I assume that any computer I see is the product of intelligent design.If I always see organisms and their biological structures being produced naturally, and never being designed and manufactured by intelligent agents, I assume that any organism or biological structure I see is the product of nature.Your logical syllogism is as follows:
Major Premise: All things demonstrating specified complexity are the products of intelligent design.
Minor Premise: DNA shows specified complexity.
Conclusion: DNA is the product of intelligent design.You have NOT established your major premise, even though you keep claiming that every time we see IC or specified complexity it's always due to the actions of an intelligent agent. In fact, any system demonstrating 'specified complexity' that cannot be shown to originate through intelligent agency is a disconfirmation of your major premise and not support for your conclusion. You either have evidence that intelligent agents create living organisms and biological structures or you have no right to make your inference.My challenge to your faulty inference remains: you must show me that any organism or any structure thereof has been produced by intelligent agency before you can claim to be able to 'infer' intelligent design from the existence of DNA or the BacFlag.regards,
Esteban HambreThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 06-15-2004 11:58 AM

quote:

---

John Paul:
Are you really this dense?

---

John Paul, the 'stupid' challenge still stands. Either show me evidence that ANY organism or biological structure, EVEN ONE, is the product of intelligent design, or your inference is rendered useless. You can keep on inferring that Stonehenge and a computer is intelligently designed, but since you don't have independent knowledge of ANY biological structure being produced through intelligent agency, you're out of luck with DNA and the BacFlag.You don't seem to understand formal logic very well, and that's okay. Maybe it's unfair of me to expect you to conduct a discussion on logical terms, present the support for your major premise, and act rationally and politely. If your 'theory' ever makes it to the courts, these skills may come in handy. However, your inability to respond to the questions raised about your faulty logical construct should be a source of concern if you intend to bring it to an educated legal and/or scientific audience.Thanks and so long,
Esteban Hambre

Schrafinator states:

quote:

---

[IDC] closes off curiosity and stops research cold, because you have already decided that a given IC system could not possibly have had a naturalistic explanation, without any doubt, no need to look any further.

---

Despite John Paul's claim that you're misrepresenting his pet theory, you're absolutely right. Dembski's explanatory filter (as outlined in The Design Inference and elsewhere) is the procedure through which we're supposed to be able to determine whether an 'artifact' is the product of intelliegnt design.First, according to Dembski, we're supposed to gauge the probability that this phenomenon was the product of chance alone. Then we assess the probability that the phenomenon is the result of physical laws or natural mechanisms. If it cannot be determined to be the result of 'chance' or 'necessity,' we are led to the conclusion of design, meaning intelligent agency.However, why is design the default? Shouldn't the probability that the phenomenon is the direct product of intelligent agency be assessed independently, just like chance and necessity? It only looks like Dembski is trying to make it harder to conclude design by assessing the other possibilities first; in fact he's ensuring that by the time we make it to step three, no probability for design need be assigned.In addition, the second step of the explanatory filter assumes that we know all the natural forces or mechanisms that could conceivably exist. Historically, it's plain to see that with scientific progress comes a better understanding of the power of natural mechanisms. It certainly does depend on our ignorance of possible natural mechanisms to assume that no such mechanisms exist or will ever be discovered and understood.Lastly, there is no reason to exclude the possibility that a combination of chance and natural mechanisms could give rise to a certain phenomenon. This is exactly what Darwinism claims is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth: time, chance mutation, and the deterministic process of cumulative natural selection. It seems Dembski wants people to think that no such combination of forces exists, and it may be in his best interests if they believe him.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Jar,I went through Dembski's design filter here, and I'll reprint what I said: regards,
Esteban Hambre