ID and the bias inherent in human nature

Critics of evolution get alot of ridicule from people with a mindset not too different from the mindset that condemned Galileo. The scientific community at that time attacked him because his ideas threatened the entire framework through which they viewed the world.A similar situation exists today with evolution. Discussion of other theories and/or weaknesess of evolution are simply not tolerated. True cause of the debate: worldviews in conflict.Facts dont always speak for themselves. They're interpreted according to a framework. The framework one uses to interprete facts is inevitably affected by prior philosophical beliefs about the existence or non-existence of a creator.So it’s NOT about "biased religious creationists" versus objective scientific evolutionists. Its about the biases of religions versus the biases of non-religions resulting in different interpretations of the exact same scientific data.Nobodys perfect, and scientists are people too. A mistake scientists have been known to make is to ignore or rule out data which do not support a hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong" with data which do not support the scientists expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully.If honest mistakes were all we had to worry about that would be one thing. But we also have to worry about the possibility of outright fraud.When you actually bother to learn a thing or two about Galileo and the development, rise and fall of the geocentric worldview, it seems the people who most resemble the defenders of that old "flat-earth" worldview are not the opponents of evolution, but its proponents.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.People - See the subtitle.Shall we shoot for less, but higher quality messages? I can only hope.AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-27-2005 05:54 PM

quote:

---

Nobodys perfect, and scientists are people too. A mistake scientists have been known to make is to ignore or rule out data which do not support a hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong" with data which do not support the scientists expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully.

​

If honest mistakes were all we had to worry about that would be one thing. But we also have to worry about the possibility of outright fraud.

---

Can you suggest a system to overcome this problem? Maybe you know of an existing system that we could use?

I'm afraid that the "everyone's biased" line would be more convincing if it were the case that the two parties really were on a level footing.Unfortunately that's not true.In recent discussions here we have been told that Dembski's Explanatory Filter is an important part of ID. Yet there are only a very few examples of it being used at all - even within ID - and nobody has been able to find even one example of it being correctly applied to biology.Behe's IC idea failed as an anti-evolution arguemnt from the start. Behe admitted that IC sstems could evolve by what he called "indirect routes". Behe is of the opinion that such routes are highly unlikely but has yet to show that this is true - and so far the evidence tneds the other way. Indeed Behe and Dembski seem to prefer fiddling with the definition in the hope that somehow that will make the argument work but there really doesn't seem to be any way that that can save the argument.The two big ideas of ID have flopped. That's a fact.Don't believe the propaganda. Check out the facts for yourself.

ID is still very young. It needs time (decades, maybe) to flesh itself out...to work out the kinks...to organize.I would like to see ID have a chance to grow and adapt. If the "ID movement" were a movie, and we were all watching it together in a theatre, I would say we are still in the opening credits. And I would say to the hecklers in the audience: be quiet, watch the movie, and see what happens.Im not saying anyone in this thread is a heckler, in fact they are great responces so far.This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-27-2005 06:32 PM

What more interesting is how the movement seems to have shifted away slightly from ID as a concept towards ID as "Controversial issues*". I think they realise it's a busted flush and are trying to spin it out as long as possible.*because there MUST be something to it.

But nobody is stopping the ID movement from developing their ideas. They're free to do that all they like.The main battle is over school curricula - and if you agree that ID is not ready to go there then it makes no sense to say that the ID movement should not be opposed in those efforts. And the ID movement certainly shouldn't be trying to remove evidence for evolution from the classroom or supporting the teaching of YEC in science classes. So there's nthing wrong in opposing them on those front's either.

quote:

---

But nobody is stopping the ID movement from developing their ideas. They're free to do that all they like.

---

I would argue that the biases in the scientific community and in the media are retarding the development of the ID theory.This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-27-2005 06:48 PM

It's all very well to assert that, but we would need evidence.In what way are they being hindered ?It seems obvious to me that it isn't bias on the part of the scientiifc community or the media that is stopping ID supporters from making more use of Dembsk's EF, for instance. It's the practical problems of actually using the EF in non-trivial situations that is the real stopper there.

Hello Limbo, and welcome to the forum! Galileo was not attacked by the "scientific community". Galieo lived from 1564-1642. In those days the "scientific community" simply did not exist. Should you care to read a history book, you will find that Galileo was persecuted by the religious community, and not by scientists.Modern critics of evolution are simply NOT treated in the way that Galileo was. Galileo was imprisoned for his whole life for his beliefs; his works were threatened with censorship; he was denied medical treatment throughout his life after detention; he was interrogated under threat of torture; he may even have been tortured, but we don't know because the records of his detention no longer exist. His records were destroyed because he was considered a nobody. This sort of treatment was reserved for enemies of religion, not of science.If you want to make yourself into a martyr, please try to get imprisoned and tortured by evolutionary biologists. You may find this a difficult task. Far more difficult than it was to get tortured by Christians in the sixteenth century.We all like to think that we are the bearers of truth in a world of darkness. When you get over your own very special oppression fantasy, you may be capable of writing seriously on the subject.MickThis message has been edited by mick, 04-27-2005 08:28 PMfor you edutainment, or whatever, here is what happened to people who challenged religion in Galileo's times:http://www.gracklenews.com/...ent/0403/images/burn_stake.jpgWhen you show me pictures of american creationists undergoing this treatment, i may treat your post with less contempt.This message has been edited by mick, 04-27-2005 08:42 PM

quote:

---

Galileo was not attacked by the "scientific community". Galieo lived from 1564-1642. In those days the "scientific community" simply did not exist. Should you care to read a history book, you will find that Galileo was persecuted by the religious community.

---

the religious community WAS the scientific community back then. You can't fight city hall, no matter what century you live in.And thanks for the welcome! Glad to be here!This message has been edited by Limbo, 04-27-2005 08:29 PMThis message has been edited by Limbo, 04-27-2005 08:30 PM

Just as a quick point to think about in the discussion...I think there is a fundamental difference between Christian theology and science with respect to the checks and balances within their respective communities.Every Christian is basically working from the Bible. It's considered the word of God and is therefore true.What "outsiders", if you will, don't always realize is that science is an extremely competitive community. There are checks and balances to theories. Everyone wants the new hot theory that will change everything, contrary to your belief.For an example, just look at String Theory. Supported by many scientists that have always been held in very high regard and continue to be. There are no anti-Christian conspiracies involved with it, it comes from some of the leading minds in science. We're not refusing to see God or what have you, etc. etc. {insert all the reasons ID supposedly hasn't been accepted}, it's just that science comes with a specific set of guidelines to insure that it is indeed science.This message has been edited by dsv, Wednesday, April 27, 2005 08:48 PM

okay, i'm waiting for the picture of michael behe being burned at the stake

Can I ask you a simple question to clear something up?Are you implying that at any place in any time if an idea is not well recognized by mainstream (insert word here), the idea must be unjustly "persecuted"?

hehe very funny picture that would make. Seriously though I am only comparing the mindset and not the circumstances. BIG difference.