Over at ID the Future is an open letter to Science from several Discovery Institute luminaries protesting that, despite the fact that they do no research and have published no original research on ID, Intelligent Design Creationism is indeed Science.
Alan I. Leshner (Redefining Science, July 8) says intelligent design isn’t science because scientific theories explain what can be observed and are testable by repeatable observations and experimentation. But particular design arguments meet this standard.
Before going on to their example, I’d like to point out that some of the arguments of Young Earth Creationism (YEC) also meet this standard. For example, YEC makes specific, testable claims about the age of the Earth, so why isn’t YEC science? Several reasons, not the least that when confronted with clear, unambiguous, multiple independent lines of evidence that their claims are wrong, the YEC will ignore this evidence, or invoke miracles, or pretend the evidence doesn’t exist. They will not accept evidence to the contrary of their preconceptions, so despite having testable claims, YEC isn’t science.
How does ID creationism fare?
Let’s take a simple example. Michael Behe has argued that the blood clotting system is irreducibly complex, and so cannot evolve [1]. Indeed for a time the blood clotting system was the key exemplar of an irreducibly complex system. Nearly 10 years before that, Russell Doolittle [2], on the basis of molecular clock arguments amongst other things, predicted that “lower” vertebrates would lack the “contact pathway” of blood clotting. Recently the complete genome of the puffer fish and a draft of the Zebrafish genome have become available, and guess what? They don’t have the contact part of the clotting system [3]. The “irreducible” clotting system is reducible (whales and dolphins have the contact pathway proteins, but one of the enzymes is broken, so the pathway doesn’t work, yet they get along fine).
The response of the ID folks to this is:
SFX: crickets chirping.
The clotting system fails the ID test, yet you wouldn’t know about it from the ID press releases. Indeed, Behe still uses the clotting system as IC, saying that “if any one of the more than 20 proteins involved in blood clotting is missing or deficient…clots will not form properly” when he knows that fish and whales function perfectly well without the contact system. So ID fails the YEC test; a real scientific research program would have faced up to this failure.
Biologist Michael Behe, for instance, argues that design is detectable in the bacterial flagellum because the tiny motor needs all its parts to function is irreducibly complexa hallmark of designed systems.
Now there is a lot wrong with this sentence. Firstly, the bacterial flagellum is not a motor (not in the sense we understand motors anyway, it has a driving system we might think of as a motor as part of its structure, but it is not itself a motor). Secondly, the flagellum doesn’t need all of its parts to function, you can do away with various chunks of the flagellum and it still works. However, Michael Behe’s argument was subtler than that. He claimed that the “system” of the flagellum was the “motor”, “universal joint” and “propeller”; each of these items contains several proteins, all of which contain at least one element that can be dispensed with. Behe’s claim was that if you got rid of the “motor” or the “universal joint” or the “propeller” then the system would not function and that was IC. At least ID the Future could get Behe’s argument right. As we will see, we already have accounts of flagellum evolvability even using Behe’s system. Even then, Behe has a “get out of jail free” card. He has said that IC systems might evolve “indirectly” [1, pg 40] so even if we find an IC system that has evolved, his argument is unassailable.
Thirdly, Michael Behe has dropped his “all parts necessary” definition of IC (at least in part due to various demonstrations that the blood clotting system could evolve). His definition is now based on the probability of neutral mutations occurring as steps. Last time I looked, neutral mutations were not a hallmark of designed systems. Even with the old definition, multiple interacting parts are not a feature of the design of a paperclip, and many other things we know are designed. IC has not been demonstrated as a hallmark of design by any means.
How to test and discredit Behe’s argument? Provide a continuously functional evolutionary pathway from simple ancestor to present motor. Darwinists like Kenneth Miller point to the hope of future discoveries, and to the type III secretory system as a machine possibly co-opted on the evolutionary path to the flagellum.
Why the flagellum? Why not the clotting system (shown to be evolvable)? Or the immune system (shown to be evolvable, and specific predictions from evolutionary biology about the immune system have been confirmed)?
The relationship of Type II secretory systems to type IV secretory/motility systems and the archebacterial flagellum. Homologous proteins are indicated by colour, the GspM/FlagG homolg Y1 has been omitted due to uncertainly as to its location in the membrane (click on image to enlarge, modified from [4])
Now we actually have presented a continuously functional evolutionary pathway from a simple ancestor to a functional flagellum [4]. It is based on elaboration of a secretory system. The flagellar filament must be secreted to project outside the bacterial cell, so it makes sense that secretory systems from the heart of the flagellum. The type II secretory system features a small “piston” made up of helically arranged proteins. Up and down movement of the piston (powered by a “motor”) pushes materials outside of the cell. The type IV secretory system is an elaboration of the type II, except now the piston is a long filament, and that filament can stick to surfaces. The back and forth movement of the filament pulls the bacterium along, resulting in gliding motility. The flagellum is an elaboration of the Type IV secretory system, but now the filament freely rotates, rather than being stuck to a surface, and drives the bacteria along. Now we have all these real, functional intermediates leading to a functional flagellum and the response from the ID creationists is:
SFX: crickets chirping.
Oh sorry, that’s the archebacterial flagellum. What, the ID folks didn’t tell you that there is more than one sort of flagellum? Or that flagellar motility is a minority amongst motility systems? Why ever would they ignore things like that? We know that at least William Dembski is aware of this system. I can’t think of a reason for them to ignore it if ID was science, can you?
Now the eubacterial flagellum is similar to the archebacterial flagellum in the sense that it built around a secretory system, but it’s a bit more complicated. Nick Matzke has a marvelously detailed article [5] about the evolution of the eubacterial flagellum. The basic story is similar to that of the archebacterial flagellum. The core of the eubacterial flagellum is a type III secretory system. Virtually all the proteins in the flagellum can be accounted for as parts of existing systems or internal duplications (as predicted by evolutionary biology). Importantly, several gliding motility systems use similar motors and guidance systems to eubacterial flagellum, so a sequence of secretory system -> gliding motility -> swimming motility similar to the archebacterial flagella is plausible (although there are other ways to get there).
Furthermore, the eubacterial flagellum is still a secretory system [4,5], and is even used by some bacteria to attach to cells and inject them with toxins (just like type III secretion systems) [4,5]. You can remove the “motor” or the “propeller” from the eubacterial flagellum and it still functions as a secretion system [4, 5]. Indeed, some bacteria with paralysed flagella use them as anchors to attach to cells and inject toxins into them. So you can see how you could build a eubacterial flagellum piecemeal around a core of a simple secretory system by direct Darwinian processes, then a small functional shift adds motility to this system.
There is still a fair bit of information to be filled in, but by analogy with the archebacterial flagellum, the evolution of the eubacterial flagellum is not a mystery.
The argument is riddled with problems, but it shows that Miller, at least, understands perfectly well that Behe’s argument is testable.
As I said before, certain elements are testable, but like the YEC’s, the ID creationists won’t accept the results, or make ridiculous preconditions for acceptance that no amount of research could ever provide. They have ignored the fact that the blood-clotting system has been shown to be evolvable. They have ignored the evolvable archebacterial flagellum. And what would they accept as a level of proof? Michael Behe is on record as saying he would not accept anything but a mutation-by-mutation account. Not only that, he requires a detailed account of the selective pressures that would be operating, the difficulties such changes would cause for the organism, and much more. This is a level of proof which we couldn’t supply even if we evolved a flagellum in the lab.
In principle, no evidence biologists can provide will sway the ID creationists. This puts ID firmly outside the realm of science.
References:
[1] Behe, MJ. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996)
[2] Doolittle RF & Feng DF (1987) Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology, 52, 869-874.
[3] Yong J & Doolittle RF (2003) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 100, 7527-7532.
[4] Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum (2004) IF Musgrave, pp 72-84, In “Why Intelligent Design Fails”, ed. M Young and T Edis
[5] Evolution in (Brownian) space: (2003) NJ Matzke Last accessed 22/08/05. Warning, big file.
Further reading:
Darwin’s Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? by Keith Robinson
Irreducible complexity demystified by Pete Dunkelberg.
A Darwinian explanation of the blood clotting cascade by Kenneth Miller
Evolving Immunity by Matt Inlay
170 Comments
Flint · 23 August 2005
We know evidence is irrelevant to creationists. We know that creationists use the word "science" only to piggyback on the well-deserved reputation science has earned. We know creationists know that their claims of science are flat false, but use them anyway because it has proved to be effective PR. We can confidently predict that creationists will call their doctrines "science" so long as science keeps producing stuff people appreciate, and so long as fundamentalism continues to appeal to a public poorly educated in science.
I enjoy reading about how these systems evolve, but I can't see how this material is going to matter to those whose purposes are not served by paying any attention to it. Are we trying to reach the voting public this way? I ask Ian Musgrave to spend all day on main street asking every passerby to compare a Type II with a Type IV secretory system. That's the voting public.
The creationists have the right idea: you will find more citizens sitting in the average Baptist church each Sunday than you will find people in the *entire city* who have ever even HEARD of a Type IV secretory system. If these "ordinary Christians" are the target audience, this blot is a terrible way to try to reach them. It just sounds like righteous frustration.
SteveF · 23 August 2005
Nice essay Ian. The Matzke link doesn't work though.
steve · 23 August 2005
I'm shocked, shocked to discover that Divine Design is not science.
Chip Poirot · 23 August 2005
I'm still not convinced that the best strategy for dealing with ID or YEC is to say "its not science". This gets into an endless debate about lines of demarcation.
I think it makes a lot more sense to talk about what constitutes a valid claim to knowledge and an invalid claim to knowledge. Similarly, we can point to research traditions that "work out" and research traditions that "don't work out" and have been discredited by widely accepted empirical evidence.
That means that YEC and ID have to resort to endless ad hoc strategems, rather than offering clear explanations or predictions for phenomena.
Ken Willis · 23 August 2005
Can anyone explain what is meant by microevolution and macroevolution? Is it that Micro is descent with modification within a species and macro is the evolution of new species? I think some ID'ers claim to believe in Microevolution but not Macroevolution. Some also say they believe that evolution within a species takes place but that evolution cannot create new species. Have there been any experiments that have shown that new species can be created? I think I read about one such with fruit flies. Thanks.
Jaime Headden · 23 August 2005
Micro and macroevolution are elements on evolutuonary continua. They are used by people to separate small tiny observable changes in descent versus the time-gap of fossils and between extinct (as well as extant) but distinct taxa. As continua, there is no difference, only scale. Forest for the trees, vice versa, and all that jazz.
KiwiInOz · 23 August 2005
Ken, go to the Talk Origins web site for a great discussion (with evidence!) on micro and macro evolution.
Dave Carlson · 23 August 2005
Ken -
In my non-expert opinion, you seem to have answered your own questions pretty well. Keep in mind that the terms micro/macroevolution are pretty vague and, for that reason, not all that useful. Here is a linke you might like to read regarding evidence of macroevolution: 29 Evidences for Macroevolution.
Andy Groves · 23 August 2005
Can anyone explain what is meant by microevolution and macroevolution?
Sure. Microevolution is evolution that even creationists have to accept. Macroevolution is evolution that they don't want to accept because they have their fingers in their ears and they can't hear you!!!
Dave Carlson · 23 August 2005
LackOfDiscipline · 23 August 2005
SEF · 23 August 2005
Matt McIrvin · 23 August 2005
Flint, one of the things sources like this do is provide scientists and teachers with counterarguments that can be used when ID proponents try to bamboozle people. You don't lead with the type IV secretory system, you bring it up (in suitably simplified form) when somebody like Behe claims there is no way to evolve a flagellum.
Steviepinhead · 23 August 2005
steve · 23 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 August 2005
Regarding this whole ID/science thingie, I think it worthwhile to re-post this:
The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe
2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis
4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions
NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any "supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such "non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing". So ID's claim that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong.
However, what science DOES require is that any supernatural or non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to steps 3, 4 and 5. And HERE is where ID fails miserably.
To demonstate this, let's pick a particular example of an ID hypothesis and see how the scientific method can be applied to it: One claim made by many ID creationists explains the genetic similarity between humans and chimps by asserting that God --- uh, I mean, An Unknown Intelligent Designer --- created both but used common features in a common design.
Let's take this hypothesis and put it through the scientific method:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is "an intelligent designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C gene in both products."
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
Well, here is ID supernaturalistic methodology's chance to shine. What predictions can we make from ID's hypothesis? If an Intelligent Designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, then we would also expect to see ... ?
IDers, please fill in the blank.
And, to better help us test ID's hypothesis, it is most useful to point out some negative predictions --- things which, if found, would FALSIFY the hypothesis and demonstrate conclusively that the hypothesis is wrong. So, then --- if we find (fill in the blank here), then the "common design" hypothesis would have to be rejected.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Well, the IDers seem to be sort of stuck on step 3. Despite all their voluminous writings and arguments, IDers have never yet given ANY testible predictions from their ID hypothesis that can be verified through experiment.
Take note here --- contrary to the IDers whining about the "unfair exclusion of supernatural causes", there are in fact NO limits imposed by the scientific method on the nature of their predictions, other than the simple ones indicated by steps 3, 4 and 5 (whatever predictions they make must be testible by experiments or further observations.) They are entirely free to invoke whatever supernatural causes they like, in whatever number they like, so long as they follow along to steps 3,4 and 5 and tell us how we can test these deities or causes using experiment or further observation. Want to tell us that the Good Witch Glenda used her magic non-naturalistic staff to POP these genetic sequences into both chimps and humans? Fine â€"- just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test that. Want to tell us that God --- er, I mean The Unknown Intelligent Designer --- didn’t like humans very much and therefore decided to design us with broken vitamin C genes? Hey, works for me â€" just as soon as you tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test it. Feel entirely and totally free to use all the supernaturalistic causes that you like. Just tell us what experiment or observation we can perform to test your predictions.
Let's assume for a moment that the IDers are right and that science is unfairly biased against supernaturalist explanations. Let's therefore hypothetically throw methodological materialism right out the window. Gone. Bye-bye. Everything's fair game now. Ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, cosmic enlightenment, elves, pixies, magic star goats, whatever god-thing you like. Feel free to include and invoke ALL of them. As many as you need. All the IDers have to do now is simply show us all how to apply the scientific method to whatever non-naturalistic science they choose to invoke in order to subject the hypothesis "genetic similarities between chimps and humans are the product of a common design", or indeed ANY other non-material or super-natural ID hypothesis, to the scientific method.
And that is where ID "theory" falls flat on its face. It is NOT any presupposition of "philosophical naturalism" on the part of science that stops ID dead in its tracks ---- it is the simple inability of ID "theory" to make any testible predictions. Even if we let them invoke all the non-naturalistic designers they want, intelligent design "theory" STILL can't follow the scientific method.
Deep down inside, what the IDers are really moaning and complaining about is NOT that science unfairly rejects their supernaturalistic explanations, but that science demands ID's proposed "supernaturalistic explanations" be tested according to the scientific method, just like every OTHER hypothesis has to be. Not only can ID not test any of its "explanations", but it wants to modify science so it doesn't HAVE to. In effect, the IDers want their supernaturalistic "hypothesis" to have a privileged position â€"- they want their hypothesis to be accepted by science WITHOUT being tested; they want to follow steps one and two of the scientific method, but prefer that we just skip steps 3,4 and 5, and just simply take their religious word for it, on the authority of their own say-so, that their "science" is correct. And that is what their entire argument over "materialism" (or "naturalism" or "atheism" or "sciencism" or "darwinism" or whatever the heck else they want to call it) boils down to.
There is no legitimate reason for the ID hypothesis to be privileged and have the special right to be exempted from testing, that other hypotheses do not. I see no reason why their hypotheses, whatever they are, should not be subjected to the very same testing process that everyone ELSE's hypotheses, whatever they are, have to go through. If they cannot put their "hypothesis" through the same scientific method that everyone ELSE has to, then they have no claim to be "science". Period.
Jim Harrison · 23 August 2005
Andreas Wagner's new book Robustness and Evolvability in Natural System provides a global refutation of the ID argument about irreducible complexity. Living systems are not the fragile, house-of-cards contraptions postulated by Behe et. al. Indeed, in a world of mutations and mere thermal noise, systems that could not function in the face of phylogentic and ontogentic shocks could hardly persist even if they miraculously appeared. At each level, genetic, developmental, and metabolic, functioning continues despite substitutions and deletions. Indeed, robustness is a defining characteristic of life itself.
Wagner's book is utterly unpolemic and I'm sure he wouldn't dream of slumming by engaging in a debate with a nonscientific social movement like ID. Nevertheless, his book is the most complete refutation of ID I've seen.
I wrote a brief review of the book, We Must, We Must Develop Roubust, at my blog. Scroll down to find it.
caerbannog · 23 August 2005
The Salk Institute is right here in San Diego (just a few miles up I-5 from my place), and most folks around here are at least dimly aware of the Salk Institute's reputation. So when the subject of ID comes up amongst co-workers/acquaintances, I like to give the ID sympathizers this little assignment.
1) Go to http://www.salk.edu
2) Locate the "search" button (top-center of the Salk home-page).
3) Do a search on "evolution".
4) Do a search on "intelligent design".
5) Compare the results of the "evolution" search with the results of the "intelligent design" search.
That gives 'em a little something to think about.
I like to tell people that if a theory doesn't pass the "Salk" test, then it shouldn't be taught to their kids in science class.
Leigh Jackson · 23 August 2005
Thanks Ian. The Miller link is an excellent primer for the Yong Doolittle paper.
You and I are part of the voting public too Flint. I am really thankful that Ian and others like him take the time and trouble to help people like me to reach a level of information, education and understanding to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I disagree Chip. This is too vague, too philosophical a way to dispute with Creationists, especially those slippery sophists of the ID pursuasion. This plays straight into their game. You demonstrate that what the ID mob is about is not science by demonstrating what science is. You put the science out there so that anyone with eyes to see can see.
White Stone · 23 August 2005
Having read much on the subject of evolution, I am finding that with all the "evidence" that is being presented as proof I still find great leaps being made. When I trace the terminology used to the root, and truly understand what has been reported it is not as difficult to understand as it seems. It does take time and effort and a lot of study. What I find instead of proof of evolution is rather a fingerprint. Just as we are able to recognize a Picasso by becoming familiar with his work, I see the work of a designer evident in creation. I realize this is not a popular statement to make on this website. (Is that an understatement or what?)
Another thing that I have noticed on this site is a frequent use of words like "believe" in regard to evolution. I have noticed in at least one place a reference to Nature personified. I find most do NOT want to speak of origins. While most of you seem to be 100% convinced of your claims, I wonder if there isn't still a little doubt in the minds of some.
Looking closely at evolutionary claim, perhaps we should not be so surprised by similarities in DNA across species. The amazing thing isn't the similarities, but the variety found. I recommend for reading a book entitled, Fingerprint of God for anyone who is interested.
ts (not Tim) · 23 August 2005
Ian Musgrave · 23 August 2005
Ian Musgrave · 23 August 2005
Chip Poirot · 23 August 2005
Leigh Jackson wrote:
At the risk of playing a logic game, allow me to point out that your view is also philosophical. Trying to explain what science is and is not requires recourse to some fairly technical discussions in philosophy of science. So my way is neither more nor less philosophical.
Admittedly I'm trying to provoke a little discussion here. I actually do think we can distinguish science from non-science, though I think the lines are blurry and the standards have changed over time. So picking one criteria (falsifiability) and shouting "non-falsifiable" really doesn't get us very far. Pointing out how ID'ists and YEC'ers don't adhere to the accepted standards of scientific claims on the other hand, shows how empty and hollow their rhetoric is.
drtomaso · 23 August 2005
I for one say I believe in evolution all the time. But I am not a biologist by training. The last time I studied any biology I was 16 and far more interested in the anatomy of my female classmates than the anatomy of the pig embryo we were dissecting. I cannot prove to you that evolution is the best, most explanative theory. That is the role of scientists in a society prominantly featuring division of labor. They teach me about evolution, and I set up computer systems that process trades in their retirement accounts- division of labor.
The theory of evolution has arisen as the most explanative theory science has to offer. It has done so both in spite of and because of over 150 years of unceasing hostility from society at large. Lets face it, evolution is the most controversial theory (in a societal, not scientific sense) since heliocentrism. Most western religions (and several eastern religions) do not abide the idea that man is not the direct handiwork of the divine creator/alien race/flying spaghetti monster. Scientists don't believe in evolution- they have been convinced by the overwhelming amount of evidence that it is a useful and the most explanative theory.
I applaud your courage to post of your religious convictions here. But I have to ask, "So?" Your religious world view should in no way shape or form be threatened by a scientific theory of evolution- unless you are a biblical literalist- and then you have problems with much much more than just evolution.
steve · 23 August 2005
Hiero5ant · 23 August 2005
"Just as we are able to recognize a Picasso by becoming familiar with his work, I see the work of a designer evident in creation."
This is fascinating, and I can't wait to follow up on it.
"Just as we are able to recognize a Picasso by becoming familiar with his work..."
I live just down the street from the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, where I can go to become acquainted with the works of what are verfiably those of Picasso, whereby I can learn to recognize his "fingerprints".
Please, please, please tell me where I can go to become acquainted with the works that are verifiably the works of Yahweh. A street address would be most helpful.
After all, I'd hate to think that IDC was not science...
steve · 23 August 2005
Caenaenoenerbog, that's a good suggestion. I would use PubMed though.
"Intelligent design": 22 hits
"evolution": 162927 hits
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 August 2005
Mona · 23 August 2005
Chip P. writes: I'm still not convinced that the best strategy for dealing with ID or YEC is to say "its not science". This gets into an endless debate about lines of demarcation.
Yes, and the demarcation is difficult and not as easy as many would like it to be, but still absolutely necessary. Bad science is not unconstitutional when taught in public schools.
If science cannot somewhat demarcate where it differs from religion and all other supernatural claims, it is in trouble. And there would be no grounds, legally, for precluding ID or YEC in the classroom.
Henry J · 23 August 2005
Re "The bottom line is "We need to make evolution sexy again!""
When was evolution ever "sexy"??
(But then again, when were most of the things advertised on TV ever sexy, either? Mostly not. lol )
Re "Well, the IDers seem to be sort of stuck on step 3."
The arguments I've seen haven't gotten past step 2, let alone step 3.
Henry
Mona · 23 August 2005
I said this: And there would be no grounds, legally, for precluding ID or YEC in the classroom.
But should have been more clear. There would be no grounds for precluding teaching ID or YEC...or astrology, phrenology or demonic possession, as science. All of these can be taught in comparative religion or sociology classes, but not vested with the mclaim that they are among the best objective explanations for the world that science can presently offer.
Pierce R. Butler · 23 August 2005
Welcome back, Lenny!
Would it be defensible to say something like, "Science deals only with what can be measured and tested - anything which doesn't meet those criteria is outside the definition of science."?
I'm looking for a pithy and easily understood discussion point, not a philosophically comprehensive & epistemologically rigorous ultimate description...
Corbs · 23 August 2005
Lenny
Comment 44507 is beautiful.
Clear, concise, and easy to understand what is required with a helpful example.
I've often seen your shorter version of this put to creationists but had not really appreciated how badly creationists fail until I saw this longer version.
Such a shame you never get an answer.
Marcus · 23 August 2005
Pithy is good. One point I think we should continually hammer on is this: whenever the creationist/I.D.'ers come out of their "explantory filters", "universal probability bounds", etc., and say that "
Goda designer did it", we should force them to come clean and admit that what they really mean is "a miracle occurred here". This makes the bottom line clear to everybody: I.D.'ers consider miracles as valid scientific explanations. And just as they ask us to provide iron-clad examples of natural selection operating in real life, we should as them to provide solid examples of miracles operating in the everyday world. This may help us get the attention of some who are befuddled by Type III secretory systems, bacterial flagella, and clotting systems (and universal probability bounds, for that matter).Ian Musgrave · 24 August 2005
Jaime Headden · 24 August 2005
And Dembski says evolution can't progress through loss of information....
Nilsson, A. I. S. Koskiniemi, S. Eriksson, E. Kugelberg, J. C. D. Hinton & D. I. Andersson. 2005. Bacterial genome size reduction by experimental evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Philadelpha 102(34):12112-12116.
"Bacterial evolution toward endosymbiosis with eukaryotic cells is associated with extensive bacterial genome reduction and loss of metabolic and regulatory capabilities. Here we examined the rate and process of genome reduction in the bacterium Salmonella enterica by a serial passage experimental evolution procedure. The initial rate of DNA loss was estimated to be 0.05 bp per chromosome per generation for a WT bacterium and {approx}50-fold higher for a mutS mutant defective in methyl-directed DNA mismatch repair. The endpoints were identified for seven chromosomal deletions isolated during serial passage and in two separate genetic selections. Deletions ranged in size from 1 to 202 kb, and most of them were not associated with DNA repeats, indicating that they were formed via RecA-independent recombination events. These results suggest that extensive genome reduction can occur on a short evolutionary time scale and that RecA-dependent homologous recombination only plays a limited role in this process of jettisoning superfluous DNA."
RBH · 24 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 24 August 2005
Mongrel · 24 August 2005
As a follow on to Ian Musgraves comments to White Stone about the use of the word believe...
I stopped taking Biology at school when I was 14 (at the time Chemistry was much more fun). What I know is that a lot of the guys here either are studying Biology in all its myriad forms or are Biologists who spend half their lives in the lab answering those questions that give us a better understanding of life on this planet.
The Belief part is akin to - When PZ (for example) makes a statement that the latest ID example of 'Why evolution doesn't happen' is a crock, examples then follow.. I believe PZ has a much stronger case, even though I may not understand it myself, than some person heard it 3rd hand off a quote mined website that his preacher pointed him to.
Creationist troll · 24 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 24 August 2005
Knowledge is true justified belief, faith is unjustified belief. A belief is simply assent to a proposition; the amount of justification for and the level of commitment to the belief can vary broadly. Why White Stone finds use of the word to be significant is beyond me, but I find just about everything in hsr post to be conceptually confused. S/he writes "Looking closely at evolutionary claim, perhaps we should not be so surprised by similarities in DNA across species." Of course we shouldn't be surprised; it's predicted by the theory evolution. Oh, but White Stone means "we" a priori committed creationists shouldn't be surprised. S/he continues: "The amazing thing isn't the similarities, but the variety found". Amazing to a creationist -- which should make it amazing that anyone still clings to it -- but not amazing in the light of the theory of evolution, because what we find isn't just "variety", but structured relationships, the sort of structured relationships that are predicted by common descent, but for which creationism offers no explanation. It is the fingerprints of common descent, not of God, that we find everywhere and in every way we look, and that White Stone seems completely unaware of this leaves me wondering just what the source is of the "much on the subject of evolution" that s/he has read.
SEF · 24 August 2005
Russell · 24 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 24 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 24 August 2005
Oops: ... and deductive proofs do not apply ...
ts (not Tim) · 24 August 2005
I think the responses from SEF and myself are unnecessarily sophisticated for the troll's foolishness. Just take the troll's example: the proof of an infinitude of primes. But the claim that there is an infinitude of primes is strictly equivalent to the claim that it is false that number of primes is finite -- one is simply the negation of the other. Likewise, if it were proven that the theory of evolution was false, then it would be proven that the theory of evolution isn't true. Period. No designer or intelligence or anything else would have been proven. Which takes us right back to Lenny's statement that "One does not establish "B" simply by demonstrating that "A" did not happen".
Chip Poirot · 24 August 2005
Since my effort last night to quote an author ended in utter disaster, I'll resort to doing it the old fashioned way:
Mona wrote:
"I said this: And there would be no grounds, legally, for precluding ID or YEC in the classroom.
But should have been more clear. There would be no grounds for precluding teaching ID or YEC...or astrology, phrenology or demonic possession, as science. All of these can be taught in comparative religion or sociology classes, but not vested with the mclaim that they are among the best objective explanations for the world that science can presently offer."
I see and ackknowledge your point, and I am not convinced that there is no demarcation. I still think that we can say we do have a definition of science that is both descriptive and prescriptive. The definition and standard of science has changed, but we are now at a point where we recognize at a practical level specific standards for specific subjects. I do think that motives matter, at least when we are discussing school curriculum. In short, I think that Aguilar and Lemon hold up pretty well.
That said, in general discussions or public debates with ID or YEC proponents I have found, and in the past myself, engaged in a tendency to resort to demarcation debates. What has happened is that Lemon and Aguilar have tended to shape our debates in the US on philosophy of science. Inevitable perhaps-we don't do science or philosophy in a vacuum tube (save for some experiments in physics).
What ID has thus far, is a sort of general ontology, and not a well thought out general ontology at that. To solve any problems, you need to go further. So my view is in debates with ID we need to ask "Does it explain?" "Does it predict"? "Does it save the phenomena"? No.! Then consign it the philosophy classroom.
Chip Poirot · 24 August 2005
ts,
Just to amplify your comment a bit: One might discredit specific theories or hypotheses associated with the Neo-Darwinian research tradition (paradigm, research program). This would not necessarily invalidate the other theories of the Neo-Darwinian research tradition. This might require ammending the tradition. Or, one might eventually discredit the entire tradition. One would still need to develop a coherent tradition to replace it.
Now, personally, I think that replacement of the Neo-Darwinian research tradition is not in the cards, though I can envision some amendments with respect to specific hypotheses and theories.
But what the ID folks are after is not offering explanation or formulating any viable alternative. Discrediting for example, the view that multiple and minor mutations in allele frequency leads to macroevolution over a long enough period of time does not prove that there was a specific, outside intervention that we cannot explain or understand.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 August 2005
carol clouser · 24 August 2005
Rev Dr Lenny,
Re #44507,
That was actually a well reasoned and nicely organized posting. I have two issues though I wish to raise.
First, you repeatedly distiguish the "natural" from the "supernatural". But belief in the God hypothesis, while necessarily unscientific since God cannot be detected by scientific means and instruments, does not constitute belief in the "supernatural." If God exists, he must by definition be part of "nature" since nature describes all that exists. All that we are then justified in claiming is that belief in God is "superscientific." The fact that science has not and cannot and probably will never be able to detect God tell us something about the limits of science, that it cannot study or even detect one of the most salient features of the universe, not about the limits of the universe and its nature.
This is the case whatever attributes one ascribes to God, such as infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, and so on. Scientists may object to such characteristics as beyond the realm of science. But that is just too bad. If God exists and is endowed with these attributes, then these characteristics automatically become part of nature. And as such science must strive to get a grip on these concepts.
Second, your step five calls for hypothesis modification with experiments and predictions. Since when are scientific hypotheses adjusted for predictions? I know what you intended to say, but you need to say it more clearly to avoid confusion.
steve · 24 August 2005
Miah · 24 August 2005
I am confused... (be nice)
In order for the IDist to claim "theories" for an Itelligent Designer, wouldn't they first have to prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer?
Can you really attribute a cause to a specific entity without first proof that the entity even exist?
Or are they trying to attribute the "theories" as proof for the Intelligent Designer.
Miah · 24 August 2005
steve · 24 August 2005
Moses · 24 August 2005
Jim Harrison · 24 August 2005
Carol writes "All that we are then justified in claiming is that belief in God is 'superscientific.'" In fact lots of think that belief in God is subscientific. Why is our claim less credible than hers?
Moses · 24 August 2005
Greg Peterson · 24 August 2005
Stunningly, to my mind, you know who has a decent handle on evolutionary theory? Film critic Roger Ebert. Check this out from his review of the (I thought terrible) "War of the Worlds":
Evolution and science friction
"War of the Worlds" provides some fascinating illustrations of Darwinian evolution, too. The movie begins and ends inside the nucleus of single-celled organisms, which turn out to be the heroes of the tale. The invaders (they are not called "aliens," or "Martians," as in the novel) are done in by a microscopic form of bacteria (or perhaps a virus) that is toxic because it is so unfamiliar to them. Their immune systems have consequently never developed a natural resistance.
Wells himself was a former conservative Christian who became a passionate proponent of evolution (Darwin's "Origin of the Species" had been published in 1859), and used unambiguously Darwinian language to describe the conflict of species in "War of the Worlds." The term "natural selection" is used explicitly three times in the book, including this passage, some of which is adapted for Freeman's closing narration:
"These germs of disease have taken toll of humanity since the beginning of things -- taken toll of our prehuman ancestors since life began here. But by virtue of this natural selection of our kind we have developed resisting power; to no germs do we succumb without a struggle, and to many -- those that cause putrefaction in dead matter, for instance -- our living frames are altogether immune. But there are no bacteria in Mars, and directly these invaders arrived, directly they drank and fed, our microscopic allies began to work their overthrow. Already when I watched them they were irrevocably doomed, dying and rotting even as they went to and fro. It was inevitable. By the toll of a billion deaths man has bought his birthright of the earth, and it is his against all comers; it would still be his were the Martians ten times as mighty as they are. For neither do men live nor die in vain."
The way Wells' language is used in Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" endorses a view of evolution and natural selection that is not incompatible with belief in God, but instead finds wonder and awe in the workings of nature. (That a church is one of the first buildings we see destroyed is something left open to interpretation.) In a culture that in some ways has slipped backwards in its understanding of science, where some Christians want biblical Creationism taught in schools as an alternative to the empirical sciences that form the foundation for our post-Enlightenment progress as a civilization, this description of the invaders' destruction strikes an evocative chord:
"And scattered about it, some in their overturned war-machines, some in the now rigid handling-machines, and a dozen of them stark and silent and laid in a row, were the Martians --- dead! -- slain by the putrefactive and disease bacteria against which their systems were unprepared; slain as the red weed was being slain; slain, after all man's devices had failed, by the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, has put upon this earth."
Indeed, that's what makes the speech by Robbins' survivalist Harlan Ogilvy one of the most hopeful notes in the movie: "This isn't a war any more than there is a war between men and maggots. This is an extermination!" At that point in the film things are looking pretty dark for humanity, but Harlan makes an excellent point about the adaptability of species. After all, we've been trying to eliminate various bugs and maggots for centuries, but we've never succeeded. And we never will.
So, although Spielberg's film acknowledges that untold millions or billions of human beings may have been slaughtered (another echo of the Holocaust), it leaves us with a sense that some of us will survive and persevere to rebuild anew. The scariest thing is: What if some resistant strain of these invaders should develop in the future?
Epilogue: Intelligent Design?
"War of the Worlds" slyly illustrates (intentionally or not) one of the logical fallacies of the newfangled notion of so-called Intelligent Design. Because the filmmakers know how the story ends, they are able to work backwards and forwards to be sure it comes out the right way (i.e., that the characters they've chosen to follow don't wander off, or die off, partway through). They are the Intelligent Designers.
As Ray dodges extermination willy nilly, while those to the left, right, front, and back of him are evaporated by death rays and snatched away by deadly tentacles, we know he's not going to snuff it because ... well, because he's Tom Cruise.
A plane just happens to crash land on the house in which Ray and his kids are spending the night. He and his kids make it onto a ferry -- and make it off again. A flaming train goes by them. So, those things are interesting. Improbable, sure, but those are the kinds of events you make movies about.
Spectacularly dangerous stuff happens to Ray, and all around Ray (which is what makes him a worthy protagonist; if he just sat at home and trembled it could get pretty dull) -- but he takes a bashing and keeps on dashing toward the predetermined finish line.
And, when you think about it, that's kind of like the unsupported assumption behind Intelligent Design --- that things have turned out the way they have (so far) because it was inevitable that they should; that an overriding, interventionist intelligence guided events so that they would result in the world as we see it today; and that the course of history and biology could not have gone otherwise because it was all planned in advance. The assumption is that evolution has been pointed toward this moment, rather than the present being just another point in a still-ongoing process with no "destination" in sight.
Evolution sees the current state of things as the outcome of the previous forces and conditions that shaped our existence, and that it's possible much or all of it could have turned out another way entirely -- and might yet still. The world as we experience it is result of trial and error, with no fixed goal or destination in mind but natural selection and adaptation to ever-changing circumstances.
Think of Ray and the other characters (including extras) as genes, or inherited characteristics. Imagine, then, if "War of the Worlds" had been about one of those other people, instead. It would have been a lot shorter, for one thing. The only way you would know to follow the character of Ray Ferrier was if you knew in advance that he would have some interesting experiences worth watching and make it to the end of the movie to wrap up the narrative. War stories, after all, can only be told by survivors.
JPD · 24 August 2005
Greg - Good Review! I haven't seen the movie - read the book a long time ago - but I will now.
Jason Spaceman · 24 August 2005
Steviepinhead · 24 August 2005
Ken Willis · 24 August 2005
Many thanks to those who posted answers to my questions about micro and macro evolution. It was very helpful.
ts (not Tim) · 24 August 2005
Edward Braun · 24 August 2005
Jaime Headden provided an interesting citation:
"And Dembski says evolution can't progress through loss of information....
Nilsson, A. I. S. Koskiniemi, S. Eriksson, E. Kugelberg, J. C. D. Hinton & D. I. Andersson. 2005. Bacterial genome size reduction by experimental evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Philadelpha 102(34):12112-12116."
I have been interested in gene loss for some time, and would call Jaime's attention to my review on the subject (which can be downloaded from my web site) in Applied Bioinformatics:
Braun, EL. 2003. Innovation from reduction: Gene loss, domain loss and sequence divergence in genome evolution. Applied Bioinformatics, 2:13-34.
The case I find especially interesting from the standpoint of examining ID is the loss of CMP-N-acetylneuraminic acid hydroxylase activity in the human lineage. The loss of this gene is correlated with the timing of the expansion of the human brain, and a pseudogene is retained. CMP-N-acetylneuraminic acid hydroxylase activity is downregulated in the brains of other mammals, suggesting a model in which the presence of the sialic acid N-glycolylneuraminic acid on brain cells somehow limits the growth of the brain. Most mammals simply reduce the expression of this gene, but in the human lineage inactivation of the CMAH gene eliminates any residual N-glycolylneuraminic acid and (potentially) played a role in the increase of brain size for humans. For the full story see (it is also reviewed in my Applied Bioinformatics paper):
Chou HH, Hayakawa T, Diaz S, Krings M, Indriati E, Leakey M, Pääbo S, Satta Y, Takahata N, Varki A. 2002. Inactivation of CMP-N-acetylneuraminic acid hydroxylase occurred prior to brain expansion during human evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:11736-41.
One might argue that a sugar that limits brain expansion might have been omitted by an intelligent designer in an organism designed to have a large brain, but why would an intelligent designer place a pseudogene that appears to have been derived from the gene encoding the enzyme responsible for synthesis of that sugar in other mammals?
However, the argument from gene loss is not completely convincing as a refutation of ID (though I - and I suspect all evolutionary biologists - find the overall evidence for evolution quite convincing, making evolution very well corroborated). In principle, one might imagine a designer that made an omnigenomic organism that evolved through gene loss. Such a model would be consistent with the CMAH gene loss characteristics.
However, the CMAH provides excellent evidence for common ancestry of humans and non-human primates. Since one of the psychological reasons for doubting evolution is to preserve human "uniqueness" relative to non-human animals, I would argue that it provides yet another nice example of data that are inconsistent with an intelligent designer, unless one postulates the intelligent designer is a "great deciever" that places evidence of our evolution in our genome (a position that - I suspect - most conventional theists reject).
As an aside, I would also note that purely in vitro of Sol Spiegelman and colleagues in the late '60s showed evolution by loss of sequences in the Qbeta phage. Viral genomic RNAs were incubated with the replicase in vitro, and selection favored deletion variants that replicated faster. Of course, those genomic RNAs lost information necessary for in vivo replication, making them non-infectious. But the experiment is conceptually similar to looking for deletions in bacterial populations - any genes that are deleted must not contribute to a phenotype necessary for optimal fitness in the environment in which the experiment is conducted. Such a pattern of evolution necessarily results in canalization, restricting the new "species" to a subset of its former "range" (thinking of range as the set of niches it could exploit). However, one can also imagine jack-of-all-trades/master-of-none species that are outcompeted by derived versions in specific ecological niches, and a jack-of-all-trades species might be too complex to have optimum fitness in all environments. Nonetheless, I have no idea how Dembski could assert that evolution can't progress through loss of information given Spiegelman's experiments ALMOST 40 YEARS AGO....
Best regards Jaime! Thanks for posting the interesting link
Rilke's Granddaughter · 24 August 2005
Back to the original topic, isn't it the case that Witt, etc. are simply offering the Argument from Ignorance? "If you can't prove me wrong, then I'm right."
A complete non-starter. Are they actually going to send this letter to Science?
ts (not Tim) · 24 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 24 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 August 2005
LackOfDiscipline · 24 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 24 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 24 August 2005
s/IR/IC/g
Edward Braun · 24 August 2005
Edward Braun · 24 August 2005
carol clouser · 24 August 2005
Rev Dr Lenny,
You can make light of my comment all you want, if it makes you feel better. But I was in fact making a serious point.
Your posting was replete with such phrases as "natural" and "supernatural" as if these terms have real consistent significance (the dictionary not withstanding). As soon as one entertains the possibility that God exists, and your posting argued that said entertainment is entirely acceptable, then one must treat God as "natural". If he exists, he is part of the universe (all that exists) and of nature. You can exclude Him from scientific analysis, but not from the universe. And if you exclude him from science because you label Him "supernatural" you are violating your own stated principles of the scientific method.
And this is not mere word play. I am sure you realize, eminent scientist and theologian that you are, that words frequently take on a life of their own by repeatedly using them haphazrdly and incorrectly. And this in turn can and does lead to all manner of errors in logic. A lot of what you wrote in the posting, while well intended, withers into nothingness when examined carefully or when a rational person attempts to apply it consistently to the real world.
Stated otherwise, your posting would be rejected by any competent editor and sent back for rewriting.
Miah,
I used the term "superscience" to highlight the contrast with "supernatural." I am at liberty to do so on the basis of the doctrine of "writer's license".
TS,
"Salient" may be used in the sense of "prominent" in importance.
Also, the God hypothesis always goes hand-in-hand with the notion of God as creator. In that case He exists with very real consequences. If not for His existance and actions, YOU would not be here to nit-pick my posting.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 24 August 2005
Ian Musgrave · 24 August 2005
In Comment #44723
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank was a little impolite. Let's all try to be more polite in future, okay.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 24 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 24 August 2005
carol clouser · 25 August 2005
TS,
Just don't get a swollen head from all the fictional "ripping" you magically performed. Your assertions are just that, assertions, like the assertions about the existance of God you are so contemptuous of. I concede nothing to you.
The Japanese issue - Almost all the sources I consulted state that American diplomats were in possession of three additional conditions set by the Japanese, besides the status of the emperor. Those conditions were unacceptable, and for good reasons. One source I looked at claimed some signals of movement on the part of the Japanese but they were not clear. Reading the emperor's intentions was like reading tea leaves. Your assertion is NOT historical fact at all, you are attracted to it for reasons I stated earlier.
Uri Geller - I am pretty confident in asserting that Geller showed up more than once on the Johnny Carson show. After being bamboozled by Geller a few times, Randi intervened and gave him some tips. So both my professor (I never called him "friend" you made that up) and the source you cite could be right.
Landa's book - I do not regret anything I said or did and have no reason to do so.
Rev Dr Lenny,
I said all along the issue was clarity of terms and presentation. The idea of spelling out the scientific process in detail with examples and displaying the contrast with ID was very laudable.
SEF · 25 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 25 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 25 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 25 August 2005
Miah · 25 August 2005
Miah · 25 August 2005
carol clouser · 25 August 2005
TS,
Thank you for your extensive research into this most important matter. Since I was recalling statements made in the 1970's, perhaps the professor referred to one of Geller's appearances on the Tonight "show" (without Carson) or the other shows mentioned in your source. I definately recall him being very impressed with Geller and the mention of Johnny Carson. The more important point made that led to this discussion is Randi's statement that scientists are the easiest to fool. Your accusation of lying are entirely unfounded but very typical of you.
Rev Dr Lenny,
I never said anything about my religious beliefs being more or less authoritative or valid than yours, nor even that I had any religious beliefs. But there is an answer to your question. Just as in the scientific community, after a talented individual has spent thirty years focused on a particular field, published many important peer-reviewed papers, earned one or more prestigious prizes and earned the respect of colleagues, he or she becomes a generally recognized "authority" in that field. Similar conditions exist in the theological community.
I don't care much for this issue, however, since my position is not to recognize ANYONE as an "authority" on ANYTHING. An individual may be a source of information or ideas, yes, but not a decider of fact or wright from wrong. I try to do that for myself as much as possible.
Miah · 25 August 2005
FYI
Just a note of interrest to some:
I was visiting my youngest son's classroom for a parent/teacher's "get-together" (Of course I had to endure a PTA meeting...funny, they don't mention those until you get there. *sigh*) and as the teacher was going over the cirriculum and techniques for the 3rd grade, I was investigating my surroundings as to the various charts, and positive behaviorial propaganda (respect, respnsibility...etc.) my eyes caught one very important piece...
The Scientific Method
I was so elated and happy to see that there.
Henry J · 25 August 2005
Re "s/IR/IC/g"
Oh, you've work/worked on Vax Vms machines, too, huh?
(Or maybe on another with a similar text editor...)
Henry
ts (not Tim) · 25 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 25 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 25 August 2005
Steviepinhead · 25 August 2005
carol clouser · 25 August 2005
Rev Dr Lenny,
Your differentiating between scientific and theological "authorities" on the basis of consensus or the lack thereof seems to me to be a weak reed to hang your hat on. For there are areas of consensus and disagreement in both communities. There are some very strong disagreements in the scientific community based on the same data that is available to all. Areas that come to mind are global warming, models of the early universe, basic particles (string theory), efficacy of certain medical procedures and diets, and others. By the same token, there are many areas of agreement in the theology community, at least by large segments of that community. Many of those christian sects you cited agree on many things, while they disagree on others. And I don't think you wish to reduce your point to a game of numbers, i.e. counting consensus vs. disagreement in the respective camps. That would get us into the relative importance of the issues.
What you should hang your coat on and did is that scientists have a consensus on how disagreements are to be settled - in the lab, if possible. But theologians also have some such agreement - by a convincing argument (proof) or by evidence (archeological, for example) again if possible. Unfortunately for the theologians, good arguments and evidence are harder to come by than in the lab where controlled experiments are possible. They have my sympathy. Their task is much tougher.
But when a good argument does arise, it usually is far more convincing than data in the lab. I would be absolutely convinced, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees even if I had never seen a triangle. As a matter of fact, the first time I tried that by measurement (a long, long time ago) they add up to 179. The next time they added up to 182. Eventually I was introduced to the excuses (just kidding) and how to deal with them - averages, precision, accuracy - but that all doesn't speak as loudly as a unshakeable proof.
In any event, I never appealed to "authority", you brought all this up.
TS,
You persist in deliberately distorting what I say and even the context in which I say things. There is no point therefore in responding to your "comments".
carol clouser · 25 August 2005
Rev Dr Lenny,
Your differentiating between scientific and theological "authorities" on the basis of consensus or the lack thereof seems to me to be a weak reed to hang your hat on. For there are areas of consensus and disagreement in both communities. There are some very strong disagreements in the scientific community based on the same data that is available to all. Areas that come to mind are global warming, models of the early universe, basic particles (string theory), efficacy of certain medical procedures and diets, and others. By the same token, there are many areas of agreement in the theology community, at least by large segments of that community. Many of those christian sects you cited agree on many things, while they disagree on others. And I don't think you wish to reduce your point to a game of numbers, i.e. counting consensus vs. disagreement in the respective camps. That would get us into the relative importance of the issues.
What you should hang your coat on and did is that scientists have a clear consensus on how disagreements are to be settled - in the lab, if possible. But theologians also have some such agreement - by a convincing argument (proof) or by evidence (archeological, for example) again if possible. Unfortunately for the theologians, good arguments and evidence are harder to come by than in the lab where controlled experiments are possible. They have my sympathy. Their task is much tougher.
But when a good argument does arise, it usually is far more convincing than data in the lab. I would be absolutely convinced, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees even if I had never seen a triangle. As a matter of fact, the first time I tried that by measurement (a long, long time ago) they added up to 179. The next time they added up to 182. Eventually I was introduced to the excuses (just kidding) and how to deal with them - averages, precision, accuracy - but that all doesn't speak as loudly as a unshakeable proof.
In any event, I never appealed to "authority", you brought all this up. You asked what makes one an authority. I answered you.
TS,
You persist in deliberately distorting what I say and even the context in which I say things. There is no point therefore in responding to your "comments".
carol clouser · 25 August 2005
Sorry for the double appearance of that posting.
Flint · 25 August 2005
carol:
"Proof" as you use the term is a result of agreed-on rules of inference applied to agreed-on axioms, themselves presumed a priori to be "true". And so we don't *observe* that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, we *define* the triangle to have a total of 180 degress of internal angles. But draw that triangle on the surface of a sphere, and suddenly we need new axioms.
And so science, based on observation and not axioms, can never "prove" anything. I will happily grant that proofs (as you use the term) are airtight, inevitable implications of the system of axioms from which they are deduced.
And so your "good argument" arises for two reasons: because those examining this argument agree on the proper use of the rules of inference, and because they ALSO agree on the axioms to which these rules have been applied. Theological proofs require nothing more; certainly they require no observational evidence. Observational evidence makes "proof" impossible, automatically.
It's not enough to say "well, science has its method, and theology has their own method, and according to these disparate methods, those specialists in this field arrive at conclusions no different in nature." As Lenny implies, agreement about what's being examined, or admiration for the elegance of an experiment, or universal respect for the reputation of the experimenter, are irrelevant. What matters is what WORKS.
It's not just idle to observe that when scientists disagree, they construct experiments and related means of making directed observations that will reconcile these conflicts; when theologians disagree, they simply DECLARE their opponents to be wrong, and split into Yet Another Sect. This is understandable, since scientists are concerned with the underlying reality, and theologians are concerned with appropriate social conventions.
The issue might be, instead of an argument from authority, an argument based on the ultimate arbiter of the disagreements. In science, that ultimate arbiter is reality itself, as well and as closely as we can observe and understand it. In theology, the ultimate arbiter is, well, uh, actually, there isn't one.
Henry J · 25 August 2005
Re ##44863's "Those dang rocks [...]"
ROFL ROFL
Henry
carol clouser · 26 August 2005
Flint,
I can agree with almost all of what you wrote except for a few tangential points. But I put a different spin on the siginificance of it all.
A close look at the state of science today reveals quite a few "sects" in a variety of areas. In all the areas of disagreement I mentioned in my previous posting there are strong adherents of divergent opinions. That sounds like "sects" to me. Of course, if data appeared that would clearly establish the correctness of one view over another, that would end that particular debate. In science the lab is the supreme court, there is no further appeal. But the same is true in the theological community. If either evidence or a line of reasoning were to appear to validate or invalidate any sect's theological view, that would end the debate. Sure, some people would squirm and resist for awhile, but that is true in science too. The key difference is that there is a dirth of such evidence or lines of reasoning in the area of theology, so things don't get settled. If for some reason (budget cuts, for example) the sources of incoming scientific data were to cease, the opposing sects in the scientific community would also DECLARE each other wrong, as they do now.
So deep down it all reduces to the following: science has a spigot of flowing new data, theology is strugggling for every scrap. So what is the significance of this? That theology has no valid contribution to make to society? That's hardly likely. It is of course possible that some of those sects happen to have views that match reality. For example, God may in fact exist. So I cannot agree with the implication of Lenny's question.
Lenny,
Since I answered your question (rebutting your rebuttal leaves the answer standing) let me ask you a question. I will throw your a softball. A recent poll released by Newsweek magazine (this week) reveals that 80% or Americans believe that God created the universe. How do you explain this? Are they (1) stupid, (2) misled, (3) miscalculating, (4) on to something, or (5) very intelligent? Please explain the basis for your conclusion.
ts (not Tim) · 26 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 26 August 2005
SEF · 26 August 2005
David Wilson · 26 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 August 2005
Flint · 26 August 2005
Miah · 26 August 2005
Flint · 26 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 26 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 26 August 2005
Flint · 26 August 2005
Miah · 26 August 2005
SEF · 26 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 26 August 2005
Miah · 26 August 2005
SEF:
Thanks! I appreciate that.
TS:
Again, thank you for explaining even more in depth than before. Seems the more questions I have, the more answers I get, and therefore the more questions I have. I feel like a sponge soaking up everthing here.
I really enjoy debating/arguing. I just never knew there were so many principles and rules to do it successfully. Seems I might have to use this knowlegede to be more succesfull with the wife *yikes* :oD
Of course arguing with the wife is a whole new beast in and of itself. Better not open that can of worms here, I might be crucified!
Anyway, ts, again thank you for taking the time to clarify and help me understand things better.
My dad always told me, "If you don't learn something new everyday; then there isn't much point in being here."
So I've always applied that reasoning to anything I do. I may know some things, but there is always someone out there that I can learn from.
carol clouser · 26 August 2005
Rev Dr Lenny,
YOU have not answered my question. Instead you attacked my motives, personalized the discussion, and were on the verge of throwing a tantrum. Your reaction is very similar to that of fundamentalists when their arguments run into trouble in the glare of a withering debate. I thought for awhile that I could have a calm, rational conversation with Flint. But he too is turning testy. Another similarity between theologians and scientists!
The point of my question was NOT to imply that ideas become a popularity contest. As a Jew I am acutely aware of the fact that the whole world can be wrong. My point was related to your argument, which occupied some six paragraphs in #44855, about the lack of consensus in theology and how differences are never settled therein. I was hinting at the fact (but you could not get it) that there was a time, I am sure you know, when the arguments were about how many gods there must be. Surely you have heard of paganism, Greek mythology, etc. Slowly and painfully theology has moved toward consensus on this issue. Monotheism is now almost universally accepted in the western world. That poll result was indicative of that.
I will rephrase what I am saying to avoid distortions by folks who cannot remain calm and rational when their long cherished beliefs are challenged. The scientific and theological camps are in many ways similar. BOTH have disagreements and sects that can, sometimes have and do last for centuries (many more than two years, Flint). BOTH generally consist of well meaning, sincere and reasonably intelligent individuals who will reluctantly part with cherished assumptions only when they have to. BOTH have areas of consensus that are ever increasing in scope. BOTH have standards for settling disputes, its called - CONVINCE ME! BOTH operate on the basis of axioms that are accepted without proof.
Of course, there are differences. The truly important one is the flow of new information - immense in science, VERY HARD to come by in theology.
Does any of this make one valid and the other not valid?
Bob Maurus · 26 August 2005
Way back in Comment #44614, in response to Lenny's essay on the Scientific Method, Clouser said, "The fact that science has not and cannot and probably will never be able to detect God tell us something about the limits of science, that it cannot study or even detect one of the most salient features of the universe,..."
The only definition of "salient" that could fit this statement is, "Noticeable, Conspicuous, Prominent," and Ms. Clouser subsequently indicated she used it in the context of "prominent."
I wonder why she was allowed to claim as fact, without any challenge, God as one of the most prominent (not to mention conspicuous and noticeable) features of the universe.
And, this specifically to Ms. Clouser;
Please elucidate - as in "make clear" - the evidence to support your claim of fact concerning God's prominence in the universe. And were you using "prominent" in the sense of "noticeable at once" or "widely and favorably known"?
ts (not Tim) · 26 August 2005
Flint · 26 August 2005
SEF · 26 August 2005
W. Kevin Vicklund · 26 August 2005
Flint · 26 August 2005
Miah · 26 August 2005
carol clouser · 26 August 2005
Flint,
What am I going to do with you?
I will try, nontheless.
(1) Being a Jew is not a religion. It is fact of birth.
(2) Arguments in science with a HALF-LIFE of centuries are, but NOT limited to: the atomic nature of matter, from Dalton thru Brownian motion,
(2)the nature of heat, from caloric fluid to molecular energy, (3)The universe, from steady state thru bing bang (still being debated vociferously by some), (4) laws of motion, from Aristotle thru Newton thru the ether thru Einstein, and many many others.
(3) Buddhism is essentially monotheistic, the Sikhs are monotheistic, and except for Hinduism the other Asian doctrines are more akin to philosophies than religions. As for the Hindus, they are NOT, it appears, monotheistic.
(4) We were cmparing theologians doing theology to scientists doing science, as per Lenny's challenge, which I was responding to. All your comments pertaining to scientific evidence effecting theological beliefs are therefore outside the discussion we were having. But since you bring it up, may I point out that science says basically nothing about most of theology (except for narrow conflicts between incorrect literal Bible reading on the part of some and the age of the earth and evolution) and some folks do not buy into the axioms some scientific principles - not data - are based upon.
(5) As I have pointed out before in the example of the angles of a triangle, a good argument is as effective, if not much more so, at convincing and persuading, as data. It seems to me monotheism spread by the force of its arguments. That's how theology operates. It's not science, and its not meant to be.
W. Kevin's point is well taken. The Roman Empire's adoption of christianity as the state religion introduced militarism and force to the religion landscape. But that is more applicable to Christianity than to simple monotheism, which has spread far beyond the reaches of that empire. So there is more to it.
(6) I appreciate your wanting to educate me but alas it appears I am doing the educating here.
Miah · 26 August 2005
W. Kevin Vicklund · 26 August 2005
Miah · 26 August 2005
SEF · 26 August 2005
Miah · 26 August 2005
SEF,
Would Taoism fall into that category as well?
Rilke's Granddaughter · 26 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 August 2005
Thanks for expressing your religious opinions, Carol.
Why should anyone pay any more attention to your religious opinions than theys hould to, say, mine or my next door neighbor's or my car mechanic's or my veterinarian's or the kid who delivers my pizzas?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 26 August 2005
Touché!
Flint · 26 August 2005
Paul Flocken · 26 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 26 August 2005
Paul Flocken · 26 August 2005
Miah · 26 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 27 August 2005
Despite his own admonition not to do so, Buddha has become deified in some systems, especially in Mahayana Buddism; see, e.g.,
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/MAHAYANA.HTM
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8045_1.html
For more on the deification of Buddha see, e.g.,
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/gayzenla/myhomepage/deification.htm
http://www.san.beck.org/EC9-Buddha.html
However, Buddha is not seen as a creator or ruler of the universe, and thus doesn't resemble the God of monotheistic religions.
ts (not Tim) · 27 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 August 2005
carol clouser · 27 August 2005
Flint,
You are confusing
Judaism" (a religion) with "being a Jew" (a fact of birth). When one converts into Judaism, one joins the faith of the Jews. You can cease practicing the "faith of the Jews" but cannot cease being a Jew. There are many people who have no religious affiliation whatsoever, some even are atheists, yet they identify themselves as Jews. The only argument in the Jewish community (the folks who care at all about this) about this is whether patrilineal descent alone makes you a Jew. In the Reform Jewish movement it does, in all the others it does not. All Jews, including the most fanatically religious types, consider any totally non-religious type born of a Jewish mother to be a Jew.
The best scholarly definition of a Jew is NOT a religion or a race but that of an extended family or "clan". You can be born into this family or join by conversion which is akin to joining a family by adoption or marriage. For a good summary of these issues why don't you read "We Jews" by Adin Steinsaltz (a scholar of the millenium by Time Magazine and, no, I did not edit that book). Is there a genetic component to this clan? That remains an open question. Recent studies do indicate that the "Kohanim" branch of Jews share genetic characterisics, supporting the Biblical assertion that they are all descendants of one kinship group (traced to Aaron?)
Your distinctions between classes of scientific arguments hold no water, with all due respect. In the context of our discussion the important point is that they are (were) arguments within the community of scientists to be contrasted with arguments within the theological community and how these arguments are dealt with by the respective communities.
I indicated that scientific principles, not mere data, are based on axioms. When scientists proclaim that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, for example, that is a pronouncement based on data AND the assumption (axiom!) that the laws of nature pertaining to decay rates (lambda in the exponential) were unchanged thru billions of years. That assumption is NOT based on data, is certainly not by itself a datum, and remains unproven. Is it a reasonable one that we choose to make, Yes, but an axiom it remains. If this makes you unconfortable, I am sorry, but I submit it is scientifically accurate.
Paul,
I think you will find my response to one of your question above. As to axioms in theology, why is that so hard to find? Is it not a starting assumption of some religions we are familiar with that the Bible is divinely authored, accepted even if there is no proof?
Lenny,
I have checked with some recognized scholars of Buddhism. The answer by all - A single God is assumed in Buddhism but not to be talked about, for various theological reasons.
I know of no Hebrew scholar who disputes Landa's ideas and neither do you. Since I know that ancient language very well myself, that is virtually impossible.
Since you continue to deliberately distort what I say and to put words into my mouth you are approaching the point (already achieved by Ts) where it will be become pointless for me to respond to you.
Paul,
Watch your insults. Just because I choose not to respond in kind, does not make your argument any stronger. Behavior here by some is not very different from YEC types when challenged.
carol clouser · 27 August 2005
Paul,
Another comment on Hinduism, if I may.
I think I was clear in stating that I was ambivalent about the polytheistic nature of Hinduism (as opposed to Buddhism which, if anything, is monotheistic). That is the case for many reasons, some of which were elucidated by other posters. Hindus have many "gods" but it is unclear to my western mind what precisely they perceive by "god". And I am not alone in this ambivalence.
A few years ago it was discovered in the Jewish community that human hair wigs sold in this country come from Hindu women in India who grow their hair very long, then cut them and donate the hair in the service of various Hindu rites performed for their gods. After these rites are performed the hair is sold on the market. Now, to observant Jews it is forbidden to benefit in any way from from any item used in the service of "idols", loosely defined as "other gods" meaning other than the one God/creator. To qualify as an "other god" the people involved in the rite must perceive the entity has having power to act indepently of the one God/creator. So, are the human hair wigs permitted or prohibited? Rabbis sent investigators and scholars to interview Hindus of various denominations to ascertain how they viewed their so called "gods". To make a long story short, after years of debating and meeting and interviewing, the issue remains unresolved, with some Jewish organizations banning human hair wigs while others permit them. So, I guess our western minds are having some difficulty understanding Hinduism. But not as difficult is Buddhism.
By the way, in light of the above, Islam is perceived by all Jewish authorities as monotheistic, while Christianity is still unresolved. The great Jewish philosoher Maimonides (900 years ago)described Christianity as "not monotheistic". But Christianity itself has evolved over the years.
W. Kevin,
Again, you are right about the use of force in Islam as well as Christianity. But the battles were not fought for monoitheism but for brands of monotheism. If the crusaders, for example, were concerned about sheer monotheism, why would they battle Moslems and Jews who were themselves monotheistic? Also, most of the use of force ended many centuries ago, while monotheism continued to gain acceptance. Since its inception can be traced to a small number of people (primarly a faction of the Israelites), I think it can be said, which is what I was saying, that a consensus has emerged in the theological community, after MUCH arguing, as to the existance of one God. There used to be many strong arguments in favor of many gods, such as the existance of good and evil in the world. Those arguments were apparently sidelined in favor of monotheism.
McE · 28 August 2005
Does science have "sects," comparable to religious sects? Carol has argued yes; others have argued no - science settles disagreements by applying the scientific method, making predictions from theories and testing them against reality. Flint conjectured a half-life of such disagreements as "perhaps a year or two."
Of course Flint is conjecturing that half of all scientific disagreements last longer than that, a point that Carol seemed to have misunderstood. She provided in #44998 a list of "arguments" in science which she claims (apparently) lasted for centuries. What they all have in common is that the disagreements were settled, every one of them, by the scientific method. There are, for example, no scientific sects clinging to Aristotelian mechanics. Once Newtonian mechanics was proposed and its predictions tested, it was immediately seen to be superior. There was no extended period of disagreement, certainly not the centuries that Carol has implied.
Carol's example of big bang vs. steady state was a disagreement that lasted a only a couple of decades (not centuries.) Scientists noted that the big bang theory predicted the existence of a cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation; the competing steady state theory did not. When the CMB radiation was detected, and found to have the properties predicted by the big bang theory, the steady state theory was effectively dead. Carol claims that some still debate this. Well, evidence-deniers still debate heliocentrism and evolution, but that says nothing about the scientific consensus. This steady state theory is no longer a viable model of the universe - it fails to account for the observed CMB radiation.
Another of Carol's examples. Atomic theory was accepted by chemists almost as soon as it was proposed by Dalton. The reason was simple: it worked. Resistance to atomic theory was philosophical - can we assign physical reality to atoms whose effects had never been directly observed? Analysis of Brownian motion first provided the evidence of the physical reality of atoms, and (of course) much more evidence has since followed. There are, as a result, no scientific "sects" denying atomic theory.
Similarly with Carol's other examples. They all make the point that differences in opinion among scientists are resolved by use of the scientific method. If there are competing theories, scientists search for predictions that separate the theories. They then check to see which predictions conform to reality. That's the way science settles disagreements, and Carol's examples are case studies of this process in action.
As has been previously noted, religious sects have no such mechanism. On that basis, the comparison between disagreements among religious sects and disagreements in science is invalid.
SEF · 28 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 28 August 2005
ts (not Tim) · 28 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 August 2005
carol clouser · 28 August 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny, Ts, SEF,
You folks are an embarrassment to science.
SEF · 28 August 2005
No, we're merely embarrassing you, Carol, more than you already do yourself by showing up your shoddy arguments for what they are - shoddy. However, you appear to be trying to be an embarrassment to theology by making your shoddy arguments and bogus claims. Except I doubt the theologians with some legitimate claim to expertise (degrees, papers, dinner engagements or whatever passes for eminence in their realm) would acknowledge you as one of their own anyway.
Grey Wolf · 28 August 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 August 2005
Ian Musgrave · 28 August 2005
Sheesh! I go away for a recuperative weekend and this degenerates into a slanging match. While you should all be ashamed of yourselves: Carol, consider learning something about a topic before posting confidently on it. Lenny, please don't use profanity. Apart from anything else we want the Thumb to be accessible to schools, and your actions could get us filtered out. English is a rich language, you can get your point across without profanity.
This thread is now closed.
carol clouser · 28 August 2005
McE,
I beg to differ with much of what you said (#45211).
(1) Flint did NOT say the MEDIAN scientific disagreement lasts a year or two, but that their HALF LIFE is a year or two (#44944). To make sure I got the point he emphasized that again and had the temerity to imply that I did not know what the term meant (#44986). To me that meant he was saying that all scientific disagreements (or the typical disagreement), like a sample of some radioactive isotope, is very much on the wane after six years, practically comatose after seven years and virually dead after eight years. He then switched to MEDIAN in #45025 but introduced "days and months" instead of years. All these statements were in need of clarification in my opinion.
(2) While HE looks at the four cases I cited and sees no real science but
"areas" of permanent investigation, YOU see real science that was resolved rather quickly. I submit both views are off the mark. All four cases are areas of scientific disagreement that endured for long periods. We think some have already been resolved, others have not.
(3) The issue of the laws of motion were not at all settled by Newton. Yes, Newton's laws totally demolished Aristotle's scheme. But there remained stubborn, unresolved, problematic issues. Newton's laws work only in inertial frames. But how do you experimentally know that your frame is inertial? Newton's answer was, it is inertial if my laws work. Very much circular reasoning. Eventually this led to the concept of absolute motion and the ether. This notion, in which almost all scientists believed in the existance of something nobody had ever detected, lasted some two hundred years! Sounds theology-like to me. The ether idea had some huge holes punched in it by the Michelson-Morely experiments and was finally killed by special relativity.
(4) The issue of the evolution of the universe has been debated for decades and a few otherwise reputable scientists, to this day, oppose the Big Bang Theory. Compare them to a small "sect", like the Coptics, with a different theological twist on Christianity.
(5) The atomic theory issue was debated from long before Dalton. (I wanted to write "pre-Dalton" instead of "Dalton" in #44998). Dalton's experiments swayed many scientists in the direction of atomism, but some two hundred years later we find some real scientists like Ernest Mach contesting the atomic view. And he had a few supporters. Another "sect". It was Brownian Motion and Einstein's explanation of it in 1905 that finally and firmly closed the books on that debate.
(6) Of course you are right that science has a method for resolving issues and disagreements. Nobody is disputing that. It happens every day. But it works because there is a steady stream of incoming data. Theological issues are subject to reasoning and discourse and to some extent data (usually archological). It has not worked as well for them, not because they are opposed to settling unresolved issues, but because the flow of data is sparse. Nevertheless, there has been movement toward consensus in many areas of theology, such as the example I cited with regard to monotheism vs. polytheism. Stated otherwise, it is a difference of DEGREE, not one of KIND.
But thanks for your thoughts. It's nice to have a civil conversation here with someone, FOR A CHANGE.