Philosophers to debate evolution; scientists protest

It's a shame that the ad was not worded more carefully. Creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design will of course immediately seize on the phrase that "the subject of evolution is not up for debate" to argue that a rigid dogmatic establishment is banning all dissent from its views. The rest of the sentence makes it clear that the signers meant no such thing, but that won't stop their statement from being misrepresented.

Thanks for this post, Matt. It will be interesting to see how the DI sophists portray this event.

BTW, The faculty letter can be found here.

Is common ancestry up for debate?

BTW, The faculty letter can be found here.

Velasco will defend common descent, and Nelson will challenge it according to the event flyer. “Both will draw upon evidence from articles published in peer-reviewed science journals to make their respective cases,” Dilley said in an e-mail to Hilltop Views. “Thus, the debate will focus on a scientific theory [common ancestry] in light of scientific evidence from appropriate journals.”

What business do a lawyer and a philosopher have debating the status of a scientific theory? Are they working scientists? Do they publish in the field? How would they know what is going on in the field? And who cares what their opinions on the subject might be? ANd who cares what they conclude? The important question is, has the theory been falsified? THe answer is no. What explanatory and predictive power does the theory have? The answer is, more than any other. Those are thee only relevant questions. Anything else is just obfuscation.

What business do a lawyer and a philosopher have debating the status of a scientific theory?

Isn't this blog about "debating" or contending and encouraging others to conted/debate with ID/YEC?
is PT asking people to attend or not to attend? with the signers or with attenders who are to report back?
I hope the latter!
i don't the hundreds of millions of americans wopuld agree having such a debate is like having a debate with a Holocaust denier.
Thats another debate!
So these elites are saying thats there is settled conclusions and thats that.
They are , again, in a spirit and practice of censorship and the absurd rejection of a very famous and poular contention being debated.
Its like a priesthood has denied any dissent being allowed to be aired .
We have heard this before in human history!
its always the wrong and bad guys who do this. or at least a probability curve on the graphs comparing this stance and eventual results.

Evolutionism is under great attack everywhere and so well known it comes up in politics even.
If the debate exists then it proves enough think there is a issue about it.
Of coarse there is in the public.
So why not in a wee little debate the evolution defender just sweep from the battlefield his opponent and why not these esteemed signers welcome this opportunity.
Hmm. I think they think are losing, know they are losing, and fear more lost. with the educated population who have been introduced to ID. they already do bad with regular folks and YEC.

There is nothing more strange, absurd, unAmerican, unenlightened, unManly, disingenuous for a small gropup opf people to announce to a great number of people they have no moral or intellectual right or desire to debate what everyone disagrees about.
The priesthood has spoken.
I don'r want the opposition to embarrass itself but creationism surely can highlight these 'no talking" rules in future obituory's of modern evolutionism.

What if society had said origins was settled , say bake in the 1500's? Oh yeah they did. it seems to me they go on and on about why people could ignore this and think for themselves.

if there is one , um biology scientist, who diusagrees does that not make it not settled? i can think of a few!

Why can't evolutionism make its case on the merits like other sciences??
Why the spirit of resisting dissent and conversation and the reality of douby and disbelief??

Well the debate might do better with the publicity for the opposition to the debate so its very welcome for this reason and 56 others.

I think Dr. Velasco is clearly well-meaning here.
I also think this is a good example of why the "debate" format is inappropriate for almost any serious academic question.

Dr. Velasco has accidentally made the mistake of granting minimal credibility to a crackpot idea, merely by granting it a "live" forum.

The problem is simple. Inviting live speakers involves use of resources, so it's tacitly assumed that you invite a live speaker because they have something worthwhile to say.

Here the speaker has presumably been invited based on Dr. Velasco's disagreement with his nonsense, and confidence that he can make it look silly, which he probably can.

But he could have and should have done that in writing, rather than dignifying his opponent's arguments with a live platform.

Going forward Nelson can falsely imply that his "invited speaker" status is a demonstration of respect for his ideas.

The science faculty superficially sound defensive, but are actually right.

There is nothing more strange, absurd, unAmerican, unenlightened, unManly, disingenuous for a small gropup opf people to announce to a great number of people they have the moral or intellectual right or desire to debate a scientific issue if they have not been able to make their case in the scientific literature. It is an obvious ploy by the intellectually deficient and morally bankrupt to foist their unsubstantiated nonsense onto unsuspecting rubes. If you can't or won't do science, that is all you can do.

What if society had said origins was settled , say bake in the 1500’s? It wouldn't have made any difference to scientists at all. They would still look for evidence and be convinced by evidence. No amount of debating or voting would have any effect on the actual science. Just like it won't have any effect now. When you think for yourself, you come to realize that the evidence is all that matters. Creationism has none. Never did, never will.

Why can't creationism make its case on the merits like other sciences? Why can't they provide any evidence whatsoever? Why are they constantly trying to debate real scientists? Why can't they publish anything in the actual scientific literature? Why can't they even publish anything in their own fake journals? Why dot they have to get a philosopher to argue for them? Why the spirit of ignoring evidence and just slinging mud?

Why can’t creationism make its case on the merits like other sciences?

Byers, my version:

Isn't history about debating or contending? If just one historian disagrees, is the issue of the holocaust happening not settled? I know a few! There is nothing more strange, absurd, unAmerican, unenlightened, unManly, disingenuous for a small gropup opf people to announce to a great number of people they have no moral or intellectual right or desire to debate what everyone disagrees about. Why can't those dirty jews holcaultists make their case like everyone else?

Indulging the dangerous authoritarian bigot again:

Mr. Byers, these 'debates' are cheap publicity stunts that don't require much thought, talent, or knowledge. Publishing in biology, in contrast, requires those things. Furthermore, while journal publishing certainly has a political element, it is qualitatively less than that of a 'debate'.

Nelson is butting in line; he is demanding to be heard without making the contributions required of a scientist or other researcher. He is taking up time and attention that rightfully belongs to the excellent and the cooperative. If Nelson had a case he'd be able to make it in the scientific literature. He doesn't, so he doesn't.

'Elite': Nelson is demanding to be treated as an elite without doing any work. Mr. Byers, it is you who seeks to arbitrarily privilege certain conclusions, not scientists. Why are you special? You pretend to oppose arbitrary elites but in reality you just want different elites, ones who agree with you.

Your constant playing of the 'underdog' is dishonest. You say you are a Christian; well, bearing false witness is a sin.

Perhaps Harold would agree with me: in any morally significant sense, in any sense deserving of my respect, Mr. Byers does not want to be disciplined by the moral dictum to avoid bearing false witness.

booby wrote:

"if there is one , um biology scientist, who diusagrees does that not make it not settled? i can think of a few!"

Sorry, wrong again. Disagreeing does not have anything to do with the whether a scientific theory is correct or not. Anyone can disagree for any reason. If you don't think so, I disagree!

In science, the only thing that means that a case is not settled is the evidence. Nelson has none. That's why he debates instead of publishes. That's why his opinion is completely divorced form the validity of the science he seeks to denigrate. That's why no one should pretend that he is making any valid point. That's why no one should bother to debate him.

If you want to know if the theory of evolution is flourishing, just look at all of the published articles in all of the scientific journals. There are hundreds of thousands of them and the number is growing more rapidly each day. If you want to know if creationism is floundering, just look at the complete lack of any publications in any scientific journals anywhere. If the "debate" focuses on anything other than these facts, it is a disservice to science.

And whatever you do, don't let the charlatan claim that new discoveries in biology are evidence that evolution is somehow in trouble. That's just plain nuts.

And if a scientific theory was in "trouble", scientists would deal with that, based on the evidence. Like they did when steady state became big bang, or when Einstein revised Newton's laws, or when Einstein described the photoelectric effect, or when Mendeleev tabled the chemical elements, or when, yes, Darwin revised biology (but it's had a lot of additional revision since then).

Given that they are all sponsored by churches -meaning science is not the question. The question is "can one accept common ancestry of humans and all other life and still go to heaven?"

Henry J said: And if a scientific theory was in "trouble", scientists would deal with that, based on the evidence. Like they did when steady state became big bang, or when Einstein revised Newton's laws, or when Einstein described the photoelectric effect, or when Mendeleev tabled the chemical elements, or when, yes, Darwin revised biology (but it's had a lot of additional revision since then).

I dont see how Velasco will argue this. Its easy to predict what Nelson will say. He'll have a 2 pronged approach and say there is increasing evidence that evolution is false ( ENCODE etc) and that increasing numbers of scientists and intellectuals are bailing out on evolution ( Shapiro, Margulis, Nagel etc) But how will Velasco counter this? How do you show that the science of evolution is alive and thriving and that people above are misrepresented or on the fringe or have completely misunderstood the science?

I'm a little more sanguine. I'd put it at 60/40 that the event will be a PR victory for creationism rather than a win for science. While I think everyone is right to question the wisdom of doing it, IMO there's a reasonably good chance that Prof. Velasco hands out a solid beat down embarrassing enough that creationists don't link to the video. They are nowhere near the superior debaters they think they are.

But will it change anybody's mind? Will it have any educational value and will anyone assess if it does?

Educational value? What are you, an egghead? Debates are for bullying! And scientists just sit in university offices making up anti-Christian propaganda all day long! Don't believe me? Ask the great Canadian, Mr. Byers.

How do you show that the science of evolution is alive and thriving and that people above are misrepresented or on the fringe or have completely misunderstood the science?

Well one could point to the entirely new fields of science that have arisen in the last twenty years due to the unprecedented success of evolutionary biology. You know fields like evolutionary development or comparative genomics. Fields that have allowed us to trace human migrations out of Africa and identify areas of the genome under strong selection pressure. Or maybe the success of the Barcode of Life project and how it is revolutionizing the study of biodiversity through examination of DNA sequences. Or the increasingly important role of evolutionary biology in medicine or any other field. You would have to be literally blind to every major advancement in the field of biology to conclude anything other than the obvious, that evolution is the single unifying principle of all modern day biology. It is very much alive and well, thank you very much and only an incompetent boob, or one completely lacking in knowledge could possibly fail to k=make that point clear, even in a debate format.

eric said: I'm a little more sanguine. I'd put it at 60/40 that the event will be a PR victory for creationism rather than a win for science. While I think everyone is right to question the wisdom of doing it, IMO there's a reasonably good chance that Prof. Velasco hands out a solid beat down embarrassing enough that creationists don't link to the video. They are nowhere near the superior debaters they think they are.

Well one could point to the entirely new fields of science that have arisen in the last twenty years due to the unprecedented success of evolutionary biology. You know fields like evolutionary development or comparative genomics. Fields that have allowed us to trace human migrations out of Africa and identify areas of the genome under strong selection pressure. Or maybe the success of the Barcode of Life project and how it is revolutionizing the study of biodiversity through examination of DNA sequences. Or the increasingly important role of evolutionary biology in medicine or any other field. You would have to be literally blind to every major advancement in the field of biology to conclude anything other than the obvious, that evolution is the single unifying principle of all modern day biology. It is very much alive and well, thank you very much and only an incompetent boob, or one completely lacking in knowledge could possibly fail to k=make that point clear, even in a debate format.

Or you could just compare all of the new fields of science spawned by evolutionary biology to all of the new fields of science NOT spawned by creationism. Let him explain the complete lack of progress in his field, which at the same time comparing it to all of the progress in real science. If he wants to dismiss things from ignorance, the burden of proof will be on him to show that evolution is irrelevant. That might be particularly hard for a field such as evolutionary development where it's right in the title.

Re "That might be particularly hard for a field such as evolutionary development where it’s right in the title."

Ah, butte what if it were evolutionary eggheads what invented that there title!

In case it wasn't clear, I find Mr. Byers' rants not simply incorrect and ignorant, but actually offensive, as I'm reminded by the last few comments. Science lovers: just think about how much richer every science that is a science has become since 1950. Whole new fields of discovery; errors and puzzles corrected; new creative approaches with modern computing; notation and vocabulary improved; convergences with other sciences; the list goes on and on.

Creationism: zero. Not even influence; not even useful clarifications. Zero.

As a first generation university graduate, I understand that most people lack opportunities for learning, lack motivation because food must be put on the table, and generally fail to know important stuff through no real fault of their own. But some people are choosing ignorance. Pathetic, pathetic human beings.

RJ said: Indulging the dangerous authoritarian bigot again: Mr. Byers, these 'debates' are cheap publicity stunts that don't require much thought, talent, or knowledge. Publishing in biology, in contrast, requires those things. Furthermore, while journal publishing certainly has a political element, it is qualitatively less than that of a 'debate'. Nelson is butting in line; he is demanding to be heard without making the contributions required of a scientist or other researcher. He is taking up time and attention that rightfully belongs to the excellent and the cooperative. If Nelson had a case he'd be able to make it in the scientific literature. He doesn't, so he doesn't. 'Elite': Nelson is demanding to be treated as an elite without doing any work. Mr. Byers, it is you who seeks to arbitrarily privilege certain conclusions, not scientists. Why are you special? You pretend to oppose arbitrary elites but in reality you just want different elites, ones who agree with you. Your constant playing of the 'underdog' is dishonest. You say you are a Christian; well, bearing false witness is a sin. Perhaps Harold would agree with me: in any morally significant sense, in any sense deserving of my respect, Mr. Byers does not want to be disciplined by the moral dictum to avoid bearing false witness.

What does "authoritarian bigot" mean? An "authoritarian" is somebody who does not use rational argument from facts to form opinion, but who simply cites authority, often only their own. A "bigot" is someone who very strongly holds, and vociferously defends, an irrational opinion, and attacks all others notwithstanding reason, logic, and evidence. An "authoritarian bigot" is both. You, Byers, are an authoritarian bigot.

The internet is full of howling loons like yourself, true. Debate is not what they engage in, any more than you do, because debate consists of testing opinion with evident facts. You have no facts, not a one. There is no evidence for special creation, not a scrap. All the evidence, every last straw of it, is for evolution by natural selection from common ancestors, and hence common descent.

You're oddly right to say that specialist biological research journals are specific and you won't find "origin debates" in them. That's because the debate about origins was over more than a century ago. Of course a journal that publishes current research is not going to give space to such flatulent nonsense.

The creationist does indeed only have to "pull even", as you put it. Not a one has ever done so. Every last creationist assertion has been shown to be factually false or irrelevant, or both. "Specified complexity" has no definition, and doesn't exist. "Irreducible complexity" is readily explained by evolution. Features said to be unevolvable are easily shown to have evolved, and usually their precursors are also known. Favourable mutations not only exist, they can be listed. Speciation is an observed event, not once but dozens of times. "Information" is shown to have increased by natural means, in the genome and in nature generally. There is no "theory of intelligent design", and that entire series of falsehoods and obfuscations is nothing but a cloud of words and hot air with not a hint of specifics or evidence. "Were you there?" is a desperate and nonsensical attempt to deny evidence, and a ridiculous failure. The rest is appeal to the authority of a group of myths, an attempt to equate God with what is unknown, and special pleading on an industrial scale. Oh, and deliberate falsehood. Flat lies, known by the utterer to be lies, and still uttered because to a bigot the belief is more important than the facts.

Being shown to be wrong has never dented an authoritarian, nor a bigot. That's why debating them is pointless. There is no debate, because they simply have no clue what debate is, nor could care less.

Starve us out? In your dreams. Every year, even in its last stronghold, the US, creationism by fiat is getting smaller, paler and weaker. Nearly all the mainstream Christian denominations now endorse evolution and common descent. Even the mainstream Baptist conferences outside the south are getting ready to jump ship. Outside the US, it was decided long ago.

You're dead in the water, Byers. There's nothing left for you. There hasn't been for well over a century now. But keep on writing your little screeds, and indulge your fantasies. Nobody will stop you. You're a useful reminder of how ignorant and incompetent creationism is. Otherwise, you don't matter.

Perhaps Dr. Velasco could discuss the significance of April 17th, also known as Paul Nelson Day.

fusilier

James 2:24

It would greatly help if the academic community would care to actually define "Evolution". Is it:

1. Change within living organisms.
2. Universal common ancestry.
3. The diversity of life by means of natural selection.

Paul Nelson is a YEC, but he would certainly accept the first definition to be true and many of his colleagues, like Behe, would accept the second definition also. The third definition is where the controversy lies.

Robert Byers said: What is the intellectually more accurate side afraid of?

Ravi said: It would greatly help if the academic community would care to actually define "Evolution". Is it: 1. Change within living organisms. 2. Universal common ancestry. 3. The diversity of life by means of natural selection. Paul Nelson is a YEC, but he would certainly accept the first definition to be true and many of his colleagues, like Behe, would accept the second definition also. The third definition is where the controversy lies.

DS said: Only in your head.

Ravi said:

DS said: Only in your head.

Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract The debate is alive and well, as is the controversy.

DS said: Sorry, no. That's only in your head. That doesn't count, remember. Besides, it has nothing to do with the supposed objection you raised. You're moving the goalposts again Joe. Man you must be getting tired of dragging those things around.

Henry J said: And if a scientific theory was in "trouble", scientists would deal with that, based on the evidence. Like they did when steady state became big bang, or when Einstein revised Newton's laws, or when Einstein described the photoelectric effect, or when Mendeleev tabled the chemical elements, or when, yes, Darwin revised biology (but it's had a lot of additional revision since then).

Mr. (Dr.?) Luckett, I think you are overestimating the value of debate in general. Debate tends to favour the loud, the dishonest, the people who put tactics above the actual value of what they defend. It tends to make the trivial and the manipulative appear much better than it is.

I've seen many science talks, history of science talks, philosophy talks, and they never have a debate format. Sometimes there's a panel discussion which gets debate-y, but that usually is viewed as a sign that a more detailed future comparison of views is needed. Nobody tries to settle issues there and then.

In general, debate tends to favour authoritarian bigotry, whether it's person-to-person on a stage, or on the Internet. Unless you are using 'debate' more metaphorically, referring to the back-and-forth of journal articles that might accompany a scientific controversy.

In response to me, the dangerous authoritarian seems to have generated a novel reason why his 'boys' have a legitimate enterprise despite their refusal to undergo standard scientific evaluation. Or maybe I never saw that one before.

'Castle'? Pathetic. False witness. There is no doubt that science has its elites; there can be little doubt that science is more egalitarian, having less arbitrary privilege, than basically every other pursuit going. People complain about entrenched interests in academia, but I'll tell you what, it's much worse everywhere else. The university is the only workplace I've been treated with consistent respect and kindness.

Ravi, bearing false witness is a sin. While scientists have a much higher rate of atheism than people in general, there are many well-respected scientists of various faiths in every scientific field. Like Dawkins and others, I think religious faith always is a mistake. And despite lies to the contrary, like Dawkins and others, I don't hold it against people if they do good or even passable science.

Stop lying.

RJ said: Ravi, bearing false witness is a sin. While scientists have a much higher rate of atheism than people in general, there are many well-respected scientists of various faiths in every scientific field. Like Dawkins and others, I think religious faith always is a mistake. And despite lies to the contrary, like Dawkins and others, I don't hold it against people if they do good or even passable science. Stop lying.

Ravi said: It would greatly help if the academic community would care to actually define "Evolution".

Ravi said: Sorry, pal. But the Neo-Darwinian paradigm of evolutionism is very much up for debate.

I don't agree that 'Darwinism' (maybe you mean 'modern evolutionary biology') is the intellectual foundation for the atheism for any considerable fraction of scientists. However I could be wrong; this opinion is at least defensible, unlike the very different claim that science is dominated by some "atheistic-materialistic school". Perhaps you can't see the difference; you seem to be very heavy on conflating propositions that you think favour your case as well as ones that disfavour.

Ravi said:

DS said: Only in your head.

Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.20365/abstract The debate is alive and well, as is the controversy.

Ravi said: Darwinism is the intellectual foundation of their atheism for many scientists. That's why they won't let go of it, even if it is floundering.

Hmm... my first two links don't appear to be working. Let's try this in plaintext.

For #1: Google "ecology and evolution of infectious diseases NSF." Go to bottom, click on "map of recent awards." Then click on "show total dollars." There you can observe the complete lack of evolutionary research.

For #2: used the NSF's Advanced Search engine. Enter "BIO" for the division and "7659" for the program code, then search. You can again observe the complete lack of scientific work being done on evolution.

eric said: Before you can claim that, it would greatly help if you would care to actually define "neo-Darwinian", "paradigm" and "evolutionism."

RJ said: I don't agree that 'Darwinism' (maybe you mean 'modern evolutionary biology') is the intellectual foundation for the atheism for any considerable fraction of scientists. However I could be wrong; this opinion is at least defensible, unlike the very different claim that science is dominated by some "atheistic-materialistic school". Perhaps you can't see the difference; you seem to be very heavy on conflating propositions that you think favour your case as well as ones that disfavour.

TomS said: 1) Is intelligent design (or creation or the supernatural or whatever) an explanation for the origination of biological "information" (in the sense of anti-evolutionists)?

2) Is there no natural explanation for the origination of "information"?

3) Is there any explanation needed for the origination (rather than for the persistence or for the diminution) of "information"?

4) Is there any origination of "information" in the physical world?

5) Is there any such thing as "information"?

Ravi: "Science, especially biology, is dominated by a materialistic philosophy which claims that living organisms are just complex assmeblages of atoms devoid of any soul or vital force."

Prove it or shut up.

What is a 'soul'? What is a 'vital force'?

i think we have heard enough from the Ravi troll; I will send future comments to the BW as soon as I see them.

Actually, the link that "Ravi" provided proves that it is actually Joe B. who has been banned for threatening violence on this site. He should be immediately banned once again and prevented form ever returning.

DS said: What business do a lawyer and a philosopher have debating the status of a scientific theory? Are they working scientists? Do they publish in the field? How would they know what is going on in the field? And who cares what their opinions on the subject might be? ANd who cares what they conclude? The important question is, has the theory been falsified? THe answer is no. What explanatory and predictive power does the theory have? The answer is, more than any other. Those are thee only relevant questions. Anything else is just obfuscation.

Probably the worst part of this particular debate is that its title is completely focused on evolutionary theory. Is evolutionary theory flourishing or floundering? Nelson is pushing a meaningless pseudoscience, but instead of asking if ID is even up to the level of floundering (or foundering) he gets to ride the notion that IDists want you to believe, that if evolutionary theory is inadequate we should just default to ID.

It's worth asking how well evolutionary theory is faring (so whether or not it needs amending), but so long as there is no scientific alternative it's almost impossible for it to do anything but rule biology. It explains, nothing else does. Even if it has problems, the only question worth asking is if there are good changes to be made to it. Even if we decided to toss it, ID would do nothing but prevent good ideas from appearing, since "design" tells us nothing about how life might have arisen, even if it were designed.

Whether there should be debates on this issue is a good question, but maybe it's ok if it's not a prominent scientist and if the debater has studied creationist tactics and has good comebacks. It's not ok to begin the debate by looking at evolutionary theory alone and asking how well it is doing, as if it were not the case that the utter uselessness of any "alternative" (notably, ID) means that even if evolutionary theory had any substantial problems the only real question would be of how to amend it. Why would anyone implicitly allow Nelson's bankrupt ID claims to get a pass?

Glen Davidson

MB said: Rather, probabilistic testability, a much different criterion if you know your statistics, is relevant.

MB said: And to suggest that no philosophers have any role to play in this obviously philosophical matter starts to look like arrogance.

DS said:

MB said: Rather, probabilistic testability, a much different criterion if you know your statistics, is relevant.

OK. What is the probability that the theory of evolution will be falsified? Let's see. It has stood the test of time. It has been tested in thousands of different ways. It has spawned entire new fields of inquiry. It now forms the foundation of all modern biological investigations. There are literally millions of articles published in scientific journals, many of which have tested the main points of evolutionary theory directly. It has undergone substantial revision and expansion and has still retained its basic principles. It still has much more explanatory and predictive power than other hypothesis. Indeed, there are no serious scientific contenders after all this time. What is the probability that the creationism will be falsified? Let's see. To the extent that it fails to make any testable claims, it is unfalsifiable and thus does not qualify as science. To the extent that it does make scientific claims, it has already been falsified. There is no evidence whatsoever for any creationist scenario and nothing published in any scientific journal supports creationism. It has zero explanatory and predictive power. It has accomplished absolutely nothing in the hundreds of years that it has been in existence. It has not undergone any revision or expansion and is still exactly the vacuous and scientifically sterile idea that it always was. Should be a pretty short debate. And whether the theory of evolution is floundering or not, creationism is not a viable scientific alternative, never was, never will be.

DS said:

MB said: And to suggest that no philosophers have any role to play in this obviously philosophical matter starts to look like arrogance.

The status of a scientific theory is not a philosophical matter. It is a matter best addressed by real scientists actively working in the field. They are the most qualified to evaluate the status of a theory. They are the ones who test it and they are the ones who use it. They are the ones who are in the best position to tell how it is doing. As for philosophers, the proper role for them is in this debate should be to point out that creationism is not science. It is not a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. So, even if real scientists did conclude that the theory of evolution had problems, creationism still should not be considered as an alternative.

DS, I don’t appreciate you telling me what is my proper role. I’m not interested in showing what is wrong with creationism, because that is easy and not of scholarly interest. I am not a propagandist for science, much as I love it.

MB, I think there are good reasons to suppose that Popper’s criterion of falsifiability is useless in all cases, not just probabilistic theories. Read David Stove, if you can stomach the right-wing raving.

And this may not be news to you MB, but if it is, I hope you’ll find it useful. When philosophy people get involved with a site like this, and say things like ‘theory-choice is not a strictly empirical matter’, folks like DS often are quick to assume that you’re selling fairy dust. When we study philosophy of science, we quickly learn that empirical data alone does not specify a theory. This is not always as clear to people with a strictly science background.

I will note in DS’s defence that there is some rational justification for impatience with science scholarship from the humanities. Very large parts of this literature I myself find (putting it mildly) unscholarly and pathetically ignorant of the real science, thus creating space for cranks like Steve ‘Arrogant Pinhead’ Fuller and Bruno ‘Biochemistry is Gibberish’ Latour. It might even conform to the straight rule to assume that a random individual, coming here with a humanities perspective, is a jackass with nothing to say.

MB,

Seems we are in agreement. Anyone who defends science is OK in my book.

However, the topic of the debate is not whether evolution is testable or what the probability is for ay given hypothesis. The topic is specifically if the theory is "flourishing or floundering". It is still my contention that the people most likely to make the argument for evolution are working scientists. They are usually in the best position to know how the theory is being tested and used in everyday practice. However, if you or anyone else is qualified to make the argument for evolution convincingly, by all means have at it.

On this usage, the hypothesis that the coin in my pocket has a [0].5 chance of landing heads when flipped is testable, but not falsifiable.

RJ,

Sorry. DIdn't mean to be condescending or step on any toes. As I told RJ, if you think you are sufficiently knowledgeable to make a convincing case for evolution, I don't care if you are a philosopher or an auto mechanic, have at it. No one is asking you to be a "propagandist".

You were certainly right about my reaction to MB. It seems that I misjudged him.

I'm not sure that 'argumentation' is the right way to advocate for evolution or climate science to the general public. I don't know who coined the aphorism, which goes something like "you can't argue someone out of a position they did not reach through rational argumentation." Like it or not, argumentation is not the natural mode of conversation for most people. This is a political-social issue, not a scientific or philosophical one.

In terms of disproving creationism, the case is so clear and elementary that no advanced philosophy is necessary. Scientists probably are better here than philosophers.

I'm not pretending I know what to do!!!

RJ said: I'm not sure that 'argumentation' is the right way to advocate for evolution or climate science to the general public. I don't know who coined the aphorism, which goes something like "you can't argue someone out of a position they did not reach through rational argumentation." Like it or not, argumentation is not the natural mode of conversation for most people. This is a political-social issue, not a scientific or philosophical one. In terms of disproving creationism, the case is so clear and elementary that no advanced philosophy is necessary. Scientists probably are better here than philosophers. I'm not pretending I know what to do!!!

I think that partly due to the salutatory influence of this blog among others, scientists have gotten educated about the uselessness of technical talk in convincing the general public.

I suppose that an effective propagandist for evolution would need to know something about the history of early modern science, the Enlightenment, and secular humanism. Likely many believers would be surprised to hear that secular humanism was devised by Christians who sought to avoid a repeat of the bloody, horrible, nominally religious wars that characterized the Reformation. Perhaps a narrative of how Christians were converted to modern secularism and science would be the way to go.

You'd need to talk at their level. Thank the FSM I don't have to try; I have enough trouble with people I basically agree with!

Maybe read some Erasmus. Read from him, Erasmus praising the Lord; don't tell them he was a founder of humanism until after you get through that part.

That Dr. Velasco who's taking on Paul 'Dishonest Question-Ducker' Nelson; I'm not sure he's got something like this up his sleeve.

Matt: for Popper, 'falsifiable' means 'deductively falsifiable'. It means that there are possible empirical propositions which conjoined to the theory would be deductively contradictory (and not simply, say, deeply implausible).

Thus the theory that metals are all electrically conductive is falsifiable because you can specify how to disprove it [find a nonconductive metal]; and falsified, because there are metals which are not conductive (if I recall correctly).

But Popper falls down in the face of the messy bundles of uncertainty that characterize real physical science.

So, brief answer: falsifiability is a specific subclass of testability in lingo common to analytic philosophy of science.

TomS said:

RJ said: I'm not sure that 'argumentation' is the right way to advocate for evolution or climate science to the general public. I don't know who coined the aphorism, which goes something like "you can't argue someone out of a position they did not reach through rational argumentation." Like it or not, argumentation is not the natural mode of conversation for most people. This is a political-social issue, not a scientific or philosophical one. In terms of disproving creationism, the case is so clear and elementary that no advanced philosophy is necessary. Scientists probably are better here than philosophers. I'm not pretending I know what to do!!!

Unfortunately, many times scientists approach the evolution-denialists from the point of view of science. Let us suppose that scientist "S" is in a discussion with "Y", a YEC. Y says that his Bible tells him that evolution is wrong, and that overrides any scientific evidence. What is S going to say? Is S going to know enough about the Bible to point out that the Bible does not have anything to say about evolution? Or that plenty of Bible believers dropped their Bible-based belief in geocentrism in the face of scientific evidence? What is S going to say? If Y says that thermodynamics shows that evolution is false, what is S going to do? Give a lecture on thermodynamics? Remember that most non-technical people cannot understand simple algebra.

RJ said: DS, I don’t appreciate you telling me what is my proper role. I’m not interested in showing what is wrong with creationism, because that is easy and not of scholarly interest. I am not a propagandist for science, much as I love it. MB, I think there are good reasons to suppose that Popper’s criterion of falsifiability is useless in all cases, not just probabilistic theories. Read David Stove, if you can stomach the right-wing raving. And this may not be news to you MB, but if it is, I hope you’ll find it useful. When philosophy people get involved with a site like this, and say things like ‘theory-choice is not a strictly empirical matter’, folks like DS often are quick to assume that you’re selling fairy dust. When we study philosophy of science, we quickly learn that empirical data alone does not specify a theory. This is not always as clear to people with a strictly science background. I will note in DS’s defence that there is some rational justification for impatience with science scholarship from the humanities. Very large parts of this literature I myself find (putting it mildly) unscholarly and pathetically ignorant of the real science, thus creating space for cranks like Steve ‘Arrogant Pinhead’ Fuller and Bruno ‘Biochemistry is Gibberish’ Latour. It might even conform to the straight rule to assume that a random individual, coming here with a humanities perspective, is a jackass with nothing to say.

DS said: MB, Seems we are in agreement. Anyone who defends science is OK in my book. However, the topic of the debate is not whether evolution is testable or what the probability is for ay given hypothesis. The topic is specifically if the theory is "flourishing or floundering". It is still my contention that the people most likely to make the argument for evolution are working scientists. They are usually in the best position to know how the theory is being tested and used in everyday practice. However, if you or anyone else is qualified to make the argument for evolution convincingly, by all means have at it.

RJ said: I suppose that an effective propagandist for evolution would need to know something about the history of early modern science, the Enlightenment, and secular humanism.

Mike Elzinga said:

Henry J said: And if a scientific theory was in "trouble", scientists would deal with that, based on the evidence. Like they did when steady state became big bang, or when Einstein revised Newton's laws, or when Einstein described the photoelectric effect, or when Mendeleev tabled the chemical elements, or when, yes, Darwin revised biology (but it's had a lot of additional revision since then).

It’s all those damned revisions that are the problem. If you read the Christian holy book properly, there is no need for revision because disagreement on any part of that book brings into question everything else. And questions are bad.

IMNSHO, the problem with "debating" people who refuse to listen is that arguing with such people requires a skill set that scientists aren't all that likely to have, as that skill set serves no purpose in their lab work.

Re "and those pesky translations that differ one from another. "

Oh, that's just because of the tower of Babble incident.

Matt: for Popper, ‘falsifiable’ means ‘deductively falsifiable’. It means that there are possible empirical propositions which conjoined to the theory would be deductively contradictory (and not simply, say, deeply implausible).

...But Popper falls down in the face of the messy bundles of uncertainty that characterize real physical science.

So, brief answer: falsifiability is a specific subclass of testability in lingo common to analytic philosophy of science.

A high education/evolution-acceptance correlation proves exactly nothing about profs' and TAs' abilities as science advocates. It only proves that people with a university education are more likely to accept evolution. Maybe they're screwing up completely and the correlation should be higher. Whether or not this is plausible, there are numerous confounding variables.

So this correlation pretty obviously is not a direct or quantifiable measure of ability to present evolution, or anything else. The assertion that this correlation is indicative of professorial presentation abilities strikes me as bizarre coming from a regular contributor, because it is so obviously fallacious.

I'm also pretty sure that the correlation is considerably less high for the arguably more-important issue of global warming.

For what it's worth, I personally think these philosopher vs. philosopher deathmatches probably do more harm than good, and more generally, people should decline 'debates' with creationists. Some will think this is indicative of something to hide, but those people usually are the same ones that cannot be persuaded anyway. In declining such invitations, I think a little offence would be in order. Say that just as a historian would be irresponsible in doing a public debate on whether the holocaust happened... Of course that is inflammatory and will put off some people for sure, but it might be better in the long run. The mere hosting of such 'debates' gives creationism undeserved credibility.

Popper is sometimes inconsistent in his word use, without realizing it - one reason he gets more credit than he deserves. People confuse their views with his because of the way Popper talks. They assume that Popper is expressing their views as trained scientists, when really he is not. They read Popper as saying some commonplace or deeply plausible view when actually he is defending something very implausible.

Popper is a deeply serious deductivist, though, so if he is using 'testable' as a synonym for 'falsifiable' (I don't want to pull the book off the shelf right now) he means deductive fallibility. MB can speak for him/herself but I was assuming they meant 'testable' to mean a more generic, less specific quality of theories.

One of the virtues Popper claims for his deductivism is that it is more difficult to defend ad hoc hypotheses under its dictates. If you take it seriously enough, it's actually impossible. If empirical propositions deductively contradict a theory, there is no way to make the propositions consistent by adding hypotheses - they remain inconsistent.

I'm not personally very picky about what lingo to use for these various sorts of testability. I'm much more inclined to just specify how theories can be or are tested on a case-by-case basis. Because deductivism is useless in my opinion, among other reasons.

So, did Nelson and Velasco debate? I can't find any account online.

I discovered discussion of an earlier debate by these two, in early 2014, at Uncommon Descent and at Cornelius Hunter's blog. To see the discussion Google: Nelson Velasco debate.

They seem to have had it live-streamed but I don't find any video online.

RJ said: A high education/evolution-acceptance correlation proves exactly nothing about profs' and TAs' abilities as science advocates. It only proves that people with a university education are more likely to accept evolution.

I'm also pretty sure that the correlation is considerably less high for the arguably more-important issue of global warming.

Joe Felsenstein said: I discovered discussion of an earlier debate by these two, in early 2014, at Uncommon Descent and at Cornelius Hunter's blog. To see the discussion Google: Nelson Velasco debate. They seem to have had it live-streamed but I don't find any video online.

This "debate" was scheduled for last Friday evening. Anyone have any information how it all went down?

Cornelius Hunter (for the 2014) debate praised Velasco’s argument as “exceptionally well presented”. That kind of praise is not usual for him. (Of course he then dismissed Velasco’s argument as obviously wrong).

If they’ve done it before, they’ll probably do it again. Nelson gets the professional validation he needs, and Velasco probably feels he’s doing well and making headway, and is not sensitive to the issue of providing professional validation of Nelson.

The noteworthy aspect of this debate is then the professors’ letter objecting to it.

Paul Nelson emailed me to say that the debate was video-recorded, and that the organizers will release it, once the slides are edited in. Which requires some effort. So it will be available in about 7-10 days, apparently. He will send me a link.

Glenn Branch tells us that there is a brief report on the debate in Hilltop Views, the student newspaper, here.

Matt Young said: Glenn Branch tells us that there is a brief report on the debate in Hilltop Views, the student newspaper, here.

From the article cited above:

“For example, the opponent’s arguments rested on the claims that there was no evolutionary explanation for orphan genes and therefore that nullifies common ancestry,”

Really? Then the fact that the vast majority of genes have clear antecedents is definitive evidence for common ancestry. I wonder if Velasco made this point? Since the debate apparently centered around "molecular genetics and phylogenetics", did either participant know enough e=about these topics to present a valid argument?

And the moderator claimed that both had used scientific articles to support their arguments. Really? Did those articles support their arguments? Or did the pseudoscience mumbo jumbo cover up the fact that there is no scientific evidence that supports creationism?

The Lack of Discovery Institute likes to claim that orphan genes "defy evolution". Of course,nothing could be further from the truth. There are many explanations for the origin of such genes, I sure hope that Joel pointed some of them out. But then again, the Disco Tute are the same jack asses who claimed that ants did not need to be on the ark!

Since there probably wouldn't be any picnics in progress on the Ark, what would ants do there?

Henry J said: Since there probably wouldn't be any picnics in progress on the Ark, what would ants do there?

DS said:

Henry J said: Since there probably wouldn't be any picnics in progress on the Ark, what would ants do there?

Serve as food for the ant eaters.

DS said:

Henry J said: Since there probably wouldn't be any picnics in progress on the Ark, what would ants do there?

Serve as food for the ant eaters.

Well if ants didn't need to go onto the magic ark, why did beetles? Why do so many losers try to explain why there are so many different species of beetles if they didn't need to go on the ark? Didn't they get the memo? And if ants didn't need the magic ark, what did? Why have a magic ark at all if magic could be used?

Re "Well if ants didn’t need to go onto the magic ark, why did beetles?"

Because, the designer liked beetles; that's why there's so many of them! And some of them even glow!