Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

So you would agree, then, that the claim that matter is made of atoms is not and cannot be proved.

Posted by Brian Carnell at July 22, 2005 06:18 AM

"So you would agree, then, that the claim that matter is made of atoms is not and cannot be proved."

Well, physics is by no means a settled area - interesting stuff happening there all the time, and there will likely be plenty of revisions to theories relating to matter in the future.

Posted by dob at July 22, 2005 06:31 AM

So you would agree, then, that the claim that matter is made of atoms is not and cannot be proved.

I would agree. It has not been, and cannot be. It's simply the best claim out there, for now, that hasn't been disproved.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 22, 2005 06:33 AM

Sounds about right. Have you ever seen an atom? I suspect you take their existence pretty much on faith.

The atomic model makes a great deal of sense and matches well with experimental observations - but that doesn't mean some other theory won't come along and improve things, or we won't find some sort of edge condition where the standard atomic model no longer applies - actually, we already know of conditions where the atomic model doesn't apply.

There is no reason to assume that no one will ever improve on our *theory* of how electrons, protons and neutrons interact - just as there is no reason to believe no one will ever improve on our understanding of how microevolution (ye olde "survival of the fittest") leads to macroevolution (i.e., speciation)

Posted by Mike Heinz at July 22, 2005 06:33 AM

So, where does that leave you when it comes to the existence of Australia? Fact or theory?

The whole "not proved" business is a smokescreen. Evolution, including speciation has been directly observed. It's about as well proved as any scientific theory can be proved. Yes, nothing is certain forever in science, but so what?

Did we all float off into space when Einstien showed that Newton was only a first approximation?

Posted by Rob at July 22, 2005 06:46 AM

Speciation has been *observed* !?! So, uh, how old are you anyway?

Last time I checked, speciation takes many thousands of years at a minimum, potentially much longer, and the mechanisms that underpin it are still poorly understood.

As for you final snit, thank you for proving how poorly you understand science and how poorly you understand the difference between a model and the thing being modelled.

Posted by Mike Heinz at July 22, 2005 06:50 AM

Exactly, Rob. The claim that George W. Bush is president is, under this view, simply a theory that cannot be proven. The best we can say is that there is an awful lot of evidence for this.

Frankly, the distinction that this blog is trying to draw is a bit pedantic. Yes, if we want to be very precise about everything, the claim that George W. Bush is president and that there were terror attacks in London this month cannot be proven.

I suspect most laypeople, however, would say that there is no dispute over whether or not George W. Bush is president and whether there were London bomb attacks. The evidence for both claims is so overwhelming, that most people would say they are proven facts even though they are subject to disproof.

So what people want to know about evolution is whether or not it is as strong as, say, the existence of gravity or George W. Bush being president, or whether it is more hypothetical, such as the various hypotheses about what led to the extinction of dinosaurs (assuming dinosaurs really existed...can't prove that they did).

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming...just as overwhelming as for the existence of George W. Bush.

All you do when you start saying "it's not proven" or "it's just a theory" is confuse people who don't understand the first thing about the epistemological underpinnings of scientific inquiry (and, btw, there is a lot of criticism of that underpinning -- the "disproof" claim is not without its serious critics).

It would be nice if we had an agreed upon, universally recognized scale to express the degree to which the evidence supports any given scientific theory. So we could say that the theory that asteroids wiped out the dinosaurs is Code Orange while evolution is Code Red. But we don't. What we have, in general, is people who understand certainty vs. uncertainty and want to know where evolution falls in that mix.

And, the bottom line is, that evolution is as certainy as any number of other scientific theories which people rely on daily for their very well being (maybe you can't prove that internal combustion can be deployed for transportation purposes, but I didn't have an qualms about starting up my car this morning).

Posted by Brian Carnell at July 22, 2005 06:56 AM

People here seem to be confusing theories with observable facts. The fossil record is a fact. Evolution is the best theory that explains it, but it hasn't been "proven" to do so.

the bottom line is, that evolution is as certain as any number of other scientific theories which people rely on daily for their very well being

We are in violent agreement.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 22, 2005 07:06 AM

The atomic model works in chemistry but not in physics. Ever heard of quarks?

Posted by Huggy at July 22, 2005 07:07 AM

Given Turner's definition of Evolution, given time, plant life could become animal and animal life could become plant. That's exactly what faith in the Evolution theory requires, unless you believe that each formed independently.

The evolutionists are practicing a faith based system, whether they want to admit to it or not.

Posted by Ron at July 22, 2005 07:15 AM

We don't really have any idea what an atom looks like. It is not, after, a clump of matter that sits still waiting to be observed, a stationary central mass with little comet-like electrons buzzing around in well defined elliptical orbits. Rather, our concept is of a distributed cloud of mass-energy that behaves in a particular fashion governed statistically by an intricate and beautiful set of mathematical equations that bear some resemblance to our conventional macroscopic world view.

Gravity itself, which the author drags into the discussion as if it were a settled phenomenon, is a true mystery. Again, we have intricate and beautiful mathematics that describe its actions in situations with which we are familiar but, there is no quantum theory, we have not observed gravitons, nor significantly probed the meaning of the singularity at the heart of black holes or of the Big Bang itself.

Evolution is similar. We know the broad outlines but, there is much that is not known and, much that is taken on faith, based on models we can comprehend that relate to our everyday experience. For example, the author speaks of "the origination of new species from common ancestral forms by an iterated process of genetic mutation, natural selection, and hereditary transmission, whereby the frequencies of newly altered, repeated, and old genes and introns in a given lineage can cross ecological, structural, and behavioral thresholds that radically separate one species from another". But, the spontaneous generation of radically different life forms has not been directly observed beyond the microscopic level. In addition, the author appears to cling to the Neo-Darwinian model, which I am given to understand from biologically literate people, is somewhat passe. If I fairly interpret what I have read, the paradigm of gradualist evolution over infinite time (the history of life on Earth is really fairly short on a cosmic timescale) has given way to rapid and sudden change mediated by infectionary agents.

Any scientific inquiry which concludes with an appeal to supernatural intervention has established an artificial dead end on its road and, has negated its own raison d'etre. Nevertheless, I do believe the Intelligent Design advocates' "irreducible complexity" argument has opened the door to what could be a fascinating and enlightening scientific pursuit. It is a shame that the scientific community feels so beleaguered that they must dismiss such qualms out of hand with what I see as little more than speculative hand-waving, lest they give unwarranted credance and affirmation to the entire pseudo-scientific armada of "Creation Science."

Posted by Reid at July 22, 2005 07:20 AM

Given Turner's definition of Evolution, given time, plant life could become animal and animal life could become plant.

To the limited degree that that's true, it's a consequence of a sloppy definition. There are constraints in actual living systems that would make either of those things unlikely (though the definitions of plant and animal aren't as clear cut as implied by that statement).

Yes, evolution is faith, just as science itself is faith--faith in the scientific method as the best means of attaining knowledge about the natural universe. There's nothing wrong with that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 22, 2005 07:21 AM

The author mentioned physical anthropology as being tied to, or requiring, belief in evolution.
I expect he's talking about physical variations which seem to be related to local conditions, such as extreme amounts of melanin in the skin of peoples who've lived in the tropics for thousands of years, or the squat body structure of those having lived in the arctic for thousands of years. There are many more, sickle cell trait, for example.
Unfortunately, too great an interest in such things leads to speculation that could get one into trouble.
Say, for example, we decided that there might be an evolutionary advantage to a brain which could manage agricultural issues when the people involved has had agriculture for eight thousand years, and that there is an evolutionary advantage to handling issues of herding (cattle, goats, sheep, etc.) and the two sets of problems are different. Would there not be an evolutionary pressure to select for brains predisposed to handle the issue likely to be confronting the individual?
Don't even go there, as they say.
Perhaps the brain can handle each set of problems without needing modification. Perhaps there's no modification possible that could actually improve one's ability in a particular situation? Perhaps the modification to manage one situation doesn't mean the loss of ability, however slight, to handle another way of making a living.
Perhaps.
But the certainty is....don't even go there.
Yet evolutionary theory will take you there if you're not careful.

Posted by Richard Aubrey at July 22, 2005 07:22 AM

I think I think, therefore I think I am. Maybe.

Posted by Jazzbo at July 22, 2005 07:22 AM

People here seem to be confusing theories with observable facts...

Actually, I don't think they are. I think there are at least three different meanings of "fact" in play.

First is the extreme skeptic view that nothing can ever be said to be true with absolute certainty - even an observation like the existance of Australia - so there are no facts, and nothing can be "proved". I'm not sure anyone here actually holds the view, but some seem to attribute it to others. "Did we all float off into space when..." appears to be an instance of this attribution.

Brian Carnell seems to accept the skeptical premise, but rejects it as a meaningful definition of "fact". He would like the term "fact", and probably "proven" as well, to mean that there is overwhelming evidence for a proposition.

The third meaning is that anything directly observed is a fact, while explanatory theories that cannot be directly observed can never be proved.

Posted by Morgan at July 22, 2005 07:25 AM

Rand I was with you until you got to the science is faith thing. Science is science, faith is faith. You may put your faith in science, you may be skeptical of science, or you may deny the existence of science but what it is (a process of discovery) remains unchanged whether you believe in it or not.

Posted by ThomasD at July 22, 2005 07:31 AM

You may put your faith in science, you may be skeptical of science, or you may deny the existence of science but what it is (a process of discovery) remains unchanged whether you believe in it or not.

And you don't think that theists wouldn't say exactly the same thing about theism?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 22, 2005 07:38 AM

Brian's exactly right - Peop...uh, oops. Am I allowed to say "exactly"?

Anyrate - People do not want to lay in bed at night, wondering if if they're going to slowly become one, and finally pass throught their mattresses, because the scientific community doesn't want to speak in terms of absolute certainty. This must become only in-house speak.

When writing for, or speaking to, the general public, our scientists should come to an agreement to drop the 'lab-talk' and speak of certainties and uncertainties. To do otherwise simply encourages (and yes, Mike, I've live long enough to "observe" it) the creationists. Can we not agree that they, not the garden-variety church-goers, are the problem?

Posted by Tommy G at July 22, 2005 07:39 AM

Sounds about right. Have you ever seen an atom? I suspect you take their existence pretty much on faith.

How do you know you have a head? Have you ever seen your head?

Posted by Slartibartfast at July 22, 2005 07:40 AM

Ron,

Actually, both plant and animal life evolved from single celled organisms that had both characteristics of plant and animal life. A modern day equilivent could be euglena for instance:

Most species are green because they contain chlorophyll which allows them to produce food through photosynthesis for themselves, as well as serve as primary producers for aquatic ecosystems. Some species also eat tiny particles of living matter.

Now as to the idea that animals and plants can move back and forth, perhapes given enough time, but usually once evolution gets a hold of a successful body plan it sticks with it. So unless you can come up with a resonable selective pressure that would drive animals to be plants, then it most likely will not happen.

As far as faith in science, everyone knows about gravity and experiences it. No one "believes" in it as they do God, yet scientist don't know what causes gavity other than it somehow corrletates to mass (the best guess involves some pretty trippy quantum physics involving M theory). Yet, Ron, you would not say that you or those scientist who study gravity have a "faith" in it.

Posted by C57/B6 at July 22, 2005 07:40 AM

One of the reasons Rand has been on my regular reading list for more than three years now is that he understands the danger of what I call "jargon creep" -- where a word is used to describe something to which it doesn't properly apply.

Most of the disputation in this thread is a result of jargon creep.

Posted by McGehee at July 22, 2005 07:51 AM

But there's the thing. Gravity is the observable fact, not the theory which attempts to explain it. With regards to evolution, the existence of many species and fossils are the observable facts. Evolution is the theory that attempts to explain them. To give a close analogy, consider the existence of life on Earth. That it exists is an observable fact. How it got there (abiogenesis, divine creation, directed panspermia, etc) is theory, which cannot be considered provable fact (with the obvious exception of divine creation if you allow for divine revelation).

Posted by Paul at July 22, 2005 07:53 AM

But there's the thing. Gravity is the observable fact, not the theory which attempts to explain it.

Nope, sorry.

Gravity is the theory. It was invented by Newton, and refined by Einstein to resolve some of the Newtonian version's deficiencies. The observable facts are phenomena such as (e.g.) objects fall toward the earth's center when released, or that objects in space follow certain trajectories with respect to one another. There are many potential theories that explain these phenomena, but so far, the one we call gravity is the best and the phenenomena are not gravity itself.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 22, 2005 08:01 AM

Reason requires that one apportion belief according to the available evidence. Faith means believing regardless of, or in spite of, the available evidence. The two are complete opposites.

Those who attack reason in order to support their faith undermine freedom as much as any leftist. Without reason and objective evidence as their impartial arbiter, men cannot come to agree on anything, and they cannot live together in peace. Whether they hold, a la Marx, that the content of their consciousness is determined by their social class, or whether they hold that their beliefs have their source in divine revelation, they cannot mediate their beliefs with those who disagree. Their only recourse for resolving the disagreement is the use of force. That has been the history of religion anywhere it has held power.

Ayn Rand said it:

Objective reality-->Reason-->Egoism-->Freedom

If you kick over any of the first three, you bring down the whole house. You cannot support freedom by appealing to religion.

Posted by Ardsgaine at July 22, 2005 08:17 AM

You cannot support freedom by appealing to religion.

Whoa, nellie. Hold up a second there. It depends on the religion. People who lump every religion together are just as bad as people who lump every branch of science together as if either is some monolithic entity. There are many religions, and they are not equivalent. There are many branches of science, and they are not equivalent either. The easiest way to cause me to doubt your commitment to logic is to apply qualities of the specific to the general.

Posted by p-dawg at July 22, 2005 08:41 AM

Why doesn't every poster, beginning with you Rand, begin by saying, "I am an atheist and this is what I think." Or the opposite, if that's the case. It would be helpful in evaluating the various arguments.

Posted by Banjo at July 22, 2005 08:43 AM

Why doesn't every poster, beginning with you Rand, begin by saying, "I am an atheist and this is what I think."

Ummm...because it's not relevant to the topic?

It would be helpful in evaluating the various arguments.

It shouldn't be. This is a discussion about the definition of theories in the scientific method, and has nothing to do with whether or not one believes in God. The fact that you think this is important is a good indicator that you're completely missing the point.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 22, 2005 08:48 AM

Ardsgaine:

Your post makes so much sense that I am almost willing to forgive your erroneous presumption that Freedom depends on egoism.

Rand is a second-rate and wholly derivative philosopher (assuming one can justify the designation in her case).

Her whole house of cards depends on the human mind being a truly blank (tabula rasa). It ignores the native capacities, limitations and proclivities that are hard-wired.

You can Google fullsome critiques from real philosopers if you like.

That said, I enjoyed her novels (though they too are far from best-or-breed). The movie the Fountainhead makes a decent time-killer.

Posted by Randomizer at July 22, 2005 08:49 AM

You can Google fullsome critiques from real philosopers if you like.

I don't know what "fullsome" means, but if you mean "fulsome," I don't think it means what you think it means.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 22, 2005 08:52 AM

"There are many religions, and they are not equivalent."

All religions depend on faith. None are supported by evidence.

There are different varieties of religionists, though, and some compartmentalize their faith better than others. Some totally embrace mysticism, while others adhere to reason except in a few matters directly pertaining to their belief in god. The two varieties of people can be found in the same sect of the same religion.

There are also very irrational atheists, of which Marx was one.

The fact remains, though, that reason and fath are opposites, and that faith is belief without evidence.

Posted by Ardsgaine at July 22, 2005 09:01 AM

I've dealt with Mormons, Quakers, Catholics, Witnesses, Promise Keepers, Muslims, Baptists (Southern and Primitive), assorted Pagans, and Methodists. Some of the above have tried to convert me; others have just discussed belief.

I will tell you that there IS NO more obnoxious, insulting, annoying, and generally off-putting type of religous fanatic than the average Evangelical Atheist.

After reading some of these comments, I find my belief reconfirmed. If "freeing yourself" means turning into an utter jerkwad, I'll gladly ahng onto the shackles of my faith, thanks all the same.

Posted by DaveP. at July 22, 2005 09:02 AM

"You can Google fullsome critiques from real philosopers if you like."

Thanks, but I have a degree in philosophy and a fairly decent library of "first-rate" philosphers who are full of crap, with a few exceptions.

I'll stick with Ayn Rand.

And yes, freedom does depend on egoism. The notion that there is something sacred about an individual human life that makes the existence, well-being and happiness of that individual more important than any collective concerns is an essentially egoistic outlook.

Posted by Ardsgaine at July 22, 2005 09:06 AM

In a sense aren't scientific theories "proved" in the same sense that courtroom theories are? A scientific theory is accepted as fact when it fits all of the evidence and there is no more reasonable doubt among the scientific community (or maybe it's preponderance of evidence). The community may be wrong in the same sense that a jury may be wrong about a man's innocence and later evidence may demonstrate this.

In the case of evolution, it's conceivable that the world was created in an instant (or seven days) at some point 10,000 years ago. This creation could have included the fossil record and all of the other evidence that biologists ans geologists point to to justify evolution and the much larger age of the world. Scientists generally reject this theory because the consensus is that the scientific theories are more plausible.

Posted by KeithK at July 22, 2005 09:07 AM

oh bollocks.

You are correct -- I fall into the camp of those who wish fulsome meant what it suggests and not what it is defined as.

I meant robust.

And Dave "evangelical atheist" is a contradiction. At the risk of being a jerkwad: I don't thing evangelical means what you think it means. :-)

Posted by Randomizer at July 22, 2005 09:07 AM

oh bollocks.

You are correct -- I fall into the camp of those who wish fulsome meant what it suggests and not what it is defined as.

I meant robust.

And Dave "evangelical atheist" is a contradiction. At the risk of being a jerkwad: I don't think evangelical means what you think it means. :-)

Posted by Randomizer at July 22, 2005 09:08 AM

The fact remains, though, that reason and fath are opposites, and that faith is belief without evidence.

Not at all. Faith is belief without PROOF, which is far from 'without evidence'. I do not test every chair before I sit in it, even though I do not have proof that it will hold my weight. Does this mean I am unreasoning, because I accept on faith that the chair will hold me?

Posted by p-dawg at July 22, 2005 09:15 AM

"And Dave "evangelical atheist" is a contradiction. At the risk of being a jerkwad: I don't thing evangelical means what you think it means."

Literally, it means good news, or someone who is spreading good news. It could apply to an atheist. What he is describing is someone who runs around trying to convert people to his point of view. I've never had an atheist knock on my door and try to hand me any literature, though.

If he's referring to anyone participating in this discussion, I think he's missed the mark. It's a public debate where people are invited to express their opinions. If one doesn't want to be converted to a different viewpoint, then one shouldn't run risks by engaging in discussions with strangers.

Posted by Ardsgaine at July 22, 2005 09:19 AM

Randomizer:
From the dictionary.com definition of 'evangelical':
6. Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous: an evangelical liberal.

Thus there is no inherent contradiction. Preachy atheists are just as common as preachy theists, and just as annoying. The only difference is the creeds to which they wish you to subscribe.

Posted by p-dawg at July 22, 2005 09:19 AM

I think this is wandering off-topic a bit, but I felt I needed to respond to Faith is Not Reason guy.

Faith is trust where you lack the element of certainty. In Heaven, one does not have faith because one sees.

A blind leap of faith is dangerous, of course. It can lead one to leap to anything...Communism for example which I think all the posters would consider a faith, and a bad one at that.

A reasoned faith examines evidence, weighs logics, and tries to understand the Person or thing or idea it is having faith in. As an example, a friend, you learn to trust him over the years, and so you have faith in his word, even when he tells you something you cannot verify.

So it is with a theory or the Person of Christ. There's always a gap in the theory where you can't prove something or other. I doubt there's any theory that is so firmly proven that it has no gray areas.

I guess that makes theories the enemy of science, and totally unproven?

Posted by Eric R. Ashley at July 22, 2005 09:31 AM

Faith is belief without PROOF...

Now we have multiple definitions of "faith" running around, too. Is this supposed to be a debate over the semantic boundaries of various epistimological terms?

Can we at least agree on a normative set of definitions for use in the debate?

Posted by Morgan at July 22, 2005 09:32 AM

1. Whether Bush is president is not a scientific case but a historical one. Same error made by most atheists regarding many issues.

- not really. In fact, as Richard Milton argues, the very existence of the fossil record argues against evolution's assumption of uniformatitarianism, since they are evidence of cataclysmic events rather than gradual. Common sense tells us that apatosaurs and the like, or even small fish, cannot be fossilized at the miniscule soil deposition rates implied by millions of years. Likewise the amazingly pure deposits of gypsum and so on.

Turner also spouts off many myths as fact, such as the dependence of other fields of science on evolution's correctness. In fact, as Wells' "Icons of Evolution" shows, Darwinism has not led to much in the way of scientific advancement or prediction, and has in fact led to a lot of sloppy work. It took 40 years to lead evolutionists out of the muck of Piltdown Man. Denton and Behe show that even molecular biology, the one field we might expect to benefit the most from the theory, not only survives well with passing mention of the theory, but in fact contradicts evolutionary hopes on the most fundamental levels.

Additionally, the gradualism and millions of years required by the theory has caused many problems in other fields such as geology and astronomy. Geology is unable to satisfactorily explain many features while keeping this tenet.

"But I do know that there are many who sincerely, and given their range of knowledge, rationally, do not believe in the theory of evolution." - wow, talk about snide insults. However, as the above authors/scientists show, it is the LACK of knowledge which allows evolutionism to survive; and evolution encourages "lazy science." Example: evolutionists pronounced the inverted retina as poor design and moved on. Creationists did the hard work of examining the possible reasons for the design, and found that it was indeed optimal.

The complete agreement among scientists that Turner refers to is misleading. W.R.R. Bird's "Origin of Species Revisited" documents the chaos in evolutionary circles, citing the literature where die-hard evolutionists confess their befuddlement. And many others document the risk to one's career in even questioning the dogma, leading many to pay lip service to the theory while daily finding evidence against it. Turner seems to think that truth is to be found in the majority - an unwise assumption, again considering Piltdown and epicycles.

"By the theory of evolution I mean the origination of new species from common ancestral forms by an iterated process of genetic mutation, " ... ironically, his definition includes processes which have eluded scientific observation, much less proof, for more than 100 years. His faith is astounding!

"medicine is almost impossible as a research discipline without evolutionary theory". In fact medicine has been repeatedly confounded by evolutionism, which has made one wrong prediction after another, for example regarding comparative molecular sequences.

His claims that chemistry and physics also benefit is of the most idiotic and ignorant species of error, considering that these are the two sciences which most directly provide obstacles to the claims of evolution. I mean, come on, man. Get a grip on reality. The most formidable and intractable problems of abiogenesis are directly related to these areas of science. Wishing and claiming they aren't won't make it so.

Posted by Grimmy at July 22, 2005 09:33 AM

The notion that there is something sacred about an individual human life that makes the existence, well-being and happiness of that individual more important than any collective concerns is an essentially egoistic outlook.

Hmmm. Sounds Christian, too, actually.

After all, nothing (that we have any power over, at least) is more important in a reasonable [by which I mean "not that of crazy-ass Christian collectivists or Rev. Phelps"; rather the sort of view of Lewis or Chesterton] Christian view, than the fact of man's existence (each individual, not the collective), free will, and well-being (in the form of being saved).

Mind you, I say this as a (weak-case) atheist. But nothing in the requirements for freedom you gave precludes religion, either. Perhaps the problem is you contrast reason and religion as implied polar opposites?

More Rand-related damage, I think. Her issues with religion were, well, issues more than properly considered philosophy, in my judgement. (And again, this is as an atheist, and a Hayekian libertarian one, as well.)

Posted by Sigivald at July 22, 2005 09:35 AM

Doesn't fulsome also, in common usage, take on the meaning of copious--in which case Randomizer, you were just down to a typo...oops, until the "robust" comment, no?

Posted by timothy at July 22, 2005 09:49 AM

Um, just to respond to an earlier critic: yes, speciation has been observed, both in the lab and in nature. I direct you to TalkOrigins for the lengthy details.

The idea that we've never actually observed speication is just a persistent myth. It might have been true back at the time of the Scopes trial, but it's not true now.

Posted by Rob at July 22, 2005 09:50 AM

"like the existence of Australia, which is not my opinion but a fact"

"Have you ever seen an atom? I suspect you take their existence pretty much on faith."

I've never seen an atom nor Australia (never having been there you see), so can I call both of their existences "theoretical"?

Seems like there's a little something here for everyone...

Posted by Scott at July 22, 2005 09:50 AM

I have heard many evolutionary arguments made using a 'faith based' logic. They usually start out with the statement of faith, i.e, 'We all know evolution is true because....' followed by various tautological arguments sans evidence '...only evolution can explain... which proves evolution....' (I would like the citation for the example of observed speciation, for example) and usually have a few juicy ad hominems thrown in for wholesome goodness, '... and anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot and/or evangelical Luddite.' Such arguments do little to advance knowledge or understanding.

A good scientific theory (and yes evolution is a theory) provides good answers to observable phenomena, but observable phenomena does not prove a theory. Good scientific practice provides that if contrary observable phenomena are found, the predominant theory be modified or tossed out. Likewise, competing theories are judged by how well they explain observable phenomena, not by which theory is more popular, or older, etc. As to evolution, so far, I would say it is the best explanation for the phenomena observed, but that does not mean that I will fight to the death defending it if a theory comes along that better explains certain phenomena.

My contention with many 'evolutionists' is that they tend to ignore contrary data rather than use their theory to explain the phenomena and dismiss other theories out of hand. Ask about irreducible complexity or the assumption of materialism as a basic assumption in evolutionary theory, and you generally will not get a helpful answer.

Randomizer, just a nit, but evangelical can mean "Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous". I know many evangelical atheists by that definition. There, now I'm the jerkwad. : )

Posted by jot at July 22, 2005 09:52 AM

First, the missing quote from my post:
"The fossil record is a fact. Evolution is the best theory that explains it, but it hasn't been "proven" to do so." - not really. In fact, ...

Rob, you say "The idea that we've never actually observed speication [sic.] is just a persistent myth." If you consider the most trivial cases, such as changing populations of bacteria, I'd say those are very weak standards of evidence, especially since, as you know, new strains do not arise spontaneously to adapt to new environments; what we see are existing genes being turned on and off, usually at some other cost to the organism, such as vital control mechanisms, and the resulting change in population.

Which brings to mind England’s famous peppered moths (Biston betularia) ... which, of course, we found that evolutionists GLUED TO TREE TRUNKS! D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67–83, 1975. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp#r4) If evolutionism is on such solid ground, why resort to such things? Stephen Jay Gould claims that such frauds as Haeckel's embryo drawings have been known to evolutionist for a long time. If so, WHY CONTINUE TO USE THEM in textbooks as "evidence"? Makes you wonder. I hope.

If you consider, say, finches, you are probably also already aware that the changes are cyclical and represent built-in adaptation within strict limits; no finch ever turns into a different type of animal, unless we use the very weakest notions of species. Not even a fruit fly does, after millions of generations of deleterious mutation.

If you were not already aware of these facts, trueorigins.com and answersingenesis.org (if you can focus on their scientific points) are good resources. For purely scientific resources, try Behe or Denton's books. But answersingenesis boasts some authors with formidable scientific credentials.

Posted by Grimmy at July 22, 2005 10:16 AM

I would like the citation for the example of observed speciation, for example

Depends on your definition of "species". Darwin's finches are often held up as examples of speciation, even though they can interbreed and their genetic sequences are virtually identical.

Posted by Observer at July 22, 2005 10:17 AM

Is it just me, or is Grimmy wicked smart?

Posted by Matt Knowles at July 22, 2005 10:49 AM

It's just you.

Look, folks, this is not a thread to discuss the validity of the theory of evolution. It's a discussion about general epistemology. I'd appreciate it if we could keep it on topic, or I'll have to shut down comments.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 22, 2005 10:53 AM

re: speciation. Sorry, I was using the out moded definition, that being two previously interbreedable (word?) groups that diverge and become not-interbreedable, as opposed to the much looser, they don't live together or look alike definition. Perhaps it was a bad example, (although I don't think the argument used in Talkorigins about it being too hard to test because you'd have to test breed all similar types is very strong.) My main point there was that I will happily debate anyone willing to use the same evidence I have to use, i.e, logic and data.

If I cannot honestly see how a theory explains a phenomena that clearly exists, I will ask that question. If my debate partner cannot, they must either concede the point or explain how the theory provides for the phenomena. (The flagellum/irreducible complexity argument is one such, usually the evolutionary argument comes down to 'just because we cannot explain it now, doesn't mean it doesn't fit within an evolutionary framework.' In fact, until you can show it fits inside the frame, you cannot make that claim.)

It is normal in most scientific areas to bring up 'abnormal' data as a challenge to the predominant theory. That data is then explained such that the abnormal tag is no longer needed, or the theory changes. Gravitational lensing made us really change our basic theory of physics, Pons's cold fusion made us work hard and we decided his experiments were flawed, thus no abnormal data. However, I often get upbraided for wanting explanations for 'difficult evolutionary' questions. This makes me wonder about the robustness of the theory.

Randomizer, sorry for the pile on re: evangelical. I guess I think/type slower than the others around here.

Posted by jot at July 22, 2005 10:54 AM

Sorry, Matt, it's just you.

Posted by Grimmy at July 22, 2005 10:54 AM

Depends on your definition of "species". Darwin's finches are often held up as examples of speciation, even though they can interbreed and their genetic sequences are virtually identical.

Hmm, that was pretty much the definition of species we were taught back in the day. Finch is a finch, darwinian or otherwise, if it can get its groove on and prove sucessful (offspring).

My personal favorite theory of the fossil record is that aliens, after they picked up a bucket of Col. Slar'flooshins Krologian Fried Chlamsibart, would bring the family to Earth and have a picnic. And as we all know, most of the Grey's are slobs (look at all the gutted livestock they leave around). So the fossil record is just the result of not having a "Don't Mess with Drockla" campaign on the homeworld.

Evolution is an interesting theory, but I have yet to see anything "evolved" into a new, reproductively successful species.

Posted by Harvard@Cal at July 22, 2005 10:57 AM

"Now as to the idea that animals and plants can move back and forth, perhapes given enough time, but usually once evolution gets a hold of a successful body plan it sticks with it. So unless you can come up with a resonable selective pressure that would drive animals to be plants, then it most likely will not happen."

Are we sure we’re all reading the same internet? I can think of plenty of places where you can see supposedly intelligent animals descending into pond scum.

Posted by Tim Worstall at July 22, 2005 11:22 AM

-->This is because no scientific theory is ever "proved." Proofs are for mathematics and the courtroom, not science. Scientific theories are useful in that they can be disproved, something that Creationism cannot. In fact, creationism can be disproved as far as evolution can, and conditions for such have been offered. On the other hand, as documented by Bird in his excellent book, scientists have found to their frustration that evolutionism cannot be falsified - not for want of reasons, but because it's like nailing jelly to the wall. Example: evolution predicts cellular similarity in early stages of embryo formation. Fact: supposedly related species (even, say, two different frog species) show wildly different cellular stages. Evolution falsified? Nope; evidence is simply ignored with vague platitudes. As such, is it really a scientific theory? Some evolutionists have admitted that it doesn't seem so. Again, see Bird for their hilarious admissions. (Well, I found them funny, although they were clearly exasperated.)

But can scientific theories be proven? Well, perhaps it's more fruitful to say that scientific MODELS can be validated or verified. Quantum theory has received a lot of validation, and as such, we can use it to make predictions and coherent explanations. In that sense, we can certainly say it's "proven"; in another sense, even though the theory holds up, it may turn out to be regulated by fairy dust instead of particle interactions; in that sense it's not "proven." But that's a little extreme.

Posted by Grimmy at July 22, 2005 11:28 AM

All you evolutionists, come to InstaPunk.com. I've given you a much bigger target to shoot at than Mr. Simberg has. Come on in; we're just waiting for your sanctimonious abuse.

Posted by InstaPunk at July 22, 2005 11:30 AM

My concise Oxford only has Christian definitions for evangelical -- but since communication is the point and you made your point, I WAS in fact being a jerkwad. :-)

I have been guilty of evangelical (I sic myself) atheism in the past, but am trying not to be so patronizing these days.

I do think that the religious are misguided and accept that the feeling is mutual.

However, when believers start to devalue the epistemology of science, I start to see a threat to the greater good of society. There is less harm, IMHO in being willfully ignorant of the "word of God" than in being likewise ignorant of the lessons of science.

All this "creation science" (now I sic others) talk is oxymoronic. Between faith and science -- a choice must be made -- the epistemology of each is unreconcilable with the other. They come at the evidence from opposite ends of a credulity spectrum and no rhetorical tricks can bridge the gap.

Posted by Randomizer at July 22, 2005 11:40 AM

Clearly, the author of this site makes a good point. Religion cannot be disproved where as in science nothing is certain. Thats proof enough for me that there is something wrong with scientific "theory".

Posted by BibleGuy at July 22, 2005 11:43 AM

Mr. Simberg,

Perhaps a new word needs to be created. It's definition would go something like this: "A theory which (like everything not math) cannot be proved, but is so widely accepted by the experts of the relevant field that it's accepted as beyond refute until significant & mind-blowing proof to the contrary is revealed." For now we'll just call it a "really, really good theory."

Perhaps at one time the world being flat would have qualified as "really, really good", but clearly Galileo was on to something. In this day & age Geographers would accept that the existence of Australia qualifies as "really, really likely", and physicists would say the same of gravity. Oh, they might tinker around the edges, and new tools allow for better measurement all the time, but that doesn't make it a bad theory - it's just that all good theories evolve (if I may use the word) over time.

If such a word were defined, I think the main point of Turner's essay is that Evolutionary Theory would qualify as a "really, really good theory", and Creationism would only qualify as a "really, really bad one."

Or maybe, that's just what it should have been.

Posted by Brock at July 22, 2005 11:49 AM

I think the "provability" aspect of this thread is rendering some confusion. A much better terminology is the Popper-esque "falsifiable/non-falsifiable."

If George Bush wasn't the president, that statement would be falsifiable by looking at available data. If evolution is not a correct theory, it will be falsifiable in that there will be some evidence showing that it doesn't adequately explain the available data. This doesn't neccesarily spell doom for the theory, but requires it be revised, if possible, to explain the data. If it can't be revised, it has to be discarded. Creationism relies on faith and not on data, and is not falsifiable- and therefore can never be considered a scientific theory.

I tend to agree with Ian Hacking's thesis that we are only justified in being epistemologically commited to theories that can be "manipulated" experimentally. Of course his thesis was directed more at non-observable theoretical entities, then scientific theories writ large, but I think when the question is epistemological, it has some application.

That leads me to believe that evolution is the best explanation available to explain the observable data. Furthermore, although I am not aware of evolution being proven experimentally, it certainly is feasible to do so- if and when it has been, then we will be epistemologically justified in considering it factual.

Posted by Ben Jarrell at July 22, 2005 11:54 AM

So, um, is it reasonable to apply the terms "proven" and "fact" to a scientific theory (like evolution)?

It is a fact that genetic mutation occurs.

It is a fact that genetic selction occurs.

It is a fact that selection and mutation can cause morphological and functional changes in an organism.

It is a fact that the genes of various species vary with respect to their similarity to one another.

It is a fact that the pattern of genetic similarities and differences is consistent with an evolutionary explanation (that is, it is treelike, with whole boughs of the tree carrying the same mutations into each of the branches).

Evolution is a theory that explains these facts (in fact, it predicted them - the relevant mechanisms were discovered long after the theory was laid out). There are no competing theories.

All of this amounts to extremely strong support for some version of the current theory that would still be called "evolution". But is it "proven"? It depends on what you mean by the term. To purists, no, no scientific theory can ever be proven, because falsifiability is a necessary component of any theory. At some point, maybe it becomes absurd to upbraid those who use the term, but that's a matter of taste.

Posted by Morgan at July 22, 2005 11:57 AM

"However, when believers start to devalue the epistemology of science, I start to see a threat to the greater good of society." True, if it happens. But it's not. In fact, they're complaining about the degeneration of science for the sake of evolutionism, the same sloppiness and religious feeling about evolution that gave us Piltdown.

ID'ers should be calling for a return to science, which is where the strength of their argument is, instead of a plea for considering ID as an "alternative." And, of course, Western science came from Christian theism, the notion that we can investigate the order of the cosmos since it was created by the Logos; so the notion that they are opposed is a convenient fiction, much like the notion that ancients believed in a flat earth (this myth was concocted in the 19th century by two agnostics, if I recall correctly). It's no accident that almost all the major branches of science were birthed by "creationists".

"Between faith and science -- a choice must be made -- the epistemology of each is unreconcilable with the other." That's what's called a false dichotomy - and a lazy interpretation of both, since science originated from the community and implications of faith. Unless, of couse, by "faith" you mean evolutionism, in which case I agree.

"Religion cannot be disproved where as in science nothing is certain." - You don't seriously believe this, do you? Of course religion can be disproved, if its statements are falsifiable. That's why there's no Mormon Archeological Journal, and why evolutionists abruptly stopped cataloguing ancient human remains in the (formerly) most comprehensive work of its kind (see Lubenow's "Bones of Contention" for the reason). Conversely, there is a Biblical Archeology Review, and there is lots of scientific work regarding the Shroud of Turin (shroud.com).

Posted by Grimmy at July 22, 2005 12:01 PM

"Creationism relies on faith and not on data, and is not falsifiable- and therefore can never be considered a scientific theory." It always amazes me how evolutionists can criticize creationism in a way which reveals they don't even have a rudimentary understanding of its claims. Just another example of the intellectual laziness and religious nature of evolutionism. Why not examine their arguments? You'd be shocked to see they're based on, yes, data. And while Behe distances himself from the label, his deduction of ID is based PURELY on science.

Morgan says "It is a fact that the genes of various species vary with respect to their similarity to one another. ... It is a fact that the pattern of genetic similarities and differences is consistent with an evolutionary explanation." I think molecular biology has some rather rude surprises in store for him, as M. Denton found out. :)

Finally, an even more basic question on epistemology: on what basis do you have faith that your thoughts actually correspond to reality? Until that is answered satisfactorily - and I suppose that would have to explain the bridging from the external world of objects and events to our internal world of meaning, a nontrivial task - all pontifications on how evolution fits this or that, imagined or otherwise, must be suspect.

Posted by Grimm at July 22, 2005 12:15 PM

ThomasD: "Science is science, . . . whether you believe in it or not."

I think you mean mathematics. Science is not so precise.

Since science is the investigation of phenomena that aren't fully understood, it is always subject to being challenged by new theories. What was the response of the scientific world when Continental Drift was first proposed? If you rely on this "science is science" crap, you'll be hopelessly out of date in no time.

Faith and science go hand in hand. It's all about discovering truth and testing it. It is possible to be as mistakenly dogmatic about "scientific fact," as it is to be about the inerrancy of the Bible. Of course, you could redefine "science" to exclude any statement that can't be verified by a mathematical proof, but you wouldn't have much left. We rely on a lot of inferences, to fill in what we don't really know for sure. How many species of dinosaur have ever existed? Is the Ivory Billed Woodpecker extinct or isn't it? Is cold fusion really fusion? Does time exist or is it just an illusion?
Who recorded the Big Bang? What was there before it?

The questions can easily shade from the scientific to the religious or philosophical. A truly open mind would say that there's a lot of evidence for evolution, but not all the questions about it have been answered. That doesn't mean we should teach creationism in school, but it doesn't mean that schools should attack religion, either. Sometimes the rhetoric of the evolutionists starts to sound like the inquisition.

We all accept quantum dynamics AND relativity, but they're not completely compatible. I'm not ready to abandon either at this time, though. And I think that evolution is still not completely understood. How many dimensions are there, and how do they interact? Is it possible for beings in another dimension to influence ours? When science answers all of these questions and proves it, maybe I'll grant it the status of absolute truth, but until then I'll keep my mind open.

Posted by AST at July 22, 2005 12:24 PM

Faith -- by which I mean religion -- has an epistemology that, as I understand it, relies on reinterpretation of evidence to fit it into the context of unchallengeable dogma.

Science -- by which I mean domains reliant on the scientific method, relies on reinterpretation of theory to fit into the context of valid and reliable evidence.

I don't think that these two ways of knowing can be reconciled.

This is a real dichotomy.

Science grew in the context of but often in spite of the community of faith (see the trials of Gallileo). Evolutionary theory continues to be refined in spite of the ID community of faith.

Posted by Randomizer at July 22, 2005 12:24 PM

"Faith -- by which I mean religion -- has an epistemology that, as I understand it, relies on reinterpretation of evidence to fit it into the context of unchallengeable dogma." - OK, so by this definition, evolutionism is faith. No argument there. Except it's not so much REinterpretation as ignoring it altogether, but that's a quibble.

"Science grew in the context of but often in spite of the community of faith (see the trials of Gallileo)." Funny, since it was the Catholic Church that was the biggest sponsor of science for a long time. Galileo's chief opponents were members of the universities who held to the pagan cosmology. It wasn't until they went crying to the Pope (and Galileo foolishly insulted him in a big way) that it got serious. Plus, if you think Galileo was manhandled and thrown into a dungeon, all I can say is ... some investigation is in order. Oh, BTW, it's ironic that the Pope thought he was defending the latest and greatest scientific understanding of the cosmos, even though it wasn't derived from the Bible.

"Evolutionary theory continues to be refined in spite of the ID community of faith." Refined ... an interesting way of looking at it. Each school of Darwinism - a few years ago there were about three - claims the other is clearly and horribly wrong, "according to the evidence." Why is the evidence so confusing? Hmmm.

Posted by Grimmy at July 22, 2005 12:37 PM

the fact that there are competing evolutionary branches of theory is a strength not a weakness of the scientific approach.

Eventually, as the evidence accumulates, the debate will be settled or move on towards ever greater understanding.

Such healthy discourse is not allowable in a religious context -- the answers areknown before the questions are asked. Unless the question itelf is not allowed as heresy.

Posted by Randomizer at July 22, 2005 12:43 PM

I tire of the pointless debate -- you will believe and I will inquire.

Seek the truth here:

www.talkorigins.org

Posted by Randomizer at July 22, 2005 12:47 PM

"Such healthy discourse is not allowable in a religious context -- the answers areknown before the questions are asked. Unless the question itelf is not allowed as heresy." - Exactly!

"[Warwick] Collins wrote a paper on sexual selection as an anomaly in Darwinian theory. Dr. John Thoday, professor of genetics at Cambridge, invited Collins to present an expanded version of his paper to an international conference of population geneticists -- an honour for the young undergraduate.

Collins says, 'In the paper I tried to extend further my doubts about the assumptions in Darwinian evolutionary theory. Out of courtesy I circulated the expanded paper to my distinguished tutor prior to the conference. Before I was due to take the stand, Professor Maynard Smith stood up in front of the conference and roundly denounced the premises of my paper.'

After the conference Maynard Smith told Collins that 'he would use his considerable influence to block publication of any further papers of mine which questioned the fundamental premises of Darwinian theory.'

Collins has, indeed, found it impossible to have any further papers published up to as recently as 1994, when a paper he submitted to Nature was rejected without reason. Not surprisingly, Collins has left the field of biology."

Religious context indeed.

"I tire of the pointless debate -- you will believe and I will inquire." - If only that were true. But let not talkorigins be your sole Scripture; look also at the wondrous bacterial flagellum, the complex counterbalanced ion-control systems of the eye. And then question the stern-faced clerics who insist that these arose BAM! in one miraculous, naturalistic step.

Posted by Grimmy at July 22, 2005 12:58 PM

But let not talkorigins be your sole Scripture; look also at the wondrous bacterial flagellum, the complex counterbalanced ion-control systems of the eye. And then question the stern-faced clerics who insist that these arose BAM! in one miraculous, naturalistic step.

I know no one who insists that. It's ignorant strawmen like this that make it difficult to take evolution critics seriously.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 22, 2005 01:04 PM

Re: Irreduceable Complexity = argument from incredulity

God of the gaps. Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.

Posted by Randomizer at July 22, 2005 01:08 PM

"I know no one who insists that. It's ignorant strawmen like this that make it difficult to take evolution critics seriously." - Well, I guess that's a straw-straw-man, since I don't know anyone who insists that - however, I do know many who *live* that; thus the admonition to think about these things and consider other viewpoints apart from the straitjacket of talkorigins.

I'm surprised that of all the straw men in these comments, you take issue with this (alleged) one. Consider these gems: "Such healthy discourse is not allowable in a religious context -- the answers areknown before the questions are asked. Unless the question itelf is not allowed as heresy"; "when believers start to devalue the epistemology of science"; "Creationism relies on faith and not on data, and is not falsifiable- and therefore can never be considered a scientific theory." *I* personally don't know anyone who insists on *these*.

Posted by Grimmy at July 22, 2005 01:20 PM

"Re: Irreduceable Complexity = argument from incredulity"

If you are saying that you have more faith than I do, I don't disagree. Because if I believed that biological systems arose through mutation and selection, I would like to see plausible predecessors for complex systems which depend on all their components. To not require such would demand too much blind faith from me. So, yes, in the absence of credible, detailed explanations, I find the claim that such systems arose from something-or-other-that-we-just-have-to-believe-in-but be-assured-it-was-purely-natural ... incredible. I just don't have that much faith.

Call IC what you like; it's the same reasoning used to justify SETI or the search for canals on Mars. We can establish (and debate) criteria and methodology for recognizing design. If we find an igloo on Mars, what you call the "argument from incredulity" will point us to design and intelligence.

Posted by Grimmy at July 22, 2005 01:31 PM

"Creationism relies on faith and not on data, and is not falsifiable- and therefore can never be considered a scientific theory." *I* personally don't know anyone who insists on *these*.

Okay, so how would you falsify Creationism? And would you mind pointing at some objective evidence for Creationism? Remember that an argument against evolution is not evidence for Creationism. At most, such could only suggest non-evolution options, but Creationism is only one non-evolution option.

Posted by VR at July 22, 2005 02:07 PM

"Okay, so how would you falsify Creationism? And would you mind pointing at some objective evidence for Creationism?" - would love to, but I've been trying to keep to this: "Look, folks, this is not a thread to discuss the validity of the theory of evolution. It's a discussion about general epistemology. I'd appreciate it if we could keep it on topic, or I'll have to shut down comments."

If you have another forum available, email me at the addess above (click on my name). No, wait ... how about at InstaPunk? (see his link above).

Posted by Grimmy at July 22, 2005 02:13 PM

Note: I'll be unavailable for a couple of hours, so email me if you wish.

Posted by Grimmy at July 22, 2005 02:15 PM

"Such healthy discourse is not allowable in a religious context -- the answers areknown before the questions are asked."

Randomizer: actually investigate that which you seek to castigate. Your entire view of religion (as evidenced in this thread, anyway) matches only the most extreme of sects.

AND you continually ignore the actual religious people who might have actual knowledge of this stuff when they tell you otherwise.

Now who's being scientific? It is problems like that (ignoring inconvenient data) that gives "evolution" the most trouble. Stop ignoring inconvenient data, and you might actually be able to convince people. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. Patronizing people who point out the data you ignore doesn't bolster your argument. Deal with some of the actual points here.

Oh wait - you can't. Which is the whole point. Maybe, if you stopped ignoring it, you could explain it - that would make it actually go away. Neat concept, I know.

Posted by Deoxy at July 22, 2005 02:28 PM

Back to epistemology.

There are gaps in our understanding of biological systems.

This does not require the creation of God. Occams Razor would suggest that we should discard all simpler explanations before we abandon the natural world for the supernatural.

For instance, we are only beginning to develop the tools to study complexity as a phenomenon. With the limited understanding we do have we can say that complexity is an emergent property -- it arises from constraints in a system.

The constraints at the atomic/molecular level are different than we see in daily life. Atoms cluster or repel, molecules twist and fold. The structures that might emerge in this setting are different than what we might expect at the macro level.

There are also cogent explanations of possible stepwise changes at the molecular level from undifferentiated cell membrane to flaggellum. But the truth is, we don't know --yet.

You may choose to fill that gap with a creator but that seems like a rather extreme leap to me. I'd rather encourage microbiologists to study the problem using the tools of science and see if we can understand more about evolution at the molecular level than consider this as proof of a devine hand.

In fact one key epistelogical difference is the willingness of scientists to say -- we don't know and to take this as a potential avenue of inquiry.

ID proponents take the same lack of knowledge and use it as evidence of something extraordinary.

I am not ignoring the evidence -- just pointing out that the fact that you can find aspects of biology that are not yet fully understood does not really support your contention about creation or even tip the balance much given the masses of evidence that evolutionary theory can explain.

I could just as easily and untestably say that IC is evidence that there is a parallel universe containing complex things that sometimes leak into our universe.

I think it is a good thing that ID proponents throw up questions -- it will spur science on to new inquiries and more reality-based answers.

Posted by Randomizer at July 22, 2005 03:09 PM

Grimmy:

I am content to wait here on this thread
to find out how you would falsify creationism.

Not just for a couple of hours. I can check
back in a couple of days.

Cheers!

Posted by ted at July 22, 2005 03:11 PM

This is a very interesting discussion. A little unruly sometimes, but everyone seems to be dancing around some point or points that refuses to be quite nailed down.

First off, are scientific theories proven or not proven?

Well, they are certainly validated by experiments, and they are certainly very useful for guiding future research and for developing practical applications. So, by the common usage of "proven", they are proven to the same degree, say, as a verdict in a court case. And some theories are so well validated, they are proven well beyond any standard that a court verdict could possibly hope to be proven.

But epistemologically speaking, theories are perpetually tentative, and are always open to falsification (at least in theory, so to speak). The scientific cast of mind is that of the eternal skeptic.

So the answer to "Are scientific theories proven?" is "It depends on what you mean by 'proven'." It's better, when talking in scientifically technical manner, to avoid saying a theory is "proven", because that goes against the very idea of a theory. From a jargon point of view, a "proven theory" is an oxymoron.

It's like saying God is evil: it goes against the very definition a religious person has of God, even if you could make a convincing case for it.

Rand has done a great job of explaining why the nuances of "proven" are so important when discussing scientific theories. Thanks, Rand.

There's another big point floating around in this comment thread: is the theory of evolution a "really, really good theory", and is creationism a "really, really bad theory"?

Rand doesn't want to debate this point in this thread. But I want to make an observation.

It's interesting to think about why people think the things they do, and why they have faith in one belief but not another.

Scientists believe in evolution because of the massive evidence on its behalf, and because of the great explanatory power of the theory. Most scientists would find it hard, if not impossible, to think of the world without using the theory of evolution to explain the abundant variety of species and life-forms.

Creationists believe in creationism because they find it hard, if not impossible, to look at living creatures as materialistic machines, or to look at the abundant variety and complexity of life as the result of a process unguided by a thinking intelligence. Also, they are reluctant to accept the consequences of a universe that might not be guided by the powerful hand of a divine law-giver, especially the consequences with regards to human morality and life after death.

The interesting thing here is, that science, and evolution in particular, is considered to be a direct threat to some (many) people's theology and cosmological viewpoint.

Since the scientists are so focused on the material and biological issues, they tend to not discuss, or even not think about, the religious or humanistic implications. The scientists have trained themselves to compartmentalize the questions of life and evolution, because it is a powerful and useful thing to do. But the religious issues that are entangled in the scientific results are thereby given short shrift, or ignored entirely.

Of course, it is not the scientist's job to pass judgement on theological or humanistic questions. Possibly most scientists don't have the inclination to tackle these subjects.

But if a scientist is going to engage people who are not scientists (who are after all, the vast, vast majority of people), then there has to be some way of tackling the interface between scientific knowledge/belief and the beliefs of everybody else, which are often religious and theological.

Why should anyone be surprised that a lot of folks resent having evolution taught in public schools, and insist on having creationism in science classrooms? They want their kids (and other people's kids!) to think about things in a certain way, and scientists should understand that and be ready to answer that.

One way to answer that is to maintain the scientific privilege of the science classroom: only scientific theories should be discussed at any length in science class.

I believe that is the best course.

But the rationale shouldn't be because religious theories are stupid or unjustified. The rationale should be that science is a mode of thought and inquiry, as well as a body of knowledge, and science class is about (or should be about) teaching that mode of thought to the students. Religion is a different mode of thought with its own privileged place (for example, a Sunday school class).

If scientists give religious beliefs the respect they deserve, then I think keeping religion and creationism out of science class stands a better chance of being accepted by everyone.

In other words, disproving creationism and criticizing Intelligent Design is fine and dandy -- but proving the theory of evolution doesn't actually address all the issues at hand.

People believe creationism, people want to believe in Intelligent Design, yet they should still be willing to let science class be science class. That's because it's not right to keep science out of a kid's education. That would be like trying to protect a child by not letting him out of the house. And if scientists can acknowledge that religious people have valid concerns about the implications of scientific doctrines, maybe religious people will be more likely to let the scientists write the science curriculum.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at July 22, 2005 03:12 PM

Grimmy: I thought my question was on topic, since it gets to the heart of what I perceive as a difference between faith and science. I can argue with Rand about what level of confidence I would consider "proof" but ultimately it is an argument about semantics. This is more substantial. Evolutionary theory is falsifiable. It is supported by vast amounts of objective evidence. I would like to know how Creationism is falsifiable, and the evidence for it. The so-called evidence for Creationism that I am aware of are actually arguments against evolution. I would be interested in evidence for Creationism (links are fine) irrespective of anti-evolution arguments.

Posted by VR at July 22, 2005 03:25 PM

I find that most conflicts between religion and science occur when folks rely on one to answer questions which are the province of the other. I don't look in the Bible to figure out how electricity works, and I don't expect scientists to predict what will happen to my soul after I die.

Although I call myself a Christian, I believe evolution is fine as scientific theory, and that it fits well with the known facts. Within those limits it has not been disproven, and that's exactly what science is all about. As one goes further back in time, however, facts become sparse and the use of evolutionary theory becomes much more speculative and hence less persuasive. I get somewhat tired of hearing people claim we evolved from a primordial soup with same certainty as one would speak of Ohm's law.

Another part of the problem is that it is hard to devise prospective experiments which prove or disprove the macro-level processes (like speciation) in evolutionary theory. This is a challenge chemists don't have to deal with.

All of this is true for astrophysics as well as biology, but for some reason theories like the BigBang do not inspire the same passions (on either side) as evolution does.

Posted by Hunter McDaniel at July 22, 2005 03:26 PM

"True, if it happens. But it's not. In fact, they're complaining about the degeneration of science for the sake of evolutionism, the same sloppiness and religious feeling about evolution that gave us Piltdown."

What they are doing is making use of skepticism to destroy science and return us to a time when scientific speculation could only be carried on within the restraints of the belief in God and a literal interpretation of the Bible. In other words, they are attempting to set us on the road to the next Dark Ages.

"And, of course, Western science came from Christian theism, the notion that we can investigate the order of the cosmos since it was created by the Logos"

You can't be serious. Western science came from the Greeks, and was the movement from mystical explanations of the universe based on the actions of deities to mechanistic explanations. It wasn't until the rediscovery of Aristotle's scientific writings that the Christian theists in western Europe became interested in science as such. Aristotle did not believe in a created universe. He did not believe in a god who was an efficient cause of anything. He was not a theist in anything like the Christian sense. He would not even qualify as a deist of the Enlightenment period. Writers like Aquinas were able to reinterpret Aristotle to make him palatable to the Church, and that is all that allowed his ideas to be absorbed into western culture and provide the basis for our scientific viewpoint.

Posted by Ardsgaine at July 22, 2005 03:36 PM

Hunter,

Many religious people accept God and the Bible, and science and evolution. They don't find it contradictory.

Many other people think science and their religion are contradictory.

I don't think we should dismiss the people who see contradictions. Quite often there are contradictions, there's just no way around it. Then it becomes a matter of which do you accept: the scientific result, or the religious doctrine. This is a question that has to be addressed.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at July 22, 2005 03:40 PM

"I would be interested in evidence for Creationism (links are fine) irrespective of anti-evolution arguments."

Exactly. They use skepticism to attack evolution, and then assert that Creationism is the only logical alternative. That is the sum of their argument.

Posted by Ardsgaine at July 22, 2005 03:47 PM

Science is a mode of thought and inquiry, as well as a body of knowledge, and science class is about (or should be about) teaching that mode of thought to the students. Religion is a different mode of thought with its own privileged place (for example, a Sunday school class).

Exactly. I also think that the American aversion to public denominational schools has alienated many from the entire institution of public schooling. This is too bad, really. Where numbers warrant, there should be a possibility of publically funded schools that teach both science and (if parents want) provide religious indoctrination as well.

The trouble is, though that some adherents of religion will not admit to the limits of it's competence. The feel that the hegemony of their epistimology is threatened by other ways of knowing that are independent of religious thought.

So, the students would suffer to the extent that the religious teachings are used to explain away lines of inquiry in science. It is easier to be incurious if you believe you already have sufficient explanations of phenomena.

The secular person does not think it necessary or valuable to learn the dominant creation myth or institutions or modes of thought and inquiry of the dominant religion (except perhaps as a literary, historical or sociological pursuit).

However, the religious person cannot so easily dismiss the modes of though and inquiry of science. Perhaps this threatens their faith (by showing it's limitations) and causes a sense of anomie and spawns the hegemonic crisis we face whenever we discuss the place of faith in science.

Could it be that science is best for answering "who", "what", "where", "when", "how" and "how much" questions while religion concerns itself primarily with the why?

I think the scientific community is more likely to respect the limits of its epistemology, while many religious folk will not.

Posted by Randomizer at July 22, 2005 05:21 PM

I think Galileo would have enjoyed this thread.

...Many years ago, at the beginning of the uproar against Copernicus, I wrote a very long essay showing, largely by means of the authority of the Fathers, how great an abuse it is to want to use Holy Scripture so much when dealing with questions about natural phenomena, and how it would be most advisable to prohibit the involvement of Scripture in such disputes Galileo to Diodati (January 15, 1633) ref: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/letterdiodati.html

At that time, Copernicus's De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium had been placed on the Index of Forbidden Books (The index as an official list having force of law was abolished in 1966 under Pope Paul VI, following the end of the Second Vatican Council and largely due to practical considerations. However, the moral obligation of not circulating or reading those writings which endanger faith and morals remains. Almost every great Western philosopher was or is included on the list.)

Galileo had been ordered in 1616 not to talk or write about the Copernican theory, but did so in a dialogue that opposed both sides Ptolemean and Copernican.

Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo
(June 22, 1633)
...The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

Galileo ended up under house arrest for his heresy and also (primarily?)for straying from his science to write a little contrarian theology.

ID fits well in the history of religion trying to subordinate scientific knowledge to religious dogma.

And yes -- I know that Catholicism is not fair proxy for religion in general. However, the tendency to defend the faith against contrary knowlege is a common if not universal tendency among the priests and priestly.

Posted by Randomizer at July 22, 2005 06:26 PM

"Rand is a second-rate and wholly derivative philosopher (assuming one can justify the designation in her case).

Her whole house of cards ..."

I boggled at this, till I realized it referred to "A. Rand", not "Rand S.".

Posted by Bill Woods at July 22, 2005 06:40 PM

I hope I'm not too late to the party? Everyone in this thread should again read the post...

"Gravity is the theory. It was invented by Newton, and refined by Einstein to resolve some of the Newtonian version's deficiencies. The observable facts are phenomena such as (e.g.) objects fall toward the earth's center when released, or that objects in space follow certain trajectories with respect to one another."

...until they understand it, because it clarifies the issue and would cut away many of the useless arguments.

The second point is that people are confusing Faith with Gullibility (yes, there does seem to be an observable high correlation, but sorry, no direct linkage.)

Faith is always based on reason, gullibility is not. Faith is based on observable phenomena that just happen not to be in observance at the moment.

You can have faith in facts that you did not directly observe because you have faith in the reliability of the observer that conveyed the information or data.

Facts remain the thing observed, not the attempt to explain the observation.

Posted by ken anthony at July 22, 2005 07:14 PM

OK, I'll bite. But don't blame me if this thread gets shut down, as Simberg has warned.

First, let me address this claim: that creationists "are reluctant to accept the consequences of a universe that might not be guided by the powerful hand of a divine law-giver, especially the consequences with regards to human morality and life after death." Let me make this clear at the outset: I don't care either way where the evidence leads. If to evolutionism, so be it. As it happens, I don't see the scientific evidence pointing to it, but quite far away. I make a distinction between what scientists say and what science says. So this claim is simply false.

In any case, it's also quite an arrogant claim - that evolutionists are better people since they don't let the metaphysical implications influence their thinking. But evolutionists themselves, such as Dawkins and Huxley, admit that their belief in evolution is intimately tied up with their atheism.

"One way to answer that is to maintain the scientific privilege of the science classroom: only scientific theories should be discussed at any length in science class." But evolutionists resist this. For example, teachers are not allowed to present material in class that question evolutionism - even if it's from New Scientist! Doesn't seem particularly scientific to stifle inquiry, does it? Also, my point that the thought process used to detect design in ID is the same used in SETI has not been disputed - ID, as presented by Behe, is purely a scientific deduction.

"I think the scientific community is more likely to respect the limits of its epistemology, while many religious folk will not." Er, evolutionists like Dawkins frequently pontificate about the nonexistence of God - even though we know very little about the entire universe.

BTW, I appreciate that many religious persons can accept evolutionism as true. If it were true, though, and all the other avenues of inquiry failed to hint at the supernatural, such as the Shroud of Turin, I would simply jettison my theism. However, the atheist cannot accept even the slightest hint of the supernatural; this may explain why their fantasies about what creationists are like (irrational, driven by desire for God to exist, etc.) are so vitriolic.

"Scientists believe in evolution because of the massive evidence on its behalf, and because of the great explanatory power of the theory. Most scientists would find it hard, if not impossible, to think of the world without using the theory of evolution to explain the abundant variety of species and life-forms." Actually, branches of science such as cladistics and molecular biology would feel no impact whatsoever if evolution was falsified tomorrow. Great explanatory power? It's backwards: today's science only allows naturalistic explanations, therefore the only option is evolution, no matter what the evidence. Having dogmatized that, everything else must be shoehorned into the theory.

Oops, haven't gotten into falsification yet. Stay tuned.

Posted by Grimmy at July 22, 2005 07:35 PM

"But evolutionists themselves, such as Dawkins and Huxley, admit that their belief in evolution is intimately tied up with their atheism."

This certainly doesn't apply to Darwin.

Posted by big dirigible at July 22, 2005 08:39 PM

Evolution is a scientific theory that has "proven" its worth by explaining in a coherent way an overwhelmingly broad body of evidence. It is not, however, a grand unified theory of the biosphere. So, the fact that it can't explain everything is irrelevant to it's validity. The gap is a gap, not a God.

BTW there is no such thing as evolutionISM.

teachers are not allowed to present material in class that question evolutionism - even if it's from New Scientist!

Some teachers and some material perhaps -- maybe this is because the curriculum doesn't include hogwash -- even if it sells magazines.

Doesn't seem particularly scientific to stifle inquiry

What's stiffled? The gaps are there -- thanks for pointing them out. Perhaps some scientist will earn a Nobel Prize for integrating these phenomena into evolutionary theory.

If refusing to accept that Jehovah is any different in kind from Jove, Thor, Zeus, Amon-Ra or the whole integrated pantheon of mythical creatures created by man to plug the gaps of our understanding (and serve some primal need for certainty) is arrogant -- I'm terribly guilty.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, continues to exist -- Philip K. Dick

Posted by Randomizer at July 22, 2005 09:33 PM

This Just In ...

"Should Children be Exposed to Facts?

Science! The word is thrown about nowadays as
if it were the miracle of our Age. To hear its
fanatical, wild-eyed supporters talk, one would
think that Science could explain everything in
all Creation and that these 'Scientists' were
privy to the very secrets of the Universe."

Read the whole thing ...

http://onion.com/history/index.php?issue=4129

VBG!

Posted by Ted at July 22, 2005 10:24 PM

Grimmy,

I think you are over-generalizing from your own attitudes.

I can't prove that most creationists are reluctant to accept the consequences of a materialistic as opposed to a divine universe. Yet based on my own experience and research, I believe that it is highly likely to be the case.

I think you may have missed my point.

My point is that it is entirely natural for people to let metaphysical implications to influence their thinking, and that it's not something to sneer at.

I also made the point that scientific beliefs about evolution will influence a person's metaphysical understanding, and that scientists need to recognize that and accept that and be prepared to deal with it.

If Dawkins and Huxley admit that their belief in evolution is intimately tied up with their belief in atheism, then that is precisely an example of what I am talking about. If some creationists believe that evolutionary theory will promote atheism, then we should all respect that belief and understand why they will be hostile to what they consider indoctrination to evolution taking place in science classrooms.

Any evolutionist who resists presenting scientific criticism of evolution in a science class is dead wrong. Stifling inquiry is not scientific.

... branches of science such as cladistics and molecular biology would feel no impact whatsoever if evolution was falsified tomorrow.

That is not true, on both counts. But especially for molecular biology.

Great explanatory power? It's backwards: today's science only allows naturalistic explanations, therefore the only option is evolution, no matter what the evidence. Having dogmatized that, everything else must be shoehorned into the theory.

I can understand if you criticize the theory of evolution as being incomplete, or as stretching plausibility on various points, or even as being too dogmatic in some versions. I might not agree with you, but I would seriously listen to your arguments and weigh their merits to the best of my abilities.

But for you to deny that evolution has great explanatory power is something I do not understand.

To me, evolution is a key that unlocks a chest filled with answers to thousands upon thousands of biological questions. As a scientific skeptic, I am open to the possibility that many of the answers are not satisfactory, or even that they are an elaborate exercise pointing, for unknown reasons, in the wrong direction.

But to assert that the chest full of answers simply does not exist in the first place is a truly astounding idea (and I don't mean astounding in a good sense!).

Your willingness to subject your theism to falsification is admirable. But how would you feel about it if you did end up jettisoning your theism? How would it affect your views on the existence of an objective basis for morality, or on the possibility of life after death? Would changing your views present any difficulties for you either spiritually or emotionally?

I think most people would be significantly unhappy, or even very upset, if they felt compelled to give up their longstanding perspectives on man's place in the cosmos.

I get annoyed just if it takes me an extra two minutes to find my housekeys in the morning.

Perhaps your sporting willingness to jettison your theism if necessary is based on a strong belief, deep down inside, that such an extreme measure would never actually prove necessary.

Anyway, thanks for engaging some of my ideas. If I came across as a little arrogant, that may have been because I was aiming my comments more at the scientists than at the creationists.

I believe scientists need to do a better job at reaching out to people who don't agree with them. Do you agree?

I'm not so sure what creationists should do, though.

By the way, as Big Dirigible points out, the biggest irony is that the prophet of evolution through natural selection, Charles Darwin, was apparently a thorough-going creationist. On the Origin of Species refers to the Creator more times than a Baptist preacher giving a revival sermon.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at July 22, 2005 10:39 PM

Grimmy said:

OK, I'll bite. But don't blame me if this thread gets shut down, as Simberg has warned.
[snip]
I don't care either way where the evidence leads. If to evolutionism, so be it. As it happens, I don't see the scientific evidence pointing to it, but quite far away. I make a distinction between what scientists say and what science says. So this claim is simply false.
[snip]
Oops, haven't gotten into falsification yet. Stay tuned.

And I hope you'll get into the objective evidence for Creationism too? I'm not quite sure who you are responding to, but I didn't see a response to my two questions. Again, Creationism and Evolution aren't the only two possibilities. As long as we don't care about evidence, there are many options, such as causal loops and various types of spontaneous generation. It isn't a question of "either way" but of many possible ways - unless rules are applied.

The issue with ID or Creationism is that, unless you can show objective evidence and provide a falsifiable theory, it isn't science. If you want to believe in it, fine. If you want to teach it as an unsupported belief outside of the science classroom, fine. But only science belongs in the science classroom. You can claim arrogance if you want, but that is how science works.

Posted by VR at July 23, 2005 12:26 AM

Gravity is a scientific fact. There are theories to explain its workings - theories of gravity.

There is Einstein's theory of gravity, part of General Relativity, having to do with mass, inertial motion, and the curvature of spacetime, among other things I'm sure. There is also one or more quantum theories of gravity (don't ask me).

Likewise, evolution is a scientific fact that has several theories that attempt to explain its workings, e.g. Natural Selection and Punctuated Equilibrium.

Evolution, per se, is not a scientific theory.

The pattern to note:

<phenomenon_name> --- "Theory of <phenomenon_name>"

Posted by at July 23, 2005 11:47 AM

Gravity is the name given to an explanation of observations. The observations which can be independantly witnessed are facts.

Used loosely you can say that gravity is a fact, in the same way that normal people refer to work, where physicists have a more precise definition.

The problem with defining Gravity itself as a fact is that you now build upon that 'fact' for other generalizations. Most of the time that isn't a problem, but it can be. It may be that the observations lead to a different conclusion.

If you have difficulty seeing the difference just remember...

Facts don't change. Theories often do.

Gravity is just a lazy way of saying (or shorthand for), 'this particular theory of Gravity.'

Posted by at July 24, 2005 01:31 AM

Big dirigible (cool name): "But evolutionists themselves, such as Dawkins and Huxley, admit that their belief in evolution is intimately tied up with their atheism." - This certainly doesn't apply to Darwin."

But religion was a huge problem for Darwin, who I believe was a Unitarian. He couldn't accept the idea of Hell. Talk about a bone to pick!

Oh oh, I'm going to be sidetracked again. "Evolution is a scientific theory that has "proven" its worth by explaining in a coherent way an overwhelmingly broad body of evidence." - Only if you accept its claims in the most superficial sense. In almost every area, once you dig deeper, it collapses. e.g. claims about how molecular bio has proven it tend to ignore the insurmountable problems that field has raised for the theory, such as the surprises Denton describes in his book.

And that's what evolutionISM is - a religion. Not that there's anything wrong with that (except for it's negative effects on society and science). There are so many more claims that have to be taken on faith alone (or lazy thinking) that I cannot believe it, although the idea of not being accountable to a higher power is attractive.

"I can't prove that most creationists are reluctant to accept the consequences of a materialistic as opposed to a divine universe. Yet based on my own experience and research, I believe that it is highly likely to be the case." - You've actually researched creationist attitudes regarding the implications? Wow. Well, you must have missed people like Philip Johnson, who assumed evolution was true UNTIL he read Dawkins and was shocked by the poor quality of his argument. In any case, my position remains as stated. Your other points are well taken.

"But for you to deny that evolution has great explanatory power is something I do not understand." - I guess this poor fellow needs your help - "The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs ... as has been repeatedly shown ... the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up." H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11. Why is he so sure? "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."

Hope in molecular biology? "It seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies; so many in fact that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message". (Biochemist & Evolutionist, Christian Schwabe, Medical University of S. Carolina, 'On the Validity of Molecular Evolution', Trends in Biochemical Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 7, July 1986)

Advanced science? "I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity." W.R. Thompson, Introduction to Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species [Canadian scientist]. Or: "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

Evolutionists need to have the courage of this guy (regarding the big bang):

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." H. Lipson, A Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

You ask, "But how would you feel about it if you did end up jettisoning your theism?" It'd be a little depressing, sure, realizing that we're an absurd dance of atoms in a cosmos devoid of meaning, but if that's the truth, so be it. Believing a lie, no matter how noble, brings little comfort to me. Yes, we might be really unhappy, but we should be. Of course there are science fictions to hope for, but in the end there's the end of the universe, which is inescapable.

And - I'd still need a better explanation for our existence than what is currently offered by evolutionism.

Lastly, Darwin's references to a Creator were lip service, necessary for his ideas to be even considered. He was pretty bent out of shape about Hell, since he believed his father would be there, I think (separate topic, please).

Posted by Grimmy at July 24, 2005 02:43 PM

VR, you said: "unless you can show objective evidence and provide a falsifiable theory, it isn't science." In that case, I'd be very interested to see how you think evolutionism could be falsified.

Here are my thoughts on how creationism could be falsified. Note that "creationism" embraces a wide range of beliefs - young/old earth, Russell Humphreys' view involving relativity, instant/evolved universe, etc. But the most basic tenet I'll use is this: the universe was created by the being who has revealed himself in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Why? Because an important corollary is: creation reveals the creator's existence. Also, that creator is omniscient. So here are what I hope are falsifiable claims:

• Evidence of design apparent in every era
• Abrupt appearance of universe and life
• Organisms not in transition or experimental stages but fully formed and adapted to mode of life
• There exist origins and features unexplainable by naturalistic means
• Loss of genetic information rather than gains
• Limited variation within “kinds”

I hope these are a good starting point. I await your suggestions likewise on evolution.

Posted by Grimmy at July 24, 2005 02:56 PM

Argsdaine: "What they are doing is making use of skepticism to destroy science and return us to a time when scientific speculation could only be carried on within the restraints of the belief in God and a literal interpretation of the Bible."

If science can be destroyed by skepticism, what kind of science is that? Isn't questioning the basis of science? The reason most scientists seem to accept it is it's hammered into their brain - even using "examples" the evolutionary community admits are frauds. And since problems with the theory are censored from the classroom, I'm not surprised most scientists believe it. Just because most researchers in Japan believed SMON was a virus doesn't mean it was ever the best conclusion, in retrospect.

Any faith that is so scared of questions should be suspect.

And belief in a God of order, far from imposing restraints, freed up the human mind to explore this order, to apprehend the mind of God. And thus science was resurrected. While nonbelief in the supernatural closes off whole areas of inquiry as nonsense - even before it's evaluated. Thus the Acambaro figurines are obviously "forgeries", without any credible explanation as to how and where such forgeries were being produced and BURIED UNDER THE FLOOR OF THE POLICE CHIEF'S HOUSE! (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm#second)

Posted by Grimmy at July 24, 2005 03:15 PM

I'd like to offer this thought: that creationism is largely not a scientific theory, but rather a scientific critique of evolution. Though it may make some predictions as mentioned above, and though its practicioners may indeed advance scientific knowledge - for example, publicizing the rapid formation of coal, which destroys popular myths about coal, time, and geology, and may allow for applications of this knowledge. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp) Or that the pop science notion that birds came from dinosaurs is a fiction (birds not alleged to have evolved from the bird-hipped dinos!).

Posted by Grimmy at July 24, 2005 03:31 PM

I'd like to offer this thought: that creationism is largely not a scientific theory, but rather a scientific critique of evolution.

We know you would, but it remains an invalid thought. Creationism is not a scientific critique of evolution--it is an unscientific one, and in fact a flawed critique of the scientific method itself.

Please stop polluting this comment section with a defense of creationism. I said many comments ago that such a debate is not the purpose of this post. Failure to do so will result in banning. Creationism may be right, or wrong, but it is not science.

And lest you whine about "censorship," there are plenty of places to debate that issue. This is not one of them. I really resent your hogging my drive space and bandwidth to promulgate your non-scientific beliefs.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 24, 2005 03:38 PM

Grimmy,

Believing a lie, no matter how noble, brings little comfort to me.

Then, despite our disagreement of some of the details, we're on the same page.

Thanks for providing the provocative quotes. I want to respond more fully when I have more time; in the meantime, do you have any links for the material you quoted. It would help me check it out, thanks.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at July 24, 2005 03:40 PM

Rand,

This might sound silly, but it's a serious question:

Since Darwin was a creationist (Grimmy says it was mere lip service, but I disagree), doesn't that make the theory of evolution through natural selection a species of creationism?

Posted by Matthew Goggins at July 24, 2005 03:46 PM

Grimmy,

If you don't want to post here any links you might have, you can e-mail them to me:

mjpgoggins@att.net

Thanks.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at July 24, 2005 03:48 PM

Rand,

I guess you found my question a bit too silly, but after investigating it myself, I've come up with an answer:

The theory of natural selection used to be a species of creationism, but currently it is not.

And even when it was a creationist theory, there was a very strong tension between the implications of the theory of natural selection and the theory's creationist assumptions.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at July 25, 2005 08:11 AM

Please stop polluting this comment section with a defense of creationism. I said many comments ago that such a debate is not the purpose of this post. Failure to do so will result in banning.

My apologies, Rand. I'd suggested moving this discussion somewhere else for that very reason. Thanks for your patience.

Matthew, love your site, especially the update on the cruel and inhumane treatement of prisoners at Gitmo. I'll email you.

Posted by Grimmy at July 25, 2005 08:14 AM

Grimmy,

Since I don't have ready access to the various journals and publications you cited, I haven't been able to obtain the context of the various quotes you cite, with the exception of Philip Johnson.

However, I have been able to find volumes of material on the internet that answer the assertions you quote (and that you make yourself) about the explanatory power of evolution.

A good place to start is a website called Talk.Origins Archive.

In particular, I strongly recommend their article 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent, by Douglas Theobald.

About Philip Johnson... He is a brilliant literary critic and historian, a terrific person. I appreciate his skepticism towards evolution, because I am a skeptic myself. But he does seem to be unaware of a lot of the evidence that proves the theory of evolution.

To be fair, he does not reject evolution out of hand. He believes in micro-evolution, and in the multi-billion year geological evolution of the earth, for example. But his rejection of macro-evolution seems to be truly based on ignorance.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at July 25, 2005 08:32 AM

Grimmy,

Just read your latest comment.

Thanks, I look forward to hearing from you.

Posted by Matthew Goggins at July 25, 2005 08:35 AM

Yes, I've seen an atom. I've used scanning tunneling microscopy to observe them. If you're not a working physicist or an engineer working at the atomic level, you likely don't have access to one, but you can see pictures at URLs like IBM's Almaden Laboratory web site http://www.almaden.ibm.com/vis/stm/gallery.html

As to the person who mentioned quarks, I'm not sure why you think that the existence of subatomic particles like quarks indicates that atomic model doesn't work. It's true that atoms were given their name because they were originally thought to be indivisible, but atomic theory doesn't depend on them being indivisible.

Regarding AST's question--Who recorded the Big Bang?--we did and we are continuing to record it. The Big Bang is an ongoing event, which scientists observe on a daily basis in the form of the cosmic microwave background radiation and the recession of galaxies away from us.

Posted by James Wald at July 28, 2005 06:40 PM

Post a comment