Posts by hooberus

46

"Science is not Bad, but there is Bad Science."

by Rod P in

don't get me wrong here.

nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.

they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.

hooberus

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=7

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=840

38

Is Intelligent Design self-refuting ?

by hooberus in

.

some critics (here) of intelligent design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.

since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, i thought it should be given its own thread.

hooberus

The Giant's Causeway in Co. Antrim, Ireland, a spectacular array of hexagonal basalt columns is a beautiful example of complexity arising entirely from natural forces. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant%27s_causeway for details.

I'm skeptical as to whether the formation of basaltic columns (found in several places around the world) is truely an example of real complexity analogous to biological structural type complxity arising entirely from "natural forces." These structures appear to form from properties in lava during cooling.

This seems similar to the snowflake pattern or salt crystal formation arguments that some evolutionists put forward as an "example" of claimed natural "complexity":

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/snowflakes.asp

21

Scientists and evolution

by gringojj in

the wts says evolution didnt happen.

i told my wife that majority of the scientific community believes in evolution.

i think this is true but does anyone know where i can get some hard statistics on what percentage of scientists believe in evolution?

hooberus

singular? ; of course there are some out there who are not christians! ; there's a well known one who is a Moonie. ; maybe that's why i said "usually". ;

My bringing us ReMine's book was not merely to respond to your claim of "usually christain fundamentalism" but also to your other points such as:

"because there are none of substance. none of those "alternate interpretations" survive what evolutionary theory has survived. they do not explain, they preach, ...usually christian fundamentalism."

21

Scientists and evolution

by gringojj in

the wts says evolution didnt happen.

i told my wife that majority of the scientific community believes in evolution.

i think this is true but does anyone know where i can get some hard statistics on what percentage of scientists believe in evolution?

hooberus

gringo,
regarding this argument from authority, you may want to use this quote from a letter to the editor of the New York Times Book Review, that Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould had been working on before professor Gould's death:
Like any flourishing science, the study of evolution has its internal controversies, as we (Dawkins and Gould) both know. But no qualified scientist doubts that evolution is a fact, in the ordinarily accepted sense in which it is a fact that the Earth orbits the Sun. It is a fact that human beings are cousins to monkeys, kangaroos, jellyfish and bacteria. No reputable biologist doubts this. Nor do reputable theologians, from the Pope on. Unfortunately, many lay Americans do, including some frighteningly influential, powerful and, above all, well-financed ones.

This is simply a bunch of (false) dogmatic propaganda. Though a definite minority there are numerous "qualified scientists" (including biologists) who believe that fish to philosopher evolution is not true.

21

Scientists and evolution

by gringojj in

the wts says evolution didnt happen.

i told my wife that majority of the scientific community believes in evolution.

i think this is true but does anyone know where i can get some hard statistics on what percentage of scientists believe in evolution?

hooberus

because there are none of substance. none of those "alternate interpretations" survive what evolutionary theory has survived. they do not explain, they preach, ...usually christian fundamentalism.

Publications such as "The Biotic Message" by Walter ReMine are evidence against your assertions.

http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/books/b084.htm

and the euphemism of Intelligent Design is no better. perhaps because it was founded by Phillip Johnson (not a biologist, nor a scientist of any kind but a mid life born-again christian who became a lawyer).

Intelligent designn theory was around long before Johnson came on the scene. (for example William Paley - 1802), see also also books such as "The Creation-Evolution Controversy" Wyson 1976.

21

Scientists and evolution

by gringojj in

the wts says evolution didnt happen.

i told my wife that majority of the scientific community believes in evolution.

i think this is true but does anyone know where i can get some hard statistics on what percentage of scientists believe in evolution?

hooberus

It should be noted that while the above letter tends to generally focus specifically on neo-Darwinism, the author also uses the more general term "evolutionary theory" as well. Indeed, the Kanas situation (which the letter is about) is a debate which also focuses on problems with evolution in general.

It should also be noted that a significant factor in establishing evolution as a "majority" belief among those with a higher science education is probably the nature of the science education itself - an enducation which presents only the evolutionary interpretation of data, in a dogmatic, repetitious manner, with no alternate interpretations of the same data provided besides the evolutionary ones.

21

Scientists and evolution

by gringojj in

the wts says evolution didnt happen.

i told my wife that majority of the scientific community believes in evolution.

i think this is true but does anyone know where i can get some hard statistics on what percentage of scientists believe in evolution?

hooberus

The following letter (written by a NAS member) contains some interesting comments:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2568

An Open Letter to the Kansas State Board of Education

By: Dr. Philip S. Skell
Dr. Philip S. Skell
May 12, 2005

An open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education from Professor Philip S. Skell, Member, National Academy of Sciences, Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus Penn State University.

May 12, 2005

Dr. Steve E. Abrams, Chair
Kansas State Board of Education
C/o Kansas State Department of Education
120 SE 10th Avenue
Topeka KS 66612-1182
Fax: (785) 296-7933

Dear Dr. Abrams:

I have been following the controversy over the adoption of new science standards in your state with interest. I am writing—as a member of the National Academy of Sciences—to voice my strong support for the idea that students should be able to study scientific criticisms of the evidence for modern evolutionary theory along with the evidence favoring the theory.

All too often, the issue of how to teach evolutionary theory has been dominated by voices at the extremes. On one extreme, many religious activists have advocated for Bible-based ideas about creation to be taught and for evolution to be eliminated from the science curriculum entirely. On the other hand, many committed Darwinian biologists present students with an idealized version of the theory that glosses over real problems and prevents students from learning about genuine scientific criticisms of it.

Both these extremes are mistaken. Evolution is an important theory and students need to know about it. But scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well.

Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work. I have found that some of my scientific colleagues are very reluctant to acknowledge the existence of problems with evolutionary theory to the general public. They display an almost religious zeal for a strictly Darwinian view of biological origins.

Darwinian evolution is an interesting theory about the remote history of life. Nonetheless, it has little practical impact on those branches of science that do not address questions of biological history (largely based on stones, the fossil evidence). Modern biology is engaged in the examination of tissues from living organisms with new methods and instruments. None of the great discoveries in biology and medicine over the past century depended on guidance from Darwinian evolution---it provided no support.

As an aside, one might ask what Darwin would have written today if he was aware of the present state of knowledge of cell biology, rather than that of the mid 19th century when it was generally believed the cell was an enclosed blob of gelatin? As an exemplar, I draw your attention to what Prof. James A. Shapiro, bacteriologist, U. of Chicago, wrote (http://www.bostonreview.net/br22.1/shapiro.html).

For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any criticism of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.

In my judgment, this state of affairs has persisted mainly because too many scientists were afraid to challenge what had become a philosophical orthodoxy among their colleagues. Fortunately, that is changing as many scientists are now beginning to examine the evidence for neo-Darwinism more openly and critically in scientific journals.

Intellectual freedom is fundamental to the scientific method. Learning to think creatively, logically and critically is the most important training that young scientists can receive. Encouraging students to carefully examine the evidence for and against neo-Darwinism, therefore, will help prepare students not only to understand current scientific arguments, but also to do good scientific research.

I commend you for your efforts to ensure that students are more fully informed about current debates over neo-Darwinism in the scientific community.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Philip S. Skell
Member, National Academy of Sciences
Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus
Penn State University

38

Is Intelligent Design self-refuting ?

by hooberus in

.

some critics (here) of intelligent design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.

since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, i thought it should be given its own thread.

hooberus

This is quite a clever trick. By creating a new category of object for your designer, you can circumvent the requirement for a meta-designer.

There is no "trick" involved:

Virtually everyone (including the evolutionists) agree that we are dealing with objects that have an origin (ie: have not always existed).

The Bible and christian theology have taught for numerous centuries that God has no origin. (Thus I have not created "a new category of object" for the designer).

However, now you're not only postulating an entity not known to exist but you're postulating a type of entity not known to exist.

This thread is not over the existence of God, but rather whether or not it is "self-refuting" to postulate an intelligent designer (or the requirement for one) from observed complexity.

While you've sealed up the logical flaw in the argument so that it is now internally consistent,

I'm glad that you at least admit that the ID argument is capable of being "internally consistent" - thus not necessarily "self-refuting."

it still does not come close to qualifying as a scientific argument.
Let me explain:
You claim that all complex objects (that have an origin) must have a designer. This is actually unfounded as the only objects we know for sure to have been designed, have been designed by humans. The purpose of ID is to prove that all complex objects must have a designer. You start with that conclusion as a premise, making a circular argument.

When ID proponets may claim that all complex objects (that have an origin) must have a designer (or are evidence of a designer), they do not merely substantiate such a claim by the claim itself, but rather by things such as analogy arguments, probability calculations, etc.

While we really don't know whether all complex things must have a designer, one thing we do know is that all objects in the known universe do have an origin. Every single one of them. You're postulating an exception to that rule for no other reason except that your argument would necessarily fail if you did not.

The claim that God has no origin is not being made "for no other reason except that" my "argument would necessarily fail" if I did not claim it, but instead is based on the fact that this is what the Bible and theology have taught for centuries.

So you're taking your preferred conclusion as a premise, and using a loophole that requires you to postulate a new category of object, just to make it self-consistent.

Once again I am not postulating "a new category of object, just to make it self-consistent.", but instead am pointing out how it is not necessarily "self-refuting" to postulate intelligent design (or required intelligent design) for complex objects such as life.

38

Is Intelligent Design self-refuting ?

by hooberus in

.

some critics (here) of intelligent design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.

since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, i thought it should be given its own thread.

hooberus

The logic of intelligent design goes something like this:

1. All objects of a certain level of complexity must have an intelligent designer.
2. All life on earth is above this threshold level of complexity.
3. Therefore, all life on earth has an intelligent designer.
So far, that seems fine. (Personally, I disagree with points 1 and 2, but internally it's perfectly consistent and logical.)
But what about the Intelligent Designer? In order to be intelligent enough to design such complex entities, he (or she or it or they, but I'll stick with he) must himself be complex, at least as complex as, say, an ant, probably immensely more so. Now if an ant is of such complexity that it requires an intelligent designer, the designer himself being more complex must by the above logic, require a designer of his own. By that reasoning, of course, the designer's designer also requires a designer. And so on.
This sort of infinite recursion is problematic for ID theorists, and most will simply declare their deity of choice to be the First Cause, an exception to this apparently immutable law that complexity requires a designer. It cannot possibly be scientific to postulate an entity, and then declare that it is immune to the laws which required you to postulate it. Therefore, intelligent design theory is internally inconsistent and self-refuting.

The problem with the above is that it overlooks the point that we are dealing with the issue of the origin of these objects, thus we are dealing with objects that have an origin in time. Therefore, (to use the same wording) a Biblical creationist may clarify with some thing like:

1. All objects which have an origin and a certain level of complexity must have an intelligent designer.

2. All life on earth has an origin and is above this threshold level of complexity.

3. Therefore, all life on earth has an intelligent designer.

Since (according to the Bible) God is eternal (ie: no origin), he would not fall under the above "complexity law." Therfore, there is no requirement (based on the above logic) for God to have required an intelligent designer.

38

Is Intelligent Design self-refuting ?

by hooberus in

.

some critics (here) of intelligent design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.

since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, i thought it should be given its own thread.

hooberus

As "science" it is self refuting since it not a theory and as such has never been peer reviewed. ID is a perfectly good topic of conversation in a theological context but it is not science and never will be, it's proponents are religous crackpots who should put their money where their mouth is and submit an "ID theory" paper for review. Of course that is never going to happen.

Several ID papers have been subject to peer review for example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv15n3_Protein_Families.pdf There are several journals (edited by P.hD. scientists) that publish peer reviewed ID papers.