|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/22/2008 4:59:12 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is what I am talking about. Evolution is wrong, therefore ID. That is not how science works.
Well that is not the primary contention of ID, as I noted above.
quote:
Those criticisms must include testable mechanisms. Relativity was a valid criticism not because classic physics could not explain the precession of Mercury but because the bending of space could be independently tested. The Big Bang was a valid criticism of the Steady State theory because it could explain the cosmic microwave background through known mechanisms without ever referring to the Steady State theory. Relativity and the Big Bang were not accepted simply due to the fact that Newtonian physics and the Steady State theory were wrong. They were accepted because they were right on their own.
Evolution really has very few ‘testable’ mechanisms per se. That is one of the problems with it, and a valid criticism of it.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/22/2008 5:54:31 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well that is not the primary contention of ID, as I noted above.
Then it needs to move beyond simply criticism of competing theories and move into a stage where it stands on its own as a focus of original research. The rubber needs to meet the road, as it were.
quote:
Evolution really has very few ‘testable’ mechanisms per se. That is one of the problems with it, and a valid criticism of it.
Which mechanisms are not testable?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/22/2008 6:17:40 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Then it needs to move beyond simply criticism of competing theories and move into a stage where it stands on its own as a focus of original research. The rubber needs to meet the road, as it were.
Yes, and it's starting to do that at the Biologic lab.
quote:
Which mechanisms are not testable?
It would be easier to try to figure out which mechanisms and claims are.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/22/2008 6:22:53 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Yes, and it's starting to do that at the Biologic lab.
After the criticism you levied in the other thread, Jhud about atheists tending to lean on the future of science vice what it has to offer now, I can't help but ask; If ID is "starting to" stand on its own two feet in the lab, then haven't you been leaning on the promise of future progress in much the same way you claim that atheists are..
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/22/2008 6:49:24 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Yes, and it's starting to do that at the Biologic lab.
This would seem to be as good a place as any to outline how ID is applied in this research.
quote:
It would be easier to try to figure out which mechanisms and claims are.
Random mutation with respect to fitness: the Luria-Delbruck fluctuation assay is the gold standard for illustrating this.
Natural selection: The L-D experiment does this too, but there are numerous other examples.
Speciation: this has been observed in both the lab and in the wild.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/22/2008 7:39:23 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
This is what I am talking about. Evolution is wrong, therefore ID. That is not how science works.
Well that is not the primary contention of ID, as I noted above.
quote:
Those criticisms must include testable mechanisms. Relativity was a valid criticism not because classic physics could not explain the precession of Mercury but because the bending of space could be independently tested. The Big Bang was a valid criticism of the Steady State theory because it could explain the cosmic microwave background through known mechanisms without ever referring to the Steady State theory. Relativity and the Big Bang were not accepted simply due to the fact that Newtonian physics and the Steady State theory were wrong. They were accepted because they were right on their own.
Evolution really has very few ‘testable’ mechanisms per se. That is one of the problems with it, and a valid criticism of it.
Evolution has mutation and selection.
ID has NO mechanisms, testable or untestable.
It seems odd to me that you'd criticize evolution for having few mechanisms when ID has none. <shrug>
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 8:06:50 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Snot surprising that evolutionary biology (EB) has all the mechanisms and ID has none. After all, tis EB that contends that material mechanisms are capable of accounting for all biological complexity. ID contends that it cannot, and that design must be brought in as well to fully account for complexity. The particulars of how and when this design was introduced may some day be investigated, but for now the inquiry is whether or not design is detectable and present.
ID is refutable by demonstrating that undirected natural processes fully account for specified complexity in any instance. Until EB succeeds in doing that, design will be a nagging possibility.
And EB has certainly not succeeded to date. In fact, the more we learn about the biochemical heavy lifting and daunting improbabilities that have to be overcome, the less likely it is that undirected natural mechanism explain it all. That is Behe' s point. Check out his latest book, BTW.
At a minimum, biology should allow the possibility of design in cases of biological SC. And to their credit, some design critics allow that. But the dominant view in EB today is that design is ruled out a priori and in principle, no matter the failures of EB and the fact that SC is reliably correlated with intelligence in contexts where the causal history is independently known. In fact, EB allows only one line of criticism against itself, and that is to show that SC in any instance could not have arisen via any material mechanism. IOW, so long as some unknown material mechanism (as a mere conceptual possibility) might have evolved the structure in question, ID is ruled out. This renders EB immune to disconfirmation in principle because the universe of unknown material mechanism is inexhaustible. (see Dembski p. 279)
So it seems EB proponents are the ones guilty of promoting pseudo-science. They accept no burden of evidence. Debmski says (p. 279): "Instead of empirical evidence deciding between evolutionary biology and intellignet design, evolutionary biology is declared the winner by default. This isn't science. This is dogmatism."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 8:13:20 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Now all that notwithstanding, ID does seem to have created a mighty problem for itself by accepting EB's premise that it must rule out all unknown mechanism in order to succeed. See my earlier comments. (This is confusing to me in light of the preceding quote from Dembski.) Dembski proposes a method and rationale for accomplishing this, but so far I haven't seen it applied. Indeed, I don't understand how one calculates the improbabilities and "sweeps the field" of all competing explanations. I guess I will have to read Dembski's book No Free Lunch.
cordially,
ferd
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 9:20:06 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Now all that notwithstanding, ID does seem to have created a mighty problem for itself by accepting EB's premise that it must rule out all unknown mechanism in order to succeed. See my earlier comments. (This is confusing to me in light of the preceding quote from Dembski.) Dembski proposes a method and rationale for accomplishing this, but so far I haven't seen it applied. Indeed, I don't understand how one calculates the improbabilities and "sweeps the field" of all competing explanations. I guess I will have to read Dembski's book No Free Lunch.
cordially,
ferd
Good idea. Be sure to read Kenneth Miller's Only a Theory as well. That way you are looking at all the arguments from both sides. Fair is fair, right?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 11:53:04 AM
|
|
|
ferdgoodfellow
Posts: 237
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Yes, I will get Miller's book too.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 7:52:10 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Evolution has mutation and selection.
ID has NO mechanisms, testable or untestable.
It seems odd to me that you'd criticize evolution for having few mechanisms when ID has none.
Mutation and selection aren't 'mechanisms', they are occurences.
And there are several theories concerning the mechanisms that drive biological processes, which vary greatly in terms of considering causes and explanations and activities found in the biological world. When you say "ID has none", which mechanistic theory are you consulting?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 10:02:13 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Mutation and selection aren't 'mechanisms', they are occurences.
Oh please. That is a rather pathetic attempt. I expect better from you.
The process of mutation is a mechanism, a mechanism that produces changes in DNA sequence that is random with respect to fitness. That is a mechanism. Selection is differential reproductive success which is easily modeled in the field of population genetics. You might as well claim that gravity is not a mechanism of canyon formation, it is just an occurence.
quote:
And there are several theories concerning the mechanisms that drive biological processes, which vary greatly in terms of considering causes and explanations and activities found in the biological world. When you say "ID has none", which mechanistic theory are you consulting?
What are the mechanisms of ID? How do we observe them in the lab? Can we watch a supernatural deity producing mutations in the lab?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 10:11:14 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Oh please. That is a rather pathetic attempt. I expect better from you.
The process of mutation is a mechanism, a mechanism that produces changes in DNA sequence that is random with respect to fitness. That is a mechanism. Selection is differential reproductive success which is easily modeled in the field of population genetics. You might as well claim that gravity is not a mechanism of canyon formation, it is just an occurence.
Actually, at best mutation can be said to be fuel for selection, it doesn't 'produce' anything in particular. And it's not particularly reliable as a mechanism - it's not as if we can predict what particular set of changes will result in as we can with many natural processes. Quite different than gravity's affect on objects which is highly quantifiable.
What are the mechanisms of ID? How do we observe them in the lab? Can we watch a supernatural deity producing mutations in the lab?
Well again, where do you derive those terms from? There are many scientific philosophies from which we consider mechanisms, causes and effects, and not all of them entail machine like behavior. But ID does not require anything supernatural, simply intelligence, the activity of which is observable.
But let me ask you this - what mechanism caused the words you wrote to exist on the screen?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 10:23:21 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ferdgoodfellow
Snot surprising that evolutionary biology (EB) has all the mechanisms and ID has none. After all, tis EB that contends that material mechanisms are capable of accounting for all biological complexity. ID contends that it cannot, and that design must be brought in as well to fully account for complexity. The particulars of how and when this design was introduced may some day be investigated, but for now the inquiry is whether or not design is detectable and present.
There is already a methodology that proposes non-materialistic, supernatural mechanisms which produce design. It is called religion. Your need to bend the definition of science in order to fit your relitious beliefs is a tacit admission that science is better than religion. In order for you to take your own religious beliefs seriously you need people to call it science.
If you seriously think that religion is a more powerful tool for investigating the natural world then do away with all science. Embrace all possibilities, the possibilities that maybe, just maybe, gravity is caused by invisible pink fairies. It could be true, right? So science is wrong for rejecting this idea, right?
The fact of the matter is that you are fighting the wrong fight. Science is not about ideology. It is about results, usefulness, and pragmatism. Scientists need theories that work, not theories that best fit their ideology or religious tenets. That is why there is no such thing as Hindu physics or Muslim chemistry. Science is science, and when you read a scientific paper there is simply no way that you can discern the religious convictions of the authors. What you read is straightforward facts and a pragmatic approach to the data.
ID/creationists, on the other hand, treat science as a battle ground of ideology. This is why they lose. They think that yelling the loudest wins. It doesn't. Data wins. Supported hypotheses win. Acceptance of your ideas by your peers, who you are in strong competition with you for grant money and publications, wins. Being able to make specific and testable hypotheses wins. DOING ORIGINAL RESEARCH WINS.
If ID/creationists really do buy into their rhetoric they would be telling school boards that they should abandon science classes and replace them with bible studies.
quote:
ID is refutable by demonstrating that undirected natural processes fully account for specified complexity in any instance. Until EB succeeds in doing that, design will be a nagging possibility.
If ID is science then it needs to succeed on it's own. Why is it that when we ask if ID is science the first words out of the mouths of ID proponents is "But evolution . . . ". If the theory had not been discovered what would ID proponents do? Without a shadow to stand in ID would wither quite quickly.
quote:
And EB has certainly not succeeded to date.
Hundreds of thousands of research papers say differently. The purpose of the theory of evolution is not to convince bull-headed creationists that evolution is correct, or that God does not exist. The purpose of the theory is to give biologists a tool for investigating biodiverisity, and it has great, great success in doing so.
quote:
At a minimum, biology should allow the possibility of design in cases of biological SC.
Science allows for invisible pink fairies producing gravity. However, theories are only accepted when they are able to make accurate and testable predictions. Science follows curiosity and evidence. ID has neither.
quote:
So it seems EB proponents are the ones guilty of promoting pseudo-science. They accept no burden of evidence.
That's completely false. Ever heard of the twin nested hierarchies?
quote:
Debmski says (p. 279): "Instead of empirical evidence deciding between evolutionary biology and intellignet design, evolutionary biology is declared the winner by default. This isn't science. This is dogmatism."
Oh really? Let's see what you said before.
"ID is refutable by demonstrating that undirected natural processes fully account for specified complexity in any instance. Until EB succeeds in doing that, design will be a nagging possibility."
In this quote you treat ID as the default answer. Care to explain?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 10:29:08 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
That's completely false. Ever heard of the twin nested hierarchies?
Just out of curiosity - what reliable and consitent methodologies are used to produce these hiearchies?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 10:30:39 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, at best mutation can be said to be fuel for selection, it doesn't 'produce' anything in particular.
Why is it fuel for selection?
quote:
And it's not particularly reliable as a mechanism - it's not as if we can predict what particular set of changes will result in as we can with many natural processes. Quite different than gravity's affect on objects which is highly quantifiable.
If gravity, water condensation, and nuclear fusion are all highly quantifiable why can't we predict the path of a river over time?
quote:
Well again, where do you derive those terms from?
If you require the observed evolution of an IC system in the lab shouldn't you be required to show a supernatural deity producing the same thing in the lab? Or is ID protected from such criticisms?
quote:
But ID does not require anything supernatural, simply intelligence, the activity of which is observable.
Then you have the uncomfortable fact that the first designer came about naturally without any help from another intelligence. Why not have humans as the first designers?
quote:
But let me ask you this - what mechanism caused the words you wrote to exist on the screen?
Neuronal activity, electricity, optics, etc. No supernatural intelligence involved or required.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 10:33:49 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
That's completely false. Ever heard of the twin nested hierarchies?
Just out of curiosity - what reliable and consitent methodologies are used to produce these hiearchies?
The methodology is cladistics.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/phylogenetics_01
The accuracy of any phylogeny (i.e. nested hierarchy) is directly related to the abundance of evidence available.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 10:38:15 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why is it fuel for selection?
Presumably it provides genetic variation which can be selected.
quote:
If gravity, water condensation, and nuclear fusion are all highly quantifiable why can't we predict the path of a river over time?
We could if we were able to make sufficiently sophisticated measurements.
quote:
If you require the observed evolution of an IC system in the lab shouldn't you be required to show a supernatural deity producing the same thing in the lab? Or is ID protected from such criticisms?
Because the I in ID is intelligence - do have intelligence? Are you supernatural? Can you be observed?
quote:
Then you have the uncomfortable fact that the first designer came about naturally without any help from another intelligence. Why not have humans as the first designers?
I don't have to know wher gravity came from to observe it's effects and proffer it as a cause.
quote:
Neuronal activity, electricity, optics, etc. No supernatural intelligence involved or required.
And how do these mechanisms produce the words?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 10:46:24 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Evolution has mutation and selection.
ID has NO mechanisms, testable or untestable.
It seems odd to me that you'd criticize evolution for having few mechanisms when ID has none.
Mutation and selection aren't 'mechanisms', they are occurences.
And there are several theories concerning the mechanisms that drive biological processes, which vary greatly in terms of considering causes and explanations and activities found in the biological world. When you say "ID has none", which mechanistic theory are you consulting?
Mutatuion and selection are the mechanims of evolution. There is no doubt mutation and selection occur and they drive evolution. I don't understand how you can deny they are mechanisms.
We've been through this before. You've claimed that ID has methods and mechanisms, but you were unable to come up with anything resembling mechanisms that the Designer would have used. Do you have any new information to share about the mechanisms that ID proposes the Designer used?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 10:47:27 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Mutation and selection aren't 'mechanisms', they are occurences.
And there are several theories concerning the mechanisms that drive biological processes, which vary greatly in terms of considering causes and explanations and activities found in the biological world. When you say "ID has none", which mechanistic theory are you consulting?
Mutation and selection are mechanisms of evolution.
Biological processes within organisms are not mechanisms of evolution.
Evolution is a process involving species, not biological processes pertinent to individuals.
In terms of their impact on individuals, it may be accurate to call mutation and selection "occurrences", but they are still mechanisms of evolution at a species-level.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 10:47:54 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Mutatuion and selection are the mechanims of evolution. There is no doubt mutation and selection occur and they drive evolution. I don't understand how you can deny they are mechanisms.
We've been through this before. You've claimed that ID has methods and mechanisms, but you were unable to come up with anything resembling mechanisms that the Designer would have used. Do you have any new information to share about the mechanisms that ID proposes the Designer used?
Actually, I am glad you joined us - perhaps you can tell us where the words on the screen came from?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 10:54:26 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Mutation and selection are mechanisms of evolution.
Biological processes within organisms are not mechanisms of evolution.
Evolution is a process involving species, not biological processes pertinent to individuals.
In terms of their impact on individuals, it may be accurate to call mutation and selection "occurrences", but they are still mechanisms of evolution at a species-level.
So would you say a gene duplication is a biological process?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID is not science - 7/23/2008 10:55:36 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 859
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
So would you say a gene duplication is a biological process?
Since it is a process that happens in biological organisms, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
