I recently wrote a post about black and grey areas of science, arguing that if the success of a theory is measured after the fact and not before it, then we cannot tell the difference between black areas of science and grey areas of science.

A similar argument that is often seen is that while there are no hard and fast rules that demarcate science from "pseudoscience," we can, never the less, tell the difference between the two in most instances.  The analogy that is often used (and mentioned at the end of John Wilkins' post) is that while we can't precisely tell when day turns into night, we can confidently say that at 1:00 pm it is daytime.  So, even though at 7:00 pm the sun may be down but light may still be visible, we can with all certainty say that at midnight it is pitch black.

In order for this analogy to work, ideas must be placed on a continuum - perhaps with well-established theories like quantum mechanics and general relativity positioned far to the left and pseudoscience and other forms of quackery, like Intelligent Design (creationism) and homeopathic medicine positioned at the far right.  A whole host of other ideas will find themselves somewhere in between.   And while can't say precisely where on the continuum good science ends and bad science begins, we can be quite sure about the stuff found on either end.

This is a pretty plausible analogy.  One thing it leads us to conclude, though, (which I mentioned in the previous post) is that, because this is a continuum, those ideas on the far right could shift their way over to the left if they are worked on and developed by some dedicated (tenacious) people.  And, likewise, those ideas on the far left could move to the right if scientists no longer feel they are supported by the evidence or if scientists just don't find them useful any more.  (Remember, the place on the continuum isn't supposed to be determined by the content of the theory, but by the method it's followers are using.  This is another strange thing (according to conventional wisdom) about methodological naturalism, BTW - it's demarcation criterion is based on the content of the theory and not the way in which the theory was formed.  But that's a topic for another post.)  So that is one problem with the daytime-nighttime analogy - 2:00 am will still be nighttime and noon will still be daytime in 20 years, while theories may move around on our idea continuum.

There is a popular myth among ID critics. According to the myth, feuds over the teaching of evolution are caused by a rapidly growing movement of Christian fundamentalists who are attempting to have Genesis taught in science classes, with the ultimate goal of instituting a theocracy in the US.

In the real world, controversies over contents of public education arise on all sorts of issues. In Miami, for example, a book that gave a rosy description of life in Fidel Castro's Cuba, was removed from school libraries after Juan Amador Rodriguez, a former political prisoner in Cuba, complained about it. Legal experts call the ban an unconstitutional violation of free speech, and the discussion has set the community ablaze:

Board member Robert Ingram voted for the ban, but only to invite the ACLU's lawsuit so the issue could be resolved by the courts, he said. In an impassioned speech, he said threats from the exile community left him thinking board members "might find a bomb under their automobiles" if they voted to keep the book.

"There's a passion of hate," Ingram said. "I can't vote my conscience without feeling threatened — that should never happen in this community any more."

Read the rest of this entry »

I am reading the latest attack on intelligent design, written by the world's leading scientists and thinkers, and it's chock-full of hillarious quotes. Apparently, the world's leading scientists and thinkers seem to have bought into a lot of sloppy reasoning. Like in this quote, from Nicholas Humphrey, "School Professor at the London School of Economics", on why consciousness must be an illusion:

"Our starting assumption as scientists ought to be that on some level consciousness has to be an illusion. The reason is obvious: If nothing in the physical world can have the features that consciousness seems to have, then consciousness cannot exist as a thing in the physical world. So while we should concede that as conscious subjects we do have a valid experience of there being something in our minds that the rules of the physical universe doesn't apply to, this has to be all it is - the experience of something in our minds."
Nicholas Humphrey, "Consciousness: The Achilles Heel of Darwinism? Thank God, Not Quite", in John Brockman (ed.), Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement (Vintage, 2006), pp. 58-9. Original emphasis.

I don't think professor Humphrey does much work around the house. Hitting your own finger with a hammer is enough to convince most people that although pain is only an "experience of something in our minds", it is not an illusion.

We have seen that Christopher Wills, a professor of biology from UCSD, and an ID critic, acknowledges that the ID hypothesis "is in principle testable." One of Wills' suggested lines of evidence is as follows:

Or, in the case of evolution, one could search for sudden discontinuities in the history of life, in which a new structure or function has arisen without any previous history and no relationship to structures or functions in other related organisms. (Such new structures have not yet been found, by the way.)

I take a closer look here.

A new webpage, called ResearchID.org, has just opened. It's a wiki-style webpage for gathering information relevant to research into intelligent design, and although they already have some material, I'm sure they'd appreciate more writers. It looks interesting, and the welcome letter is promising:

As a website about the topic of intelligent design, this is a definitive turn from the ordinary. Here you will not find the excitement of polemical and rhetorical debates about intelligent design. Those seeking isolation from the culture debate will find a cozy home here at ResearchID.org, where new theoretical ideas and concepts can have headroom. That is not to say we have no critics here, far from it. At ResearchID.org there is a sharp and resolute focus on the theoretical and scientific issues surrounding intelligent design, and any departure from the issues is strictly forbidden.

Get off your lazy butt and check it out. Read the articles and see if there's something you can contribute with.

Are you increasingly worried about the Coming Theocracy? Angered by the way hordes of closet theocrats are dressing up their imbecilic religion as science? Well, you too can fight against these Forces of Darkness. All it takes is a few moments of your time (and who doesn't have the time to Save Civilization?) and one magic word.
Read the rest of this entry »

William Dembski is starting a series of posts on theological arguments against intelligent design, so I thought I'd bring this post back from the archives.

Some Christians reject an ancient age of the Earth because it conflicts with their theology. Here's Henry Morris, the famous young earth creationist from the sixties, in one of his candid moments:

"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since he has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology."¹

But other Christians reject intelligent design for similar reasons: Their theology does not allow God to intervene in nature in a way that humans can detect.

Read the rest of this entry »

In case you don't know what to talk about, here's some stories to break the ice:

Robert P. George, Council of Bioethics at Princeton University: "I Was Wrong About Peter Singer" (HT: Positive Liberty). George has always defended Singer. Not his opinions, since Singer supports bestiality and the killing of infants, but his integrity in always representing his opponents accurately. See what made him change his mind.

More ancient genes: "Although lampreys and humans shared their last common ancestor some 560 million years ago, it turns out that the SoxE family of genes is involved in facial development of lampreys during neural crest development, just as SoxE is responsible for formation of the human pharynx and parts of the jaw." (HT: Red State Rabble)

"Parallel Evolution: Proteins Do It, Too": "Wings, spines, saber-like teeth - nature and the fossil record abound with examples of structures so useful they've evolved independently in a variety of animals. But scientists have debated whether examples of so-called adaptive, parallel evolution also can be found at the level of genes and proteins."

Francis Collins has a new book coming out entitled, The Language of God : A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. PZ Myers is not happy. On his blog, Myers criticizes Collins on many levels. Let's have a look.
Read the rest of this entry »

Every biologist is familiar with the name D'Arcy Thompson, if only because they've had to read an excerpt of his writings in a Philosophy of Science class. Thompson's On Growth and Form is considered a classic of the field, even though his particular approach - explaining organic form directly in terms of physical laws, not natural selection - is virtually without adherents (although both Stuart Kauffman and Brian Goodwin have written things that would have warmed old Thompson's heart). But here is a sentence that I doubt most biologists have read. Thompson was a great writer of a different time (the legend goes that he was offered his choice of professorships in three apparently disparate disciplines: classics, mathematics, and zoology), and his flowery prose stands out, compared to the dry language of modern research articles:

"Time out of mind, it has been by way of the 'final' cause,' by the teleological concept of 'end,' of 'purpose,' or of 'design,' in one or another of its many forms (for its moods are many), that men have been chiefly wont to explain the phenomena of the living world; and it will be so while men have eyes to see and and hears to hear withal. With Galen, as with Aristotle, it was the physician's way; with John Ray, as with Aristotle, it was the naturalist's way; with Kant as with Aristotle, it was the philosopher's way. It was the old Hebrew way, and has its splendid setting in the story that God made 'every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew.' It is a common way, and a great way; for it brings with it a glimpse of a great vision, and lies deep as the love of nature in the hearts of men."
D'Arcy Thompson, On Growth and Form (Cambridge University Press, 1942), 2nd ed., p. 3