Selling Your Soul
by MikeGeneOkay, so I am a little slow, but while surfing around the internet, I came across an editorial from physicist Lawrence Krauss entitled, Survival of the Slickest. Krauss laments his experience with ID in the political arena:
During the debate, it became clear that I was competing with a well-organized marketing machine. These intelligent individuals were willing to tailor their message, even if it meant hiding their true motivations.
Yet despite the way this troubles him, Krauss then advises the scientific community to mimic this marketing approach:
So having lost the PR battle, how can scientists hope to win the war over educating young people? Scientists must learn that fighting lobbyists is not the same as debating scientific ideas in journals. In science, incorrect ideas will ultimately be weeded out. But in a society in which marketing is king, the scientific community will have to learn to use the weapons of sound bites and emotional arguments. In short, we must deploy all the tools that are used to sell cars, diet drugs, and intelligent design.
This is a stunning piece of advice, where the scientist not only uses the end to justify the means, but in the end, becomes no different from the ID proponents he criticizes.
Krauss doesn't seem to be aware that he has just flushed his scientific credibility away when it comes to ID. How can we trust someone like this to objectively evaluate the evidence when he admits he has embraced the "weapons of sound bites and emotional arguments" to battle ID? No evidence for ID? ID = Creationism? ID = the Death of Science? Now we have firm reason to believe that these are all just marketing slogans or, in other words, propaganda. Krauss doesn't come to us as a scientist. He comes as a used car salesman wearing a lab coat.
I have long said that the true problem for Science does not come from the ID community or any other group of outsiders that create a nuisance at school board meetings. The real problem is how the scientific community will react to such things. Will they strive to maintain the spirit of Science, remaining as objective as possible while focusing on the data and evidence? Or will they change Science to mimic the way the outsiders approach these issues, relying more and more on political posturing and marketing approaches? If they opt for the latter approach, just think what they are doing to Science and the way it is perceived.
October 29th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
With the key difference that the scientific community actually has a large research program with numerous tangible results of wide application, whereas the ID community has no research program at all. If it weren't for the minor detail that ID has produced absolutely nothing of use to anyone but politically-minded evangelicals, you might have a point.
Comment by Myrmecos — October 29, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Hi Myrmecos,
You wrote:
Perhaps I did not make my point clear enough. As Krauss notes, we live in a society permeated with marketing. This means the average guy on the street has become rather savvy about marketing and politics, recognizing the used car salesman from quite a distance. When Krauss advises scientists to adopt sound bites and emotional arguments, he is advising scientists to adopt a posture that trades short-term benefit for long-term loss. You'll eventually get to the point where you are trying to tell Joe Public about your research program, and Joe Public will listen to you the way he listens to a used car salesman. That is the road Krauss wants to take science down.
Comment by MikeGene — October 29, 2006 @ 2:11 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Myrmecos, the difference that I see between ID and mainstream academic biology is that ID is still firmly in the realm of developing theoretics, while the Neodarwinian Synthesis (a.k.a. "Darwinian Orthodoxy") is all the way to irrelevance for its canonization of provisional theory.
The world of physics got used to this sort of situation ages ago. Maybe because flexible theoretics were its strong point all along, and subsequent internal turf wars with the temporary ruling mob were so ugly that students are actually taught about them in school - along with the facts-that-be, which can be interpreted in a number of ways.
Biologists can't legitimately blame their own in-house turf wars on outsiders, or the internal heretics who do understand that scientific theory isn't about Absolute Truth. So simply pronouncing anathema on dissent isn't going to silence the heretics within, or the interested outsiders who think they're onto something. None of you has that kind of power over the rest of us, and we aren't ever likely to give it to you.
The constant whining just makes biology look even more like science's red-headed stepchild. At least, to those who know what science actually is. It is not and never was about the going price of souls.
Comment by Joy — October 29, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 29, 2006 @ 5:13 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Mike-
Again, you'd have a point if the scientists were trying to build a PR case for a theory without evidence. Then it certainly would a case of short-term gain and long-term loss, once John Q. Public figures out that there's nothing behind the PR smokescreen.
However, if the science has already delivered in great abundance- as it has- then there shouldn't be any downside to a well-coordinated education campaign. If we were to follow your logic, we shouldn't mount public education campaigns about ANY issue, be it public health, drug abuse, child safety, or forest fire prevention, simply because the act of public extension casts aspersion on the messenger.
Comment by Myrmecos — October 29, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Joy wrote:
"Myrmecos, the difference that I see between ID and mainstream academic biology is that ID is still firmly in the realm of developing theoretics…"
How does a scientific field develop theoretics without generating data?
Comment by Smokey — October 29, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Smokey
By developing a theoretical framework into which already-existent data fits, which can be used to explain more than just select data. Sometimes you can even confirm data that has been mostly ignored as "anomalous" simply because it doesn't fit into the current theoretical framework. Sort of like how Albert Einstein formulated an entire theoretic that explained all the same phenomena Newton explained, and how Newton explained all the things Gallileo explained, etc., etc., all the way back, but confirmed anomalies Newton's mechanisms couldn't account for.
Of course, those anomalies weren't why physics accepted Einstein over Newton, and predictions weren't confirmed for decades (we're still confirming some a hundred years later). They accepted it because it allowed room for the developing substrate physics, which proved to be the most accurately predictive scientific theory of all time. Newton's physics had no room for it.
A century later quantum theoretics still presents a monkey wrench to Einstein's theoretics, and the good old SM [Relativistic Quantum Field Theory] falls apart at high energy levels. Leaving… precisely nothing. Physicists believe someone will come along someday with a better theoretical framework, but they're no longer confident it'll look much like either relativity or QT. That's the breaks.
Comment by Joy — October 29, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
October 29th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Hi Myrmecos,
Krauss said nothing about a "well-coordinated education campaign." He was advocating sound bites and emotional arguments. He was advocating that scientists "sell."
Comment by MikeGene — October 29, 2006 @ 11:06 pm
October 30th, 2006 at 1:15 am
Joy wrote:
"By developing a theoretical framework into which already-existent data fits, which can be used to explain more than just select data."
But why do ID proponents only try to explain select data?
"Sometimes you can even confirm data that has been mostly ignored as "anomalous" simply because it doesn't fit into the current theoretical framework."
I know! And what previously-ignored data would ID confirm? And what about all the data currently ignored by ID proponents?
"Sort of like how Albert Einstein formulated an entire theoretic that explained all the same phenomena Newton explained, and how Newton explained all the things Gallileo explained, etc., etc., all the way back, but confirmed anomalies Newton's mechanisms couldn't account for."
But ID has yet to explain an anomaly that MET doesn't account for.
"Of course, those anomalies weren't why physics accepted Einstein over Newton, and predictions weren't confirmed for decades (we're still confirming some a hundred years later)."
Yes, but predictions were confirmed, and more importantly, those predictions were markedly different between Newton's and Einstein's hypotheses.
Finally, EINSTEIN MADE THE PREDICTIONS HIMSELF. There are no analogous predictions from the leading lights of ID, despite the fact that biology advances much more quickly now than physics did then. I boldly predict that such predictions will never be made.
For example, if ID has a robust theoretical basis, shouldn't there have been loads of predictions about comparative genomics during the last few years? There sure were for MET!
Comment by Smokey — October 30, 2006 @ 1:15 am
October 30th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Mike says:
That's my reading of Krauss' statements as well. I don't think that's a good idea at all for promoting science, I think most scientists would make terrible sales people. I do think that science in general could do with better publicity, though that shouldn't be of the 'sound bite' variety IMO, at least not for the pro-science publicity…
However, there may be a point in using sound bites against the likes of ID.
I have to admit I do like "ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo", and "Intelligent Design is the creationists' Trojan Horse", and "ID is a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory".
Comment by Odd Digit — October 30, 2006 @ 7:27 am
October 30th, 2006 at 7:55 am
Yes, sound bites and emotional arguments can be effectual when used right. But when they're done badly, they can backfire. A couple of illustrating examples:
Nobel Laureates writing in defense of science
"You say anti-science, I say pro-god"
Comment by Krauze — October 30, 2006 @ 7:55 am
October 30th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Smokey:
All of science is about select data. There is no uber-discipline that exists to put it all together into one coherent whole. The 'more' I referred to included the anomalies that currently get shredded. I think you know that, but decided to obfuscate to your standard mantra anyway.
Benches aren't much different from pews. If you can't produce the proper orthodox response at the indicated seg, it's best to just keep your trap shut.
Smokey, I've better things to do in life than play at kindergarten displays of ego-posturing with you. My answer to your question was pointed and succinct. I think you understood it well enough. Coming back with "is not!" isn't going to generate an "is so!" from me.
Pretending I never gave that answer isn't very impressive either, Smoke.
No, they weren't. At the time or later, all the way to now. Unless you're talking astrophysics or particle physics, Newton works just fine FAPP (the job description of science, btw). Which is why they teach Newtonian physics in high school, and Relativity in physics/math upperclass/grad courses. AFTER they've mastered Schroedinger.
Most folks will never need to solve a derivative equation to formulate the entropy of black holes. Newton works fine to get a probe all the way to the end of the solar system (and all points in between).
Lensing did get confirmed while Einstein was still alive, but G-waves didn't and he never once conceived of black hole entropy. Bold predictions are easy, aren't they? Perhaps Einstein's boldest prediction was that gravity as he conceived it would never really fit into the SM. It certainly appears at this late date that he was right.
Hope you're a bit smarter than astrophysicists when you set up prediction tests, too. The coordinated multi-national experiment to measure G-waves less than a handful of years ago was so conceptually flawed from the git-go that all they ended up with was just another measurement of how long it takes light from Jupiter to reach earth.
Rather pitiful, but even scientists have to work with the brains they've got, not the brains they wish they had.
Now your childish impatience is all the way to past tense. I raised my children, and now even my grandchildren are old enough not to need a tether. I'm done explaining real life to two-year olds.
I also don't appreciate the old "Move the Goalpost" con. You know, the one where my specific designations are ignored with something different you decide to insert in their place. Get a good night's sleep, eat your vegetables, and try again later. I'm not playing this old game with you.
Comment by Joy — October 30, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
October 30th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Krauze,
Yes, I agree that creationists of all stripes get a lot of mileage from quote mining - frequently out-of-context - which is a very good reason why the pro-science side has to be careful with how they phrase what they say. And which may actually be a good reason to use 'standard' sound bites in certain situations.
Another of my favorite soundbites while I'm thinking about it: "Evolution is not a theory of origins". In fact, I think I'll use that one every time I post from now onwards.
—
Evolution is not a theory of origins
Comment by Odd Digit — October 30, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
October 30th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
There's a priceless conversation going on on this thread. See if we can follow this (salient bullet points):
Mymrecos:
Joy:
Smokey:
Joy:
Smokey:
Joy:
Everyone appears to be talking about ID, apart from Joy who suddenly switches (moving goalposts!) from ID to 'all of science'. And then, to top it all off:
Joy:
Like I said, priceless.
—
Evolution is not a theory of origins.
Comment by Odd Digit — October 30, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
October 30th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
OD:
OD, if you can't follow the subject, it's best to say nothing. Far as I know, I'm the only blogger on this site who lists "Professional Fool" as my job description. The main difference between professional fools and mere amateurs is that professionals are actually adept at highlighting amateur foolishness, for the decidedly telic purpose of enlightening the king.
Amateurs are so dumb that the whole pantomime whizzes right past their pompous heads. And that's what makes the professional an untouchable at court. The worst the king can do is behead the bauble, a doubly highlighted foolishness and a totally inside joke.
By the way, have you ever encountered the GR prediction of 'White Holes', or did that little tidbit of foolishness whiz right on past your so-excellently educated head? A little bit like those pesky voles highlighting so richly the foolishness of the "accidental-but-deterministic" focus of NDS.
Model 666 - it's expensive, but comes with an ironclad million dollar guarantee.
Comment by Joy — October 30, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
October 30th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Joy,
You would be wise to listen to your own advice.
And the above automatically disqualifies you from any discussions on evolutionary biology, by the way.
Comment by Odd Digit — October 30, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
October 30th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
OD:
Heh.
We have already exhausted that complaint to conclusion. An appeal to authority only works if your opponent recognizes your authority. I do not recognize yours. This is Telic Thoughts: The Blog. It's not the National Academy of Science.
Fact is, you would not be here wasting oh-so valuable bench time trying to assert imagined authority if you actually believed no one here is qualified to offer opinions. You'd be busy rejecting design-suggestive papers for review and publishing. IOW, you'd be guarding the gate from us degenerates instead of riding far-flung fences looking for wolves.
The "priceless" discussion is between Smokey and myself, in which I am not tolerating his standard line of bullshit. Because that standard line simply doesn't apply to me, and he knows it. If there are humorous asides written-in, it's best to leave delivery to the actors.
Unless you really do wish to play the pompous whiteface to my clueless-but-loveable auguste. In which case, you've already lost by taking the role. That's the dynamic of the skit - the auguste always 'wins'.
Comment by Joy — October 30, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
October 30th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Will you explain why you made this comment? I don't see why it would be any reason to consider it a disqualification for any discussion on the topic.
I'm seriously curious why you would feel it would serve as such. I personally don't care for those tactics. It's used to invalidate anything the person says hereafter. And, if it's used, it should be backed by a damn good explanation… not just bitter feelings.
Comment by Doug — October 30, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
October 30th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Hi Odd Digit,
Instead of reaching for the usual buzzwords, try to think about and actually deal with my point. I didn't have to use quote-mining to make Mark Drapeau and the 38 Nobel Laureates look silly. They did that all by themselves. And they did it following Krauss' advice, using "sound bites and emotional arguments".
The problem is that thinking like politicians and PR agents isn't part of the average scientist's training. Like ID critics often ask, "would you let a mechanic perform heart surgery on you?" Who would? And likewise, would you let a scientist prepare your talking points?
So if scientists are to follow Krauss' advice, they'll have to ally themselves with people who do have this experience, such as the NCSE. At which point Mike's point comes into play:
Comment by Krauze — October 30, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 7:26 am
Joy,
Why should I be making an appeal to authority? In my opinion you know next to nothing about evolutionary biology. I came to that conclusion quite some time ago and statements like "the Neodarwinian Synthesis (a.k.a. "Darwinian Orthodoxy") is all the way to irrelevance for its canonization of provisional theory" simply confirm that you have not learnt any more about evolutionary biology in the mean-time.
So when you bloviate at other people: "OD, if you can't follow the subject, it's best to say nothing" then please bear in mind that I apply that to you every time you approach the subject of evolutionary biology. My opinion is of course open to revision any time you show any signs of actually attempting to learn anything about the subject in question.
Comment by Odd Digit — October 31, 2006 @ 7:26 am
October 31st, 2006 at 7:46 am
Krauze,
Oh yes you did.
Let's look at what Miller says about Shoenborn (emphasis added): "Neo-Darwinism, he tells us, is an ideology proposing that an "unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" gave rise to all life on earth, including our own species."
Miller disagrees with that statement. And so do I. First of all, because as my newly adopted signature says, evolution is not a theory of origins. Evolution is also not an ideology.
Let's see what the 'Nobels' actually said:
"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."
Absolutely correct. The statement above is talking about evolution, not the origin of life. Because we know very little about the origin of life, you are quite free to believe that there was an 'ultimate purpose' who 'designed it'. There is no conclusive evidence either way. It's a completely seperate question to the process of evolution itself.
Shoenborn's errors are ones that are commonly seen in creationist circles. Which is why I have adopted my new signature…
—
Evolution is not a theory of origins.
Comment by Odd Digit — October 31, 2006 @ 7:46 am
October 31st, 2006 at 11:51 am
Luckily, I care not a whit for your opinion, Odd Digit. You have exactly zero authority on this website, but as our guest you are expected to conduct yourself with civility. I have tried to remind you of that with good humor, but you have chosen to repeatedly step over the civility line anyway.
I am not the author of this blog, or I would not hesitate to send your fallacious contributions straight to the hole. Instead, I'll simply say buh-bye. Do not address me further in this or any other blog thread.
Comment by Joy — October 31, 2006 @ 11:51 am
October 31st, 2006 at 12:43 pm
O.D.
Wrongo.
Comment by chunkdz — October 31, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 2:08 pm
chunkdz
Really? Would you care to define what you think evolution is?
—
Evolution is not a theory of origins.
Comment by Odd Digit — October 31, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Joy says:
Joy also says:
Go look up 'hypocrite' in the dictionary, Joy.
Comment by Odd Digit — October 31, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 2:33 pm
OD,
How is she a hypocrite? You ARE a guest and she is allowed to make requests as to how you should conduct yourself (if you want to continue contributing to the board). An owner of a house does not have to follow the rules that are set up for a guest.
Also, who's to say that she is incorrect with her assessment of you? If she truly believes that your impatience is indeed childish that doesn't seem hypocritical at all. It might not be what you wanted to hear, but that doesn't make Joy a hypocrite.
Comment by Doug — October 31, 2006 @ 2:33 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Hi Odd Digit,
Your accusation would have merit, had Miller actually raised his beef with Schonborn over those parts you had bolded. But as a simple reading of Miller's piece would have shown, he was criticizing Schonborn's claims about evolution being an "unguided, unplanned process". Here's the passage:
So according to Miller and the Pope, science is "silent on the issue of ultimate purpose, an issue that lies outside the realm of scientific inquiry." Yet here we have 38 Nobel Laureates, claiming that evolution is "the result of an unguided, unplanned process", and that this is "logically derived from confirmable evidence". So why doesn't Miller set them straight on what "mainstream biologists" as well as the Pope think?
Comment by Krauze — October 31, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 4:25 pm
I think there's a misunderstanding about "select" here. Any truly scientific hypothesis will account for ALL the RELEVANT data. You're still missing the important fact that hypotheses don't get promoted to theories unless they are very successful at making predictions beforehand.
As for an uber-discipline, MET puts most everything in biology into a coherent whole. In fact, that's why you'll never see the leading lights of ID digging into comparative genomics. It is highly relevant to either MET or ID, and ID proponents simply ignore those data (with one small exception here). Hell, I even use comparative genomics to design knockout and knockin constructs, because MET makes very clear predictions about which sequences should be functional, even when we don't have a clue about their function.
I'm not pretending about anything. If I missed it, please point it out to me.
But I am talking astrophysics. Einstein made his predictions and they were found to be correct.
OK, but how does that rebut my point that Einstein made predictions, while IDers (with only one exception) don't?
Yes, which makes their absence from the ID camp all the more glaring. You'll never get theories without testing the predictions of their precursor hypotheses. That's why I challenge your claim that ID is "devloping theoretics." There's can be no development without predictions and the new data produced by testing them.
The closest I've seen any IDer come to testing a hypothesis is Mike and Krauze wrt front-loading; however, despite going further than anyone else by advancing a testable hypothesis, they drop the ball when it comes to testing it.
No, I neither knew that nor obfuscated. Can you offer some examples of "anomalies that currently get shredded" In return, I'll offer 5 examples of prominently-published data that are ignored by ID proponents for each shredding that you offer.
Which specific designations did I ignore?
Comment by Smokey — October 31, 2006 @ 4:25 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Krauze, science is silent, but people (in this case, scientists) are not. It'll be clear if you avoid conflating science with the scientists who practice it.
Comment by Smokey — October 31, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Doug wrote:
"How is she a hypocrite? You ARE a guest and she is allowed to make requests as to how you should conduct yourself (if you want to continue contributing to the board). An owner of a house does not have to follow the rules that are set up for a guest."
Agreed, but if the owner doesn't, s/he is a hypocrite.
"Also, who's to say that she is incorrect with her assessment of you?"
Well, her comment was made to me, for starters.
"If she truly believes that your impatience is indeed childish that doesn't seem hypocritical at all."
Doug, precisely what is childish about expecting those who claim to be doing science to make predictions and test them experimentally and/or observationally, acquiring new knowledge in the process?
Comment by Smokey — October 31, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 4:32 pm
"Evolution is not a theory of origins"?! News to me! News to Charles Darwin also, who happened to write a book entitled "Origin of Species." Maybe you've heard of it?
"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."
I would be interested to know how these Nobel laureates "logically" derived from "confirmable evidence" that evolution is an "unguided" and "unplanned" process? They didn't bother elucidating. I suppose I should accept it as a matter fact on their authority. I understand how a Cardinal is used to having his pronouncements accepted as authoritative. But he claims to be speaking to believers in the name of a higher power. He's channeling God. LOL
That's not my understanding at all. The statement itself is self-contradictory. The process of biological evolution, or so it appears to be commonly believed amongst biologists, is guided by natural selection. So its not an "unguided" process. What about "unplanned"? Well, in the very next line they write, "As the foundation of modern biology, its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA." Apparently these Nobel Laureates have never heard DNA described as a "plan," a "blueprint," a "set of instructions." But I'm confusing the issue aren't I? Evolution is unplanned even though life forms are planned.
No, I don't think I'm confusing anything. Evolution is a process in the planning of life forms, the very process of constructing their DNA, their plan.
So this statement, "In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent," applies to the Nobel Laureates as well. Let me rephrase it to make it plain: In contrast, the idea that evolution is unguided and unplanned is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on a facile understanding of evolution and the belief in the non-intervention of a supernatural agent. Worse than that, It's just plain false!
NoticeI didn't say anything about the "intervention of a supernatural agent." Evolution is a guided process and occurs according to a plan. Regardless of whether any "supernatural agent" intervenes in the process or not.
So their "logical" derivation isn't logical at all, and their "confirmable evidence" is neither!
The Laureates statement also rests upon a deliberate misstatement of ID or ignorance of what the most prominent spokesman for ID has said"”ID does not compel belief in God. (Because that's really what they mean, don't they. Evolution is "unguided" and "unplanned" means "God didn't do it." LOL) Yet, oddly enough, that seems to be the most compelling (and apparently distressing) conclusion people reach. I think the Nobel Laureates need to explain themselves"”Do they really feel that ID is such a compelling argument for the existence of God? Do they really feel that evolution is a compelling argument against the existence of God?
I don't GAS for their Nobel Prizes because they obviously don't know what they are talking about!
Comment by Rock — October 31, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 4:38 pm
So if the owner of a house were to say to her guests, "Please, take a walk around the inside of my house but don't go into the master bedroom", she'd be a hypocrite for breaking her rule she gave to her guests?
Okay, then I could also understand why it might be warranted.
Well, barking orders at them to do it now (isn't this what John Davison was derided for? Wanting immediate experimental proof?) and then trying to undercut the validity of their claims if they don't do it RIGHT NOW seems to be childish.
Comment by Doug — October 31, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Rock (the would-be anthropologist) writes: "Evolution is a guided process and occurs according to a plan."
Can you get together a group of scientists (i.e. recognized authority, but not a priesthood) who agree to that definition? Are they fringe or mainstream, forward-looking or backward-leaning? Who gets to define 'guided,' 'unguided,' 'plan' or 'blueprint'?
Aren't you just engaging in a process of 'evolving' the definition of 'evolution' (pehaps to the point that it is no longer recognizable as the evolution 'everyone' knows, Lol) to suit your currently contradictory, paradoxical position?
Where does 'intelligent agency' fit in? Doesn't a 'plan' require a maker/Maker of that plan? Or can 'evolution' be best described as an unplanned plan (Lol)? Certain Darwin couldn't see a 'purpose' to the 'plan' of life? Neither did Herbert Spencer, a perhaps more significant evolutionist than Darwin. Both sold their soul to science!
Which is it Rock: evolution is about processes or about origins, or about both? If you can't answer this, then I'd say yes, you are confusing things!
Mike Gene speaks about the spirit of Science (notice his capitalization), yet doesn't evolution make believe in a non-material soul, i.e. a planned inbreathing of the human person with a spirit, into a rather hard proposition to agree to?
Arago
Comment by g arago — October 31, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Smokey:
And what is considered 'relevant' data is determined in way too many cases as that data which supports the hypothesis/theory (these terms have become somewhat interchangeable). That data which does not support the theory often gets tossed. Do you deny this?
And for prediction, neither SR nor GR predicted a thing beforehand that was confirmed prior to acceptance by physical science. I could sit here and predict that homochirality of useful organic molecules on planet earth exists because one species could not gain useful organic molecules for their own metabolism from consumption of plants/animals without molecules they can use. IOW, the interdependence of life to the life that sustains it dictates that life which cannot make use of this interdependence to sustain itself won't last long enough to count.
Easy. Can you 'prove' my prediction wrong? Notice that nowhere did I say that life with alternate chirality cannot exist, or did not exist. Only that if it did, it couldn't have sustained itself long enough to count. 3.5 billion years later, we're not going to see it. There are lots of predictions (which in biology are really postdictions) that could be made. You'd ignore a lot of them because they wouldn't necessarily support your favorite theory.
Once again you have substituted "MET" for the NDS that is (and has been throughout this discussion) the focus of my criticism. The two are entirely different things, since MET is not confined to the RM-NS NDS pablum taught to high school students as the Great Secret of Life under color of law - sans any mention of its notable shortcomings, falsifications and significant modifications now held under the general grouping of subtheories known as MET.
But why do you think comparative genomics presents such a problem for ID? Please explain.
What predictions were those, exactly? That nothing travels faster than light? If so, you might want to google "tachyons" or "nonlocality." That time is a dimension like length, breadth and volume? Google "instanton." That we live in a 3+1 dimensional universe? Google "string theory." Take your pick - 5, 8, 11, 22 or infinite dimensions, none of which Einstein predicted. Or just Google "Unitary Crisis" and see where gravity really is in the overall scheme of astrophysics/cosmology these days.
No theory is forever, and nothing in science is absolute. Science was never designed to be so.
That's a bit backwards, seems to me. But then, perhaps you see postdiction as the same thing as prediction, and are living in a time warp where what happens after-the-fact can simply be asserted to have been known before-the-fact. Must be nice, and certainly convenient. Without a theoretical framework into which to fit what *is* one cannot even begin to speculate under that framework about what *was* or *will be*.
Of course, that could just be hard science trying to dialogue with soft science. Contradiction in terminology from the git-go.
Oh, come now. If the findings are shredded, that means they aren't reported. If you know different, please provide some links to published research papers reporting on failed experiments. I promise to read them. And you need not offer any examples of published research ignored by ID proponents. We all know that none of us is aware of everything that is published, even though you seem to believe we must all be aware of everything that is NOT published. Strange indeed.
But there is a fun bit of genetic research you might peruse and explain for us in NDS/MET terms…
Rodent's Bizarre Traits Deepen Mystery of Genetics, Evolution -
Nifty stuff, this genetic chaos in action. Do let me know if you'd like to continue this discussion, as I can post a thread for that purpose so we don't have to further disrupt this thread with off-topic musings.
Comment by Joy — October 31, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Actually I considered an education in paleoanthroplogy. The internecine strife in the field (circa 1970) dissuaded me. (And also the thought of spending all my time digging in the dirt of hostile climes or digging in the musty basements of museums.)
"Can you get together a group of scientists (i.e. recognized authority, but not a priesthood) who agree to that definition?"
I'm not interested in their "definitions." I'm interested in their descriptions. The Notorious 38 didn't define their terms. They apparently didn't feel it necessary. Do we want to make this an issue in "definitions"? Did I describe the evolutionary process in a way that anyone can contest? Evolution is guided by natural selection. Evolution is parameterized by a plan"”that biologists identify with DNA. Arguments?
"Who gets to define 'guided,' 'unguided,' 'plan' or 'blueprint'?" Apparently Nobel Prize winners. But they are keeping it a secret.
Aren't you just engaging in a process of 'evolving' the definition of 'evolution' (pehaps to the point that it is no longer recognizable as the evolution 'everyone' knows, Lol) to suit your currently contradictory, paradoxical position?"”g arago
What was contradictory or paradoxical about anything I said? Other than it contradicted and created a paradox for the Nobeli's "Internet Infidel" version of evolution.
"Where does 'intelligent agency' fit in?" Good question! But we, evolutionists (I don't know what you are, g arago) have an answer to that question: Evolution is a process that produces "intelligent agents" and by "intelligent agents" we mean life forms that act to control, guide and plan, their own evolution.
"Certain Darwin couldn't see a 'purpose' to the 'plan' of life?…"
Who cares what Darwin thought?! This ain't the mid-19th century! Check the calendar. Time to update, wouldn't ya say?
"Which is it Rock: evolution is about processes or about origins, or about both?"
It's about both. Duh.
C'mon, g, you are smarter than these prize winners.
(After all, in another topic I was told that science is a crap shoot or a matter of politics. You're better than that.)
Comment by Rock — October 31, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
October 31st, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Joy wrote:
"And what is considered 'relevant' data is determined in way too many cases as that data which supports the hypothesis/theory (these terms have become somewhat interchangeable). That data which does not support the theory often gets tossed. Do you deny this?"
Yes. Data can always be published somewhere. They might be ignored, but not tossed. In fact, I have a collaborator (we were coauthors on each other's papers) who doesn't like the fact that our data–published second–totally trashed his hypothesis from the first paper, so he's simply ignoring ours. This, of course, will only increase interest in our next one. Scientists love controversy, which is why it's so side-splittingly funny when we are portrayed as the polar opposite.
"And for prediction, neither SR nor GR predicted a thing beforehand that was confirmed prior to acceptance by physical science."
Of course not–the confirmations were the motivation for acceptance.
"I could sit here and predict that homochirality of useful organic molecules on planet earth exists because one species could not gain useful organic molecules for their own metabolism from consumption of plants/animals without molecules they can use."
There's no prediction there.
"IOW, the interdependence of life to the life that sustains it dictates that life which cannot make use of this interdependence to sustain itself won't last long enough to count.
Easy. Can you 'prove' my prediction wrong?"
There's no prediction there. It's an explanation for a lack of evidence. It's not irrelevant, but it's not as powerful as a testable prediction.
Here's a real prediction: the prion hypothesis, in which the infectious unit contains no nucleic acid, predicts that under the right conditions, we can manufacture infectious proteins. It makes a host of other predictions, so the failure to do so didn't hold up Prusiner's Nobel in 1997, but it was just now done in a bulletproof way:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/conten...
"Once again you have substituted "MET" for the NDS that is (and has been throughout this discussion) the focus of my criticism. The two are entirely different things, since MET is not confined to the RM-NS NDS pablum taught to high school students as the Great Secret of Life under color of law - sans any mention of its notable shortcomings, falsifications and significant modifications now held under the general grouping of subtheories known as MET."
They aren't entirely different–NDS is a subset, and constitutes most of, MET.
"But why do you think comparative genomics presents such a problem for ID? Please explain."
1) IDers don't discuss the data. That indicates that they view it as a problem.
2) Neither the homologies nor the differences reflect intelligence or design. When I mentioned this, I was thinking between species, but here's a better intraspecies example: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g...
"What predictions were those, exactly?"
Gravitational redshift, for one.
"No theory is forever, and nothing in science is absolute. Science was never designed to be so."
I agree. But ID proponents don't want to admit this, so they don't produce data. For real scientists, hypotheses are tools.
"That's a bit backwards, seems to me. But then, perhaps you see postdiction as the same thing as prediction, and are living in a time warp where what happens after-the-fact can simply be asserted to have been known before-the-fact."
Not at all.
"Oh, come now. If the findings are shredded, that means they aren't reported."
Then who reported them to you?
"If you know different, please provide some links to published research papers reporting on failed experiments."
Failed experiments? I thought we were discussing the existence of data from successful experiments that were suppressed when they didn't fit the dominant theoretical framework.
"I promise to read them."
Great; just explain what you want.
"And you need not offer any examples of published research ignored by ID proponents. We all know that none of us is aware of everything that is published, even though you seem to believe we must all be aware of everything that is NOT published. Strange indeed."
There's a difference between not being aware and ignoring something.
"But there is a fun bit of genetic research you might peruse and explain for us in NDS/MET terms"¦
Rodent's Bizarre Traits Deepen Mystery of Genetics, Evolution -
Purdue University research has shown that the vole, a mouselike rodent, is not only the fastest evolving mammal, but also harbors a number of puzzling genetic traits that challenge current scientific understanding."
It challenges a lot of our ideas on genomic stability, but there's nothing in there that was predicted by MET to be impossible. In fact, it trashes Bradford's fundamental assumptions.
It looks like you're getting your hopes up about the "challenge" part. If I told you and Bradford that our own research "challenges the current scientific understanding" of the requirement for conservation of the active-site residues in highly-conserved protein families is wrong, would you infer that this must be good news for ID?
Comment by Smokey — October 31, 2006 @ 7:40 pm
November 1st, 2006 at 7:30 am
Krauze,
you say:
And you quote Miller (emphasis added):
Miller goes on to say:
Miller is responding to a particular claim - that evolution is an ideology and that this ideology is that an unguided and unplanned proceess that gave rise to life on earth.
You seem to have read this as a response to the 'unguided and unplanned' part of the claim. I read it as a response to the ideology part of the claim. Maybe it's just me, but I associate ideology with 'meaning'. I don't associate guiding and planning with 'meaning'.
Like I mentioned earlier, evolution is neither an ideology nor a process that gave rise to life on earth. Evolution is - as far as we can ascertain - an unguided and unplanned process that gives rise to the diversity of life on earth. How life arose in the first place and if there is any 'meaning' in that are completely separate questions.
Comment by Odd Digit — November 1, 2006 @ 7:30 am
November 1st, 2006 at 7:45 am
Rock says:
Actually the book is called:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
And it's a book about the diversity of life which certainly doesn't cover the origin of life (which is the context we are talking about here). You do understand there is a difference between the 'origin of species' and the 'origin of life'? Like I said before, Evolution is not a theory of origins, it is a theory of diversity.
I will however alter my signature (just for people who apparently can't understand context).
—
Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life
Comment by Odd Digit — November 1, 2006 @ 7:45 am
November 1st, 2006 at 8:10 am
Rock says:
Natural selection is an effect, not a force. It is often (misleadingly) anthropormophised for shorthand purposes, for example:
Natural selection is merely the differential reproductive success of a genotype in a gene pool. It is not 'guiding' anything. Note that it only works on populations, not individuals.
Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. Note again that it works on populations. In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing - each individual organism within a population does not change.
So while it could be said that the growth and development of a single individual is down to a DNA 'plan', the evolution of a population of such individuals is simply altering the ratios of different 'plans' in a population.
Evolution itself (a change in the gene pool of a population over time) is - as far as we can tell - not operating to a plan.
Comment by Odd Digit — November 1, 2006 @ 8:10 am
November 1st, 2006 at 9:45 am
Does this mean that I-me personally, who lives within a population (actually several populations), don't 'evolve' in my lifetime?
g. arago
Comment by g arago — November 1, 2006 @ 9:45 am
November 1st, 2006 at 10:41 am
O.k. then, that works too. I'm interested in both.
Can you get together a group of scientists (i.e. recognized authority, but not a priesthood) who agree to that description?
As you well know, its a tough sell to explain how life came from non-life. Likewise, how intelligence came from non-intelligence seems to be no simple matter. 'Emergence' is its own messy source of clarity within philosophy of mind and consciousness is a purple stew. The complexity argument is one thing, but where agency comes from a theory that doesn't admit agency (i.e. evolution negates or avoids the notion of choice) is something else. And do people really 'plan' their own evolutions, i.e. intentionally?
Amen, to that! Shall we synchronize the update, Rock?
Well, yes, didn't you know - evolution's about everything! TOE = TOE.
Shucks Rock, you're generous with credit sometimes. I'll try harder then…
In snowy Finland,
Gregory
Comment by g arago — November 1, 2006 @ 10:41 am
November 1st, 2006 at 10:55 am
Here's a start.
Dawkins on guided evolution.
Comment by Pez — November 1, 2006 @ 10:55 am
November 1st, 2006 at 11:09 am
g. arago:
What 'they' tell us:
You develop, but you don't evolve. The only cells in an individual organism's body that play a role in the process of evolution are their gametes, and only if they successfully recombine DNA with another gamete to produce offspring. Then the game of differential reproduction starts all over again in that generation, but only for their 'successful' gametes. If you don't reproduce, you simply don't count at all in the evolution game.
In higher mammals (like us), males continually produce sperm. Since environmental factors alter the genes of sperm nearly as often as they alter the genes of any other cell in your body, most significant mutations come from the male's gametes. Females are born with the next generation gametes already in-place, fairly well insulated from environmental mutagens (like radiation), and during in utero development the mother influences which of each pair of genes is expressed (thereby bypassing some issues with funky male genes).
The cells in your body may change their genetic makeup at any time due to the many factors of life on planet earth that cause genetic damage. So any two cells assayed (say, a skin cell and a kidney cell) may well produce quite different DNA profiles. And of course, expression is significantly different between skin cells and kidney cells. Some cells can continue to operate without any DNA at all. Genetic damage to cells in your body from environmental/life causes may cause disease, but that in no way means the mutations were present in your original genome or that they will be present in your offspring.
Comment by Joy — November 1, 2006 @ 11:09 am
November 1st, 2006 at 2:31 pm
How does this fit in to evolution as a theory of origins? How many life forms (on Earth, at a species-like level), would you say, act to control, guide and plan, the process of constructing their DNA? Few? Many? Can you give an example of a life form that can control, guide and plan their own evolution and one that cannot? Thanks in advance.
Comment by JAllen — November 1, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
November 1st, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Lotsa fascinating "sub-plots." None I will contribute too.
But thanks, Odd Digit. I have the "textbook version" of evolution on my bookshelves. I consult it only to confirm that evolution as taught is rot.
I'm very interested also, g arago, in why evolutionary scientists describe the process they observe one way, and then relate it another way. I suggested that they (the Nobel Prize winners) ignored the observation that evolution is a guided process because they wanted to make a "theological" point. I mean, God is the Ultimate Guide, isn't he? So, despite the obvious, despite the observations, evolution cannot be "guided""”because the dim-witted public is liable to misinterpret the facts"”which we must interpret for them, by stating the exact opposite of what we actually observe!
The 38 Laureates could have said (what is true) biological evolution is a guided process. But we don't believe God guided it.
But if they say such a thing they can hardly maintain the pretension that they are scientists, absolutely impartial wrt theology. They are now (amateur) theologians. They not only made a theological statement, as if they knew it were true, they also made a scientific statement, which is false.
I've said it so many times w/o count: Evolutionary science needs to divest itself of its "argument with God." Which is just the same as saying evolutionary science needs to divest itself of"¦ Darwin.
Comment by Rock — November 1, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
November 1st, 2006 at 5:20 pm
In response to Pez and what 'they tell us':
Wow - from one of Dawkins' friends!
Comment by g arago — November 1, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
November 1st, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Ah, life in the 21st century… where souls come so cheap some people give them away for free.
Comment by Joy — November 1, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
November 2nd, 2006 at 5:21 am
Rock,
Ah, the sweet smell of science denial at its finest.
Making the same statement over and over again doesn't actually constitute 'contructing an argument'. Also, simply denying what I (and the textbooks) say about natural selection is just a variety of "oh no it isn't".
Like Monty Python say:
Saying that something is 'guided' by a mindless natural process is an anthropomorphism. It's just like saying that everything we do is guided by the laws of physics. Does that make everthing we do guided? Not guided by somebody no.
Dawkins quite clearly defines what he means by 'guided' in the quote Pez has added above (emphasis added):
So if someone is stating that evolution is unguided then they are stating that as far - as we can tell - it is not being guided by anybody.
If you want to contest this statement you need to solve the perennial problem of the ID movement and come up with some evidence - demonstrate the existence of this external guidance, or some 'guider' doing the 'guiding'.
Comment by Odd Digit — November 2, 2006 @ 5:21 am
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Odd Digit said: So if someone is stating that evolution is unguided then they are stating that as far - as we can tell - it is not being guided by anybody.
If you want to contest this statement you need to solve the perennial problem of the ID movement and come up with some evidence - demonstrate the existence of this external guidance, or some 'guider' doing the 'guiding'.
Jack: Why is this only a problem for the ID movement? Seems to me the ID critics are affirming that there's no detectable guidance (design) in nature while simultaneously affirming that there's no formal way to detect guidance (design) in nature.
Comment by Jack — November 2, 2006 @ 12:10 pm