The Road to Truth
by BradfordMike Gene authored a short blog item at The Design Matrix entitled Evidence and Truth. Quoting:
Yes, evidence is important when making decisions about our natural and social world, but relying solely on the evidence may very well deliver only a superficial, or even false, understanding of the world. We know this simply from the fact that in court rooms around the world, judges and juries have followed the evidence before them to determine guilty people are innocent and innocent people are guilty. This holds true even if we rule out corruption and biases.
With advances in DNA technology there have been headline stories recently of convicted criminals cleared of serious charges like rape after having spent years in prison. New technology produced new evidence clearing them of a crime for which juries, lacking such evidence, had voted for conviction. Advances in scientific research are made possible by technological progress. That in turn leads to more and sometimes contrasting evidence that can impact theories. More from the link:
Right there, in that scene, we see the difference between evidence and truth. Relying solely on the evidence may very well deliver only a superficial, or even false, understanding of the world.
Our understanding is shaped by our preconceptions. Here are some questions:
* If you are an ID critic the confirmation of what types of hypotheses would convince you that ID was a scientifically valid theory? What predictions?
* If you are an IDist what type of evidence would convince you that ID has no plausible future in the realm of science? Philosophy?
* Make two assumptions regardless of what you believe. Assume that evolution occurred as specified by mainstream theory but also assume that it was front loaded in that from the very first cell to the present time key phenotypic innovations were enabled by genomic features found in ancestral organisms. If we replayed the tape of natural history from the begining what would have to be front loaded at the outset to enable adaptation; evolution? Surely a capacity to replicate but what if anything else? Mechanisms that maintain genomic integrity? A genetic code? Mechanisms that enable gene expression; regulation? What?
And if initial cellular properties were specified but different from those actually found in earthly primordial cells, what would a replayed tape look like? Were eukaryotic life forms inevitable?
July 21st, 2008 at 5:44 am
Let's look at the evidence Einstein provided to prove that Relativity was a scientifically valid theory and superior to Newton's theories:
1) Einstein had an actual theory. That is, he had a connected series of hypothesis which made predictions about the world.
2) Einstein's theories predicted almost the same thing that Newton's theories predicted at ordinary speeds and gravitational fields.
3) Einstein's theories made predictions that were measurably different from Newton under some conditions.
4) When those predictions were tested, the results followed Einstein's theories and not Newtons.
So, as an ID skeptic, I'd like to see theories and data like above.
I'd be interested in the answers to this question too.
Comment by CeilingCat — July 21, 2008 @ 5:44 am
July 21st, 2008 at 7:54 am
Very simple:
A scientific proposal of the form: If you perform this experiment, ID uniquely predicts you will get nontrivial result A. Here is the equipment you would need. Here is how you’d do the experiment.
The lack of a scientific proposal of the form: If you perform this experiment, ID uniquely predicts you will get nontrivial result A. Here is the equipment you would need. Here is how you’d do the experiment.
It doesn’t need evidence to have a future in a soft discipline like philosophy. If you want it to be part of your philosophy (or theology) then go right ahead.
Comment by David Heddle — July 21, 2008 @ 7:54 am
July 21st, 2008 at 8:17 am
One fundamental difference between science and law is that all scientific conclusions are considered tentative, while legal proceedings try to reach a definite conclusion based on the available evidence. That's one reason why the standard of proof in criminal trials is so high.
Valid scientific hypotheses that entail specific and distinguishing empirical preditions.
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 8:17 am
July 21st, 2008 at 8:27 am
Dean, to the biology department: "Why do I always have to give you guys so much money, for laboratories and expensive equipment and stuff? Why couldn't you be more like the math department - all they need is pencils, paper, and waste-paper baskets. Or better yet, like the philosophy department. All they need are pencils and paper."
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 8:27 am
July 21st, 2008 at 8:31 am
By the way, isn't there already a thread on this at Telic Thoughts?
Comment by Zachriel — July 21, 2008 @ 8:31 am
July 21st, 2008 at 10:29 am
This is trivially easy really. Making a valid hypothesis is something the average high school student can do. The fact that the ID movement cannot accomplish this trivial task is a clear indication that they are talking philosophy and theology and not science.
Nothing would need to be front loaded to enable evolution. All you would need is the ability to replicate with variation. No code, no gene expression, no genes, no regulation. Just descent with modification.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 21, 2008 @ 10:29 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:09 am
Ceiling Cat, if the standard set is laws of physics like Einstein's ToR then all theories of natural history will fall short of the mark.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 11:09 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:13 am
Todd:
The point is what physical evidence assures us that descent with modification would be a continuous process if the entity needing modification is a precellular self-replicating molecule?
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 11:13 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:18 am
Zachriel:
Every human endeavor operates within a philosophical framework. It could be nothing more than the universal explanatory sufficiency of a reductionist approach. Or the belief that if x replicates it's evolution to whatever is currently present is a given.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 11:18 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:22 am
Zachriel:
I would point to human nature and its tendency to draw conclusions leading the theories regardless of how tentative we proclaim them to be. IOW, conclusions limited by available evidence (in turn a limitation of technology in many instances) restricts the accuracy of inevitable legal and scientific conclusions.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 11:22 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:26 am
David Heddle:
It's a question of need not desire. Any theologian thinking a non-trivial theology or philosophy could be constructed in the absence of intelligent causal chains, generated by intelligent sources, does not belong in the field of study. You may not need evidence to construct a consistent philosophy but the philosophical outlook employed by one constricts his view of what is possible. Downward causation paradigms are as philosophically plausible as their counterparts. Evidence can also be consistent with them. They are ruled out of hand by those thinking an initial cell must have resulted from a confluence of unspecified natural froces.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 11:26 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:43 am
What about Mike's article in which he used ID reasoning to conclude that enolase must have a function in the degradosome.
What about certain things we would expect based off of two competing assumptions: Intelligent Design vs. a process that is blind and rooted in Scientific Materialism? Such as the existence of encoded information, a method to transcribe this information then utilizing a design material (proteins) to yield nanotech machines? If you have two competing ways to view this…. which one seems more intuitive?
Then consider that one of the most fundamental materials is found solely in living organisms. No other natural source has been shown to be able to produce nucleotides, let alone nucleosides.
Comment by Doug — July 21, 2008 @ 11:43 am
July 21st, 2008 at 11:48 am
Bradford,
I don’t really know what your string of response means. Then again, I almost never know what IDists are saying on the topic of “ID is science.” They never give a nice simple straightforward response: “oh yes, we do have some experiments planned, and here are the proposals, if you are interested…” That simplicity is what I am used to, as a scientist who works with other scientists. The response from IDists is almost always some variation of metaphysical gobbledygook. Bleh.
Comment by David Heddle — July 21, 2008 @ 11:48 am
July 21st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
David Heddle:
The title of the blog entry is not ID is Science but The Road to Truth.
What works insofar as answering the question posed:
If we replayed the tape of natural history from the begining what would have to be front loaded at the outset to enable adaptation; evolution? Surely a capacity to replicate but what if anything else? Mechanisms that maintain genomic integrity? A genetic code? Mechanisms that enable gene expression; regulation? What?
The only answer provided cites the adaquacy of a self-replicating molecule. You get a cell from molecular descent with modification. Is that the type of science that works for you and those you work with David?
Is that what natural theology is- metaphysical gobbledygook? Who gets to don the priestly robes and explain that nature shows the plausibility of conventional origin explanations to IDiots? I'm upgrading swamp terminology.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I have a question related to two ongoing discussions (see “Remarkable Nucleotides”):
I would like to know what material facts or predictions of the “RNA World Hypothesis” distinguish it from my own “Rock’s DNA World Hypothesis.” Here’s my prediction: The RNA hypothesis doesn’t make any predictions that distinguish it from the DNA hypothesis.
So how am I to decide between such hypothesis?
How do I decide between two different theories that make the same predictions?
Comment by Rock — July 21, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Rock:
I recall seeing that very same question raised many times when the concept of front loading is discussed.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Occam’s razor
Which theory is simpler?
Elegance
Which theory is more beautiful?
correspondance
Which theory corresponds more closely to what is true about the world?
Notice these are objective properties but our knowledge of them is subjective. That is why predictions and experiments are so important.
This is a challenge from a friend for IDers and from a skeptic to Darwinists.
Peace
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 21, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Rock,
If you were a believer I would suggest a 450 year old book
(The Arraignment of Error by Samuel Bolton)
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 21, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 7:18 pm
If God exists it is by his grace (my own mother’s name) that I am what I am., FMM. My argument has never been with God. God does not even deign to argue with fools like me. I have argued with his self-appointed spokesmen. FMM?
Comment by Rock — July 21, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I don't know what you mean by "continuous process." I don't know what sort of "assurance" you are looking for either. I don't think anything is "assured," I simply suspect that the process, once started, would be more likely to continue the longer it runs. Even if one period of self replication hit a critical failure point I would expect that process to have already altered the molecular landscape enough that the emergence of a additional self replicating process would become more likely.
Intuitive, eh? So its knowledge though intuition then. I find which is more intuitive to often be unrelated to which is more rational and to often to be unrelated to objective truth.
If two starting points lead to exactly the same results from that point forward then you typically favor the simplest explanation. For example, Front Loaded Evolution can be rejected as superfluous because it adds nothing over the simpler explanation of just Evolution. When it comes to life a slightly simpler form capable of slight modification is always a simpler origin explanation than any designer able to create the form from scratch (especially a magical all knowing and all powerful designer). If its truly just a matter of history then since we cannot travel back in time we may never truly know, but even then we can look for clues that might have been left behind. Of course if both theories truly make identical predictions then it doesn't really matter which one people believe.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 21, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Bradford: The point is what physical evidence assures us that descent with modification would be a continuous process if the entity needing modification is a precellular self-replicating molecule?
That's not hard to understand. Living cells have been replicating for billions of years. Pretty good evidence for someone wanting assurance that this is a real process. OTOH, with favorable conditions we can construct a self-replicator with raw material obtained from living cells and initiate a reaction that lasts for minutes… hours… and at the end we have a recorded event. A start and finish. No evolution of even a small biological system much less vast cellular complexity over billions of years.
That's a nice personal opinion supporting what you wish were the case but where do you think all those nitrogenous bases, sugars and phosphate groups come from to support this ever growing proliferation of RNA molecules?
??? If a replicating process is short circuited it is likely because the conditions for it are no longer favorable, the supply of needed biomolecules is exhausted or contaminents are compromising the process. Since the track record for this type of process is limited to carefully controlled lab environments your views look very much tainted by your wishes.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 8:24 pm
So the fact that cells have been replicating for billions of years is evidence that something wanted cell replication to be very robust? I guess something wants dirty dishes in my sink too, cause they've been there longer than I care to admit. You really can't even conceive of the idea of something happening "just because," can you? If your mind the very fact that there is a current outcome has to mean that outcome was likely or inevitable or desired. You must at least realize that this entire pattern of thought is a metaphysical position; reason alone does not dictate the conclusions you draw from the evidence.
So even once man can demonstrate an exact process to turn abiotic chemicals into self replicating evolving proto-life it won't mean a thing until we let that proto-life sit for a few billion years? I guess you've crafted a fairly large comfort zone to pad your metaphysics from encroaching reality. You don't have to go to such lengths, really. Once a natural origin of life is so well supported that even you can no longer ignore it away then you can simply claim that chemistry itself was where God front-loaded life into the universe.
Your question perfectly illustrates the basis for my opinion (I never stated it as more than an opinion). You seem to assume there must be a single process which has a forced chain of causation from nothingness to the first cell. I am open to the idea that many different processes might be required. Perhaps process A catalyses the formation of phosphate groups. Phosphate groups would be like crap to this process, but the process might exhaust itself once it has converted its environment. So process A stops or slows, but now you have a landscape filled with an abundance of phosphate groups that otherwise couldn't be supported in that environment. In the mean time Process B might use the phosphate groups for something. If it wasn't for Process A you never could have had Process B but once Process B starts it may no longer require Process A. In the mean time here we are studying Process XYZ and you seem to expect all the details of Process A to be abundantly obvious 4 billion years later. That's not a reasonable expectation. The only reasonable expectation is that science makes continuous progress when following the implications of an abiogenesis theory. This progress has been demonstrated to you many times, but you aren't satisfied with mere progress. Science needs to work backwards one step at a time, but you aren't happy with any theory that can't jump directly to the beginning.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 21, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
July 21st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Todd:
Nice try Todd. Billions of years of cellular replication is good evidence that cellular replication is a robust process. This greatly contrasts with your replicating SRM to cell story- a product of the imagination, not to be confused with science.
Comment by Bradford — July 21, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:07 am
Huh? I assume that you aren't claiming that only physics has a body of theory that makes predictions about the world that can be tested. What you actually are claiming, I have no clue.
Comment by CeilingCat — July 22, 2008 @ 1:07 am
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
So, you’re telling me, TB, to reject my own hypothesis because RNA is simpler than DNA. Shouldn’t I rather reject my hypothesis because its incorrect? I can’t imagine why I would reject a more complicated but correct hypothesis for a simpler but incorrect hypothesis. And just how much simpler is RNA compared to DNA? And does it matter in the grand evolutionary design of things? Life itself doesn’t seem to discriminate on that basis. There’s DNA and RNA, and protein too. If simplicity were the test, one, not three, should suffice. Or not?.
Comment by Rock — July 22, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
TB
That might have been true when we thought evolution was just random mutation filtered by natural selection. But today we have epicycles like punctuated equilibrium, horizontal gene transfer and genetic drift. In fact almost every new observation requires a new epicycle. Evolution has become so complicated very few people understand it a fact that the establishment constantly reminds us of.
If nobody but the experts understand a theory it is a good bet that it’s incomplete.
Evolution as it is now conceived is much more complex than frontloading. In fact the difference between the two is as vast as the difference between Heliocentrism and the Ptolemaic system.
That is one reason why ID is so attractive to the non experts with nothing invested in the status queue.
Simplicity matters
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 22, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I said no such thing. I was talking about theories, you seem to be talking about specific artifacts.
Seems like a good reason to reject it to me.
In your example you claim both theories make completely identical claims. How can you claim the simpler theory is incorrect when it perfectly matches the predictions of the complex theory?
Irrelevant. I'm not talking about RNA verse DNA.
You seem to be confusing the complexity of the result with the complexity of the theory. These things are not the same. Do you believe a complicated outcome must have a complicated theory to describe it?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 22, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Strawman. Has anyone ever suggested that evolutionary theory is complete?
Given these vast differences you mention it should be trivial to provide some distinctive testable claims and predictions. So where are they? Lets hear them, what are these massive differences.
Another reason is that all you need to contribute to ID is instinct and intuition. None of that pesky time consuming science is required. No need to understand a vastly complex field when you can replace all that complexity with "god did it!"
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 22, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:40 pm
fmm:
It's also a good bet if everybody understands it. It's always a good bet.
Are there any non-experts that understand quantum theory? General relativity? Statistical mechanics? Population genetics? Game theory?
It's a ridiculous statement, fmm.
Comment by Raevmo — July 22, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
TB
The vast differences I mentioned are in complexity not in predictions.
Besides I offer predictions all the time it’s just that Zach always rejects them out of hand .
A simpler theory does not do away with the need for science. Did Heliocentrism make astronomy obsolete?
Raevmo
No one that I know of claims quantum theory or general relativity are complete theories of physics. Lots of people think evolution is a complete theory of nature
These aren’t even theories they are disciplines. Are you now saying that evolution is a discipline and not a theory after all? I can't keep up with all this shape shifitng.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 22, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:05 am
fmm:
But you must admit that they are beyond the grasp of the vast majority of non-experts. Do you have some theological reason to suppose that a (more) complete theory encompassing both would be understandable for non-experts? Perhaps something along the lines of "the good Lord would want His creation to be understandable to >95% of humanity".
Lots of people think silly things, doesn't make them true.
Depends on your definitions of theory and discipline. Perhaps the Theory of Games is better regarded as a set of mathematical tools, but it seems to me that SM and PG are theories according to this Wikipedia definition:
Comment by Raevmo — July 23, 2008 @ 2:05 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 am
Raevmo,
Nope, just an observation that’s been around since Occam that given two explanations for a Phenomenon the most likely to be true is the simpler one. This has always been a guiding principle in science and it’s a major factor driving folks looking for a theory of everything today.
TB said he rejected ID because “evolution” was simpler
When I pointed out that it’s undeniable that frontloading is simpler than MET suddenly simplicity is unimportant. I wonder why that is?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 23, 2008 @ 7:32 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:53 am
That's not quite correct. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate means "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". Parsimony. In other words, the
Theory of Gravityis preferred over theTheory of Gravity + Angels. TheAngelsare extraneous, tacked on. (That doesn't mean angels don't exist, only that they add nothing towards making the same empirical predictions.)Similarly, the
Theory of Evolutionis preferred over theTheory of Evolution + Front Loading. However, if there are specific and distinguishing empirical predictions entailed in the latter theory, then it would be preferred even if it were more complex, and even if it were less understandable to laypersons. In that case,Front Loadingwould not be extraneous.Comment by Zachriel — July 23, 2008 @ 7:53 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 am
How is Front Loading "simpler" than evolution? Lets look at the initial conditions required for these two theories:
evolution: organic molecules.
front-loading: evolution + magical all powerful being who can predict chemical reactions billions of years into the future and with the technology to build something as complex as a cell.
You really think a theory with the axiom of a designer is "simpler" than a theory that needs no such axiom but otherwise explains all the same things?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 23, 2008 @ 10:26 am
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
TB:
It’s simpler assuming the existence of a designer. I like the majority of humanity assume the existence of a designer for other reasons than design but once his existence is entertained frontloading is easy breezy.
The designer is an axiom of frontloading the same way gravity is an axiom of Heliocentrism. Heliocentrism is much more complex than the Ptolemaic system if it must also explain gravity but once you assume gravity it’s no contest.
I thought evolution was neutral as to the existence of God? If that is the case Frontloading is undeniably much simpler.
If evolution positively asserts that no designer exists that is a whole different kettle of fish. Is that what you are saying?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 23, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Haha, if you can make such grand assumptions then so can I: assuming the existence of a proto-cell then evolution once again becomes the simplest explanation for the first cell ;).
You don't need gravity for Heliocentrism any more or less than you need it for the Ptolemaic geocentric model. All you need to compare those is geometry.
Science is neutral concerning god, but neutrality definitely does not support the axiom "God exists." God, if he exists, is an initial condition just like the presence of organic molecules or phosphate compounds. By your "logic" once you accept god then "god did it" becomes the only reasonable explanation for anything because "god did it" is always simpler than any other explanation.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 23, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 pm
TB
Now I’m really confused I thought evolution was silent on the issue of the first cell. Are you saying evolution offers an explanation of the first cell but it’s complicated?
That’s not correct. With out gravity Heliocentrism must explain why the earth rotates on its axes and around the sun despite the fact that it does not appear to move.
I’m not asking neutrality to support any thing just be neutral
.
What ???Are you saying that evolution is impossible with out organic molecules or phosphate compounds? What about theories of cosmic evolution? Or what about evolutionary computer programs?
Not at all
The earth revolves around the sun because “god did it” and gravity
is more complex than
The earth revolves around the sun because of gravity.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 23, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I thought what I said was perfectly clear. If you assume that a proto cell exists, then the simplest explanation for the first cell is that it evolved from a proto-cell. That is much simpler than the explanation that a magical all powerful being who can predict chemical reactions billions of years into the future used his magical noodly appendage to arrange some atoms to build the first cell. A proto-cell is a simpler initial condition than any designer capable of building a cell.
You are wrong, it doesn't have to explain why any more than the Ptolemaic model has to explain why things move through the sky as they do. They are both descriptions of how things move, not why they move. Geometry. Do you think the Ptolemaic model offers any explanation for why the deferent, epicycle, or eccentric spheres rotate? I'm guessing you don't truly understand the Ptolemaic model if you think there is anything simple about it.
How on earth do you get that interpretation from what I said? If I didn't know any better I'd think you're trying to change the topic. The evolution of the first cell certainly required organic molecules. That is, after all, what cells are made of.
What about them? Do you think space is devoid of organic molecules? Do you even know what "organic molecule" means? Here's a hint, its just about anything that contains carbon.
What about them? I don't think any of them created the first cell. I'm pretty sure they have their own required initial conditions too; for example a computer seems like an obvious initial condition for and evolutionary computer program.
So if you accept "god + gravity" as more complex than "gravity" why did you claim "god + evolution" was simpler than "evolution"? I guess its asking too much for a theistic viewpoint to be self consistent.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 23, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Todd
First of all, why so hostile? It might be better to relax a little bit. I don’t expect us to agree but can’t we all just get along
Maybe but this would not be a part of theory of evolution. Evolution is silent about the origin of life. Is it not?
Once again the first cell is not a issue addressed by frontloading or evolution this would be abiogenesis.
The information content of the first cell might be an issue to distinguish the theories but a UCA is a given with both theories
So what? a proto cell or a designer capable of building one is both outside the scope of the respective theories so irrelevant to the question which theory is simpler.
I did not say it was simple I said it was simpler than Heliocentrism in the respect that it did not have to explain the rotation or revolving of the earth. That is until you assume somthing like gravity.
Evolution in its simplest form only requires a medium that is subject to random mutation that can be filtered by natural selection. This in no way has to be organic molecules.
By cosmic evolution I mean the speculation that our universe itself is the result of evolution. Since carbon was not present at the birth of our universe it’s a good bet it’s not necessary for this kind of evolution. Don’t you agree.
So we agree evolution in no way requires a cell or even organic molecules since computers contain neither of these.
On the other hand frontloading requires a designer.
Because frontloading explains many of the epicicircles like ultraconserved genes that MET does not.
God plus gravity on the other hand does not explain anything that gravity does not.
I don’t see any inconsistency what am I missing?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 24, 2008 @ 1:06 am
July 24th, 2008 at 8:07 am
The Theory of Evolution is not powerful enough to explain the origin of life, but everybody would like to see a unified theory. It is thought that evolutionary processes are important in the origin of life. The border between life and non-life is probably not distinct, but chaotic.
Neither Heliocentrism or Geocentrism posit a mechanism such as gravity. For much of history, Geocentrism was considered simpler because it left the observer stationary. However, mere simplicity is not the proper scientific methodology for determining which of two empirically equivalent theories are preferred, and often both will be maintained until evidence accumulates to decide the case (e.g. Jovian moons).
Be careful not to equivocate on the word "evolution". You should carefully distinguish between biological processes, evolutionary algorithms based on biological processes, and other uses of the same word.
Front-loading explains no more than any Gap-Filler does.
Comment by Zachriel — July 24, 2008 @ 8:07 am
July 24th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Hey Zach,
I agree that's why I expect ID and evolution to be dueling it out on internet forums and in the public square until some one from your side or mine come up with a prediction we can agree is distinguishing. So far that's been tuff because evolition is so had to pin down.
Don’t forget besides simplicity for the billions of believers like me frontloading also corresponds to the truth about the world in ways that “evolution” does not.
I realize this does not close the case scientifically but it is another way to choose between theories that make identical predictions.
Evolution is probably the most equivocated word in the history of the English language. It can mean anything from “change over time” to “there is no God” depending on the context and who is speaking. That’s one of the reasons why distinguishing predictions are so difficult.
How about listing a few other gap fillers that explain things like ultraconserved genes and the presence of signaling systems for multicelled organisms in their singlecelled ancestors with no known function.
I for one can’t think of any.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 24, 2008 @ 8:58 am
July 24th, 2008 at 9:57 am
There is no scientific argument. We have
EvolutionorEvolution + ID. ID is completely extraneous.Handwaving. The Theory of Evolution makes very specific predictions, including Common Descent.
We expect that many genes will be ultra-conserved. I'm not sure why you consider this a problem for the Theory of Evolution. You're probably referring to ultra-conserved non-coding regions of the genome (evolving about as slowly as ribosomal sequences). Knock-out experiments of these non-coding regions, though not definitive, may call into question current understandings of molecular biology, but the relevance to evolutionary theory is still unclear. Other research indicates these ultraconserved regions are under ultraselection (Katzman et al. 2007).
On the signaling systems, this is all new science. Are you *predicting* that these signal genes will be determined to have no function?
It's not a scientific explanation unless it leads to entailed and distinguishing observations. What specific empirical predictions are you making? How are these predictions entailed in the ID Hypothesis?
—
We expect Gaps in new areas of science, or areas that are difficult to research, such as biological events that occurred eons ago. The latest incarnation of Intelligent Design has been around for a generation, yet you point to anomalies only in the latest research. It seems that ID continues to lurk in the shadows of human ignorance.
Comment by Zachriel — July 24, 2008 @ 9:57 am
July 24th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Zach
I know your side believes that. That’s why I said until a prediction is made by my side or yours we can expect this discussion to be carried out only in the public square.
If you don’t like ID this is a strong incentive to come up with a prediction. Because like it or not my side has already won the argument as far as public opinion goes and we are the ones who right the checks
I guess I should have said mindless evolution alone verses evolition supplemented by Intelligent frontloading I forgot I was talking to someone who always refuses to give other folks the benefit of the doubt and insists on taking what others say in the worst possible light.
But none are distinguishing regarding frontloading or else we would not be having this discussion
That’s correct and would have been obvious had you not been so apt to score rhetorical points.
I predict that no matter what the outcome of these experiments you will claim that evolution predicted it all along
That’s what I mean by evolution being so hard to pin down
I already “predicted” there will be no critical function for the specific three protein combination and you already rejected it out of hand just like you do with every prediction I’ve made.
At this point I'm only pointing out that they have no obious critical function.
Granted but this does not answer my question. I asked you to name another “Gap Filler” that would explain the epicircles I mentioned.
Ill take your silence to mean you know of none.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 24, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I assume you are talking about the recent monosiga brevicollis findings. You do know that monosiga brevicollis lives in colonies, right? You can't imagine any possible function for an intracellular signaling system in a single celled organism that lives in colonies? Hum.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 24, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
TB,
Did I say I was only talking about monosiga brevicollis?
Did I say I couldn’t imagine any possible function?
You are not much on paying attention to what others say are you?
Is that because if you listened you might be expected to have a discussion and not just an insult hurling party?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 24, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Fine, go higher then; are there any choanoflagellates that don't live in colonies? Are there any single celled organisms with seemly excessive signaling systems that do not live in colonies? Lets look closely at what you said, you imply Front Loading can explain "… the presence of signaling systems for multi-celled organisms in their single celled ancestors with no known function. [emphasis added]" You claim you aren't making a Gap Theory when your only evidence is that we don't know the function of something? Instead how about you try to make a positive prediction. For example, here's a prediction that evolution can make which Front Loading doesn't imply: any single celled organism with extra cellular communication abilities will have used that ability for some function important to its survival. So we find a case like monosiga brevicollis, we don't yet know why it has so many inter-cellular communication systems. Evolution makes a positive prediction that we can investigate that knowledge gap and find how those signals help the organism. Front Loading simply says, "Ah! Something we don't know! Ignorance supports Front Loading! Q.E.D!"
Evasive much?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 24, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
TP:
from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
quote:
A number of species such as those in the genus Proterospongia may form simple colonies
end quote:
Does this not imply that other speciecies don't live in colonies?
When did I claim that I was not making a gap theory?
Yet more evidence that you are not paying attention.
I only claimed that frontloading explains this epicircle and is therefore simpler than evolition.
Evolution makes a positive prediction that we can investigate that knowledge gap and find how those signals help the organism.
That prediction is not distinguishing or we would not be having this discussion.
frontloading explains an observation that evolition does not so in this case ignorance supports evolition.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 24, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Hi FMM,
You meant "TB" not "TP" correct?
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 24, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
fmm:
What signals? All we know is that choanoflagellates have some genes that might be related (common ancestry) to genes that are involved in "signaling" in multi-cellular organisms. That doesn't imply that the genes in c-flags are also involved in signaling.
I bet c-flags also have genes that are related to genes playing a role in human brain development. Thus we may surmise that The Frontloader (PBUH) planted the seeds of human intelligence.
Comment by Raevmo — July 24, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Todd:
An intersignaling system for colonies would make more sense. Intrasignaling makes sense either way.
Comment by Bradford — July 24, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Raevmo,
That section you quoted was from me, not FMM, I think he just missed a blockquote tag. You are correct that the function might be unrelated to signalling, as I alluded when I said, "some function important to its survival" earlier in that paragraph. I said "signals" to avoid the need to look up the spelling of "tyrosine kinases." Of course since these guys live in colonies I wouldn't be surprised if they are used for intercellular signaling, but evolution really only predicts a positive benefit.
You are correct, that was a typo on my part. I meant "intercellular signaling".
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 24, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
July 24th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Virtually every scientific paper published in the journal Evolution makes predictions.
That's like asking for predictions that distinguish between the
Theory of GravityandIntelligent Falling. It's vacuous. If you make a scientific claim that there is design is biology, then it is up to you to provide reasonable support for that claim.I didn't reject it out of hand, but responded in some detail.
Comment by Zachriel — July 24, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Interesting how you ignore any hard questions and only respond to the most general questions. Sure, it might mean that. Is there a correlation between the number of tyrosine kinases and the propensity to form colonies? How about the more important question, are there any single celled organisms with seemly excessive intercellular signaling systems that do not live in colonies? Again, I don't know the answer. All I know is that evolution predicts an important role for tyrosine kinases in single celled choanoflagellates, front loading doesn't rule this out but also doesn't predict it. So following the loose standards of evidence advocated by DM supporters if an important role is found then it should be accepted by DM supporters as evidence for evolution.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 25, 2008 @ 12:05 am
July 25th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Zach:
Yet none are distinguishing in regards to frontloading
I know you believe this but the vast majority of the population does not. For them ID has already won the day for the reasons I’ve stated: it’s simpler more elegant and corresponds more closely to the truth that we know about the world. Since we live in a democracy eventually the opinion of the public will be heard.
If you don’t like that fact it would be a good idea to look for a distinguishing prediction. Either that or prepare for the day when it won’t be called “evolutionary biology” it will be called something like “frontloaded biology”. The science might be the same but the voters will be happier.
A rejection is a rejection. "it would not show what you think it would" sounds like a rejection out of hand to my hillbilly mind.
The fact is if we never find any function for the signaling proteins that still would not be evidence for frontloading in your mind it would only be a gap. The same goes for every other prediction I’ve offered here.
I realize I’m just an illiterate fundamentalist but it gets to be suspicious after a while.
Todd (not TP)
This is funny given the fact that the only reason I’m still here is to get the answer to a direct question I made earlier……… Please list some other gap fillers that explain the specific epicircles I mentioned.
For me it would. On the same token if no critical function is found would you accept it as evidence for frontloading? Or would you call it a gap?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 25, 2008 @ 8:16 am
July 25th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Nor do they make predictions about the empathic, life-giving powers of the invisible pink unicorn. That's because unicorns are extraneous to the results (as are an infinitude of other such claims). Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem!
Argumentum ad populum.
Petitio principii. Are you trying to hit every possible fallacy?
Yes, but I did not reject your claim out of hand. I proferred several long comments. You were apparently confused on many issues.
Universal negatives can be difficult to demonstrate, but the relevant universe in this instance is probably small enough to make an exhaustive search. But we are just now getting to the point where we can study the evolution of these proteins in detail. The Pincus et al. paper at issue in that thread was just published in PNAS this month.
Pincus et al: How did this system of three components evolve, given their interdependent function? … These two lineages show a dramatic coexpansion of all three domain families. Concurrent expansion of the three domain families is consistent with a stepwise evolutionary model in which preexisting SH2 and PTP domains were of limited utility until the appearance of the TyrK domain in the last common ancestor of metazoans and choanoflagellates.
(Here's William Lim and David Pincus, the lead researchers.)
It would be called an anomaly and would spur additional research. That means proposing hypotheses—and *testing* them. Front Loading will remain scientifically vacuous (extraneous) unless and until it leads to valid scientific hypotheses that are entailed in the claim.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 10:43 am
July 25th, 2008 at 11:11 am
So you admit that front loading adds nothing to evolution and therefore no distinguishing claims can be made? Or are you suggesting it is the responsibility of people who think front loading is as irrelevant as spaghetti monsters to prove front loading wrong? You are the one who claims front loading isn't vacuous, I'm afraid its up to you to provide a distinguishing prediction. Your inability to do so certainly indicates that front loading is vacuous.
Science is not the search for consensus, its the search for truth. No number of ID advocates passionately agreeing with one another will change the truth.
I could care less if your particular gap theory is the bestest gap theory ever and can beat up all the other gap theories with one axiom tied behind its back. Its still an unsupported gap theory.
If research indicated that those systems had no function then yes, that would support the idea of front loading. Currently no research has ever reached that conclusion for any biological system ever. Taking a system that has not yet been studied and claiming our lack of knowledge supports your theory is disingenuous. That is why your claims are nothing more than another gap theory.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 25, 2008 @ 11:11 am
July 25th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Todd:
No I’m saying that the relationship between frontloading and MET is the same as the relationship between Heliocentrism and the Ptolemaic system before Galileo came along.
I think there are lots of distinguishing claims to made. I just can’t think of any that would satisfy Zach.
It’s hard shake the establishment when every time an observation is made that conflicts with their theory they simply draw another epicycle. I have full confidence however that eventually an unexpected moon of Jupiter will show up that will eliminate your wiggle room
Scientifically ID is just as much the truth as MET until a distinguishing prediction is made.
Heliocentrism was a gap theory until Galileo
Notice how we have moved from critical function to no function. Nice goalpost shifting
Ultra conserved genes might meet that higher standard if they have no function would that be evidence for frontloading in your view.
And it never will you can’t prove a negative.
For years research pointed to no function when we were talking about vestal organs.
Did you think that research was correct when it supported MET or did you think it was just another gap.
I made no claim I made a prediction there is a big difference
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 25, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
here is another observation.
quote:
This theory has had trouble gaining traction because it implies that aging evolved, that natural selection pushed older organisms down a path of deterioration. However, natural selection works by favoring genes that help organisms produce lots of offspring. After reproduction ends, genes are beyond natural selection's reach, so scientists argued that aging couldn't be genetically programmed.
end quote:
I can't wait to see the latest epicycle and to hear it said that evolition predicted this observation all along.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 25, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I am gratified that you think enough as to try. But consider your example based on an apparent anomaly in research published this month. Don't you think that you might give it a bit of time before rushing off and claiming this gap as vindication?
Not since Darwin.
Origin of Species: Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one: in certain fishes the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung.
Darwin provides many examples of vestigial organs that have other functions. Notice the above example is also an example of cooption. Also, as Darwin pointed out, vestigial organs without function tend to have high variance in structure as there is no constraining selection.
Comment by Zachriel — July 25, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Todd Berkebile Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Rock: So, you’re telling me, TB, to reject my own hypothesis because RNA is simpler than DNA.
"I said no such thing. I was talking about theories, you seem to be talking about specific artifacts."
Of course, I was thinking of specific theories about specific “artifacts.”
Rock: Shouldn’t I rather reject my hypothesis because its incorrect?
"Seems like a good reason to reject it to me."
I don’t reflexively reject theories because upon first blush they seem incorrect, i.e., upon the basis of initial tests.
Rock: I can’t imagine why I would reject a more complicated but correct hypothesis for a simpler but incorrect hypothesis.
"In your example you claim both theories make completely identical claims. How can you claim the simpler theory is incorrect when it perfectly matches the predictions of the complex theory?"
That’s not my example. But we agreed already. Correct theories are preferred. Not simpler or more complex theories.
Rock: And just how much simpler is RNA compared to DNA? And does it matter in the grand evolutionary design of things? Life itself doesn’t seem to discriminate on that basis. There’s DNA and RNA, and protein too.
"Irrelevant. I'm not talking about RNA verse DNA."
You were talking about “theory” in some “abstract” sense that is about nothing. I provided two concrete theories about something (RNA/DNA). You’re talking about theories so abstract they are about nothing. that they are "Irrelevant"?
Comment by Rock — July 25, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Rock,
To recap, you had asked the following very general question:
Its a general question about choosing between theories. The answer is you choose the theory that seems simplest based on its mechanism and initial conditions. Then you go on to say:
Hum, I guess I misunderstood "two different theories that make the same predictions" then. To me that implied that you think the two theories you mentioned make completely identical claims. I didn't realize you were actually asking for a detailed compare and contrast between your DNA theory which I don't even know and some RNA world theory which you didn't specify. Its not like there is any "standard" or detailed or well accepted theory of an RNA world.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 25, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Hey Zach,
I think that would be best use of dialogue at places like this. We both agree that distinguishing predictions are necessary to distinguish between ideas scientificly. It behooves both sides to find one we can agree on.
I did not claim it as a vindication I merely mentioned it as yet another epicycle. the first one I learned of was the observation by Stephen Jay Gould that the fossil record failed to show gradualism. I can think of many more and it seems that each new observation requires yet another epicycle. I linked to yet another one in this very thread.
Each epicycle makes naturalistic MET more complicated and more difficult to understand.
Frontloading toward a specific goal on the other hand for the most part explains each of these new observations simply. So that even a backcountry dim whit like me can understand.
While this simplicity does not necessarily equal scientific truth. It makes ID more attractive to the unwashed masses and makes MET look more and more like nothing more a Ptolemaic exercise in denying God.
This should be a strong incentive for those who don’t like the implications of Design to help come up with a distinguishing prediction that we can agree on before it’s too late and no one cares what you have to say.
I say this in the interest of science (and Truth).
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 26, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
So how exactly does Front Loading explain the idea of punctuated equilibrium? Are you suggesting that Front Loading predicts periods of rapid evolution and periods of slower evolution? This ought to be good, show us the wonders of your "simple" theory.
Ah once again you cannot support your own theory so you claim its the other guys job to support your theory. I think your theory is completely vacuous therefore there cannot be any distinguishing prediction. Your theory simply adds a designer who apparently does nothing on top of the well supported theory of evolution.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 26, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Moderation queue please. I note there is no way to know if my comment is stuck there, or whether it just disappeared into the ozone.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
July 26th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Except the example you chose is, according to the authors, "consistent with a stepwise evolutionary model".
A scientific explanation makes predictions. Even if the Theory of Evolution was fractured and teetering, there is no reason to think that Front Loading is a viable scientific alternative. Front Loading is without scientific merit and is just an indirect way of claiming God of the Gaps.
You are also confusing historical reconstruction with the basic mechanisms. While you might consider the Theory of Gravity to be quite simple, reconstructing the formation of the Solar System is very complex, full of ambiguity, and requires marshalling evidence from different fields of study.
Most backcountry wits have trouble solving differential equations in Newton's Theory of Gravity, while even fewer people can fully understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. According to your thinking, that means Einstein's Theory is the less attractive theory.
Comment by Zachriel — July 26, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
July 27th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Todd:
From my prior knowledge of the designer I know that his ultimate goal in creating is to manifest his glory.
A good way to do this to rapidly fill a niche as it becomes available with every possible form of life using information frontloaded in advance. This would emphasize the amazing capabilities of his original frontload thus powerfully demonstrating his wisdom and foresight.
As far as the slower evolution part that would be just a built in safety measure frontloaded in to insure the viability of the design.
That is just the readers digest explanation. Note how it's simple and easy to understand. If you want more detail I suggest Denton’s book Natures Destiny especially the chapter called (the principal of plentitude.)
If there is no scientific difference between ID and evolution ID will be taught in public schools and universities because the majority supports it. In a democracy majority rules in the end. That’s a prediction.
I know that’s what you believe, I and folks like me on the other hand believe Frontloading is simpler more elegant and corresponds more closely to what is true about the world
Unless we can agree to a prediction eventually no one will care what you believe beyond your little group. You can expect your frustration to only grow in the future .
I’m not trying to be difficult them’s just the facts.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 27, 2008 @ 12:36 am
July 27th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Zach:
Of course they say that. Every planetary observation before Galileo was "consistent with the Ptolemaic system" too. That’s what you say when you are in the process of drawing another epicycle
I know you believe this. Just repeating your self will not make others agree you need to provide scientific evidence .
Folks like me when they hear of it see frontloading as a simple elegant explanation for the data that is “scientifically” equivalent to mindless evolution but superior in every other way.
Until we can come up with a prediction that we can agree on. Your side will look more and more like a desperate complicated attempt to deny God by drawing epicycles.
Backcountry dim wits don’t bother with differential equations they only understand the simple concept that the same force that works on the apple tree in the back yard works for planetary orbits.
They don’t have to understand it fully to grasp that time is a dimension just like length and width. It’s really rather simple.
Not at all it’s easer to grasp time as a dimension than differential equations.
In redneck logic Einstein wins.
look at it this way
RM/NS is simple but it does not explain what we see
MET is complex and explains what we see
Frontloading is simple and explains what we see
In Redneck logic frontloading wins hands down
When we reconstruct the formation of the Solar System the theory of gravity is only said to play a part.
Evolution on the other hand is said to explain everything from the origin of life to my preference in ice cream.
If it was like the theory of gravity content to only be part of the story it would not have to draw epicycles all the time and folks like me would not reject it.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 27, 2008 @ 1:24 am
July 27th, 2008 at 7:42 am
Galileo had significant scientific evidence.
Handwaving.
Your toy model of Relativity is simple but does not explain what we see. The actual Theory of Relativity is complex and explains what we see.
You clearly have no intention of changing your view of science based on the scientific evidence. If your proposed Theory of Front Loading entails specific and distinguishing predictions, we'll take a look. Otherwise, it's obvious you are merely attempting to misuse science to justify your religious beliefs.
Comment by Zachriel — July 27, 2008 @ 7:42 am
July 27th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Zach:
You just don't get it. This has nothing to do with my misuse of science it’s about the way the world works.
To recap
1) If Frontloading and evolution make the same predictions they are scientifically equivalent.
2) Frontloading is simpler and more elegant and corresponds more closely to what we know about the world therefore it is the preferred explanation.
To the unwashed masses it appears that it is you who is holding on to a hopelessly complex cobbled together theory to maintain your theological belief that to paraphrase Todd says “if the designer exists he apparently does nothing “
Since my theological belief is shared by the vast majority of mankind it will win. That is unless we can agree on a prediction to distinguish it from your theological belief.
Sorry to break it to you but like it or not that’s how things work.
Majority rules in the end.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 27, 2008 @ 8:42 am
July 27th, 2008 at 9:52 am
You merely claim Front Loading makes the same predictions, but Front Loading is scientifically vacuous as it entails *no* valid empirical predictions.
Personal revelation may be of the utmost importance to Eternal Salvation, but has no scientific validity.
The Theory of Evolution provides a valid scientific explanatory framework that leads to a variety of important predictions in many fields of study from genetics to geology. In order to understand this, you have you understand the Theory of Evolution. You might start with the evidence for Common Descent.
Comment by Zachriel — July 27, 2008 @ 9:52 am
July 27th, 2008 at 10:04 am
All this time, I thought it was truth.
—
When I was doing Professor Albert Einstein's bust he had many a jibe at the Nazi professors, one hundred of whom had condemned his theory of relativity in a book.
"Were I wrong," he said, "one professor would have been enough." — Jacob Epstein, sculptor.
Comment by Zachriel — July 27, 2008 @ 10:04 am
July 27th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Hey Zach:
If that were the case then any prediction of evolution would be a distinguishing prediction.
When Einstein’s relativity predicted a certain bending of light at an eclipse it was not as though Newton’s theory predicted the opposite.
Newton made no predictions at all about bending light. Therefore Einstein’s prediction was distinguishing
If frontloading makes the same predictions as evolution it has exactly the same right to claim to be truth. It is scientifically equivalent as far as truth goes.
With out a distinguishing pridiction your claim that it is not true is simply a stament of your opinion.
When it come to opinion majority rules.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 27, 2008 @ 10:31 am
July 27th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Zach:
Do you have any idea how arrogant and condescending this makes you sound. It's statements like this that make MET unattractive to folks like me. I can tolerate a lot of things but deliberate snobbery is not one of them.
I expect you at any time to start refering to yourself in the plural again.
Do you honestly believe that any one with a highschool level knowledge of biology is not aware of this evidence?
Does anything I have said lead you to believe that I don't accept common decent?
GIVE ME A FLIPPING BREAK
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 27, 2008 @ 10:43 am
July 27th, 2008 at 11:32 am
How can you be so blind as to think your position has anything to do with science when you admit that it is simply the a priori conclusion of your metaphysical position? Basically your argument is that most people are Christians and therefore whatever they call Science wins. With logic like that I have no need to argue further, you have made all the points I could want to make for me.
When "X + Y = X" I claim that Y = 0. You apparently disagree.
You keep chanting this over and over to the point where I'm sure you've convinced yourself. But you never answered my question, how exactly is God "simpler" than a proto-cell when it comes to explaining the first cell? How is the first cell poofing into existence by the will of an invisible all powerful sky faerie simpler than the possibility of a gradual chemical process? We know gradual chemical processes exist, we have no evidence of invisible sky faeries. Your theory only matches your personal interpretation of the world and it doesn't match any sort of rational objective analysis.
I have a new theory, I call it Frankenstein's Laboratory Evolution. This theory claims that everything we know about evolution is exactly correct. In addition, the very first cell was named Frankenstein and it was created in a Laboratory by pushing around some atoms, placing them on a tray, and zapping them with lightning. And to boot the Laboratory is completely invisible! By your logic in order to disprove my FLE theory you must now provide me a distinguishing prediction between my FLE and evolution. What, you can't? Well I guess I've just proven Frankenstein's Laboratory Evolution! Woohoo!
You don't think your "na na na, I'm right because Christians agree with me so we've already won" argument sounds arrogant? Interesting.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 27, 2008 @ 11:32 am
July 27th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Todd
good points it looks you are finally starting to understand what this discussion is about . I’m pressed on time so I will answer a couple of points now and more later.
If that was what we are talking about you would be correct. However what we are talking about is something like:
Let “X “ equal evolition
Let "(A+b+c+d…….)" equal epicycles
Let “C “equal an explanation of the origin and diversity of life
Let F equal frontloading
This leads to two different equations
1) X+(a+b+c+d……..) = C
And
2) X+F=C
It obvious that 2 is the simpler one. Therefore frontloading is prefered explanation.
We don’t know there was a photo cell and evolution and does not require it.
The majority of folks know there is a God. Frontloading doesn’t have to explain him he is a given.
Given God, frontloading is more likely and simpler than a hypothetical photocell. I understand you don’t know there is a God so this might seem like circular reasoning. That is just you practical atheism showing through.
More later I promise
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 27, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Todd:
Once again what we have are two different ideas one Theist and one atheist. The Ideas are scientifically equivalent because there are no distinguishing predictions so the majority rules. I for one wish this was not the case. I wish we could agree on a prediction. That is why I keep suggesting them
I wish this discussion could be had on neutral ground and settled by experiment rather than politics but for what ever reason that is not happening. Your side claims that it’s because ID is scientifically vacuous. My side claims it’s because “evolution” is so hard to pin down that no matter what the observation “evolution” just smiles and draws another epicycle and because you scilence all attempts at decent
No matter what the reason baring a distinguishing prediction the only way to settle this is politically. In politics majority rules.
This would be a good analogy if
1)we had prior knowledge of Frankenstein’s creator
and
2)we observed mysterious electrodes on cells that science could not yet explain
and
3)no one had a clue how a cell could originate with out a creator.
First of all I’m not claiming I’m right no one can claim that with out a prediction. Next I’m not happy about the situation. I wish this could be settled in the lab and not on the public square.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 28, 2008 @ 7:35 am
July 28th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Front Loading doesn't make any empirical predictions.
I see. Suggesting we investigate the evidence for Common Descent makes me arrogant and condescending.
A scientific theory isn't judged by your personal preferences or predilections, but by their fit to the evidence. You haven't shown that Front Loading entails any predictions. I would be happy to discuss the evidence for the Theory of Evolution in detail.
You have demonstrated no more interest or knowledge of the evidence for Common Descent, than you have for Front Loading—even though you have said this evidence supports Front Loading. Your lack of curiosity is telling.
You say that, but when I try to engage that discussion you call me "arrogant and condescending".
Sorry, but you are making a mistake in your arithmetic. Let ToE be the Theory of Evolution.
ToE = X+(a+b+c+d…)
C = ToE
(We know that a, b, c, d are part of the ToE. You refer to them as 'epicycles'. Biologists call them evolutionary mechanisms.)
Now, let FL be the unique predictions of the Theory of Front Loading.
C = ToE + FL
But then ToE = ToE + FL, therefore FL = zero, nada, zilch.
Sorry. No gimmes in science. It is clear that your views are not based on the scientific evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — July 28, 2008 @ 7:53 am
July 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
The theory you are advocating is "Front Loading + Evolution", the only reason this theory predicts anything is because the "Evolution" part of the theory makes predictions. Everything that "Front Loading + Evolution" predicts is identical to what "Evolution" alone predicts, therefore the Front Loading part is vacuous. The only thing one needs to accept to understand this is basic math, not Jesus. "Front Loading + Evolution = Evolution", therefore Front Loading = 0.
1) I have as much proof of Frank's creator as you have of your creator. Actually, I have more proof, I have multiple recent books and video evidence detailing Frankenstein's formidable abilities, you just have one really old book.
2) As I mentioned the laboratory and all its equipment is invisible, why would you expect to be able to see it? That's just silly of you! Why, if you found evidence of electrodes it would disprove my theory since my theory clearly stated the lab is invisible.
3) Irrelevant, my theory tells you who the creator is. If no one has a clue how a cell forms without a creator, well that knowledge gap just supports my theory.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 28, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Actually you could do with a lot less religious bigotry and substitute some reason in its place. Here is a more accurate statement of how things stand:
FLE = (unknown origins) UO + E
The unknowns of front loading are matched by the unknowns of UO leaving E on both sides. A balanced equation.
Comment by Bradford — July 28, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Thank you Bradford, this is an excellent mathematical proof that the "FL" part is a gap theory. It has been shown that all the predictive powers come from the "E" part, so the FL part exactly matches the remaining knowledge gap.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 28, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Bradford: The unknowns of front loading are matched by the unknowns of UO leaving E on both sides. A balanced equation.
By that logic criticism of FL is reliant on a gap theory or the magician's hat which warns you not to look at what is underneath it. Intelligent design is not limited to evolution. Everything is on the table including the- let's not talk about what preceeded a cell or behave as if it too is a non-telic explanation even though we know not what the explanation is. Quite a magical trick your side has been pulling off since the Origin.
That's part of your illusion. Nothing about E is predictive of E's replication properties upon which modification with descent depends. Don't look under the hat. You might find out that von Neumann's requirements were assumed rather than demonstrated.
Comment by Bradford — July 28, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Zach:
Sure there are
The scientific method is a given
Math is a given
Induction is a given
That the laws of physics hold for all times and places are a given
The reality of a world out side yourself is a given
I can think of many more if you like.
I notice that you did not address my comment about Einstein’s prediction of bended light at an eclipse
Please address my contention that if it was the case that FL made no predictions every prediction evolution made would be a distinguishing prediction
do you understan what I mean?
Todd:
Cool so you agree with me that only the predicting part of MET is scientific.
If everyone agreed to that this debate would end and everyone would embrace MET. Because MET would be a much simpler and more elegant theory. In fact it would match Frontloading IMHO
We are finally making progress.
Every time we hear a claim or explanation coming from your side do you promise to ask your self exactly what predictions flow from this particular epicycle and if you can think of none will you agree that it's not science?
For example when a scientist says a certain feature is the result of evolution will you not accept it until you have a solid empirical prediction that we can test to verify his claim?
if so peace will reign on the earth
In the mean time I will be on the look out for possible distinguishing predictions like this one
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 28, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
July 28th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
The predictive power of MET is what proves it's worth, yes, but the predictive part of MET is, well, all of it.
What part of MET do you claim has no predictive power? In the mean time we're still waiting for you to make any scientific prediction based on front loading. The only possible predictions are meaningless silly universal negatives, like "there cannot be a simpler precursor to the cell, only god could have poofed it into existence."
Excellent advice, you're right that more people should learn the merits of MET so they too can appreciate it. Slowly even the creations have been forced to accept more and more of MET as its truth becomes unavoidable. Science will always look to answer the unknown questions like how the first cell formed, but I can't image science ever simply giving up and saying, "well we can't explain this so it must be god." Rather then follow your advice of simply giving up I think they would try to find some evidence of god or some way to study how he effects the world. If god exists and can effect the physical world then those effects can in theory be detected and studied. Once we detect "god juice" then you might be able to propose "god juice" as a scientific explanation for the creation of the first cell. On the other hand if you insist god is beyond study then chant NOMA and accept that what you preaching is philosophy and not science. If you are correct that god cannot be studied then there's nothing science can add to the matter so claiming NOMA and sticking to philosophy is as good as it can get. Just don't insist that those pesky scientists stop advancing knowledge and accept your religion instead.
You obviously don't understand the nature of being a skeptic. There is no belief and no conclusion that I do not question. All views are only held tentatively. Regardless at the end of the day you support the claim with the best warrant until new data is available. You have yet to provide any warrant other than your weak claim that the existence of god is simply obvious. I say your brain is infected with a parasitic meme so I'm not particularly interested in what your brian considers obvious.
Interesting article, I'd love to know how you think that relates to FLE. An article claiming the evolutionary results we see all around us are far from optimal seems like evidence against FLE if anything. Either that or the designer was just really dumb.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 28, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Todd
None of the epicycles Ive mentioned were predicted by evolition and there are no pridictions flowing from the epicycle itself.
Lets look at a couple of epicycles that weren’t predicted.
Ultra conserved DNA with no known function. What prediction would you offer to verify that evolution produced and preserved it with out natural selection?
The fact that aging is genetically programmed despite it’s not being naturally selected. What prediction would you offer to show that natural selection can shape genes that are not active until after the mechanism of natural selection can not reach them?
Punctuated equilibrium what prediction can you offer to explain why the speed of evolution varies at intervals beyond the reach of natural selection.
I could go on and on but I hope you get the point. Unpredicted epicycles are not a natural part of TOE but are simply drawn on to match what we see.
I would expect you to reject these addons unless and until they have a predictive structure of there own.
Actually for me the process went in reverse I used to accept MET and now I don't because it has become so cumbersome and complex. And Christians for the most part embraced Darwinism when it first appeared. It was only later that YEC came along.
Interesting, so inferring design is equivalent to giving up to you. I think I can rest my case
It's only folks like Zach and TP that want to do that. Do I detect dissention in the ranks?
exactly my point
I would predict that we will discover that organic structures will be seen as optimal once we understand them better.
Sounds like a distinguishing prediction to me. If not why not
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 29, 2008 @ 7:50 am
July 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am
MET predicts that in order to be highly conserved these sequences have some important function. Once again you rely on a knowledge gap to support your theory. Are you saying that if a purpose is found for these sequences that is evidence against Front Loading? Mike Gene would disagree, he has clearly stated that in order to be conserved genes must have a current purpose, just as evolution suggests. It seems Front Loading relies on the absurdly unfounded conclusion that these conserved sequences are somehow a blueprint for future evolution.
There are many different evolutionary theories of aging. I wouldn't assume aging cannot be selected for either, unless you have some evidence beyond your intuition to support that claim. Ah, another knowledge gap, clearly that supports "god did it!" What dreamed up epicycle explains why your god created all life so that it must die?
Had you ever read anything by Stephen Jay Gould you would already know the answer, but I guess as long as you keep you eyes shut its easier to cling to your pet theory. Rapid changes in environment create new niches and the ability to occupy an empty niche is a great way to ensure reproductive success. Evolution, however, cannot predict asteroids colliding with the Earth or ice ages or O2-to-CO2 ratios, if that is what you are demanding of it. Please try to be reasonable.
So if a theory can't predict every minute detail then the theory is false? Likewise the Theory of Gravity doesn't predict the mass of the Earth, the existence of the moon, or the distance from Mars to the Sun. I guess that means we have to throw out gravity as an explanation for the creation of our solar system and just settle with "god did it."
Inferring anything based on the lack of evidence instead of the evidence is, in fact, giving up. If the evidence supports the notion of god then science will reach that conclusion. So far the evidence does not support that.
Then as I said, if god can be detected then science can study him independent of your metaphysical viewpoint. As to what you detect, you have clearly shown that you detect all sorts of non-existent things.
Ah, so if humans can improve anything through genetic engineering then we have disproved Front Loading? That's a bold claim since it can never be proven true but can be proven false. It seems the first genetic disease that man cures is all it takes to disprove your theory. So your theory is based on a combination of universal absolutes and universal negatives then, I wonder what epicycle you will add when your universal absolutes are disproved.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 29, 2008 @ 10:26 am
July 29th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
That is incorrect. Not "made no predictions about bending", but "predicted no bending". These are quite different statements, and wrong in any case.
The acceleration in a gravitational field in Newtonian Mechanics is independent of the mass being accelerated, i.e. A = Gm/r². Assuming Newton's corpuscular theory of light, then light will bend around the Sun even if it has zero mass. Einstein calculated that light would bend twice as much as predicted by Newtonian Mechanics.
Constantly invoking the term "epicycles" has no empirical value. If a theory has no empirical implications, then you are free to ignore it as a scientific claim.
Again, you are pointing to anomalies in very new research. There are always anomalies. However, there is some evidence that ultraconserved regions are under ultraselection.
Aging is an ancient characteristic of life, so the evidence of its origin is shrouded in hundreds of millions of years of intervening events. But in any case, you misread the paper. It indicates that aging is not genetically programmed or caused by environmental damage, but due to developmental drift.
Punctuated Equilibrium is not outside the reach of Natural Selection. Species often tend to remain in Equilibrium as long as the environment remains stable. The Punctuation occurs when small populations evolve in isolation, then take over the parent population, leaving a discontinuity in the fossil record. This may occur whenever there is an environmental change, which may leave many isolated populations leading to a burst of rapid diversification.
A primary prediction of Punctuated Equilibrium is that the differences between species should more closely correlate with the number of speciations than with chronological time. This has been confirmed by a number of methods, though there is still some argument over how pervasive Punctuated Equilibrium might be.
You've never *inferred* design. Rather, you have provided fallacious arguments against the Theory of Evolution thinking this supports Front Loading somehow. But you've never once provided an entailed empirical prediction.
I rarely, if ever, refer to Nonoverlapping Magisteria.
It's not distinguishing. The Theory of Evolution predicts optimization, but it also predicts that there will be a balance of countervailing considerations, and a process of changing from one state to another. Consider vestigial organs. Vestigial organs without function tend to have high variance in structure as there is no constraining selection.
Nor is it specific. You don't name the structures or provide a measure of optimization for comparision.
Nor is it entailed, unless you make explicit assumptions about the abilities and motives of the designer.
Yes, we do.
Comment by Zachriel — July 29, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Hey Todd and Zach:
I'm going to be really busy for a while so I will make this real short. I'll try and catch up when I get back.
Todd
I notice you gave no prediction flowing from the epicycles I mentioned but only predictions that our observations are mistaken.
I will hold you to your word that you will not consider them science until they do.
This will allow you to be consistent because that is the reason you give for rejecting frontloading.
See how easy life is when we agree on somthing
Zach:
you are so funny less than three days ago you said
Quote:
Personal revelation may be of the utmost importance to Eternal Salvation, but has no scientific validity.
End Quote:
I could have predicted you would say that
Do you also feel that the paper is not scientific because it claimed the opposite of what I did.
That’s no problem I do make assumptions about the designer after all I know him personally
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 29, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Todd:
Not exactly, Sickle cell could be considered a disease or it could be considered a defense against the disease malaria it all depends on your perspective. My prediction is that structures will be optimal from the perspective of the designer.
At least you see how frontloading is potentially falsifiable and can make predictions.
We've made alot of progress grasshopper.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 29, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
July 29th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Huh? What observation is mistaken? I'm pretty sure that's not what I said.
So in other words, you twist your prediction specifically to make it unfalsifiable. You've already added another epicycle. No matter what the result you simply claim that result is optimal for the invisible unproven sky faerie. Sorry all you people with genetic diseases, FMM's god wants you to die, your genes are perfect for Him just the way they are, enjoy your slow painful deaths. Your god is a real jerk, you know. Another utterly vacuous "prediction".
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 29, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
July 30th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I addressed your mantra of epicycles, both generally, and to the specifics of ultraconserved regions, aging and Punctuated Equilibrium.
I do agree that many aspects of human experience are not amenable to scientific investigation. Unlike Gould, though, I do not rule it out a priori. In any case, your personal experience has no scientific validity unless it can be verified by the scientific method.
Those are not identical predictions. The former is too vague to constitute a valid scientific hypothesis. The latter requires being able to view things from the perspective of the Designer, which I suppose would be Divine Omniscience from Heaven On High.
Evolutionary theory predicts that the population will show balancing selection between the positive effects of being heterozygous and the negative effects of being homozygous. This equilibrium will depend on the prevalence of malaria. We could test this by forcibly removing people from the epicenter of the malaria epidemic (Africa). There should be a lower percentage of the Sickle Cell trait in the diaspora population. And this is what we observe.
The wonder of science is the voyage of discovery.
Thoughts are but dreams till their effects be tried. — WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
Comment by Zachriel — July 30, 2008 @ 10:20 am
July 31st, 2008 at 12:24 am
David Heddle:
I've seen you post a number of theological entries on your own site, so presumably you don't think that all philosophy and metaphysics is soft, watery gobbledy-gook. Of course, lots of what passes for philosophy nowadays is unmitigated crap, but at its best it is extremely logical and rigorous, as much as science (and largely served/serves as the foundation of modern science).
So, let me phrase Bradford's question another way: If you are an IDist what type of evidence would convince you that ID has no plausible future in the realm of legitimate, rational philosophy? That is, what would convince you not only that design is unscientific, but that it is vacuous - that there isn't and will never be any rational grounds to infer that anything (life in particular) is designed?
Comment by Deuce — July 31, 2008 @ 12:24 am
July 31st, 2008 at 5:21 am
Deuce,
1) The detection of another universe, or
2) evidence that the fine tuning of the physical constants is an illusion, or
3) a confirmed (by experiment) explanation for the OOL.
That wouldn't disprove God, but would effectively eliminate the idea that he left behind scientific evidence of his handiwork. This would, for me, “falsify” ID as a legitimate philosophy or apologetic.
Comment by David Heddle — July 31, 2008 @ 5:21 am
July 31st, 2008 at 6:55 am
David Heddle:
This is the type of detailed response I anticipated when I posed the initial question. I suspect the reason others have avoided a similarly detailed response is a desire to maintain the contention that design is utterly without merit even as an unestablished concept.
I have a question concerning #1. How do we detect another universe? I gather it is theoretically possible to do so, at least indirectly, correct? Also, how would multiple universes be falsified?
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2008 @ 6:55 am
July 31st, 2008 at 7:38 am
As philosophy often delves into speculation, there is no reason that cosmic purpose can't be discussed within that realm of thought.
Science can and does study design, e.g. archaeology. If by 'design', you mean ID, the claim that there is scientific evidence of telic causation in biology, then most everything ever written or said in support of ID demonstrates its lack of scientific merit.
Universal negative. An exhaustive search will never be possible. Perhaps aliens, long ago, placed a pebble in the Solar Nebula to seed the formation of the Earth, or angels nudged a comet out of orbit causing the extinction of dinosaurs, or the monolith still awaits humanity's rebirth near Europa, but there is no evidence of any of this.
Comment by Zachriel — July 31, 2008 @ 7:38 am
August 1st, 2008 at 1:06 am
David:
Hey, David, that's pretty close to what I was trying to get at, but I'd like to clarify just a bit more. In particular, would this mean that there was no scientific evidence, or no rational evidence at all? The latter is what I (and Bradford) was asking about specifically.
There's certainly such a thing as rational evidence that isn't scientific evidence. For one example, there is good evidence that Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation, but there's no way to design an experiment to test this fact that would make a unique prediction if it's true (your stated standard for what constitutes scientific evidence). The evidence for it is historical, not scientific.
So, would the kinds of discoveries you mention show only that there was no scientific evidence for design, or would it show that there was no rational grounds for supposing life/the universe to be designed at all? If it didn't do away with all rational grounds for supposing that anything was designed, what grounds would remain?
Comment by Deuce — August 1, 2008 @ 1:06 am
August 1st, 2008 at 6:00 am
Deuce,
I’m not exactly sure what you mean, but even if all the scientific evidence was explained away, there would still be the same characteristics of nature that have awed believers for the ages. It’s mere existence, the fact that there is something instead of nothing, its vastness, its beauty, the fact that mathematics works and that the laws of physics are simple enough that we can actually understand them and solve them, at least approximately. A universe without ID does not suddenly become a boring place.
The bottom line is, we are not believers because there is physical evidence that God created the universe. Instead, as believers first, we appreciate nature differently—we appreciate it in the context of our certainty that, ultimately, God is responsible. ID is a fascinating but ultimately unimportant subset of that—it is the comfortable but not crucial idea that certain physical realities, such as the fine tunings, are good candidates for being inexplicable.
Comment by David Heddle — August 1, 2008 @ 6:00 am
August 1st, 2008 at 8:51 am
The methods of historical research are usually considered quite distinct from science. But, you can still define those methods in terms of the scientific method. The evidence, in this case, is largely found in historical documents. And the hypothesis is one aspect or another of the overall historical narrative.
First, you establish the provenance of the documents, then determine if they fit in the larger, established historical narrative. It may not look like science on the surface, but if a newly discovered fact or document doesn't seem to fit with the established historical narrative, then an attempt is made to understand this new fact. It may be false, irrelevant, or it may require a revision in the historical narrative.
And yes, hypotheses are constantly being tested. That's why archaeologists dig into ruins. Or why scholars love to discover old manuscripts.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2008 @ 8:51 am
August 1st, 2008 at 11:48 am
Zachriel:
Thanks, but you're telling me something I already know. The whole point of that part of my post was that historical evidence is rational despite not being science. And yes, historical hypotheses can be tested in a manner of speaking, but not in the same way that scientific hypotheses can be tested. You can't construct some predictive experiment such that if your historical hypothesis is true, this will happen, and if it's not, it won't happen. Instead, you amass circumstantial evidence that makes your hypothesis seem more or less plausible over time.
David Heddle:
Thanks, that's what I (and I think Bradford) was getting at. What you seem to be saying is that even if the arguments from physical specificity (fine tuning, IC, etc) were knocked down, there would still be rational philosophical reasons (beauty, vastness, mathematics, etc) to conclude that the universe was intended (and "designed" is actually just a synonym for "intended"), and that humans were also intended to be able to understand it.
Would there be anything that would make you conclude that there were no rational reasons to believe in design, such that belief that the universe was intended was entirely a matter of fideistic faith (ie, faith without reason)?
Comment by Deuce — August 1, 2008 @ 11:48 am
August 1st, 2008 at 3:45 pm
It's not merely rational, but empirical. It's just that the methods are much different than those in other fields of research.
You're conflating the scientific method with its subset, experimental science. It's just that much of the historical narrative is strongly supported, while the areas of current interest are often tenuously supported. A typical historical question might be, who built the pyramids, and how? And we resolve this just as we resolve any scientific question, by proposing hypotheses, and then testing them, in this case, perhaps by archaeological studies.
Comment by Zachriel — August 1, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Yep. No argument here.
Actually, since I was talking to David, I was just assuming David's definition of science, which seems to be pretty much restricted to experimental science.
But, I will say that, for the sake of clear terminology, if you think that something uses the scientific method, then you ought to refer to it as science. And if you don't consider something to be science, then your definition of the scientific method shouldn't apply to it. For my part, I don't consider history to be science because it is neither experimental (like applied physics), or even potentially experimental (like theoretical physics). I think a proper definition of the "scientific method" should only include those things that can at least theoretically be tested by experiment.
Well, not just as we resolve any scientific question. You can't do an experiment to see who built the pyramids, and you can't do much in the way of prediction either, like you can with some theory about how some law works. So the manner of testing is different. They're similar inasmuch as you can lump all the different ways of confirming or disconfirming a hypothesis together as "testing".
Comment by Deuce — August 1, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:50 am
Not necessarily experiments, but *observations*. We propose a hypothesis. The prediction must be a specific and distinguishing *observation* which is entailed in the hypothesis.
Theories of the origin of the Solar System and the Cosmos are scientific theories that concern claims about history. We can't recreate the Big Bang, but we can nonetheless propose hypotheses and test them against the evidence.
With human history, it's a bit different, because we are often working within a well-established historical narrative, and the evidence often consists of documents. Historians still propose hypotheses and test them, e.g. an historian might ask how common horse ownership was in 19th century Europe, and then look at sales records to help make this determination. Anomalies are generally expected to be made to fit, but sometimes they cause a significant change in the narrative.
As to the Pyramids, we have strong scientific reasons to believe the Pyramids were built by humans several millennia ago. Archaeologists (the science that studies human cultures through the recovery, documentation, analysis and interpretation of material remains) have even found their homes.
Comment by Zachriel — August 2, 2008 @ 9:50 am