Understanding Science
by BradfordIs ID really the threat to science that some make it out to be or are there other factors at work? An article entitled UCF physicist says Hollywood movies hurt students' understanding of science presents another view of the issue.
Two University of Central Florida professors show just how poorly Hollywood writers and directors understand science in an article published in the German journal "Praxis der Naturwissenschaften Physik." Common sense may indicate that people should know the stunts in movies are just make believe, but the professors say that's not necessarily true.
Some people really do believe a bus traveling 70 mph can clear a 50-foot gap in a freeway, as depicted in the movie Speed. And, if that were realistic, a ramp would be needed to adjust the direction of motion to even try to make the leap, said UCF professor Costas J. Efthimiou, who co-authored the article.
"Students come here, and they don't have any basic understanding of science," he said. "Sure, people say everyone knows the movies are not real, but my experience is many of the students believe what they see on the screen."
Unrealistic portrayals of physical reality may be less of a problem than the fact that kids spend far too much time viewing movies and television. That's time that could be better spent learning. Creating a hobgoblin out of ID may obscure more realistic causes of a sub-par level of scientific understanding.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I say this as someone who is, at the very least, skeptical of any 'falsifiable' ID proposal (I think it may be impossible to discern intent, or lack of intent, in cosmology and biology in any testable way.): If anything, Intelligent Design seems to promote an understanding of science. It encourages people to read up on everything from molecular biology to quantum physics to cosmology, etc. People may say a lot of things about Behe's or Dembski's or other's books, but if anything they disagree with their conclusions re: the data. The appeals they make - that somehow, certain developments in nature or the universe seem downright directed or non-accidental - are modest, right or wrong.
Comment by nullasalus — August 21, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
August 21st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Okay, this way, way OT, but I'll say it anyways: why should anyone be surprised that students (or anyone else for that matter) believe what they see on the screen? The entire TV advertising industry is built on the premise that people will not only believe, but be motivated to take action regarding, what they see (and hear) on TV or the screen! If that weren't the case, no company in its right mind would spend millions, if not billions, buying all that air time based on that premise. So, if people are influenced by the 30 and 60 second commercials they see and hear on the screen, why be surprised that the 30 and 60 minute programs around them would do the same!! Did someone say "well, duh!!!"
Comment by DonaldM — August 21, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
August 21st, 2007 at 4:14 pm
nullasalus wrote:
First of all, Quine and others reject the idea that any scientific theory is falsifiable—is that why you put the word in quotation marks? At any rate, it would be unfair to demand that ID be held to a higher standard than science in general, and non-ID evolutionary theory in particular, with regard to falsifiability.
A standard, if tired, worn, and false claim made by atheists is that "there is no evidence for the existence of God". If that were literally true, it would be really weird that it was, given the fact that billions of sane people for millenia have been theists of one sort or another. Compare that with the number of people who've had a lifelong belief, say, that there are brothels on the Moon (which is why it's a cheesy place). In other words, the widespread existence of a belief that p is to a large degree a function of the evidence that people think they have for p. As Chesterton put it, people have reasons for belief even if they can't always give you their reasons.
What the atheist means, of course, is simply that there is nothing which they would count as evidence for the existence of God. But people have plenty of evidence for God's existence all the same. There are lots of phenomena, including publicly available phenomena, which are decent reasons for holding that the universe has a theistic creator, thus licensing an abductive inference to the conclusion that theism best explains the data. Abductive inference is typically employed in science, and not least in observationally challenged sciences relating to subjects buried in 'deep time', like cosmological and biological evolution.
More importantly, we should face squarely the fact that lots of individual tokens and types of phenomena are much more indicative of the conclusion that we live in a theistic creation than are other phenomena. People don't reason their way to a theistic conclusion by surveying in one giant sweep all of our reality and then exclaiming, "Aha! God exists." It may be true, indeed I think it is true, that God's is an eternal, infinite omnipresence, and not a particular phenomenon. But surely the existence of life, rational minds, moral value, and religious experience is more a signifier of God as far as we're concerned than, say, the existence of McDonald's, even if God's activity is just as necessary for the existence of McDonald's as for the Big Bang and the mental life of world-class physicists?
There is a danger in letting naturalism reign by default. Roughly, this is the mistake that allows naturalism to declare:
When it comes to public knowledge of what the world is like and explaining how it got that way, science is the only game in town. All the other games are fine pastimes, and can be played in private.
Huw Price, a moderate naturalist, explains the basic idea:
The philosophical roots of this kind of division of discourse into substantive fact-describing discourse, which is deemed the sole preserve of science, and non-substantive, non-fact, non-describing discourse lie in Hume's enormous and on the whole pernicious influence on Anglophone intellectual life. But theists have taken heart from the revolutionary and effective challenge to the Humean hegemony wrought by Saul Kripke's modal semantics, as presented in his celebrated 1970 lectures at Princeton, published later as Naming and Necessity. The key idea of Kripke is that the implicit theory of reference relied on by naturalists is fundamentally mistaken. Kripke argued persuasively that the way language, and hence thought, refers to reality transcends natural world descriptive categories in a number of important and essential ways. Reference and truth thus do not reduce to description of naturalistic entities. Propositional functions and possible worlds are not physically detectable entities, and yet both are required by scientific reasoning itself, let alone theology.
I think, therefore, that it is neither wise nor necessary for theists to concede the whole world to the naturalist and not treat particular places in it, such as minds, meanings, intentions, free will, morality, aesthetic value, the anthropic cosmological fine-tuning data, the mathematical intelligibility of the physical order, religious experience, etc, as being especially amenable to a theistic inference, and indeed as being more plausibly explained by theism than by evolutionary naturalism. I see, therefore, no reason why biology should be ruled out in advance or in principle as being one of these 'special places and things' where the hand of God seems particularly manifest. How can it be, indeed, given that the universe is finely tuned for our biology, and that our biology is capable of thinking about the Big Bang, quantum gravity theories, and Godel's incompleteness theorems, not to mention morality and Trinitarian theology?
The naturalist impulse is to naturalize everything from the process by which the universe's anthropic fine-tuning is selected, to minds, moral obligations, the meaning of theological statements, and reason itself. It's comforting to think that we can all agree to a Treaty banning Philosophical Naturalism from Intruding Into Science, and all live in a nicely demarcated intellectual village called Methodological Naturalism. But that is an illusion. We see time and time again the attempt to engage in intellectual imperialism, whereby morality, religious belief, intentional thought, love, altruism etc are scientifically 'revealed' to be 'just' the evolved product of our genetic history, and the special nature of our universe is simply due to a natural observer selection effect expectable in a multiverse. This is not mere insistence on methodological naturalism as an appropriate heuristic procedure in science. It's about hijacking the warrant science rightly enjoys on behalf of philosophical naturalism and its materialist metaphysics.
In all likelihood, most professional soccer players don't consider divine guidance to be behind the way the color of grass looks green to players with normal eyesight in normal lighting conditions during games. But then, why would anyone imagine that professional soccer players are the go-to experts on such a question? Why, then, would anyone with even a modicum of nous imagine that atmospheric scientists are the go-to folks for determining whether the weather is divinely guided, or to biologists for determining whether living species were intelligently designed by a rational creator? That would be about as sensible as asking plumbers for their professional opinion about God's role in determining water pressure requirements for Manhattan skycrapers. But it doesn't logically follow from the fact that Manhattan plumbers don't ordinarily invoke God when it comes to thinking about and explaining water pressure requirements for plumbing in Manhattan skyscrapers, that naturalism is true, nor that there's no evidence that skycraper plumbing systems were intelligently designed by minds.
But if we on this side don't say no, naturalism simply does not work or is not persuasive at some particular bits of the world—biology rather than skycraper plumbing, intentionality rather than the weather—then we'll be conceding implicitly that the intellectual hegemony which naturalism enjoys is deserved. And the truth of the matter is, it isn't.
Comment by stunney — August 21, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
August 21st, 2007 at 5:01 pm
nullasalus writes:
Questioning underlying assumptions is a healthy means of discerning errors and corrections to them. As long as the data itself is respected and the inferences rational, disagreeable conclusions need to be examined while bearing in mind that we are all guided, to some extent, by subjective outlooks.
Comment by Bradford — August 21, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
August 21st, 2007 at 5:10 pm
DonaldM:
Good point. Millions of dollars are bet daily on the assumption that people are more influenced by the medium than the accuracy of the message.
Comment by Bradford — August 21, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
August 21st, 2007 at 5:16 pm
stunney:
Empiricism need not be held hostage to naturalism. I frequently get the feeling that is the case during exchanges over OOL.
Comment by Bradford — August 21, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
August 21st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
stunney,
Not really. I just think concepts of falsifiability tend to be slippery, so my definition may not match someone else's.
I didn't really explain myself, but when it comes to ID, my skepticism is narrowed down to the ability to falsify proposals of intention/mind behind nature/processes, especially on as grand a scale as ID tends to deal with. It's enough of a challenge to do that with human beings, even simple animals.
On the other hand, ID proponents can still make claims I'd say are falsifiable. I still have to read his book, but Behe's study of.. malaria cells, I think?.. sounds interesting. And even if I'm not certain ID can be 'falsified' (there I go again), I think there's nothing wrong with the general idea as a belief or philosophy - and it may lead to some fruitful research or discovery.
Comment by nullasalus — August 21, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
August 21st, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Bradford wrote:
Indeed, Bradford, that's my point. For some reason it is more acceptable to explain the universe's contingency, finite past, anthropic fine-tuning, mathematical intelligibility, and its containing minds capable of experiencing moral and aesthetic value, in terms of an abductive inference to theism as being intellectually legitimate, than it is to to make a similar inference with respect to biology. But why should biology be off-limits as requiring teleological explanation, but not minds or morality or the mathematical order of physical reality? Why is it that human intentions, moral freedom, or scientific reasoning be allowed to have teleological explanations in public discussion and education, but that as soon as one discusses the body plans of organisms in teleological terms one is immediately and ferociously branded as an anti-scientific theocratic wannabe-cum-weirdo? Why are ID explanations for things like intentions and moral beliefs 'tolerated', but not tolerated for the navigation systems of fruitflies? Is it because the Darwinian paradigm is built on philosophical, not scientific/empirical foundations, and so is motivated by non-scientific passions and prejudices?
It sure as hell looks that way from where I'm sitting.
Comment by stunney — August 21, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
August 21st, 2007 at 9:25 pm
It looks that way from where I'm sitting too stunney and I think that's several thousand miles from you.
Comment by Bradford — August 21, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:53 am
[quote]Is ID really the threat to science that some make it out to be or are there other factors at work?[/quote]
Are you arguing that ID is not a threat to science because Hollywood? Is it possible that both ID and Hollywood are threats to science? Or is that just to incredible to consider?
Comment by The Pixie — August 22, 2007 @ 3:53 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:00 am
Consider the Another Dark Secret from the Past thread. What has that to do with ID? Was the research looking at creationism, front-loadng or evolution? No, it was not. There would seem to be no connection between that unethical research and the evolution-ID debate. So why was it posted on an ID blog? My best guess is that it is an attack on science - afterall, it is the scientists who are ID's biggest opponents; an attack on science undermines their authority, making ID more attractive to the public. Does Hollywood seek to undermine science? Not that I am aware of.
Comment by The Pixie — August 22, 2007 @ 4:00 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:45 am
No. I'm saying ID is not a threat period.
Not everything posted on any blog is 100% relevant to the blog's main theme. The post you are referring to was written by a scientist. He has no predilection for attacking himself but sees value in revealing the truth and letting the chips fall where they may.
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 6:45 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:10 am
Oh, I see. So where does Hollywood fit in?
It seems to me that "Is ID really the threat to science that some make it out to be or are there other factors at work?" is setting up a false dichotomy. EitherID is a threat to science or other factors are a threat to science.
So how does the UCF article relate to ID? Why mention it at all if what you are "saying ID is not a threat period". How does the UCF article support that claim in any way?
So let us say the Another Dark Secret thread was only 60% relevant to ID…
Or to put it another way, are you saying the Another Dark Secret thread is not connected to ID at all, or admitting that actually there is a connection?
It was written by a scientist who has to post under a pseudonym because he believes he would loose standing, perhaps even his position, if his views were know by other scientists. Are you really sure that Mike Gene would not like to see the authority of mainstream scientists diminished just a bit?
Comment by The Pixie — August 22, 2007 @ 7:10 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:26 am
The point of the link is to illustrate that real threats to learning science exist but are ignored in favor of strawmen
I think Mike is a decent guy who knows scientists are like everyone else- imperfect.
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 7:26 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:01 am
Because I really don't like it when orphans have been used in abusive experiments. I didn't add any comments there because it's not a good idea to post in anger. What makes you think that was related to ID?
Enslavement to stereotype has Pixie peddling stupidity. And that's some moral compass you have there, Pixie. A news story breaks where we learn that defenseless orphans were victimized in an experiment and you try to turn Science into the victim!!
I notice that you did not express any moral outrage or concern about that experiment and the fact that the Establishment tried to keep it secret for al these years. You obviously read the thread and had the chance and chose to remain silent. In fact, you seem to be now trying to intimidate me into shutting up about this experiment. Why is this? I guess it was supposed to disappear down the memory hole.
Comment by MikeGene — August 22, 2007 @ 8:01 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:12 am
Hypocritical stupidity from someone else who posts under a pseudonym. But since you brought it up, if I'm supposed to be this scientist with this standing, just what position do I hold that should cause me to loose standing or my position? Spell it out.
Are we really sure that The Pixie truly opposes experimenting on orphans? He seems to be awfully upset with me for linking to that news story and has tried to change the topic from orphans as victims into Science as Victim.
Comment by MikeGene — August 22, 2007 @ 8:12 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:19 am
Obviously they are not being ignored, as a recent article by people at UCF shows.
Is ID a threat to science? I think it is. Many IDists are also creationists (please note: that does not mean I think ID is creationist). Stephen Meyer and Philip Johnson of the Discovery Institute are two prominent example. If I believed God created the world 6000 years ago, and created Adam and Eve in his image then I would my children taught that at school, and certainly not taught they are descended from single-celled organisms that were around 4 billion years ago. I find it unbelievable that people like Meyer would not want YEC taught as science. What possible reason could have? Politics.
For these people, ID (or perhaps "teach the controversy" after Kitzmiller) is the thin end of The Wedge, the first step to getting creationism back into schools.
That may not be the case for you, and I am sure it is not the case for many IDists, but you are not the people running the show. It is people like Meyer and Johnson (less so Johnson nowadays of course) in the Discovery Institute who represent the ID movement, who set the strategies. People who believe in creationism and are on record as saying they want to smash methodological materialism.
Sure. And Mike is just as imperfect as the rest of us. Are you really sure that Mike Gene would not like to see the authority of mainstream scientists diminished just a bit?
Comment by The Pixie — August 22, 2007 @ 8:19 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:11 am
stunney said:
I love it. The implication, I suppose, is that we should ask philosophers and theologians these questions. But there is no reason at all to believe that studying philosophy or theology yields any particularly privileged answers to these questions. For one thing, there is no agreement among philosophers as to the answers to these questions. Some are theists, some are naturalists, and there is no agreement as to which are right or on methods for determining which is right.
I would trust an atmospheric scientists opinions on God, or a plumber's, before I would trust a philosophers. Plumbers and scientists have proven that they can master a craft, scientists have proven that they can contribute to human knowledge. Philosophers have proven only that they can impress other philosophers. Plumbers and scientists engage with the world, philosophers seem to have actively disengaged with it. Stunney's post is a prime example. His disdain for those who work with reality is obvious.
Comment by mtraven — August 22, 2007 @ 9:11 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:06 am
That's an interesting philosophy.
Comment by WedgeHead — August 22, 2007 @ 10:06 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
The strategy is to advance ID and that will be accomplished by names you are unfamiliar with. The public schoool issue was settled in Dover and IDists are not focused on it. It is their critics who continually talk about the school issue.
Yes. If you think he has negative feelings toward mainstream scientists you are simply wrong. Actually he believes in almost all of what mainstreamers believe. He just thinks that evolution was front loaded. That's not so bad is it?
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Wedgehead wrote:
Ssssh. 'Bright' epistemology this bad should be left alone as a shining Monument to Reason for future generations to marvel at.:grin:
Comment by stunney — August 22, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Bradford
Are you really claiming that every single IDist wants only to advance ID, that none want to advance creationism? Are you really claiming that every single IDist is happy for evolution to be taught in schools, for ID and creationism not to be taught as science? That is simply not true.
So why did he start the Another Dark Secret from the Past thread do you think? Have you decided yet whether it was absolutely nothing to do with ID (why do you think Mike posted it on an ID web site then) or whether it is just a bit to do with ID (and then, what is the conection)? Sounds like you know Mike pretty well, so should be able to clear this up for us.
Does that mean he by-and-large supports mainstream scientists? Are you confident he does not feel any animosity towards them?
If that belief leads Mike to make posts that are designed to undermine mainstream science in general, in an attempt to further his own theories, yes it is bad.
Comment by The Pixie — August 22, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:15 pm
IDists seek to advance the view that the history of life is consistent with intelligent design. Like their counterparts they have views about matters unrelated to ID but whether or not an IDist wishes to see others accept Christianity or any other religion is no more relevant to ID than are the atheist views of Dawkins and PZ relevant to evidence for mainstream evolution.
This is my last comment about Mike (and yours too) since his post is unrelated to the topic of this thread. It is not uncommon to post on matters that are tangential to a main theme or off-topic. The topic is up to the blogger and you are free to ignore it if you find it not to your liking. PZ strays off topic too. I write for two ID blogs and at both locations there are posts that are not directly focused on ID. No big deal. If you wish to deal with the substance of Mike's post do so within his thread.
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
That is not quite true, though is it (or do we understand " is consistent with" differently)? IDists seek to advance the view that the history of life is only consistent with intelligent design. That is a subtle, but important different. I believe the history of life is consistent with intelligent design, i.e., that intelligent design could have been behind the process. There are plenty of Christians who accept modern evolutionary theory, but believe God is behind it. Modern evolutionary theory is already "consistent with intelligent design".
You are ignoring the plain fact that for some people ID is merely one step on the road to teaching creationism. The Wedge document and Of Pandas and People proved this in court to a Christian judge. Do you honestly believe Meyer and Johnson do not want creationism taught as science? Can you offer any reason why they would not want what they believe to be fact taught as fact?
You may not be one of those people, but with all due respect, you do not have the standing in the ID movement as Meyer and Johnson. When I try to determine if ID is a threat to science, I am going to look at big names in the Discovery Institute, and wonder what their agenda is. Are you really sure no one at the Discovery Institute wants creationism taught as science?
Comment by The Pixie — August 22, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
stunney wrote:
Come on stunney, mtraven makes a good point. Plato the Plumber is still remembered. But philosophers only deal with thinking, not reality, which is why none of them is famous.
Thoughts are not real, you see. But plumbing systems are. This has been proven by many scientific experiments. Mtraven's disdain for thinking—ugh!—- is thus quite justified rationally.
Comment by Zoskie — August 22, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Hi Pixie,
Yes, he can be sure of that. For what is the authority of mainstream scientists? It is not metaphysical authority. It is not moral authority. It is not social authority. It is not political authority. The authority of mainstream scientists rests solely in the ability to label something "˜science,' to judge whether something is good science, and to hand out grant money and determine what gets published in the scientific literature. Scientists have authority only when it comes to science. Nothing in that news story undermines that authority.
Of course, if Pixie is under the erroneous opinion that mainstream scientists do have metaphysical, moral, social, and political authority, one can understand why he wants to sweep this scandal under the rug. Real children were harmed by a scientific experiment. It's part of our history that he would rather we ignore. And this is not something that comes just from the past "“ "The university kept the experiment and its methods from the former subjects for decades." But hey, they were only orphans, right? Only scientists should have the authority to decide whether or not they can experiment on orphans, right? Where is your sense of morality, Pixie?
Comment by MikeGene — August 22, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
The Pixie has above defined Creationism to include a belief in a 6,000 year old earth.
He has created a sandwich here which implies that Meyer and Johnson are YEC, and then outright claims YEC is Meyer's belief:
It is not unbelievable because YEC is neither Meyer's nor Johnson's belief.
Later the Pixie again erroneously links Johnson and Meyer to this YEC view:
He has repeatedly referred to Stephen Meyer and Philip Johnson as Creationists, linking them to a belief/promotion of a 6,000 year old earth in which evolution has not played a part in the development of life.
To set the record straight, they do not believe or promote this view.
In response to metaphysical misstatements masquerading as science such as this by Gaylord Simpson: "Man was a result of a purposeless process that did not have him in mind."
Meyer defines the ID question as such:
"The biggest question at the root of the origins debate is purposeless chance versus intelligent design or guidance," said Meyer. "Is life the result of purposeless or purposeful causes? At the most basic, most fundamental level , you see incredible evidence for intelligent design. It's becoming clearer and clearer that the ordinary processes of nature that we see in operation now do not produce the kinds of structures and complexity that we see at work in a cell."
The biggest question is not the age of the Earth or the when and where of the design implementation. However, on the age of the Earth, both Meyer and Johnson believe it is 4.6 BYO.
Above, The Pixie's posts were referred to by Mike Gene as stupidity, and I will go myself as far on this point as to call them ignorant.
There are prominent YECs in the DI, but they are not Meyer and Johnson.
Or Behe, Dembski, Kenyon, Gonzalez, etc.
Being that I have to leave town for the weekend, I am likely to regret having started what may well be a near-endless exchange, but it is important that such obvious misstatements of fact be corrected.
Comment by Pez — August 22, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:12 am
Mike, I will respond to your comments on your thread, as suggested by Bradford. I had not noticed your earlier comments, by the way; I think I was writting my response when you posted.
Pez
No, I am defining creationism as the belief that God created each "kind" in individually. I guess the acid test is whether you believe mankind is related to chimps. Creationism comprises a number of beliefs, of which YEC is perhaps the most popular.
It was my belief that Meyer is a YECer, though having done a quick Google, I can find nothing to confirm that. I apologise if I was mistaken. However, they does seem to be plenty of evidence that both Meyer and Johnson reject common descent.
Then I will rewrite my point using creationism, rather than YEC.
Is ID a threat to science? I think it is. Many IDists are also creationists (please note: that does not mean I think ID is creationism). Stephen Meyer and Philip Johnson of the Discovery Institute are two prominent example. If I believed God created each "kind" individually, and created Adam and Eve in his image then I would want my children taught that at school, and certainly not taught they are descended from single-celled organisms and that we are related to chimps. I find it unbelievable that people like Meyer would not want creationism taught as science. What possible reason could have? Politics.
Comment by The Pixie — August 23, 2007 @ 4:12 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:40 am
Hi The Pixie,
You were and thank you.
This is a frighteningly poor litmus test. You say that ID is a threat because of the personal (perceived) beliefs of some of its proponents, regardless of their official positions, because you do not trust them to be telling the truth.
At the same time, you know equally well that some ID proponents have no truck whatsoever with universal common descent.
Since Meyer has no scientific position on the evolution of man and since the question has no impact upon his conclusion of Design why would you believe that he would desire that it be taught in a science class that man was uniquely created?
Where has he written or testified that this is his desire?
It is telling that you project this kind of thinking onto others. Since you think this of a creationist then you also must think it of an atheist, right? For instance, if I believed that the universe was cold and impersonal, that evolution was a blind and unguided process, and that man was the accidental product of a process which never had him in mind, then I would want my children taught that.
So do you also think, and appropriately fear, that every evolutionary biologist who is also an atheist wants taught in science classes (as has been the case) this non-scientific, metaphysical, personal belief?
Comment by Pez — August 23, 2007 @ 5:40 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:36 am
Hi Pez
I am claiming that Meyer and Johnson are creationists (specifically that they deny universal common descent, and instead believe that God created each "kind" individually). You seem to be suggesting that I am wrong, without actually saying so. Could you clarify your position here?
Assuming that they are creationists, do you think it makes sense for them to be happy that children are taught in science that God did not create each "kind" individually, and that they are descended from single-celled organisms? I cannot imagine any possible reason why a creationist would be happy with that situation, so perhaps you can help me out it.
Given the court judgements against teaching creationism in schools, it makes sense to me that Meyer and Johnson would prefer ID to be taught along side modern evolutionary ttheory as the cloest they will get - for the moment - to what they would really like to see. It is not merely that I do not trust them to tell the truth, but that it would seem to make sense for them not to tell the truth (if you want, I will see if I can dig up some instances of Meyer and Johnson quote-mining so we can gauge their honesty).
I have said all this already, and I am still not getting where you think I am mistaken.
Sorry, I do not get this. I know that some IDists accept common descent, that some are undecided and some reject it. I am not sure why that means ID is not threat, given some of the leaders of the ID movement reject common descent.
I was thinking about his religious convictions, actually. So it sounds as though he believes as an article of faith that God created man uniquely, but you think he is perfectly happy for children to be told that his faith is false in science classes.
I find that odd. May he is different to me. I would not want children taught that my deeply held beliefs were wrong.
It is? I find it hard to imagine anyone not thinking like that.
I certainly think you would strongly object to your children being taught that that belief was wrong.
Why would I fear that? It coincides with my belief!
That said, I think science education should stick to science; that there is very good reason to suppose that we are all descended from single-celled organisms, that the process of evolution involves random elements, but is constrained too, that there is no indication of any purpose or guiding hand behind it.
Comment by The Pixie — August 23, 2007 @ 7:36 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 am
Hi The Pixie,
As I said, I don't have time to scratch this out point by point for the next several days. Luckily, I don't have to, as you moot your entire position in your last two sentences.
a) Great. You don't care about "science" at all, science-defender.
Here we have science co-opted in the name of a metaphysic with lies told about its findings - which is the exact threat to science you ought to fear. But, since it fits your personal metaphysic, you have no complaint. You don't fear the degradation of science, but the loss of government support for your personal beliefs.
b) You try to qualify that you want "science education [to] stick to science" but you present it as though you don't even know what science is and you can't help throwing in your materialist metaphysic at the end. There is, in fact, every indication that there is purpose and guidance behind evolution, from "apparent" design, to "evolution is anything but random", to repeatability/predictability of mutations, to the improbabilities associated with blind searches, to evolution's finding "solutions" to "problems", etc. But if, as IDists are told, science qua science can not "infer" that purpose or guidance is indicated then science surely can't infer that it is not indicated.
So your lament that ID is a threat to "science" boils down to "ID is a threat to The Pixie's personal metaphysic".
This I have no problem with. So be it.
(On the other hand, the IDists who are involved in this matter at an education level (even the ones you want to insist are creationists) promote the teaching of science sans this metaphysic. Their position is that we ought to teach the science and not use it to support your metaphysic. "Here is the evidence, here is what we know, here is what science can properly infer, here is what it cannot…")
Comment by Pez — August 23, 2007 @ 11:50 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
There is no scientific evidence of purpose in biology, evolution is not random (nor are planetary orbits), mutations are largely random with respect to environmental necessity, and evolutionary algorithms can effectively find solutions to many types of problems.
Comment by Zachriel — August 23, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Hello Zachriel:
By tomorrow on my blog, I will have posted a continued response to our discussion regarding detecting coded information that we had a while back in the thread "Behe: ID rescues common descent." I welcome you to continue the discussion with myself on my blog. I thank you in advance for your continued discussion and critiques.
In order to be more accurate, you should have qualified your statement with, "except for the fact that information processing implies previous intelligent programming, and that evolution is a process which relies upon the processing of information." But, I discuss this in further detail at my blog.
Well, then if evolution is not random, which physical law does it follow? You know, kinda like how planetary orbits are defined by the non random laws of gravity.
… and is there any way at all that mutations are NOT rendom? IMO, this is a very important question.
, … and evolutionary algorithms are a verification of ID theory, because they operate on a foundation of intelligently designed fine tuned information which guides the program toward the solution to a specific problem. Although the solution itself is not known, the problem is known before hand and the evolutionary algorithm is directed by the finely tuned information to discover any way that will solve that specific problem. Evolutionary algorithms are DESIGNED to evolve solutions to problems KNOWN by a PRIOR INTELLIGENCE.
Comment by CJYman — August 23, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:08 pm
It was meant humorously. That was why I ended it with an exclamation mark, and went on to qualify it: "I think science education should stick to science."
I am not aware of athests trying to promote atheism in science classrooms (prhaps you know differently, and can offer some links), and I see no reason why they would want to. Modern evolutionary theory is perfectly compatible with atheism. Speaking for myself, I am happy for modern evolutionary theory to be taught because it does not contradict my world "faith". So I do not "fear" athests promoting atheism in science classrooms because I think it is far ess likely.
I have no idea what you are talking about. What lies?
No there is not. There are certainly a lot of people who claim there is, but most scientists - the people who study the evidence - believe otherwise. Even those with a theistic metaphysic. Why do you think that might be?
It is my belief that in schools you teach science as it is accepted by the majority of scientists. If a hypothesis is not accepted, you do not teach it. Once you get to college, sure, you might want to expose students to more radical ideas, but not school. I would be curious to know what guidelines you would propose for deciding what gets taught in schools. Should we teach string theory, relativity, alchemy, astronomy, astrology? How do we decided which should be taught and which should not? Do we teach it all? Or just teach the science that conforms to your metaphysic?
Comment by The Pixie — August 23, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
No, that would have made my statement less accurate.
Evolution is an observed non-random phenomena. Selection is a non-random aspect of evolution.
Sure. And geneticists expend a great deal of effort to understand these mechanisms. There are genetic hot and cold spots in genomes. Mutation rates are often affected by the environment. Mutation rates vary between species. More importantly, genetic variation is non-random, and includes many more mechanisms than simple point-mutations, such as recombination, linked genes, gene duplication, etc.
By the way, it is important to note that even totally random, neutral mutation can result in net evolution, through drift and fixation.
Evolutionary algorithms are a class of mathematical structures. We can make valid generalizations about these structures"”which includes aspects of biological gene networks.
Comment by Zachriel — August 23, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Hi The Pixie
The exclamation mark and your claimed intent don't change the fact since your follow-up sentence only confirms my conclusion. As I said, your qualifier did not change anything.
I don't believe you.
You can't think of any possible reason why a creationist would NOT want to promote his beliefs in class (except as a political ploy), and then you say you can't think of any reason that an atheist would promote his.
What was that MikeGene said about stereotyping?
Never mind the fact that we have just explored and established the atheist metaphysic (not science) involved.
Neither does it mine, nor Meyer's - provided the science is taught, sans the metaphysics.
The ones I just discussed. The fact that it is claimed that science tells us that evolution is random, unguided, unplanned, undesigned and that man is not/was not the goal and was a mere accident.
This is not science, and it is a lie to say that it is, or that it is a finding of science. Science does not and cannot know these things. Me: There is, in fact, every indication that there is purpose and guidance behind evolution, from "apparent" design, to "evolution is anything but random", to repeatability/predictability of mutations, to the improbabilities associated with blind searches, to evolution's finding "solutions" to "problems", etc. But if, as IDists are told, science qua science can not "infer" that purpose or guidance is indicated then science surely can't infer that it is not indicated.
You: No there is not. There are certainly a lot of people who claim there is, but most scientists - the people who study the evidence - believe otherwise. Even those with a theistic metaphysic. Why do you think that might be?
Yes there is.
Every evolutionist admits that there is an appearance of design. Even atheists like Dawkins. Now why do you think that is?
They have to warn their students to keep always in their minds that what they are examining is the product of an unguided process and not the product, as would appear, of design.
Mathematicians for half a century have demonstrated that the requirements of life and evolution far outstrip the probabilistic resources of the mechanisms of the paradigm coupled with an unguided blind search.
(We just had on another thread evolutionary biologist Allen MacNeill confirm for us again that Natural Selection is not the engine of evolution, that variation is. At the same time he admitted that science does not know the engine of this variation. Therefore, it matters not a whit what you want to say about the randomness/non-randomness of natural selection - it is a result, not a mechanism).
Darwin's entire project was to try to explain the design (the indication of guidance and purpose) without recourse to a designer.
By every indication/appearance the process required a plan and guidance - it is the job of the materialistic to explain away that indication. He is not trying explain the fact that there is no indication of purpose - quite the opposite.
First, rather than respond to your last question in this paragraph I refer you to the parts I've bolded.
Next, you ask what guidlines I would suggest for determining what gets taught in schools. I just told you, didn't I?
Science classes should teach science - philosophy classes should teach philosophy. Isn't that what ID critics have claimed for years?
But there is another question to be asked here, and that is a little bigger. What, indeed, should we teach? First, why do we teach at all? What is the purpose of educating our young. Why is the government involved and what is its responsibility? Who is the government and to whom is it accountable? How, indeed, ought we determine what our children are going to learn?
Obviously, the answer is that we teach our children what we think will make them better persons, and what we think they ought to know to lead good and productive lives, and to ensure the health and success of our communities and our country. The government is merely the agent of the citizen, formed and elected to see to it that this interest is satisfied.
When thought of as such, I doubt many would say that what we need to teach our children is that science and scientists can speak on all subjects as authorities (or, as you wanted in another thread - that we ought to silence critics and bury facts to allow science to maintain this authority). When thought of as such I think most would agree that if we are teaching science we ought not be teaching it with a materialistic, nihilistic metaphysic which can be neither demonstrated/proven by science, nor evidenced by its methods.
We don't need to be making philosophical proclamations under the guise of science and then screaming that these are now fact, Fact, FACT with the stamped approval of "science".
PS.
Thanks CJYman
Comment by Pez — August 23, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Hi Pez
Thank you for informing me what I meant…
Right. Because the atheist's beliefs are not contradicted by common descent, etc. but the creationist's are. That is a fundamental difference between their situations. Frankly I find it bizarre that you cannot see that.
Sorry, I missed that.
Theories and hypothesis in science are our best current understanding of the universe at the moment. Currently we have no evidence of design in the evolution of life, so the theory of evolution reflects that. I appreciate that your metaphysics tries to force design on the evidence, but as I said before, even most Christian scientists agree with me that there is no evidence for that. Did you get that? Modern evoutionary theory is accepted by atheists and by theists; it is metaphysics neutral.
That will come as a shock to archeaologist and forensic scientists. They were under the impression science could indeed infer design.
Because people have a propensity to see design where none exists (eg, in thunder storms in ancient times). Because Darwinian evolution is a design-like process.
Really? I have never heard of that.
Really? I have never heard of that either.
I missed that, which thread was it? It sounds interesting.
I am not too clear what your argument is here. Okay, variation is the engine, giving evolution the ability to move, and natural selection is, if you like, the driver, giving it direction. Are you then asking what the engine of the engine is ("science does not know the engine of this variation")? Are you saying that if we do not know what the engine of the engine is then it is a result not a mechanism ("Therefore … it is a result, not a mechanism")? Would it follow that if we did know the engine of the engine, then it would now be a mechanism and not a result? Or perhaps we would need to know the engine of the engine of the engine? Did I mention I was confused?
Darwin's project was to explain the natural world. He started thinking it was designed, yes, but the closer he looked, the further he explored, the more more convinced he became that in fact it was not designed at all; that the indication of purpose was absent. He was not explaining away purpose, he was explaining the absence of purpose.
Great, so teach mainstream biology - including modern evolutionary theory - in biology. All I advocate is that we teach in science the science that scientists accept.
All of them? No.
Er, that was the question I asked ("I would be curious to know what guidelines you would propose for deciding what gets taught in schools").
When I did science at school none of my teachers screamed "fact, Fact, FACT". Is it different in the States?
But anyway, you never did answer the question (not that I am surprised). How do we decide what is to be taught as science? Should we teach string theory, relativity, alchemy, astronomy, astrology? How do you think we should choose?
Comment by The Pixie — August 23, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Hi The Pixie:
Thank you for validating the design inference. Of course you are responding to this:
So first, grammatically you aren't even responding properly to the point - acting as though I didn't say "if".
But by your dismay, along with that of the archeologists and forensic scientists, you agree with design theorists that science can infer design. This would put a different spin on things on our discussion in general, except that you are about to two-face and say "oh, but not in biology, and not without explicit knowledge of who the designer is, etc." Which will be a practical agreement with the premise , "if, as IDists are told…".
You can't accept that both feet need shoes. If science can rule out design in biology then it can also rule it in. If science cannot approach the positive inference to design, then it cannot approach the negative inference to no-design.
Not if Meyers is, as you claim, a creationist (he is not convinced of universal common descent but it does not affect his beliefs either way).
And not if you teach science instead of metaphysics.
Yes we do.
You keep shifting from empiricism to metaphysics to try to salvage some standing.
Christian scientists aplenty will agree with you that science and empirical observation do not provide scientific evidence of God (and plenty will disagree).
They will not agree with you that science tells us that we are the result of a blind, purposeless, unguided process that did not have us in mind.
If and when science can start to rule on such a question then you cannot keep ID out.
On the other hand, theist and atheist alike will attest to the fact that the design is apparent.
Question-begging.
They also see it where it does exist.
Here's a quote I just yanked off the first site I saw when I Googled "Crick remind themselves not designed".
"Committed Darwinist Richard Dawkins begins his book The Blind Watchmaker by stating, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Statements like this echo throughout the biological literature. In What Mad Pursuit, Francis Crick, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, writes, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." "
You could look into it.
Google Wistar and 1966.
Which thread [the MacNeill argument], I don't recall as I type this. I might get back to you on it.
No, natural selection gives it nothing. Natural selection is a result. But it has been empowered by the likes of Dawkins, who calls it "non-random" to get around the obvious mathematical failing of randomness to generate the complexity of life we see (one must equivocate on "random", of course, to make this argument).
No, natural selection, is the result. Variation is the mechanism.
What would follow is that if we knew that variation was unplanned, undirected, unguided, (and "random" in the sense it was originally intended) and that the resulting survival and reproductive differentials were also unguided, unplanned, undirected, then we might have more of a reason to claim that evolution itself is. But, as it is, we do not know this about variation.
As do Meyer, Johnson and myself.
Unguided, undirected, purposeless, etc. is not science - whether scientists accept it or not. If and when modern evolutionary biology ventures away from science into making metaphysical claims then it should be stopped.
For some reason with your great concern for the well-being of science this degradation does not bother you when it is your metaphysic being imported.
Sure I did.
We, the people, decide.
We determine what we think will best benefit our children as persons and as citizens and what will best benefit our communities and our nations.
We assemble and discuss the question, we have elections, board meetings and consult experts. We ask scientists, philosophers, educators, historians, etc. what would best meet our goals. We determine what kind of knowledge is foundational and what must come later. What must be learned first and is most broadly applicable and what must be added on top. We also survey what we think the future might hold and plan for that.
But when we ask scientists what they think on these issues we do not ask them for their metaphysical positions. When they erroneously let those creep in because of human weakness, carelessness, or indoctrination, we have a right to weed those out. As we survey the future and the state of knowledge of information and the quantum world we find that students aren't well-served by having a 19th century Victorian metaphysic tacked onto their science.
And a historical science is not in the business of giving us Fact, and should not present its opinions as such anyway.
Comment by Pez — August 23, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Hi Pez
Of course it can.
Science can infer design if the inference is good. In archaeology and forensic science they start with the known existence of a designer. Hmm, maybe IDists do too?
Dembski proposed the explanatory filter (EF) some years ago, though it seems to be almost forgotten now. The problem with the EF is it only did half the job. It only assessed the non-design route. A more reasonable, fairer EF would consider the probability of design vs the probability of non-design (actually it would consider the probabilities of a range of scenarios). Archaeologists start with a high probability of design because of the proven existence of a suitable designer, i.e., man. IDists, well, extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.
Science can rule out specific design scenarios - YEC for example - but, no science cannot rule design out altogether.
Science says common descent happened. The evidence is overwhelming (ask Mikes Gene, Behe and Denton). But if Meyer is, as I claim, a creationist, he will want common descent removed from science. He will want common descent removed from science, please note, not for any scientific reason, but because it contradicts his faith. That is the threat of creationism - the very thing you are arguing against.
No, we do not.
I do not remember arguing that evolution is purposeless, only that there is no indication of that purpose.
Of course. People see design where there is design, and where there is not design. So seeing design is not a good indicator of actual design.
I had a quick look, and will investigate further. Curiously, I have been arguing with IDists for some years, and never heard of that.
No, natural selection is a process. The result is a population better adapted to the environment. And of course it is non-random - at least in the sense of it being a tendency, that it has a direction, towards better adapted to the environment.
No, they are two processes working in tandem.
Do you think artificial selection is a result? When dog breeders select the dogs they like for breeding over numerous generations, is that an end result or a process?
No, we do not "know" it, but we do see evidence to support the idea. That is the best science can do.
Sure. All scientists should say is that they is no indication of purpose, or a guiding hand. Because they is no indication. It would not be scientific to say there is therefore no purpose, and no guiding hand. And it would not be scientif to say there is sound evidence for purpose or guiding hand.
I am asking you to tell us how you think we should determine what we think will best benefit our children as persons and as citizens and what will best benefit our communities and our nations.
Ah, so if I want alchemy taught to my children I have to get a bunch of alchemy supports elected on to the school board, we would then ask scientists, philosophers, educators, historians what they thought of alchemy. Any that said it was nonsense, well that is just their metaphysics creeping in - their are only human afterall - so we ignore their biased opionions, and only consider the opinions of those who agree with us. And beforeyou know it school children are being taught about turning lead into gold (which would, of course, be very use in their careers, and for the national economy). Or I could it for astrology, or cold fusion. Or even Intelligent Design.
Comment by The Pixie — August 23, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Hi The Pixie,
Very good.
This means it cannot claim purposeless, unguided, undirected, etc.
It has no authority.
IF.
Of course your non-sequitur does not hold. There is no reason to presume that your implied syllogism has any merit.
Even IF Meyer is a creationist his stated view is that he is not impacted by universal common descent, even though he is skeptical of its findings.
You are nothing but a thought police concerning yourself with beliefs rather than actions.
By the way, you do realize that Science does not know if there ever was a LUCA, right? And that there are theories that LUCA might actually have been a community? And that this community might have been swapping genes horizontally rather than through descent? And you know that Science does not know what the purported first life form was, right? And that it can't know how many times there was, in fact, a "first" life form?
Wow! Stamp stamp fan erasies…
Science may have a tentatively held theory subject to overhaul and amendment upon the discovery of new evidence…since that's what science does.
Science does not SAY.
That is curious.
Your "no" and "no" are wrong and wrong. Sure, call Natural Selection a process if you like, that doesn't change the fact that it is a result, not a mechanism, and not a "driver" as you want to call it.
Here's that bit from Allen MacNeill. Now you may find him as inconsistent as I do on this issue, but you can't argue with him, he is a scientist, and he says this:
http://telicthoughts.com/what-...
===
You make the same mistake with this analogy that Darwin did. When breeders "select" then intelligence is involved, we move beyond mechanism, we move into teleology and yes, the "selection" is a result of the intelligent design, and is not a process unto itself.
You may want to call culling a mechanism and a process, but this is only a manifestation of the design, this is not the selection per se. Nor is any act of limiting the reproductive opportunities.
As I alluded to earlier, yours is only the same equivocating use that Dawkins employs when he tries to establish that evolution is not random(because mathematically "randomness" does not do the job).
Follow along with his logic here. Evolution is not random because Natural Selection is guided. By what? we ask. "By which genes survive and which genes don't survive".
But that is differential reproductive success. That is natural selection.
So Natural Selection is not random, because it is guided, guided by Natural Selection.
There, that's better. But, actually, we see evidence that doesn't support the idea as well. We see mutational hot-spots, stress-phase reactions, hyper-mutability, etc.. We see some "random" (by which I mean we don't know of any teleological reason for them) mutations resulting, presumably, from copying "mistakes" (are they "mistakes" or are they a designed mechanism of variability?). But we also see that these do little or nothing in terms of providing the complexity of raw materials which blind watch-maker evolution is supposed to account for. What is more befitting the evidence is some kind of punctuated equilibria, non-gradualistic, saltational mechanism. And we have no idea whether any such mechanism would be random at all.
No they should not. You still can't separate philosophy from science, and yet you have these grave concerns about what will become of science. If you are limiting science as you claim to want to then science cannot tell if there is any indication or not. If science is not so limited then the indication is that there is guidance. Take a look at convergence and repetition of forms for instance.
Have you noticed that I can match you assertion for assertion?
Yes, there is an indication of design.
Dawkins tells us that with Darwin's theory it became possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Why is that?
Because the design was evidenced, apparent, indicated, throughout nature.
It still is.
The only difference is that there is a proposal on the table that attempts to explain how that apparent, indicated, evidenced design came to be.
And that proposal is incomplete and failing.
I told you. Consult experts, meet, discuss, vote. Try consulting your conscience and reason.
Yes, you would.
You would assemble experts to discuss its merits, you would weigh the pros and cons, discuss whether or not it would be valuable information for students to have, heck, you might even wonder if it actually represented reality.
Then you would vote collectively with your community to see if the government that represents you collectively and the school district which represents you ought to be involved in this project. It's kind of a democratic idea. It works relatively well.
Non sequitur.
Your investigation might reveal some very good reasons why this should not be taught and would be of no value to your children - metaphysics aside.
Hahaha. Oh wow! I didn't see where that brilliant string hanging off the end of your non-sequitur was going. That was really