Almost 20 years ago, Ronald Reagan nominated a strongly conservative Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Liberal activists went on the assault and repeatedly mischaracterized everything about Bork, including his video rentals. The left did everything they could do, including lie, to derail his nomination.
Sen. Ted Kennedy railed against Bork on the Senate floor: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government.” None of that was true, but the character attacks were enough to derail his nomination.
Bork was “borked” because his ideas presented a danger to the liberal establishment. Everyone understood he was a prolific legal scholar and garnered the highest rating of the ABA. Instead of debating the issues, the left used personal attacks and misrepresentation of Bork’s ideas to defeat the nomination.
A similar campaign, although on a much smaller scale, is happening to proponents of Intelligent Design. Recently, a statement in court by Michael Behe is being used by evolutionists to smear and essentially slander Behe.
Several evolution supporting blogs and websites accused Behe of saying astrology was science. Others believe that this was a “revealing statement” by Behe showing the unscientific nature of Intelligent Design – “One of the leading figures equated it with astrology. How can it be credible?”
Predictable, his statements were spun to fit in with preconceived biases. Instead of taking evolutionists’ word for it, why don’t we evaluate his actual testimony from the Dover case. To avoid questions of bias, we will get the transcript from an anti-intelligent design website – Talk Origins.
Under cross examination Behe was asked about his definition of scientific theory and why intelligent design qualified.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that — which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other — many other theories as well.
That quote can be made to look very bad, but it doesn’t look good even without selectively pulling portions out. It appears as if Behe is saying astrology is a legitimate exercise of scientists. However, the follow-up question and answer may make his statement more clear.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that’s correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word “theory,” it is — a sense of the word “theory” does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can’t go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Hundreds of ideas have been scientific theory and acknowledging that fact does not mean one believes in them. Behe no more supported astrology than he did evolution. He merely argued that people used reasoning to argue for astrology.
Later on, the attorney starts trying to be sarcastic and insinuates that Behe is accepting of the modern form of astrology. Behe reponded, “I’m not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.”
Behe could not be more clear when he said, “… simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.”
Was geocentrism a scientific theory? Of course it was. It is no longer an accepted one because we have more information and have ruled that out as a possibility, but that does not change the historical fact that it was a scientific theory.
None of this questioning, or the later misrepresentations, get into the actual claims of Intelligent Design. Instead, just as with Bork, opponents refuse to allow the debate to go into the actual realm of ideas. Instead, many are satisfied with defeating strawmen and caricatures of their own making.
Regardless of the actual facts, it will go down as conventional wisdom among evolution supporters that Michael Behe admitted in court that intelligent design was on par with astrology. That should be a sad reality for both sides of the debate and for anyone concerned with truth.
I have recently heard that Behe did formulate a hypothesis that could be used to test ID, and that was that irreducible complexity couldn't ever be found to arise from natural processes. Of course ID fails this test, as IC has been seen to arise under natural processes, so if one wants to classify ID as a scientific position then they must also classify it as a disproven theory like ether theory. Problem is IDists will say "no wait..uhh…that test doesn't mean anything because…uhh…it just doesn't" IDists and Creationists both like to claim their positions are scientific, yet they refuse to allow ID and Creationism to be held to the same burdens as scientific theories are held to. Some go so far to claim that "materialist science" is meaningless. I suppose IDists and Creationists would rather just ignore evidence and invent their own explainations.
Cineaste, the fact that you continue to twists and distort Behe's words causes me to second-guess my giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Behe was not talking about modern day astrology. I even quoted him about that in this post.
Who first came up with the Flintstones line? I have heard that from so many evolutionists. It is funny in that it expands off of a grain of truth and carries it to hyperbole.
Yes, if 6-day creationism is true humans lived with dinosaurs, but that does not equate with the Flintstones.
I would love if Intelligent Design was held to the same standards as evolution. Then I could claim anything and you couldn't question it.
As much as neither of you would like to admit it, evolution, ID and creationism are in a very similar boat. I have seen no scientific tests that prove evolution. It is virtually (if not actually) impossible to prove it in a lab, same with ID and creationism. Because all we have to go off of is evidence from the past which is then interpreted.
You are accusing me of twisting Behe’s words. If you make an accusation like this, the least you can do is support it. I know Behe was not talking about modern day astrology. I thought I was being clear about this but it didn’t get through. I even quoted the dictionary to no avail.
It boils down to this. How can one falsify ID or creationism? If one can’t falsify ID and creationism, they are not scientific theories. You speak as if today’s astrology and the astrology 2000 years ago are apples and oranges. Ancient astrology and modern day astrology are the same; they are pseudoscience which can’t be falsified, they ALWAYS have been. Don’t compare astrology (of any period) with the old geocentric theory because it was indeed valid science in its day. Why, because you could falsify it empirically.
It (comparing the Flintstones with a creationist world view) expands off of a grain of truth and carries it to hyperbole.
That is why it’s such a funny joke. I heard it from Lewis Black if you are really curious.
I have seen no scientific tests that prove evolution.
Understandable, you are blinded by religious faith. Even if you found some of the evidence for evolution compelling, you would probably rather die than admit it. Don’t worry though; I’ll continue to play the role of Don Quixote. Though I am most likely chasing windmills, I’ll continue to do battle with your abject ignorance on this issue. Seeker’s too!
I hope you continue to debate us, though we disagree on the "abject ignorance."
I'm sure you think I "would rather die than admit" evolution could be correct, but that is not the case. I don't think evolution automatically excludes God (some do on both sides), but I don't. I merely have not seen the evidence to support the theory that everyone claims is there. If God wanted to use evolution, then its up to Him not me.
Each point that is brought up can (and is) debate by both sides. I'm sure you claim that is because our "abject ignorance" and being "blinded by religious faith," but from where I see it no one is able to prove evolution (macroevolution), just as I cannot "prove" ID or creationism.
You want to falsify ID claims, take something indicated as being intelligently designed and show how random choice can develop that. That would both disprove ID claims and prove evolutionary claims. Don't beat-up on already bruised and battered strawmen.
The Flinstones thing is the equivalent of creationists calling you a monkey. Sure there is some truth in that (humans evolving from monkeys), but it is pointless in engaging any type of fruitful debate. But there is always the need for a light moment in some of these contenious issues.
Aaron we are all hairless apes. Though intended as an insult, creationists would be more truthful than they realize if they called me a monkey (though ape would be more accurate). We are all animals (primates specifically), just the dominant ones.
Take something indicated as being intelligently designed and show how random choice (natural selection?) can develop that.
So, prove evolution and it will falsify ID? :) Even if evolution is proved, you said yourself, "I don't think evolution automatically excludes God." Try again?
But from where I see it no one is able to prove evolution.
Is this why evolution is the dominant theory worldwide? Gravity is a theory as well. Like gravity, there is no denying evolution occurs. When you see something fall, that's gravity. When you notice that your daughter inherited traits from you and your wife, that's evolution. It's the mechanism of gravity and evolution that make them theories. Only religious fundamentalists deny evolution and that is not coincidence. Fundamentalists have chosen to turn a blind eye to evolution; it's not that they don't understand. That is what makes their ignorance "abject" rather than simply a lack of knowledge.
It's important to remember that Bork's nomination sank under the weight of his own publications. The publications were bad enough, but Bork's defense of them succeeded in offending even his staunchest defenders.
Yeah, it's accurate to say Behe's been "Borked." Look at his testimony in the Dover trial to see how his own work, and the lack of his work where appropriate, contribute to his declining credibility.
Cineaste, genetics does not equal macroevolution.
Sure species change and adapt. Yes, parents pass on their genes to their children. (by the way I don't have a daughter. I have two sons.) Tell me again how this proves that we used to be a single-cell organism.
I can see gravity at work in real time. If I drop a rock, it falls. That is easily provable. It is beyond exaggeration to equate gravity with evolution (on a macro scale). I cannot and have not seen any type of animal change into another type of animal, neither have you or any scientist.
So while you may have evidence that you can point to, it is not at all correct to equate watching a rock fall for gravity and seeing my sons have blue eyes like me for evolution.
No one denys that people pass on their genes, what I would deny or doubt is that I have the ability to pass on genes that will make my great x 200 grandson something other than a human.
You have not come up with a way to falsify creationism or ID yet. Nor has anyone else. So, do you see that they don’t qualify as scientific theory because they can’t be falsified?
Of course genetics equals evolution. You mentioned passing blue eyes down to children. Eye color is a genetic trait correct? Albinism, like eye color, is also a trait that is passed down from parents to children, though its a rarer trait.
(From Wikipedia) Albinism (from Latin albus, meaning “white”) is a lack of pigmentation in the eyes, skin and hair. Albinism is an inherited condition resulting from the combination of recessive alleles passed from both parents of an individual.
Now for the clincher, since albinism is a trait passed down from parents to offspring, how do you explain the occurrence of this trait in other species? Here are some pictures if you don’t believe they occur in many species…
Albino squirrel
Albino gorilla
Albino Slow Loris
Albino rattle snake
Albino kangaroo
Albino alligator
And finally Abino human
Sure species change and adapt. Yes, parents pass on their genes to their children. Tell me again how this proves that we used to be a single-cell organism. –Aaron
The fact that the albino gene can only be passed from parent to child, and the fact that humans share the gene with many other species, should prove to you that we share common descent!!! Dang it, it’s as self evident as the theory of gravity. Don’t stick your head in the sand on this one.
Furthermore, I can see gravity at work in real time. If I drop a rock, it falls. That is easily provable…I cannot and have not seen any type of animal change into another type of animal, neither have you or any scientist.
What about this?
Butterfly effect: New species hatches in lab
“The creation of a new species, something that scientific orthodoxy says should take thousands of years of genetic isolation has been achieved in the lab in just three months…”
Aaron:
"The fact that the albino gene can only be passed from parent to child, and the fact that humans share the gene with many other species, should prove to you that we share common descent!!! "
There is lots of evidence that makes common descent difficult to argue against, but not this. Albinism arises from rare mutations in each species. The fact that the same trait can arise independently by mutation in different species is not evidence for common descent.
Hi Aaron:
Sorry about this attempted hijacking, but you wrote:
Sen. Ted Kennedy railed against Bork on the Senate floor: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government." None of that was true [emphasis mine], but the character attacks were enough to derail his nomination.
I'm not sure how you justify the claim that Kennedy's warnings were not true. he didn't say Bork supported those things; his argument was that Bork had publicly argued for legal decisions that would [Kennedy believed] make those outrages legally likely. It seems to me that in our history all of those outrages have happened, and that the kind of judicial "activism" the right wing complains about is why those things weren't happening in America at the time of Bork's nomination. But even if I and Kennedy are being alarmist, I don't see that you can justify the claim that Kennedy didn't honestly believe that those threats were serious, and that his rhetoric was particularly exagerated. I've heard a lot more wild rhetoric coming from some on the religious right, to be honest.
your friend
Keith
Hi Aaron and Cineaste:
Ah…sweet semantics. Cineaste complains that ID isn't science because it isn't falsifiable. Well, it certainly is the case that if "science" includes within its definition being falsifiable, whatever cannot be falsified isn't science. But when Behe claimed that astrology and ID were both sciences, he was working on this definition (I quote from Aaron's post above):
[theory] means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences.
There is no mention of falsifiability here. Was Behe using a poor definition of "theory"? Those who love labels and semantics might care, but since Behe explained how he was using the word, it is unfair (and if deliberately done, dishonest) to selectively quote him and imply differently. I'm not saying Cineaste is guilty of this offense; in fact I don't think he is.
On the other hand, just how falsifiable is evolution? I'm not talking about a particular theory of evolution, I am talking about biological evolution in general–the idea that the present panoply of species are the biological descendents of earlier life forms that changed due to such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift etc. Name some kind of experiment that could falsify such a claim.
your friend
Keith
Hi Kieth,
"Name some kind of experiment that could falsify such a claim (biological evolution in general)."
There are a number of discoveries that could have been made in the past that would have falsified evolution. For instance, if the fossil record had contained a haphazard chronological distribution of fossils of varying complexity, that would have made the development of evolutionary theory impossible to begin with. Likewise, if human beings had been found to have a genetic code based on chemicals radically different than those of the great apes, the idea of common ancestry between the two would have been put to rest permanently.
Evolution still carries with it the possibility of future falsification; the discovery of a fossil elephant in Precambrian rock strata, for instance, would do the trick nicely.
Source: Mark Vuletic
Alyingscientist,
"Albinism arises from rare mutations in each species."
I already referenced above that, "Albinism is an inherited condition resulting from the combination of recessive alleles passed from both parents of an individual." Look: Albinism results from inheritance of recessive genes. The notion that every albino is a mutant is simply false. It is a mutation that whose gene has been passed down from a common evolutionary ancestor.
Hi Cin
You wrote:
There are a number of discoveries that could have been made in the past that would have falsified evolution. For instance, if the fossil record had contained a haphazard chronological distribution of fossils of varying complexity, that would have made the development of evolutionary theory impossible to begin with
But how would that have falsified evolution? That result is perfectly consistent with evolution but with some other explanation for the fossil record. For example, an evolution where complexity isn't a function of time at all, where early fossils are aometimes much more complex than later ones. What it would have falsified is the current evolutionary theory.
your friend
Keith
your friend
"What it would have falsified is the current evolutionary theory."
That's enough to meet the criteria of the scientific method. The current ID theory can never be falsified since it's premised upon the supernatural. It can't be subjected to science. It's a metaphysical theory not a physical theory.
hi Cin:
So you concede that evolution itself cannot be falsified? All that can be falsified is theories as to how that evolution takes place?
your friend
Keith
"So you concede that evolution itself cannot be falsified? All that can be falsified is theories as to how that evolution takes place?"
I am not sure what you are getting at Keith. Would you say that gravity itself can't be falsified but theories of how gravity takes place can?
Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Just like gravity.
For more info please see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconception…
ALL scientific theories MUST be falsifiable.
Otherwise they are not valid theories.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.
The scientific world does not dispute this.
At all.
Pick up a biology text book. Please.
A scientific theory is a tool. It helps us understand the natural world around us. It explains evidence and creates a useful framework for further investigation.
The Theory of Evolution helps science further our knowledge. It makes predictions. If it didn't, then scientists would abandon it for something better.
All theories live and die by the results they bring in.
ID can't be falsified.
ID can't predict anything.
ID can't even be scientifically DEFINED!
Aaron cannot falisify ID. Nobody can. It's a dead duck.
All he can do is babble on about 'macroevolution' or some such nonsense.
Once again, read a biology textbook.
There is no microevolution or macroevolution.
Just evolution.
There is no microgravity or macrogravity.
Just gravity.
By the way Aaron, how old do you think the Earth is?
Just curious. :)
As for Behe, he's a joke.
This is a man with a laboratory at his disposal.
A man with time enough on his hands to write a sequel to his Black Box number.
Yet doing a peer-reviewed paper on ID eludes him.
The sequel, by the way, is called Edge of Evolution.
The bottom line (according to the reviews) is that Behe believes God created Malaria.
That's right folks. The dead duck has malaria.
Rush out and buy your copy now!
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Just like gravity.
Every self-respecting evolutionist who parrots this assertion should be ashamed of his lack of logic. I answered this bogus analogy clearly in Mass Delusion – 10 Reasons Why the Majority of Scientists Believe in Evolution (see point #6 “Many scientists are unable or unwilling to distinguish between their philosophy of science and their science, and between historical and empirical data”). Cedric, if you don’t abandon the use of this canard, I’ll be forced to send you an invite to join the flat-earth society.
ALL scientific theories MUST be falsifiable. Otherwise they are not valid theories. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.
The problem here, of course, is confusion over what we mean when we say “evolution.” But assuming we mean something like mutations that cause in increase in information of inheritable, beneficial traits (a baseline definition, for sure), how could you falsify this contention?
I’m not sure, but the approach evo’s usually take is to try to falsify the opposite contention – that mutation can not produce novel information that produces beneficial, inheritable traits. I can tell you that of the painfully FEW examples that evolutionists of beneficial inheritable mutations can trot out, NONE are above reproach (for example, both the cases of nylase and sickle cell anemia are questionable at best).
Besides biology, the other front on which evolution must stand or fall is the paleantological record. How could you falsify, for instance, the theory of human evolution from simians? Lots of ways, some of which have more merit than others. The one I am most familiar with this this – what if you find a morphologically modern bone that is so old it is at the BEGINNING of the supposed evolutionary timeline?
Do such fossils exist? Of course.
Here’s another example:
So Keith, to answer your question, the theory of evolution can be falsified, but evolutionists have neat tricks to ignore and misclassify such data. At the very least, they redraw their primitive genetic trees to accomodate (or marginalize) data. It’s a shell game for them, not an interest in debating evolution’s merits – they already BELIEVE.
Hi Cin and Cedric:
Ced wrote that the word "evolution" can be construed in different ways; on one construal it is a fact, on the other it is a theory. He kindly gave a link to describe that difference. From the link:
[evolution's] strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time."
This definition of evolution is perfectly consistent with the Christian fundamentalist's Special Creation–even with young earth creationism–so while it might be a fact, it's not at all is debated when biologists object to the Bible thumping creation "science". The article continues with a definition that better captures the controversy when it says:
Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor.
But I would ask anyone to suggest an experiment that would falsify this version of evolution. I don't think you can. Now can anyone falsify the claim that it is POSSIBLE for life to have developed on earth by only natural means–no experiment would show that claim to be false. So assuming Ced and Cin are correct that if it isn't falsifiable then it isn't science, then it seems to me that neither evolution is strictly speaking science.
To Cin: tell me what you mean by gravity and I can try to tell you if it is falsifiable, as well as I can understand it anyway.
To Ced: your comment contained quite a bit of rhetoric, so I hope that's not a sign that you won't try to actually answer my questions. I'll bet you'd be surprised to learn that I believe in evolution–both definitions. I am unimpressed with Behe's argument. His ideas are not stupid (unlike the caricatures of his arguments), but in the end he is wrong that science can show the universe to be an artifact of intelligent design.
your Friend
keith
To Keith,
Rhetoric? Sorry if it came off that way.
You said “I believe in evolution-both definitions”
First a retraction.
I said “There is no microevolution or macroevolution”
Oops! Actually there is, in a way.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
“Creationists often assert that “macroevolution” is not proven, even if “microevolution” is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.”
For creating any confusion, I apologize.
I encourage all to read the full article. It deals directly with what we are talking about.
Keith, a theory must be falsifiable. No wiggle room here.
So how do you falsify a theory?
By an experiment? Sure, but the other method of falsification is observation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
“Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. It is important to note that “falsifiable” does not mean false, but rather is the capability to be shown false in the event that contrary examples or exceptions to the assertion actually exist. Faslifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.”
But back to experiments…
Can you use experiments to test evolutionary claims? Sure.
Here’s a very interesting one on fish.
http://www.hhmi.org/genesweshare/e120.html
For more info, there’s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution .
Finally, getting back to the talkorigins article:
“We can test a particular claim of macroevolution. We can test, for example, if weasels are more closely related to red pandas than bears are (Flynn and Nedbal 1998, Flynn et al. 2000). This is a test of a particular evolutionary tree or scenario. It tests a historical reconstruction. If shown, on the basis of the evidence and the best data, to be wrong, then that history has indeed been falsified. But can we test the idea of common descent? It is not possible to show that something never occurred, but it is very easy to show that where it ought to occur, it either has or it hasn’t. Science will not retain a bad idea when it is shown repeatedly not to explain what we have a right to expect it to explain (this is one reason why creationism was dropped from science back in the 1850s). If macroevolution persistently were shown to run counter to the data, then science would drop it and look for another solution.”
To Seeker,
You said “ I answered this bogus analogy clearly..”
In your dreams!
Membership to the Flat Earth Society? You mean those Christian nutters who claim the Earth is flat because of crackpot ‘scientific’ claims and quotes from the Bible?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
Oh, sweet irony.
Evolution has been falsified? Heavens to Betsy! Call the media.
Who gets to claim the Nobel Prize for doing this?
Well, let’s have a good look at these champions of scientific truth.
First we’ve got Michael Cremo.
http://www.mcremo.com/cremo.htm
Wow. Just wow. All that and he’s up for a Nobel Prize too? Lucky fellow.
Then we’ve got Lubenow.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/m_lubenow.asp
Ah yes, AIG. Who would have guessed it?
Seeker went over to Pandasthumb.org to tout Lubenow once.
ONCE!
(Actually, that’s how I found out about this site, so it wasn’t a complete loss.)
Open a thread at Pandasthumb, Seeker. Champion Lubenow for all you’re worth.
I’ll bring the popcorn.
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Theory_of_Evolution
“Critics of Evolution, many of whom claim to be scientific, attack the theory claiming there is no evidence to support it, while presenting their own pseudoscientific hypotheses, claiming them to be theories, when they are little more than names. It is obvious, even to the majority of lay people, that creationism provides no scientific alternatives to evolution, and simply attacks the theory with lies in the hope of convincing those too dim to understand what’s going on.”
Still no falsification of ID yet, I notice. Lot’s of talk on Evolution. But none on ID.
(How odd. Can’t imagine why.)
So Aaron, (or Seeker) just how old do you think the Earth is?
Cough up a number.
Please.
Pretty Please. :) :)
Hi Ced:
But what (experiment or observation) could falsify this version of evolution: Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor.?
your friend
Keith
Hi Keith,
"But I would ask anyone to suggest an experiment that would falsify this version (common descent) of evolution."
I think one could run simple comparative genetic tests/experiments on animals. If they find an organism that has completely unrelated DNA/RNA to all other organisms, then it would falsify common descent.
P.S. I still don't see your point.
I certainly don’t suffer fools gladly. I choose to exercise discernment.
Neither do I, Mr. Katesby. Thank you for your input.
Hi Cineaste:
I think one could run simple comparative genetic tests/experiments on animals. If they find an organism that has completely unrelated DNA/RNA to all other organisms, then it would falsify common descent.
There'd have to be some similarity for us to recognize this oddball organism as even having DNA/RNA. So maybe we need to go ever farther and say the biochemical structure of the oddball organism is so different as to not have DNA at all. But how would this not be consistent with common descent? Presumably because according to current biology related organisms have similar DNA. So the question is: how would this result not falsify current theory about how DNA relates to common descent as opposed to falsifying the idea of common descent?
My point? I am questioning whether the idea that life developed by natural reproduction from a common ancestor is more scientific than intelligent design–I am critically examining what makes something science, to better understand the philosophical underpinnings of science.
your friend
keith
"So the question is: how would this result not falsify current theory about how DNA relates to common descent as opposed to falsifying the idea of common descent?"
I'm sorry Keith, this makes no sense to me. If the theory is common descent, finding an animal who is not genetically related to any other would falsify Darwin's theory of evolutionary common descent. Have you changed the question?
"My point? I am questioning whether the idea that life developed by natural reproduction from a common ancestor is more scientific than intelligent design"
Ah, well that's simple; yes, it is. There is empirical evidence for evolution which can be plugged into the scientific method. One can't do that with ID. Evolution is physical while ID is metaphysical. ID is a philosophical question and not a scientific one. I fear you are continuing the presumptions you made on the Falwell thread except instead of verification you have now changed the subject to falsification. I think you are equivocating between empirical falsification beyond a reasonable doubt and empirical falsification beyond a shadow of a doubt. Evolution can meet the former though not the latter. ID meets neither. Even gravity can't be verified in every corner of the universe but we still consider gravity a fact, a constant.
Cin
Hi Cin:
you wrote: I'm sorry Keith, this makes no sense to me. If the theory is common descent, finding an animal who is not genetically related to any other would falsify Darwin's theory of evolutionary common descent.
Only if you assume that being genetically similar necessarily follows from having a common ancestor. That's not a logically necessary fact; the connection between genetic similarity and common descent is something science discovered, it is a conclusion drawn from our current biological theory–very well established I should add. But here's the point: current theory PLUS the idea that all creatures on earth have a common ancestor implies that all creatures on earth have some degree of genetic similarity. So if we found a creature on earth that was genetically dissimilar to every other creature, then either (a) there's no common ancestor or (b) current biological theory is wrong. The experiment doesn't falsify (a), it falsifies the logical conjunction of (a) and (b).
BTW, I wasn't the one who brought up falsification. I'm just playing the hand I was dealt.
your friend
Keith
"BTW, I wasn't the one who brought up falsification. I'm just playing the hand I was dealt."
Sounds like sophistry to me, Keith.
"But here's the point: current theory PLUS the idea that all creatures on earth have a common ancestor implies that all creatures on earth have some degree of genetic similarity."
Didn't you label common ancestry as part of current evolutionary theory? I realize that you are trying to play devil's advocate for ID somehow but I just don't see the relation. Did you agree with what I said in the previous post about equivocating between empirical falsification beyond a reasonable doubt and empirical falsification beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Hi Cin:
Didn't you label common ancestry as part of current evolutionary theory?
Absolutely. And the logical conjunction of (a)common ancestry PLUS (b)current biological theory about how DNA relates to biological reproduction would be falsified by a biological organism that had DNA totally dissimilar to any other biological organisms. This would falsify EITHER (a) OR (b), not necessarily (a).
I don't agree that I am equivocating–it's a simple fact that the experiment you cited is no less likely to falsify our theories as to how DNA works in reproduction than it would be to falsify evolution.
your friend
keith
"I don't agree that I am equivocating–it's a simple fact that the experiment you cited is no less likely to falsify our theories as to how DNA works in reproduction than it would be to falsify evolution."
I think that if scientists found an animal that was genetically unrelated to other animals they would say, "Well, there goes the theory that everything had a common ancestor." They would have to then infer that the new animal had different ancestry. This means living things had at least 2 separate ancestors; not common descent. So, common ancestry would be falsified though, they would have to find more of the different animals relatives to build the inference. This serves to falsify evolutionary common descent, which was your original question. It's not an experiment to falsify how DNA works, that's not what you asked for originally. I feel baited and switched. :( I still think you're equivocating and posing irrelevant hypotheticals for no apparent reason. Keith, why don't you just state your point so we can evaluate it?
hi Cin:
I thought I already stated my point: I am critically examining the claim that "evolution"–appropriately defined–is science but ID isn't. You made the bald assertion that evolution is falsifiable and that falsifiability is what's necessary for something to be science. But that depends on how we define evolution, I claim. The definition that is appropriate I would claim is the one that most scientifically literate people mean when they think of evolution. I am wondering if THAT is falsifiable.
I don't think I have been baiting nor switching. But perhaps the difficulty lies in defining precisely what evolution is. A definition that commonly appears in these kind if discussions is:
Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
This definition is perfectly consistent with ID–even Young Earth Creationism–so I don't think it captures the idea most people mean by "evolution". I quoted the idea of "a common ancestor", but I would suggest that even if scientists came to believe there existed an organism that didn't share a common ancestor with any other creatures on EARTH they wouldn't reject the "evolution" most scientists are talking about when they speak of it. Evolution wouldn't be falsified if more than one kind of life emerged independently of the others, as opposed to one kind of life emerging and branching of via natural selection etc. And since the different lines could have emerged from anywhere in the universe–they didn't have to all form on earth–the "common ancestor" definition seems too limited for the debate between IDers and Evolutionists.
Do you disagree with my point about the definition of evolution? Please explain why if you do.
your friend
keith
"But that depends on how we define evolution, I claim."
No, actually it depends on how we define the word "define," I claim. It seems to me like your just playing a game, Keith. If this is your point, I don't think it's a good one.
"Evolution wouldn't be falsified if more than one kind of life emerged independently of the others, as opposed to one kind of life emerging and branching of via natural selection etc."
But, common descent would, which was your challenge to me. What you quoted here, "Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation" is a fact. This part, "…by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift" is the theory. All three can be falsified. The difference is ID can't be falsified.
"…And since the different lines could have emerged from anywhere in the universe"
Then you could study those different lines. You could still make empirical inferences. One can't with ID.
"I would suggest that even if scientists came to believe there existed an organism that didn't share a common ancestor with any other creatures on EARTH they wouldn't reject the "evolution" most scientists are talking about when they speak of it."
No, they would reject common ancestry which is what you asked in the first place. If you want to falsify other aspects of evolution then you need different experiments to do so. No such experiments exist for ID so it's not science.
"Do you disagree with my point about the definition of evolution? Please explain why if you do."
Yes, I do. See above.
Hi Cin:
No, actually it depends on how we define the word "define," I claim. It seems to me like your just playing a game, Keith. If this is your point, I don't think it's a good one
I explained my claim about the definition of "evolution" and I get the feeling that your claim about the definition of "define" is just sarcasm. I will resist the temptation to think you are just game playing yourself by pretending to be baffled by my point. You don't think I have a point about the way evolution is defined? you don't see a difference between defining evolution as Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. and what people mean normally by the word? Not even the most die hard YECer would disagree that "evolution" in that sense happens and I find it difficult to believe that you don't mean something much more that merely changing gene frequencies when you think about the evolution of life.
No, they would reject common ancestry which is what you asked in the first place. If you want to falsify other aspects of evolution then you need different experiments to do so. No such experiments exist for ID so it's not science.
Sigh. That's right, I did mention "common ancestry" as being part of evolution, but AS I ADMITTED IN MY MOST RECENT POST THAT YOU ARE COMMENTING 0N that construal wasn't the best. Since evolution could be true without common ancestry, falsifying common ancestry doesn't falsify evolution. I defy you to find anything that falsifies evolution. Anything. You might be able to falsify some particular claim about evolution, but I seriously doubt that you will come up with anything that falsifies evolution simpliciter–simpliciiter is a philosophical term BTW–so IF falsification is a necessary part of something being a science then evolution simpliciter isn't science.
You accuse me of game playing here, but all I can say is that it seems to me that you are the one who scrambling to avoid actualy addressing my points. I'll assume you honestly don't get what I am asking.
your frustrated friend
Keith
"…frustrated"
And I'm tired, Keith. No inference can be falsified beyond a shadow of a doubt, it can be falsified beyond reasonable doubt, which is what I've been doing. At this point though, I just want to get away from this conversation so I'll grant you that Darwin's theory of evolution can't be falsified so therefore it's not science.
Mark
Hi mark
I don't agree that DARWIN'S theory of evolution cannot be falsified. I am suggesting that evolution simpliciter cannot be falsified and is thus NOT science. And I have never been demanding a standard of beyond a shadow of a doubt–all along I have been talking about the "reasonable doubt" standard. In fact, I would claim that there is evidence beyond a REASONABLE doubt that the universe was Intelligently Designed–not the non-science that Behe and Demski are advocating but rather the classical Teleological argument version. That an atheist can sensibly propose that MAYBE there is an alternative explanation for how it is that the universe displays laws of nature, just shows that theism isn't proved beyond a SHADOW of a doubt.
But obviously we have run aground here, and equally obviously you aren't as interested in I am in exploring the philosophical underpinnings of science. To explore those underpinnings requires us IMO to examine even UNREASONABLE doubt. Skeptic says he has no interest AT ALL interested in such speculation and if you don't have much interest then I suppose we will eventually talk abut something else. We do agree on some things so maybe we'll be on the same side next time:-)
yuor friend
keith
Hi mark
I don’t agree that DARWIN’S theory of evolution cannot be falsified. I am suggesting that evolution simpliciter cannot be falsified and is thus NOT science. And I have never been demanding a standard of beyond a shadow of a doubt–all along I have been talking about the “reasonable doubt” standard. In fact, I would claim that there is evidence beyond a REASONABLE doubt that the universe was Intelligently Designed–not the non-science that Behe and Demski are advocating but rather the classical Teleological argument version. That an atheist can sensibly propose that MAYBE there is an alternative explanation for how it is that the universe displays laws of nature, just shows that theism isn’t proved beyond a SHADOW of a doubt.
But obviously we have run aground here, and equally obviously you aren’t as interested in I am in exploring the philosophical underpinnings of science. To explore those underpinnings requires us IMO to examine even UNREASONABLE doubt. Skeptic says he has no interest AT ALL interested in such speculation and if you don’t have much interest then I suppose we will eventually talk abut something else. We do agree on some things so maybe we’ll be on the same side next time:-)
yuor friend
keith
"I would claim that there is evidence beyond a REASONABLE doubt that the universe was Intelligently Designed."
I just don't agree with you, sir.
Enjoy the humour. I certainly did.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27604
Creationist Museum Acquires 5,000-Year-Old T. Rex Skeleton
January 15, 2003 | Issue 39•01
TULSA, OK—In a major coup for the growing field of creation science, the perfectly preserved remains of a 5,000-year-old Tyrannosaurus Rex were delivered Monday to Tulsa’s Creationist Museum of Natural History.
Methuselah stands on display at the Creationist Museum of Natural History.
“The Good Lord has, in His benevolence, led us to an important breakthrough for scientific inquiry,” Creationist Museum of Natural History curator Dr. Elijah Gill said. “Our museum has many valuable and exciting exhibits that testify to Creation and shine light on the Lord’s divine plan. But none have been as exciting—or anywhere near as old—as this new T. Rex specimen named ‘Methuselah.’ This skeleton, which dates back to roughly 3,000 B.C., offers the most compelling proof yet that the Earth was made by God roughly 10,000 years ago.”
Added Gill: “It’s awe-inspiring to gaze on something that actually lived here on Earth, so very many years ago.”
Methuselah was discovered last summer in northern Turkey by a team of Oral Roberts University archaeologists, who were on a dig searching for the Tower of Babel. According to Gill, the skeleton, which stands nearly 20 feet tall, possesses terrifying, razor-sharp teeth and claws, confirming that it was an evil beast in league with Satan, the Great Deceiver.
Using advanced dating processes from the cutting edge of biblical paleontology, the Oral Roberts team determined that Methuselah lived during the late Antediluvian period, or “The Age of the Dinosaurs.” They said the pristine condition of the find strongly suggests that it perished in the Great Flood, fossilizing quickly and thoroughly due to the tremendous water pressure during the event.
“It was a truly majestic beast,” said Gill, gazing up at the massive skeleton. “One almost has to mourn that there was no room for it on the Ark.”
Gill called the discovery “a powerfully compelling refutation” of secular scientists’ long-held assertion that dinosaurs lived on Earth millions of years before humans.
“The fact that no human remains were found anywhere in the vicinity of the site of the skeleton serves as proof of the tyrannosaur’s ferocity and huge appetite,” Gill said.
“At most,” he added, “tyrannosaurs existed a few days before the first humans, given that the birds and the beasts were created early in the week, and Adam and Eve were made on the sixth day.”
Founded in 1874, the Creationist Museum of Natural History has amassed a collection of thousands of exhibits from around the world demonstrating that the Earth was made by the hand of a Divine Creator over the course of a week, roughly 10,000 years ago. Among its most prized exhibits are a trilobite believed to have lived during the Jewish Exodus and a stunning specimen of “Java Gibbon.”
Methuselah has caused such a stir that even supporters of evolutionary science have found themselves caught up in “T. Rex Fever.” Christopher Eldridge, director of New York’s Museum of Natural History, raved that the acquisition was “absolutely inconceivable” and “not to be believed.” Dr. Harmon Briggs, a Smithsonian Institution paleobiologist, gushed in a phone interview that the discovery of the 5,000-year-old beast was “mind-boggling” and “in defiance of all the human senses.”
Said Gill: “I have even received an exciting letter from a paleontologist at UCLA asserting that Methuselah could be even older than 5,000 years. Who knows, it might even date back to the Sixth Day of Creation.”
The T. Rex skeleton will be on public display at the museum beginning Feb. 3. Conversions will be performed every two hours at the museum’s baptismal font, located in the Apologetics wing.