"It is utterly remarkable that DNA is a scientific digital code. It’s text, it’s exactly like written human language, with letters – you can actually count the number of letters. It means you could really compare every animal with every other animal, or plant, or bacterium, letter by letter, word by word, in their actual genetic text."Let's review. DNA is a scientific code, exactly like written human language; therefore there is neither intelligence nor design involved? Dawkins once made the most ignorant statement I think I have ever heard. Paraphrased, he said, "No engineer in his right mind would use previously existing designs to base his design upon". In actuality, every engineer would and does leverage off of previous designs (that are not IP protected). An engineer who did not do so would lose his job, it is that stupid.
Dawkins feels comfortable backfilling opinion into slots that should be reserved for verifiable evidence. This is called rationalization in the world of Logic and Rational Thinking. It is, however, actually the method of forensic sciences: make an observation (say, a new fossil) and then make up a story about it. It is rampant in offshoots of evolutionary science such as evolutionary psychology.
...
"The genetics of Darwin’s time was completely wrong, apart from Gregor Mendel, who was a contemporary of Darwin. But unfortunately Darwin never read his works. Even Mendel was surpassed in a very big way by Watson and Crick, and the molecular biology revolution of the last half of the 20th century – which has now made genetics into a branch of information technology. And this has enormously increased the sheer weight of evidence in favor of Darwin. Darwin would simply have loved that.A branch of information technology? He finally admits that there is information in the code... It used to be common to hear that it wasn't information, it was just random code that happened randomly, then randomly changed, got tested by the environment, and stuck if it passed the test.
And never, ever discussed is the source of the code, nor the probability of the code describing a living thing existing inside the living thing...nor the paradox of which came first, the code or the critter.
...
"The point about the detective and the crime-scene analogy is not that the information is incomplete, or not 100 percent. It can indeed be – if not 100 percent, then 99.99 percent. The point is that it’s not eyewitness evidence. You can’t actually see a murder taking place. You can’t actually see most of evolution taking place, obviously, because it happened in the distant past. But the evidence for a crime can be exceedingly strong, even without eyewitness evidence.Dissing eyewitness evidence is extremely odd for a scientist; science methods depend heavily upon experimental evidence (eyewitness), and replication (eyewitness). But he is right in saying that "it's not eyewitness evidence" with regard to evolution. Yes, that is correct; it is not empirical, experimental, replicable evidence, it is inferential, extrapolatory, story telling. The incontrovertable evidence that exists is (a) a genetic code of indeterminate origin; (b) fossils (without genetic material) of animals that no longer exist. Everything else is inferential - a made up story.
Eyewitness evidence is actually not the most powerful evidence anyway. Eyewitness evidence even in human crimes is notoriously poor. Eyewitnesses get all sorts of things wrong."
...
"Another big stumbling block is that an awful lot of people think evolution is a theory of random chance. It isn’t. If it really were a situation of random chance, of course it wouldn’t work. Any fool can see that. Natural selection is the very opposite of random chance. Natural selection is non-random survival of genes that work."This is almost too false to believe that it came from an educated person. Evolution is most certainly based on random changes (mutations) to genetic workings, changes that might just happen (randomly) to bring into existence new beneficial characteristics for survival in a changing environment. Any fool who educates himself can see that.
But I gotta love that quote:"If it really were a situation of random chance, of course it wouldn’t work. Any fool can see that."
...
"That was a technique that Darwin himself used. Everybody understands domestic breeding, and everybody can see the dramatic consequences of breeding dogs, for example, which came from wolves not that long ago. So you can see a lot of evolutionary change packed into just a few centuries. All you then do, if you’re explaining it as Darwin did, is just remove the human breeder and let nature do it instead.The "Big Dog/Little Dog = Evolution" Fallacy is still false. See the next item.
Nature does it inadvertently, unconsciously, non-deliberately – by some animals surviving and some not surviving. That is the precise analog to the role of the domestic breeder choosing which puppies to breed from."
...
"The human mind partitions the world into essential objects: "A rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit. There’s an unbridgeable gulf fixed between a rabbit and any other species." People can’t grasp the idea that it’s not true that a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit. It gradually changes over time. There’s a constantly sliding definition of what it is to be a typical rabbit. That goes for any species."Conflating the idea of "atypical" with mutated creatures that are no longer the same species is a staple in the evolutionist bag of tricks. It's a gloss over the massive probability against such beneficial mutations.
...
"I very seldom actually meet a creationist. I don’t know where they’re hiding. Polls tell me they’re extremely numerous, but they don’t seem to come out of their holes when I’m around."It is hard to tell if Dawkins is truly self-deluded or if he merely wishes to deceive his listener. He consistently refuses to meet and debate with any detractor, creationist or otherwise: they are too far below him.
43 comments:
He brings up the crime scene analogy, which I have brought up before and you said that analogies are not good because they may not reflect the argument properly.
But Dawkins is correct, at least with this. You can examine the evidence for a crime scene and be very very confident of what happened, if not 100%.
Should I assume then that as a jury member you'll always vote for the criminal's innocence, because the case built against him is "just" a story?
Martin, good question.
As you undoubtedly know, the criminal justice system is not built on incorrigible truth, nor on circumstantial evidence. It is built on "preponderance of evidence", a deliberate vagueness that allows the innocent to occasionally be convicted - and sometimes be released later, based on better evidence.
Was OJ Simpson guilty? The probability seems high, yet not P=1.0. At what probability should one convict? And how are such probabilities calculated? A probability that seems one way or the other is nothing more than a belief, one without substance in what Dawkins refers to as “scientific fact”.
It is acceptable in our society and legal system to convict on “belief” in the guilt of the accused. Dawkins, deliberately or deludedly, misuses the comparison and tries to build a belief system by calling it “fact”, and pretending that the false “fact” truly limits all reality to physical, Atheist, relative reality. His arguments beyond that point are merely excoriations of his enemies, Ad Hominems. Oh yes, and his opinions that they (his deniers) should be eliminated.
As I usually maintain, analogies are easily misused, easily misunderstood, and easily manipulated: they are not decent arguments.
Agreed. However, in the justice system you can have enough evidence in some cases for P to be as high as, oh, I don't know, let's say .95. In these cases where there are plenty of good reasons to suspect a person of a crime, and no good reasons not to, would it not be perverse to vote the person innocent?s
Perverse: Are you defining a moral tenet, based on a pure belief system? Or maybe regarding calculating probabilities you could show your work...
You have made this same analogic case before: if I accept a person's guilt based solely on inferred evidence, then I should also accept evolution based solely on inferred evidence. The analogy is flawed; yet because inferred evidence is called circumstantial evidence in the courts, maybe it would clear things up to call it that in evolutionism as well.
Would you convict on mountains of circumstantial evidence? I hope that I would not. But I also doubt that rationality really reigns in jury rooms.
1) Why is the analogy flawed?
2) Regarding circumstantial evidence: true that forensics is only circumstantial evidence, as opposed to an eyewitness which is considered direct evidence. However, many pieces of circumstantial evidence that all agree become corroborating evidence. And this is my point of contention. You would not convict based on circumstantial evidence, but would you convict when many many pieces of circumstantial evidence all line up? No witnesses, but blood, DNA, fingerprints, motive, footprints, etc etc etc?
1).As I pointed out above, criminals are convicted on belief, not on truth; Dawkins is using this analogy to pretend that the truth (which he calls fact) can be determined from found instances. It cannot. But a belief based on inferences drawn from those found instances can be formed.
2).I admit to watching the CSI shows on TV. These shows invent situations where all the information/evidence you mention is actually not indicative of the real situation. Some of them are real brain teasers. Even confessions should be suspect. And the quality of policing: how much of the evidence was "planted" in order to wrap up a case? What was the chain of possession of the evidence? Are there hidden grudges in the law enforcement folks? Does the prosecuter need a win? Lots of variables to consider.
What would it take to convince me? I'm not sure that talk of evidence types would be enough to to know, in advance, the situation at hand. I suspect, without knowing for certain, that there are certain creeps that need to be locked up regardless of the quality of evidence. And the converse also might apply, for all I know. Would I be willing to make such decisions in a jury situation? Maybe, I can't know for sure, because I haven't been in that situation, yet.
Every case involves a human being and a crime; the human is to be presumed innocent until "proven guilty". Yet there is no real definition of "proven" beyond "preponderance" of evidence. So it is a sliding scale, existing somewhere in the "belief" zone.
Again this is the fallacy of Dawkins' use of the Crime Scene Analogy to prove that evolution is "fact". His use of that analogy degrades the term "fact".
I think this New Year's Day you should make a resolution to recognize that it's OK that terms can be used colloquially.
"Fact" as Dawkins puts it is the same as saying it's a "fact" that a hunk of rock from space hit the ground where Meteor Crater is in Arizona. There were no witnesses or videotape or direct evidence or even pieces of the rock; there is only circumstantial evidence (a big honkin' hole in the ground).
I.E., some people think you are allowed to use the term "fact" when the probability of an event gets very high. Whether they are right or wrong to use it in that way, I don't know.
Regardless, he's not using "fact" in the same way you are.
CSI?! Ugh. It's so cartoonish.
I recommend The Wire. Although it's very realistic, so be forewarned.
I don't pay for TV, so I couldn't watch The Wire. I agree that there are open holes in the CSI's, but their overall situations are good. Better is Law & Order.
In his new book, Dawkins belabors the definitions he uses, going so far as to create a new word, "theorum" (not theorem) to do the job of stabilizing the problem of misusing "theory" for "hypothesis" - a problem even defined in dictionaries, as he points out. I actually agree with that approach.
He goes on to admit that inference is NOT fact nor truth, but then takes the position that it might as well be, especially what he calls "scientific inference", a concept he extolls highly, calling it better than "eyewitness" input which he denigrates with a false analogy. And why not, he needs it desperately, since there is no real "eyewitness" (experimental) verification, much less replication, the usual standards of scientific procedure.
If science is about verifiability, then Dawkins is against it.
I have only gotten a few chapters into the book, so there's more to come, I'm sure.
Law and Order is MUCH better. Check out this comic strip making fun of CSI: http://i.imgur.com/WyoOL.jpg
BTW, I don't have cable either. I rented The Wire. See it if you get a chance.
"He goes on to admit that inference is NOT fact nor truth, but then takes the position that it might as well be.."
Perfect! Exactly my point. At least, if I understand your paraphrasing of what he is saying. Scientific inference is not fact or truth in the strict sense; but, like my Meteor Crater example, what other judgment will you make? That aliens planted a hydrogen bomb in the desert? Can you not come up with a story that is likely enough that it is a de facto fact, if not an actual fact?
Interesting. As a very young person I lived with my parents in Winslow Arizona, very near the meteor crater. I kind of felt like it was mine (very young I was). I remember that they drilled very deep in the center and found no trace whatsoever of a meteor, nor any trace in the surrounding explosion zone. I never questioned that it was a meteor... until now.
Now I'm thinking it was an ice rocket from the ice planet icyhot, which came toward earth to escape global warming on the homeplanet. All the icyhot people turned to steam, along with their ship, on impact...
It's a better story, it actually accounts for the lack of evidence much on the order of punctuated equilibrium.
Plus they did spread around some DNA, hence, life on earth. A twofer! Drumroll, then Nobel Prize, and my thanks to the little people like Al Gore for his support.
No, wait. It was one of the volcanos over in New Mexico that accumulated a plug. It blew the plug into suborbital space and it landed over in Arizona. Just dirt, like all the other dirt around there.
Hold it. It was really a small black hole that just happened to occur as dirt was forming into life and all those molecular interactions were getting in the way of one another and kerblewie: a big hole with no trace of the source.
Ooo Ooo Ooo! I know! it was...
...the place where the Anasazi Indians told the spaniards that the golden city of Cibola was buried. That was a mistake because the spaniards made them dig for it, right down to the last Anasazi. That's why there are no more Anasazi.
Way back when the moon was really, really close to the earth, every pass would loosen up a chunk of already loose real estate, until it flew up and ultimately landed on the moon. It also did that with the pre-Cambrian fossil layers that would have indicated complex life going back much further in time. The loss of those fossils leads to the false idea of a Cambrian explosion.
Another twofer: another Nobel...
Stop me when you've had enough...
Here's one: It really is a huge sinkhole that collapsed over a cavern that would dwarf Carlsbad Cavern. Only without the limestone it was just a huge mud cave waiting to collapse.
Or, it happened when the Mogollon Rim uplifted; that part resisted the uplift and formed a depression.
Enough?
OK then, it is an inverse volcano, one of several on the earth, where a temporary negative pressure exists - possibly during an eruption further away. The negative pressure in the magma sucks the surface downward until the pressure equalizes, then it stops.
C'mon, stop me...
It was originally a huge turquoise deposit that was mined dry by Navajos for their jewlery.
A small but dense uranium deposit went critical mass.
A perfect storm created a stationary vortex that lasted for enough time to suck out the dirt.
The largest ever assembly of rattlesnakes formed into a mile-wide ball and wriggled out the depression for winter protection.
It was a singular coal deposit similar to Black Mountain on the Navajo res... except it was just a big round deposit. A lightning strike set it afire and it burned for 60 centuries, leaving no trace behind.
I could do this all night, just like Dawkins....
There was this huge build-up of natural gas right there, when this bolt out of the blue...
Well, now you're just being silly.
If circumstantial but CORROBORATING evidence from multiple sources supports the meteor conclusion, then it's rational to accept that as the explanation.
Corroborating? What corroborates the lack of any trace of a meteor? Any number of my scenarios meets more expectations than the meteor scenario.
OK, so here's the point. Same point as always. There is no reason to accept inference as a basis for a worldview.
You will not be able to entrap me to say otherwise with analog ploys for accepting this or that or the other thing due to "overwhelming" inferential evidence, then claiming the same belief should be extended to the inferences of Atheism due to evolution because evolution is "nearly a fact", regardless of lack of falsifiability of inferences, and lack of producibility or replicability of the hypothesis, much less the lack of dependence of real biology upon the hypothesis. [run-on sentence intentional - out of breath?]
But keep on trying if you feel you must.
Dangit. I had a long thing all typed out and I lost it somehow.
Short version:
I think Dawkins as well as the Discovery Institute are doing a disservice to science by indelibly linking atheism with evolution in the public mind. Dawkins is good at biology, sucks hard when it comes to philosophy and the question of God.
Personally, my atheism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. During my 26 years as a Christian I accepted evolution, and I still do now. It's never come in to play for me either way. All science is materialistic. If you reject evolution as "atheistic materialist" science, then I see no logical reason why you don't also reject the germ theory of disease, the gravitational theory of planetary orbits, etc.
Second, if a layer of ice were discovered under the ground that was dated to approx the same time as Meteor Crater, and we had lots of direct observations of rockets from the planet Icyhot striking other planets, you know perfectly well that your list of options could be narrowed down to the Icyhot rocket hypothesis; and that that hypothesis could, if it continues to fit the evidence, almost begin flirting at the foot of being a "fact" as opposed to mere conjecture.
Right?
I am not aware of Dawkins making any contributions to actual working biology at all.
Surely you see the difference between the experimentally verified "Germ Theory" and orbital centripetal vs centrifugal forces, and the non-experimental hypothesis of evolution...?
The point of Icyhot and all the other nonsense is that hypotheses without evidence are vulnerable. If you add evidence to it, then it becomes a different situation, possibly still vulnerable depending upon what evidence you add to it. A wealth of meteor shards in the splash zone and the basin would go a long way toward furthering the "meteor impact" hypothesis. But that is not the case, so the hypothesis is vulnerable.
"If you add evidence to it, then it becomes a different situation..."
Yes! Exactly my point! Not ALL reconstructions of the past are just random wild guesses. You can be *reasonably* confident of some hypotheses above others.
If ERVs are inherited, and we share 7 of them with chimps, then the hypothesis "humans and chimps share a common ancestor" gets elevated above a random wild guess.
If transposons are inherited, and we share 10 of them with chimps, then the hypothesis "humans and chimps share a common ancestor" gets elevated above a random wild guess.
If primates have the same broken vitamin C gene, then the hypothesis "primates share a common ancestor" gets elevated above a random wild guess.
"Surely you see the difference between the experimentally verified 'Germ Theory' and orbital centripetal vs centrifugal forces, and the non-experimental hypothesis of evolution...?"
Red herring. I'm not arguing whether evolution is or is not comparable to other sciences. I'm arguing that you are inconsistent when you call it "atheist materialist."
1. Part of the reason you reject evolution is because it is atheist materialistic.
2. All natural sciences are atheist materialistic in practice; evolution is no more or less so.
3. Therefore, you should reject all natural sciences for the same reason.
"I am not aware of Dawkins making any contributions to actual working biology at all."
Agree with him or not, but he is one of the originators of the gene-centered view of evolutionary theory. This was a small revolution in evolutionary biology.
Accept it or don't, but this was a major contribution to the biological sciences.
Sorry for the delay, I keep forgetting to check the Moderation Needed file.
In reverse order of receipt:
3.) I said, "working biology", not evolutionary theory. Gene theory preceded Dawkins by 100 years. Name one principle of working biology that depends entirely [or in part] on Richard Dawkins.
2.) Your presumption is incorrect. I am more interested in holding evolution up to the normal standards of science and logic than the other sciences because evolution is the Atheist toe-hold on its declaration of a purely materialist reality, and the others are not. Atheists, Dawkins included, don’t care a fig about physics, nor do they care about working biology. They care only about evolution, and to them, that is all there is to the science they extol as truth.
Evolution fails the standards required of other sciences, because it cannot be truly falsified (as we have discussed before) and therefore falls into Popper's metaphysics category. And that is exactly what Atheists use it for: metaphysical proof of their worldview, while pretending that it is proven "fact" or "truth".
Even if it proves valid that macro evolution can be produced experimentally, it does not "prove" Atheism to be "truth". But since it cannot be experimentally produced, macro evolution is an obvious logical and scientific fallacy when applied to a worldview.
(continued in next comment)
(Continued from previous comment)
1.) So you seem to believe that ERV's could not possibly have been introduced to both species simultaneously. And that sharing transposons is certainty of a common ancestor, rather than a trait of similar structures of unknown origin. And that broken vitamin C genes cannot occur separately.
These are three more inferential rocks on the inferential mountain of evidence claimed as "fact" by evolutionists. We have discussed all three of these before. And as always, if you choose to base a belief system on inferential "science", that is up to you. But I don't recommend it.
So back to basics: How many inferences does it take to make a fact or a truth? How many probabilities does it take to make p=1.0? And what probability is acceptable to base a worldview upon, if the probability is < 1.0? Since probabilities can't be added, and in most cases can't be multiplied (note 1), then the essential element with the least probability dominates - and no one knows what that is, at the current state of the science. That is hazardous to one's worldview, if it is ignored as a factor.
BTW I fully accept, support and laud the voluntary materialist restrictions that science places upon itself, which it does for purely pragmatic considerations, not philosophical. Don’t confuse that with Philosophical Materialism, which is an altogether different animal, one which deliberately misuses the voluntary, pragmatic, materialist self-restriction of science to “prove” the non-existence of non-material realities.
Science is not Atheist in the sense of denying a deity, or even denying the existence of non-material reality. Science is non-theist and non-non-materialist purely because those things cannot be investigated in the material realm, to which we are restricted physically. So science must look for material answers because that is all that it can look for. Science is good at what it does. It is good for a lifestyle, but not for a worldview.
Thought experiment: Imagine that scientists really were investigating an invented thing. What would they find? They would find lots of factoids seemingly related somehow, and every finding would introduce more questions, because the answer is out of reach: illegal by definition. So inferences would abound, without the ability to experimentally verify them. And the materialist factoid references would be added together to produce a story of the emergence of the object from “random noise” ala PZ, while denying all inferences to its invention.
This is exactly the thrust of the anti-watchmaker stories: inferences of material emergence from chaos to complexity no matter how outrageously improbable, in order to avoid inferences of invention. Neither set of inferences can be proved or verified; yet one is religiously preferred over the other. And then called science regardless of probability.
(1) If probabilities are multiplied legitimately, the overall probability decreases significantly.
Dangit. I can't get this to post comments. Is it working?
For some reason, Blogger puts comments that are being made to older posts into the "moderated" bin, which means that they don't appear until I approve them. This particular post is over a week old - I don't know what the limit is.
Hmmm. No, that's not it. I can post short little comments but not the longer post I've already written and split into pieces. Am I gonna have to do it sentence by sentence?!
Is there no error code at all? Usually there will be an error message just beneath the "leave your comment" box. I sometimes forget to close a tag or use an improper tag. I just tested it with an unclosed italics tag, and it gives this message:
Your HTML cannot be accepted: Tag is not closed: I
This is immediately below the box where you enter your comment. It won't even do a preview if there is an HTML error.
I see two things at work: 1) science and 2) scientists (and others) who step outside science to make philosophical opinions. 2 uses 1 to support their worldviews, but 1 has nothing to do with 2 and makes no claims about 2.
Evolution falls under 1. Atheistic materialism, with evolution as a supporting theoryfalls under 2. I.e., evolution is a real science but is also used by materialists to justify their worldview, but evolution is independent of that and exists regardless.
Dawkins' argument for atheism, using evolution, falls completely and utterly flat. It's not even valid logic at all. Hopefully you've read The God Delusion to see how bad it is, and anyone criticizing Dawkins for being a bad philosopher is completely justified.
--comment continued in next post--
--continued from previous post--
But I think that since you are opposed to atheistic materialism, some of your opposition to that is spilling over into the real science itself. You are engaging in guilt-by-association.
For example, you say "I am more interested in holding evolution up to the normal standards of science and logic than the other sciences because evolution is the Atheist toe-hold on its declaration of a purely materialist reality, and the others are not."
You are letting your dislike of a particular 2 color your perceptions of a particular 1.
You also say "Even if it proves valid that macro evolution can be produced experimentally, it does not 'prove' Atheism to be 'truth'." Of course I completely agree with you on this point. But I do not argue atheism, nor do I have any interest in doing so. I only argue on behalf of 1. My only interest is in defending 1 from ideologically motivated attacks.
So, knowing that...
"because it cannot be truly falsified"
In the Challenge thread you said "Evolution is falsifiable yet not falsified."
Evolution would be falsified if we found a modern human fossil in Jurassic rock. Evolution would be falsified if there was not a slow change over time of fossils in the fossil record. Evolution would be falsified if the DNA of proposed related organisms did not match up in the family tree that was predicted. Etc, etc, etc.
"therefore falls into Popper's metaphysics category"
As evolution continued to be verified through the years, especially on a genetic level, Popper also later said: I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
--comment continued in next post--
--comment continued in next post--
--continued from previous post--
"And that is exactly what Atheists use it for: metaphysical proof of their worldview..."
True, of course. But I do not argue 2. I only argue 1.
"So you seem to believe that ERV's could not possibly have been introduced to both species simultaneously. And that sharing transposons is certainty of a common ancestor, rather than a trait of similar structures of unknown origin. And that broken vitamin C genes cannot occur separately."
I do not believe that ERVs could not possibly have been introduced to both species simultaneously because science does not seek absolute proof. If the hypothesis "human and chimp share an ancestor" is true, then we should be able to find unique genetic fingerprints shared by the two, but not by others. This is exactly what we find. Hypothesis tested, and verified. Could be falsified tomorrow, but as of today, verified. Absolute truth? No. Weight given to the "just-so story" of evolution? Yes. It isn't just a wild hunch.
Again I emphasize: I am only arguing 1 here, not 2.
"So back to basics: How many inferences does it take to make a fact or a truth? How many probabilities does it take to make p=1.0?"
--comment continued in next post--
--continued from previous post--
I say you can never have p=1.0 with inferences. The closest you could get is p=0.99. But as I said before, in colloquial terminology many scientists will use the word "fact" when referring to something that is p=0.99, or even only p=0.90. Don't confuse that with 2+2=4 being a fact.
"BTW I fully accept, support and laud the voluntary materialist restrictions that science places upon itself, which it does for purely pragmatic considerations, not philosophical. Don’t confuse that with ... It is good for a lifestyle, but not for a worldview."
I agree completely. Although it's a two way street. What I think you are doing is taking your dislike of philosophical materialism and letting it affect your judgement of 1.
"the answer is out of reach: illegal by definition. So inferences would abound, without the ability to experimentally verify them."
If you're referring to science's exclusion of anything beyond the material world, you just said you accept this and I agreed with you.
Martin,
I see you got the comments working for you again, good.
You said,
“You are letting your dislike of a particular 2 color your perceptions of a particular 1.”
My perceptions are formed into conclusions based on solid principles, principles which this particular “1” does not satisfy. Specifically, the evolution hypothesis claims a materialistic basis, yet does not satisfy basic materialist requirements of actual observation and replication.
You said,
“But I do not argue atheism, nor do I have any interest in doing so. I only argue on behalf of 1. My only interest is in defending 1 from ideologically motivated attacks.”
If my attacks are ideological, it is from the ideology of logic and empirical (experimental, replicable) science, which is diminished by the evolutionary Truth and Thought Control squads that are spawned by evolution. Is it possible to report existential factoids without placing an ideology burden upon them? In the sciences which are NOT evolution, the answer is yes it is possible, and standard procedure; in evolution, the answer is no, because the “science” is the ideology and the ideology is the science; they are tautological, because “belief in inferences” is an ideology – it’s how religion works.
So is your purpose to defend evolution from the ideology of logic and empirical, experimental science? If so, and you are not defending Atheism, why would you do so?
I have seen Popper’s recantation before, but I don’t recall where. It is a splendid example of capitulating and sacrificing principles of logic in order to support an ideology. To make an exception to his arguments in order to prop up one particular instance of a “failure” of his main argument is the same as falsifying the entire argument. Popper didn’t seem to recognize the obvious implications of his ideological recantation. I don’t accept his recantation as a serious logical proposition, but as a metaphysical failure on Popper’s part, where he succumbed to ideology.
In terms of inferential probability reaching 0.99 or even 0.90, those probabilities are themselves inferred, and inferred from an internal feeling of some sort of satisfaction with the inferences provided, not a calculable quantity.
So, as I read your comments, you agree that science is contingent, but you think that evolution should be accepted on the value of the inferential stack. We are still at the same spot on the logic vs. inference spectrum.
"Is it possible to report existential factoids without placing an ideology burden upon them? In the sciences which are NOT evolution, the answer is yes it is possible, and standard procedure; in evolution, the answer is no, because the “science” is the ideology and the ideology is the science..."
You may be very logical in many areas, but this is where you go astray of logic. Dawkins trying to prove atheism (2) by using evolution (1) is philosophy (barely), opinion, ideology.
But it's not a two way street.
Explain to me how the following has anything to do with atheism:
1. A microbiologist sequencing cytochrome c genes and building a phylogenetic tree
2. A paleontologist discovering a whale fossil with both baleen and teeth
3. The observation of ring species
4. The prediction that marsupial fossils would be found in Antarctica
Formulate the above into arguments that show that God does not exist, to show me specifically how "the science of evolution IS the ideology of materialistic atheism."
I don’t know the sources of your four instances, but I suspect that there is embedded within each report a reference to evolution; and evolution is the proof of the materialist philosophy. Yet these are "found" instances, not processes. The process is inferred.
As an aside, the two favored evolutionary sub-hypotheses have been falsified this summer: archaeopteryx, the dino-bird “missing link” discovered shortly after Darwin published “Origins”, has been declared an evolutionary dead-end (ie a doomed introgression or mutant); and the genetic link between dinosaurs and birds has been falsified (how they did this is as mysterious as how the link was made in the first place, since there is no genetic material to validate).
As experimental science progresses, it will come ever closer to the facts, something that cannot be expected of inferences. Inferences are not asymptotic to fact; experiments are.
“Proofs” of materialist philosophy are dogma, with any questioning of materialism being designated as “religion” and banned from many venues including peer-reviewed journals and public education.
Depending on what you mean by your question, I might actually be in agreement with you. Those four instances do not lead rationally to an ideology. (This is my positon and has been from the start of this blog) But science, when constrained to its purest definitions, does not rationally lead to a culture of closed dogma-controlled ideology; yet in the real world, it does and has. This is because of the science being corrupted by human nature. It can be shown that more valid competing hypotheses have, in the past, required the death of powerful scientists who fought to maintain their own (flawed) hypotheses over those of the newer interlopers.
The category of inferences that is called "evolution" is sacrosanct in the sense that it is official, it is to be taught as fact, and all other categories of inferences are denied access by calling them "religion".
After re-reading my last comment I think I should have been more assertive in the following area: Of course those instances you mention do not lead to ideology.
Ideology is an additional inference to the inference of evolution, and the culture of materialist inference-science is compatible with Philosophical Materialist inference. This is true to the point that it is now a cultural demand placed on society by Philosophical Materialists who are influential in government, education and the culture at large.
The resulting cultural blur between fact and inference (much less truth) is damaging to the ability to think straight, and the value of logic has been diminished as the value of ideological inference - posing as rational thought - is increased.
Inference is the sizzle without the steak.
"I don’t know the sources of your four instances, but I suspect that there is embedded within each report a reference to evolution"
How do you define evolution? Because my four examples don't have evolution embedded in them but quite out in the open. I'm defining evolution as "change over time" or "common descent." The basic idea that life began simply on this planet and became more complex, and that animals slowly change over time and branch off into new species. Each of my examples are observations of the effects of this in nature.
An aside: Dinosaurs and Birds
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. The dinosaur-bird link is controversial and probably always will be precisely because of the lack of hard evidence. The reason many paleontologists make this link is because the fossil record is replete with dinosaur-like birds and bird-like dinosaurs. But you're more right in this area than usual: a lot of this is based on inferences and so nothing can ever be proved 100%. But again, this is squabbling over details. What's not controversial is that these animals once existed, and that animals change over time. I.e. evolution, as I define it above, happens.
Evolution is sacrosanct and cannot be questioned
True that paradigms can become embedded and resistance to change happens. Witness the current stranglehold string theory has on theoretical physics.
--continued--
-- continued --
The problem is that for every Galileo there are ten thousand kooks who are wrong, and you never hear about the kooks because they fade into forgotten history. Thus, you get a skewed view of science; that all alternatives need to be given equal weight because, well, remember Galileo!
With evolution (as I define it above), there are no valid candidates for replacement. Even conceding the possibility of a deity.
Intelligent design? Hypothesizes that design can be seen in DNA. Great! How is that a replacement for the theory that animals change over time and the fossils go from simple to complex? It isn't. It may address the mechanics, it may address direct evidence of a designer involved, but it doesn't replace the family tree of life in any way, even if it were correct and fully accepted.
Panspermia? As I said before, it may explain the initial spark of life, but does not replace the explanation of animals changing over time and the fossil record going from simple to complex. The family tree still needs the explanation that animals change over time.
YEC? Throws out almost everything we know about geology, paleontology, etc and dives straight to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Perhaps the most honest anti-evolutionists around. Isn't a valid replacement explanation for the family tree of life, though.
So what then? What exactly are the Darwinists suppressing? There's nothing TO suppress. There are no theories that explain the family tree of life other than life changes over time.
Conclusion
All of this is going off on a tangent. Again I argue only for the science (1), not the ideology (2), and that evolution as "change over time" is very close to being a fact, because:
You wake up one morning and find a hole in your chicken coop and feathers and blood scattered everywhere, as well as coyote paw prints in the mud. You go down to the hardware store to buy a coyote trap. I am working behind the counter. You tell me what you need. I say to you that it's not a fact that a coyote ate your chickens, it's merely inferential, which is religious. Do you:
a) scratch your head in puzzlement
b) agree with me and purchase a coyote trap, some bridge troll poison, some candy in case it's kids with fake coyote feet, a tarp in case it's hail that just happens to be coyote paw shaped, a concrete shelter in case it's a meteorite that created coyote paw shapes and killed your chickens, etc.
Your concern for the science of evolution is, it seems to me, misplaced. You seem unduly concerned that the poor inferential science will be overrun by heretics, and worse, heretics that have no replacement theory other than "I don't know".
Science is a theory of knowledge, one that either will stand on its own merits or it will fall.
A theory of knowledge that requires exceptions for rational errors is too weak to stand on its own. No amount of analogizing will change that. Your continued loyal defense of such leads one away from thinking that you are defending only evolution and not your atheist (or is it agnostic, or merely anti-ecclesiastic deist... you seem to fluctuate) worldview, as you claim.
This blog is actually not primarily devoted to evolution, it is devoted to logic as mis-used by Atheists and Atheism. Your singular interest appears to be refuting logical refutations of evolution-as-truth.
Evolution is in no trouble and cannot be placed in trouble in the political structure of academia and the pagan environment of the USA at present. It's defense is not required, it would appear, unless more is involved than merely a theory of knowledge. A science normally would be allowed to survive based on the merits of its evidence, which usually requires experimental examination and replication.
But evolution is far from a normal science; it demands to be released from normal scientific method requirements; it must be believed by decree, by legal action, and by purging and denigrating detractors. We must ignore the material requirement of abiogenesis and the incredible odds against so many of the claims.
And the culture is afforded no separation of the inferential science and the ideology that requires decrees etc. to force its acceptance.
But the culture still recognizes that inference is a function belonging to religion, and replication is the meat of materialist science; they are not the same. The dichotomy is obvious, but the culture loses to power. In the end it is the power plays that keep evolution afloat, not its materialistic, methodological merits.
Your analogic arguments which substitute another inferential case for the inference of evolution remain in the realm of non-material, non-replication, non-science. As I frequently say, you may accept that for your worldview if you wish; I do not.
Post a Comment