The science is conclusive, and science has "moved on", contends one apologist in the lineup. The main focus seems to be anecdotal, with photos of "missing links" such as the Halwaxiid, left, which is said to be "poised to explode into three separate branches of animal life". One such "missing link" of which they are enamoured is the Canadian Tiktaalik, a fish claimed to be transitional due to its possession of a movable head, and feet-like fins. Not mentioned is the critical objection that poorly designed creature is more likely to have been, if anything, a dead-end, because of its almost non-ability to either swim, or walk. Other apologists in the article claim that there are no "links" just smooth evolution.
Also as is traditional in evolutionary stories, the text is riddled with "probably", "thought to be", "likely to have", and other mild disclaimers, which - also typically - do not appear in the summaries.
As is de riguer in the natural history of paleo-this-and-that, skulls are photographed all lined up in a row. Again no empirical paternity tests are presented.
There is no attempt to validate any claim; the thrust of this article and the original meeting that it documents is not the science. The purpose is to prepare a campaign to convince the ignorant public of the validity of the science.Perhaps the weakest of all arguments, and this by necessity of complexity one would suppose, is the origins theory. The terms are far from accessible to John Q Public; the methodology of forced molecular bonding in the lab is suspect; and the conclusions, who knows?
The molecular gibberish is likely not accessible to MD's much less us, the ignoranti. This model (left) is said to represent a ligase ribosome. Does it? Who knows for sure? Are we to accept this as epistemology just because it comes from a person in a white coat? How are to evaluate the value, if any, of such impressive computer art? This is actually the task that evolution jockeys face, because if skepticism is needed to rule materialistic science, then skepticism will also confront it. Especially in a pursuit that openly supports a worldview that is not supported by the vast majority of non-scientist, non-elitist university shut-ins. In other words, the rest of us.
6 comments:
Sorry Stan,
But have to say, respectfully, that you've lost me on this one. Saying that scientific conjecture is in any way invalid because it is inaccessible to the masses is not valid criticism.
There are in fact reasons why that computer image is thought to represent two bonding molecules. It's certainly not to be considered a representation of reality but rather just a cartoon. If it's completely inaccurate, another rival model will eventually replace it. Disdain for science because it is incomplete is not correct. The bounds of knowledge will never expand one iota more if we cancel conjecture purely because we suspect it might be wrong.
Those sculls are lined up because someone somewhere thinks they form a chain of descent, probably due to bone similarities discernable to the specialist. He or she may be dead wrong--dead wrong. But to jump from that to the suspicion that they are there merely to fit some conspiratorial science doctrine... no, I can't follow you there.
[Beelz]
The point of the article I critiqued was that a) the science is inviolable (and conjecture is presented as truth), and b) the ignorant public must be convinced of that. I assume that you did not read the article.
My point is that the ignoranti will not be convinced by any of these arguments; the arguments are specious and without meaning to the vast majority of common folk. And the common folk are not devoid of common sense, as so much of the scientific community displays. But when we are told we should be forced to accept it without it actually being meaningful, there is no reason to accept that.
You say that incorrect models will be replaced; that is true, but there is much evidence that shows that the dogma within science is highly, destructively resistant to the assault of differing concepts, and uses peer review to censor them. It frequently requires that one generation of dogmatic scientists dies off, before any challenges are even entertained. (This will make a good article, I will pursue it).
As for lining up skulls, as long as they continue to do that, they will be regarded with skepticism, and rightly so. There is no paternity test; it is rampant speculation.
So my point is that dictatorial scientism will be met with skepticism. You may deny that if you wish, but even the article admits that the skepticism exists.
Stan,
There will be honest and dishonest people in any disciple we care to focus on. There are stubborn scientists who will cling to one theory, there are stubborn doctors who will cling to diagnosis, engineer to design, etc. BUT the best ones don't; they will follow where the facts, evidence, and yes, peer consensus leads them.
Peer review is an inexact "science," if you will, but I doubt you or I would care for science without it, when any crackpot result can be presented at the will of the investigator, without check or balance.
Dictatorial scientism: does it exist? I'm sure there is a grain of factuality to it; perhaps more, but I'm not sure how much isn't driven by reaction to groups that have real agendas in seeking to sway science to a nonscientific ideology. In other words, if we want science to relax and be science, we must be prepared at some point to insulate it from politics.
[Beelz]
I'm launching a little research into this subject for future articles. I think there are dangers to unrestricted science conducted outside the purvue of checks and balances. Even that doesn't work, as in the case of british science which petitioned for, and received permission from the British government to proceed with combining genes of animals and humans. Dr Mengele is the result of unfettered "science".
Scientific ethics is non-existant outside of the force field of political overview. If science were playing only with quantum fields and fusion, there might be less concern. But they playing with things that have considerable ethical / moral impact.
Not only that but they have used the government choke-hold on schools to implement materialism as a settled feature of science, and science as Truth; this is an insidious injection of intellectual corruption into government schools, where federal courts declare what a child must learn. This is no differnent from the Hitler Youth and the Red Brigades where truth-by-government is installed into young minds.
Science is not without consequence; therefore scientists must be held responsible. Denying responsibility is a symptom of the problem.
Stan, I must demur.
You seem to think that rows of skulls or (in this case) lineups of molecules are being presented to demonstrate paternity (or, as we evo guys like to put it, common descent)
But in point of fact that is NOT what is demonstrated; rather, what is demonstrated is that there are transitional features between different species. Paleontologists are quite clear about this in the stuff they write for each other; the idea that this fossil, or even the species represented by this fossil, is somehow ancestral is never taken seriously in the literature. This is a distortion of the popular culture that happens when either real scientists or (presumably) real journalists get a little loose with the terminology.
But maybe you know all that, and you're looking to the specific arrangement of skulls, or molecular homologs, or whatever to actually DEMONSTRATE the inference of common descent.
Well, that horse has already left the barn. There are multiple lines of evidence that point to common descent. The alternative, special creation for each new sort of living thing, is not only not parsimonious (to put it mildly), but involves a non-falsifiable hypothesis....which, as you should know, is excluded from science by definition. We adopt the inference of common descent not because it rules out divine involvement (it doesn't), nor because it can be proved in all cases (it can't, by definition), but because multiple lines of evidence converge upon that conclusion, and because that inference has been scientifically productive.
Consider this: within a decade after the Origin's publication, common descent was WIDELY accepted, even by those who rejected Darwin's proposed mechanism, natural selection. Even Darwin's staunchest opponents on this point admitted common descent. Why has it been so widely admitted? Because it has proved fruitful to scientific investigation in ways that the hypothesis of special creation (SC) has not. Until such time as SC can yield testable claims of the quantity and quality produced by the inference of common descent, the latter will prevail. It's the only game in town.
Here's a discussion of the evidence for transitional forms by Keith Miller, an evangelical Christian and paleontologist:
http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Miller.html
Enjoy!
"the only game in town". Yep that's the attitude alright. More about that in a minute. I didn't make up the part about the skulls. The comment attached to the photo was, "here have a look at your relatives". Again the article was discussing ways to convince the ignorant public of the validity of the science. And the statement was made that evolution is settled, science has moved on. Well, if it has, it has moved on circumstantial evidence.
In terms of parsimony, is it easier to believe a) that these random molecules got into some good stuff so they got bigger and bigger, then the molecules started replicating and then became anti-entropic,and then became sponges for a very long time, then quickly (relatively, of course) leveraged themselves up to dinosaurs which leveraged themselves into birds, but also some mammals maybe, and using this leverage got up a human-like thing, and.... here you are, so it must be true. (you can call this ridiculously biased, but this is what the public sees, like it or not)
or, b)the universe is rational; it likely required a rational being to kick start it? If He was already there, why not just do it?
The public is not restricted to the materialist viewpoint by virtue of any commitment to a process. The public has a much wider view. You won't convince many in the general public that they have no free agency or free will or consciousness that is a special faculty, not an illusion. Nor will they be convinced that there is no spiritual aspect to being alive. Atheism is just a few percent of the population, and evolution is atheistic and materialistic, and only the most tortured convolution can make it seem somehow spiritual (I will look up your reference however).
And when the parsimony tips away from the evolution story and toward a metaphysical intuition, science has no right to either deny or restrict that. After all science has nothing to say about anything metaphysical.
But science can't seem to restrict itself, and it comes to be viewed as an intellectual bully, using government leverage over government schools, demanding that the courts sieze control over the minds of children. Again, like it or not, the public sees evolution as a social threat: to their children. The public loses these battles, as you glow about in your blog. But when the issue gets too hot...
Scott, I think you have an idealized view of the wonderful world of science. Our difference comes in the view of the social and political consequences of the behavior of science. I grant you the wonderful products of increased scientific knowledge. But I also remember the Mengeles, and the social scientists of the late 19th century and damage that they can do when unencumbered by external ethics (aka moral absolutes). Science is not without consequences, and scientists are responsible for them. Maybe that is the crux of our differences.
Post a Comment