I have long avoided ID for the same reasons that Lewis did. It can be inferred, it seems to me, but never proven. However, that is exactly the status of the "science" of evolution: it cannot be proven, so it is inferred and then called "truth" (e.g. Coyne). And because ID is never addressed by elitists with evidence of its impossibility, or other than the ridicule of dogmatic elitism, perhaps the elitists have no actual case against it.
As a supplement, I also attach this link to Plato's book 10, wherein he concludes that the universe is preceded by "soul" and that it is "soul" which energizes and maintains it. This predates by over 2,000 years George Berkeley's ideas of mind maintaining the continuing existence of objects and the universe.
Challenge
There was a young man who said God,Reply
must find it exceedingly odd
when he finds that the tree
continues to be
when noone's about in the Quad.
Dear Sir, your astonishment's oddThese two limiricks posed the problem and solution for Berkeley's position. His ideas received 20th century support from Quantum Mechanics, when it was found that particles didn't actually exist until observed. And it seems that time enables all mass/energy not only to exist at a specific time, but to move ever so slightly when the time changes from t(n) to t(n+1). That enabling function of time seems beyond scrutiny, since time itself is measurable only by its artifacts, which are the changes which it enables, mechanical, electrical or subatomic.
I'm always about in the Quad
And that's why the tree
continues to be
Since observed by, yours faithfully, God
The issue of the credibility of ID is discussed here as well.
9 comments:
Evolution has been proven rather conclusively. We've witnessed it directly, in everything from birds to bacteria -- evolution and speciation over generations.
Stephen,
Sorry, but that is not the case.
Perhaps you are referring to Darwin's Finches. There has been no permanent change within the Galapagos Large Cactus Finch despite the ongoing attempts to find it. Read Rosemary and Peter Grant's <i"Evolutionary Dynamics of a Natural Population"</i, where they admit that they find nothing but oscillatory variations in "Darwin's Finches" pages 279 to 287.
Further, the bacterial resistance issue is caused not by evolution, but by eliminating the susceptible part of an existing population, leaving the non-susceptible portion of the existing population.
There is no laboratory experimental evidence which demonstrates evolution in an empirically verifiable methodology. That is because there is no predictablity inherent in evolutionary theory, which predicts that evolution can produce everything, and nothing. So it is without any falsification ability, and without verifiability, and without any material evidence. All "evidence" is inferred, not empirically proven, and could be related to other causes. However, other causes are not allowed into the locked down, falsely denoted, "scientific" discussion.
So your claim, which you portray as truth, is false.
>It can be inferred, it seems to me, but never proven
But this is true of a lot of things. They cannot directly observe the Higgs boson, but must infer it from the tracks it leaves behind in the cloud chamber. They still consider this a discovery, though, and hence "true" as far as that goes. There just isn't any other way to observe the Higgs. It's too small.
Right. And yet, the discovery is replicable, observable in experimental procedures deduced from mathematical models, and falsifiable - which is why Hawking bet $100 that it would not be found. And it is still, like all science factoids, only the result of one specific shot: an induction value of one instance. Even at that, it represents a ratio of infinitely more than the induction value of evolution (1/0).
Evolution is not falsifiable, even with a pre-Cambrian rabbit: it predicts everything and nothing, so no deduction can produce a falsifiable, replicable laboratory experiment. Hawking would be a fool to bet against it. Further, the mechanism and structure is being argued even today, with the orignal "tree" becoming a bush, a mesh, a bowl of spaghetti, or who knows what? And they continue to argue that mutation is not required/is required. And most of it remains pure speculation. All that is firm (not solid though) is a collection of dinosaur bones, some reputedly with DNA, which are sorted into time frames and from which descent is inferred, but is not directly observed, nor is it testable.
This is used as the basis for rejecting a creating agent for the universe, which is an emotional decision, not a scientific conclusion. For this reason, evolution must be given serious intellectual scrutiny, and be required to meet rigorous demands which truth requires, an intellectual rigor not even applicable to the Higgs Boson.
The Higgs Boson has no ramification for worldviews, yet it has infinitely more valid material empirical experimental evidence than does evolution, which is useful in the destruction of valid worldviews due to the implication that it has Truth Value, when in fact it does not.
One can argue that scientists have a different definition of "truth"; I can argue that that is true only of ideolog scientists, not of independent-minded truth seekers who understand the induction and falsification limitations of scientific comprehension.
When I speak of "evolution", I mean only common descent. The mechanism I leave out of it.
It is a historical science, and so like I said one can falsify such a theory. Remember the baseball diamond? We could set up the argument as follows:
1. If this site we have uncovered is a fertility site, we should, probably, find X when we dig over there
2. We do not find X when we dig over there
3. Therefore, probably, this is not a fertility site
I've given you this site multiple times, and it shows how each piece of evidence could be falsified but was instead confirmed. The ERVs I still believe to be the strongest portion.
>This is used as the basis for rejecting a creating agent for the universe, which is an emotional decision, not a scientific conclusion. For this reason, evolution must be given serious intellectual scrutiny, and be required to meet rigorous demands which truth requires, an intellectual rigor not even applicable to the Higgs Boson.
I'll be the first in line to agree with you about the illegitimate metaphysical assumptions the new atheists sneak into biological science, but that should not taint biological science. The scrutiny should be, not on biological science, but on the new atheists. To watch for their sneaky metaphysical assumptions they labels as "science", so that if one opposes them, one is labelled "anti-science."
See for example Coyne responding to Chopra right here, wherein suddenly anti-pansychism and anti-idealism are "scientific", which of course as you know they are not. Science would carry on same as before, even if Berkeley's idealism were true.
It's unfortunate, because Coyne really does have a very good book on the evidence for common descent, but it is tained by the insidious new atheism that is buried deep in his bones.
But if one is rational, one ought to be able to tease these apart and consider them separately.
Martin,
I'm afraid that I don't agree with the conclusion to your argument. It is just as possible that the premise in #1 is flawed because it is an inductively-based knowledge. Can it be shown that all fertility sites demonstrate identical characteristics? Or is it possible that the presumption of consistency in X due to induction has failed? And how would you show either to be the case, without further induction being required? I.e., is the inferred theory falsified, or is the presupposed premise falsified?
In historical cases, there are no consistent, objective experimental methods to resolve the issue.
The premise in #1 could be flawed, but it's the best we have for historical sciences. For example:
1. If the large hole in the ground in Arizona was caused by a meteor, then we ought to find (say) nickel-iron residue in the hole and around it, which is not found in the regular soil of the area
2. We do find nickel-iron residue in and around the crater, which is different from the regular soil of the area
3. Therefore, probably, the hole was created by a meteor
Then they do more such tests. "If the hole was caused by a meteor we ought to find radial lines; we do find radial lines; therefore..."
And so on...
Also, I just finished an illustrated version of Plato's argument for the World Soul, which you can read here.
Martin,
I have written too much in reply to your last comment, so I will put it into a post.
Post a Comment