pag-uusap na ito ay nagsimula kapag ako ay nag-post ng isang nagpapaalab sanaysay tungkol sa creationism sa Slashdot. ay kawili-wiling mabigla ako may ang kabutihang-asal ng Ang bantog Brett Watson argumento s ', at siya mamaya sumang-ayon upang ipagbigay-display na ito sa akin debate online (na-edit para sa kaliwanagan) upang iligtas ito mula sa pagiging buried sa Slashdot archives.
Sinasadya, ako rin nakita ang post abb3w "Mathematical pare-pareho" insightful at nakakatawa.
Written by pipi Scientist sa Mayo 26, 2007, @ 08:14
Ko napansin na ang maraming Slashdot artikulo tungkol sa evolution tila upang maakit ang isang pulutong ng mga creationists. Dahil sa ito, ako ay nagpasya upang harapin ang mabigat na (ibig sabihin, hindi pang-trolling) creationists na madalas Slashdot sa pag-asa na maaari kong pigilan ka mula sa paggawa ng parehong madaling iwasan mga pagkakamali na gumawa ng maraming ng iyong mga kapatid tunog tulad ng manga cretins. Narito ang ilang karaniwang mga argumento na creationists gamitin, at kung bakit sa tingin ko na dapat hindi mo gamitin ang mga ito ... maliban na lamang kung ng kurso na gusto mong maging ridiculed. Tandaan: ito ay sa pamamagitan ng walang ibig sabihin ng isang malawakang listahan.
1. "Evolution ay lamang ng isang teorya."
Ito ang pinaka-karaniwang (at ang mga pinaka-disappointing) creationist argument marinig ko sa isang regular na batayan. Habang ito ay tunay na evolution ay isang theory , pahayag na ito ay ginawa sa pagtatangkang cast alinlangan sa ebolusyon sa pamamagitan ng implying na ang evolution ay kamag-anak sa isang wild hulaan na siyentipiko dating na sa panahon ng isang gabi ng pag-inom binge. Newsflash: hindi ito ay pagpunta sa trabaho. Karamihan sa mga tao na maunawaan ka ng nakalilito ang salitang "theory" (na nangangahulugan na ang isang paliwanag o modelo na ay kaya ng predicting hinaharap mga kaganapan) sa ang salita " teorya "(na nangangahulugan ng isang edukado hulaan).
Pagtawag ebolusyon ng isang "teorya" ay hindi isang mang-insulto. Halimbawa, ang gravity ay din "lamang" ng isang teorya. maaari ako magdagdag ng kahit na ang isang pulutong ng mga siyentipiko (kasama ang aking sarili) isaalang-alang ang evolution upang maging isang mas mahusay na-suportado theory sa gravity, dahil sa ang katunayan na ang bigat ay hindi maaaring (sa kasalukuyan) ay quantized , sa kabila ng mga dekada ng mga pagtatangka. Kung nais mong debate evolution, pinong-ngunit hindi play ang mga walang kabuluhan laro salita.
2. "Ngunit ebolusyon ay hindi kailanman ay sundin!"
Karamihan sa mga creationists, may mukha ang katunayan na ang mga virus at iba pang nilalang sa dagat (tulad ng mga bantog na moths ) evolve karapatan sa harap ng aming mga mata, gumawa ng isang pagkakaiba sa pagitan ng micro-evolution at macro-evolution. Micro-evolution ay "napatunayan na," sabi nila, sapagkat ito ay kumakatawan lamang ng isang pagbabago sa allele dalas sa loob ng isang uri ng hayop. Macro-evolution, tinukoy bilang magbago mula sa isang uri ng hayop sa ibang (speciation aka ""), ay higit pa sa isang problema para sa creationists. Sila ay madalas na igiit na speciation ay hindi kailanman na-siniyasat sa labas ng laboratoryo mga eksperimento. Ito ay blatantly false. Maraming mga halimbawa ng speciation ay sundin sa ligaw-para sa mga halimbawa tingnan ang mga malalaking mga listahan ng mga peer-susuriin journal articles .
Ang susunod na hakbang na creationists gawin bilang tugon sa sagot na ito ay ang claim na nagpapatunay speciation-wala na lamang ng isang pagbabago mula sa isang uri ng organismo sa isa pang ay sumusuporta sa evolution. Ano ang isang "uri," maaari mong tanungin? Walang nakakaalam. Creationists ay magbibigay sa malabo mga halimbawa, tulad ng sinasabi na ang isang aso ay isang iba't ibang mga uri ng hayop kaysa sa isang taba, ngunit ang isang mahigpit na kahulugan ay hindi (sa aking kaalaman) ay inaalok sa lahat ng dako o tinanggap ng mga pangunahing creationist organisasyon. Ito ay lamang ng isang maginhawang-post ng mga layunin na mapigil ang pagkuha hunhon likod tuwing bagong katibayan ay natagpuan.
Speciation ay medyo madali ang magmasid sa mga organismo na magparami mabilis. Observing ang paglikha ng, halimbawa, ang isang bagong paylum o order ay maaaring kumuha ng maraming mga millennia. Sa kasamaang palad, pantao sibilisasyon ay hindi pa sa paligid na mahaba. Plus, standard byolohiko mga katawagan ay hindi batay sa gitna ng ebolusyon pamantayan, kaya ito ay hindi malinaw sa akin na equating isang "uri" sa isang paylum o order ay makabuluhan na ito sa konteksto.
3. "Ngunit intelihente Disenyo ay naiiba kaysa sa Bibliya Creationism! Ito ay isang pang-agham pulos teorya. "
Huwag subukan upang magpanggap na "intelihente Design" ay sa paanuman naiiba kaysa sa creationism. Lalo na hindi subukan upang magpanggap na ito ay isang pang-agham teorya. Mataimtim. Walang isa ay pagbili ng ito. "Intelihente Design" ay isang panlilinlang-isang walang kaugnayan sa relihiyon-importante kataga ng hagis sa paglipas ng relihiyon creationism upang subukan upang ilusot ito sa isang estado-pinondohan silid-aralan science. Ang aking unang piraso ng ebidensiya ay ... mo. Mayroon ba ay naniniwala sa "intelihente Design"? Kung ang sinabi mo "oo," may isang 97% pagkakataon na ikaw ay isang theist. Sa katunayan, ang maaari kong sabihin na may kamag-anak katiyakan na ikaw ay alinman sa isang Protestante, Ortodoksia Kristiyano o isang Muslim. Sinasadya, I'm basing ito paniniwala sa mga lugar ng botohan tulad ng isang ito.
Itigil at sa tingin tungkol sa kung ano ang ibig sabihin nito. Kung "intelihente Design" ay isang lehitimong, walang kaugnayan sa relihiyon, pang-agham diskarte sa biology, ang isa ay inaasahan ang ilang mga tao mula sa lahat ng relihiyon / malaateista pinagmulan upang yakapin ito. Maliwanag, gawin nila hindi. Sa kabilang dako, kung kayo ay upang humingi ng supporters ng evolution kung ano ang kanilang relihiyon ay, ang ratio ng atheists sa theists ay katulad na sa pangkalahatang populasyon. Ang kakulangan ng ugnayan sa pagitan ng suporta para sa evolution at paniniwala sa Diyos nagpapahiwatig na ebolusyon ay hindi isang relihiyon (o malaateista) isyu, ngunit "intelihente Design" ay. Of course, ito ay madetalye katibayan dahil mayroong isang alternatibong paliwanag: "Ang Evil ateista sabwatan ™ ay masira pangunahing relihiyon, at lamang American pundamentalista Kristiyano ay matalino at matuwid na sapat upang makita sa pamamagitan ng Evil Atheists 'napakasama kasinungalingan."
Aking ikalawang piraso ng ebidensiya ay isang konsepto na tinatawag na "naturalismo." Naturalismo ay nangangahulugan na ang isang pang-agham imbestigasyon ng ilang mga pangyayari o pattern ay nagsisimula sa palagay na ang sundin kaganapan o pattern ay pamamahalaan ng batas ng layunin. Maaari mong hindi sumasang-ayon sa palagay na ito, ngunit ito ay ang central palagay ng science. Narito ang isang halimbawa. Bago Newton's teorya ng Motion, ang kilusan ng planets ay ipinaliwanag sa pamamagitan ng sinasabi ng isang bagay kasama ang mga linya na ang mga anghel hunhon ang planets sa paligid sa kanilang mga orbits. Ito ay isang paliwanag na Tama ang sukat sa katotohanan, gumawa ng walang pagkakamali tungkol sa na. Ito ay hindi naturalistic, bagaman, na nangangahulugan na ito ay hindi pang-agham. Newton nagbago lahat na, palitan ng paliwanag na zero ay mahuhulain halaga sa isang pang-agham konsepto na ang (arguably) inilatag ang batayan para sa aming mga modernong mundo.
Dahil ang mga ideya ng "intelihente Design" ay hindi kaayon sa naturalismo, ito ay hindi science. Ko na narinig creationists subukan sa magtaltalan na hindi sila magkaroon ng isang problema sa science, lamang "naturalistic science." Marahil ito ay dahil kahit fundamentalists ay kamalayan na ang sinasabi "ako laban sa science sa pangkalahatang" ay para na rin sa mga sinasabi "ko 'ma paurong kretin. Mangyaring huwag pansinin ako. "Subalit sa posisyon na ito ay walang kabuluhan dahil walang science naturalismo ay hindi science.
Of course, ang ilang ng ikaw ay maaaring sinasabi "ngunit intelihente Disenyo ay katugma sa naturalismo!" Hindi sumasang-ayon ako. Halimbawa, sino o kung ano ay ang "intelihente Designer"? Ang standard na "intelihente Design teoriko" sagot ay upang gumawa kamangmangan, na magtatwa na ito ay malinaw naman (INSERT diyos NAME HERE). Ngunit sino (o ano) ay maaaring ang taga-disenyo na? Upang maging isang naturalistic teorya, Designer ang may gusto na maging ang ilang mga uri ng mga dayuhan sa halip na isang sobrenatural diyos. Ang problema ay na ang anumang tulad Designer Alien ay may had sa evolve kanyang sarili, na kung saan ay imposible ayon sa "intelihente Disenyo."
Tandaan: Gusto kong point out na kahit na ako ay isang non-theist dalub-agham (pisisista, sa pamamagitan ng ang paraan), ako hindi ko sinasabi na science presupposes hindi paniniwala sa diyos. Ito ay mas tumpak na sabihin na ang science ay lumiliko ng isang bulag sa mata sa teolohiya dahil ang pang-agham na paraan ay hindi maipapatupad sa higit sa karaniwan tao'y. Agham ay hindi tanggihan ang pagkakaroon ng anumang diyos. Ito ay lamang ng isang paraan upang gumawa ng mga tumpak na mga paghuhula tungkol sa mga natural na mundo.
Aking mga ikatlong piraso ng ebidensiya ay ang konsepto ng falsifiability. tingnan mo, isang pang-agham ipotesis mga pangangailangan ng higit sa naturalismo ay balido. Ito rin ang mga pangangailangan upang maging falsifiable sa kamalayan na ang isang eksperimento (alinman sa mga tunay na o gedanken ) ay maaaring gumanap na sumusuporta sa alinman sa mga teorya o pabulaanan ito. Ebolusyon, halimbawa, ay falsifiable sa maraming iba't-ibang paraan. Narito ang isa: kung ang isang Fossil ay kailanman natuklasan makabuluhang "sa labas ng lugar," tulad ng Fossil ng isang chimp inilatag sa Precambrian sapin bato, na magiging sa dulo ng evolution. Habang makita ko ito malamang na hindi (at, sa katunayan, Gusto ko nais na gawin ang radioactive dating ang aking sarili upang maniwala na ito), ang isang tunay na siyentipiko admits posibilidad na ito.
Sa kabilang dako, kung paano ka could kahit minsan magsinungaling "intelihente Design"? Malubhang-anumang "intelihente Design theorists" lumitaw diyan nais na iminumungkahi ng isang pagsubok? duda ko sa iyo. Anumang pagsubok dumating sa iyo hanggang sa maaaring countered sa pamamagitan ng isang simpleng pahayag: "Ngunit na lamang ay ang paraan Designer dinisenyo ang mga bagay-marahil Siya ay trying sa pagsubok ang iyong pananampalataya."
Para sa mga dahilan, kapag ako tinanong kung ano ang tingin ko ng "intelihente Design," sabi ko "Ito ay hindi kahit na mali." Ang dahilan kung bakit sinasabi ko ito ay na ang anumang pang-agham teorya nagmumungkahi ng isang naturalistic paliwanag para sa ilang mga katangian ng mundo, at gumagawa ng mga paghuhula falsifiable na kung saan ay alinman sa tumpak na (sa kaso na kung saan ang teorya ay itinuturing na tila totoo) o mali (kung saan ang kaso ang teorya ay tinapon na "mali"). Dahil ang "intelihente Design" ay hindi naturalistic at hindi gumagawa ng mga paghuhula falsifiable, ito ay hindi lamang ay hindi tama, ito ay hindi kahit na mali.
Written by Ang bantog Brett Watson sa Mayo 26, 2007, @ 11:35
Hello. Ako ay isang creationist, at ako basahin Slashdot. Aking mga larangan ng kadalubhasaan ay computing, ngunit ako ay mayroon din ng isang graduate degree sa pilosopiya na kasama "pilosopiya ng agham," at gusto ko ng isang magandang argument. Gusto kong address point # 3 madaling sabi.
Sa iyong unang talata (ng point # 3) point out ka ng isang malakas na ugnayan sa pagitan ng paniniwala sa intelihente disenyo at tiyak na relihiyon views. Ikaw ay sumasamo sa nananaig bias Slashdot laban na inayos relihiyon kapag ginawa mo ito: ugnayan ang sabi ni absolutely wala sa at ng kanyang sarili bilang sa kung ang mga ideya ay true o false. CS Lewis na inilarawan form ng argument ng "Bulverism": bale-walain ang mga argumento sa batayan na ang tao ay pagpapalaki ng ito ay may partikular na motives para sa paggawa nito. "Ikaw lang sabihin na dahil matagal mo relihiyon tingnan X." Hindi ko magtaltalan laban na ito, dahil ito ay hindi isang argumento.
ako ay ituro, gayunpaman, na intelihente Disenyo at Creationism ay hindi ang eksklusibong ng ari-arian ng theists. Sir Fred Hoyle at ang "panspermia" proposal ay isang halimbawa ng isang kilalang siyentipiko ateista at isang naturalistic intelihente disenyo teorya (limitado sa mga kemikal evolution sa saklaw). Ang kanyang mga ideya ay hindi tinanggap, ng mga kurso, at ako magtaka kung ang kanyang katapangan sa pagtatanong tulad sagradong cows (at pagbibigay ng quotable materyal sa taong hindi naniniwala sa relihiyon creationists) ay hindi gastos sa kanya Nobel Prize pagkilala sa katapusan. Still, siya ay nagsimula ang isang meme na maaaring pa pamumulaklak at lalaki: "binhi ng buhay" [] space.com.
Hindi ko ibig sabihin na magpahiwatig na tulad kontra ideya ay karaniwang pagsasanay sa mga siyentipiko: sila ay hindi. Ngunit ay na dahil ang mga ideya ay profoundly at malinaw naman maling pag-iisip, o lamang dahil sa ito ay propesyonal na magpakamatay para sa kahit sino mas kilala kaysa Sir Fred Hoyle sa aminin pampublikong alinlangan sa evolution? Agham ay isang lumang lalake 'club: break ang sosyal taboos at kayo ay shunned - isang proseso sa kabilang banda na kilala bilang peer review. Kung sa tingin mo na ang science ay isang tuyo, walang kinikilingan, katotohanan-paghanap ng makina (sa halip na isang lubusan pantao, pampulitika, at pang-unawa-driven na proseso) at pagkatapos ko lamang ipagpalagay na hindi mo na pinadala ng isang pananaliksik papel sa pamamagitan ng isang proseso ng pagrerepaso. Basta tungkol sa sinumang may (hindi alintana ng patlang, ako sigurado) ay may had ang karanasan ng pagkuha ng likod puna Reviewer at pag-iisip, "FFS, ninyo basahin ang kahit na ano ako wrote?" Kung ikaw ay may isang argument na tila nakikiisa sa creationism , ikaw ay hindi makakuha ng nai-publish sa isang balwarte ng gitna ng ebolusyon-iisip kahit paano sumpain mabuti iyong mga argument ay: ito ay awas bilang "creationist basura" sa unang sagap-read.
Paglipat sa, ang gusto ninyong gastusin mumunti oras ng pakikipag-usap tungkol sa "naturalismo." Mayroon akong isang tunay na malaking problema sa science na magkasingkahulugan sa pilosopiko naturalismo, at maaari kong sabihin sa maikling pangungusap na problema tunay madali. Ipalagay, para sa kapakanan ng mga argumento, na ang ilang mga uri ng higit sa karaniwan na ay, sa katunayan, lumikha ng natural na mundo gamit ang isang sobrenatural na paraan (kung saan ang ibig sabihin ko na ito flagrantly lumabag sa mga batas na kilala ng physics, tulad ng mass / enerhiya pagtitipid). Ito ba ang hindi umalis ng buong proseso ng naturalistic siyentipiko bilang isa sa pursuing falsehoods? Ang tunay na paliwanag (isang sobrenatural maykapal) ay pinasiyahan ang isang pagsubok sa pamamagitan ng ang paraan ng imbestigasyon. Naturalistic science (na may kaugnayan sa pinanggalingan) ay ang proseso ng paghahanap ng mga pinaka-kapani-paniwala kasinungalingan tungkol sa mga pinagmulan ng mga bagay-bagay.
Marahil na maaari mong address na isyu para sa akin: kung science ay kinakailangan naturalistic, pagkatapos ay kung paano ko malalaman namin na ang isang naturalistic paliwanag tulad ng "malaking evolution bang +" ay totoo, bilang laban sa isang kapani-paniwala kasinungalingan? Bakit ang mga siyentipiko tulad ng iyong sarili hamakin sobrenatural panukala na parang sila ay hindi totoo, kapag ikaw ay hindi ang iyong sarili sa tapat pagtugis ng katotohanan, ngunit ng kapani-paniwala naturalistic paliwanag?
Ang huling point mo ay takip na ng palsipikasyon. Ito ay isang paksa mahal sa aking puso sa aking kapasidad bilang isang kalaguyo ng pilosopiya. Sa halip na pagtatangka upang pabulaanan ang iyong argument o ituro deficiencies sa "huwad" kanyang sarili, subalit, tingin ko ay mayroon akong isang mas mahusay na katanungan. minsan ko na nakita creationists bashed dahil sa pagkakaroon ng hindi tunay na theories ng kanilang sarili, ngunit lamang sinusubukang maghanap ng kamalian sa evolution. Dahil sa kahalagahan ng huwad na pang-agham teorya, hindi mo nais na sumang-ayon "anti-evolutionists" magbigay ng isang kailangang-kailangan serbisyo sa science, kahit na wala silang alternatibong teorya? Ang bawat patlang pangangailangan nito skeptics, satanas's tagapagtaguyod, at foils. Bakit hindi namin na naghihikayat sa mga pagtatangka upang mahanap weaknesses sa teorya ng ebolusyon? Bakit hindi tingnan ang aming buong "intelihente Design" kilusan bilang isang programa upang magsinungaling ang prinsipyo ng natural na pormasyon? Kung "natural pormasyon" sa malawak na kahulugan ay hindi maaaring huwad, at pagkatapos ito ay hindi isang pang-agham teorya, karapatan?
Ang buong "huwad" bagay na tila isang maliit na dalawang talim sa akin. Mangyaring nagpapakita na ito cuts creationists ngunit hindi evolutionists sa liwanag ng "creationism bilang isang pagtatangka upang magsinungaling evolution."
Written by pipi Scientist sa Mayo 27, 2007, @ 20:44
Sa iyong unang talata (ng point # 3) point out ka ng isang malakas na ugnayan sa pagitan ng paniniwala sa intelihente disenyo at tiyak na relihiyon views. Ikaw ay sumasamo sa nananaig bias Slashdot laban na inayos relihiyon kapag ginawa mo ito: ugnayan ang sabi ni absolutely wala sa at ng kanyang sarili bilang sa kung ang mga ideya ay true o false. CS Lewis na inilarawan form ng argument ng "Bulverism": bale-walain ang mga argumento sa batayan na ang tao ay pagpapalaki ng ito ay may partikular na motives para sa paggawa nito. "Ikaw lang sabihin na dahil matagal mo relihiyon tingnan X." Hindi ko magtaltalan laban na ito, dahil ito ay hindi isang argumento.
Tandaan na hindi ako ay pagtatangka upang gamitin ang ugnayan sa magtaltalan na intelihente disenyo ay hindi totoo. Ako ay arguing na intelihente disenyo ay isang relihiyosong ideya, hindi isang pang-agham ideya. tingin ko ang katunayan na ang evolution ay hindi rin sang-ayon sa relihiyon, subali't intelihente disenyo AY rin sang-ayon sa relihiyon, ay katibayan na marunong na disenyo ay may kaugnayan sa relihiyon sa ilang mga paraan. Of course, bilang point out ko sa dulo ng talata na, may mga paraan upang magpakilala sa paligid puntong ito kaya hindi ko isaalang-alang ito lalo na malakas na katibayan.
ako ay ituro, gayunpaman, na intelihente Disenyo at Creationism ay hindi ang eksklusibong ng ari-arian ng theists. Sir Fred Hoyle at ang "panspermia" proposal ay isang halimbawa ng isang kilalang siyentipiko ateista at isang naturalistic intelihente disenyo teorya (limitado sa mga kemikal evolution sa saklaw). Ang kanyang mga ideya ay hindi tinanggap, ng mga kurso, at ako magtaka kung ang kanyang katapangan sa pagtatanong tulad sagradong cows (at pagbibigay ng quotable materyal sa taong hindi naniniwala sa relihiyon creationists) ay hindi gastos sa kanya Nobel Prize pagkilala sa katapusan. Still, siya ay nagsimula ang isang meme na maaaring pa pamumulaklak at lalaki: "binhi ng buhay."
Iyan ay nakawiwili. hindi ko alam na Fred Hoyle kinilala bilang isang ateista. taka ko kung siya patuloy na self-makilala bilang isang ateista pagkatapos espousing ang mga ideya ...
hindi ako sigurado iyon panspermia ay sa logro sa evolution. Bilang malayo bilang Naiintindihan ko ang mga ideya, panspermia Pinapalaki lang ang "biosphere" mula sa planeta Earth sa buong kalawakan o kahit na lampas. Natural selection pa rin gawa, uri ng hayop pa rin evolve upang punan magagamit ekolohiya niches, atbp Kung totoo, ito ganap na pagbabago ang kasagutan sa mga tanong ng mga pinagmulan ng buhay sa lupa (karaniwan na tinatawag na abyohenesis, ngunit ang term na hindi mukhang angkop sa konteksto ). Depende sa rate na kung aling microbes maligtasan re-entry sa kapaligiran ng lupa, maaaring ito rin magbigay ng kontribusyon sa medyo genetiko pagkakaiba sa geological timescales. Subalit tila ang katugma sa evolution maliban kung ako hindi pagkakaunawaan ng isang bagay.
Bilang malayo bilang kanyang madalas may panipi-"buhawi assembling isang 747 mula sa isang junkyard" -salita , hindi ko tingin ako ng mga kwalipikadong sa pakikitungo sa mga isyung ito sa detalye dahil hindi ako isang molekular dalubbuhay. ako ay may dalawang mga bagay na sinasabi, bagaman. Una, siya ay anyong arguing na abyohenesis (sa halip na evolution) ay malamang na hindi istatistika. Mula sa kung ano ang maaari kong sabihin na hindi siya ay arguing na ang natural selection ay hindi kaya ng paggawa ng mga pagkakaiba-iba nakikita natin sa paligid sa amin, na ibinigay namin ipalagay ang pagkakaroon ng isa lamang ang buhay na cell. Siya lamang ang arguing laban sa abyohenesis sa pamamagitan ng pagsasabi na ang mga unang cell ay kaya malamang na hindi totoo na hindi na ito ay maaaring magkaroon ng binuo sa pamamagitan ng pagkakataon.
Pangalawa, abyohenesis ay arguably ang pinaka mahiwaga tanong sa biology dahil sa ang katunayan na ito ang nangyari kaya matagal na ang nakalipas at kaliwa walang bakas ng kung paano ito nangyari. Ito ay malamang na manatiling mahiwaga hanggang sa mahanap namin ang iba pang mga biospheres (tawiran ng aking mga daliri para sa Mars, Europa at Titan) o makahanap ng isang paraan upang matagumpay na tularan abyohenesis sa lab. hindi ko mabasa ang kanyang mga paliwanag kung paano siya dumating sa kanyang mga claim na "cell ang may isa pagkakataon sa 10 ng 40,000 pagbabalangkas." At, muli, ako ay paraan sa labas ng aking malalim na dito, ngunit Gusto kong pumunta sa labas sa isang paa at iminumungkahi ng isang posibleng depekto sa kanyang pagtatasa. Bilang malayo gaya ako sabihin, siya ay anyong suriin ang pinakasimpleng cell ay maaaring mahanap siya, at sa pagkalkula sa probabilidad ng buong cell lang pagdating-sama lahat sa isang beses (mula sa random na molekular kilos, marahil).
tingin ko na siya's ginawa ng isang mahalaga palagay: na walang mas simple buhay na organismo ay maaaring umiiral. Siguro ang unang organismo ay nakatira lubha-simple lamang ng isang sumadsad ng RNA o DNA at ang ilang mga napaka krudo molekular makinarya sa magtiklop kanyang sarili mula sa nakapaligid na amino acids. Something tungkol sa bilang kumplikado bilang isang virus na nakalagay sa isang ribosome ay magiging mas malamang na form sa pamamagitan ng pagkakataon sa isang tunay cell. Ang ganitong mga organismo ay isang na-ay nag-iisa sa isang mundo na puno ng likido ng tubig na nagsisilbing bilang isang mekanismo sasakyan at masagana raw materyales sa anyo ng iba pang mga amino acids. Sa pamamagitan ng walang kompetisyon, ito ay nakopya mismo (imperfectly) isang unbelievably malaking bilang ng mga beses hanggang sa kanyang mga inapo napuno ang biosphere-sa point na natural selection ay tunay simulan upang sipain sa bilang resources naging mahirap makuha. Dahil sa orihinal na organismo ay ang resulta ng pagkakataon mag-isa (at sa gayon ay hindi na-optimized sa anumang paraan), natural selection ay madaling ma upang mapabuti sa kanyang mga pangunahing disenyo, upang ang point na ang mga orihinal na organismo ay pumatay off sa pamamagitan ng kanyang sariling anak mutated. Ang pagkuha ng mas kumplikadong traits tulad ng lamad cell ay mas mababa ng isang statistical problema sa senaryo na ito dahil sa mga malaking numero ng pamumuhay na organismo na kasangkot, at ang mga (potensyal na) daan-daang mga milyon-milyong mga taon na sila na bumuo ng mga traits bago sila ay naging malaking sapat upang umalis fossils.
Sa ngayon, ito ay lamang ang loko teorya ng isang di-dalubbuhay. taka ko kung paano ito ay maaaring masuri ...
- Siguro maaari naming inestima na kung ilang amino acids ay sa dagat mula sa simula ng mundo (dumami ang kanilang bilang sa pamamagitan ng kakapalan ang lakas ng tunog ng tubig) at kung gaano katagal sila "asado" bago ang unang titing Kinokopya lumitaw.
- Ang oras na katanungan ay may daya-ang pinakamahusay na maaari kong gawin sa sandaling ito ay mag-aplay ng isang matinding itaas na nakatali batay sa petsa ng unang siniyasat Fossil, na kung ang memorya ng naglilingkod ay isang bagay na tulad ng 2-300 taon matapos ang lupa cooled sapat upang form dagat.
- Base sa impormasyon na ito, maaari naming kalkulahin ang pinaka-komplikadong istraktura malamang na form sa pamamagitan ng pagkakataon sa lupa na sa dami ng oras.
- Ito "pinakamataas na pinahihintulutan laki" Gusto pagkatapos ay mayroon na kung ikukumpara sa mga "pinakamababang sukat na pinapayagan para sa sarili pagtitiklop" (sa pagpilit na ito ay sa hindi bababa sa ay base sa RNA o DNA, sa kabilang banda ay hindi kailanman ito ay maaaring pagsimulan nilalang tulad ng sa amin).
- hindi ako sigurado kung paano dumating sa ito "minimum replicator laki," ngunit ako maghinala na ang isang beses computing resources maging malaki sapat na, maaari naming sa wakas gawin ang isang kunwa ng lahat ng posibleng pagsasaayos ng "N" amino acids (at marahil sa ibang molecules natatagpuan sa lahat ng mga cell) nahuhulog sa isang solusyon na approximates ang karagatan mula sa simula.
- Gumanap na kunwa (sa iba't-ibang mga temperatura, pressures, amino acid concentrations, sa loob ng iba't ibang substrates tulad ng karagatan ng tubig, kristal, luad atbp) para sa mga N = 1,2,3,4 ... hanggang sa ang kunwa istraktura gumagawa ng isang kopya ng kanyang sarili.
- Pagkatapos gumawa ito para sa tunay na sa isang beaker at tingnan kung ito ay tunay na replicates. Kung matagumpay na ito ay gumawa ng isang kopya ng kanyang sarili (na kung saan ay maaaring hindi magkamukha pero kailangan pa rin ma-kopya kanyang sarili) at pagkatapos ay tawag na "N" sa "itaas na nakatali sa pinakamababang sukat replicator."
hindi ako ay nasisiyahan sa abyohenesis hanggang mga dalawang sukat ay ipinapakita na maihahambing.
Ang isang katanungan na problema sa akin ay: "kung ano ang minimum na laki replicator palaging nananatiling mas mataas kaysa sa pinakamalaking istraktura na maaaring form sa pamamagitan ng pagkakataon?" Gaano katagal dapat namin magpatuloy sa paghahanap na ito computational malaking bahagi lugar para sa Kinokopya istraktura simpleng sapat upang ipaliwanag ang bilis may buhay na emerges? I'm matapat hindi sigurado kung paano sa sagot na tanong na ito.
Hindi ko ibig sabihin na magpahiwatig na tulad kontra ideya ay karaniwang pagsasanay sa mga siyentipiko: sila ay hindi. Ngunit ay na dahil ang mga ideya ay profoundly at malinaw naman maling pag-iisip, o lamang dahil sa ito ay propesyonal na magpakamatay para sa kahit sino mas kilala kaysa Sir Fred Hoyle sa aminin pampublikong alinlangan sa evolution? Agham ay isang lumang lalake 'club: break ang sosyal taboos at kayo ay shunned - isang proseso sa kabilang banda na kilala bilang peer review. Kung sa tingin mo na ang science ay isang tuyo, walang kinikilingan, katotohanan-paghanap ng makina (sa halip na isang lubusan pantao, pampulitika, at pang-unawa-driven na proseso) at pagkatapos ko lamang ipagpalagay na hindi mo na pinadala ng isang pananaliksik papel sa pamamagitan ng isang proseso ng pagrerepaso. Basta tungkol sa sinumang may (hindi alintana ng patlang, ako sigurado) ay may had ang karanasan ng pagkuha ng likod puna Reviewer at pag-iisip, "FFS, ninyo basahin ang kahit na ano ako wrote?" Kung ikaw ay may isang argument na tila nakikiisa sa creationism , ikaw ay hindi makakuha ng nai-publish sa isang balwarte ng gitna ng ebolusyon-iisip kahit paano sumpain mabuti ang iyong mga argument ay: ito ay awas bilang "creationist basura" sa unang sagap-read.
Una sa lahat, hindi ko makita kung paano ang pagiging popular ng isang ideya ay may anumang bagay na gawin sa kanyang katapatan. Pangalawa, tila ikaw ay sinasabi na maraming mga PhD biologists na makita ang malaking-malaki, nakanganga flaws sa gitna ng ebolusyon teorya, ngunit manatiling tahimik na upang panatilihin ang kanilang mga karera. Hindi mo pagsubok ito badya sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay ng isang pulutong ng mga biologists anonymous survey tungkol sa evolution? Kung ito ay lubos na di-kilala, hindi nila kailangan magtago sa kanilang tunay na damdamin, sila gusto maging malaya na makipag-usap sa kanilang isip tungkol sa evolution. Kung ang iyong pagsasapakatan teorya ay tama, tulad ng isang survey na nais ihayag matipuno kawalang-kasiyahan sa mga biologists tungkol sa evolution, no?
Ipalagay, para sa kapakanan ng mga argumento, na ang ilang mga uri ng higit sa karaniwan na ay, sa katunayan, lumikha ng natural na mundo gamit ang isang sobrenatural na paraan (kung saan ang ibig sabihin ko na ito flagrantly lumabag sa mga batas na kilala ng physics, tulad ng mass / enerhiya pagtitipid). Ito ba ang hindi umalis ng buong proseso ng naturalistic siyentipiko bilang isa sa pursuing falsehoods? Ang tunay na paliwanag (isang sobrenatural maykapal) ay pinasiyahan ang isang pagsubok sa pamamagitan ng ang paraan ng imbestigasyon. Naturalistic science (na may kaugnayan sa pinanggalingan) ay ang proseso ng paghahanap ng mga pinaka-kapani-paniwala kasinungalingan tungkol sa mga pinagmulan ng mga bagay-bagay.
Ang pangunahing problema ay na ang tawag namin sa mga tiyak na phenomena "sobrenatural" dahil hindi sila maaaring inilarawan sa pamamagitan ng natural na mga batas. Sa kasamaang palad, ang aming-unawa sa natural na batas ay woefully hindi kumpleto, sa gayon ito ay mahirap (kung hindi imposible) upang makilala ang kaibhan sa pagitan ng isang likas na (ngunit hindi pa kasalukuyang naiintindihan) palatandaan at isang literal higit sa karaniwan kababalaghan-isa na lamang ay hindi maaaring inilarawan sa pamamagitan ng natural na mga batas ... sa pamamagitan ng kahit sino ... kahit minsan. Kung ang mga pang-agham na paraan ng kasama ang isang "sobrenatural" na opsyon, Gusto na ito ay ginagamit sa isang pang araw-araw na batayan dahil ang mga tao (kasama ang siyentipiko) ay tamad. Ito ay isang pulutong mas madali ang panuntunan ng higit sa karaniwan sanhi sa halip ng sa paggastos dekada ng mahirap na trabaho upang alisan ng takip ng isang naturalistic mekanismo.
Bibigyan ka ng isang halimbawa, na may kinalaman sa kuwento ko sinabi sa aking unang post. Newton papalitan ng hindi-naturalistic paliwanag "mga anghel na itulak ang planets sa paligid ng" sa kabaligtaran-square gravity, ngunit siya mamaya nahulog sa bitag supernaturalism kanyang sarili. Kapag contemplating ang pang-matagalang katatagan ng solar system, Newton ay hindi ipaliwanag kung bakit ang mga planets ay hindi na sa spiraled ng araw o na-kalat sa labas ng solar system kabuuan. Siya ipinahayag ang sagot bilang mga sumusunod: "Ang pinaka-maganda ang sistema ng Sun, Planets, at Comets, maaari lamang na magpatuloy mula sa abugado at kapangyarihan ng isang matalino at pagiging malakas."
And, really, that was the end of the discussion for about a century. It wasn't until another scientist, Pierre-Simon de Laplace, approached the problem from a naturalistic position that a truly scientific answer came to light. He used a perturbative expansion to show that the solar system is dynamically stable even over long time periods. The math involved is quite nasty– I've stumbled through it several times and I'm quite sure that I could never have derived it on my own. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Laplace's perseverance. His stability analysis would eventually lead scientists to predict and later discover stable points in space, known as Lagrange points, where satellites can be kept at fixed positions with respect to planets. Newton's supernatural explanation, on the other hand, could never have predicted anything– it's completely useless.
The pattern I've just described has repeated itself through history countless times. Some people, when faced with a gap in their knowledge, invoke a supernatural explanation instead of performing the arduous task of searching for another explanation. Scientists, on the other hand, view these mysteries as challenges, and attempt to discover the natural laws that govern unexplained phenomena. In a very real way, we owe all our current technology to our predecessors' search for naturalistic explanations.
Now to answer your question about naturalism being unable to uncover the truth about a supposedly supernatural origin of the universe. If there are literally supernatural forces at work in the universe (at the present time or in the past) then by definition they cannot be described by natural law. In this scenario, science will eventually fail– we won't be able to describe the big bang no matter how many millennia we throw physicists at the equations and no matter how powerful our telescopes or particle accelerators become. This monumental failure would be evidence that there are supernatural forces at work in the universe. The real question is how long we should wait when science “stalls” in its never-ending quest to explain the universe better before we declare naturalism (and thus science) dead. Again, I don't even know how to begin to answer this question.
I've sometimes seen creationists bashed for having no real theories of their own, but merely trying to pick holes in evolution. Given the importance of falsification to scientific theory, would you not agree that “anti-evolutionists” provide a vital service to science, even if they have no alternative theory? Every field needs its sceptics, devil's advocates, and foils.
I agree that educated, constructive criticism is the very lifeblood of science. With all due respect, the problem is that very few creationist arguments qualify as such. While I cannot claim to have read every creationist argument in existence, I have read several dozen and every single one has disappointed me. The arguments usually fall into several categories:
- Uneducated arguments that could be easily avoided if the creationist would simply go to college. This includes people like Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino). Examples include: “If we descended from apes, why are apes still around,” and “Carbon dating can't establish the existence of an old earth because it only gives accurate answers for things less than 100,000 years old.” Every time I hear an argument like this I cringe– someone's clearly working with a high school understanding of radioactive dating. If this person would take some serious collegiate science classes (or at the very least learn how to use google) they'd learn that isochron dating is the method used to date very old rocks. Carbon dating is just the simple method we teach to high school students. There are many other examples of this type of argument, but my fingers are getting tired.
- Arguments based on very old research that have since been corrected by more recent work. Examples would include “Piltdown man is a hoax!”, “the thin dust layer on the moon disproves an old earth,” “polonium halos disproving radioactive dating,” etc. Again, creationists would do us all a huge favor if they'd learn how to use “Web of Science” or “Google scholar” to search for new research before they start to bash 50-year old science.
- Arguments from ignorance. Michael Behe and his intelligent design proponents are the most prominent examples of this fallacy. Their arguments usually go like this: “Because we (or in many cases, I ) don't yet understand how this particular feature could have been produced by natural selection, we should give up the search and announce that a supernatural deity created it.” Laplace and I disagree with this approach, as do the vast majority of other scientists.
I'm not saying that all creationist arguments are this vapid, but I certainly haven't seen any compelling creationist arguments.
Why can't we view the whole “Intelligent Design” movement as a programme to falsify the principle of natural formation?
Because there's no way to distinguish literally supernatural phenomena from natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. If your approach was adopted, science would come to a screeching halt because every confusing mystery in science (of which there are many) would simply be declared evidence for supernatural intervention.
If “natural formation” in the broad sense can't be falsified, then it's not a scientific theory, right?
Right. Naturalism is an axiom of science; scientific theories flow from that assumption. It can't be tested in the same way that scientific theories can. On the other hand, if this assumption is wrong, it will eventually become obvious because some facet of the universe will not be able to be described by any conceivable natural law.
Written by The Famous Brett Watson on May 27 2007, @10:42PM
Thanks for a much more thoughtful reply than average for this thread. Sadly I can't give your reply all the time it deserves, because I've chosen to reply to quite a few already, as well as having my original post modded up to Interesting+4 and then back down to hell by angry mods. I'll cherry-pick a couple of points on which to comment, though.
Arguments based on very old research that have since been corrected by more recent work.
Well, that's part of the problem with attempting to falsify evolution. What was once a valid objection becomes invalid because the target moves. Before we knew how much dust was actually on the moon, for example, long-age theory made “lots” the obvious prediction. Now that we know how much dust there is on the moon, we have a post hoc explanation for it in terms of long ages. This also applies to all the human ancestor candidates that have come and gone. If you want anti-evolutionists to keep up with all the latest developments, give them funding specifically to find flaws in the latest pro-evolutionary findings.
That doesn't pass the laugh test, of course. Nobody is going to fund anti-evolutionary research if they are pro-evolution, no matter how hard they wave the flag of falsificationism. A particularly Machiavellian pro-evolutionist would fund the most incompetent researchers he could find to be devil's advocates, just so he can point at all the failed falsification attempts as evidence. But I digress.
Arguments from ignorance. Michael Behe and his intelligent design proponents are the most prominent examples of this fallacy.
This objection irks me. It seems that the people who accuse Behe of arguing from ignorance provide refutations in the form of arguments from credulity. Behe points out complex systems and says “remove any one piece and the system breaks.” His opponents respond, “so it happened some other way.” Where does the onus lie? This seems to be another situation where the two sides never truly engage: Behe is a sceptic with regards to naturalism — he doubts that such and such a system could possibly form naturally. His opponents are already persuaded that “naturally” is the only way anything forms, so they give a just-so story about how it might possibly have happened, and consider the case closed. This doesn't satisfy Behe's scepticism, of course: he wants an answer that addresses the difficulties with at least the same amount of detail that he's put into pointing them out in the first place.
The problem for any kind of intelligent design theorist is that natural-formation theorists of any kind (such as evolutionists) already believe that the structures in question can form naturally, and that adding a designer is unnecessarily complex. It's not clear to me what sort of evidence can be presented to the naturalists in support of ID theory under these conditions. It's one of those situations where the ID theorist is obliged to prove that something could not happen. How do you prove that a particular construct is so unlikely to form via natural processes that its formation would be miraculous? If an ID theorist says, “see, it can't have happened this way,” a naturalist can always respond, “so it happened some other way.” Even when the naturalist is relatively specific about how it might have happened (a just-so story), this is never accompanied by an actual demonstration of the process (which would prove the possibility, rather than it being a mere speculative suggestion); rather, it is left to the ID theorist to try to raise doubt about it.
So I'm really not happy with this whole tactic of dismissing Behe as “arguing from ignorance.” What are the appropriate standards of proof here? How do we decide whether naturalist explanations are actually plausible? This seems like a tremendous area of credulity among evolutionists (who take immense offence at the suggestion that they are credulous). What's a man like Behe supposed to do to demonstrate his case? The onus probandi here seems insurmountable for the ID theorist.
Written by Dumb Scientist on May 28 2007, @02:29PM
Thanks for a much more thoughtful reply than average for this thread.
Right back at ya.
Sadly I can't give your reply all the time it deserves, because I've chosen to reply to quite a few already, as well as having my original post modded up to Interesting+4 and then back down to hell by angry mods.
For what it's worth, I'd have modded you +1 interesting had I not posted. (Slashdot has a moderation system– users can rank each post positively or negatively to adjust its score, and controversial posts' scores can fluctuate wildly.)
Well, that's part of the problem with attempting to falsify evolution. What was once a valid objection becomes invalid because the target moves.
Evolution in particular, or science in general?
Before we knew how much dust was actually on the moon, for example, long-age theory made “lots” the obvious prediction. Now that we know how much dust there is on the moon, we have a post hoc explanation for it in terms of long ages.
First of all, I'm not sure that obvious prediction was “lots.” After reading these two pages , it looks like there was just one guy (Pettersson) providing data that implied a large amount of dust. He did so by making a number of bad assumptions, such as the assumption that any nickel in the air must be coming from meteors.
Secondly, your “post hoc explanation” sound bite gives the impression that scientists looked at the amount of dust on the moon and fudged the numbers to make it fit. The actual process involved measuring meteorite impact rates using satellites above earth's atmosphere to avoid earthly contamination, which resulted in an estimate 1000x less than Pettersson's. This estimate was then subjected to an independent cross-check by comparing them to average amounts of meteorite dust found in sedimentary rock, and they agreed.
If you want anti-evolutionists to keep up with all the latest developments, give them funding specifically to find flaws in the latest pro-evolutionary findings.
Ano ang mga espesyal na tungkol sa mga patlang ng evolution na gumagawa ng mga karaniwang pang-agham na paraan ng break down? Bawat iba pang mga larangan ng agham ay sumusunod sa parehong mga pangunahing proseso: mananaliksik kasalukuyan katibayan na kung saan ay pagkatapos ay checked para sa kawastuhan sa pamamagitan ng kanilang mga kapantay. Ano ito, partikular, tungkol sa evolution na nangangailangan ng tacking isang hiwalay na hakbang sa proseso ng peer review? Bakit hindi na magbigay (limitado) pagpopondo sa mga taong may mga problema sa modernong gamot o plasma physics o heliocentricity ? Bago ang sagot mo, tandaan na hindi ko talagang makita ang isang husay pagkakaiba sa pagitan ng mga pinaka-creationists at ang argumento iniharap sa mga site na ito (lalo na ang heliocentricity site). Mayroon bang pagkakaiba, maliban sa ang katunayan na sa tingin mo ang isa sa halip na ang isa? (I'm tawiran ng aking mga daliri umaasa na ikaw ay hindi isang geocentrist.)
pagtutol na ito irks ako. Ito tila na ang mga tao na akusahan Behe ng arguing mula sa kamangmangan refutations magbigay sa anyo ng argumento mula sa pagtitiwala. Behe puntos out komplikadong sistema at sabi "tanggalin ang anumang isa piraso at ang sistema ng break." Kanyang opponents tumugon, "kaya ito ang nangyari sa ilang ibang mga paraan." Saan ay ang sagutin kasinungalingan?
...
Kanyang opponents ay naka-akit na "natural" ay ang tanging paraan anumang paraan, upang bigyan sila ng isang lamang-kaya kuwento tungkol sa kung paano ito marahil ay may nangyari, at isaalang-alang ang mga kaso sarado.
Behe ay paggawa ng isang hindi pangkaraniwang paghahabol, namely na ang ebolusyon ng isang tiyak na istraktura (dalhin ang iyong pumili mula sa kanyang mga halimbawa) ay hindi kailanman-ulitin, HINDI - ay ipinaliwanag sa buong detalye. Bukod dito, siya ay arguing na ito (hinulaang) panghihina ay hindi na katibayan para sa aming kolektibong katarantaduhan. Hindi, sa halip siya jumps sa konklusyon na ito (muli, hinulaang) kabiguan ay patunay ng higit sa karaniwan himasok sa mundo. Sa ibang salita, siya ang paggawa ng isang impiyerno ng isang pulutong ng mga pagpapalagay na dumating sa sa pagtatapos na science bilang namin malaman ito ay patay.
Iyan ay isang napaka-marahas claim: siya ay mahalagang sinasabi na walang dahilan upang maniwala sa natural na mga batas sa lahat, dahil kung natural na mga batas ay nasira sa kahit na isang pagkakataon, at pagkatapos ay doon ay wala (maliban sa kapritso ng isang galit na Diyos, sa turn ng isang parirala ) upang maiwasan ang mula sa Kanya ang pagpapalit ng mga batas na bukas. Ito ay magbabago science bilang namin malaman ito sa isang uri ng teolohiko tiktik ng trabaho: "Well, mga bagay na tila ay bumabagsak sa 'pababa' direksyon dahil sa ang mga liwayway ng kasaysayan ng tao (6000 taon na ang nakaraan, ng kurso), ngunit na maaaring lamang ay isang praktikal na joke na ang Diyos ay naglalaro sa amin. Siguro bagay sa bukas ay mahulog up, kaya dapat kong isuga aking sarili sa lupa lamang sa kaso. "
Tulad ng sinabi ko mas maaga, ang pang-agham na paraan lamang ay hindi maaaring isama ang isang sobrenatural opsyon. Kung ito ay umiiral, na ito ay ginagamit kapag ang "pagpunta got matigas." Kung sa tingin mo na Behe's claims ay lehitimong patunay ng higit sa karaniwan na epekto, itanong ko sa iyo upang isaalang-alang ang katunayan na ang Behe ay lamang ang pinakabagong karagdagan sa isang mahabang linya ng mga tao na natagpuan ng Diyos sa kamay ng mga hiwaga ng kalikasan, lamang na magkaroon mamaya siyentipiko-alis ng takip ganap na natural na mga batas. (Gusto ko doon ay isang listahan ng mga uri ng mga paghuhula / debunkings sa internet ... Gusto ipalagay na dapat nilang numero sa ang daan-daang.) Anong mayroon Behe's claim anumang ibang kaysa sa Newton's claim na ang Diyos ay kinakailangan upang patatagin ang solar system? (Other kaysa sa ang katunayan na namin ngayon alam Newton ay mali.)
Bilang malayo bilang 'argumento mula sa pagtitiwala' pumunta, Gusto sabihin na ang mga ito ng sapat na (para sa sandali) dahil ang pangunahing siyentipiko ay gumawa ng isang magkano ang mas naka-bold claim: ang lahat ng mga ito ay sinasabi na sila ay may dahilan upang maniwala na ang ebolusyon ng ang istruktura Behe ay tumuturo sa kalaunan ay maaaring maunawaan. Hindi nila sinasabi na "kaso nakasara," sila ay nagsasabing "Okay, na ang isang kagiliw-giliw na misteryo. Kami ilagay ito sa istante sa lahat ng mga iba pang science mabilang hiwaga ay sa pakikitungo sa huli, at kumuha sa ito kapag kami got mas mahusay na katibayan. "
Sa isang mas tiyak na nota, Gusto sabihin na ang isa sa mga dahilan Behe ay kaya malawak na ridiculed ay na siya ay gumagawa hindi kapani-paniwala-angkin ("istraktura na ito ay hindi maaaring magkaroon ng nagbago dahil sa pag-alis ng isang piraso break ito") habang hindi papansin ang katunayan na ang mga function ng partikular na piraso ay maaaring may nagbago mula nang unang dumating sa pagiging. Gusto sumangguni sa iyo upang Dawkins '"lamang kaya" paliwanag ng kung paano ang mga mata nagbago; bawat bagong nagbago bahagi lamang nagpapabuti sa pagganap ng mas maaga, cruder, mata. Tanging mamaya ay, sabihin, ang mga lente o ang mga mag-aaral ay maging isang kinakailangang bahagi sa halip ng isang hindi kailangang pagandahin.
Behe's objections ay kapaki-pakinabang sa kamalayan na sila ay point out (kasalukuyan) hindi maganda naiintindihan lugar ng biology, ngunit hindi namin lamang ay hindi sapat na alam (dahil halos lahat ng mga kayarian ng kanyang mga listahan ay hindi umalis sa fossils) upang ma tuntunin ang " kaya lang "paliwanag. At na kung ano ay kinakailangan upang kumbinsihin sa akin; Behe ay may upang ipakita na ang bawat nalilikhang isip pagkakasunod-sunod ng mga hakbang sa gitna ng ebolusyon ay hindi upang makabuo ng mga istraktura sa tanong. Kung ito tunog tulad ng isang katangi-tangi sagutin, tandaan na siya ay gumagawa ng hindi pangkaraniwang paghahabol: siya ay na naglalahad na ang isang bagay ay hindi kailanman-HINDI - maging kasiya-siya ipinaliwanag. That's something most scientists wouldn't be reckless enough to say over a couple of beers at a bar, let alone in a peer-reviewed journal.
It's one of those situations where the ID theorist is obliged to prove that something could not happen. How do you prove that a particular construct is so unlikely to form via natural processes that its formation would be miraculous? If an ID theorist says, “see, it can't have happened this way,” a naturalist can always respond, “so it happened some other way.” Even when the naturalist is relatively specific about how it might have happened (a just-so story), this is never accompanied by an actual demonstration of the process (which would prove the possibility, rather than it being a mere speculative suggestion); rather, it is left to the ID theorist to try to raise doubt about it.
I agree that eventually a demonstration will be required. Due to the immense time required to witness the evolution of an eye, we'll probably have to settle for computer simulations of these evolutionary sequences. For the time being, speculative suggestions are all we have. I'm satisfied with the situation for now because of the scant evidence available from paleontology and the computing resources necessary to produce a convincing simulation. Remember that all I'm really saying is “I believe based on these 'just so' scenarios that the evolution of these structures will eventually be understood on a deeper level.” This is really no different from my position on quantum gravity: “I believe that general relativity and quantum mechanics will eventually be successfully combined into a more perfect theory of gravity.” The fact that we've been trying unsuccessfully to quantize gravity for almost half a century is merely proof that this is a hard subject. A worthy subject for someone to try to tackle. It's not evidence that the world is fundamentally incomprehensible…
Written by The Famous Brett Watson on May 29 2007, @08:40AM
Well, that's part of the problem with attempting to falsify evolution. What was once a valid objection becomes invalid because the target moves.
Evolution in particular, or science in general?
Oo. It's a problem with science in general, but evolution is a particularly hard case. It's a very malleable theory in the broad, and entertains some diverse possibilities. It can move at the speed of a just-so story, whereas physicists are generally constrained in their storytelling by a lot more mathematics and experimental data. It's much easier to find counterexamples for theories of physics that miss the mark, so long as technology is keeping up with the problem. Evolution has it around the other way: it can be hard to find data that contradicts a theory — or even find enough data to make people consider that the evidence might actually contradict the theory — but new theories only have to adjust the story to fit that new data. This can be as simple as, “so maybe the dinosaurs were wiped out by famine rather than a big impact, then” — and now the falsifier (having just persuaded everyone that it wasn't an asteroid) has to demonstrate that it couldn't have been a famine.
I should point out that this isn't unique to evolution. I like to think of science having a spectrum from “harder” to “softer.” “Harder” sciences provide falsifying data more readily than the “softer” ones. Mathematics is perhaps the hardest of all sciences, and metaphysics the softest (if you'll allow the looser use of “science” to cover non-physical subjects). Bits of evolution are modestly hard — where it has hard data like genes, for instance. Bits of evolution are really soft — fossils are soft data that aren't very amenable to experiment, and are more or less compatible with a lot of explanations. The sciences that Popper accused of being Pseudoscience I think were just too soft for his tastes. There is no real cut-off point.
What's special about the field of evolution that makes the usual scientific process break down? Every other field of science follows the same basic process: researchers present evidence which is then checked for accuracy by their peers. What is it, specifically, about evolution that requires tacking a separate step onto the process of peer review? Why not give that (limited) funding to people who have problems with modern medicine or plasma physics or heliocentricity?
Well, you kind of missed my point. First of all, I'm not talking about a breakdown in the scientific process: I'm talking about taking falsificationism seriously, since it's frequently accepted as a tenet of science. If you're going to be serious about falsificationism, you need to construct experiments with the intention of disproving a theory. The worst person in the world to whom you can entrust this task is the person who came up with the theory. Even if he's not emotionally invested in it (ha! as if!) then he's still probably got the wrong kind of mental approach to the problem. Ideally you give the task to competent researchers who are inclined to think the theory is wrong, and think they know how to falsify it. If they are any good as researchers, they will provide a great service whether they succeed or fail. They need to conduct experiments which could, in principle, produce data that would clash with the theory. If they fail, they produce data that supports the theory; if they succeed, they demonstrate a flaw in the theory. It's win either way.
This is pretty much how it works in the field of cryptography. Someone comes up with an algorithm they think is pretty neat and has certain properties. Others hack away at it with all the malice they can muster. Most algorithms are “falsified” sooner or later (with respect to the properties they claim to have). This is exemplary applied falsificationism in action.
As for which areas should be funded — I don't know — that's a political matter. My point is that there should be “anti-science” funding of this sort: funding dedicated specifically to falsifying theories. My first impression on the subject is that there should be some sort of balance between positive and negative investigation, although not necessarily simultaneously: initial research will always be of a positive nature, and falsification is by necessity a follower.
Finally, note that I'm not suggesting that this “negative science” isn't happening in practice. I think it should be more actively and specifically encouraged, that's all. I sense a problem in that many evolutionists complain that creationists don't have theories of their own, but just pick on the theories of others. That shouldn't be perceived as a problem — it should be perceived as modern science in action. In that sense, I think that evolution is a special case. It's something of a sacred cow, and scientists in general need constant reminding that science has no sacred cows. If something is looking like a bit of a sacred cow, desecrate it by throwing your best sceptics at it. No cow is too sacred.
That's a very audacious claim: he's essentially saying that there is no reason to believe in natural laws at all, because if natural laws can be broken in even one instance, then there's nothing (except the Whim of An Angry God, to turn a phrase) to prevent Him from changing the laws tomorrow. This would change science as we know it into a kind of theological detective work: “Well, objects seem to have been falling in the 'downward' direction since the dawn of human history (6000 years ago, of course), but that might just be a practical joke that God is playing on us. Maybe tomorrow objects will fall up, so I should tether myself to the ground just in case.”
Dear me, no — that's a terrible interpretation of Behe, and of the relationship between science and the supernatural. You're posing a dilemma where none exists. Your dilemma is that either “all is natural” or “science is not possible.” But science is about finding lawful behaviour in the universe, and not everything has to be explicable in terms of laws for science to be possible. So long as there is some discernably lawful behaviour, science is possible. And, frankly, there is a known kind of lawlessness in the universe: anything nondeterministic. Likewise it's not the end of the world if science can't find laws capable of accounting for the production of life. Science isn't required to explain everything in order to be valid and worthwhile (although some folks want it to be the first and last word in knowledge).
Your “Whim of an Angry God” motif is interesting, but it sounds like you insist on naturalism because you fear the alternative. Given that the universe is a highly lawful and stable sort of place on the whole (although not a deterministic piece of clockwork, apparently), does that imply anything about the character of the God responsible for it, if such exists? Assume that God can operate outside natural law at whim, or modify natural law at whim: what does it say about his character that the universe has (apparently) operated under the same laws (modulo the occasional reported miracle) since the initial bootstrapping? Can we surmise that he's at least not capricious?
Similarly, you speak of science that permits the supernatural as being “a kind of theological detective work.” Oddly enough, that is (as far as I can tell) a pretty apt description of Kepler's [wikipedia.org] attitude to science, and an attitude that gave us the likes of him can't be all bad. Kepler said that he was thinking God's thoughts after him, or words to that effect. I think of science as a special case of reverse engineering. So long as you're doing the actual analysis, rather than constructing untested (or untestable) just-so stories that involve God, it's science.
Beyond that, I've said all I want to say for now on the subject of Behe in response to a different post [slashdot.org].
Remember that all I'm really saying is “I believe based on these 'just so' scenarios that the evolution of these structures will eventually be understood on a deeper level.”
I wish the element of faith in that stance was more widely appreciated.
Written by Dumb Scientist on May 31 2007, @11:53AM
Sorry for the delay. I tried to install Kubuntu on a software RAID array and it completely nuked my MBR– I had to reinstall Windows from scratch. Fun fun fun.
… evolution is a particularly hard case. It's a very malleable theory in the broad, and entertains some diverse possibilities. … it can be hard to find data that contradicts a theory — or even find enough data to make people consider that the evidence might actually contradict the theory — but new theories only have to adjust the story to fit that new data. … Bits of evolution are modestly hard — where it has hard data like genes, for instance. Bits of evolution are really soft — fossils are soft data that aren't very amenable to experiment, and are more or less compatible with a lot of explanations.
Based on these statements, and links you provided in another post , it's clear that you think evolution produces no predictions and is not falsifiable. I don't agree, because as far as I know there are many potential falsifications (click on parts 1,2,3,4,5 for long lists of potential falsifications) for evolution and lots of verified predictions .
I especially like this quote from Origin of Species: “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
What predictions can creationism offer, and how can we falsify it? As far as I can tell, the answers are “none” and “it's not falsifiable.” Creationism is compatible with every conceivable discovery . For instance, it's strange that all life we find uses the same DNA bases (which is a specific requirement of common descent). But it's also compatible with creationism because, even though God could have created every species with different bases of DNA (or something even wilder) to provide obvious proof that common descent is false, He obviously chose not to, presumably because His Ways Are Mysterious. It's strange that the fossil record shows a general progression from simpler, less diverse organisms in the distant past to more diverse and complex organisms in the “recent” past (which is a specific prediction of evolution), but this is also compatible with creationism because God (or Satan?) could be playing games with our heads.
I noticed your link to “Message Theory,” but I'm surprised that you would consider this to be a valid example of a prediction. As far as I can tell from the book synopsis and this review , the author is basically saying “the prediction of intelligent design is that intelligent design is obviously correct and no other interpretation is possible.” Isn't that tautological? It's like saying “evolution predicts that evolution is correct and no other interpretation is possible.” Notice that none of the predictions or potential falsifications I have mentioned or linked to follow this pattern…
SPOILER ALERT — DO NOT READ THIS PARAGRAPH IF YOU PLAN ON READING “CONTACT” BY CARL SAGAN….. Incidentally, did you ever read the novel Contact ( NOT the movie)? At the end of the book, Sagan's heroine discovers an obvious, indisputable message encoded in the digits of pi. This is what I would consider to be definitive proof of God's existence, and a true example of the discovery of a message from an intelligent designer.
I sense a problem in that many evolutionists complain that creationists don't have theories of their own, but just pick on the theories of others. That shouldn't be perceived as a problem — it should be perceived as modern science in action. ...
I completely agree with you here.
Dear me, no — that's a terrible interpretation of Behe, and of the relationship between science and the supernatural. You're posing a dilemma where none exists. Your dilemma is that either “all is natural” or “science is not possible”….
I think you're right. After re-reading my last message, I believe I let my personal belief (metaphysical naturalism) interfere with my scientific objectivity (which includes methodological naturalism). I retract my statement, and I'm sorry for any confusion I caused.
Please allow me to restate my objection. I've been relatively unclear about the definition of naturalism (though I believe my very first post implicitly defined the terms correctly when I stated that science does not imply atheism). Metaphysical naturalism, the assumption that reality is completely governed by natural laws, is an axiom I hold on a personal level. It has no place in a scientific investigation, though. Sometimes I (almost) wish I were a theistic scientist so that I could more convincingly emphasize the difference, but I'm sure one of my colleagues can step up to the plate on this matter. The naturalism I should have been emphasizing all along is methodological naturalism– the idea that scientific theories should involve purely natural, objective laws, without attempting to assert that this naturalism is true on a deep metaphysical level. Hereafter I will refer to methodological naturalism as “naturalism,” and not refer to metaphysical naturalism at all because it's nearly synonymous with atheism.
As I've said before, I believe that science absolutely requires naturalism for two reasons. First, supernatural explanations are compatible with any and all eventualities, therefore they are not falsifiable and do not provide unique predictions.
Second, if science allowed supernatural explanations as a legitimate recourse, they would be used far too often because we can't distinguish poorly understood natural phenomena from genuinely supernatural phenomena:
Laplace never would've studied the stability of the solar system, so NASA wouldn't know to put the SOHO and WMAP satellites in their respective Lagrange points.
The question of why atoms are stable despite the predictions of classical electrodynamics would've been answered in the same way Newton explained the solar system's stability, so quantum mechanics (along with much of modern technology) wouldn't have been discovered .
The precession of Mercury's orbit would've been dismissed as “Allah pushing the planet around,” so we never would have discovered Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, without which GPS devices can't function accurately.
The missing 2/3 of solar neutrinos would've been explained as “Ra's chariot soaking up the neutrinos on their way to earth,” so neutrino oscillation would never have been proposed and proven, which would cause our cosmological models (if 'science' of this kind could even lead to such models) to be inaccurate because we wouldn't know that neutrinos have a non-zero rest mass.
Cosmic rays with energies above the GZK limit are currently unexplained. Should we bother looking for a naturalistic explanation, or just say they're “Jesus particles”?
Should we continue to try to quantize gravity, or announce that the obvious impossibility of such a feat is proof that the universe contains a message from its Intelligent Designer?
If you think that any of these examples are silly, exactly how are they different from Intelligent Design? I'd really like to know.
I'm also confused by a point you made in another post . To paraphrase, you asserted that an analysis of planetary motion that results in a mathematical model like Newton's leaves open the possibility that angels push the planets around in precise accordance with inverse square gravity (I agree). Then you said that evolution applies the principle of naturalism differently, but I don't understand why.
Your astronomy example describes science correctly in the sense that an unexplained phenomenon is investigated by proposing natural laws, without trying to assert that these natural laws are “explanations” of reality in a deep metaphysical sense. It seems like the appropriate evolutionary analogy here is between evolution and theistic evolution. Evolution analyzes an unexplained phenomenon (life on earth) and proposes natural laws (natural selection, common descent, etc) to explain it. Theistic evolution, like “angels pushing the planets around with precise instructions,” simply tries to explain this “apparent natural law” in terms of the supernatural. Thus it seems to be a much better match with your analogy. Young earth creationism*, on the other hand, would be more analogous to Ptolemaic astronomy with an infinite series of epicycles ; it disputes the natural law itself rather than proposing a supernatural explanation for the “apparent” natural law.
* By the way, I guess I should ask which variant of creationism you hold, so that I don't accidentally create straw man arguments…
And, frankly, there is a known kind of lawlessness in the universe: anything nondeterministic.
Kagiliw-giliw na point. I think that examples of “nondeterminism” can be split into two categories. Classical nondeterminism, such as weather, is simply an example of chaotic systems which are exponentially dependent on initial conditions. Their apparent “nondeterminism” is the result of our inability to perform accurate enough measurements. I don't consider this category to be true nondeterminism.
The collapse of a quantum wave vector, on the other hand, is more truly random. For example, an electron passing through a Stern-Gerlach apparatus will either go up or down with probability 50%, but quantum mechanics in its present form cannot predict which way an individual electron will go. I don't want to call this phenomenon “lawlessness” because there are very strict statistical constraints that quantum mechanics demands of the electron's behavior. In addition, the “nondeterministic” behavior of this system is at least partially removed by an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics known as the “many worlds interpretation” . Many physicists, myself included, are partial to this interpretation because it involves fewer assumptions than the conventional interpretation and it avoids some subtle inconsistencies in the mathematics of wave function collapse. I'm not entirely sure that the randomness inherent in wave collapse such as the Stern-Gerlach experiment will be removed by the many worlds interpretation, but it certainly makes the Schrodinger equation (that underlies quantum mechanics) deterministic.
Remember that all I'm really saying is “I believe based on these 'just so' scenarios that the evolution of these structures will eventually be understood on a deeper level.”
I wish the element of faith in that stance was more widely appreciated.
Ouch! I'll try to avoid taking offense and simply try to explain why I don't think that accusation is true. Note that I'm just a scientist, not a philosopher, so I may be defining terms incorrectly or being sloppy in my reasoning. I define faith as “belief in a proposition that is not supported by empirical evidence or logical arguments.” This definition has a bit of subjectivity to it; how does one decide the amount of evidence necessary to support reasonable belief in a proposition?
My answer is to say that the amount of evidence required for a particular proposition is proportional to how “extraordinary” that proposition is. One determines the “extraordinariness” of a proposition by judging it against previously established facts. For example, I believe in the existence of Moscow even though I've never seen it, but that's because the existence of cities is an established fact to me, and the non-existence of Moscow would require explaining why lots of newspaper stories have been written about it. In order to believe in the existence of an alien, I would have to see it with my own eyes as well as proving to myself that it has no DNA or RNA. This is because I've never seen anything like an alien before– the established existence of an alien would be a huge change in my worldview.
Note that this means the element of “faith” inherent in one's belief in a proposition is relative to one's previously established facts. This is a serious problem, as it only takes one false “fact” to throw a person's reasoning out of contact with reality altogether, though he will believe himself to be perfectly rational in reference to his collection of “facts.” Because of this, I spend a great deal of my time trying to identify assumptions in my reasoning and questioning whether or not they're actually necessary.
Regarding my assertion that the evolution of the eye will be understood on a deeper level someday, I don't think I'm using faith. My reasoning is based partially on a historical argument: in the ~400 years that science has been working to explain the mysteries around us, it's been enormously successful. Methodological naturalism has taken us from geocentrism and the “humour-based” medicine of the dark ages and given us black holes, supernovae, relativity theory, quantum mechanics, modern medicine, computers, etc. It seems like a remarkably effective process. Off the top of my head, I can only think of a couple of instances where science hasn't yet uncovered natural laws: abiogenesis, quantum gravity, the first 10 -31 second after the Big Bang and dark energy . Most of these examples are new; they're problems introduced by the solutions to other, older problems. If methodological naturalism has worked for centuries, I don't think that I'm using faith to bet that it will continue to work.
As far as the specific example in question, the evolution of the eye (my quintessential example of ID because I don't understand the molecular examples), I think I've got other sound reasons for believing that we'll eventually uncover the evolutionary sequence that produced it. I say this because evolution simply requires all structures to be produced using a series of relatively small changes, each of which is a useful adaptation by itself. Dawkins' hypothesis seems to satisfy both of these criteria. The only remaining question, in my mind, is to show that each step requires a mutation that is probable enough to happen “quickly” enough to account for the speed with which eyes evolved. Note that I believe a person would be using faith to a certain extent if he said “okay, that's convincing– case closed.” I do want to see proof that these probabilities are “large enough” to explain the issue.
On the other hand, I also recognize that this proof will require massive computer simulations, so we may not realize it for several decades. At the moment I regard it as one of the (almost uncountably infinite) mysteries that science cannot currently explain down to the last decimal place. I view our current inability to explain these structures as an example of our ignorance rather than as evidence that supports evolution or creationism, and I don't think that I'm in bad company here. As a wise man once said :
No, you can't find fault in God's creations because you don't understand 1% of how it works. The chances that your “design flaws” are correctly explained in terms of you having made an ignorant error are just way too high.
Written by The Famous Brett Watson on June 01 2007, @10:17AM
I tried to install Kubuntu on a software RAID array…
I've had a related experience with software RAID and loss of data. What a miserable experience that was. Let's just say that I am never again going to attempt an upgrade where any live filesystem is using software RAID (unless I truly don't care whether I lose the lot). And now back to the topic at hand.
…it's clear that you think evolution produces no predictions and is not falsifiable.
Broadly speaking, you are correct. The “Message Theory” book spends quite some time criticising the theory on this front. The blog I linked to in that other post [slashdot.org] does a good job (IMO) of criticising the very proposed falsifications to which you link. As for Darwin's remarks, I don't believe that support for his theory would buckle in the slightest under such evidence. After all, the situation he describes could easily be attained under a scenario of neutral evolution , don't you think? Under that explanation, the structure wouldn't have evolved for the other species, but just evolved as a matter of neutral drift. We could even argue that this benefit to the other species may have resulted in a symbiotic benefit of some sort in return, and then we have a selective benefit.
I think that evolution is almost infinitely adaptable like this, and is thus unfalsifiable. Evolutionists are willing to claim that certain scenarios would invalidate the theory, but in practice it's just certain specifics that get abandoned in the face of such evidence — if anything. The broad, naturalistic shape remains the same.
Actually, I wrote an essay in 2005 on the subject of creation/evolution and the distinction between science and metaphysics. I've just re-read it, and I'd wind up repeating a fair slab of it here in response to much of what you say. Perhaps you'd care to read Don't Shoot the Creationist [nutters.org] and see how much it clears up my position for you. Certain of your questions aren't so directly relevant to it, though, and I'll try to answer them here.
I noticed your link to “Message Theory”…
I do so having read the book. I probably still have it here somewhere. Message theory in short is the hypothesis that life was designed specifically to look as though it (a) was not the product of a natural process, and (b) was the product of a single designer. The author discusses how these design goals conflict: emphasising the unity of design can lend weight to the “all life is related” hypothesis present in evolution; emphasising the differences in design can lend weight to the “multiple creators” hypothesis. Much of the evidence for evolution can also be presented as evidence for the “single designer” hypothesis; the interesting part is the “not a natural process” hypothesis, which is where it diametrically opposes evolution.
Of course this re-raises the interesting question as to whether we can discern, scientifically, the difference between a natural process and one that involved agencies not in evidence (like a creator, or a factory, or whatever). As we've seen in this very discussion, strongly held metaphysical beliefs tend to substitute for evidence. Further, although we recognise manufactured products in our daily lives, we don't seem to have any agreement on whether life looks like such a thing. The evolutionist says that life resembles a smooth pebble, easily explained by natural processes; the creationist says that life resembles a stone arrowhead, shaped by a force with a purpose in mind. How do you tell the difference?
SPOILER ALERT — DO NOT READ THIS PARAGRAPH OR THE REPLY IF YOU PLAN ON READING “CONTACT” BY CARL SAGAN…………………………………. …Sagan's heroine discovers an obvious, indisputable message encoded in the digits of pi.
For the sake of scope containment, I'm not going to discuss this from any angle, other than to say that Message Theory posits life itself to contain such a message. I doubt that any such theory is actually “indisputable,” though. Would you, personally, be persuaded of divine authorship if I could find some simple mathematical relationship between the written Hebrew creation account in Genesis chapter 1 and a well-known constant like pi or e? Or would you attempt to undermine it by looking for a similar relationship to Shakespeare or “War and Peace”?
…methodological naturalism– the idea that scientific theories should involve purely natural, objective laws…
This works for strongly mathematical theories, since what you call “methodological naturalism” is most exemplified by finding laws with strong but simple mathematical descriptions. Kepler's laws were exemplary in that they turned a huge pile of data into three simple and strongly mathematical laws. Astronomy knew that there were patterns in planetary motion prior to this — it was Kepler's analysis of that copious and quite accurate data that led him to his discovery, and the data itself demonstrated the excellence of the theory by harmonising with it so much better than any theory of circles and epicycles. Newton was an improvement over Kepler by way of unifying the three laws into a single mathematical relationship which also applied to all bodies of mass. Einstein was an improvement over Newton because although his equations were more complex, they contained Newton's as a special case, and applied more accurately to certain extreme conditions.
Taken to this level, you might call it “mathematicism” (to coin a term), and point to Lord Kelvin as an adherent of it. Although he never (to the best of my knowledge) described himself as “mathematicist,” he said some quotable things that were strongly supportive of the view that real science must be mathematical. Kepler had a mathematical model instead of a pile of data. Newton had a simpler, more general mathematical model. Einstein had a more complex model which generalised better over a wider range of observations. We still don't have the Grand Unified Theory that everyone wants. I'm not exactly “mathematicist,” myself, but I consider mathematical models — especially deterministic (rather than statistical ) models — an indicator of scientific strength and maturity. Statistical models are softer, and an absence of mathematics is positively mushy.
Evolution (in its capacity as an explanation of the past) is almost entirely non-mathematical. It's also almost entirely non-deterministic. For example, we're told that birds evolved from a dinosaur ancestor. Evolution in no way predicts this — it's an inference based on our knowledge of current bird and reptile anatomy, and the fossil record. But nothing about the available evidence actively supports the hypothesis that this was a natural evolution over a hypothesis that it was an act of progressive creation or similar. At this point, your only real basis for choosing “natural evolution” over “progressive creation” is an appeal to metaphysical naturalism , not methodological naturalism . The difference in the two theories is not how law-like they are, or what evidence they view, but rather in the entities they posit to explain the data. One says, “known laws will do”; the other says “known laws are not enough.”
I can anticipate another objection here: if known laws are not enough, then we should find new laws that are. This is metaphysical naturalism speaking again, because metaphysical naturalism holds that laws are enough. Strict naturalism does not allow such unruly concepts as intention and volition which carry the suggestion of something other than pure numerical necessity driving the process. We see structures all around us which are the product of these things, and the creationist thinks, “gee, an organism looks a lot like a really complex machine, so maybe it is one.” The metaphysical naturalist objects, saying that ultimately we ourselves are just deterministic machines, so all these artifacts of ours are ultimately natural products of the same mathematical inevitability, and there's no need for all this unruly, supernatural, magical nonsense — so give me natural laws or confess ignorance!
You see, to my way of thinking, anyone who has good access to data about how life works, at either the macro or micro level, will think that it looks like a designed machine unless that whole concept of intelligent design is metaphysically unacceptable to them . I think you're trying to justify your non-design stance in terms of this “methodological naturalism” to which you refer, but you can't divorce it completely from metaphysical naturalism, and the latter keeps sneaking back in through the back door. You could solve this by resorting to “mathematicism,” but you'd disqualify a great deal of Evolutionary science — and historical sciences in general — from classification as science in the process.
I guess I'd like to leave it there, although there are one or two other points to which I could respond. I don't like discussions to expand out of control. My closing challenge to you is this: can you really divorce your methodological naturalism from your metaphysical naturalism? If so, can methodological naturalism still offer unequivocal support for evolution over creation? I think the answer is clearly that it can not meet both criteria, but you're welcome to try.
Last modified August 14th, 2009
That was a fascinating read. I am humbled by deeper intellects than mine. I must say, however, that at an intuitive level, no matter how eloquent or footnote-laden a Creationist argument is, I can't get past the simple fact that:
Someone accepted a belief system before they were capable of critical thinking, and would rather go through an endless series of back-flips and contortions than re-examine those beliefs.
For the love of Zeus, don't be!
First of all, I'm simply a “knowledge parasite.” I've contributed very few (if any) original insights to the collection of human knowledge; nearly all of what I say has been gleaned from the brilliant work of other people.
Second, feeling humbled by someone else is the first step to accepting their assertions without critically examining them. And as far as I'm concerned, believing anything without sufficient proof is a devastating character flaw. If I were religious, I'd say that having faith is THE mortal sin, which is why I was so scandalized when I was accused of having faith in this conversation.
I realize you weren't doing that, I just wanted to warn you that it's not too big a leap from being humbled by someone to blindly accepting what that someone says…
Epilogue
Despite being asked to leave it there, my position has changed slightly over time, so an epilogue is in order. Specifically, I've abandoned metaphysical naturalism and become an agnostic. This hasn't had the slightest impact on how I look at evolution, but does subtly affect the way I approach science as a whole.
I think it's best to view science as a subset of philosophy. Philosophy is the search for truth, regardless of metaphysical assumptions. It includes theology, which is the search for truth under the assumption that reality isn't completely governed by natural laws: that God holds ultimate power. Science, on the other hand, is the search for truth with the recognition that it's only possible to test explanations which use natural laws. That doesn't make untestable answers wrong … just unscientific.
Here's a relevant quote from Carl Sagan:
I think that Sagan's statement needs to be slightly amended. Science only provides an asymptotic approach to the truth if the universe can be described by natural laws. As a result, I think Brett was right to say that science is effectively searching for “credible falsehoods.” That is, the answers obtained by restricting one's attention to falsifiable, naturalistic explanations are only accurate if a completely objective reality exists .
If science is revealing credible falsehoods, these falsehoods will either be proven wrong by sufficiently sensitive experiments, or they will always be undetectable. I'm not sure I should be concerned by undetectable flaws in a scientific model, and I hope to spend the rest of my life trying to discover detectable flaws in current models.
Also, I got involved in another Slashdot discussion regarding creationism, and copied some of my posts here.
This is a fascinating discussion- I caught a little of it at /., but laid out like this, both arguments are served much better.
I have a healthy skepticism for 'science' that cannot be modeled with math. As such, I can not believe in evolution (or sociology for that matter). If a mathematical model emerges that validates evolution, or conversely; the Flying Spaghetti Monster, count me in. In the meantime, it doesn't resemble science so much as it does a creative writing class (on both sides).
I don't just demand proof, I demand proofs!
Great post, though.
Thanks for the feedback.
I'm grateful to Brett for making it clear that he was skeptical of what he called evolution's slipperiness– its lack of mathematical precision. That seems to be your position as well.
I have a certain amount of sympathy for this type of skepticism. I've even had my own brush with it. After the conversation finished, I realized that the abiogenesis test I proposed wouldn't rule out natural abiogenesis even if the minimum replicator size was somehow conclusively shown to be larger than the structure that could form on Earth in ~200 million years.
That's because we have no knowledge about how many Earthlike planets simply never develop life because abiogenesis is so unlikely. Perhaps only one in a million watery planets ever spawns even the smallest, most primitive life form. Or perhaps the process takes much longer on most other worlds. We just don't know. Until we get to study biospheres other than Earth, we also won't know how small the minimum replicator size really has to be in order to explain the apparent speed of abiogenesis.
So my proposed falsification of abiogenesis will be more difficult than I first thought. It will be nice once we finally get data about Europa's ocean to add another potential biosphere to our statistics, and maybe Mars will be useful to some extent. But the ability to firmly falsify abiogenesis would require either massive computation power or an ambitious galactic exploration program which is centuries ahead of our current abilities.
I think this setback is more an indication of my ignorance about exobiology than an indication of “slipperiness,” though. On the other hand, it's probably also true that some subfields of evolution are in their infancy and as a result can't yet give predictions with firmly established margins for error.
But evolution as a whole just isn't comparable to an unfalsifiable concept like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or intelligent design. Here are two of the reasons why I believe that:
So I must take issue with the idea that this is a level playing field with creative writing on both sides. Evolution is falsifiable science, while intelligent design is a religious belief.
Note that I'm not saying intelligent design is wrong! I am, in fact, saying that it's fundamentally impossible to prove intelligent design wrong…
(Ed. note: This conversation was copied from here .)
I suspect this;
The creator started with a base and built out from there. He wasn't interested in creating indisputable proof of his existence, he was interested in creating. And you could even take the story of Adam and Eve as corroborating evidence in that the creator would take one creature as a base to build upon in order to create another. Eg the creator took a rib (read bone with marrow containing adult stem cells if you will) from Adam and created Eve. Within the species granted – but it's a precedent of a creator using another creature as a base. Yes it's XY -> XX I know (no new information perhaps), yet the bible had this all powerful creator but portrays him as using one creature to make another..
Point #1 – Ancient animals alive today contradict evolution (turtles, crocodiles, octopuses, horseshoe crabs etc) – because there should be no standing still in evolution – EVERYTHING is changing whether climate, geography or the continual arms race that is 'eat or be eaten'. There can be no such thing as 'the perfect design' (unless it's the one that destroys all other life and maintains perfect control over it's environment) or likewise a longstanding 'niche' in evolution would be unlikely.
Point #2 – as I mentioned – assumes the creator wanted to create indisputable proof of his existence – which assumes we would know the motivation of a supreme being's – which is a large assumption given that we presumably aren't comparable to such a being and (talking christian creator for instance – cause he's the common comparison) there is no biblical evidence that he ever set out to create indisputable evidence. Actually the bible says he chooses who he shows himself too – I suspect in the way we choose our own friends – eg see somebody who's cruel and unjust, petty etc – we wouldn't want to make them our friend right? But those who have a heart for others…perhaps it's those he will reveal himself to (even if they believe in evolution :P ).
Also on point #2 – assuming a creator building from a base could create what would be seen as inexplicable branching of the evolutionary tree. Eg. – large land animals that became large sea animals. How can a slow moving large land animal evolve through intermediate phases into an ocean already chock full of specialized sea creatures? It's currently a 'mystery' how these 'leaps and bounds' of evolution occurred . But for the creator – he could have easily mixed a pinch of elephant with a dash of dolphin. (and if treating this lightly makes it loose credibility in your mind – then I pity your mind – for the concept is key).
So Point #2 is rather pointless or at least a straw man argument – as it doesn't articulate or defend the rather bold assumptions it makes of it's version of the creator.
Mind you – I've yet to read the P's link – so … ah well – I just perused the link somewhat and what I say above is nothing compared to the excellent writings of The Famous Brett Watson – so I'll hold further comment and end here.
I fail to see how a slow rate of evolution in some species “contradicts evolution.” The best example is the Coelacanth . How is it problematic that this fish evolved into a local maximum for its relatively unchanging marine environment?
You've missed my point. I'm not saying that the uniform nature of DNA is proof that life couldn't have been created by God. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying that the statement “God created life” is compatible with the evidence “all life uses the same DNA” as well as the evidence “each species has its unique DNA with different nucleic acids.” But, as I point out, evolution is only compatible with the evidence “all life uses the same DNA,” which means evolution is falsifiable science and creationism is theology instead.
Because at the very least other creatures should have been evolving into its niche, and forcing the species to evolve. And also the implication that any 'modest / intermediate' changes were significantly detrimental (who couldn't use another fin? :P ) such that those modifications perished. I don't believe it has been demonstrated that that fish achieved such a 'perfect' design – clearly you've assumed that by its long existence that it has – but there is nothing particularly remarkable about it despite its age, particularly since evolution by its nature should also be able to overcome the remarkable in its constant arms race.
But isn't that another straw man? You (in that sentence) equate one falsifiable scenario for evolution and saying since it doesn't correspond for creationism – that creationism is theology instead.
And I don't even think it's as falsifiable as you're expecting. What if there were other non DNA types of life at the beginning (the creator experimenting / evolution doing it's thing) – but DNA was finally chosen because it had the highest utility / fitness?.
It's claims like this that also make evolution look like a theology ;)
Re falsifiability – As I mentioned earlier – inexplicable branches of the evolutionary tree surely count – although difficult to prove with a patchy fossil record granted. But the lack of evidence one way or the other doesn't remove the falsifiability of the claim.
Also – a big one also is that when biology / micro biology finally comprehends physiology, running computer simulations should be possible to calculate the requirements and the odds required for each micro/macro step of the evolution of the species. Creationism should say / says that when those odds are calculated – they'll be way too high to perhaps even fit into the time frame of millions of years. So evolution should go bust then.
Sure – you can never defeat the argument that God uses evolution. But I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing ID (that doesn't use evolution) has falsifiable predictions – and that last one particularly is more like an either/or for evolution & ID.
What I meant was that evolution has made many predictions which, if wrong, would have demolished the theory. That's just one of those tests. However, there isn'ta single test of creationism/ID. There can't be- any proposed test could be countered by the statement “Perhaps that's just the way God designed things. He's trying to test your faith.”
You're talking about a shadow biosphere . It's possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn't falsify evolution. What I'm talking about is the scenario where every species in existence has a different set of nucleic acids in their DNA. Millions of separate abiogenesis events would completely destroy evolution. Ergo, it's possible to find evidence which would disprove evolution. Ergo, evolution is falsifiable science. What similar evidence could you find that would disprove creationism?
I've explored the idea that computer simulations can falsify evolution here . You're right to say that this is an interesting and effective test. But it's a test of evolution . It's yet another way to falsify evolution. It wouldn't falsify creationism in the slightest if those simulations showed that evolution could happen fast enough to account for the fossil record. After all, God is subtle and His Ways Are Mysterious. Perhaps He made life appear to have evolved, when He really created it with a snap of His fingers. Omnipotence and conscious whims can't ever be tested, because there's no limit to what God could do. There's no way to perform an experiment and say “God definitely didn't do this.”
Wait… when did you offer these falsifiable predictions for creationism/ID? Please repost them, because apparently I missed them. So far I think that you can't defeat the argument that God uses evolution, and you also can't defeat the argument that God created everything in 6 days. Please show me specific falsifiable predictions that could… in principle… falsify creationism/ID.
No, I'm not assuming anything of the sort. I just don't see anything unusual about some creatures remaining morphologically similar over geological time. Remember that we can't recover intact DNA after millions of years so we don't really know how genetically similar ancient coelacanths are to modern coelacanths. We also can't examine much of the differences in soft tissues. Their behavior patterns may have evolved tremendously over that time… we just don't know .
But even if they're identical in every way, that doesn't make a coelacanth “perfect.” Just very well adapted to its niche. In a world with countless billions of species, am I supposed to be surprised that some of those species are very resilient to change? Are you under the impression that evolution requires that all species' phenotypes change at the same rate?
Are you under the impression that Brownian motion requires the same number of molecules to collide with the side of a container over the same amount of time? It's all random – so there's no such requirement… however statistically….
And that's where I don't accept your niche argument – from an evolutionary standpoint – I can't accept that niches occur over such *long* periods of time…
It's like the wall of the container – it's only random chance that any gaseous molecule should collide with it – however they're (statistically at least) practically guaranteed to.
So the above should give you some insight as to why I have trouble with the niche argument. So much is evolving (and mutation should be occurring randomly & relatively equal to all species (actually greater to more complex ones I imagine if you consider a mutation every X steps along each DNA molecule)) that I can't accept there can be any 'stable' niches without some mutating creature encroaching on it… Nature abhors a vacuum for a reason ;)
But if you accept evolution is true – then of course niche's obviously have to happen – because it has. It's modifying the model to add another assumption in (and I say assumption at this point because it appears to be an exceptional claim – requiring exceptional proof).
On a side note – this is the issue I have with arguing against evolution (and ignoring the ones against creationism for now – which i'd mostly probably completely agree with you on anyway) – when scientists/people have no (shall we say) believable alternative… then little problems like the niche issue over tens of millions of years sometimes aren't given the due weight consideration and skepticism.
I'm sure you can see my point – and I'd wager you'd have reasons for dismissing it?
Interesting analogy. It needs to be quantified, though. Suppose there are N diatomic hydrogen gas molecules in a cubical container of width X at a temperature T. It's possible to calculate the odds that a particular side of the container won't have any gas molecules hit it for some short time deltaT. This probability is very nearly (but not quite) zero for larger deltaT values (ie it's virtually certain that at least one gas molecule will collide with the bottom at least once a day.) The point is that you can write down a relatively simple equation based on the given variables that will give you this probability.
I think what you're saying is that these stable evolutionary niches represent a spectacularly improbable scenario- like the idea that gas molecules won't hit the bottom of the container at all on Wednesday. The problem is that I don't think you can derive the probability of those niches persisting with anywhere near the same amount of rigor.
For instance, try to define the problem. There are N(t) species on Earth, where N varies as a function of time. Each species has a similarly time-dependent rate of phenotype change P(t), but I don't have the foggiest idea how to define this in a fashion that could be useful in the type of experiment you're proposing. Perhaps to start with we could just measure the number of fins on the fish at any point in time, and define P(t) as the rate at which new fins are added or old fins become vestigial. (Obviously this is a ridiculous oversimplification, but I just don't know how to turn “rate of phenotype change” into an single variable.)
What you're saying is that the coelacanth has a very low integral of P(t) (ie cumulative phenotype change) over a very long timespan. I agree, except for the caveats in my last post. But then you say that this low integral of P(t) is somehow a problem for evolution. That's where I get confused, because I don't see how to calculate the probability that out of N(t) species, some of them will have an integral of P(t) over some timespan that's lower than a particular value (ie the probability that the coelacanth's phenotype doesn't change so it looks the same as its ancestors). That's what I'm really interested in- some kind of quantifiable result that shows how implausible it is that the coelacanth remained the same over millions of years.
I can't write down that probability because I don't know N(t) (we don't really know how many species never made it into the fossil record). I can't figure out how to define P(t) in anything but a childishly simplistic manner. I can't figure out exactly what the fossil evidence means in terms of how low the integral of P(t) for the coelacanth is (see my last post). I also don't know how many species had similarly low integrals of P(t), which would completely alter the probability. The rate of phenotype change P(t) is driven primarily by mutation or changes in selection pressure, probably both in varying degrees. It will be different for each species based on their lifespan, environmental conditions, reproductive method and many random factors.
In short, this looks like a very hard problem.
What you're proposing is (yet another) interesting test of evolution. And I encourage you to try to rigorously define the problem in the same way that the “box of molecules” problem can be defined. If you succeed in determining a way to define that probability, please let me know!
I think they are, it's just that evolution has been absurdly politicized in the United States so little of that debate reaches the general public. Many people in the general public really do react on knee-jerk level, dismissing other people's ideas out of hand like you're clearly expecting. Scientists find that distasteful, so we tend to argue among ourselves.
Thanks for giving the concept serious thought.
Yes – in lieu of the quantification of said probability – it does come down to an instinctive call on whether it's probable (enough) vs improbable (which can be deceptively tricky when dealing with statistics/probability).
I'll just emphasize that a low P(t) creature is obviously at a disadvantage due to an inability to adapt to/against creatures with a higher P(t). I know you're including selection pressures in that function – but I'm just pointing out that I would expect a exceptionally high selection bias against creatures that mutate slowly. But again – that's just my instinctive feeling. ;)
On another thought – what do you think of creatures that have 'evolved' the ability to regrow limbs & organs (or possibly we have just lost it)? But I would have thought that that would have almost been the holy grail (pardon the term ;) ) of evolution – yet the few creatures that have that capability are 'insignificant' newts and what not, that hardly seem like dominant species. To me that's an ability that never loses its advantage (even when food is scarce). Whether your vertebrae are crushed in a fall, a croc rips an arm/leg off… your ability to attract mates / defend / fend for yourself after said disasters would give a fantastic evolutionary advantage.
BTW – I might visit your website at some point – I have been pondering lately about putting my world view down in words because though while it obviously will not be mainstream – I'm fairly happy with its internal coherence. It attempts to integrate religion (not all obviously – but my own understanding and experience of it), science (and there's enough maverick science in there to keep the crackpots happy) and err… is there anything else? : P
In general that's probably true. In fact, some scientists believe that sexual reproduction evolved because genetic recombination allows for a higher mutation rate than asexual reproduction. (Otherwise, it's a lot easier to reproduce by cellular fission- no mate required.)
Remember that individuals don't evolve, populations evolve. The ability to regrow a limb is fantastically useful on an individual level, but it's probably more beneficial for the population as a whole to simply have lots and lots of babies. A similar question is “why do all creatures age?” , which hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.
Limb regeneration might only work for small creatures, and it might carry dangers like an increased risk of cancer, but I don't know for sure.
Re: falsifiability of creationism.
Well – if your definition for creationism is that God did use evolution – than all falsifiabilities(?) for evolution obviously get inherited by that hypothesis of creationism ;)
But if you say God didn't use evolution, but rather his designs evolved and he just happened to instantiate every now and then (he released often as all good programmers should) – then I would expect
*inexplicable branches / gaps in the evolutionary tree (where God didn't bother with the intermediate life forms).
*new unattached branches due to inexplicable combinations of significant chunks of DNA from different species combining in a new creature.
So lack of those items would invalidate my proposal.
I guess a young earth would also be in my proposal too – so there's whole host of stuff in there. Like I'd have to explain how fossils are buried so deep etc etc.
I gotta get that world view down ;)
Most people would call that theistic evolution , which is scientifically indistinguishable from evolution. The Catholic church holds this position, along with most of my religious colleagues.
If every species had a different set of DNA bases, evolution would've been utterly demolished . That's why it's science- evolution makes a very specific claim, and is highly vulnerable to new evidence. Your proposal, on the other hand, is dependent on your personal interpretation of what God “should” do. As such it's compatible with any and all discoveries. For instance, why would God have to create inexplicable gaps? Why couldn't He create species in exactly the right order with exactly the right intermediates that they “could have” evolved that way?
Hopefully we can agree that the fossil record shows a general progression from simple microbes to trilobites to reptiles to mammals, so it seems like God was already creating kingdoms and phyla in that manner… how would your proposal be invalidated by the discovery that this method of creation extended all the way down to the species level?
Just a minor correction though – I'm not proposing what God 'should' do – but what I suspect he has done. In this regard I could be completely wrong about how he's gone about it.
So I'm definitely not saying God would have to create inexplicable gaps – I'm just putting forward the hypothesis that they would naturally occur due to him being able to think ahead a little – as it were – before he instantiated his newest designs (where as evolution would need to go through x number of mutated instantiations to get there). Obviously this assumes a creator that may appear a little more limited because he didn't create everything in the wink of an eye – but if you take the view that the creator enjoys life – and wanted to enjoy his creation, and even the act of creating it – then why the rush? He can make stuff at the pace of his pleasing…
So I guess I presume that God did not care to instantiate a creature for every little intermediate step that evolution more or less requires.
So – No gaps – I'm wrong & evolution (and Catholicism …nooo!!! :P ) is looking good. Gaps (very hard / impossible to prove i know), evolution down the chute, debates on who is the creator begin ;)
But you're right – I need to develop some more falsifiable predictions. I think that'll largely appear once I've precipitated my ideas into written form.
And I'll definitely kick in some comments to your website though. Now that I know you're a theoretical physicist (I'm just a humble programmer) I might pick your brains on some good particle simulation software. ;)
A workmate passed on the Jan edition of New Scientist. Its cover story was on the tree of life and how it no longer looks like a tree due to HGT (Horizontal Gene Transfer). One of the stand out examples it mentioned was of a sea urchin (I think) that its DNA was composed of half and half from two distinct branches of the tree. It was slotted under one branch traditionally – but with genome sequencing – it appears to equally (and so far inexplicably) belong to both.
Obviously no one in the article is crying out 'evolution is dead – long live ID', but I thought I'd point that I mentioned that 'code reuse' across species (obviously excluding small amounts that can be demonstrated to be reproduced by viral DNA injection) was something I was envisaging as an (ideally falsifiable) distinction between ID & evolution. A similar DNA reuse for land animals/mammals would be far more compelling though – with all those marine creatures just casting off their eggs & sperm into the deep blue – there would have to be an extended argument on how the egg of one + the sperm of another didn't just 'make it'.
The article in question describes a fascinating renaissance in evolutionary biology brought about by comparisons of creatures' DNA, RNA and protein sequences. Biologists constructed independent “trees of life” based on these sequences, and were shocked to find that they were sometimes quite different even for the same organism. In short, this implies that sharing of genetic material between different species occurred to a greater extent than scientists previously appreciated.
However, note that “previously” refers to the period before 1959 when horizontal gene transfer was first described in prokaryotes. In 1985, its significance in eukaryotes was discussed . A Scientific American article Uprooting the Tree of Life in February 2000 popularized the concept, which I highly recommend reading if you can find it. (I've got a copy in my bookshelf, but can't find an online copy– anyone who can please reply with a link.)
I've been struggling to understand why creationists seem to consider every discovery to be proof of intelligent design, and have recently concluded that it may have to do with the sloppy manner in which the word “theory” is applied to evolution. Here's my attempt to define evolution as a metatheory.
My suspicion is that creationists hear scientists furiously debating the merits of different theories of evolution, and wrongly conclude that they're ready to abandon the metatheory of evolution.
The metatheory of evolution could be falsified in the ways I've described previously, but horizontal gene transfer isn't one of them. The emerging story of horizontal gene transfer is simply telling us how much more complicated biology is than we thought even 20 years ago. It's akin to working introductory level physics problems involving massless ropes and frictionless pulleys, then finding out in later classes that calculations involving heavy ropes and non-ideal pulleys are much harder. But they're also considerably more realistic, so we trudge through the math. Similarly, the tree of life was a “frictionless pulley” that served our purposes for nearly a century, but it has been replaced by a more complicated web of life. Science always develops simplistic models in an attempt to understand the natural world, and always revises those models when their over-simplifications are revealed through experiment.
According to the article, sea squirts appear to be chimeras, the result of a fusion between an ancestor of sea urchins and an early chordate nearly 600 million years ago. While certainly a bizarre creature, it's not inexplicable. Creationists routinely label aspects of nature “inexplicable” or “irreducibly complex,” but that's not a very productive approach to understanding the universe.
Of course they're not, because:
Common descent accounts for the uniformity of DNA bases and shared genes between species in a very specific manner. It can be proven wrong (but hasn't yet) by sufficiently clever observations as you note.
On the other hand, asserting that God supernaturally reused code can never be proven wrong . The word 'falsifiable' isn't applicable, because creationism/ID isn't science. For instance, the discovery that no genes are shared between any creatures is also proof of creationism. That's because reusing code is merely something that designers do if they're not immortal, omniscient and omnipotent. Human programmers reuse code because our lives are too short and our brains are too small to constantly rewrite different versions of basic functions, but that's not applicable to God.
You've repeatedly offered minor variations of the same argument, stating that certain aspects of nature are compatible with creationism/ID. But I've been agreeing with you regarding this claim the whole time. In fact, that's my central point: creationism/ID isn't science because it's not falsifiable. Every time I mention this, you provide an example that could falsify evolution and claim that it's (somehow) a way to falsify creationism .
Individual 'notions' of creationism (they're not theories) can be– and are– proven wrong when their individual claims are shown to be so absurd that even creationists have to admit it . But the 'metanotion' of creationism/ID is that a supernatural deity created life. That can't ever be proven wrong by any conceivable method. God doesn't follow any natural laws, so His creation method could look like anything at all. Creationism/ID may be true , but it could never be a scientific theory or metatheory.
Furthermore, creationists' attempts to convince the general public that science and religion are the same would destroy science if they ever succeed. I've explained why in this very article here and listed examples here .
Let me be perfectly clear: I don't have any problem with people holding religious beliefs; I believe that all people have the right to believe whatever they want. The problem is that religion isn't science . Confusing the two would bring science to a screeching halt, along with the development of new technology.
Perhaps I misunderstand – but if there was no reused code – then clearly it is disproven.
Please bear in mind – one my assumptions is that God is not intentionally deceptive. And a second is God's purpose for creating was not to prove his existence (or to deceptively hide it as per #1).
First, God's mechanism for reuse doesn't have to follow physical laws in the way that horizontally transferred genes do. So a creationist could point to any vaguely similar DNA sequences and say “God reused it supernaturally.” No scientific objection could possibly overcome that claim– though theologians could probably amuse themselves for centuries arguing about whether it requires that God be deceptive.
Second, as I point out in the next few sentences after the one you quoted (and as I've said before), there's no unique way for a creationist to predict the manner of God's creation. You've claimed that code reuse is a prediction of creationism, but it seems equally likely to me that an omnipotent, immortal God wouldn't bother with code reuse.
(Ed. note: this comment was copied from here .)
I've seen this argument before, but it's always seemed less than rigorous. For instance, what definition of information are you using? Most information theorists regard information and entropy to be closely related. So saying “information is increasing” is very similar to saying “entropy is increasing,” which doesn't surprise me. If you have a definition of information that's different from Shannon's, please show me your equation so I can examine it in the same way I can examine Shannon's definition of information.
On a more concrete level, there's a good reason to think that information in the genome can increase over time. Mutations often produce copies of chromosomes, which is what causes Down syndrome . Immediately after this mutation occurs, it only adds a tiny amount of information to the creature's genetic code because all that extra information can be compressed into the statement “take chromosome 21 and copy it from this start codon to this end codon.”
But these “extra copy” mutations aren't always harmful. For instance, many modern food crops are polyploid , which makes them larger and tastier than their diploid ancestors. So it's not impossible for extra copies to become permanent. In that case, over time both copies will mutate differently, which reduces the ability to compress the extra information into a mere “extra copy.” Thus, information in the genetic code increases according to Shannon's definition.
(Ed. note: This conversation was copied from here .)
That's true about most young earth creationists and the wider ID community.
There is an organization called Reasons to Believe whose mission is to produce a scientifically testable/falsifiable model for Biblical creationism, from an old earth perspective.
They believe that God designed the universe for the maximum benefit of human civilization and to fulfill God's purposes for the universe as quickly and efficiently as possible, and build a model on that. For example, to sustain civilization, humans need 4 billion years of biodeposits. RTB predicts that life appears on earth as quickly as could possibly be allowed under the conditions, and that is what we see. There is evidence of life existing 3.8 billion years ago, just millions of years after the Late Heavy Bombardment. A way to falsify this would be to show that life emerged over hundreds of millions of years, as most evolutionists have tended to assume.
They also predict that future observations in astronomy will show more and more evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe.
Another prediction is that since humans are created specially in God's image, there should be no clear genetic links with hominids. It also explains the sudden burst of such things as advanced tool use, jewelry, and religious artifacts on the scene about 50,000 years ago.
They have a lot more predictions, many of which are articulated in their book “Creation as Science” by Hugh Ross.
I don't see how millions of years is compatible with creationism, while hundreds of millions of years isn't. God is omnipotent and immortal, so He could have decided to wait hundreds of millions of years before zapping life into existence. I don't see how this would be out of character for a deity who spent 1/7 of His creation time resting. (From an old earth perspective, that's hundreds of millions of years, right?)
I'll note that too short a time between the bombardment and the first microbes could falsify evolution. It just seems like there wouldn't be any way to perform an equivalent calculation for a miraculous creation of life.
… which wouldn't affect their position in the slightest if it didn't pan out. After all, God is subtle and His ways are mysterious. Perhaps He designed the universe to look like it wasn't fine-tuned, just to test our faith.
In other words, hominids shouldn't share any of our DNA. In fact, they shouldn't even share our DNA bases- they should have a completely different genetic alphabet. That way, we couldn't possibly be related to them. That would be clear evidence that evolution was wrong, and it's one of the simplest ways to falsify evolution. In essence, Darwin made a prediction that all life would use the same DNA many decades before we found out that was actually the case.
But the fact that this isn't true doesn't falsify creationism, because it's easy to assert that God created all life with the same genetic code as proof that there's a single creator, rather than multiple deities.
Is the modern technological renaissance proof of God's intervention in the world? After all, our technology has undergone a similar change in the last several centuries. Since it's usually not possible to date objects that old with a temporal resolution much less than a century, future creationist archaeologists might conclude that the rapid invention of computers is evidence that God was responsible for it.
And, just like today, no scientists in the future will ever be able to prove them wrong. Because they're not making falsifiable statements. When omnipotence (or omniscience, or any kind of supernatural power) is an acceptable answer, falsification is impossible because there's literally no limit to what an omnipotent being could do. Natural, objective laws are annoyingly restrictive and can be proven wrong by clever observations.
True He could have, but the point of early life was to 1) transform the environment and 2) provide biodeposits as abundantly as possible. The Bible (Genesis 1:2) seems to imply that God was busy doing something valuable in the early oceans, and creating first life quickly is an obvious interpretation of that. Therefore, an old earth creationism model would reasonably predict life as soon as the earth could possibly sustain it.
I agree that hundreds of millions of years of nothing would not necessarily falsify creationism completely, but it would add more complex 'why' questions. Why would God wait so long?
For one thing the days are not necessarily the same length, for another thing, most OECs see the seventh day as being in progress now (Hebrews 4 implies that we are still in God's rest). This seems to be corroborated by the record. Throughout the last tens of millions of years, quite a few new unique species came into existence. But ever since modern humans arrived (which I would say began God's “rest”), there has been relatively little formation of new species, and those that have formed could probably be explained through evolutionary theory (which I do not entirely reject). In other words, while God was creating, new species that would have a hard time evolving were introduced; now that God is at rest, evolution is all we have to go on for new species.
And that is also something that can be studied and falsified. Will future studies show that during the last 100k years, the speciation rate was about the same as for the previous 10 million? If so, that poses a serious problem to a creation model. If future discoveries continue to back up what I said, the Biblical creation model gets stronger.
Actually, common DNA and other biology are about the same between humans and nonspiritual animals simply because this is the design that works. God doesn't have to do too many crazy things like that to prove His existence (I think He has already done more than should be necessary for that.
While I admire your attempt to adhere to the scientific method, I'm not sure that these examples constitute falsifiability in a rigorous sense. If every animal had different DNA bases, that would utterly demolish evolution. All of the predictions you're offering as falsifications merely seem to add a few more “why” questions (as you say) to an already gigantic stack of “why” questions that theologians have struggled with for centuries. I'm not convinced that a few more mysteries would affect creationism in the same way that a 1950s discovery of non-uniform DNA bases would have affected evolution.
And that's why creationism can never be science. It's too easy to use God's omnipotence and conscious whims to explain away any problems with the model. Let me be perfectly clear: I'm not saying that creationism is wrong, and I'm not trying to bash religion. I'm just saying that it can't ever be scientific, because any “prediction” will rely on the individual theist's personal interpretation of what God “should” do. (eg it's perfectly okay that all life uses the same DNA bases, because God's already done more than He needs to prove His existence.)
(Ed. note: this comment was copied from here .)
That's not the way the circle of life works. Proteins, carbs and fats aren't directly linked to DNA/RNA. The closest connection between proteins and genetic code is in ribosomes . A different set of DNA bases would require a radically different ribosome, or a completely different method of transcription (the latter possibility would keep RNA the same but allow for totally different DNA.) Animals don't need to eat DNA, they synthesize it from simpler molecules. All life would have to share some amino acids, because humans can only synthesize 12 of the 20 common amino acids, but there's no reason all life would need to have DNA with the same structure. (Unless, of course, all life is related…)
In fact, researchers are working on creating new synthetic life forms that have 12 DNA bases instead of the standard 4.
With an 'all' powerful creator – perhaps there is no 'need' as far as we can tell . But it is what one could expect from a early design choice. And I may be suggesting heresy – but since I'm suggesting code reuse – it would fit in with that premise.
I don't know if you're discussing heresy or orthodoxy. All I'm saying is that you're discussing religion of some variety, not falsifiable science.
(Ed. note: This comment was copied from here and here .)
Hindi ako. I just think it's a sort of response to tone (DH2) . As a result, I don't know how to answer it constructively– or if that's even possible at all.
Scientific theories compete in the sense that every new observation either supports or falsifies them. For example, the Ptolemaic system that preceded Copernicanism was a genuine (albeit crude) scientific model because it made specific predictions about the movements of the planets. Careful observations were thus able to prove it wrong.
But, as I've stressed , creationism can't ever be refuted, because its inherently supernatural properties make it compatible with any potential discovery. On the other hand, I've listed two simple falsifications of evolution: chimpanzees in the Precambrian and many species with totally different DNA bases.
Prior to the discovery of evolution, there simply wasn't a decent scientific explanation for the origin of species. It's not that creationism used to be scientific before Darwin; it's that creationism wasn't– and couldn't– ever be scientific. Note that I'm not saying creationism is wrong! Quite the opposite! It's just not a scientific theory because it isn't falsifiable.
Sure, if 1859 fits your definition of “quite recently.”
I've discussed a similar issue before, and said “… even religions that explicitly disavow fideism tend to engender a culture of faith, which is anathema to science's culture of doubt.”
It's not that religions are “fixed and immutable,” but rather that they're based on faith moreso than doubt which means they're slower to change than science.
Because I've met so many inspiring scientists who work very hard to live up to that ideal. Not all of them, of course. But enough.
Actually , yes , I have : “The problem here is that I've come to believe that the easiest person for me to fool is myself . That's because I want to believe the fibs that I tell myself. I can't tell you how many times I've had to correct my reasoning because I'd ignored a piece of evidence that I simply didn't want to see . So I'm much more cautious than usual when I'm evaluating a situation in which I know that I have an intrinsic bias.”
Yes, some objections that were once consistent with the evidence at hand later conflicted with other observations.
I can only speak for myself, and I've already endorsed Dawkins' continuously variable speedism, so I completely agree that the fossil record doesn't support a strictly gradualistic position. But I wonder how many professional biologists still support strict gradualism?
Scientists publish science in peer-reviewed science journals. That results in better science. Lawyers publish law in peer-reviewed law journals. That results in better law. The mere act of peer review doesn't turn lawyers into scientists, though.
Similarly, creationists don't become scientists just by publishing creationism in peer-reviewed creationist journals . As I've repeatedly explained , science needs to be defined the way it is because creationist “science” would make mistakes like these . If an alternative scientific method exists which wouldn't result in the kinds of mistakes I've listed, please describe it– along with specific reasons why those mistakes wouldn't be made– and I'll consider it.