Re: My views on evolution


"Stephen Montgomery-Smith" <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1123375212.423201.182030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I have been lurking a little bit on this newsgroup, and I thought that
> it was now time to engage in the conversation.
>
<snip>

> My impression of this debate is basically that both sides have it wrong
> in many aspects. My sense is that the I.D. movement has fairly poor
> science, but some good philosophical points,

Perhaps you could point me to *any* science from the ID
movement. For that matter, I can't think of any philosophical
points either. They talk about the "unfairness" of science
insisting on natural explanations for the world, but really that's
a political point (as W showed the other day).


> whereas the Darwinianists
> have good science but tend to overstate their case.

First of all, there are no longer any "Darwinianists." This term
(usually spelled "Darwinists") is a term invented (or if you like
resurrected) by creationists to imply that scientists who accept
the theory of evolution are part of a partisan political movement
that blindly follows a creed called "Darwinism." Darwin got
many things right; some things wrong (mostly due to not knowing
about modern genetics). The folks who accept Darwin's basic
ideas and work with them are today called biologists. You may
notice that no one calls physicists "atomists."

Secondly, scientists tend to hedge their claims. They know that
any important claim will be subject to rigorous examination.

>
> Intelligent Design
>
> The main argument of I.D., as best as I can see, is that the basic
> elements of life are so complicated that it is impossible that random
> events could have created them. While I would not go so far as to say
> that "Information Science" is not science, it is certainly a very
> underdeveloped science that currently is in its infancy, and which
> might or might not become something that has something genuine to say
> in the future.

I'm not sure what you define as "Information Science." Information
Theory? Cybernetics? Automata Theory? These fields are hardly
in their "infancy," although they're not as hoary as say, geometry.
And they've had quite a bit to say.

<snip>

> Conversely there is a certain perfection to the design of the universe.
> For example, the motor in the flagelum has no wasted parts, no chisel
> or hammer marks. Every atom and molecule is perfectly placed to do
> just its job.

Do you have some evidence for this statement? Do you believe
the same thing about, say, a hemoglobin molecule?

> Short of finding the sequence "Copyright (C) 4004BC
> YHWH" in the genome sequence, this approach is unlikely to provide
> definitive proof of intelligent design.

It better not say "Patent Pending" or the cloners are in big trouble.
But can you think of anything else besides the manufacturers name
and a serial number that would validate ID? What would constitute
evidence for ID?

>
> Darwinianism
>
> There is little doubt in my mind that many of the claims of evolution
> are scientific fact. <snip>. But I have to say that the certainty
> amongst the Darwinianists that they will naturalistic answers to these
> questions is, in my opinion, bordering on the kind of faith that
> Christians express in their God.

The certainty of scientists that natural answers exist to "these questions"
is more akin to the certainty of the bridge player that a hand of 13 spades
is possible. The bridge player has almost certainly never been dealt
such a hand, but he is sure that it's possible and good for a grand slam.
After all, he plays bridge.

>
> As a Christian, I have to confess that I cannot disprove scientifically
> that humans come from monkey like creatures. But my faith rests in the
> word of God, and it is hard for me to reconcile the two views. If the
> evidence that humans did come from monkeys was as strong as, say, the
> assertion that the sun produces energy by nuclear fusion, then I would
> have to seriously reconsider my position. But right now, I just don't
> think that the evidence is that strong.

I'm going to take a wild guess here that you don't know any more about
nuclear fusion than you do about biology. (If I have misjudged the range
of your studies, I apologize.) Yet you're absolutely convinced that the sun
is a nuclear furnace but doubtful that humans and monkeys have a common
ancestor. Of course, the first doesn't conflict with your religion, and the
second one apparently does. Think that has anything to do with it?

>
> One thing that bothers me with Darwinianists is that they say that the
> job of science is by definition to look for naturalistic explanations.
> My sense is that scientists are stuck in a kind of Popperian view which
> insists that the only proper scientific theories are those that are
> falsifiable. How many scientists know anything about Michael Polanyi
> or Thomas Kuhn I don't know, but even if they do know about their
> ideas, many express no interest in them. It is fine for a scientist to
> not be very interested in the philosophical foundations of his subject,
> and indeed it is possible to do very good science without having any
> ideas of the philosophical issues, but in that case scientists should
> refrain from making broad and far-reaching statements about what
> science "is".

Your first post, but already a potential classic: scientists shouldn't
make broad statements about what science is.

Think of science as a club. If you want to join, you agree to abide
by the rules. One of those rules is that the ideas you propose must
be amenable to validation by certain techniques that the members
employ. If you propose an idea that cannot possibly be tested, then
you're not doing science. Please join another club

The philosophy of science is to science as the philosophy of
martinis is to gin and vermouth. Perhaps that's why scientists are
as interested in Popper and Kuhn as martini connoisseurs are in
the philosophy of their favorite beverage.

>
> Indeed many of the more ancient scientists (Galileo, Newton, even
> Einstein and Hawkins) used the intelligent design paradigm in their
> work.

Newton was partial to alchemy. Should we use that in modern
chemistry? Please provide a cite that Einstein "used" intelligent
design instead of tensor theory. Hawkins? Is that Hawking?

> In the end, we are seeking the "truth" whatever that is, and
> whatever works to help us find it, is something that we should pursue.

Well, maybe you are. The science club members are seeking valid
explanations (i.e.,. those that work), not "truth." Whatever that is.

>
> The Beauty of Creation
>
<snip>

2. "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carroll. This book starts
> with detailing the disovery of homeotic "controlling" genes, that say
> "put an eye here" or "put a leg here." <snip> At the very least, it
shows
> that evoltionary Darwinianism is a developing science, in many ways in
> its infancy, and definitely not "scientific fact" in the same way as
> is, for example, Dalton's theory of atoms.

Please tell me the evidence that you find so convincing for atoms. Then
tell me why evolution is less convincing.

>
> Pro/Anti Religion
>
> There is no doubt in my mind that both sides have either a pro or anti
> religious agenda.

<snip>

Forgive my observation, but you seem rather unburdened by doubt in
general.

The creationist movement openly and proudly has both a religious and
a political agenda. What anti-religious bias do you see in science?

> Conclusion
>
<snip>

> Best, Stephen

Deadrat

.

Relevant Pages

  • PotM nom: Re: My views on evolution
    ... > Darwinianists have good science but tend to overstate their case. ... > definitive proof of intelligent design. ... How many scientists know anything about Michael ...
    (talk.origins)
  • My views on evolution
    ... science, but some good philosophical points, whereas the Darwinianists ... have good science but tend to overstate their case. ... definitive proof of intelligent design. ... How many scientists know anything about Michael Polanyi ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes"
    ... means of introducing Creation studies into the classroom. ... Astrophysicists (or something like "Mainstream scientists") checked ... Putting quotes around the word "science" in this context is a veiled ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: My views on evolution
    ... >science, but some good philosophical points, whereas the Darwinianists ... >have good science but tend to overstate their case. ... no scientists says it is pure chance. ... What about it says design? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: My views on evolution
    ... > Perhaps you could point me to *any* science from the ID ... there are no longer any "Darwinianists." ... scientists tend to hedge their claims. ... more complicated than just two hydrogen atoms coming together to create ...
    (talk.origins)