Re: My views on evolution


Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Aug 2005, "Stephen Montgomery-Smith" <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > There are a lot of biologists - not those directly involved in the
> > > study of genetics or evolution, but certainly professionals like
> > > doctors and nurses - who are either somewhat ignorant of why they
> > > believe in Darwinism, or flatly think that it is wrong.
> >
> > What percentage of all biologists are we talking about here?
>
> I don't know. This is anecdotal evidence (which I tend to trust more
> than statistical evidence anyway).
>
> >
> >
> > > Deadrat wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > > I'm talking about the "information science" that the i.d. people use,
> > > not concepts like Shannon entropy that is used in the communications
> > > industry. The latter, I agree, is a very useful and interesting
> > > theory. I think that I used the wrong term - I think they call it
> > > "complexity theory" or something like that.
> >
> > Can you give us an example of some ID use of "information science",
> > regardless of how you define the term?
> >
> > Off hand the closest thing I can think of is the really bad probability
> > arguments they invoke.
>
> That's exactly what I was talking about. (I thought that was clear,
> and I also thought I did a good job of denouncing these kinds of
> arguments. I'm not quite sure where our disagreement is on this
> issue.)
>
>
> >
> >
> > >> 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
> > >
> > > Basically you are wrong here. I strongly suspect that it is this
> > > attitude that are causing you guys to do quite as badly in the
> > > "publicity" war as you seem to be doing right now. You guys basically
> > > have science on your side, but you just seem unable to take off your
> > > blinders to see why you are so unsuccessful in pursuading the general
> > > public that I.D. doesn't have a point.
> > >
> > > You have fallen into the tap that most intellectuals fall into - you
> > > know a lot about your speciality, and hence you presume you know a lot
> > > about most everything else. Hamlet said it well when he said "There
> > > are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in
> > > your philosophy."
> > >
> > > The scientific method as we know it is a fairly recent development in
> > > history, perhaps existing for a few hundred years. To think that
> > > notions of epistomology aren't going to greatly change in the next few
> > > centuries is naive.
> >
> > Actually, people have been using the scientific method for as long as
> > people have been around, and probably well back into our ancestry as
> > well.
> >
> > The scientific method is nothing more than: notice something, think of
> > an explanation, and check to see whether you're right. If you hear a
> > noise in the kitchen while you're watching TV, hypothesize that it
> > was the result of not putting the groceries away properly, and go look
> > in the pantry to see whether the stacks fell down, you are using the
> > scientific method.
>
> Yes, you are talking about a rudimentary sense of "how we know things"
> that has certainly existed for ages. In the last few centuries it has
> been greatly refined and has had spectacular successes that would be
> undreamed of by anyone living in the fifteenth century.
>
> But it is also true that our ancient forefathers also placed great
> reliance upon religious style reasoning (indeed this is one of the
> major driving forces in the early history of Europe, probably up until
> at least the nineteenth century). Perhaps this religious reasoning
> simply hasn't entered its great zenith period that the scientific
> method has in the last few hundred years, and that is why we don't
> currently think that it has any importance in our daily lives.
>
> I mean, those early forfathers tried very hard to get science to work,
> but even though people like Aristotle were great genius's, they simply
> didn't have the intellectual tools we now have to persue knowledge like
> we do.

I think you are confusing/conflating two different concepts - that of
where ideas come from vs. how they are tested. The scientific method
doesn't help us come up with new ideas/hypothosis's (hypothosii?), but
how to test an idea. People are free to use any source, dreams, the
Bible, prayer, observation, etc to come up with an idea on how to
explain something - there is no restriction on that. The restriction
is on not just accepting the idea once it is formed but on how to test
it. That is what the scientific method does and it is not arrogance to
say you are not doing science if you don't put that idea to the test.

As far as not being able to convience the general public, I think that
there is several reasons - first and foremost most people don't have a
real grasp of what science is and isn't. Science education is not all
that great for the general populace and it is possible to go through
high school, college and even grad school with little or no science
education. The IDers have successfully framed the debate as if a
scientist says something, then it is science, since the person who said
it is a scientist. That is clearly not true, but the general public
doesn't really grasp that. They see it as a conflict between exeperts
and will side with the arguments that make them feel OK and mesh with
there personal beliefs.

Fundimentally, ID is not science, period. It may or may not be true,
but that is irrelivent, since since is not after TRUTH(tm) but after
explantions to what we percieve that can be tested and used to make
predictions. ID doesn't meet that, evolution does. It is that simple.

Finally, I think one way to hit this home is would a teacher, who is
teaching a class on ID, accept as a valid execuse for not having their
homework: "The Intellegent Designer ate it"? If that is not a
legitimate excuse, the how is ID legitimate science?

---Jay

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Question of Faith: the Root of the Problem?
    ... The basic problem that occurs when debating creation is that ... the literal truth therefore evolution must be wrong. ... therefore since evolution passes the scientific method it must be true, ... effect that would have on science in general. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: my current view on evolution and emergent behavior
    ... evolution gone, they can get down to some serious science, uncovering ... The scientific method is limited to what can be observed with the five ... require a natural cause (the Big Bang, creation, etc.). ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Thunderfoot vs VenomFangX
    ... What has "nuclear weapons got to do with evolution"? ... you trust the scientific method when used by all the other sciences? ... The NewScientist article is real science. ... evidence, a hypothesis to explain it, specific predictions made by the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can any Darwinist in the forum produce an argument showing
    ... reject evolution as rejecting _science_. ... evolution the totality of science. ... this is not rejecting _science_. ... and rejecting the scientific method is rejecting science since ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Scientific Errors
    ... And if the pressure of a ... A science forum is no place to preach such ... the scientific method nor have you chosen to inform PTP of your ... As you have no formal training in Physics it explains why ...
    (sci.physics)