Re: More on Kitz/Dover

You can answer many of these questions by reading the Judge's decision.

Zoe wrote:
> Okay, so I am reading the transcripts to the Dover trial and already
> have some questions for those who have answers.
>
> Question 1. If critical thinking means the asking of questions that
> challenge a theory, if it includes the presentation of data that
> appears to fly in the face of some current theory, why are such
> questions, as found in Pandas, considered to be unconstitutional in a
> public school setting?

That's not what critical thinking means. Critical thinking means to
analyze information and ask questions that lead to a logical
conclusion. "Challenging a theory" is just that.. challenging a
theory.. to my knowledge there is no word that applies.

The information in Pandas is considered unconstitutional in a public
school setting because it pushes a religiously biased version of
reality... namely intelligent design. The Establishment Clause in the
US constitution prohibits the government from funding a national
religion.

Intelligent Design is identified as a Christian-held belief so if we
allowed ID to be taught as fact in public school then we would also
have to allow other religiously held beliefs as fact. What about the
theory of Gia? Or the Native American myths of creation? Would they
not be equally valid?

For obvious reasons we can't allow every creation myth to be taught as
fact in public school. And if we only allowed ID then that would be
considered funding a national religion and therefore unconstitutional.
So I hope that answers your question.


> Question 2. Kenneth Miller said: "... science is always an activity
> in which everything in science is open to critical examination,
> replication, peer review, and discussion by other scientists." Yet I
> notice that when Behe's criticisms are being discussed, Miller's first
> response, before even answering the criticism, is to point out to the
> judge (in more than one instance) that "they are saying that we are
> wrong." p. 113, line 23; p. 114, line 15. This, apparently, is a
> problem to Miller. Why is that?

Yes well you've cherry picked Miller's statement to find a favorable
quote for your comparison but the fact is, as noted in the context of
Miller's complete answer, this is but one characteristic that defines
science. The entire statement read like this:

-quote-
Q. Are there rules for scientific inquiry?
A. Yes, there are.
Q. And what are these rules?
A. Well, you just heard one of the rules in the definition of science,
which is that science tries to provide natural explanations for natural
phenomena. So one of the most basic rules of science is that we tend --
what we require, the practitioners of science seek their explanations
in the world around us, in things we can test, we can observe, and we
can verify. Now, there are certain rules of procedure, as well. And
among those are that scientific inquiry must be open, that it must be
subject to duplication, replication, test and examination by other
scientists. For example, I could never publish a result saying I
had made an observation on a particular protein without also telling
people what my methods were and how I made that observation. And the
point is to make my work and my observation testable. And then the
final and sort of open rule basically is that science is always an
activity in which everything in science is open to critical
examination, replication, peer review, and discussion by other
scientists.
-end quote-

Regarding Miller's reaction I can't find that particular quote
anywhere. Were you paraphrasing? What day was it on? I did find this
quote regarding irreducible complexity:

-quote-
Dr. Behe's challenge is to basically say, you're wrong, that the
individual parts of these machines cannot have a function that is
favored by natural selection. Now that, of course, in this slide, this
is not evidence, of course, in the scientific sense. This is merely an
argument.
-end quote-

Miller's arguments against Behe mainly stem from the point of view that
verbal arguments do not constitute emprical evidence. If one wants to
argue based on empirical evidence, that's fine, but that's not what
Behe does. Instead Behe continuously engages in arguments of
incredulity and inductive reasoning. He has not put forth any emprical
evidence and thus has no scientific ground upon which to base a valid
argument against evolution.


> And what is this criticism of Behe's, anyway? Miller says that in the
> book, Of Pandas and People, the statement is made that "there's the
> exact same difference between cytochrome c in a fish and an amphibian,
> a reptile, a bird, and two representative mammals." "Cytochrome c of
> the carp, a fish, differs from that of the bullfrog by 13%, by that of
> the snapping turtle also by 13%, carp to the chicken 14%, carp to the
> rabbit, 13%, carp to the horse 13% - all the same distance apart."
>
> Apparently, this is seen as a problem in the context of "the classic
> Darwinian scenario, which is" (supposedly) "that amphibians are
> intermediate between fish and other land-dwelling vertebrates,
> therefore, analysis of their amino acid should place amphibians in an
> intermediate position, but it does not. In other words, that fish
> should be closer to the amphibian than it is to the turtle, much
> closer than to the chicken, and much closer still than that to the
> horses."
>
> That (complains Miller) is what Pandas tells students, that: "Yet the
> fact that they're all the same distance apart means that the ...
> evolutionary expectation is contradicted by the data." p. 115 and
> 116.
>
> Apparently, such criticism is not acceptable. Why so?

You mistakenly infer that criticism is not acceptable. If you read the
entire page in context Miller is pointing out that the information in
Pandas is out-modded. It's 12 years old, it's inaccurate, it's
untruthful, and it misleads anyone who's reading it. That is the only
point he's making.

(snip gibberish)
(snip Q3)
(snip Q4)

You know, please be my guest and drive yourself nuts trying to
understand the mechanism behind it all. Some of the concepts are
fairly complex. I'm going to save my sanity and move onto the next
question.


> Question 5. The blood clotting cascade experiment. Pandas says that
> clotting is irreducibly complex. Miller proceeds to demonstrate an
> experiment by animation on PowerPoint. He eliminates factor 12 in his
> animation and, voila.....QED. He says, "So there's my experiment.
> You can do this very easily on PowerPoint much easier than you can do
> it in the laboratory."
>
> Well, yes! But of course!
>
> Then jumping from his animation on PowerPoint, he pulls a real-world
> example of blood clotting without factor 12 - the whale and the
> dolphin. WHAT kind of answer is this for thinking students? Is whale
> and dolphin blood identical to human blood? The difference is such
> that whale and dolphins do not need factor 12 to clot. You can't
> compare human blood to whale and dolphin blood and say, see, humans
> can get along without factor 12, too, just like whales and dolphins.

I encourage you to go back and reread that entire section becuase you
apparently misunderstood the example. Miller can take as much liberty
as he likes in cross-species evaluation becuase he is not refuting the
nature of each creatures method for blood clottting. Miller is simply
refuting a statement made in Pandas that Factor 12 (specifically!) is
required for the blood clotting cascade to work.

Keep in mind that clotting is analogous to a "Rube Goldberg" type
experiment. It is very crazy, very complex, and ripe for all kinds of
analogies for and against irreducible complexity... no wonder why Behe
choose to write about it in Pandas. Anyway there are noted factors
involved in the blood of all species that causes it to clott. Pandas
tells students Factor 12 is required. Miller shows that simply is not
the case. There is no Factor 12 in whale blood and so there must be
redundant factors involved.

He is not arguing that the pathway is ultimately not irreducibly
complex (that's an entirely different argument). He is simply refuting
the book's specific example as a continued demonstration that the
information in that book is out-modded, or in this case, just plain
wrong.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: syllogism
    ... no intention or hope of them being hard universals, ... >reversed in science. ... appreciate any criticism since it's a work-in-progress. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: PotM Re: A Typology of Scientism
    ... so can literary criticism. ... times presented as the "science" of historiography. ... Quite aside from its foundational roots in physical science, engineering ... I think you'll also find that a good many scientists are no more ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... To those familiar with Dembski, ... claims, and his responses to criticism, this seems an oddly ill- ... Prior to the 1980's there had been an off and on debate about the ... Compare this style of real science with Dembski's version. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Its not all `pseudo-science`
    ... one of the most valid aspects of good science is its ... willingness to hear criticism, to retest its own views, to be ... are superior in any sense. ... Mohammed noticed how Christians disobeyed Jesus words, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More on Kitz/Dover
    ... The blood clotting cascade experiment. ... > Your implied premise is that IC was not falsified by Miller because he ... the claim of evolution is that complex systems evolved from ...
    (talk.origins)