Judge Jones Discussed at 3quarksdaily
| September 24, 2009 | Posted by Clive Hayden under Culture, Darwinism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Science |
In light of Judge Jones coming to Southern Methodist University today and tomorrow, for what seems to be an unbalanced discussion of ID, I thought I would add some clarity to the affair with these remarks by Nick Smyth from the blog 3quarksdaily pertaining to Jones’s poor reasoning in his 2005 Kitzmiller decision as to what constitutes science:
For any formal definition of science, it either excludes too much, or includes too much, or both. It is enough to say that today, even those writing anti-pseudoscience manifestos concede that it is not possible to give a complete definition of what constitutes science or pseudoscience. Rather, they tend to revert to weak, vague and totally indefensible “ballpark” definitions that are designed to exclude specific targets. Judge Jones’ 2005 ruling in the Kitzmiller creationism case is a recent example:
ID [Intelligent Design] fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (Jones 2005, 64)
It’s hard to properly describe how bad this ruling was, how incredibly vulnerable it is to logical and factual attack.
Take, for example, the second and third requirement. If we banish everyone who has either (2) seriously employed a false argument, or (3) has had some position refuted, it’s hard to imagine that there will be many scientists left to speak of. These requirements are patently absurd.
The first requirement doesn’t fare much better, for its meaning turns on the definition of “natural”, and to my knowledge no-one has been able to define this term meaningfully without resorting to the claim that “nature” is the stuff that natural science talks about. Circularity looms.
However, even if we can define these terms responsibly, this “ground rule” is of questionable historical validity. For example, we are going to have to explain why Newton’s acceptance of alchemical principles and Kepler’s devout mysticism don’t disqualify them as scientists.
This is a serious problem. It’s fine to talk about science in a loose and squishy sense, as a historical phenomenon or as a diverse, loosely related set of practises or what have you, but once you start denying someone else social and political power on the grounds that you are scientific and they are not, you’d better have more to say than simply “your theory is supernatural”. Otherwise, you will quickly be reduced to claiming that you just know science when you see it, and well, isn’t that just the sort of maddening claim that those pesky “pseudoscientists” love to make?
118 Responses to Judge Jones Discussed at 3quarksdaily
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Upright biped
Touche.
Not got time right now, but I will do so, and will also point out that Tbiomed is a journal for ‘innovative’ scientific research. It describes itself as an “…online journal adopting a broad definition of “biology” and focusing on the theoretical ideas and models to which advances in biology and medicine are giving rise. Mathematicians, biologists and clinicians of various specialisms, philosophers and historians of science are all contributing to the emergence of novel concepts in an age of systems biology and bioinformatics. This is the field in which TBioMed operates.”
I’d be cautious about using its articles as established biological fact.
CannuckianYankee @80:
On the contrary, the practice of methodological naturalism goes back at least as far as Galileo, who specifically excluded supernatural “explanations” from science. (You might check with Newton, also.) And that’s been the breakthrough in understanding that has motivated science ever since. Arguments about the coining of the term “methodological naturalism” are a distraction from that incontrovertible historical fact.
Ritchie,
The Abel and Trevors paper that Upright BiPed referenced is pure (and mere) speculation. Whether a decent journal would touch its publication is questionable. It keeps getting mentioned in these parts because it argues an ID line.
Best regards,
Adel
Thanks Adel. I’ll bear that warning in mind.
Ritchie,
You show your backside by intimating that there is something “to be cautious about” regarding the publishing journal. You apparently havent a clue what you are talking about. You are well on your way to deriding the scientists themselves, and you haven’t even read the research.
Why do you suppose this is a clearly demonstrable fact observed in your first response? Actually, you are the third materialist ideologue on this forum in as many days who 1) ignored the research 2) hasn’t the time to read it.
I thought an adversion to evidence was something materialist liked to accuse others of. Did I get that wrong?
In any case, if it bothers you so much, try this one instead:
http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf
It was published in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences. Perhaps their journal, its editors, and review process are less likely to draw your concerns. However, you’ll miss the well-written data available by reading the original analysis.
Adel,
Which part of ther paper does Abel have wrong. Be specific.
Ritchie,
“Pretty much. Since we have a theory which explains the presense of organisms and their features such as eyes (’Darwinian evolution’), I see no reason not to have this as our default answer when faced with a natural mystery.”
I was going to respond to your posts directed at me, but I thought the above paragraph addressed to scott Andrews sums up your position as I understand it quite well.
This is exactly the sort of answer Darwinists often accuse ID supporters of positing – this is what I would call ‘Darwin-of-the-gaps’ theology. So for you, Darwinism is provisional because it is a mystery, but you will hold to it anyway despite its provisional nature. That’s fine, however, you must understand that by doing so, you are not thinking scientifically. Your position is more theology than science. In science we don’t have default answers simply because something is a mystery. In science, we allow the mystery to remain such until we have evidence to the contrary. Darwin’s theory is not evidence, it is conjecture.
It’s fine to accept it on that basis. I accept Christianity on a similar basis. However, I realize that my faith is not science, and I would never try to pass it off as such.
Another issue that makes your position theology and not science is your assertion that ‘bad design’ implies no design. You don’t know what constitutes ‘bad design,’ and neither does anyone else. You named several issues as examples, but your examples are really not convincing, and are obviously intended to deny a designer, which is precisely theology, not science.
Adel,
Well…? No follow up with details?
Have we actually reached the point in the materialist’s camp that simply making meaningless remarks is all that is necessary to address your opponents? Oh wait…nevermind.
But wait Adel, think of Ritchie here. What kind of role model are you playing, what kind of friend would you be if you didn’t go ahead and address the actual contents of the analysis on their merits so that he too might know where the flaws are?
Do it for Ritchie.
“On the contrary, the practice of methodological naturalism goes back at least as far as Galileo, who specifically excluded supernatural “explanations” from science. (You might check with Newton, also.) And that’s been the breakthrough in understanding that has motivated science ever since. Arguments about the coining of the term “methodological naturalism” are a distraction from that incontrovertible historical fact.”
You are making assumptions all over the place without understanding the issue. The issue is not whether excluding supernatural causes was done prior to the term. That is irrelelvant. The real issue is in excluding any possible evidence for what people currently call ‘supernatural,’ without actually having a definition that distinguishes supernatural from natural. That’s the real issue. When I quoted Forrest and Scott several posts above, I pointed out that there really is no distinction between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. In fact, an alternative term for meth nat that has been used recently is ‘provisional atheism.’ As I pointed out, meth nat cannot escape an ideological presupposition of atheism. I believe I have made that case quite well as far as meth nat is applied concerning Darwinian evolution in particular. Certainly meth nat works well for empirically based sciences, such as physics and chemistry. However, Darwinian ToE must deal with issues of origin of life, and historical interpretations of natural evidences. As such, it is problematic to insist on a naturalistic interpretation of such evidences without considering other possibilities. Darwinism in fact fails to explain apparent design. As much as Darwinists have attempted to explain it, they continue to build up a theory towards a lack of parsimony, in order to deal with the apparent inconsistencies of the theory. In other words, Darwinism needs to violate other scientific principles in order to stand firm on methodological naturalism. Physics and chmestistry don’t have this problem.
UprightBiped,
It appears we have another example of a Darwinist tactic I call ‘source deflecting,’ where the Darwinists can’t answer a question, and when we present evidence, they attack the source of such evidence. Mr. PaulBurnett is a master of source deflecting, but apparently we have some others here who are attempting the same tactic. Another aspect of source deflecting is when Darwinists insist that any evidence for ID be presented in journals that are controlled by Darwinists themselves.
Darwinists,
You control your own journals. So when you insist that ID must be supported by your journals, you are deflecting. Of course your journals are not going to support ID. Does this mean that ID has no validity? Absolutely not. How could it? Meth nat and source deflecting do not allow ID on principle – it doesn’t matter about the little thing called evidence.
—Adel: “On the contrary, the practice of methodological naturalism goes back at least as far as Galileo, who specifically excluded supernatural “explanations” from science. (You might check with Newton, also.) And that’s been the breakthrough in understanding that has motivated science ever since. Arguments about the coining of the term “methodological naturalism” are a distraction from that incontrovertible historical fact.”
Methodological naturalism is a recently established “rule” that the scientist must study nature as if nature is all there is. It was establish for one purpose and one purpose only–to discredit ID and reduce the design inference to a non-scientific status. The term and the rule that it stands for have the same history. At most, it may have an oral tradition that goes back a few years prior to 1980. Before that, there was no such rule nor did any of the scientists that you mentioned approach science that way.
Upright BiPed [from 102]
“You show your backside by intimating that there is something “to be cautious about” regarding the publishing journal. You apparently havent a clue what you are talking about. You are well on your way to deriding the scientists themselves, and you haven’t even read the research.”
Well thanks for that unfounded and unflattering tirade. It seems perfactly rational to me to be cautious about accepting reviews reviews from a journal which apparently prides itself on ‘pushing the poundaries of biology’ as accepted biological fact. You obviously don’t think so. I wonder why.
“Why do you suppose this is a clearly demonstrable fact observed in your first response? Actually, you are the third materialist ideologue on this forum in as many days who 1) ignored the research 2) hasn’t the time to read it.”
Well it is long and the language is very dense. Hardly light bedtime reading, is it? And when I asked you if you could point me to any relevant parts you just said ‘all of it’. Nice and helpful.
“In any case, if it bothers you so much, try this one instead:
http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf”
This one seems easier to skim through.
And the crux of it for me rests here:
“’Self-organization’ is logically a nonsense term. Inanimate objects cannot organize themselves into integrated, cooperative, holistic schemes.”
So they are demanding supporting evidence for a term which they themselves have defined as nonsensical? And they wonder why they don’t get a response?
Also, I would like very much to discuss this with you. It is short, and totally acccessible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEtnyx0Yo9I
Your thoughts, please!
Ritchie,
Ten minutes after you pointlessly insinuated that one should use caution regarding peer-reviewed articles from TheoBioMed (yet I can imagine you have no concerns with their articles that support your metaphysics) you then went to another thread and posted a freakin’ Wiki article in support of the rise of complexity. You also posted another article that, by all observation, wasn’t peer-reviewed nor published in a journal of any kind. You then come back to this thread to deride TheoBioMed a little more.
Give me a break.
Ritchie,
What are my thoughts on salamanders?
It’s beside the point. All organisms on this planet have commonalities. Those could be evidence of common descent or they could be evidence of common design.
Neither is the point. Surely you can understand this.
You quote Abel and say:
May I ask…you do realize, don’t you, that no person has ever produced even the slightest shred of empirical evidence for inanimate matter organizing a function by means of symbolically-encoded instructions?
You do also realize, don’t you, that the very concept of inamimate matter coordinating such a system runs directly opposite to mankind’s uniform experience with such systems?
Further, you must also realize that in every instance within the history of mankind in which we find inanimate matter organized into a function by means of symbolic information, we also find that an agent is the cause behind that result.
- – - – - –
Effect A has never been described as the result of Cause X.
Cause X has never been described as creating Effect A.
Cause Y has regularly been described as creating Effect A.
Effect A has regularly been described as a result of Cause Y.
- – - – - –
Tell me why should we favor Cause X as being the force behind Effect A when Cause X has absolutely no empirical inferences whatsoever leading to it, while Cause Y has all empirical inferences leading to it?
Are empirical inferences no longer important in science? I do not ask this question rhetorically. Do empirically-based inferences still serve the primary role for drawing conclusions in science, or not?
If they do, then why would we prefer Cause X over Cause Y.
?
- – - – - – -
From the original Abel paper regarding the observable presence of choice contingency within the sequencing of nucleotides in DNA (i.e. FSC Functional Sequence Complexity).
Testable hypotheses about FSC
What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:
Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.
We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.
The fundamental contention inherent in our three subsets of sequence complexity proposed in this paper is this: without volitional agency assigning meaning to each configurable-switch-position symbol, algorithmic function and language will not occur. The same would be true in assigning meaning to each combinatorial syntax segment (programming module or word). Source and destination on either end of the channel must agree to these assigned meanings in a shared operational context. Chance and necessity cannot establish such a cybernetic coding/decoding scheme [71].
Upright BiPed [103]
Adel,
They are not even wrong, what they say is irrelevant to biology. Look at the excerpt you quoted:
As a description of cybernetics, this is may be OK, but it contains no new insights. The problem I have with the paper is that the authors presuppose, as you do, that biological processes mirror human symbolism and language and they’re stretching that analogy at length. The relevance of human-like agency to biology is not something to be assumed: it remains to be proven. Mere repitition of that speculation brings nothing new to the table.
I repeat:
StephenB [108]:
On the contrary, methodological naturalism is a recently coined term that distinguishes between “philosophical naturalism,” which contends that nature is all there is, from the scientific method, which has for centuries restricted scientists to the study of nature.
I would appreciate seeing some evidence for that claim.
If you think Galileo or Newton invoked magic, witchcraft, or miracles in their scientific publications, please give examples.
CannuckianYankee [107]:
Two of the most prestigious scientific journals are Science and Nature. Both publish original research and commentary on all aspects of science. The idea that biologists control their editorial policies is ludicrous.
CannuckianYankee [106]:
My definition of supernatural: caused by magic, witchcraft, or miraculous interventions by imaginary beings, including angels, demons, or deities. (That list is subject to additions.)
You made the claim, but it is false. See my post to StephenB @113.
Scientists consider all of nature the purview of natural causes.
Adel,
Symbol systems are not a product of humanity, they are an product of agents.
The error is yours.
Upright BiPed [from 110]
“Ten minutes after you pointlessly insinuated that one should use caution regarding peer-reviewed articles from TheoBioMed (yet I can imagine you have no concerns with their articles that support your metaphysics) you then went to another thread and posted a freakin’ Wiki article in support of the rise of complexity. You also posted another article that, by all observation, wasn’t peer-reviewed nor published in a journal of any kind. You then come back to this thread to deride TheoBioMed a little more.”
Yup. I’m flattered at you keeping tabs on me like that, but really I did not post those links as scientific proof, I posted them as easy-to-follow explainations of a point I was trying to make. Though it seems I’m being pulled up on there too.
Upright BiPed [from 111]
“All organisms on this planet have commonalities. Those could be evidence of common descent or they could be evidence of common design.
Neither is the point. Surely you can understand this.”
I thought the point of the video is not just that two species of salamanders share commonalities – they actively are related to each other. Natural selection has taken a single species and made it two distinct species. Surely this counts as evidence of Darwinian evolution, and against the idea that individual features – the very defining features which separate us, are the result of design, isn’t it?
“you do realize, don’t you, that no person has ever produced even the slightest shred of empirical evidence for inanimate matter organizing a function by means of symbolically-encoded instructions?”
Inanimante matter? Are we talking evolution or abiogenesis here?
“you must also realize that in every instance within the history of mankind in which we find inanimate matter organized into a function by means of symbolic information, we also find that an agent is the cause behind that result.”
Ummm, okay. I’ll go along with that. But so what? Just because this is the case (if indeed it is so) with inanimate matter, why should it be the case with living matter?
As for the null hypothesis, all very impressive I’m sure, but slightly over my head.
Though, can I ask for evidence of design in nature? Please note I am not asking for criticisms of ‘Darwinian evolution’. It does not support one theory to attack an opposing one. But do you know of any studies which show an organic feature having been actively designed?