Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New Kansas Science Standards Redefine “Science”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Go here and you’ll be able to download a “Comparison Document” that shows how the new Kansas Science Standards deviate from the old. The change that particularly struck me was the following:

Old characterization of science: “scientific knowledge describes and explains the natural world.”

New characterization of science: “scientific knowledge describes and explains the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces.”

Besides defining intelligent design out of existence, this new definition defines what have traditionally been regarded as distinctly human traits, such as free will and consciousness, which science studies, also out of existence.

It’s all to the good that the scientific materialists have introduced this ideologically charged definition of science, perhaps not for the Kansas students who have this mischaracterization of science foisted on them, but for the broader purpose of hashing out just what is the nature of science and whether it should be defined reductionistically and materialistically.

Questions:

  • What is matter?
  • What is energy?
  • What are forces?
  • Why should we think these are adequate for scientific inquiry?

Materialistic answers to these questions are insupportable in the wider public square. Indeed, try to justify the “inalienable rights” ascribed in the Declaration of Independence not in terms of a creator but in terms of “material forces.” It doesn’t work.

As one colleague pointed out, like the Fugitive Slave Act, policies and laws like this point up the bad faith of those who implement them. The scientific materialists are overreaching themselves and setting themselves up for a fall.

Comments
franky, I think it very troubling you say this:
In fact, if we had this much trouble forming genetic trees for the animals, common descent and the ToE would be instantly falsified.
Then you read an article where they're seeing multiple bushes, not a tree. They even discuss the biases used to resolve this bad picture for Darwinists like long-branch attraction. “Thus, a priori expectations of obtaining fully resolved topologies combined with the use of large amounts of data (which generate high support values) can make trees out of bushes.” And it keeps getting worse: "recent analyses of some key clades in life’s history have produced bushes and not resolved trees." "The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted." "Wolf and colleagues omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom" "The evidence presented here suggests that large amounts of conventional characters will not always suffice, even if analyzed by state-of-the-art methodology." They even discuss the "high frequency of independently evolved characters" aka convergent evolution. Yet after all that in perfect contrast to your previous statement you dismiss it with:
Are you surprised that the resolution on our analysis of past events is not perfect?
Perfect? No surprise there. Not meeting Darwinist expectations? No surprise there either. I think it would help the conversation to differentiate between Darwinian Common Descent and Common Descent compatible with ID hypotheses (which is fine with the above picture). For example, you wouldn't expect to find the same information being used in divergent lines from a Darwinian viewpoint if they're geographically isolated. Chromosomal sex determination in the platypus was discovered to be a combination of mammal and bird systems. Yet TO says: "birds are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs in the Jurassic about 150 million years ago, and that mammals are thought to have evolved from a reptile-like group of animals called the therapsids in the Triassic about 220 million years ago. No competent evolutionist has ever claimed that platypuses are a link between birds and mammals." Then there's spindle cell neurons in humans and whales. The sea urchin has genes that in humans are involved in detecting sight and sound. etc etc Every time the convergent evolution storytelling card is played...you'd think Darwinist would have run out of cards in that deck by now. BTW, I think it best to move the conversation to this new thread... https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-new-and-improved-tree-of-life/ ...since this page has gotten buried.Patrick
February 23, 2007
February
02
Feb
23
23
2007
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Franky172: Assuming genetic information is passed on vertically, via reproduction, I believe that yes, common ancestry requires a “nested hierarcy” or a tree shape of life. You seem to believe otherwise. Why is that? Science tells me otherwise. Ya see NH is a mental construct based on characteristic traits. And we know that characteristic traits can be reversed. Common Descent does NOT have a direction with respect to traits. We have populations A, B, C, D (possessing unique character traits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7) They are all nested under hypothetical population Z (acquired trait 1) with A & B being under hypothetical population X (acquired 2) and C & D being under hypothetical population Y (acquired 3). So draw Z diverging into X & Y with X diverging into A & B with Y diverging into C & D. A- 124 B- 125 C- 136 D- 137 (A acquired 4, B acquired 5, C acquired 6 and D acquired 7) Nice neat nested hierarchy. NH based on Common Descent depends on immutable characteristics. IOW there wasn’t anything preventing the following: A- 124 B- 25 C- 36 D- 137 (Oops B & C lost 1) What happened to the nested hierarchy? Neither B nor C would be placed in a set under Z. Therefore Common Descent does NOT lead to a nested hierarchy. If all the alleged transitionals and intermediates were still alive we wouldn't see a NH. Most sets would not be distinct and we would have an overlapping of characteristic traits among groups on the same level. Overlapping is NOT permitted in NH. Read Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" chapter 6 for a thorough refutation of NH as evidence for Common Descent. Many people are convinced by the data that we did not land on the moon - is that a “scientific statement”? Hearsay Franky172: According to those people their claims are “based on evidence”. You believe it to be hearsay, that’s fine. But they call their statements “scientific”, and since they say they are based on the data, we should teach them in science class, yes? Are those people scientists? No. Do they have scientific data? No. And please reference the scientific data that Dawkins claims shows there isn't a "God". Franky172: So, you believe the caliber of the scientist determines whether or not their statements are scientific? I have already told you what determines whether or not a scientist's statements are scientific. And if testable and falsifiable predictions are a requirement then the ToE is not science and doesn't make any scientific statements. But I still say you are confusing a scientific statement with a scientific theory.Joseph
February 23, 2007
February
02
Feb
23
23
2007
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Joseph Umm Common Ancestry does NOT require a “tree of life”. Assuming genetic information is passed on vertically, via reproduction, I believe that yes, common ancestry requires a "nested hierarcy" or a tree shape of life. You seem to believe otherwise. Why is that? That is utterly false. Common ancestry would just fine if we didn’t have a nested hierarchy. Assuming that genetic information is passed from generation to generation and descent with modification is the driving force of evolution, a tree of life is the only form of life common ancestry is compatible with. I do not believe I am in the minority on this point. Hearsay According to those people their claims are "based on evidence". You believe it to be hearsay, that's fine. But they call their statements "scientific", and since they say they are based on the data, we should teach them in science class, yes? Is it based on scientific data? According to Dawkins it is. But a Nobel Prize winner who gave us QM? So, you believe the caliber of the scientist determines whether or not their statements are scientific? No. No matter what the data it can and will be explained away. I believe that I have pointed out several potential observations that would falsify the tree of life. But again we can agree to disagree on this point, but it seems silly to continue discussion of whether or not a certain claim is "scientific" if we do not agree that in order for claims to be scientific (as Dr. Humphrey’s apparently does) that they must make testable and falsifiable predictions.franky172
February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
It should be noted that nested hierarchy was used as evidence for a common design and all the Darwinists did was change "archetype" to "common ancestor". And that Darwin didn't account for nested hierarchy by calling on Common Descent. He used well placed extinction events to account for the distinct categories of well-defined traits.Joseph
February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Umm Common Ancestry does NOT require a "tree of life". Franky172: common ancestry is only compatible with a nested hierarchy That is utterly false. Common ancestry would just fine if we didn't have a nested hierarchy. One would only expect a nested hierarchy from common ancestry if and only if derived characteristic traits are immutable. And we know that isn't so. No one should expect an ERV to remain intact enough to be used as a genetic marker all the while other genetic changes are occuring that drive the divergence. That they exist should give one pause as to A) what they really are and B) why did they remain conserved in light of what we know about chromosomal rearrangements during meiosis. Also not one biologist who supports common ancestry can scientifically support it. Franky172: I believe Dr. Behe would disagree with you. It doesn't matter who disagrees with me. It does matter what they can scientifically demonstrate. And I know that even Dr Behe cannot demonstrate what it is that accounts for the physiological and anatomicaldifferences observed between chimps and humans. FRanky172: Many people are convinced by the data that we did not land on the moon - is that a “scientific statement”? Hearsay Franky172: Is the statement “there is no God.” a scientific statement (c.f. Dawkins and others)? Is it based on scientific data? FRanky172: and should we teach our children the personal views (statements) of scientists even if they are themselves not “scientific” in our science classes? The kids deserve to know about the scientists behind the "knowledge" they are being given. Dawkins doesn't seem to do much in the way of science so the kids don't even have to know about him. But a Nobel Prize winner who gave us QM? Yes they should know about him, as well as Newton, Galileo, Copernicus (Creationists refuting a long-standing scientifically held geocentric world view) and that Linneaus was trying to define the "Created Kind". Franky172: So you agree that common descent is in principle falsifiable, No. No matter what the data it can and will be explained away. The fossil record is 95% marine inverts. In that vast bulk the ONLY sign of Common Descent is a barnicle "evolving" into a barnicle! ALL observations point to wobbling stability and that sexual reproduction allows for a wider variation possibility but it absolutely kills any real evolution. Chimps and humans were once thought to be only 1% genetically different. We bought it even though it was done with a very small sample and via suspect methodology. Now the data shows 6% difference in the genes alone. Soon the data will show that in order for that divergence to even have a chance to be real multiple genetic substitutions would have had to have been fixed in every generation. And you know what? Common ancestry will not be phased...Joseph
February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Patrick 1. Darwinism is true. 2. The data doesn’t correspond to our expectations. 3. Thus HGT MUST be capable of rendering the picture we see. It's not clear to me what argument you are making. Under what assumptions does the ToE rely that make the prediction of a tree of life accurate? Would the ToE predict a tree of life if genetic information could be passed horizontally between, say ducks and cows? Further, why does the genetic-based tree of life assumption hold so well at the macro-scopic level, but dissolve away at the microscopic level where we are already aware that HGT is a powerful factor and it has effects that make drug resistance spread more quickly? Does the ToE predict a tree of life when HGT plays a significant role? No. Indeed, the authors of the paper you posted previously make the case that algorithms can form trees out of any data presented to them, so this leads us to having multiple conflicting trees at the prokaryote level. What is interesting to note is that for creatures where we are sure that descent with modification is the primary force behind genetic modification (i.e. animals), all of these genetic trees developed agree with one another - i.e. (to quote the paper you presented) "it would be perverse to claim that Darwin's TOL hypothesis has been falsified for animals (the taxon to which he primarily concerned himself)". In fact, if we had this much trouble forming genetic trees for the animals, common descent and the ToE would be instantly falsified. So far this has not happened. Even more: Are you surprised that the resolution on our analysis of past events is not perfect?franky172
February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
That the tree of life is “messy” at the bottom lends credence to the notion that horizontal gene transfer played a much more significant role in pre-cellular life than was previously thought.
1. Darwinism is true. 2. The data doesn't correspond to our expectations. 3. Thus HGT MUST be capable of rendering the picture we see. Even more: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040352Patrick
February 22, 2007
February
02
Feb
22
22
2007
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
Patrick You might find this interesting: Very. That the tree of life is "messy" at the bottom lends credence to the notion that horizontal gene transfer played a much more significant role in pre-cellular life than was previously thought. In fact, it appears that the basics of inheritance and genetics as originally understood by Mendel et al. do not follow standard assumptions at these pre-biotic levels. As the abstract states, for life forms where descent with modification is not the primary mechanism of genetic modification we should find the "tree" to be in quite some dissaray.franky172
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
franky, You might find this interesting: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0610699104v1Patrick
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Joseph Here’s the scenario: An ERV gets “locked in” to the genome of a racoon-like population. Part of that pop. becomes racoons. Another part goes on to give rise to the primates. The lineage that gives rise to the first primates loses the ERV. However another portion of the population keeps it. Thus the ERV is lost in one lineage. The same happens with all primate lineages except the lineage to humans. But by cross-correlating this genetic information with other genetic markers, fossils, and other information we can currently form a tree-like structure, if a sudden shift were to occur, like finding the same ERVs in widely separated species, but not in the intermediary or ancestral species, the tree structure would break, pretty much falsifying common ancestry. Also, it's interesting to note that while it may be true that both common ancestry and special creation are compatible with this tree like structure of life, common ancestry is only compatible with a nested hierarchy, while special creation is compatible with pretty much every observation possible. ERVs are an especially weak argument. To think that an ERV would remain virtually intact I believe that most ERVs are subject to neutral genetic drift. This does not change their usefulness. The laws that govern nature are perhaps one of the best evidences for a designer. You seem to want to make a 'scientific' claim: i.e. that the laws of the universe were designed by some power. Is this the case? What experiments can we perform that would falsify this claim? Oil wells- what, about 10% of what is drilled gives oil? Yeah old-earth geology appears to be as good as guessing. Perhaps we should inform Exxon-Mobil that they can make more money with divining rods instead of wasting salaries on geologists. A scientific hypothesis and a scientific statement are two different things. One is borne of the data (the statement) and the other needs to be tested (the hypothesis). I find it difficult to discern what makes a "scientific statement" "scientific" other than that you think it is "borne of the data". Many people are convinced by the data that we did not land on the moon - is that a "scientific statement"? Is the statement "there is no God." a scientific statement (c.f. Dawkins and others)? and should we teach our children the personal views (statements) of scientists even if they are themselves not "scientific" in our science classes? Also not one biologist who supports common ancestry can scientifically support it. I believe Dr. Behe would disagree with you. And yes I would say that common descent should have been falsified decades ago. That it isn’t just goes to show that it can’t be. So you agree that common descent is in principle falsifiable, but believe that a cabal of evolutionists refuses to see the evidence?franky172
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Franky172: So you think that if ERV sequence similarities were found across raccoons and humans, but not in great apes, this would not pose a problem for common descent. I believe you are in the minority here. Here's the scenario: An ERV gets "locked in" to the genome of a racoon-like population. Part of that pop. becomes racoons. Another part goes on to give rise to the primates. The lineage that gives rise to the first primates loses the ERV. However another portion of the population keeps it. Thus the ERV is lost in one lineage. The same happens with all primate lineages except the lineage to humans. ERVs are an especially weak argument. To think that an ERV would remain virtually intact and in the same location in the same chromosome for some illions of generations is nothing more than "grasping for straws". From what we know about meiosis and chromsomal recombinations that argument should never be used. The laws that govern nature are perhaps one of the best evidences for a designer. That has been so for hundreds of years. And that is because the thought that sheer dumb luck could pull such a thing together is not only a science stopper but also goes against all experience. In the book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty by Morris Kline, Kline states that these scientist-mathematicians (Newton, Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler) believed that "God had designed the universe, and it was to be expected that all phenomena of nature would follow one master plan. One mind designing a universe would almost surely have employed one set of basic principles to govern all related phenomenon." Oil wells- what, about 10% of what is drilled gives oil? Yeah old-earth geology appears to be as good as guessing. A scientific hypothesis and a scientific statement are two different things. One is borne of the data (the statement) and the other needs to be tested (the hypothesis). Also not one biologist who supports common ancestry can scientifically support it. And yes I would say that common descent should have been falsified decades ago. That it isn't just goes to show that it can't be.Joseph
February 20, 2007
February
02
Feb
20
20
2007
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
Joseph Similarities can be explained by mechanisms other than common ancestry. So you think that if ERV sequence similarities were found across raccoons and humans, but not in great apes, this would not pose a problem for common descent. I believe you are in the minority here. And if you are not sure what I am referring to than I suggest you do some research. de Beer wrote about in back in 1971, so you’re only 36 years behind. There is really no reason to get snippy. I will look into this. Do you believe that this evidence falsifies common descent? i.e. that common descent is in principle falsifiable? It follows from the greatest scientists who ever graced this planet. It follows from observations that like-charged objects repulse, with the only exception is when an intelligent agency is involved. I observe that if I place objects on the bottom of a small sphere (assume in a vaccuum in space), they fall off, unless my intelligent agency is involved holding them there; therefore the force of gravity holding people to the botton of the earth is evidence of intelligent agency. Do you believe that this argument follows? Dr Humphreys- Creation in the Physics Lab Before we continue, Dr. Humphreys evidently agrees that good science needs to make falsifiable and testable predictions. Do we agree that this is the case? Book- “Forbidden Archeology”. I will have to look into this. But do you believe that this evidence falsifies common descent? i.e. that common descent is in principle falsifiable? And seeing that no one has repeated the alleged evolution of humans from some ape-like or chimp-like population I take it you now see that the theory of evolution deson’t fit your definition. That we do not directly repeat the past in test-tubes does not show that the ToE is not scientific; we do not directly repeat the past in geology, astronomy, and many other sciences, but these sciences still manage to make testable falsifiable and repeatable claims. As for fossils- we don’t even know how the fossil record was formed. Much of it screams of catatrophes but catastrophes negate the uniformitarian notion of long ages to lay down sediments. It is certainly possible in principle that the assumptions underlying geology are incorrect; if we begin to use other assumptions that better predict future finds in the strata of the earth, our current assumptions will be discarded. Perhaps we should ask Exxon Mobil to switch from using the common uniform-assumptions to find oil deposits to using young earth catastrophism. And the bottom line is I don’t think anything can falsify common ancestry. I have presented several possible observations that I believe pretty much every biologist in the world agrees would pose a significant problem for common ancestry; you seem to believe otherwise. That is fine, we can differ on whether or not a specific claim is scientific, but do we agree that in order for claims to be scientific (as Dr. Humphrey's apparently does) that they must make testable and falsifiable predictions?franky172
February 19, 2007
February
02
Feb
19
19
2007
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Franky172: Before we continue, do we agree that SINE and ERV events are (a) evidence for common ancestry, and (b) provide possible refutation of common ancestry (if, say, humans and raccoons shared ERV markers where other great apes did not, this would pose significant problems for common descent). No. Evidence for Common Ancestry needs to explain the DIFFERENCES observed. Similarities can be explained by mechanisms other than common ancestry. Common ancestry is in trouble because alleged homolgous structures are not controlled by homologous genes. IOW we see organisms with similar genes give rise to different structures and organisms with dissimilar genes give rise to similar structures. And if you are not sure what I am referring to than I suggest you do some research. de Beer wrote about in back in 1971, so you're only 36 years behind. So when we look at atoms we would expect to see specifications that have to be accurate and very precise. Franky172: Specifications of what, exactly? And why does an existing consciousness explain this observation better than a pre-existing “deist” consciousness, or, perhaps, random luck. Random luck is a science stopper and THAT is what the materialistic anti-ID postion is, but we don't have ANY data to support that premise. However we do have evidence of designing agencies using specified parameters in their designs. Random luck MAY be able to pull one of the forces out of its butt, but all four? And never mind that all the constants, that are independent of the laws themselves, also have to be "just right", or no living organisms and perhaps no universe. In the nuleus of an atom we have the “strong nulcear force”. Franky172: You believe the “strong nuclear force” is evidence for the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. Why? I do not understand how this follows. It follows from the greatest scientists who ever graced this planet. It follows from observations that like-charged objects repulse, with the only exception is when an intelligent agency is involved. Dr Humphreys- Creation in the Physics Lab
Well, a good scientific theory is one which makes predictions, and it was exciting to hear about several models of yours, based on creation, which generated successful predictions. One model was based on 2 Peter 3:5, which talks about how God made the earth, and I applied that. I took that as a clue, and had an idea about how God might have started out the earth’s magnetic field. And then I found that worked fairly well and it gave the right strength for the earth’s magnetic field. So I then asked myself, ‘Perhaps God used the same method to make the other bodies in the solar system, the sun and the moon and the planets?’ So I calculated the fields of all the planets that we had already explored up to that time, which was 1984, and the theory gave right values for those planets also. I published these results in a Creation Research Society Quarterly article in December, 1984, and in that article I said that a good test of my theory would be to check out what the strength of the fields of the planets Uranus and Neptune were relative to my theory. For Uranus, the evolutionary predictions were generally about 100,000 times less than my published predictions, so I thought it was a good test. So, what was the result when Voyager finally made the measurements? The result was smack in the middle of my prediction, and 100,000 times greater than the evolutionary predictions. So the creation model was the clear winner in that case. And for Neptune as well. Yes, that’s right. Did you get any comments from evolutionists about these fulfilled predictions? Yes. Stephen Brush, a fairly well known anti-creationist in the United States, wrote to me after the first prediction came true and I had mentioned this in an ICR Impact article. He said he was basically trying to find some way around the fact that I had made a prediction, and I wrote him a polite letter back and tried to explain things to him. He wrote another letter back and that was the end of the correspondence. But about six months later, an article by him appeared in Science magazine. The gist of it was that ‘Well, predictions are not really a way to do good science’, so he was basically backing down from the classical scientific view that predictions are a good way to validate a theory.
Also we have found artifacts in strata dated well before humans were supposed to be around. Franky172: Link? Book- "Forbidden Archeology". And seeing that no one has repeated the alleged evolution of humans from some ape-like or chimp-like population I take it you now see that the theory of evolution deson't fit your definition. All of its "tests" are subjective. Not one of the tests deals with the differences observed. And we cannot repeat what we think happened. Heck we don't even know, because we haven't tested the premise, whether or not ANY mechanism can account for those observed differences. As for fossils- we don't even know how the fossil record was formed. Much of it screams of catatrophes but catastrophes negate the uniformitarian notion of long ages to lay down sediments. We know that fossilization requires a rather quick burial. And the bottom line is I don't think anything can falsify common ancestry. ALL observation points to sexual reproduction as being a stopper of Common Descent, yet the premise still endures:
Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.
(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)
Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang. Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times. It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.--geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti
Joseph
February 19, 2007
February
02
Feb
19
19
2007
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Falsificationism Putting aside the supposed problems with falsification as a solution to the demarcation problem, do we agree that the working definition of science most scientists utilize involves concepts such as testability, falsifiability, and repeatability? DNA similarities (markers) You might make the case that some DNA markers may be indicative of common design, but many others are not, including SINE, and ERV events. Regardless, do we agree that there are significant pieces of DNA evidence that if uncovered would falsify common descent? as well as morphological similarities are also evidence for a Common Design. I disagree, but I thought we were talking about the falsification of commondescent; not common design. And Common Descent does NOT say that segements of DNA would stay around intact enough to be used as a genetic marker. Before we continue, do we agree that SINE and ERV events are (a) evidence for common ancestry, and (b) provide possible refutation of common ancestry (if, say, humans and raccoons shared ERV markers where other great apes did not, this would pose significant problems for common descent). Also if common ancestry were indicative of reality we would see similar structures, ie alleged homologs, being controlled by similar genes and via similar developmental pathways. Yet we do NOT see that. I'm not sure what you are referring to. The BEST that scenario can hope for is to refute the HISTORY of LIVING ORGANISMS. Not that one population “evolved” from another- ie Common Descent. Let us presume that by common descent I mean "common descent as currently understood in the tree of life". All it means was that humans died and then wound up in that strata. But this would be extremely difficult to explain if it happened often, as it should have if humans were around before dinosaurs. Also we have found artifacts in strata dated well before humans were supposed to be around. Link? So when we look at atoms we would expect to see specifications that have to be accurate and very precise. Specifications of what, exactly? And why does an existing consciousness explain this observation better than a pre-existing "deist" consciousness, or, perhaps, random luck. In the nuleus of an atom we have the “strong nulcear force”. You believe the "strong nuclear force" is evidence for the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. Why? I do not understand how this follows. All of that has been tested and found to be true. To falsify Planck all one needs to do is to show that protons can be added willy-nilly. This would falsify our understanding of particle physics; I find it difficult to believe that this would falsify a belief in an underlying consciousness. As for predictions, we have Dr Humphreys telling us that he correctly predicted the magnetic fields of a couple of gas giants by his reading of scripture. Cite? So by your “logic” the Bible can be a scientific authority. Why did you put the word "logic" in quotes? First, I don't think the word "authority" is appropriate here. What does it mean to be a scientific "authority" in this context? But second, does the bible make testable and falsifiable predictions regarding future discoveries? If so, then we can formulate testable theories based on the bible. Few believers appear willing to do this however. To clarify something - I do not suppose that only true statements can be "scientific" - theories of "young earth creationism" may also be scientific - they should predict the number, amount, and order of fossils discovered, how C-14 dating and other radioactive dating techniques match with varves, ice-cores, and tree-rings, etc. I do not believe that YEC's are correct, but I believe they have the capability to make scientific statements based on their hypotheses.franky172
February 18, 2007
February
02
Feb
18
18
2007
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
I know about Popper. But you should read the following: Falsificationism Franky172: I mentioned several pieces of evidence - both biological (DNA markers) and other (fossils) and discoveries that would falsify common descent. DNA similarities (markers)as well as morphological similarities are also evidence for a Common Design. And Common Descent does NOT say that segements of DNA would stay around intact enough to be used as a genetic marker. Also if common ancestry were indicative of reality we would see similar structures, ie alleged homologs, being controlled by similar genes and via similar developmental pathways. Yet we do NOT see that. IOW common ancestry should be falsified already. And fossils would not falisfy Common Descent. FRanky172: I do not see what this has to do with the fact that if fossils from, say, humans were found in strata prior to, say, dinosaurs this would falsify common descent. The BEST that scenario can hope for is to refute the HISTORY of LIVING ORGANISMS. Not that one population "evolved" from another- ie Common Descent. And again finding out-of-place fossils wouldn't do anything for the reasons already provided. IOW just because we were to find human fossils "below" dino fossils does NOT mean that humans lived before dinos. All it means was that humans died and then wound up in that strata. Also we have found artifacts in strata dated well before humans were supposed to be around. All of those are just handwaved away because they just don't fit the expectation. But back to Max Planck: "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” So when we look at atoms we would expect to see specifications that have to be accurate and very precise. We would also expect to see some or one situation that may defy "common sense", ie what we observe nature, operating freely, be able to accomplish. And we see both. In the nucleus of the atom are postively charged protons. Usually positive charged objects repel each other. But NOT in the nucleus of the atom. There the protons stay together and are arranged in a specific pattern such that one canNOT just add protons willy-nilly to make a larger nucleus. In the nuleus of an atom we have the "strong nulcear force". Which just happens to be the strongest of the four forces- weak nuclear, gravity and EM, being the other 3. We would find that these forces have to be just right in order to get a universe and in order to get a universe that will allow for and sustain complex living organisms. All of that has been tested and found to be true. To falsify Planck all one needs to do is to show that protons can be added willy-nilly. As for predictions, we have Dr Humphreys telling us that he correctly predicted the magnetic fields of a couple of gas giants by his reading of scripture. That prediction could have been falsified and it was also more accurate than the "mainstream" predictions for the same planets. So by your "logic" the Bible can be a scientific authority.Joseph
February 18, 2007
February
02
Feb
18
18
2007
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Joseph Do you have a citation that supports that premise? I believe most philosophers of science would agree that at bare minimum scientific statements must make predictions and be falsifiable. I believe Karl Popper was one of the first to note that falsifiability is a primary aspect of scientific statements. He has a wikipedia entry if you are interested. To me a scientific statement is one borne from years of scientific research. But people conclude ridiculous things all the time from scientific research. For example, Dawkins has evidently concluded that God does not exist - this does not make all such statements "scientific". Nonsense. Common ancestry can accomodate just about any data. I mentioned several pieces of evidence - both biological (DNA markers) and other (fossils) and discoveries that would falsify common descent. We can’t even test the premise that ANY mechanism can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. I thought we were talking about common descent - not whether NDE or ID is responsible. Out of place fossils is pure nonsense as a way of “testing” a biological theory. If you can’t find a way to test and falsify a biological theory with biological data it is a sure sign it isn’t a biological theory at all. I suggested several biological tests whose outcomes could falsify common descent. Fossils... I am aware of the problems with fossilization; I do not see what this has to do with the fact that if fossils from, say, humans were found in strata prior to, say, dinosaurs this would falsify common descent. [snip discussion of NDE/ID falsifiability] I did not think we were discussing NDE. I thought we were discussing common ancestry.franky172
February 17, 2007
February
02
Feb
17
17
2007
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
Franky172: Scientific statements must make testable predictions and be falsifiable. Do you have a citation that supports that premise? To me a scientific statement is one borne from years of scientific research. Franky172: There are a myriad of tests and potential observations that would falsify the common ancestry: Nonsense. Common ancestry can accomodate just about any data. We can't even test the premise that ANY mechanism can account for the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. The BEST we can do is to offer wishful speculation based on the assumption. Out of place fossils is pure nonsense as a way of "testing" a biological theory. If you can't find a way to test and falsify a biological theory with biological data it is a sure sign it isn't a biological theory at all. Fossils can’t tell us anything about a mechanism. Fossils can’t tell the difference between phenotypic plasticity and a mutation which causes a phenotypic change. Fossils can’t tell the difference between divergent and convergent evolution. Fossils can’t tell us anything about how the species originated. Just that it existed. Not every organism that has lived gets fossilized. IOW absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Fossilization requires a rapid burial of the organism to protect it from scavengers and weathering. Fossilization does not require millions of years. As for predictions, Dennett has already told us there is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time. This was echoed on the PBS series "Evolution", which was supported by the NCSE. Also if common ancestry were indicative of reality we would see similar structures, ie alleged homologs, being controlled by similar genes and via similar developmental pathways. Yet we do NOT see that.
The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments. Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis. I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.-- Dr Behe
Joseph
February 17, 2007
February
02
Feb
17
17
2007
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Joseph Is that it? Is that your rebuttal? Pretty much. It isn’t just the time and place. It is the context. IOW when one gives a speech while accepting perhaps the most prestigious science award, the context of the speech will be about science. You appear to be under the impression that the time, place, and context in which a statement is made can make a statement scientific. I disagree. Scientific statements must make testable predictions and be falsifiable. That would mean there are many statements made by evolutionists that are not scientific Do we agree that scientific statements need to be testable and falsifiable? Chimps and humans shared a common ancestor- neither testable nor falsifiable. Whales “evolved” from land animals- neither testable nor falsifiable. There are a myriad of tests and potential observations that would falsify the common ancestry: human fossils found prior to chimp fossils and their supposed ancestors, mismatches in SINE, ERV, and other DNA markers (unknown at the time of the original hypothesis), and several other criteria that the theory of common ancestry predicts and are fulfilled. Single-celled organisms “evolving” into something other than single-celled organisms- neither testable nor falsifiable. There is significant evidence that the origins of life were single-cellular, and although I am not very familiar with theories regarding the origins of multi-cellular life, there are several observations that could potentially falsify models of common ancestry - including remains from multi-cellular life found prior to evidence of single cellular life.franky172
February 17, 2007
February
02
Feb
17
17
2007
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
As are every State that does so. Coffee first, then post...Joseph
February 17, 2007
February
02
Feb
17
17
2007
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Franky172: I do not believe that the specific time or place at which a statement is given changes whether or not the statement is a “scientific” one. Is that it? Is that your rebuttal? It isn't just the time and place. It is the context. IOW when one gives a speech while accepting perhaps the most prestigious science award, the context of the speech will be about science. Can you present any scientific data to the contrary? Franky172: No. Because it is not a scientific statement - as stated it is neither testable nor falsifiable. That would mean there are many statements made by evolutionists that are not scientific because they are neither testable nor falsifiable. IOW just about everything the ToE stands for fits that mold. Chimps and humans shared a common ancestor- neither testable nor falsifiable. Whales "evolved" from land animals- neither testable nor falsifiable. Single-celled organisms "evolving" into something other than single-celled organisms- neither testable nor falsifiable. So the bottom-line is if Kansas is going to teach the ToE in public schools then they are pushing non-scientific standards. As are every State that does so. Thanks Franky172, you have helped clear this up.Joseph
February 17, 2007
February
02
Feb
17
17
2007
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
Joseph The first clue would be that he was accepting perhaps the most prestigious science award there is. I do not believe that the specific time or place at which a statement is given changes whether or not the statement is a "scientific" one.franky172
February 16, 2007
February
02
Feb
16
16
2007
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
To Franky172: The first clue would be that he was accepting perhaps the most prestigious science award there is. (that is about as subtle a clue as a 98 mph brush-back pitch)Joseph
February 16, 2007
February
02
Feb
16
16
2007
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Joseph It was based on his years of scientific research. You know the scientific research which afforded him the Nobel Prize. Anyone can make any statements "based on their scientific research" - i.e. "there is no god", "i like cheese", "F = ma". I would argue that only a subset of such statements are actually "scientific". Can you present any scientific data to the contrary? No. Because it is not a scientific statement - as stated it is neither testable nor falsifiable.franky172
February 16, 2007
February
02
Feb
16
16
2007
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Franky172: Then what about his conclusion “We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” makes it a scientific statement, other than that it was uttered by a scientist? It was based on his years of scientific research. You know the scientific research which afforded him the Nobel Prize. (just as I stated earlier) Can you present any scientific data to the contrary?Joseph
February 16, 2007
February
02
Feb
16
16
2007
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Joseph Nope. That thought never crossed my mind. Then what about his conclusion "We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind." makes it a scientific statement, other than that it was uttered by a scientist?franky172
February 16, 2007
February
02
Feb
16
16
2007
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
A DI news release could read: "Is Kansas applying a double-standard when it comes to science?" You decide: Jack Krebs KCFS President: So, I repeat: the Kansas science standards say what science is: the study of the physical world. (emphasis added) ID is the study of the physical world:
Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.–Wm Dembski
So the bottom line is anyone who supports the Kansas science standards and opposes ID is basically employing a double-standard. Thanks Jack. PS ID does not say anything about the supernatural. As everyone knows even the materialistic anti-ID position requires either something beyond nature of the metaphysical stance that the universe "just is" (the way it is).Joseph
February 16, 2007
February
02
Feb
16
16
2007
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Fanky172: Are you suggesting that because Max Planck was a scientist, that therefore all of his statements were scientific? Nope. That thought never crossed my mind. Next question.Joseph
February 16, 2007
February
02
Feb
16
16
2007
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Joseph That has nothing to do with anything. PLanck’s quote was borne from YEARS of SCIENTIFIC research. Are you suggesting that because Max Planck was a scientist, that therefore all of his statements were scientific?franky172
February 16, 2007
February
02
Feb
16
16
2007
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
New characterization of science: “scientific knowledge describes and explains the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces.” Besides defining intelligent design out of existence, this new definition defines what have traditionally been regarded as distinctly human traits, such as free will and consciousness, which science studies, also out of existence.
Is there any evidence that human traits such as free will and consciousness exist in the absence of matter and energy? Can the same not be said of intelligent design which, to be observable at all, involves the purposeful manipulation of matter and energy?
Materialistic answers to these questions are insupportable in the wider public square. Indeed, try to justify the “inalienable rights” ascribed in the Declaration of Independence not in terms of a creator but in terms of “material forces.” It doesn’t work.
Are we agreed that the purpose of science is to study and explain the observable Universe, not to construct moral codes - to describe rather than prescribe? Do you accept as valid the naturalistic fallacy - that 'ought' cannot be logically derived from 'is'? As for justifying "unalienable rights" by appealing to a Creator, how do you answer the obvious rejoinder which is to cite the Euthyphro dilemma?1of63
February 16, 2007
February
02
Feb
16
16
2007
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT
BTW TimS this is a lie that you posted: Joseph, TOE can scientifically explain the physiological and anatomical differences observed between chimps and humans. And everyone has noticed that you didn't, because you can't, substantiate that claim.Joseph
February 16, 2007
February
02
Feb
16
16
2007
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply