Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is there only one brand of science?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a recent post over at Why Evolution Is True, Professor Jerry Coyne addresses what he regards as the “main incompatibility between science and religion.” Coyne is confident that science is a legitimate arbiter of truth because “there’s only one brand of science, with most scientists agreeing on what’s true,” whereas “there are tens of thousands of brands of religion, many making conflicting and incompatible claims.” In today’s short post, I’d like to explain why Coyne’s assertion about science is fundamentally mistaken.

First of all, “conflicting claims” and “conflicting brands” are two very different things. At any given moment, there are literally thousands of conflicting and incompatible claims being made within each field of science. That’s part of the way science is done. Scientists call these claims hypotheses. Scientific hypotheses are continually being tested, and the vast majority of them end up being falsified or substantially modified. However, multiple conflicting claims don’t overthrow the unity of science, because scientists all agree on a single method for testing those claims: the scientific method (illustrated below, image courtesy of Professor Theodore Garland and Wikipedia). Right?

Wrong. As philosopher Paul Feyerabend trenchantly argued in his work, Against Method, the notion that there is a fixed scientific method is a myth:

Against Method explicitly drew the “epistemological anarchist” conclusion that there are no useful and exceptionless methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. The history of science is so complex that if we insist on a general methodology which will not inhibit progress the only “rule” it will contain will be the useless suggestion: “anything goes”. In particular, logical empiricist methodologies and Popper’s Critical Rationalism would inhibit scientific progress by enforcing restrictive conditions on new theories.
(Preston, John, “Paul Feyerabend“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta.)

Professor Coyne might reply that while the scientific method evolves over the course of time, it is still something which all branches of science are more or less agreed on, at any given point in time. But this won’t do, either. Consider the sciences of cosmology, chemistry, biology, psychology and archaeology. Can anyone credibly claim that these branches of science all practice the same method? The only thing which these various disciplines could be said to share in common is that they continually generate hypotheses which can be be tested and experimentally falsified. Is falsifiability the hallmark of science, then? Alas, no: it turns out to be neither sufficient nor necessary to define science.

One problem with the falsifiability criterion is that it is far too loose: religions could also be said to generate hypotheses and discard them when they prove false. The history of the Millerite movement affords an excellent illustration of this point. In 1822, a Baptist lay preacher named William Miller became convinced that the return of Christ would take place around the year 1843. He gathered quite a following, and when 1843 passed without incident, another preacher named Samuel Sheffield Snow, who was a disciple of Miller, announced his conclusion that the Second Coming would take place on October 22, 1844, instead. Many of Miller’s followers were sadly disillusioned when this prophecy also failed to eventuate, but some formed new churches of their own, the most notable of which is the Seventh Day Adventist Church. October 22, 1844 was reinterpreted as the date when Christ entered the Holy of Holies in the heavenly sanctuary, and began his “investigative judgment” of God’s professed followers. The Second Coming will occur shortly after a “time of trouble,” when the Church will be persecuted worldwide.

Another problem with the falsifiability criterion is that not all scientists accept it, anyway. In a provocative 2014 article for Edge, theoretical physicist Sean Carroll described falsifiability as a scientific idea “ready for retirement.” Carroll argued that the virtue of any scientific theory lies in its ability to account for the data, regardless of whether the theory is empirically falsifiable or not. Carroll contended that if string theory and the theory of the multiverse are able to unify physics and account for our observations, then it makes perfect sense for scientists to accept these theories, even though we have no way of falsifying them:

In complicated situations, fortune-cookie-sized mottos like “theories should be falsifiable” are no substitute for careful thinking about how science works. Fortunately, science marches on, largely heedless of amateur philosophizing. If string theory and multiverse theories help us understand the world, they will grow in acceptance. If they prove ultimately too nebulous, or better theories come along, they will be discarded. The process might be messy, but nature is the ultimate guide.

Professor Carroll’s views remain highly controversial, and many prominent scientists vehemently disagree with them. In an article in Nature (vol. 516, pp. 321–323, 18 December 2014) titled, Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics, physicists George Ellis and Joe Silk concur with the verdict of theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, that “post-empirical science is an oxymoron,” and they conclude that “[t]he imprimatur of science should be awarded only to a theory that is testable.” Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that over the course of time, many scientific theories end up becoming immune to falsification, simply because they come to define an entire field. It is safe to say that atomic theory will never be overturned, because it defines the field of chemistry; and evolutionists would have us believe that their theory defines the science of biology, in a similar fashion. (Of course, it doesn’t; as Dr. Jonathan Wells has pointed out, if anything defines the science of biology, it’s cell theory, which it is safe to say will never be falsified, either.)

We have seen that the view that there is a single way of doing science is a historically naive notion, which forces the various branches of science into a straitjacket and overlooks their vital differences. But there is another, deep-seated flaw associated with the “single method” view. What it ignores is that within a given branch of science, there are often profound and ongoing differences between individual scientists as to how that branch of science should be practiced. This is true not only for the arcane science of theoretical physics, but also for sciences such as biology and psychology, as well. Wikipedia lists no fewer than 40 different schools of psychology, for instance. It is very hard to see what a radical behaviorist who denies the reality of mental states has in common with a cognitive psychologist, for whom mental states play a vital explanatory role. What separates these schools of thought is not just their theories, but their whole view of what it means to be a human being. In particular, is what we call “thinking” merely a complicated piece of behavior, or is it something which we need to posit in order to explain our behavior?

The example cited above might be dismissed by people who regard psychology as a “soft” science. But nobody can deny that biology is a bona fide science. And what is becoming increasingly apparent, in the twenty-first century, is that the field of biology is fragmenting. The ongoing feud between Darwinists and adherents of Motoo Kimura’s neutral theory of evolution may perhaps be papered over. But it cannot be denied that evolutionary biologist Eugene Koonin’s appeal to “the logic of chance” and to multiverse theory, as a way of explaining “biological big bangs,” is far removed from conventional evolutionary theory. Professor James Shapiro’s concept of natural genetic engineering, which he touts as a new paradigm for understanding biological evolution, is another example of the fragmentation currently occurring within the science of biology. Dr. Michael Denton’s structuralism (an idea he borrows from the nineteenth century biologist Richard Owen), is an even more radical case in point, as it rejects historical explanations for a host of complex structures, in favor of “laws of form.” Lastly, it could be said that the Intelligent Design movement represents a fundamentally different approach to the science of biology from that favored by most scientists during the past 140 years – one in which intelligent agency plays a vital role in explaining biological systems which perform a highly specific function, but whose origin cannot plausibly be ascribed to either chance, necessity or some combination of the two.

The most that could be said for Coyne’s simplistic claim that there is “only one brand of science” is that within any branch of science, there may be long periods during which there is a “dominant paradigm” which dictates how that particular science should be practiced, and that there is a “family resemblance” between the various ways in which science is practiced, in different fields. Professor Coyne had the good fortune to grow up during a period when a single “dominant paradigm” governed the science of evolutionary biology. Now, the dominant paradigm has splintered; and perhaps Coyne would be well-advised to reconcile himself to Chairman Mao Zedong’s policy of “letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend.”

At any rate, what is beyond dispute is that Professor Coyne’s trumpeting of the methodological unity of science as a ground for making it the sole arbiter of truth can no longer be defended: it is philosophically naive, historically inaccurate and at odds with the way in which real science is done. Coyne’s diatribe against the “tens of thousands of brands of religion, many making conflicting and incompatible claims,” is equally ill-informed: almost 70% of humanity now adheres to just one of three religions (Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, which are all broadly monotheistic), and it is fair to say that the 800-million-odd adherents of folk and indigenous religions will probably be absorbed into one of these three religions (or Buddhism), with the rise of globalization. What’s more, the claims of Christianity, Islam and Judaism are certainly testable over the long-term, and all of these religions are potentially falsifiable by scientific discoveries. (I’ve previously described what would falsify my Christian faith, and the claims of Islam would be falsified if it could be shown that Muhammad was not a real person, while Judaism’s credibility depends critically on the long-term fate of the Jewish people.) In short: the claim that science occupies a uniquely privileged position as an arbiter of truth rests on a distorted view of both science and religion – and, I might add, it naively ignores the discipline of philosophy, which informs both endeavors.

What do readers think?

Comments
Hey Querius where is your computer model and theory you are required to present for testing like I did? Current models: http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/ Current theory: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/ Method: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-scientists-doubt-materialism-explains-consciousness/#comment-598589 Scientifically support your assertions. Like that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!GaryGaulin
February 26, 2016
February
02
Feb
26
26
2016
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT
Unbelievable. Your response in 77 has no connection to what I said in 76. Don't you see that? - I'm promoting the novel concept that you support your assertions with evidence. Your simply making an assertion is not evidence. Eventually brushing you off may be a result of your not supporting your assertions, but currently I'm merely drawing attention to your unsupported assertions. - My purpose in life is not to dig up volumes of evidence for you to ignore as you continue to make unsupported assertions as they pop into your head. Do your own homework. -QQuerius
February 26, 2016
February
02
Feb
26
26
2016
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
Querius, I am not sure what you are here to promote. But brushing off everything I said is a good sign that it is scientifically unreasonable. If you want to try prove me wrong then show me your scientific plan. If it is better than mine then I will have to go with yours. But you first must propose something reasonable. What exactly do you have?GaryGaulin
February 23, 2016
February
02
Feb
23
23
2016
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
GaryGaulin, What you wrote is a carnival of unsupported and vacuous assertions. Try taking each sentence above and providing even a paltry shred of evidence to support it. -QQuerius
February 22, 2016
February
02
Feb
22
22
2016
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT
See #7 and #8 for details on how ID has to go, or it goes nowhere: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/design-contest-with-cash-prize/#comment-598193 The computer models and theory I represent are the only things ID has for serious experimenters who make the science world go round. As a result that is now what most defines what ID scientifically explains. It's the power of science at work again. In this case the "it looks designed to me" arguments do not on their own travel from science lab to science lab by word of mouth or email. People are bored by the usual, or just plain hate ID because of it. It's also generally accepted that some in the ID movement are simply unreasonable. Doing so just joins them. No matter what you do the reason wins. And with this also being like one more act under the big-tent it's not my fault that the other acts put together that right away worked but is the sort of thing that loses its novelty with time. All else that was said and done is just fine to at least draw a crowd. But getting them to come back again after that is not so easy.GaryGaulin
February 22, 2016
February
02
Feb
22
22
2016
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
I only say it looks designed once it is established that no one else has any testable alternative and it meets the design criteria. GG:
You are so out of touch with science reality
Except that is how science works, Gary. See Newton's four rules of scientific investigation.Virgil Cain
February 22, 2016
February
02
Feb
22
22
2016
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
velikovskys:
Right, the study of design in nature is the study of the who, when ,how, and why not a separate question.
That doesn't follow from what I said. All of those are separate from whether or not design exists and whether or not we can study it. All of those questions come after we have determined design exists.Virgil Cain
February 22, 2016
February
02
Feb
22
22
2016
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Gary Gaulin is confused. For one ID does not require any supernatural explanations. For another intelligent causes work by manipulating nature for a purpose.Virgil Cain
February 22, 2016
February
02
Feb
22
22
2016
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
jerry: I find a lot of similarities between them and with the aid of a lot of colleagues who do not know my ID leanings, determine that nearly all members of the group could have descended from a population of bovids that existed 10-15 million years ago. Humans are just deuterostomes, tubes with appendages for shoving food into one end. Microevolution!Zachriel
February 22, 2016
February
02
Feb
22
22
2016
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
And you are also starting with the conclusion that our biological creator also created matter/energy without your ever providing any scientific evidence at all for that conclusion being true.
You used the term "creator" which ID does not use. The term is associated with the creation of the universe not necessarily life and life forms. In the bible of Judaism and Christianity the term creator is also associated with the creation of life but especially humans. Since we are not talking about religion but biology, a natural thing to assume is that you are associating the creation of the universe with the subsequent naturalistic appearance of life which many do. Many assume one flows from the other. ID does not make that assumption but mainly indicates it likely did not happen this way. So please try to understand what ID is about before criticizing ID.
Progress is made by taking things one step at a time. Not by giving up.
I have no idea what this means. No one in ID is giving up on anything.
Why are you showing me an apparently fictional example? Could not find a real one?
I was making the statement that anyone who is conducting research on genome mapping is doing ID science even if they hate what ID is about. We have a couple frequent commenters here who fit into that category. All I was doing is pointing this out. Again if you do not see this, then you should refrain from criticizing until you understand. It is obvious that you do not understand ID.
And what am I? Useless dirt that deserves to be spit-on?
Interesting comment given all the criticizing you have done without understanding what ID is about. And by the way, this site is not an official ID site. Yes, it has been set up to explain what ID is about but attracts people with all sorts of views both pro and con. My guess is that a lot of the pro ID people will not agree with my point of view on the world. I certainly do not agree with the view points of many of the pro ID people on every thing.jerry
February 22, 2016
February
02
Feb
22
22
2016
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Virgil: Well archaeologists do not study the who as the who is long gone. The "who" can be both an individual or a group of people, Otzi is an example of the individual And they study the design and all relevant evidence in order to determine the how, when and why. Right, the study of design in nature is the study of the who, when ,how, and why not a separate question.velikovskys
February 22, 2016
February
02
Feb
22
22
2016
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
Mung is good at showing why reasonable people with a good science background normally stay away from ID, they are not welcomed where real science work must at all cost be avoided. But with Michael Denton's book not being what they thought it was and all the protest against "naturalism" getting them in even bigger unforeseen trouble all is still going very well for myself, and lurkers of this blog who are likewise disgusted but at the same time amused by their self-defeating charade.GaryGaulin
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
Why are you showing me an apparently fictional example? You didn't type squat. Got it. And what am I? Useless dirt that deserves to be spit-on? Rhetorical question.Mung
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
jerry:
Second, to believe you can fathom how the creator works is incredible hubris. No one has a remote clue how the creator caused the universe to come into existence.
You just moved the goalposts into an area that the premise of the theory of intelligent design does not even require to be explained right now. And you are also starting with the conclusion that our biological creator also created matter/energy without your ever providing any scientific evidence at all for that conclusion being true. Progress is made by taking things one step at a time. Not by giving up. jerry:
Here is an example I made up several years ago of an ID scientist at work:
Why are you showing me an apparently fictional example? Could not find a real one? And what am I? Useless dirt that deserves to be spit-on?GaryGaulin
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
Constantly avoiding your responsibility to explain how intelligent cause works is a symptom of belief that how our creator works is somehow beyond scientific investigation
This is a nonsense statement. It is becoming obvious that you do not understand what ID is about and that you are trying to impose some distorted view on it. First, look around you and you will see millions of events each day that are caused by intelligent intervention. When you press the keys on your keyboard you are exhibiting an event with an intelligent cause. Try constructing a theory to explain how keyboard keys are depressed and how this theory will predict keyboard depression in the future using the four basic forces of physics to produce a specific comment on UD. An intelligent intervention is by definition a suspension of the four basic forces and the ways it can be done are infinite. So asking for a theory to explain intelligent behavior is a fool's errand. We have imperfect attempts at it with psychology and even behavioral biology but to ask anyone for how an intelligence created and then changed life forms is a stupid task. It could be accomplished a million different ways, all ad hoc. Second, to believe you can fathom how the creator works is incredible hubris. No one has a remote clue how the creator caused the universe to come into existence. We understand the four basic forces to some extent but no one has even a remote clue as to what actually cause the specific force to happen. If you believe that somehow life came about naturally and that changes in life forms happened naturally, then join those who are trying to substantiate that but don't criticize something you obviously do not understand. There is no theory of ID in the sense that there is a theory of plate tectonics or fluid mechanics or astro physics all of which flow from the four basic forces. ID is trying to evaluate events where these forces are over-ridden. What ID does is use all the tools of science in certain disciplines but allows different conclusions than normal science based on the likelihood that an intelligence most likely intervened somewhere. It is anything but a predictable event and maybe only happened once while in the disciplines I listed the events are almost infinite in number. It is also anything but methodological naturalism. Here is an example I made up several years ago of an ID scientist at work:
Make believe I am a scientist. Call me Professor Per. I secretly support ID. I do work mapping the genomes of bovid mammals because many of these animals are domesticated and I get support for this from the government. I find a lot of similarities between them and with the aid of a lot of colleagues who do not know my ID leanings, determine that nearly all members of the group could have descended from a population of bovids that existed 10-15 million years ago. In other words there is fairly conclusive proof that this family has descended from a population with a gene pool much larger than any of the genera gene pools through micro evolution processes. And in this time period of 10-15 million years they did not develop any new functional systems or any proteins that could not be reasonably be due to small changes to a proceeding protein that was in the original population. In other words all 130+ species developed by simple Darwinian processes that could be replicated much quicker artificially if the scientists had access to the original gene pool and with an occasional mutation or two. In other words while the work supported basic Darwinian processes, it also supported Behe’s edge of evolution concept. And while my colleagues are celebrating our achievement as scientific proof of the power of natural selection, I know that this achievement has basically undermined the power of naturalistic evolution as expressed in the latest synthesis. It is another nail in the coffin of naturalistic evolution because in all these opportunities no novel complex capabilities arose. Oh there were some interesting morphological changes but no new systems. The environment, separation of sub populations, genetic processes and natural selection just narrowed the original gene pool and produced a bunch of new species. So did I do ID science? Yes, Did I contribute to the ID agenda? Yes, Did I use CSI anywhere? Maybe, I found the lack of new FCSI in all these reproductive opportunities but I do not express it that way. Our team list all the changes and they are many that took place but none exceed that boundary that Behe hypothesized several years earlier. I know a modern Michael Behe will pounce on the data and come to the right conclusions. But my career is now in high gear and I am off to supervise a similar but much larger project on aves, a class and with much higher number of species. And I expect to find the same thing even if it takes 20 years. I am a hero to the evolutionary biology crowd but smile inwardly as they are really celebrating their down fall. I love many of these people who are very decent but have often wondered why there is so much hostility to something that to me seems so obvious. Not one person in the science community would say I wasn’t doing science. And yet we should all agree that I was doing ID science too. My point of view just leads me to occasionally conclude different things. After all I believe Darwinian processes do work to a limited degree. The reality is that if they ever suspected my motives or leanings I would have been fired or ostracized or not given the opportunities. The point I am making here is that even if the person I am describing did not believe in ID or had any leanings that way and did not have to suppress their inner leanings because they didn’t have any, they were doing ID research. But what if they find not only the gradual appearance of complex novel capabilities and the likely cause is some natural process but that there were several instances and that these examples are compelling. Well that is the risk or the opportunity that is taken and how the argument will be evaluated 30-50 years from now. Will Behe’s Edge of Evolution be supported or undermined? So there is no question that ID is scientific in at least this area and the difference between this and other science is small and is really only in the conclusions that one makes based on the data. And who knows if ID leanings may have led this person as a scientist to pursue different areas that an a non ID scientist would have never thought of.
The number of ways that ID science can be practiced is not endless but we could probably find hundreds of examples of how an ID scientist could work on the same issues as other scientists. This scientist would not be restricted to the conclusions he or she would make after the study was completed. For example, an ID scientist could work on protein folding experiments and theories. He could come to the same conclusions as an non-ID scientist he is working with. Both would conclude that viable folding proteins are incredibly rare. Such a finding would support ID hypotheses and no one has to claim they are ID scientists though one here is.jerry
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
LoL! @ Gary Gaulin- I only say it looks designed once it is established that no one else has any testable alternative and it meets the design criteria.
You are so out of touch with science reality that I suspect your condition is permanent.
How am I a strict follower of methodological naturalism?
Making your supernatural explanations exempt from scientific inquiry makes it easier for you to get away with saying "ID has never been about the designer nor the process used" and "But do tell how we are supposed to figure out how something that is beyond our capabilities to make was made when we can’t even do so with the artifacts we have, which we can make?" Constantly avoiding your responsibility to explain how intelligent cause works is a symptom of belief that how our creator works is somehow beyond scientific investigation, which is exactly what methodological naturalism teaches. If the opposite were true of the ID movement then the very first thing you and others would have done is get busy on your theory to explain how our creator (God) works, like I did. In my case I am NOT an adherent to methodological naturalism. I'm an example of what science looks like without it.GaryGaulin
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence. -- William A. Dembski
and
“Once specified complexity tells us that something is designed, there is nothing to stop us from inquiring into its production. A design inference therefore does not avoid the problem of how a designing intelligence might have produced an object. It simply makes it a separate question.” Wm. Dembski- pg 112 of No Free Lunch
We have to first determine design exists before we ask any other questions about it.
Intelligent design begins with a seemingly innocuous question: Can objects, even if nothing is known about how they arose, exhibit features that reliably signal the action of an intelligent cause? Wm. Dembski
Yes, they can. Most of the science of ID goes into determining whether or not design exists and where it exists.Virgil Cain
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
LoL! @ Gary Gaulin- I only say it looks designed once it is established that no one else has any testable alternative and it meets the design criteria. Also don't be upset because you were talking about things you didn't understand and were caught. How am I a strict follower of methodological naturalism? And why the need for a meltdown?Virgil Cain
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
Well archaeologists do not study the who as the who is long gone. And they study the design and all relevant evidence in order to determine the how, when and why.
And paleontologists, ichnologists, geologists and others study the changes that have occurred over time on this planet. But you're certainly not among them either, or helping. Instead of explaining how your "intelligent cause" works you're throwing insults while looking busy by finding new ways to chant "it looks designed to me". Your subjective opinion does not amount to a testable scientific theory. But from what I am discovering: to a strict follower of methodical naturalism like yourself the belief in unexplainable "supernatural" intervention seems like part of the scientific method or a whole new one where what you want to believe should be all anyone ever needs from you, scientific evidence is only required from everyone else.GaryGaulin
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
velikovskys:
What do you “study design in nature ” if not how,who, when, and why?
Well archaeologists do not study the who as the who is long gone. And they study the design and all relevant evidence in order to determine the how, when and why.Virgil Cain
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Virgil's: To be clear- ID does not prevent anyone from trying to answer the questions of “who, why, how and when”. Those are just separate questions from the main which is to detect and then study design in nature. What do you "study design in nature " if not how,who, when, and why?velikovskys
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
To be clear- ID does not prevent anyone from trying to answer the questions of "who, why, how and when". Those are just separate questions from the main which is to detect and then study design in nature. And guess what? We answer those other questions by doing that and putting all of the pieces together.Virgil Cain
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Hi Gary Gaulin:
If you are uninterested in explaining the “process used” then shame on all of you for having claimed to be representing a scientific organization.
You are very confused, Gary. ID isn't about the process because guess what? We don't have to know that before we can determine design exists. That comes AFTER. And guess what? Many archaeological finds fit that category- we don't know how the artifacts were made. But do tell how we are supposed to figure out how something that is beyond our capabilities to make was made when we can't even do so with the artifacts we have, which we can make?Virgil Cain
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Virgil Cain:
And ID has always been about the DESIGN. ID has never been about the designer nor the process used- Dembski NFL 2004
If you are uninterested in explaining the "process used" then shame on all of you for having claimed to be representing a scientific theory, from a scientific organization.GaryGaulin
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Evolution, like natural selection, is a result of processes like variation, fecundity and heredity.Virgil Cain
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Hi Gary Gaulin- Just cuz wikipedia sez that GAs model natural selection doesn't make it so. Try thinking for yourself. Geez. AGAIN- GAs are search heuristics that actively search for solutions to the problems they were designed to solve. NS is not a search and isn't actively doing anything. And ID has always been about the DESIGN. ID has never been about the designer nor the process used- Dembski NFL 2004Virgil Cain
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
MatSpirit- You have reading comprehension issues: “It started with Darwin and it has continued through today.”
So Darwin, who died in 1882, said that he had a step by step description of how ATP evolved when ATP wasn’t even discovered until 1929?
That isn't what I said. Try again.Virgil Cain
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
But the word "evolution" is for a process. Scientists can get annoyed by using it as a placeholder for one or more theories to explain how the (very well evidenced) process works: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution
Full Definition of evolution 1 : one of a set of prescribed movements 2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved 3 : the process of working out or developing 4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory 5 : the extraction of a mathematical root 6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
GaryGaulin
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Well said Jerry!
If there is one truth and religion is a search for this truth (my understanding of what religion is about), then religion should not conflict with science. What sometimes is offered up as a conflict is bad science. This is not to say there is not bad religion too. Especially, if there is one truth.
Bad science leads to such things as childisly complaining about a standard flow chart showing how even an infant figures out how things work or happened. Or complaining about "naturalism" while Querius and others wrap themselves in it by using the word "natural" to infer a beyond investivation supernatural entity into the word "designed" by stating "The ID approach is to investigate natural processes as if they were designed". People with normal reasoning skills can eventually figure out that the ID movement misled each other so badly it's best to stay away from whatever it is that they're promoting. The expected conflict between science and religion is from the bad ID science. Others have no such problems, don't need ID's. With the "theory of intelligent design" being premised for "intelligent cause" it is very cognitive science related. Being taken seriously in that field requires a useful computer model that matches reality. In that case the "theory" is in the "how it works" and other documentation that goes with the code. The "theory of intelligent design" then exists, that's it. Writing a science paper becomes optional. It then says the same thing as the how it works that's included with the code.GaryGaulin
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Jerry Coyne and Larry Moran have come out against the view that science is wedded to methodological naturalism Perhaps they are just being disingenuous. If you ask them why it works they'll probably appeal to the scientific method.Mung
February 21, 2016
February
02
Feb
21
21
2016
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply