Sober Rebukes Evolution’s Religion (Sometimes)

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 26, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The religion in evolution can be subtle and it can fool even sophisticated thinkers. Elliott Sober, for example, has recognized that religious premises are used by evolutionists. He says they don’t work because they rely on gratuitous assumptions. In his book Evidence and Evolution he writes the following:

Continue reading here.

Comments

"How long did the “Cambrian Explosion” take?" I believe Valentine narrowed it down to 5-10 million years.jerry_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

"What’s the difference?" Well Darwinian processes are based on Mickey Mouse and Intelligent Design are based on synthetic biology as being developed by MIT, Craig Venter and others.jerry_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

Lamark
Can I assume you mean to say that the truth is one straight arrow of correctness as regard’s human understanding?
No, of course not. An example. Some treatments for cancer have been shown to reduce survival rates when considered over larger sample and time scales then the original study that supported them. So no, there are deviations along the path of truth. Some take us backwards. But on a different level there is no going back. Cancer won't suddenly be thought of as being caused by deamons. Or inpure thoughts. Nobody will realise that the sun orbits the earth. People no longer need to wonder about the origin of species due to Darwin. Etc etc.
Consensus arguments are what youtube is there for.
I'm not surprised that you don't like consensus arguments. ID supporters on this site cannot come to a consensus about what ID is and is not, what it can and cannot do. Yet they still want their private version of "ID" to replace darwinism.Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

"Can you give me an example of a scientific understanding that got worse over time?" Can I assume you mean to say that the truth is one straight arrow of correctness as regard's human understanding? This is a silly argument. You're whole response is uninteresting to me with it's generalized and vague unstated and sort of banal assertions. Why would I get into this if it doesn't go anywhere solid? Get back to me with something interesting, I'm sure you can. So you know I'm not interested in consensus arguments. That's why I posted that quote for you last night on "answers for Judge Jones". Consensus arguments are what youtube is there for. Preach it to the choir on cdk's channel, they'll love you for it.lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Lamark
This will be ID’s contribution to the future of science, getting science back on track to what it really is; confirmation.
Can you give me an example of a scientific understanding that got worse over time? I.E. if science had it right originally with ID then why did it then go on to "get it wrong" with Darwinism? Has there ever been another case where the right answer was pushed back in favour of the wrong one? Or is ID a special case? As you had it your way for thousands of years this new "wrong" idea must have had some advantage of the older but correct idea? If not, why do you suppose it's accepted by almost all working scientists (who do science, not just book publishing).
Echidna, Isn’t it even more quaint that you INVENTED that I stated these are new issues?
When you say things like
There is a picture generated somewhere and I’m pretty sure it’s not the brain.
It sure does seem like you think you are the first to think of such "problems".Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Echidna, Isn't it even more quaint that you INVENTED that I stated these are new issues? Please read what I say and not what you wish I was saying.lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Lamark
To view it you need two terminals no matter how small the distance.
It's quaint that you think these are new issues. I'm afraid you've been pre-empted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind) by some considerable time!Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

"All that amazing circuitry and coordination just appeared as if the Sorcerer’s Apprentice waved his magic wand." We don't even know how sight works. What is looking at the picture? There is a picture generated somewhere and I'm pretty sure it's not the brain. It's been said there is no picture, and the circuitry in the brain is combining to give "you" the picture, but that can't be; that's describing a one terminal sight device. To view it you need two terminals no matter how small the distance. Did the brain alter the path of objects exterior to it as in the "double slit experiment"? No emanation from the subjects in the experiment was observed. This is information transfer alone. This points strongly to an "information" based spirit or spirit-mind, as being the center of what is "you". But why build all this complex electrochemical circuitry? Probably the brain and eyes are a necessary terminal on the circuit to connect up to a spirit mind. There's an aura around at least plants and humans, probably all animals. Look up the "Phantom leaf effect", in which the ghost of a cut off section of a leaf is caught on tape. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yx6PaLTKTk The truly IC evidence is sight and thought and changing particle paths via thought alone. This will be ID's contribution to the future of science, getting science back on track to what it really is; confirmation. Science just means imaginings are confirmed, nothing more. Focusing on material causation alone won't lead to the truth.lamarck_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

So, as this page no longer appears on the first page of posts on the UcD web site, no one is really going to read it. I suppose that means that he no longer has to back up his assertion that Sober uses religious assumptions.Hoki_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT}

Jerry, How long did the "Cambrian Explosion" take? What is your start point/date? What is your end point/date? How long in time between those two points/dates?Echidna-Levy_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

Sorcerer's Apprentice, magic wand, intelligent designer... What's the difference?Adel DiBagno_{July 3, 2009
July
07
Jul
3
03
2009
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT}

I believe all the current eyes were found in the Cambrian Explosion and no new eyes have developed since. Since there was nothing before the Cambrian that anyone can point to, all eyes would then have poofed out of nowhere. All that amazing circuitry and coordination just appeared as if the Sorcerer's Apprentice waved his magic wand. I always compared Darwinian evolution with the magic of Disney which is why I like the Sorcerer's Apprentice metaphor. Abracadabra.jerry_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

If anyone is interested, among many other sources, good reviews of evidence bearing on eye evolution can be found in abundance at http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/contents.php?vol=48&issue=8-9 which is the contents page of a special issue of The International Journal of Devolopmental Biology devoted to eye development. Although the articles are somewhat dated, they are all freely available as pdf files. What does evolution have to do with development? Read and find out.Adel DiBagno_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

William,
Unless one believes that blind nature generated an eye, why bother hypothesizing a completely non-scientific “story” about how it “could have” developed over billions of years, when there is simply no way to scientifically verify such a story?
(My emphasis) Why bother asking any questions about nature? Some of us are just more curious than others, I guess. Regarding verification, given that all of science is provisional, as behooves its empirical nature, all it can do is bring evidence to bear on an issue such as the origins of eyes. It's a work in progress.
Do you believe free will exists?
It's my working hypothesis!Adel DiBagno_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

William
Even if so, for most people, it seems to me, our inclinations, predilections, beliefs and a priori commitments to certain ideologies and views inform how we construct a hypothesis and drives our theories, and also informs how we go about setting up experiments and then how we interpret the facts.
Well, how would you like to see it done? What would you do differently? What research would you conduct that is not currently being conducted, presumably due to exiting predilections, beliefs and a priori commitments to certain ideologies? Can you get specific? Or are non-specific generalities as good as it gets?Echidna-Levy_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

William Nobody is stopping anybody from doing science from any viewpoint whatsoever. There are plenty of countries around the world run by theistic goverments. Who's stopping their scientists researching from a god centered perspective? What results so far?
Most of the proposed evolutionary explanations for everything from large breasts to giraffe necks to why men buy expensive sports cars are nothing more, it seems to me, than one non-scientific hypothesis after another rooted in the belief that naturalistic evolutionry theory is true.
How does ID explain those things then? The designer likes long necks? The designer likes large breasts? The designer likes sports cars?
There is no way to verify such a hypothesis scientifically;
And ID provides a way does it? No, I don't think so.Echidna-Levy_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

Adel said: "I think you are trying to salvage conflation of “belief” with “hypothesis.” I think there is a significant difference, based on historical scientific usage. Equivocation is not a good intellectual policy, in my opinion." And I think you are inordinately trying to seperate the hypothesis from the beliefs that generate it. Unless a hypothesis is generated ex nihilio in a belief vacuum, I don't see how a hypothesis can be separated from the beliefs - cultural, ideological and scientific - within which it is born. If one develops a hypothesis about the existence of aether, it is because one believes that the transmission of energy would require a substrate; if they had no beliefs about it, why bother hypothesizing the aether? Unless one believes that blind nature generated an eye, why bother hypothesizing a completely non-scientific "story" about how it "could have" developed over billions of years, when there is simply no way to scientifically verify such a story? Most of the proposed evolutionary explanations for everything from large breasts to giraffe necks to why men buy expensive sports cars are nothing more, it seems to me, than one non-scientific hypothesis after another rooted in the belief that naturalistic evolutionry theory is true. There is no way to verify such a hypothesis scientifically; why bother making them, unless one is just expressing a belief in the perspective they are based on? Adel said: "An excellent point with which I agree wholeheartedly. Are we not all free to focus whatever perspective we like on whatever empirical question we choose?" We would be if we had free will. Do you believe free will exists? Even if so, for most people, it seems to me, our inclinations, predilections, beliefs and a priori commitments to certain ideologies and views inform how we construct a hypothesis and drives our theories, and also informs how we go about setting up experiments and then how we interpret the facts.William J. Murray_{July 2, 2009
July
07
Jul
2
02
2009
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter:
You wanted a response, so I asked about that assertion. Why do you believe that? In order to respond, I need to have something to respond to. This isn’t rocket science. But of course, if you were to explain your reasoning, then it would be exposed, and evolution cannot tolerate that. So you want to argue against my blog post, but you won’t spell out the argument. Instead, just throw sand.
Cornelius, that assertion is right there in Sober's paper. It wasn't mine. On page 10051, Sober writes:
Pr(X and Y have trait T|CA)/Pr(X and Y have trait T|SA)>> when T is not adaptive for both X and Y.
That is how you do it, Cornelius. Quote it from the paper. Can you do it? Can you back up your assertion that Sober was using an assumption about divine intent? Surely, you don't want the readers of uncommon descent to think that you just made that stuff up? Not that you needed me to write any of this. You just need to supply a quote. It's not rocket science. Prediction: if you respond to me, you will not provide such a quote.Hoki_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

Off topic: As I mentioned on another thread already some UD posts and the sidebar appear with a black background. Seems this is only true for some of Dr. Hunter's posts like this one and the Judge Jones thread (the comments remain unaffected). Maybe it's only my computer but why would then only his threads be affected. With black characters on black background no design detection is possile :).sparc_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter: This might help - it's a similar issue. http://www.teachertube.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=67792&title=Vitamin_C_and_Common_Ancestry
So you want to argue against my blog post, but you won’t spell out the argument.
The argument is in the video. What fault do you find with it? Be specific as in order to respond, I need to have something to respond to. This isn’t rocket science.Echidna-Levy_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Hoki:
You started a thread where you accuse Sober of making a religious assumption. When prompted to back that assertion up you accuse me of making bare assertions. Oh, dear, Cornelius. Let me think - you can’t, by any chance, back your assertion up, so you feel forced to accuse others of your very own crime?
Actually, you are the one who made the bare assertion in 74:
it is improbable that species that don’t share common ancestry would somehow manage to display the same “useless” trait.
You wanted a response, so I asked about that assertion. Why do you believe that? In order to respond, I need to have something to respond to. This isn't rocket science. But of course, if you were to explain your reasoning, then it would be exposed, and evolution cannot tolerate that. So you want to argue against my blog post, but you won't spell out the argument. Instead, just throw sand.Cornelius Hunter_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter:
This is so typical. Evolutionists think they can make bare assertions with impunity.
You started a thread where you accuse Sober of making a religious assumption. When prompted to back that assertion up you accuse me of making bare assertions. Oh, dear, Cornelius. Let me think - you can't, by any chance, back your assertion up, so you feel forced to accuse others of your very own crime? Can't you see the irony of what you are doing?Hoki_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Hoki:
Nice dodge.
Excellent example. This is so typical. Evolutionists think they can make bare assertions with impunity. If you ask for the reasoning behind the assertion, then it is "a dodge." If I told someone about this they wouldn't believe me. You made a bare assertion which your argument hinges on. I asked you to provide your reasoning, and you did not provide it. Either you have some basis for your assertion or you don't. If you don't then it doesn't work because it can be countered with another bare assertion. If you do then it won't work either, but I can't explain why without knowing what it is.Cornelius Hunter_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Just so we won't get another dodge, let me rewrite the beginning of the second paragraph in my post 168 to read: Why don't you show us how this leads to that "The supposedly... and so on.Hoki_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter:
Why is that true?
Nice dodge. Why don't you, insted, show us where Sober claims that '...those designs given separate ancestry are unlikely because god would not have given us our "useless" tailbones.'? Why don't you show us where Sober claims that "The supposedly scientific theory of evolution relies on religious assumptions about divine intent to rebuke the religious theory of creation about its concerns that empirical observations indicate biological variation is limited."?Hoki_{July 1, 2009
July
07
Jul
1
01
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Hoki (74):
it is improbable that species that don’t share common ancestry would somehow manage to display the same “useless” trait.
Why is that true?Cornelius Hunter_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

William,
One cannot conduct science without beliefs and assumptions. When one forms an experiment, they have a belief, a set of assumptions, that guide how they are constructing their experiment in correlation to what they believe might be revealed, and how, and why.
I think you are trying to salvage conflation of "belief" with "hypothesis." I think there is a significant difference, based on historical scientific usage. Equivocation is not a good intellectual policy, in my opinion.
Sometimes it isn’t until fresh eyes look at the data from an entirely different perspective that a new theory which better matches the facts can be realied.
An excellent point with which I agree wholeheartedly. Are we not all free to focus whatever perspective we like on whatever empirical question we choose? The tests of whether a new theory or hypothesis is better are how well it explains the data, how successful its predictions turn out to be, and how fruitfully it stimulates further investigation. At least that's how it seems to have worked out so far.Adel DiBagno_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

I was hoping that Cornelius Hunter was still around so that he could clarify something I brought up in #74. Sober doesn’t talk about the separate ancestry being down to any divine intervention. The separate ancestry hypothesis isn’t unlikely because of a god’s wishes but because it is improbable that species that don’t share common ancestry would somehow manage to display the same “useless” trait. I.e. there is nothing religious about Sober's claim. It seems to me like Cornelius' post missed it's mark. Any comments?Hoki_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Adel, One cannot conduct science without beliefs and assumptions. When one forms an experiment, they have a belief, a set of assumptions, that guide how they are constructing their experiment in correlation to what they believe might be revealed, and how, and why. Afterward, the data collected cannot help but be interpreted according to the heuristic employed to construct the experiment and the protocols. Sometimes it isn't until fresh eyes look at the data from an entirely different perspective that a new theory which better matches the facts can be realied.William J. Murray_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

As I see it, the processes by which life arose on this planet, the subsequent history of life over billenia, and the relationships of current forms of life to forms now extinct are empirical questions, and are as such appropriately addressed by the tools of science: observation, hypothesis, and experiment. There is no question of "belief" in the religious sense in scientific inquiry. It is inaccurate to conflate the term "belief" with the term "hypothesis" (although that is commonly done inadvertantly in colloquial speech and occasionally deliberately as a rhetorical gambit.) As William said,
Regardless of evidence, I never commit to absolute positions, because I’m all too aware of the potential for humans to be in error.
A proper scientific attitude.Adel DiBagno_{June 30, 2009
June
06
Jun
30
30
2009
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply