blackjack000:

“It is not speculation to not believe in something that has not been observed. Science is an art of proof, not disproof.”

Common descent with modification has not been observed.

Science is about repeatability. It is about going from initial conditions to final conditions, where the entire process is under tight control and under observation, though perhaps much is indirect. CDWM lacks experimental credentials.

“However, is it relevant in science?”

But the question is, what is science? Certainly, paleontology and cosmology don’t qualify as science.

“I believe the scientific community would accept ID as a relevant theory if it had a legitimate backing in the scientific method.”

If the scientific method consists of telling stories about the detritus of the past, then I suppose ID qualifies as well as paleontology.

Barb:

The point, I believe, was that scientists often don’t make good philosophers.

I couldn’t resist Meyers’ article, since I’ve been posting the same thing here for a few days before his article came out. My Xanga blog (soccerdadforlife) has an article that makes pretty much the same point. Were these independent? Don’t know.

Science and philosophy have been intertwined since the days of Aristotle.

Also, who is “in the field?” Frankly, someone with mathematical or engineering capabilities has more to say about biological complexity than say, Dawkins or Scott. Not to mention various folks who are clearly “within the field,” such as Bene and Minnich.

This statement seems to contain two flawed premises. One is that “biological experts” are the only experts that bring anything to bear on the prevailing theory of evolution. For NDE to be true, a wide array of conditions must necessarily be true that touch on a number of fields. We need a growing number of experts to weigh in on the matter. For example, when we get down to the cellular level we find all sorts of nanotechnology going on. Who better understands what it takes to develop such tiny wizardry — a garden variety biologist or an engineer? We need mathematicians to evaluate probabilities, chemists to evaluate molecular processes, palaentologists for the fossil record, and neuroscientists to gaze into the brain and mental processes. And this is just to mention a few.

The second is to expect criticism to come from within a field. Certainly this can happen, but don’t hold your breath. Using this kind of logic, we should never have sent a team of diverse experts to study the war in Iraq. What the heck, if it was simply about who possesses the greatest knowledge, we would of simply sent a team of military tacticians to study the situation. And who needs outsider auditors to review the books when the corporate financial staff know the most?

In a word, accountability. In an even better two words, outside accountability. Why? Human nature is what it is. Yes, even in science. No one and nothing is untouchable.

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

Read the full page and try again.

So the important question is not whether ID is science, but whether Darwinism is really philosophy with a scientific patina.

No. The important question is whether design inferences — based on the existence of complex specified information which is scientifically-demonstrated by biology, cosmology and physics — make chance-plus-necessity obsolete as a scientific paradigm.

Actually, he noted that various creatures may be killed off by the various vagaries of life, and then attached a label to it. He then suggested that this process, coupled with variations, might result in what we see today. But he certainly did not propose any workable theory about how the life forms would come about in the first place.

Often, people who disagree with Darwin’s larger point still give him some reverence for having put forth a brilliant theory that is incomplete, or having made an important scientific contribution that is not quite the whole story, or some similar homage. (I think this often occurs because the speaker’s point can be made even assuming some portion of Darwin’s ideas have currency, and also because it would not be worth the political capital to take a firmer stance.)

I view Darwin much differently. A decent naturalist. A skilled rhetorician. But ever since I read the Origin I have had trouble identifying a single idea of his that is both correct and non-trivial. Is there anything we know about biology today that we would not know if it were not for Darwin? Is there any idea from the Origin that has proven correct and that is critical to our understanding of biology as we know it?

A belief in either Darwinism or ID is a metaphysical (philosophical or religious) preference, not a scientifically demonstrable fact.

Wait a minute. A “preference”? Isn’t the whole argument between NDE and ID over the “whats” “whys” and “wherefores” of scientifically demonstrable facts?

Othewise, You say potAto, I say potAHto. You say tomAto, I say tomAHto. PotAto? PotAHto? TomAto? TomAHto? Ah, let’s call the whole thing off.

It is true that ID is not science, as stated in the article. However, to attach any sort of weight to the argument of ID against evolutionary theory, ID would have to progress as an alternative theory by the scientific method. As it stands now, to lay claims against evolutionary theory is just as a critic that stands outside of the forum. Yes, the questions that ID do pose are valid. However, is it relevant in science? Without a basis in the scientific process, it is not.

I would also have to disagree that “[a]ny form of ‘science’ that claims it is possible [to] disprove Intelligent Design is no longer applied science, but philosophical speculation.” By the very framework of science, theories are based on observable evidence. It is false to infer that since ID cannot be disproven it is scientific speculation to claim ID is wrong. Many claims cannot be disproven, but that does not make them valid in science. It is not speculation to not believe in something that has not been observed. Science is an art of proof, not disproof.

I believe the claim of circular reasoning and an appeal to expertise is also off center. Science is a broad and deep field. Within it are numerous specialties, each requiring devoted experts in order to advance the respective fields. One who is not engaged and knowledgeable in the field would not be expected to give relevant input and criticism. The fact is that the majority of biological experts do agree with evolutionary theory. The public would expect criticism and refutation to come from within a respective field, not outside. It would make no sense for someone who was not an expert to make claims.

I believe the scientific community would accept ID as a relevant theory if it had a legitimate backing in the scientific method. As of yet, it does not, so scientists (by their occupational nature) are not able to accept it as anything other than a hypothesis.

A belief in Darwinism (evolutionary theory) is not a “metaphysical preference”. The conclusion that biological diversity has arisen by evolution was arrived at via the scientific method. A hypothesis was posed, evidence accumulated that supported the hypothesis, and an overwhelming scientific consensus was made. There is nothing philosophical about that. It is how we arrive at any scientific theory.

The shift in the end of the article from science to philosophy also seems a bit skewed. Scientists are fairly far removed from philosophers. Science is an art of evidence, not pure reasoning. I find it hard to believe that a global scientific community has any goals of imposing a philosophy on the world. It seems to me that the scientifically-inclined are fairly removed from the social science arena.

Other than these issues, I very much respect that Meyer based his argument on logic and critical thinking. I still disagree, but on a civil forum like this, at least we can disagree like grown-ups.

Yes, great question. And the other great question is, how in the world did we get to this current state of affairs?

Charles Darwin, in a world that strongly emphasized competition (Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations, Malthus and the law of scarcity) and natural explanations for everything, came up with what is admittedly a very creative theory, or model, for how various life forms came about. His was also a world of simplicity, where everthing was viewed as mechanistic and linear. All this is not so surprising given the times. But the sheer success of the subsequent enterprise is breathtaking, is it not?

I liken it to a group of soldiers that had a very strong desire to cross a river. They stepped out from the bank, and the water was calm and shallow, and the far shore appeared so very near. They merrily trudged forward, but the further they travelled, the deeper and more turbulent the water became. And for some reason the far shore appeared farther away the further they travelled.

In the meantime a second group of soldiers sited a ford that was far easier to travel, and tailor made for crossing. They called and called to the first group, but to no avail. The first group knew better because they were smarter, had rank, and by golly, knew the river better than that other group of knuckleheads. And besides, as they trumpeted incessantly, they were making progress!! In fact, they even claimed they had reached the far shore, although impartial observers could plainly see that nothing was farther from the truth.

Do you recognize this trite little fable? Exactly, it is Aesop’s story of the sour grapes, but inverted. In Aesop’s version the fox desires the grapes, cannot reach them, and then claims they are no good anyway, out of pride. Oh, but the Darwinists are far more clever than the fox, and just as prideful. They desperately desire NDE to be true, pursue it with reckless abandon, happily ignore all adverse findings, and even claim that they have reached the goal when they have not, wildly celebrating victory over their tremendous triumph. Much akin to the emporer with no clothes, they suck on non-existent grapes and boast about how very succulent they are.

The rest of us just watch and shake our heads. Such incredible stagecraft and thespianism the world has never seen. Please pass the popcorn.