Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Purdom makes a good point when she says:

"I think it's important to differentiate between the two types of science: there's observational science, that's the kind we do in the lab every day - it gives us vaccines, computers, technology - all of that. But when it comes to things like evolution and creation, those happened in the past; they are not testable, they are not repeatable in that sense and so we can't deal with it in the same way that we deal with the science we do in the lab today..."

Whatever one may think about her view of origins, no honest scientist can dispute the validity of the above comment. There is a clear distinction between practical, observational science and the kind of "science" that concerns speculation about events outside the realm of observation and experimentation.

It is perfectly possible to question a particular interpretation of origins, while at the same time loving and championing practical, observational science. Proper science, after all, is driven by intellectual enquiry, which involves a certain degree of scepticism. Therefore no theory of origins should be immune from sceptical and critical enquiry. Unfortunately there are those who argue that the theory of evolution should be viewed as having the same epistemic status as the law of gravity. The important distinction between observational and historical science shows this to be a fallacy.

Whatever one may think about her view of origins, no honest scientist can dispute the validity of the above comment.
Actually, what any honest science will tell you that this artificial distinction between "observational" and "historical" science is a dishonest creationist invention deigned to foster the pretence that evolutionary biology is not real science. Science starts with the evidence, formulates hypotheses built from the evidence which set constraints on possible outcomes, and tests them by acquiring further evidence. It doesn't matter if the events being investigated occurred ten seconds, ten minutes, ten years or a hundred million years agio: the validity of the hypotheses is measured against the evidence
Therefore no theory of origins should be immune from sceptical and critical enquiry.
The only "theory" which holds itself to be immune from sceptical and critical enquiry is the creationist dogma that their particular interpretation of their particular holy book is true. Evolutionary theory has been built from the evidence through two centuries of rigorous scientific investigation. Far from being immune from sceptical and critical enquiry, it has been exhaustively tested through critical enquiry which is why, in it's modern form, it is very different from its original formulation.

Evolutionary theory is built from observations and measurements of extant populations of organisms. We know that evolution occurs because it is a phenomenon of nature we can observe in action in extant populations of organisms, and evolutionary theory provides the conceptual framework which gives structure to the science of biology.

This is what any honest scientist will tell you. It's not what creationist sources will tell you, but then they are demonstrably deeply and systematically dishonest.

Richard Forrest -

What you have failed to acknowledge in your comments against "creationism" (a broad term which you define in a highly specific way) are the following:

1) Observational data need to be interpreted. This then poses the question: with what concepts should we interpret the data? These concepts are inevitably influenced by philosophical ideas, which are read into science, and which are often deviously passed off as part of the scientific method, the major concept being philosophical naturalism.

2) You claim that no theory of origins should be immune from critical enquiry, and then complain that the "creationist" paradigm is closed to any criticism. But exactly the same is true of the theory of evolution! The idea is effectively treated as if it is unfalsifiable. If we look at various problems, such as the putative evolution of the vertebrate eye, the avian lung or the avian feather, we are always required to accept any explanation - no matter how wildly improbable and speculative - that can be made to fit the theory, when, in fact, we could just as logically say that these difficulties constitute evidence that these structures did not actually evolve, but were designed. That is a perfectly sound scientific response to the observed evidence.

If a scientist were then to put forward this idea, he is generally not treated with respect as an honest "free thinker" (in the proper meaning of the word) and someone who is pursuing robust critical enquiry, but as a proponent of the "God of the gaps" (straw man) idea. The very fact that the "God of the gaps" accusation is levelled at "creationists" is evidence enough that the naturalistic theory is regarded as unfalsifiable. No alternative can ever be considered.

3) The distinction between the two types of science is a perfectly sound analysis, because there is indeed a distinction between direct observation and inference from observation. This is a fundamental distinction in logic within the empirical method, and anyone who denies this is frankly either extremely poorly educated or morally suspect.

For these reasons it is clear that your comments are just plain wrong (along with your claim that the process properly called "adaptation" is evidence for the extrapolated grand theory of evolution).

"What you have failed to acknowledge in your comments against "creationism" (a broad term which you define in a highly specific way) are the following:..."

Indeed, "Creationism" is a very broad term. I, for instance, accept the major outline of conventional evoloutionary theory as it is taught in the scientific mainstream, but reserve the possibility of occasional intervention by a creator. By Richard Forrest's lights, this makes me a creationist. The important thing to remember here is that when you are dealing with an evolutionist who will, under no circumstances, allow a divine foot in the door, then what you actually engaged in a power struggle; it's no longer about science - or, indeed, religion - it's about (to quote Humpty Dumbty) who is to be master, that is all. Thus, the branding of as many people as possible as "creationists" not only makes the "pure evoloutionist" a member of an elite, it is also analagous to the Zionist tactic of screaming "anti-Semite" at anyone who criticises Israel. Right and wrong, truth and falsehood, these things no longer matter: it's a straight power-grab.

@4. Casur1,
Did you ever watch the film "Expelled?"

mscracker,

No, I've never watched that film, but if you're asking if I'm contemptuous of the scientific establishment, the answer is yes. They have no credibility at all as far as I'm concerned, mainly because their chief concern at any given moment is their "standing", not the truth or otherwise of a given theory.

@6.Casur1,
It's a good film.
I'm always a bit suspicious of the medical establishment/scientific research folk because of the issues you mention &once a theory or protocol is established it's as if it's written in cement.And of course one wonders where the source of the research funding came from,etc.
I wouldn't say there's no credibilty,modern medicine & science can be amazing. But with research initiated by pharmaceutical companies there's a buyer beware caveat.Or should be.And there's always the issue of human pride which I think you allude to.

Casur1@4

but reserve the possibility of occasional intervention by a creator.....

do tell old chap, some examples perhaps of how the fickle finger of god is present in the evolutionary process (occasionally of course!) or are these interventions still in reserve?

but if you're asking if I'm contemptuous of the scientific establishment...

Without which you wouldn't have this platform to rant about them.

Priceless.

For Paul James,



Pay particular attention to the "Not Enough Time" section

For grokesx,

No, the scientific establishment was a late development from the university system, and the university system was a creation of the Christian - and most specifically, the Catholic - Church. "Nothing is decided until it has been masticated upon the teeth of disputation". Unfortunately, that mentality has long been superceeded by the "I have a degree in a science subject, therefore I'm qualified to speak definitively on all subjects" attitude of the scientific establishment. If I'm going to defer to authority, let it be to an authority which is not afraid to reach out into the universe.

To both of you, you need to accept your own medioctity. Both of you seem to have the self-congratulatory, undergraduate "aha, gotcha!" mentality we associate with the New Atheists, and like the New Atheists, you are both afraid to take any kind of intellectual chance; and like the scientific establishment, you are destined to poison yourselves with your own self-regarding, narcissistic parochialism.

@casur

Your advice is duly noted. I was talking about computers and the intertubes , though. As far as I am aware the Catholic church had a limited input there.

@ Casur (# 4) -

Many thanks for your interesting comment.

Indeed, "Creationism" is a very broad term. I, for instance, accept the major outline of conventional evoloutionary theory as it is taught in the scientific mainstream, but reserve the possibility of occasional intervention by a creator. By Richard Forrest's lights, this makes me a creationist.

You are, of course, correct to reserve the possibility of occasional intervention by a creator. Certainly (to put paul james out of his misery) we can say that, even within the "mainstream" paradigm, naturalism fails to explain a number of things, particularly the workings of mind - i.e. the validity of reason - and, of course, the most basic cosmological problem: that of the ultimate origin of the universe and .

Furthermore, an external intelligence is required to feed into the system the high level of information required for evolution, given that it is highly questionable whether the rare occurrence of so called "beneficial" mutations can carry such a load (it's debatable whether such mutations actually cause a net increase in information anyway).

There are, of course, other realities that cannot be explained entirely naturalistically such as morality and consciousness.

Thus, the branding of as many people as possible as "creationists" not only makes the "pure evoloutionist" a member of an elite, it is also analagous to the Zionist tactic of screaming "anti-Semite" at anyone who criticises Israel. Right and wrong, truth and falsehood, these things no longer matter: it's a straight power-grab.

Absolutely right, and an interesting analogy, in the light of (which is about as far from the truth as one can imagine. To think that those who dare to infer an intelligent cause from complex effects are evil persecutors of poor, suffering teachers of the mindlessness theory! I'm tempted to express what I really think about this, but I fear it may be modded away!)

You are quite right, Richard. I am not a scientist, but her distinction between historical and observational science is a load of hooey. I think she is misusing the term 'observational' which surely means that which cannot be tested but only 'observed', like a social science or, say, astronomy.

As for 'historical' science, that is a surely a nonsense. The 'science done in the lab every day' is not recreated ex nihilo. Scientists, like everyone else, bring their evolved theories and ideas and the theories of ideas of others before them to bear on their work.

The curious thing is that Purdom was allowed to get away with this false distinction, Has William mellowed since he went to America? was he overawed by the experience.

It is difficult to understand why a loopy theory like Young earth creationism was given such publicity in SS. I mean, I'm all for free speech, but when you DON'T interview an evolutionary scientist at similar length expounding on WHY that theory is so obviously true and not the other, something is wrong somewhere.

Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in what certain whacky Americans have to say on such subjects.

brianmcclinton -

...expounding on WHY that theory is so obviously true...

How rigorously scientific of you! (At least Peter Klaver won't agree with you, because he has stated clearly that there are no proofs in science!)

But anyway... say that enough times and I am sure many people will believe you.

I can't say that the non-intelligence theory is obvious to me. I have never yet seen evidence of a complex system self-assembling without at least some input from an external intelligence, but who knows...?

As for your denial of the distinction between "historical science" and "observational science", perhaps you would like to explain how non-observed and non-repeatable events from before the dawn of recorded human history can be constructed without any recourse to any assumptions? Perhaps you would like to provide the proof that shows us without any doubt that, say, the vertebrate eye evolved (remember: no assumptions, and no special pleading. Also, I remind you that you have claimed that your theory is "so obviously true". Failure to provide this proof can only mean one thing about your claim, and I'll leave you to work it out...)

William:

I'm not sure that I've heard many professional scientists explaining at length why YE creationism is completely and evolution is the only scientifically valid explanation for life on earth. Most of them anyway refuse to do it because they do not wish to give any kind of legitimacy to the creationist position by implying that there is a genuine controversy about the matter.

Unfortunately, this policy can backfire. Doing nothing to promote sane, sensible views can allow the daft, dangerous ones to prevail. Many liberal Christians in NI adopted the attitude that Paisleyism should not be given any kind of validity by debating with it. Partly as a result, it sowed its seeds among the consciousness and helped to give Ulster Protestantism a bad name.

As far as Richard Dawkins is concerned, I personally have not heard him talk on this topic at similar length to Purdom. All I have heard are media soundbites which feed this misconception of his 'aggressive secularism', as if in any of his splendid writings he had encouraged wars, bigotry, oppression of women, racism and homophobia.

The real 'aggression' at the moment in this area is perpetrated by evangelicals and their so-called wedge policy of pressurising public bodies and schools to promote their backward views as 'normal'. SS is feeding that by giving them excessive publicity without proper inclusion of opposing opinions which, I accept, are not always forthcoming.

Will,

Since you are being criticised with the insinuation that you are presenting views in an unbalanced way, I would like to express my thanks for your even-handed treatment of the various subjects which you address (which is what I, as a licence payer, would expect from the Ö÷²¥´óÐã).

If you look closely at Brian's remarks you will see that he is not at all committed to objective critical thinking:

The curious thing is that Purdom was allowed to get away with this false distinction, Has William mellowed since he went to America? was he overawed by the experience.

(How very patronising!)

It is difficult to understand why a loopy theory like Young earth creationism was given such publicity in SS. I mean, I'm all for free speech, but when you DON'T interview an evolutionary scientist at similar length expounding on WHY that theory is so obviously true and not the other, something is wrong somewhere.

...

Most of them anyway refuse to do it because they do not wish to give any kind of legitimacy to the creationist position by implying that there is a genuine controversy about the matter.

...

Doing nothing to promote sane, sensible views can allow the daft, dangerous ones to prevail.

(And then he compares the theory of intelligent causation to Paisleyism)

...their so-called wedge policy of pressurising public bodies and schools to promote their backward views as 'normal'.

Frankly it makes me sick reading this stream of ignorance and prejudice, and, of course, when challenged, these so called "objective free thinkers" run away into childish atheist soundbites, drawn from the "splendid" writings of someone who compares the plea for honest debate with the demands of holocaust deniers.

The humanists are desperate to co-opt the media as their own mouthpiece. We must never allow any interest group to do this - if only for the health of our freedom and democracy.

Casur
Oh dear I've been savaged by the Orthbus of WT obviously in reponse to yet another whipping of supernatural dogs by Richard Forrest. However even poor mediocre moi had to choke back a guffaw when the evidence presented for a christian god intervening in the affairs of his admittedly lowly creation is evidence contained in the mathematics of William Dembski. If only he had presented this devastating proof at Ktzmiller vs Dover thr ID movement and all of creationism might have been saved. If only.........

paul james -

If only he had presented this devastating proof at Ktzmiller vs Dover thr ID movement and all of creationism might have been saved. If only.........

It's a fundamental tenet of the scientific method that all scientific theories have to be approved by the American justice system.

Yep, truth can only count as truth if sanctioned by Judge Judy and colleagues.

Science has come of age at last!!

(By the way, if R. Forrest esq. has given me a bloody nose, it must be one of those "Russell's teapot", "invisible pink unicorn" or "invisible dragon in the garage" types of bloody nose! Perhaps the signal hasn't quite reached me yet!! I wait with trepidation...)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I'm not sure I get why the distinction matters. Not one way but the other. As if to say, if we could just separate the 'operational' from the 'historical' in people's minds then they would stop concluding that naturalistic evolution is true because they just 'checked in' on Facebook.

Whilst not ruling out that possibility the answer, in the first instance, is not a partitioning wall but a thump over the head with a logic textbook.

Obviousness is a not unrelated issue; naturalistic evolution is 'so obviously true'. Yet obviousness demands the question(s) 'obvious to whom and why?'. It isn't at all obvious that naturalistic evolutionary theory is obvious or, granting it is, that it is obvious to all people for the same reasons. Evolutionary biologists, for instance, are not that common. Maybe less common than .

Richard Forrest, post 2,

"It doesn't matter if the events being investigated occurred ten seconds, ten minutes, ten years or a hundred million years agio: the validity of the hypotheses is measured against the evidence"

You are quite correct to point out that the bit LSV quoted from Purdom is not true. If what she said was right, we should release all murderers who were convicted purely on the basis of physical evidence from the murder scene. Forensic science deals with reconstructing what happened from physical evidence. Because the murderer won't incriminate himself and the victim sure isn't going to give us an eye witness account anymore of what happened. And the police aren't going to replicate a few murders in a lab to test things. So reconstructing the picture from physical evidence from the past is all there is. And you never hear creationists clamouring for the release of murderers convicted on the basis of physical evidence, who could then move in next door to them, do you? Drawing conclusions from physical evidence from the past that are certain enough to put a man behind bars for 25 years is all fine to them. But draw a conclusion from obvious evidence about evolution, like the telomeric DNA in the middle of human chromosome no. 2, and suddenly very different standards are adopted.

LSV, post 3,

"You claim that no theory of origins should be immune from critical enquiry, and then complain that the "creationist" paradigm is closed to any criticism. But exactly the same is true of the theory of evolution! The idea is effectively treated as if it is unfalsifiable."

This is total nonsense of course. One rabbit fossil dated back to the Cambrian would utterly destroy the theory of evolution. And there a million similar such ways to destroy evolution in one go. Name one far more advanced species in an early stage of the development of life on earth, and you're done.

Purdom makes a good point when she says:



"I think it's important to differentiate between the two types of science: there's observational science, that's the kind we do in the lab every day - it gives us vaccines, computers, technology - all of that. But when it comes to things like evolution and creation, those happened in the past; they are not testable, they are not repeatable in that sense and so we can't deal with it in the same way that we deal with the science we do in the lab today..."

No LSV, Purdom does not make a "good point"

What on Earrh is "observational science" ?

Has any scientist ever observed an electron ? No. Has any scientists ever observed a thermometer reading absolute zero ? No. Yet, Dr. Purdom no doubt accepts both. She seems to have no problem accepting physics at a quantum level (that which we cannot observe) yet, rejects that which we can observe e.g astronomical objects and events that are taking place thousands of millions of light years distant i.e. we are not "observing" them in the present but thousands of millions of years in the past (this is testable and repeatable science).

You know LSV, I worked in chemistry for 30 years and never once "observed" a chemical bond being broken and a new one formed in all that time.

As for forensic science, by Dr. Purdom's logic, no one should be convicted on this evidence alone uless backed up by an "eye witness" account (and we all know how reliable those are). Just how many people guily of murder are really innocent becuse forensic science is not "observational science" ?

It's a good film.

and your point about the film is ?

From what I gather, it's been voted one of the worst turkeys of all time.

Paul James,

Forgive the lateness of the reply; this is due to the fragile nature of the Ö÷²¥´óÐã's moderators. The point is this: either Dempski's numbers stand up or they don't. If you say they don't, then show where they're wrong; if they do, then the question you asked me, in that rather undergraduate and self-congratulatory manner, is answered. Either way, "the numbers must be wrong because Dempski is a believer" is not an answer.

@Casur

This is indeed a response, grokesx, but hardly a refutation. The key sentence is

"Of course, evolution does not do a completely random search."

If evolution does NOT do a completely random search, than what you are talking about is desperately close - if not identical to - the teleological principle of Thomas Aquinas, and please, before you embarrass yourself reaching for your atheist's crib sheet, I'm referring to the actual principle, the thousand or so pages of the Summa in which Aquinas explains this principle, NOT the summation of it he delivers in the "Five Ways".

In any event, the author of the article is admitting that Dembski's numbers are correct IF we accept natural selection by RANDOM mutation; only by starting from a skewed base does the pure evolutionist's thesis have a chance of success within the timeframe of the universe's history.

It's fascinating that the idea of forensic science is being appealed to, to justify the naturalistic theory of evolution and to attempt to debunk intelligent design.

I don't suppose that it has occurred to these apologists that detectives do not assume just one theory to be true? I have no problem at all with the idea of inferring non-observed realities from what we can observe. In fact, that is what I have been advocating for so long now that I am amazed that my detractors have only just cottoned on. But inference is dependent on certain assumptions, and that is the point Purdom was making. We need to analyse the validity of those assumptions.

What the two Peters don't seem to realise is that the forensic science analogy helps my cause far more than theirs. Let's assume their methodology to be true...

A murder has been committed, and there are no eyewitnesses. Because we cannot directly observe the murderer in action, we have to therefore assume a non-personal explanation. It appears that the victim has been shot, and the absence of a weapon on or near the victim's body rules out suicide. So the perpetrator of this crime is effectively "invisible". We therefore have to infer his or her existence.

But according to the tenets of naturalism, we are not allowed to do that!! That is silly "Russell's Teapot", "invisible pink unicorn" and "invisible dragon in the garage" nonsense. No. If we cannot empirically detect the cause of this event, then we have to assume an entirely naturalistic cause.

So we have to concoct a long-winded and bizarre theory as to how the bullet got into the victim's head without the intervention of a murderer. We have to calculate the natural forces that could have propelled the bullet in such a way and with such force as to cause this effect and assume that those forces alone were the entire cause of the victim's death. If we consider a conscious personal being as the cause, then that is just a stupid example of "person of the gaps"!!

Isn't it clear just how nonsensical philosophical naturalism is (along with its offspring: atheism). No decent detective would ever employ such a ridiculous method of reasoning, but rather... an event that was obviously caused by a person was caused by a person! Doh! Bit obvious really!!

If evolution does NOT do a completely random search, than what you are talking about is desperately close - if not identical to - the teleological principle of Thomas Aquinas, and please, before you embarrass yourself reaching for your atheist's crib sheet, I'm referring to the actual principle, the thousand or so pages of the Summa in which Aquinas explains this principle, NOT the summation of it he delivers in the "Five Ways"

So Aquinas's own summary doesn't accurately represent his arguments? Not unknown in philosophy papers, I dare say, but disappointing for guy with such a stellar reputation.

I'm not about to wade through the whole lot, so I'll have to take your word for it that Aquinas's teleological principle is close, if not identical to, an algorithmic process of descent with modification, involving an element of randomness, but not completely random. And if you can't get your head round the idea that natural selection is not completely random, you're not alone, Dembski can't either.

Anyway, as I understand it - and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong - Aquinas makes a very strong claim regarding cause and effect, in that according to him any process that proceeds in a direction can only be explained logically by an intelligent director. So, to defeat that argument one only needs to come up with a logically coherent explanation of the end directed-ness of living beings, regardless of whether it is true or not.

Both arguments break down for me, though, in that natural selection only provides a direction post hoc, ie an appearance of direction. But hey ho, Aquinas had never heard of evolution, so we 'll never know what he'd have made of it.

LSV, post 29,

You are very inconsistent in rejecting how science determines things from the past from physical evidence in areas such as abiogenesis and evolution, but happily accept the same principle at work in forensic science. The best I can make out what should represent your counter arguments to that are things like

"I don't suppose that it has occurred to these apologists that detectives do not assume just one theory to be true?"

Initially no, but if all evidence points them in one particular direction, as is the case with evolution, then they would go with that idea, until a better one emerges.

"But inference is dependent on certain assumptions, and that is the point Purdom was making."

No, that is not what she was doing. Purdom was trying to make an artificial distinction in order to dismiss science that shows her world view to be very wrong.

And all that follows after that are just more really lame, invalid analogies that hardly address the point made to you. Which seems to be common in your replies since the Summer break on the blog here. You're hardly putting up anything these days, just trying to wriggle out of one lost cause after another:

You are asked to provide some info on how god supposedly created life. You point to a terribly irrelevant analogy between life coming about and people typing text on an internet forum. Pure stupidity.

You are asked to finally give something on information theory. You respond that your demonstrated total ignorance of the subject is no problem at all, since you threw in the word 'type' at one point. Pure ignorance.

You are presented with an example of information in DNA being created through natural means and asked to present an equal or better explanation from a creationist perspective. You can't do it even the tiniest bit. Pure vacuousness.

On the subject of YECism you try to make yourself out to be not vociferously anti-science, when you openly profess to rejecting the very widely supported scientific account of an old earth. Not even because it runs counter to your reading of the bible, but because apparently you generally reject many things scientific, even if they could fit in with your christian world view. Pure irrationality.

August is just not your month, is it? :D

25.At 11:09 23rd Aug 2012, Peter wrote:

It's a good film.


and your point about the film is ?

From what I gather, it's been voted one of the worst turkeys of all time."
****
My point was that it was a good film.I enjoyed watching it.
Your point seems to be that not everyone agrees.

If educated people can believe in the

People will surely believe in anything.

I believe in origins from intelligent geometry

and it is as good an idea as evolution

under creationism fossil fuels are renewable energy, it just takes 6k years for todays vegetation and lifeforms to make new oil.

would love to see the proof of that.