Darwinists Running Scared

[phildwyer]

I have no problem with either of these two theories being discussed in a philosophy or theology course, but neither of them have any place on a science course. They are theories, but they are not *scientific* theories.

I suppose it might be worth having a section on a science course explaining why they are not science - that's about as far as I would go, but even this would be problematic since it opens the gates for swamping science subjects with all sorts of bullshit and sets the precedent that it should spend it all its time batting away whatever nonsense people want to throw at it. People would demand that science teachers spend time explaining why fantastic claims about Roswell, UFO-ology, ESP, spoon-bending, card tricks and ghosts are also not "science".

I don't think there should be any such things as "science courses." Not that "science" shouldn't be taught, but it shouldn't be taught *in isolation.* It should always be placed in its historical and cultural context. It should be presented as what it is: a part of the history of ideas.

 

[TeeJay]

ID is simply a way of saying "We believe in the divine hand of God and we believe in science too". The two are incompatible in my view.

I don't believe in intelligent design, but I don't think these two things are actually incompatible: You simply have to say "Evolution is something God set in motion - part of how he designed the universe". It would even be possible to simply say - for example - that "God" simply caused the big bang and then stood back and let things develop without any more intervention.

However, Intelligent Design typically claims far more than this - that in fact complex organisms were designed and created "as is" and that evolutionary and incremental mechaisms are insufficent to explain how they came about. The nit-picking about incremental evolutionary changes is fair enough in itself - asking how a compex system of interacting genes could have come about - as any scientist can nit-pick about the details of proposed evolutionary mechanisms (although they are typically expected to actually propose a better theoiry). The big problem comes with then making a leap from "we can't currently see how it happened" and "current theories seem to raise some unanswered questions" to "it must therefore have been designed by God". This is logically flawed and not scientific at all.

 

[In Bloom]

I don't think there should be any such things as "science courses." Not that "science" shouldn't be taught, but it shouldn't be taught *in isolation.* It should always be placed in its historical and cultural context. It should be presented as what it is: a part of the history of ideas.

Out of curiosity, where do you expect to draw the next generation of medical researchers, pharmacists, doctors, nuclear technicians, etc. from?

 

[phildwyer]

Out of curiosity, where do you expect to draw the next generation of medical researchers, pharmacists, doctors, nuclear technicians, etc. from?

They'd be much better scientists if they understood where scientific ideas came from.

 

[In Bloom]

They'd be much better scientists if they understood where scientific ideas came from.

Surely that would be part of philosophy of science (which should, IMO be included in science courses as standard, not sure if it is or not atm).

 

[Crispy]

They'd be much better scientists if they understood where scientific ideas came from.

On this I agree. I knew all about chemicals, forces, electricity and things when I left school, but had no real idea of the history of science or its politics. I knew the 'how' of science, but not a bit about the 'why'.

This area of study would be to science as english lit. is to english

 

[phildwyer]

Surely that would be part of philosophy of science (which should, IMO be included in science courses as standard, not sure if it is or not atm).

Then we agree. And no, its not included in science courses at the moment. If it was, you wouldn't have all this fuss whenever I point out facts about Darwinism that philosophers of science are all agreed upon. Its sheer ignorance, expressed by people who've only ever been trained in technical, instrumental science. In fact, you were once among them, as I recall....

 

[phildwyer]

On this I agree. I knew all about chemicals, forces, electricity and things when I left school, but had no real idea of the history of science or its politics. I knew the 'how' of science, but not a bit about the 'why'.

This area of study would be to science as english lit. is to english

An excellent way of putting it. BTW, I haven't forgotten about the viruses and atoms, I'll be back...

 

[TeeJay]

I don't think there should be any such things as "science courses." Not that "science" shouldn't be taught, but it shouldn't be taught *in isolation.* It should always be placed in its historical and cultural context. It should be presented as what it is: a part of the history of ideas.

Hmm, let's see...

* What is the job of the digestive system and how does it do that job?
* What causes disease and how do our bodies defend themselves against it?
* What happens to energy and biomass at each stage in a food chain?
* How can metals be prevented from reverting to their oxides?
* Do chemical reactions always release energy?
* How do we know how much of each reactant to use in a chemical reaction?
* How can the similarities between elements in the same group be explained?
* What is static electricity, how can it be used, and what is the connection between static electricity and electric currents?
* What happens to the movement energy when things speed up or slow down?
* Why do scientists talk about light and sound as waves?

...care to tell us how much of their lessons teachers should devote to the "history of ideas" when teaching classes on topics like these?

I do think it is a good idea to look at what 'science' and 'scientific method' is both in science courses and in other subjects. However, there is so much stuff to cover on science courses that 95%-plus of the time should be dedicated to simply getting stuck into the subjects.

 

[TeeJay]

Then we agree. And no, its not included in science courses at the moment...

You don't know the contents of *all* science courses. There are plenty that go into the role of observation and experiments, how theories and hypotheses are formed and handled, how ideas have changed over time, why certain ideas were accepted at one point in history and later rejected, and so forth. A lot of science courses will look both backwards at historical events and 'breakthroughs' in science, will teach more 'basic' theories, but will also touch on the complexities, uncertainities and competing and incomplete theories of current scientific research.

Its true that I would support a bigger focus on the 'philosphy of science' (eg what is a theory, is there such things as value-free observation, can we only ever disprove theories etc) but to say that these issues are not part of science courses seem to indicate that you are only talking about a narrow case - maybe it is like this at US schools? It was ceratinly far broader when I did my O levels/GCSEs/A levels when I was at school (I did the Nuffield science syllabus which was very lab-based).

 

[phildwyer]

I don't believe in intelligent design, but I don't think these two things are actually incompatible: You simply have to say "Evolution is something God set in motion - part of how he designed the universe". It would even be possible to simply say - for example - that "God" simply caused the big bang and then stood back and let things develop without any more intervention.

However, Intelligent Design typically claims far more than this - that in fact complex organisms were designed and created "as is" and that evolutionary and incremental mechaisms are insufficent to explain how they came about. The nit-picking about incremental evolutionary changes is fair enough in itself - asking how a compex system of interacting genes could have come about - as any scientist can nit-pick about the details of proposed evolutionary mechanisms (although they are typically expected to actually propose a better theoiry). The big problem comes with then making a leap from "we can't currently see how it happened" and "current theories seem to raise some unanswered questions" to "it must therefore have been designed by God". This is logically flawed and not scientific at all.

I completely agree with everything you say here. Just thought you'd like to know.

(Edited to add): Apart from the bit about not believing in Intelligent Design. I do believe in it, but in the sense you discuss in your first paragraph. But I differ from you in that I see extensive philosophical implications in this position. So maybe we don't agree after all. Sorry.

 

[TeeJay]

I don't pretend to be an expert, but surely "intelligent design" (as I have seen it set out) refers to "god" creating complex systems 'ready made' - not "god" causing the big bang and the 'laws of physics' and simply letting evolution take its course.

I'd be interested in seeing any links to articles/authors who descibe the latter idea as "intelligent design". I can see that you are claiming that label for it, but you are the only person who I have heard claiming that this would qualify as "ID".

My personal position - as it happens - is 'agnostic': depending on how you define 'god', I really can't see how anyone would be able to tell either way if there was a thing called 'god' who caused the big bang or not - so therefore I simply say 'I don't know either way'. I just accept that the universe is simply the universe - its pretty wierd, wonderful and amazing, there are plenty of unanswered questions, and of course it is possible that there is some kind of embedded, guiding, 'mystical/spiritual' force - although how on earth anyone would either conceptually or observationally be able to distinguish a 'spiritual' from a 'physical' force I don't know. I do value the universe and I do value humans - ethically, morally and 'spiritually' (if you want to call it that). If various cultures have expressed this through religion - christian, jewish, musilm, hindu, sikh, buddhist, etc - then fair enough, I don't have any big issue with that part of their thinking.

In many ways I don't see any big conflict between science - when taken intelligently for what it is, as observations, models and theories - and many aspects of religion, and their 'creation stories' - along with other folk and tribal creation stories - that is, when taken intelligently for what they are: more qualitative and cultural accounts providing histories, cultural identities and values in the traditional oral tradition and tribal context of their time. Historians, musicians, poets, novelists, artists and filmakers provide similar functions in contemporary society, along with political ideologies, NGO campaigns, national sports teams, various 'subcultures' and so forth.

The real change that could resolve the "christianity versus science" argument that seems to be most pronounced in America is if both christians and scientists acknowledged that:

1. Science doesn't have to be atheist and is simply a way of modelling, organising and discussing observations in a rational, consistent and coherent way. It doesn't create value judgements or even objective certainties - but it is reliable, useful and consistent format and method for measuring, describing and predicting the observable, physical world around us.

2. Religion/christianity has never been a static, unchanging body of ideas and has always reacted to peoplec' current knowledge of the world around them. If "God" created the universe and gave us rational minds then there is no contradition in either accurately describing and investigating this nor applying our rationality to this task. Not of of the bible or other religious books are meant to be read as literal descriptions of fact written in contemporary language - much of it is history, philosophy, social commentary, poetry and transcribed oral tradition. It has been translated several times and needs interpretation and thought put into what it actually means and 'says'. It is far better to live in reality and use some measure of intelligence to approach one's beliefs than to retreat into irrational mysticism, blindly follow charismatic leaders or simply adopt rigidly culturally-embedded versions of religions as if these will give you the "truth".

 

[phildwyer]

I don't pretend to be an expert, but surely "intelligent design" (as I have seen it set out) refers to "god" creating complex systems 'ready made' - not "god" causing the big bang and the 'laws of physics' and simply letting evolution take its course.

I'd be interested in seeing any links to articles/authors who descibe the latter idea as "intelligent design". I can see that you are claiming that label for it, but you are the only person who I have heard claiming that this would qualify as "ID".

You're right, I should have used lower case.

 

[TeeJay]

I use lower case for all sorts of things - its just my personal preference, for example for online/casual use, and from time to time. I don't think there is a 'right' or 'wrong' for it - it is more a matter of expressing how you think and feel about certain words, what impresson you want to give, how you think it looks typographically and what context you are writing within - for example formal/informal, and dependent on expected audience reaction.

edit: you will see that in post #72 I actually used upper case "God" - admittedly within "..." There is also the factor that 'gods' can be referring to all sorts of things - including systems of belief with multiple gods or the abstarcted idea within a philosphical argument - whereas "God" might be referring to a supposed proper name for a singular identity within a specific belief system (along the lines of God/Allah/Jehova etc). Inverted commas may indicate that you are simply using the term that other people typically use without endorsing the sentiment or bestowing the honourific that they are.

...and so forth.

edit: by the way, any chance of commenting on this... I'd be interested in seeing any links to articles/authors who descibe the latter idea as "intelligent design".

 

[phildwyer]

I use lower case for all sorts of things - its just my personal preference, for example for online/casual use, and from time to time. I don't think there is a 'right' or 'wrong' for it - it is more a matter of expressing how you think and feel about certain words, what impresson you want to give, how you think it looks typographically and what context you are writing within - for example formal/informal, and dependent on expected audience reaction.

edit: you will see that in post #72 I actually used upper case "God" - admittedly within "..." There is also the factor that 'gods' can be referring to all sorts of things - including systems of belief with multiple gods or the abstarcted idea within a philosphical argument - whereas "God" might be referring to a supposed proper name for a singular identity within a specific belief system (along the lines of God/Allah/Jehova etc). Inverted commas may indicate that you are simply using the term that other people typically use without endorsing the sentiment or bestowing the honourific that they are.

...and so forth.

edit: by the way, any chance of commenting on this... I'd be interested in seeing any links to articles/authors who descibe the latter idea as "intelligent design".

When I said I should have used lower case, I meant that by doing so I would have differentiated my view of intelligent design from the scientific movement known as Intelligent Design, to which I do not subscribe, although I do think it should be taught alongside Darwinism in schools. I should also probably put invertd commas around "God" when I use the term, as I do not refer to the Judeo-Christian deity but to the philosophical concept which is its descendent or analogue.

 

[dylanredefined]

Why teach inteligent design is it because people laughed at creationism.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Why teach inteligent design is it because people laughed at creationism.

Intelligent design *looks* scientific. If you read Dembski's arguments, they are couched in heavy maths and stuff.

On closer examination however, the heavy maths is very creatively interpreted (for example the NFL theorems are not being correctly understood or used according to the guy who proved 'em).

It *looks* like science to anyone who isn't qualified to dig into it and show that it's not though, it's got equations and everything (albeit being used more like incantations) which makes it a highly effective wedge for arguing "Here's a respectable alternative scientific theory that needs to be taught alongside evolutionary theory"

Biblical authority can't get them into science classrooms, but dressing their gibberish up as science, with judicious lobbying and plenty of funding, can.

 

[41132n]

ID is not scientific.

Unfortunately the majority of people do not have the training to understand scientifc methodology and theory to be able to see the lack of such in Intelligent Design.

ID is a cop out.

 

[nino_savatte]

I don't believe in intelligent design, but I don't think these two things are actually incompatible: You simply have to say "Evolution is something God set in motion - part of how he designed the universe". It would even be possible to simply say - for example - that "God" simply caused the big bang and then stood back and let things develop without any more intervention.

However, Intelligent Design typically claims far more than this - that in fact complex organisms were designed and created "as is" and that evolutionary and incremental mechaisms are insufficent to explain how they came about. The nit-picking about incremental evolutionary changes is fair enough in itself - asking how a compex system of interacting genes could have come about - as any scientist can nit-pick about the details of proposed evolutionary mechanisms (although they are typically expected to actually propose a better theoiry). The big problem comes with then making a leap from "we can't currently see how it happened" and "current theories seem to raise some unanswered questions" to "it must therefore have been designed by God". This is logically flawed and not scientific at all.

So it's cod science then.

 

[Brainaddict]

ID is not scientific.

Unfortunately the majority of people do not have the training to understand scientifc methodology and theory to be able to see the lack of such in Intelligent Design.

ID is a cop out.

200 posts in over two years? we feel honoured sir - honoured by your presence.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Leaving aside ID, which I believe to be based on misunderstood science and probably also on the characteristic dishonesty of the fundamentalist christians, are there any legitimate lines of thinking that challenge mainstream evolutionary theory of the sort of which Dawkins could be viewed as a spokeman (Although in his scientific work, especially "The Extended Phenotype" he's sort of getting into the area of debate discussed below)

By legitimate I mean ones that people with real scientific training could take seriously. One possibility might be stuff like Developmental Systems Theory.

DST does challenge the primacy of the gene as replicator, but it does so in a fashion that actually makes sense, at least to a subset of qualified scientists.

The basic idea is that gene expression doesn't take place in isolation, but rather in an environmental context and that you can't automatically assume that any heritable phenotypical expression is solely due to the genes rather than due to other operations going on in that overall environmental context.

see e.g. Grffiths & Gray

Edited to add an illustration from the above paper:

Consider the following two cases: Newcomb et al. (1997) found that a single nucleotide change in blowflies can change the amino acid at an active site of an enzyme (carboxylesterase). This change produced a qualitatively different enzyme (organophosphorous hydrolase), which conferred resistance against certain insecticides. This case fulfills the three requirements for natural selection. There are phenotypic differences in insecticide resistance, these differences are likely to produce differences in fitness, and these differences are heritable. Moran and Baumann (1994) discuss a similar, fascinating example of evolution in action. Certain aphid species reliably pass on their endosymbiotic Buchnera bacteria from the maternal symbiont mass to either the eggs or developing embryo. The bacteria enable their aphid hosts to utilize what would otherwise be nutritionally unsuitable host plants. Aphids that have been treated with antibiotics to eliminate the bacteria are stunted in growth, reproductively sterile, and die prematurely. A lineage that inherits bacteria is clearly at an advantage over one that does not. Once again there is variation (lineages with either different Buchnera bacteria or without Buchnera), these differences confer differences in fitness, and they are heritable. All biologists would recognize the first case as an example of natural selection in action, but they would probably balk at categorizing the aphid/bacteria system in the same way. Yet why should these cases be treated differently when both meet the three criteria for natural selection?

 

[phildwyer]

The basic idea is that gene expression doesn't take place in isolation, but rather in an environmental context and that you can't automatically assume that any heritable phenotypical expression is solely due to the genes rather than due to other operations going on in that overall environmental context.

The same is true of species adaptation. And this is precisely what Darwin denied. Once you bring in environment, and especially once you historicize the solar system, evolution becomes a dialectical rather than a unidirectional process, and is amenable to a theist interpretation just as readily as an atheist one.

 

[Fruitloop]

Once more with feeling - who cares about Darwin? Co-evolution is pretty central to modern evolutionary theory and has no need of a theistic interpretation.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Once more with feeling - who cares about Darwin? Co-evolution is pretty central to modern evolutionary theory and has no need of a theistic interpretation.

Quite.

Indeed, it's only by effectively ignoring co-evolution that Dembski can make his argument with the No-Free-Lunch theorems appear to work.

 

[Crispy]

That quote you gave, Bernie, is fascinating. You could probably tell a similar story about how the mitochondria ended up living inside a cell...

 

[phildwyer]

Once more with feeling - who cares about Darwin? Co-evolution is pretty central to modern evolutionary theory and has no need of a theistic interpretation.

An awful lot of people outside the academy not only care about Darwin, but believe that he discovered the truth about evolution. Where did they learn this, who taught it to them, and how were they allowed to get away with it? Also, "co-evolution" may not need a theistic interpretation, but it doesn't demand an atheistic one either. Again, this is contrary to the popular perception, which is that Darwin rendered it otiose to believe in God.

 

[Fruitloop]

Nobody outside of lunatic asylums things that Darwin was literally correct about all aspects of evolutionary theory. He was one of the founders of a science that is now vastly more complex, and more accurate at modelling the world as we see it.

You can tack on a theistic interpretation if you like, but you'll have a job to convince me that it's more than a superfluous excresence. What does a theistic interpretation add to the model that was lacking before?

 

[phildwyer]

You can tack on a theistic interpretation if you like, but you'll have a job to convince me that it's more than a superfluous excresence. What does a theistic interpretation add to the model that was lacking before?

The question should rather be: what does an *atheist* interpretation add to it?

 

[Fruitloop]

Nothing. An atheistic interpretation merely notes the absence of any creator. The only thing it could possibly add is simplicity - which is after all a highly desirable characteristic in theorizing about the world.

 

[41132n]

200 posts in over two years? we feel honoured sir - honoured by your presence.

This is the reason why

Your post contains nothing but an insult - it wastes photons .

Most of the time I can merely lurk due to time constraints

I was also attempting to get the lowest post/time ratio statistic