| Subject: Show me the money, Wade |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/ 4/04 12:34am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Not quite you haven't." on 10/ 3/04 1:32pm
Wade:
>Introducing a major paradigm-toppling
>theory into peer review isn't likely to have immediate
>success due to the tenacity of scientists, even if
>there's no real good scientific reason to
>reject it.
Also, trying to submit a metaphysical argument with scant (if any) evidence as science is also not likely to have immediate success. While I agree with your statement, ID falls into this second category of rejected papers.
>To get a brief taste of this issue of
>peer-review and ID theory, I recommend you go to
rel=nofollow target=_blank >href="http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_correspondencewit
>hsciencejournals.htm">here, where you see a
>correspondence between Behe and a publisher. Note
>also that one of the persons whom he corresponded with
>was "painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the
>scientific community to non-orthodoxy."
Yeah - I read it. Here's one of my favorite quotes from that person:
"Metaphysicians who want science to speak out in favor of their beliefs, if not demonstrate them, are already put in a tight spot by the science of yesterday and have nothing to fear more than the science of tomorrow.
In this referee's judgment, the manuscript of Michael Behe does not contribute anything useful to evolutionary science. The arguments presented are weak.
Incidentally, publication in a scientific journal of this article could not be construed as anything resembling a First Amendment right. Naysayers such as Michael Behe have not been muzzled. They have repeatedly aired their point of view, and so be it.
If Behe were right in spite of all, it would become apparent in due time through failures of science. It would be very much out of place to denounce such failures now, since they have not occurred. Having not yet understood all of biology is not a failure after just 200 years, given the amount of understanding already achieved. Let us speak about it again in 1000 years. Meanwhile, metaphysicians should spare scientists their metaphysics and just let the scientists do their work--or join them in doing it."
I think it's pretty clear that, while this person understood the weaknesses of peer review, he or she also understood the non-scientific nature of Behe's work, as evidenced by this quote.
I really don't know why the Discovery Institute published these remarks as though they somehow were beneficial to ID. Unless they're trying to elevate the "persecuted status" rating of Behe and his attempts to push his metaphysical beliefs as natural science.
In fact, I'm not sure why you pointed me to this page, Wade. It only lends support to the point I'm trying to make.
>The "upper tier" ID
>movement is more respectable, but is understandably
>having a difficult time publishing in mainstream
>scientific literature.
Yeah - because they haven't done anything new - just reinterpreted the same old data with a metaphysical bent.
>It seems to "outlandish" for
>many people. Research is still being done, but again
>not in mainstream circles. ID (in its more legitimate
>scientific form) is still in its initial phases.
Well, that's fine - so let me get this straight: You're saying the reason that there's no evidence for ID yet is becuase it's still a very new idea? OK, I can buy that. So until ID researchers actually DO find evidence that clearly supports ID over biological evolution, you have to understand that it's not going to be regarded as science.
>I don't think it's the result of any conspiracy. On
>the contrary, ID theorists have tried to publish their
>ideas. The problem is this little thing called
>tenacity that has been observed throughout the history
>of science.
Actually, the problem is this little thing called, "evidence" that has to be observed BEFORE you start calling something "science."
>Many opponents of ID
>recognize the problems with the non-ID paradigm, but
>continue to say that they will eventually be solved (a
>common response when a paradigm faces a difficulty).
>We may have to wait a few decades to see if this
>really is the case (and this wait may be quite
>reasonable).
And likewise, how long will we have to wait for any sort of evidence for the Intelligent Designer to be found? A few decades? 1000 years? Forever?
>see
>if you can find, for instance, published work in
>peer-reviewed journals regarding, say, a rigorously
>developed explanation of how blood cascading could
>have evolved.
Yeah... I was only able to find a few papers about that... Check out my post called "Short list of clotting cascade papers"
Enough?
>>So I was at a loss as to why ID theory was created:
>>It wasn't created because we discovered anything new
>>that supports it.
>We've got a lot of new stuff that (allegedly) supports
>it, e.g. the details of certain biochemical systems,
>the observed currents of nature and its relevance to
>biological information…
No - the "new"-ness comes from Behe and others' "new" inferior reinterpretation. There was never any "new" empirical fact that prompted the creation of ID. If there was, please send me links or names of papers.
>What about the irreducible complexity of, say, the
>blood cascade?
The concept of "irreducible complexity" is one that you'd only accept if you were already a proponent of ID theory. Before you can offer it as evidence, you'd need to demonstrate that it exists. And, so far, "irreducible complexity" has been observed to exist only in the creative imaginations of ID proponents.
Look - it's like a Creationist offering the Bible as "scientific evidence" for his claims. You can't invent a criteria like that and expect us to accept it just 'cause you say it's so.
The whole basis of "irreducible complexity" is hardly an appropriate conclusion when molecular biology has existed for, what, half a century? I mean, think about this criterion rationally, Wade. It can only be applied where we haven't figured out a plausible scenario for the evolution of the system.
Let me ask you this: Say ID proponents claim a given system is "irreducibly complex." Then we later find a very plausible, rigorous mechanism by which it probably evolved. What then? Has ID been falsified? Or do you just move on to the next not-yet proven system and claim that *this* one is now irreducibly complex?
How many times can ID be proven wrong before you'll admit it's false?
Or is it the case that you'll never accept ID's failure, and continually move from one unexplained system to the next, always claiming that the Intelligent Designer must exist because, "Look at this system! We haven't figured THIS one out yet! Must've been des- Oh. You *have* figured it out..."
How does it work, Wade? Tell me, please. How many times does ID theory need to be wrong before you'll admit it's false?
>What about the fact that we have yet
>to solve the problems of abiogenesis?
As far as I know, ID says nothing useful or rigorous about the origins of life. If it's ID's claim that it replaces evolutionary biology, and ID lacks a rigorous explanation for some phenomenon, then you really can't criticize evolutionary biology for lacking an explanation for the same phenomenon.
So until ID proponents come up with a plausible explanation for the origins of life on Earth, I don't think that you should use this criticism of evolutionary biology - there's no difference between the two as far as this is concerned.
Well, actually, the current "RNA world" hypothesis shows promise - naturally-occurring RNA molecules have been observed as having very complex capabilities - ones that probably helped to generate the complexities of life that we see today.
Doe ID have ANY theory comparable to this? If not, ID is actually INFERIOR to evolutionary biology with regards to abiogenesis.
>Or is your
>response that "we'll solve these problems eventually"?
Well, my response is more like, "We're solving them as we speak." Yeah, I say we'll solve them eventually, but ONLY because we make steady progress. If we were at a total dead-end, just scratching our heads, I'd be more inclined to say that we might not eventually solve them.
But the fact is that we ARE solving them. What has ID been doing? Solving problems like this?
NO, Wade, it hasn't. It's been sitting there, collecting dust, waiting. Doesn't sound like a very active field of inquiry to me, Wade...
>>All it is is an alternate, possible explanation for
>>existing observed phenomena - that we already have a
>>perfectly good explanation for!!!
>No we don't!!! Even the critics of Behe acknowledge
>that the systems he describes are extremely complex
>and currently unexplained [by the current paradigm].
Uh... And how does ID explain them any better? Please explain how ID contributes to our understanding of the natural world.
As far as I can tell, ID wants to substitute the phrase, "We don't yet know," with "The Intelligent Designer Made It, but science can't tell us who or what that designer is."
So you want to replace what we don't know with an explanation that, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION is not scientifically testable?!?!? HOW IS THIS BETTER?
>We don't have any good explanations how (e.g. the
>blood cascade, the origins of life) via non-artificial
>means.
As for the clotting cascade, please see papers listed above.
>Again, is your response that "we'll solve
>these problems eventually"?
Yeah, again, because we ARE, actively progressing towards solutions. Is ID's solution to give up? (yes.) HOW IT THIS BETTER?
>If so, I suggest you be a part of the process in
>refuting the prediction of ID (though I suspect you
>will only continue to confirm it) by actively finding
>a possible means the systems could have been developed
>(abiogenesis, biochemical systems etc.).
So basically, Behe proposed ID, suggested that the clotting cascade was "irreducibly complex" and then sat back, waiting to be disproven. That's not how science works. He just reinterpreted existing data into some convoluted metaphysical dogmatic argument, and then said, "Prove me wrong!"
Nice.
>But
>ignoring the problems and pretending we have a
>“perfectly good explanation” will not do anybody any
>good.
And why do you think that these gaps in the theory of evolutionary biology are being ignored? They're not - they're being currently elucidated. You make it sound like they're being ignored - I suggest you dig your head out of the sand and look around - read some actual journals - see what kinds of research people are doing, and you'll quickly see that, far from these things being ignored, they're being actively researched.
Your claim that these things are NOT being researched is ignorant of the facts. Look around for yourself, Wade.
>>So I must assume that since I've eliminated every
>>possible scientific reason that Intelligent Design
>>theory would have been created for
>You missed a few. To see one scientific reason,
>confer what I said about an alternate answer to the
>currently accepted paradigm.
Right - that was my point exactly. An "alternate" explanation better have some sort of positive evidence to back it up. ID has no such thing.
ID is merely a re-interpretation of existing data - and one that includes a strong assumption that no other scientific theory includes: the existence of a being that somehow created certain aspects of life, but not others... odd how that Intelligent Designer left some things up to chance (i.e., evolution), but took the time to design others. Why do you think that is, Wade? Seriously - why? You're the proponent of it - surely you must have thought about this...
Look - ID proponents (including yourself) seem to refuse to accept the following simple explanation for the gaps in evolutionary theory:
"Molecular biology and the techniques used to study it have only been available in the last few decades. There are so many aspects of life, its origins, and its evolution that we simply haven't gotten to them all yet! It's not that we've hit some brick wall where we are unable to progress further - we're progressing daily! It's just that there's a lot of things to figure out, and we've only been at it a short time."
Why? It's like you give your kid a chemistry set for her birthday. When she hasn't synthesized 95% pure ortho-dinitrotolulene after a week, you take it away, and say, "Well, you'd better give up, kid. Looks like you'll never know anything about chemistry."
It's absurd. What's even more absurd is the fact that ID proponents don't do ANY RESEARCH to support ID - they just rely on the fact that we HAVEN'T figured it all out yet as their supporting evidence. I mean, the ID crowd has got to be the laziest bunch of "scientists" I've ever heard of if this is the case.
Is this the case Wade? If it's not, show me some research done in support of ID - names of papers, published studies, unpublished studies - I don't care!!!
Just something more than "Darwin's Black Box," please - if you've only got a single book that supports your theory, it starts to sound a little like this other "scientific theory" that also only had this one Good Book to support it...
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 