My blog about my experiences defending science

[StarkRavingMad]

Interesting, a mechanism competing with natural selection. Hardly evidence that natural selection never occurs, or isn't universally observed... Theories become more sophisticated and accurate over time; while much is thrown out, experimental evidence is here to stay.

The issue is that natural selection is not grounded in science. Sure there are plenty of ways to determine the age of the Earth at given points and trace transitional and intermediate fossils... but natural selection gets into claiming the motivations or purpose of those transitions. Once you get into the "Why?" of a topic, you're entering the realm of philosophy, not pure science. And in this case, it does not hold up when scrutinized too closely anyway. What Darwin attributed to survival, ID theorists ascribe to a higher purpose.

On the subject of Einstein and Newton... once again you're both right.

In the 19th century, people were locked into the tunnel vision view of Newton mechanics. It could be said that Einstein turned that view on its ear. Or it could be said that he only added to it. The latter kind of diminishes the importance of his word, imo. But regardless, in either case, he changed the way that we perceive and apply Newton's laws. Today we are struggling to come up with ways to reconcile them because they have both been "proven" true, yet they often appear to conflict.

The same could be said of the original topic.

 

[Rach3]

In the 19th century, people were locked into the tunnel vision view of Newton mechanics. It could be said that Einstein turned that view on its ear. Or it could be said that he only added to it. The latter kind of diminishes the importance of his word, imo. But regardless, in either case, he changed the way that we perceive and apply Newton's laws. Today we are struggling to come up with ways to reconcile them because they have both been "proven" true, yet they often appear to conflict.

Newtonian mechanics is most definitely NOT in conflict with special (or general!) relativity - it smoothly falls out as a special case! And neither has been "proven" true - there's no such notion in experimental science.

The issue is that natural selection is not grounded in science...

Then propose an alternate mechanism(s) for antibiotic resistance, and find references to (or perform yourself) experiments which show that this mechanism(s) can in fact explain antibiotic resistance better than natural selection (which is generally accepted). Your paper must be peer-reviewed, of course - I'll accept Science, but Nature will also do.

The entirety of your post is unsubstantiated, and contradicts established science. I refer you to this forum's Posting Guidelines.

 

[Rach3]

I just skimmed through the OP's blog, and WOW - man, learn to control your temper! Those are NOT productive remarks at all!

 

[PIT2]

I plan on branching out to defending misrepresentations of science in other places, but those presented by the creationism/ID movement are the most pressing and hit closest to home so that's my current focus.

It is good to defend science, as long as u don't mistake it for an absolute path to truth, and thereby turn it into a religion of itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Study its strengths, weaknesses and boundaries for thy own good.

 

[Rach3]

"Thy"?


(you probably meant "thine", or even more probably, plain old "your")

 

[PIT2]

I thought thy was old english ?
English isn't my first language so I am probably mistaken.

Anyway, for thine own good then.

 

[Rach3]

It is old english, and that's a problem. Use "your" unless you're being deliberately funny.

 

[PIT2]

They were more like 'wise words'

 

[silkworm]

I just skimmed through the OP's blog, and WOW - man, learn to control your temper! Those are NOT productive remarks at all!

Is this me? What are you talking about? Anything specific?

It is good to defend science, as long as u don't mistake it for an absolute path to truth, and thereby turn it into a religion of itself.

To me, religions have far different requirements that science can allow before being science anymore. Do you have any better suggestions? Any point?

 

[silkworm]

I put this in a separate post to make sure STARKRAVINGMAD saw it.

This is the third and final time I'm going to ask you, and if you don't answer this time I'll just assume you're not going to:

What is the definitive work of Intelligent Design?

I'm not looking for an attempt at a debate, I'm just looking for an answer.

 

[Gokul43201]

The issue is that natural selection is not grounded in science. Sure there are plenty of ways to determine the age of the Earth at given points and trace transitional and intermediate fossils... but natural selection gets into claiming the motivations or purpose of those transitions. Once you get into the "Why?" of a topic, you're entering the realm of philosophy, not pure science. And in this case, it does not hold up when scrutinized too closely anyway. What Darwin attributed to survival, ID theorists ascribe to a higher purpose.

Yikes ! You've been mislead. I take it you have not read any of the hundreds of papers published in mathematics, physics, biology, computer science and statistics journals that involve Bayesian analysis of distributions within large populations. Natural selection may have started off as nothing but a hypothesis based on initial observations (as virtually every successful physical model does), but it has mountains of evidence supporting it now - both observational, and purely theoretical. There is no philosophical handwaving involved. There is no "why ?" that is being answered.

As for most of the rest of this discussion, I concur with Rach - especially about the "pit" that Newtonian physics was supposedly in. The progress of science will strongly be rooted in the correspondence principle, and this will serve as a powerful test for any new development in science.

 

[Evo]

No... it's not. Perhaps some people try to misuse it as such, just as secular humanists have glommed onto Darwin as their vehicle to take religion OUT of our society. But that is not how I understand ID's intent at all.

You don't seem to know what ID really is, who created it, and the reasons behind it. It is exactly as Rach described. Their own "Wedge" document clearly startes their purpose, you've never read it?

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html

 

[PIT2]

To me, religions have far different requirements that science can allow before being science anymore. Do you have any better suggestions? Any point?

What requirements?

I said what i meant in my previous post pretty clearly. As soon as one believes science is the absolute path to truth, then one has granted science divine power.

 

[silkworm]

What requirements?

I said what i meant in my previous post pretty clearly. As soon as one believes science is the absolute path to truth, then one has granted science divine power.

Well, and I mean this respectfully, the only thing with any power at all is nature. Science is what we use to study nature, and so is limited by its bounds. Religion requires some sort of superbeing or superforce outside of the bounds of nature.

I'd never marry science and religion because they are incompatable and science is what I value, simply because science studies where I am, including what I am. Inserting a superbeing or superforce into science degrades it to the point of no longer being functional.

I don't understand why you felt the need to make the statement you did. I can very much differentiate between reality and make believe.

 

[StarkRavingMad]

None of what you've shown me in ID directly refutes the science of aging the Earth, examining fossils, or studying microbiology. ID seeks to correct the sociological changes that too many misguided men have created by mistreating this science. I read the same things and see a reconciliation of science and faith. But for some reason you all read the same thing through this filter because I guess it's so abhorrent to think of allegedly random chance as God's hand.

It's ironic that when you look at cosmology and physics, you see men of faith, Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, even Stephen Hawking, acknowleding God in everything they find. The entire field was founded on the premise of exploring and discovering God's methods.

Why is it so different here?

 

[PIT2]

Well, and I mean this respectfully, the only thing with any power at all is nature. Science is what we use to study nature, and so is limited by its bounds. Religion requires some sort of superbeing or superforce outside of the bounds of nature.

But who is to say that nature is what science requires it to be in order to study it?

Inserting a superbeing or superforce into science degrades it to the point of no longer being functional.

Does nature care what is functional for us?
(No, since the limits of science do not determine what reality is.)

I don't understand why you felt the need to make the statement you did. I can very much differentiate between reality and make believe.

I am only pointing out a danger that I have seen people succumb to in creationism and ID debates. I don't know if any of it applies to u since i haven't read anything uve written about creationism/ID, but just keep these simple and humbling facts in mind:

Was life created / designed? We don't know.
The universe? Idem dito.

Saying that it isn't science to state that it was designed / created, says nothing about whether it was designed / created. It only says something about science itself.

 

[Rach3]

This thread is frayed in several directions; could I ask the Mods to separate the posts which aree actually debating the validty of ID to be branched off, maybe into Biology or Skeptism & Debunking?

 

[silkworm]

None of what you've shown me in ID directly refutes the science of aging the Earth, examining fossils, or studying microbiology. ID seeks to correct the sociological changes that too many misguided men have created by mistreating this science. I read the same things and see a reconciliation of science and faith. But for some reason you all read the same thing through this filter because I guess it's so abhorrent to think of allegedly random chance as God's hand.

It's ironic that when you look at cosmology and physics, you see men of faith, Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, even Stephen Hawking, acknowleding God in everything they find. The entire field was founded on the premise of exploring and discovering God's methods.

Why is it so different here?

The difference is that science holds no position on the existence of God, and cannot do so because a supreme being cannot be controlled for. If you begin reading scientific journals, you'll be hard pressed to find weighing the existence of God in the conclusion of any article.

 

[Hootenanny]

The difference is that science holds no position on the existence of God, and cannot do so because a supreme being cannot be controlled for. If you begin reading scientific journals, you'll be hard pressed to find weighing the existence of God in the conclusion of any article.

But then again, some people say that 'God' has no choice and therefore will make the same decision everytime when faced with a particular question, i.e. always the 'good' choice. If 'God' always makes the 'good' decsion then its 'actions' can be predicted.

~H

 

[silkworm]

But then again, some people say that 'God' has no choice and therefore will make the same decision everytime when faced with a particular question, i.e. always the 'good' choice. If 'God' always makes the 'good' decsion then its 'actions' can be predicted.

~H

Well, I've always had huge amounts of faith in the thoughts of "some people." Some people would wonder, myself included, why would anyone make such an exception, such an edit? What proof would they have? What would be the point?

I could also say God is the Hamburgler from McDonald's, but is too busy stealing Big Macs to make decisions right now.

Or, I could just not worry about it and conduct my experiments and come to my conclusions based on data and not... whatever that is.

I suppose you could do any of those things and still conduct decent science, I just don't know why you'd need to.

 

[silkworm]

But who is to say that nature is what science requires it to be in order to study it?



Does nature care what is functional for us?
(No, since the limits of science do not determine what reality is.)



I am only pointing out a danger that I have seen people succumb to in creationism and ID debates. I don't know if any of it applies to u since i haven't read anything uve written about creationism/ID, but just keep these simple and humbling facts in mind:

Was life created / designed? We don't know.
The universe? Idem dito.

Saying that it isn't science to state that it was designed / created, says nothing about whether it was designed / created. It only says something about science itself.

Did I respond to this already? I thought I did, but i can't find the post.

Who knows if science goes far enough, but we do know that it works without the consideration of the supernatural, why fix what isn't broke?

Science is limited to nature.

 

[silkworm]

I just skimmed through the OP's blog, and WOW - man, learn to control your temper! Those are NOT productive remarks at all!

Rach3, I'm still waiting for a response on this. If you're going to make a statement like this, please qualify it.

 

[Rach3]

Okay then...

At the end I asked, "Are you expecting to be held accountable for endorsing misreprentations and lies about science?"

He asked, "What lies or misreprentations?"

I said, "We've been addressing them and these meetings are so saturated with lies and misreprentations of science I don't see how anyone honest can endorse them."

He asked for me to give him something specific and we could address it and get to the bottom of it.

I said, "These presentations are so vulgarly scientifically inaccurate to address them you'd win by time limitations alone."

https://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/corr-reposted-from-april-21-2006/

 

[silkworm]

Okay then...
https://silkworm.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/corr-reposted-from-april-21-2006/

Yeah, I know that looks like I'm not saying anything, but I'd already established there were several misrepresentations, and at the meeting I did so as well, constantly bringing up points. Saying it out right and watching them act like, "What are you talking about?" led me to say that as default because they didn't have any accountability.

Either way, I'm not sure what the alarm is about on your end.

 

[Rach3]

It is utterly irresponsible to patronize your audience like that - it doesn't even have a semblance of public speaking in it. You're not addressing the audience there or even the speaker; you're talking to yourself. If you have to resort to colorful public insults, you might as well not show up at all.

 

[silkworm]

No, I am talking to the speaker? What are you talking about?

 

[Rach3]

Not addressing the speaker - you are not in any reasonble way attempting to communicate to him, or the audience. You're venting anger in a public display - that's not communication.

 

[silkworm]

I was talking to him? I can't give a verbatim breakdown of the entire meeting, these things last 3 hours, and then I'm there 2 hours afterwards. I can only recap what I remember. If it's not clear I was talking to speaker and had been talking to him for awhile.

 

[Rach3]

I interpret from your own account of events, you can hardly accuse that source of being unfair to you. You should figure out what your goals are at these places - are you merely there to feel self-righteous and throw around insults? Or do want to appear as a cool-headed representative of science, patiently and methodically refuting points, convincing the audience of your argument with earnest rhetoric? The sleaze and demagogy of the I.D.'er in stark counterpoint to your own straight-talking reason?

 

[silkworm]

I interpret from your own account of events, you can hardly accuse that source of being unfair to you. You should figure out what your goals are at these places - are you merely there to feel self-righteous and throw around insults? Or do want to appear as a cool-headed representative of science, patiently and methodically refuting points, convincing the audience of your argument with earnest rhetoric? The sleaze and demagogy of the I.D.'er in stark counterpoint to your own straight-talking reason?

I'm not accusing the source of being unfair to me. This is what happened, I told them against about misrepresentations of science. I had been delivering examples throughout and I mentioned it. They pretended like I didn't know what I was talking about. I just don't understand why you're acting kneejerk over this. Do you have some sort of chip on your shoulder over me or something? What's the deal? Your interpretation seems bizarre as do your assumptions about me.