My blog about my experiences defending science

[Rach3]

They pretended like I didn't know what I was talking about.

That answer your question?

It is absolutely unproductive to ouright tell your speaker he's a liar, especially if it's true!. It makes you look bad, turns off your audience, demolishes your image, and as a good actor he brushes you right off. Fair? Not at all. If you don't know what else to do, I'm afraid I can't help you.

 

[silkworm]

Actually, me saying that had him make a concession that we focus on one thing and one thing only at future meetings so this won't happen. It was really the best I could do at the time, as my ally and I were hoping for that. That's the "shotgun sprays" thing he said.

Anyway, thanks for answering.

 

[cronxeh]

(Hello physics forums. I absolutely love the level of discussion here, and I look forward to contributing as soon as I figure out what you're all talking about.)

I attend creationism/ID meetings to defend against misrepresentations of science. Since there is no debate, I don't attend to do so, I just go expecting a valid scientific argument, explain why what was delivered wasn't one, and point out any misrepresentations of science presented at these meetings. I am blogging my experiences doing so here:

https://silkworm.wordpress.com/

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.

Science doesn't need to defend itself, and by attending such meeting you give them substance of recognition. Ignore the ignorami and be blissful.

 

[silkworm]

Science doesn't need to defend itself, and by attending such meeting you give them substance of recognition. Ignore the ignorami and be blissful.

It really does need defending, I live in a democratic nation and the demographic that supports this attack on science also elected our president. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away, it obviously only makes it worse. I believe the Dawkins Method as well, however a point should be made that a debate is impossible unitl the 2 sides meet. I refuse to have theological discussions, but I will participate in a scientific argument - but before I do valid science must be presented and valid scientific teminology must be used. When the discussion goes theological, I don't participate because it's not my area.

I'm not giving them a podium, I just go and tell those who are looking for a scientific argument why a valid one has not been presented, and the one that was presented was a lie.

 

[silkworm]

Well, the plot just thickened. CORR is planning to have guest speakers via CCTV, the first being Dr. Lucas and they hope to have Dr. David Menton, etc.

 

[cronxeh]

It really does need defending, I live in a democratic nation and the demographic that supports this attack on science also elected our president. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away, it obviously only makes it worse. I believe the Dawkins Method as well, however a point should be made that a debate is impossible unitl the 2 sides meet. I refuse to have theological discussions, but I will participate in a scientific argument - but before I do valid science must be presented and valid scientific teminology must be used. When the discussion goes theological, I don't participate because it's not my area.

I'm not giving them a podium, I just go and tell those who are looking for a scientific argument why a valid one has not been presented, and the one that was presented was a lie.

It takes intelligence to understand higher truth. Would you play chess with a gorilla? So why are you trying to level with the theologians? IMHO, they are all obsolete generations walking amongst us. You'd think I'm young and arrogant, but work in ER for a while and you'll come to terms with "some people are too stupid to live" statement.

http://cronx.freeshell.org/hehe.jpg

 

[PIT2]

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?

The question of the origin of life, the universe, etc. have not been answered by science. Faith that science one day will answer this and that the answer will be what one believes it will be, is still merely faith.

A monk might well say that his meditation skills arent broken, so why fix what isn't broken? Why search for a supernatural physical explanation for his experiences, like "electrons collided and viola: the experience is born"?

Btw u might want to u avoid using the natural/supernatural wording (however bizarre some ideas may be), because in essence this simply boils down to circular reasoning. We just cannot decide in up front what nature is, without knowing what it is.

 

[silkworm]

It takes intelligence to understand higher truth. Would you play chess with a gorilla? So why are you trying to level with the theologians? IMHO, they are all obsolete generations walking amongst us. You'd think I'm young and arrogant, but work in ER for a while and you'll come to terms with "some people are too stupid to live" statement.

http://cronx.freeshell.org/hehe.jpg

[/URL]

The supporters are generally good people who were raised in a culture that demonized science and they were lied to about it. They also vote.

 

[silkworm]

The question of the origin of life, the universe, etc. have not been answered by science. Faith that science one day will answer this and that the answer will be what one believes it will be, is still merely faith.

A monk might well say that his meditation skills arent broken, so why fix what isn't broken? Why search for a supernatural physical explanation for his experiences, like "electrons collided and viola: the experience is born"?

Btw u might want to u avoid using the natural/supernatural wording (however bizarre some ideas may be), because in essence this simply boils down to circular reasoning. We just cannot decide in up front what nature is, without knowing what it is.

Here's a little help.

Dictionary.com:

Nature:

1. The material world and its phenomena.
2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature.
3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature.
4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature.
5. Theology. Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.
6. A kind or sort: confidences of a personal nature.
7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: “She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble” (Gertrude Stein).
8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: “Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill” (Percy Bysshe Shelley).
9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See Synonyms at disposition.
10. The processes and functions of the body.

Supernatural:

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

Basically, if something exists physically inside of our material universe we can test it because it is not supernatural, otherwise it is outside the realm of science. This is easy to understand.

 

[PIT2]

Basically, if something exists physically inside of our material universe we can test it because it is not supernatural, otherwise it is outside the realm of science. This is easy to understand.

So the big bang was a supernatural event (or had a supernatural cause) and we human beings have a supernatural consciousness?

Also do u mean that what is outside the realm of science is supernatural?

 

[silkworm]

So the big bang was a supernatural event (or had a supernatural cause) and we human beings have a supernatural consciousness?

Also do u mean that what is outside the realm of science is supernatural?

What would make the big bang a supernatural event?

 

[PIT2]

What would make the big bang a supernatural event?

Its cause does not exist inside our material universe?

But anyway, we both know that intelligent beings exist in our universe, so everything may still be caused by an intelligent being and still not be supernatural. It may in fact be supernatural to create intelligences from non-intelligences

It is pointless deciding up front what nature is...

 

[silkworm]

Its cause does not exist inside our material universe?

But anyway, we both know that intelligent beings exist in our universe, so everything may still be caused by an intelligent being and still not be supernatural. It may in fact be supernatural to create intelligences from non-intelligences

It is pointless deciding up front what nature is...

It's cause does not exist inside out material universe? Can you scientifically support that?

If there is an intelligent being that exists in our universe that did somehow designed the living things on this planet, where is your support for it? Should we just trust your judgement?

What do you mean it may in fact be supernatural to create intelligences from nonintelligences? If it exists in the material universe, scientific data and methodology can support it. It can also falsify it. If such a thing is falsified, it can no longer be a scientific theory.

Again, this isn't difficult to understand.

 

[cronxeh]

The supporters are generally good people who were raised in a culture that demonized science and they were lied to about it. They also vote.

And since when is this a true democracy?

 

[silkworm]

And since when is this a true democracy?

Cronxeh, look at who's in power, look at who voted for them, and look at who supports creationism/ID.

Do you see any similarities? There is cause for alarm.

 

[rcgldr]

Is there any evidence that demonstrates that mutations are truly random, as least in the cases where natural selection isn't eliminating a sub-species?

Assuming life started out as a single cell plant / animal, does random mutation explain the process that resulted in a huge range of variety and sophistication of living things, taking into account the amount of time living things and their energy sources have existed on earth?

 

[Gokul43201]

It is pointless deciding up front what nature is...

And it is theology that does this, not science. Science utilizes a systematic approach to investigate nature and make deductions that fit observations.

 

[silkworm]

Is there any evidence that demonstrates that mutations are truly random, as least in the cases where natural selection isn't eliminating a sub-species?

Assuming life started out as a single cell plant / animal, does random mutation explain the process that resulted in a huge range of variety and sophistication of living things, taking into account the amount of time living things and their energy sources have existed on earth?

Pardon me, I'm not sure I totally understand your question.

Mutations in genetic information do occur, and as long as these mutations do not make the organism suffer a premature death or make it unable to reproduce, these mutations will spread throughout its species, even without natural selection eliminating some organisms and favoring others.

For more information, I'd consult the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy-Weinberg" , which is mathematical and does not assume selection (but also does not assume mutation), and a study of DNA replication.

 

[PIT2]

And it is theology that does this, not science. Science utilizes a systematic approach to investigate nature and make deductions that fit observations.

Exactly my point. As soon as one, in the name of defending science, starts calling some things supernatural and other things natural, then one has turned science into a religion.

For instance, when one decides up front that it is supernatural for the universe or life to have been created, then one is making a statement no different from the statements religious people often make (saying that it is supernatural (ridiculous) that the universe or life weren't designed).

So yes, technically science isn't a religion. However, i understand fully how some people (without knowing it) can turn science into a religious view of reality. For instance take this article below: http://www.physorg.com/news68731082.html

It discusses the possible options for why the universe is such an improbable cosmic coincidence. Because this is a scientific source, nowhere does it mention that there does infact exist the possibility that the universe might have been created. I can understand that people who read such literature their entire lifes may start to develop the misconception that "because the scientific literature doesn't mention this option, it simply is not an option!".

 

[PIT2]

It's cause does not exist inside out material universe? Can you scientifically support that?

Did matter exist at the moment of the big bang?

If there is an intelligent being that exists in our universe that did somehow designed the living things on this planet, where is your support for it? Should we just trust your judgement?

What judgement?
U seemed to be claiming that it is somehow supernatural when intelligence designs 'life' (as opposed to 'computers' or anything else). I am saying that in order to make those judgements, one has to know what nature is.

Deciding up front that life wasnt designed, because science requires it not to be designed, doesn't make non-design true. In fact, it only says something about ones belief-system and is no different from a religious person believing that god designed life.

Similarly, when a painter discovers that he can't create sculptures with his brushes, he shouldn't claim that sculptures are supernatural or that they don't exist.

If it exists in the material universe, scientific data and methodology can support it. It can also falsify it. If such a thing is falsified, it can no longer be a scientific theory.

Thats fine, but it still says nothing about whether something is supernatural or not.
Unless u mean to say that nature is limited by what science can measure (in which case, again, our consciousness is supernatural)

Talking about falsification, can u tell me how abiogenesis is falsified?

 

[rcgldr]

Is there any evidence that demonstrates that mutations are truly random, as least in the cases where natural selection isn't eliminating a sub-species?

Mutations in genetic information do occur, and as long as these mutations do not make the organism suffer a premature death or make it unable to reproduce, these mutations will spread throughout its species, even without natural selection eliminating some organisms and favoring others.

In higher life forms, this mutation would have to affect the reproductive cells. In the case of human females, it's my understanding that all of the eggs are made before birth, so it's unlikely mutations would affect human eggs, leaving only male reproductive cells, which include a somewhat random sub-set of genes, so the mutation would have to affect the production of reproduction cells. I don't know if other species share this same trait.

But back to my basic question, do the patterns of mutations seem to be random, or do they seem to be biased towards "improvements"? Again, limiting this to the cases where any new sub-species survives and isn't killed off by the environment it's introduced into.

 

[silkworm]

Exactly my point. As soon as one, in the name of defending science, starts calling some things supernatural and other things natural, then one has turned science into a religion.

For instance, when one decides up front that it is supernatural for the universe or life to have been created, then one is making a statement no different from the statements religious people often make (saying that it is supernatural (ridiculous) that the universe or life weren't designed).

So yes, technically science isn't a religion. However, i understand fully how some people (without knowing it) can turn science into a religious view of reality. For instance take this article below: http://www.physorg.com/news68731082.html

It discusses the possible options for why the universe is such an improbable cosmic coincidence. Because this is a scientific source, nowhere does it mention that there does infact exist the possibility that the universe might have been created. I can understand that people who read such literature their entire lifes may start to develop the misconception that "because the scientific literature doesn't mention this option, it simply is not an option!".

It's not difficult to comprehend the difference between natural and supernatural. I even gave you some very simple definitions to help point that out, and I don't know why you've ignored them. It's pretty self explanatory because it's so obvious. I don't know why you're taking such an issue with this. To insert the actions of deities into science would make it a religion, but science does not do that, it only sticks to scientific methodology and is limited to the physical universe.

 

[silkworm]

Did matter exist at the moment of the big bang?
What judgement?
U seemed to be claiming that it is somehow supernatural when intelligence designs 'life' (as opposed to 'computers' or anything else). I am saying that in order to make those judgements, one has to know what nature is.

Deciding up front that life wasnt designed, because science requires it not to be designed, doesn't make non-design true. In fact, it only says something about ones belief-system and is no different from a religious person believing that god designed life.

Similarly, when a painter discovers that he can't create sculptures with his brushes, he shouldn't claim that sculptures are supernatural or that they don't exist.
Thats fine, but it still says nothing about whether something is supernatural or not.
Unless u mean to say that nature is limited by what science can measure (in which case, again, our consciousness is supernatural)

Talking about falsification, can u tell me how abiogenesis is falsified?

The time before the big bang is an extrapolation based on scientific methodology, data, and is limited to the physical universe. So, it is still scientific and it has support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_big_bang"

I'm not saying that an alien source for the design of life on this planet would be a supernatural source, however, for such an idea to become accepted science you must first find support for it. Where is it?

Science does not require that life not be designed, it only requires that if it is designed it has to be designed from a natural source and to be accepted as science, it must have support.

Your arguments weak and apparently biased. Your analogy about the sculpture is comical in its irony. When something is falsified it is because it was falsified, not because a supernatural part of the theory was discovered. Take Haeckel for example. He lost his support for biogenetic law by better observation of an organism's development in the embryo, not because it existed outside of the limits of nature.

I can't tell you how abiogenesis can be falsified, because it does have support. It is not a theory. It simply the generation of life from nonliving things, and does not appear to comment on whether or not it IS the source of life on this planet, just that it is possible.

 

[silkworm]

In higher life forms, this mutation would have to affect the reproductive cells. In the case of human females, it's my understanding that all of the eggs are made before birth, so it's unlikely mutations would affect human eggs, leaving only male reproductive cells, which include a somewhat random sub-set of genes, so the mutation would have to affect the production of reproduction cells. I don't know if other species share this same trait.

But back to my basic question, do the patterns of mutations seem to be random, or do they seem to be biased towards "improvements"? Again, limiting this to the cases where any new sub-species survives and isn't killed off by the environment it's introduced into.

Females are not born with all of their eggs. They actually continually produce them until menopause. I can understand why you'd think that, as most of the public thinks that females are born with all of their eggs. I thought so for a long time, but I didn't have that cleared up until I studied a bit of current biology.

I'm not sure what you mean by subspecies and I'm not entirely sure by what you mean improvements. I assume by improvements you mean mutations that will make an organism more fit for its environment. The answer is no. There are constantly harmful (debilitating birth defects) or relatively moot mutations that does not "improve" the organism.

 

[PIT2]

It's not difficult to comprehend the difference between natural and supernatural. I even gave you some very simple definitions to help point that out, and I don't know why you've ignored them.

The definitions u gave were flawed and boiled down to circular reasoning.

It's pretty self explanatory because it's so obvious. I don't know why you're taking such an issue with this. To insert the actions of deities into science would make it a religion, but science does not do that, it only sticks to scientific methodology and is limited to the physical universe.

And as i said before, the limits of science do not determine what is natural.

 

[silkworm]

The definitions u gave were flawed and boiled down to circular reasoning.
And as i said before, the limits of science do not determine what is natural.

You're going to have to qualify these statements if you want me to respond. As of right now, there's nothing to say. This whole conversation seems to have degraded into, "I know you are, but what am I?"

There's no circular reasoning involved. Science is limited to the natural universe. I'm sorry if that's hard to take, but it's the only way it can work.

 

[PIT2]

Science does not require that life not be designed, it only requires that if it is designed it has to be designed from a natural source and to be accepted as science, it must have support.

What is natural?
Can u think of a 'design' theory which is scientific?

Your arguments weak and apparently biased. Your analogy about the sculpture is comical in its irony. When something is falsified it is because it was falsified, not because a supernatural part of the theory was discovered. Take Haeckel for example. He lost his support for biogenetic law by better observation of an organism's development in the embryo, not because it existed outside of the limits of nature.

My analogy hit the nail right on its head
Again u talk of natural and supernatural, without explaining what the two are. The explanation u gave turned us all into supernatural (conscious)beings btw.

These statements come forth from a religious belief which many seem to have about what nature is, while the truth is that we do not know what nature is. This belief is, sadly, based on a method called science, which is used as a tool to investigate reality.

Similarly, a painter uses a tool to paint his paintings. If he decided up front that what his brushes can paint is natural, and that which they cannot paint is supernatural, then sculptures are supernatural.

Its a simple analogy but effective in the that way it shows how ridiculous it is to claim that one knows what is natural and what is supernatural.

I can't tell you how abiogenesis can be falsified, because it does have support. It is not a theory. It simply the generation of life from nonliving things, and does not appear to comment on whether or not it IS the source of life on this planet, just that it is possible.

Are u saying there is no scientific theory for the origin of life?

 

[PIT2]

There's no circular reasoning involved. Science is limited to the natural universe. I'm sorry if that's hard to take, but it's the only way it can work.

U may find this little quote interesting:

Let us look more closely at the definition for methodological naturalism from Wikipedia:

[Methodological naturalism] underlies the application of the scientific method in science, which makes the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes, without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, and hence does not accept supernatural explanations for such events.

Ok, fair enough. So far so good. Let's dig a bit further, to Wikipedia's definition of the supernatural:

The supernatural as distinct from nature

In this, the most common view, the term supernatural is contrasted with the term natural, which presumes that some events occur according to natural laws, and others do not, because they are caused by forces external to nature. Some believe in forces beyond what is commonly considered natural while others believe all forces can be described as natural.

So there we have it. Methodological naturalism is described as science investigating nature, pragmatically, ignoring supernatural explanations. And the supernatural is defined as forces outside of nature. Circular definitions, each defining itself in terms of the other. What a load of rubbish!

 

[rcgldr]

Females are not born with all of their eggs. They actually continually produce them until menopause. I can understand why you'd think that, as most of the public thinks that females are born with all of their eggs.

Only because I've read and heard this a lot from so called biologists. How did this line of thinking get started?

I'm not sure what you mean by subspecies and I'm not entirely sure by what you mean improvements. I assume by improvements you mean mutations that will make an organism more fit for its environment. The answer is no. There are constantly harmful (debilitating birth defects) or relatively moot mutations that does not "improve" the organism.

I thought that most birth defects aren't due to mutations, but due to bad timing in the chemical signals that cause cells to specialize. There are some gene related defects, like getting extra chromosones, such as Down's syndrome, but I'm not sure where the extra chromosone originates from, the mother, the father, or during embryo developement.

Maybe it would be better asked "has there been a equal trend towards simpler life forms due to mutations as well as more sophisticated ones". Could humans "evolve" back into amoebas?

other questions:

Is there an accepted idea for just how often true mutations that result in a new species occur (how many years per mutation on average)?

Is there an explantion for the transition from single celled plant / animals to multi-celled plant / animals? This seems like the first critical step in evolution. The next step would seem to be the development of a nervous system and brain for animals.

A bit off topic here, but how do amoeba's "sense" food and capture it, with no apparent nervous system?

 

[silkworm]

What is natural?
Can u think of a 'design' theory which is scientific?



My analogy hit the nail right on its head
Again u talk of natural and supernatural, without explaining what the two are. The explanation u gave turned us all into supernatural (conscious)beings btw.

These statements come forth from a religious belief which many seem to have about what nature is, while the truth is that we do not know what nature is. This belief is, sadly, based on a method called science, which is used as a tool to investigate reality.

Similarly, a painter uses a tool to paint his paintings. If he decided up front that what his brushes can paint is natural, and that which they cannot paint is supernatural, then sculptures are supernatural.

Its a simple analogy but effective in the that way it shows how ridiculous it is to claim that one knows what is natural and what is supernatural.
Are u saying there is no scientific theory for the origin of life?

Nature is the natural universe. The supernatural exists outside of nature and cannot be controlled by natural means. It also can not be tested. For example, Santa Claus can not be tested. Unicorn evolution will not be present in the fossil record. We can't study the devil to see how he can take the heat, nor can we measure the temperature of Hell.

A good example of this was given to my by my friend recently. If you pick something up and let go of it, you know it's going to fall because of the theory of gravity. It's been tested, in our universe, over and over again. You can't as a scientist say that God is simply pushing the objects down because you can't prove it, and you also can't control God to see what would happen if he weren't pushing them down. You can't measure God's contribution to falling objects, and you can't control for the effect of any supernatural force on the object because it can not be controlled.

As I said in previous posts, a 'design' argument could made scientifically as being done by an extraterrestrial, not supernatural, being or beings. These aliens would exist in our universe. HOWEVER, for such an argument to have validity, scientifically, it would have to be supported scientifically. Also, I feel I must note, that this design argument would have to explain everything that the theory of evolution explains, and does not solve the problem of their origin.

Conciousness is part of the natural universe. It is generally studied in the realm of psychology and neurology. It is governed by our physical universe, and so can be, and is, tested by science.

Your analogy is still a weak one. But let's stick to the assumption he can only paints what he can see. Sculptures would not be supernatural because your painter's experiences are based in the 3 dimensional objects that he does experience. Because of that, a sculpture would exist in nature, a nature he cannot escape, and if he paints what he can see, he is painting 3D objects, which is what a sculpture is, even if he paints it in 2D. Similarly, if he gives what he paints the appearance of depth he is painting in 3D as a sculpture exists. As he is painting what is real, he cannot paint the supernatural, because he can not experience the supernatural, as in he can't paint a portrait of God because he can not see God.

Abiogenesis is just a term for the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving things, and I mean spontaneous in the scientific sense. There is not currently a THEORY of how this occurred on this planet, but different possibilities have support. They are also based in natural explanations.