The Creationist's Nightmare

[Minstrel]

Popper said a theory "proves its mettle" when it stands up to every new experiment...

He argues that we cannot prove a theory true. The most we can do is falsify a theory.

As long as a theory does its work, it stands up, and the reasons for using it grow stronger.

 

Another feature of a successful theory is economy. A theory that consistently explains the observed phenomena but requires assumptions about unobserved entities is less economical than a theory that doesn't require those assumptions. So the economical theory is better. This is the application of Ockham's Razor. You said in an earlier post that the TOE and ID both explain the data. The TOE is better because it doesn't require us to assume the existence of an entity outside the system that created various species.

 

What kind of data would amount to a counterexample that would disprove the TOE? That's my question.

Pared it down to address only a couple of your points.

Again, the fact that you took the time to put this together warms me.

I have no reason to disagree with the general points you've presented on Popper's Theory theorem. My problem is in accepting that ToE meets these requirements...without...violating the "economical" requirements asserted in your next paragraph. And, while you and others accept that ToE better fits the "economy of theory" requisite...I beg to differ, in that...I see it leaping over fundamental laws of physics...and then, calling the "leaps" justified.

What kind of data would amount to a counterexample...?

Immediate appearance, in the fossil record, of fully formed complex systems of life (with eyeballs).

When they appear...in the record...what is stated... "It doesn't matter... We'll find the explanation soon enough."

Sorry... I don't want to debate anyone on this. You're comfortable with your beliefs. I'm trying to find mine.

Sincere regards.

[Minstrel]

Looking for a presentation of scientific evidence for Evolution in an online community focused on leaving a religion.....that is a little off.

 

Look at old posts involving Mr.Neil, and Mr. Spooky. They are our science guys (who we haven't seen in a while....miss you guys!). Now, they know the science enough to explain it waaaay past the layman's understanding of science. Now while their stuff is good, the links they would post were even better.

I don't know that, at any point, I even suggested that I came to this "online community" looking for a presentation of scientific evidence for Evolution... What I did say was...it looks like everyone in this thread (and a number of others) is convinced...(and I am not)...and thus I wanted to see if anyone had some stream of logic I might have overlooked...and was willing to share it.

What would qualify for "knowing the science"? A degree in Nuclear Engineering? A degree in Electrical Engineering? Haven't studied them in years...but...if all I need is one of those degrees...I could return to school, and have it in a semester... So, I guess that last semester is the one that equips one with the intellect...to consider "the nuts and bolts of the argument" for ToE.

Regardless. I think it best, as earlier stated...to exit this thread, and its close relations...where I hope not to cause as much of a disruption.

[♦ ficino ♦]

My problem is in accepting that ToE meets these requirements...without...violating the "economical" requirements asserted in your next paragraph. And, while you and others accept that ToE better fits the "economy of theory" requisite...I beg to differ, in that...I see it leaping over fundamental laws of physics...and then, calling the "leaps" justified.

It doesn't seem to me that positing the injection of energy from the sun or elsewhere in the solar system into the earth's system is the same maneuver as positing the existence of supernatural entities that are not detectable by any agreed-upon method. So I don't see how the TOE violates Ockham's Razor.

 

What kind of data would amount to a counterexample...?

Immediate appearance, in the fossil record, of fully formed complex systems of life (with eyeballs).

When they appear...in the record...what is stated... "It doesn't matter... We'll find the explanation soon enough."

 

I'm under the impression that much advance has been made on this front since Darwin. Still, I agree that to my non-scientist's mind, it's a puzzle how I'd set out the parameters of a counterexample to the TOE in advance. Can anyone else enlighten me on this? Perhaps with bacteria or viruses, where changes in generations come quickly enough to be catalogued. Or with fossils, to look for human and dinosaur fossils in the same geological beds.

 

Sorry... I don't want to debate anyone on this. You're comfortable with your beliefs. I'm trying to find mine.

 

But debate is the interesting part when it's genuine and not just slinging "verses" or private experiences! I've learned a lot on this site.

I do want to reiterate that I don't think acceptance of the TOE is a "belief" analogous to acceptance of a religious or metaphysical dogma. In principle, the TOE can be falsified, or it doesn't count as a scientific theory. It's analogous to the copernican theory of the solar system. It either works or it doesn't work as an explanation of the data and as a predictor. It's open to checking by agreed methods by anyone - no special inner light or grace required.

I say this because IDers and creationists try to frame "evolutionism" by the parameters of religious belief, and that is inaccurate.

[white_raven23]

You didn't cause a disruption per se.

 

And there is some good older material in the Science and Religion forum.

 

It's just that most of us have gone round and round over ToE more than once.

[scitsofreaky]

I have no reason to disagree with the general points you've presented on Popper's Theory theorem. My problem is in accepting that ToE meets these requirements...without...violating the "economical" requirements asserted in your next paragraph. And, while you and others accept that ToE better fits the "economy of theory" requisite...I beg to differ, in that...I see it leaping over fundamental laws of physics...and then, calling the "leaps" justified.

I think the main point with Ockham's Razor is that ID makes a totally unprovable assumption. One cannot prove a deities existence, especially when most consider said deity to be metaphysical.

Scientific theories, just like everything else, are based on assumptions. The question is whether or not these assumptions can be justified within the terms of the field. ID cannot even theoretically do this.

That being said, ToE needs to prove itself. If it doesn't prove itself to you, so be it. Just keep in mind that the ToE is deeper and broader than most single people know. No single source can give you more than a glimpse of what it has to offer. And it can be a bit, well, tiring to read some arguments because of the childish name calling that some use, but just try to look past it.

[Minstrel]

Again, thanks to you both.

Regarding the amended ToE...known as punctuated equilibrium... To me, it looks like a hastily contrived rewrite...

While I will agree that many ID'ists are really "Creationists-under-cover"...I don't find that across the board. But...it is frustrating, to see an apparently-good argument being slowly but surely tilted to enable the reader to slide into the "logical conclusion" of Christian-God.

I am an investigator, by profession. Formerly, I only worked cases that had already been worked by others (often, many others)...and after years of success...I arrived at an understanding that "Expert Testimony" is nothing more...than information...to 'prove-out'.

My life has not revolve around the issue of ToE... Usually...if I see where a bridge has long been "out"...then see new cars driving around on the other side...I don't put a lot of effort into attempting to prove that they didn't go across on this bridge.

After your replies, though...I almost feel like I would be talking with friends, as opposed to the evangelistic fervor I prefer to avoid.

Look forward to talking with you both, on more common grounds.

[♦ ficino ♦]

What kind of data would amount to a counterexample...?

Immediate appearance, in the fossil record, of fully formed complex systems of life (with eyeballs).

When they appear...in the record...what is stated... "It doesn't matter... We'll find the explanation soon enough."

 

Minstrel, just on this point, I think Neil and Spooky have posted things a while back within the Science and Religion part of the website. Recently Han has talked about the fallacy behind Irreducible Complexity. Someone cited a link to Zach's blog on this. As I understand it, the fallacy lies in imagining what happens if you take away part of a bodily organ or bodily system from an organism. One imagines that animal as not surviving, or its organs as not working. One supposes that the bodily part or system must have arisen all at once, fully complete. One draws the conclusion that no earlier organism without all the bodily parts in question could have been the evolutionary ancestor of the organism under discussion, since the bodily parts left over after we mentally subtract one or more parts would not work together in the earlier organism to perform the task.

 

This is IC,right?

 

I think it's a fallacy because the mental act of abstraction, by which we imagine an earlier organism with, say, no lense in the eye, is a thought experiment. It's not an examination of actual past organisms. Every species is already complete; some do things more successfully than others. Isn't it true that more rudimentary species have more rudimentary ways of sensing light and darkness? There is also the fact that some body parts take on new functions over the time in a species' history.

 

So how "sudden" is the appearance of organisms with eyeballs in the fossil record? X million years could be enough time for organisms with eyes to evolve from organisms with more rudimentary sensory organs, no? That time interval may not show up in the fossil record.

 

Anyway, I agree with you that the ToE hasn't been proved, strictly speaking. I gather that the more data we get, though, the more it "proves its mettle." ID on the other hand is not a rival scientific theory, because it's not a scientific theory at all.

[Ouroboros]

Ficino, you're correct.

 

Another example of explaining IC is to compare it to a mouse-trap.

 

You need all the parts of the trap for it to work. Like the spring, the hook, the plate etc.

 

So for a mouse-trap to evolve, i.e. one part at a time to mutate into existence, the problem is that it wouldn't work until all parts have evolved into that unit of a trap.

 

Now, the problem with that analogy is that DNA isn't built into one unit like that. Imagine instead that the plate is evolved in a different place of the DNA. The plate would have a function, but a different function. Say it can be used as a paperweight. The lock could be to lock something else before it became a part of the trap.

 

And like you said Ficino, the reason why the ID people don't ask about the eye much anymore, is because the scientists have established some understanding of how the eye evolved in distinct steps.

 

One only needs to think of the eye on a fly. It can't move the eye, and it doesn't have eyelids, but it's still an eye, just a simpler form. Some worms (IIRC) have sense of light, which is the most rudimentary form of it.

 

--edit--

 

But to answer the original question on this thread, "creationists nightmare", maybe poisonous fruits or mushrooms would fall into that? Why did God create them? And to compare to the "Banana argument" (which is the so called "evolutionists nightmare") some of them are easy to access and eat, and some you can cook to avoid the toxins and some it really doesn't matter, they'll give you hallucinations, or kill you.

[Minstrel]

...Anyway, I agree with you that the ToE hasn't been proved, strictly speaking. I gather that the more data we get, though, the more it "proves its mettle." ID on the other hand is not a rival scientific theory, because it's not a scientific theory at all.

When water flows downstream...it is acting under the influences of gravity, and the magnetic pull of larger bodies of water. If there is no path available for the journey, the water will succumb to the receptiveness of the surface on which it has been deposited, or to the influence of its environment. In each case, the water moves toward its greatest influence...not of its own accord.

If, the saying - "the influences of nature alone provide all that is needed to explain the evolution of man" is well founded...I would have to wonder... "what are we evolving toward?".

If the notion of ID is entirely unacceptable, on the grounds of "God"...who's to say - WE aren't god? Who's to say that the entire universe isn't god...all acting together...?

Gotta wonder... Where did consciousness come from? I mean...it isn't like only one of the many phyla evolved this awareness...

This is not where I focus my thought, time or energies...but, I do welcome the conversation.

[scitsofreaky]

So for a mouse-trap to evolve, i.e. one part at a time to mutate into existence, the problem is that it wouldn't work until all parts have evolved into that unit of a trap.

I read somewhere that the analogy is faulty from the start because you can remove some parts and it still works. Good ol' Behe (at least I think that is who used the mouse trap analogy).

I just remember the phrase, "all adaptions are exaptions." Dennett attributes the phrase to Gould, but I'm not sure if it is a direct quote or not (not that it matters). What it means is that the purpose of a feature is not necessarily (and usually is not) the original purpose. Of course, using "purpose" can be precarious because of the baggage the word carries, but it will do.

Regarding the amended ToE...known as punctuated equilibrium... To me, it looks like a hastily contrived rewrite...

I know what you mean actually. Then again, I don't know very much about what it exactly entails. I'm not even sure of what sort of time scale it invloves. On the one hand, I first read about it in the context of the geological timescale, where millions of years is insignificant. But on the other hand, most seem to use it meaning a more conventional timescale, as if a bird with proto-wings gave birth to offspring with fully developed wings.

Can anyone shed light on this, or give some good sources to check out?

Gotta wonder... Where did consciousness come from? I mean...it isn't like only one of the many phyla evolved this awareness...

This is not where I focus my thought, time or energies...but, I do welcome the conversation.

My first question is always, and will always be, what do you mean by consciousness? What is consciousness? Most people start discussing it without even agreeing on what it is.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I would have to wonder... "what are we evolving toward?".

 

Fascinating question, I wonder about it, too, but have no idea! I suspect this is a pseudo-question, though.

 

If the notion of ID is entirely unacceptable, on the grounds of "God"

 

 

I was just saying ID is not a scientific theory. It may have value as a set of metaphysical propositions, though I don't find value in it myself.

 

who's to say - WE aren't god? Who's to say that the entire universe isn't god...all acting together...?

Gotta wonder... Where did consciousness come from? I mean...it isn't like only one of the many phyla evolved this awareness...

 

Philosophers like Hegel said that the most fundamental reality is Spirit, which comes to self-consciousness in us. Ways of thinking of all of reality as primarily spirit or mind go back a long way, as I'm sure you know from your own studies. I don't know of people before Hegel who held that it's in conscious organisms that the universe comes to self-awareness - maybe Fichte.

 

Anyway, it's not a branch of philosophical thinking that attracts me. I'd be simpler and just say that evolution is a process by which organisms adapt to their environment. I don't think they evolve "toward" any goal beyond their continued survival. I used to think that mind in animals must be explained as the product of a creator with mind, that mind could not arise from inanimate chemicals etc. in any combination. I don't see reason to hold this anymore. Organisms perform various functions, some of which we bundle together under the label "mind." Things could have been otherwise; "carbon units" (as in the first Star Trek movie) might never have evolved.

 

I once thought naturalistic assumptions led to an attitude of despair toward life. I used to think only some form of theism explained life and offered hope. I've never been happier than now, a period of my life when I just think that the purpose of any living thing is to exist, and you go on from there to make your existence meaningful. But maybe I feel more in harmony now just because I'm older, have sloughed off some mental baggage, and have tried to sift out what's good.

[Minstrel]

I once thought naturalistic assumptions led to an attitude of despair toward life. I used to think only some form of theism explained life and offered hope. I've never been happier than now, a period of my life when I just think that the purpose of any living thing is to exist, and you go on from there to make your existence meaningful. But maybe I feel more in harmony now just because I'm older, have sloughed off some mental baggage, and have tried to sift out what's good.

On the emboldened point, I consider a song by RUSH... "Roll The Bones" ..."Why are we here? Because we're here... Roll the bones." And, I do not disagree. My experience through life, and what information I've gleaned along the way, points to another conclusion than yours. A conclusion that I have no need to impose on anyone else... So, I won't even try. As you say - "Exist...let the die fall where they may...but Exist".

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.