Posted on 11/01/2007 5:53:26 PM PDT by truthfinder9
This will be interesting, a documentary movie by Ben Stein on the new wave of thought police and academic suppression in academia and science:
Ben Stein, in the new film EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed
His heroic and, at times, shocking journey confronting the world’s top scientists, educators and philosophers, regarding the persecution of the many by an elite few.
In theatres near you, starting February 2008
Ben travels the world on his quest, and learns an awe-inspiring truth…that bewilders him, then angers him…and then spurs him to action!
Ben realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.
To which Ben Says: "Enough!" And then gets busy. NOBODY messes with Ben.
***
At Big Science Academy we take our motto seriously: “No Intelligence Allowed.” And this year, we are proud to report that in every subject but Science, students and faculty are free to challenge ideas, and seek truth wherever it may lead.
But Science is different. In Science, there is no room for dissent, for dissent is dangerous. That is why we at Big Science simply refuse to allow it. Like dancing, “dissent” can lead to other things.
As Class President Richard Dawkins put it so well: “Shut up!”
As you know…last year we had the misfortune of “presupposition of design” rearing its ugly head, with several students challenging Neo-Darwinian materialism, and arguing incessantly for the right to examine Intelligent Design.
They were all Expelled, of course – but still: it just goes to show where academic freedom can lead, if not shut down immediately!
Sincerely,
Charles Darwin Principal, President, Admissions and Diversity Affairs Officer, Big Science Academy “No Intelligence Allowed”
Many discoveries have been made since 1859 that could have made evolution and common descent an untenable theory. Among them are at least 50 independent methods of determining the age of objects; millions of fossils, any of which found embedded in the wrong strata would pose serious problems, ERVs, which have been entirely consistent with common descent; thirty years or more of laboratory research searching for "forward looking" mutations, or mutations that respond to need.
To the best of my knowledge, the only explicit testable proposal put forward in support of ID is Behe's "limit" of adaptive change requiring two mutations before either is beneficial. He appears not to have searched the literature before making this proposal.
I wrote:
What Coyoteman and other “evolutionists” fail to understand is the fundamental concept of burden of proof in science.
You replied:
The same argument can be made much more strongly against the ID camp.
I reply:
I disagree, and I think this is the fundamental misconception that permeates most if not all of the evolutionist thinking about ID. ID is simply the default, common-sense position that applies when the attempt to explain life by purely natural mechanisms fails. And to say that attempt has failed is an understatement. We are a billion light years from explaining the origin of the first living cell by purely naturalistic mechanisms, for example.
You wrote:
As for the ID camp - as long as the Young Earth folks are part of your movement, you’ve got far more serious problems than any evolutionist in reconciling with reality.
I reply:
Not true. The fact that some ID proponents are “young earthers” has no scientific bearing whatsoever on the validity of ID theory that rejects such a notion. The only bearing it has is in “public relations,” and then only because it helps Coyoteman and others to demagogue the issue by conflating ID with young-earth creationism.
My position is that ID is a tautology unless accompanied by a theory of design, one that says something substantial and predictive about the process of design, the motives and methods of the designer, the processes that implement the design.
Without some forensic statement about the process and implementation of design, it is simply a statement about patterns.
You cannot discuss this without reference to the theory of evolution, which is really about the history and methods of design. In other words, both ID and “Darwinism” acknowledge the existence of design, but “Darwinism” explains how the designs came about, the history of change and the algorithm by which living things adapt and change. ID has no equivalent explanatory theory and is therefore scientifically vacuous.
“My position is that ID is a tautology unless accompanied by a theory of design, one that says something substantial and predictive about the process of design, the motives and methods of the designer, the processes that implement the design.”
Ironically, the same can be said about about the Darwinian theroy of evolution. Evolution occurs due to “survival of the fittest,” and how is “fittest” defined? Those who survive, of course. Now *that’s* a tautology.
Also, the Darwinian Theory of evolution has made very few if any actual “predictions” that were actually corroborated. What happens over and over is that empirical findings are explained in terms of the theory *after* they are discovered — not before. In other words, the theory is very good at making “postdictions,” but not so good at predictions.
ID is not logically invalid. I haven't said it is. I said it is a vacuous idea in the absence of a theory.
The debate is not over whether design exists, but over the forensic hypotheses. What is the history of life? How do changes in populations occur over time?
Mainstream biology has a forensic theory, at least one that goes back to single celled organisms. To the best of my knowledge, ID asserts that some unspecified entity or entities, having unspecified capabilities and limitations, did some unspecified thing or things at unspecified times and places, for unspecified reasons, using unspecified methods.
This is not wrong. It is vacuous.
Science is not about to replace a theory that has successfully guided research for a century and a half, with one that offers no guidance and proposes no research other than what is being done anyway.
“My position is that ID is a tautology unless accompanied by a theory of design, one that says something substantial and predictive about the process of design, the motives and methods of the designer, the processes that implement the design.”
One more point. The notion that design cannot be detected without understanding the “methods of the designer, the processes that implement the design” is nonsense. Imagine a person who was raised in the wild and who comes to a city for the first time. According to such “reasoning,” he could not identify an automobile as designed until he sees an auto factory and studies engineering. Baloney.
Nonsense.
Evolution occurs because errors in copying genomes occur which affect the probabilities of individuals surviving and reproducing. This is not a tautology; it is an observable fact. It is a phenomenon that can be observed in natural populations, and it is a phenomenon that can be manipulated and studied in the laboratory.
Apparently you don’t understand what a tautology is. The question of the particular mechanism for survival is beside the point. The point is that “fitness” is defined in terms of survival, and survival is explained in terms of “fitness.” That’s a tautology.
I’m not claiming that the theory of evolution is nothing but a tautology. I am merely saying that it can be cynically viewed as a tautology just as easily as ID can, if not more so. People in glass houses should avoid throwing stones.
ID is vacuous, if not tautological for the reasons I have given. Mainstream theory of evolution makes specific statements about how genomes change over time. ID makes no such statements. It says nothing about how or why genomes change over time.
We have no naturalistic explanation for the first living cell, nor are within a billion light years of one. Furthermore, mathematical analyses have demonstrated over and over beyond any reasonable doubt that it could not possibly have come about by purely naturalistic mechanisms. The only other logical possibility is intelligent design.
People like you simply close your eyes and then insist that the world is dark. Your thought process is what is “vacuous.”
Russ, would you mind explaining how ID can be disproven?
I wouldn't expect a mathematical analysis to solve a novel problem in chemistry, but I expect progress by actual chemists to continue.
Are you using light year as a unit of time, or of distance? It's hard to tell from the context.
Are you suggesting that unsolved problems in science should be abandoned? What about unsolved problems in medicine?
“Russ, would you mind explaining how ID can be disproven?”
I’ll make a deal with you. First, you tell me how the random origin of the first living cell can be disproven, then I’ll tell you how ID can be disproven.
Disproving the random origin of the first living cell is a bit like disproving the idea that the entire text of the Gettysburg Address once appeared randomly on the Sahara desert due to random winds.
People who reject ID a priori don’t seem to understand what they are buying into.
“Are you using light year as a unit of time, or of distance? It’s hard to tell from the context.”
Give me a break. It’s an expression.
“Are you suggesting that unsolved problems in science should be abandoned? What about unsolved problems in medicine?”
Non sequiter
No, what you cited is circular reasoning. A tautology is a compound proposition’s truth value being unconditionally true regardless of the truth value of the propositions components.
In logical debate, the burden of proof is always upon the person making the positive assertion. This principle is rather simple, but also rather deceptive. There exists a standard formation of a question to determine whether or not the proposition is indeed a positive assertion. As a common example, many people claim that those who claim that gods do not exist have the burden of proof, just as much in fact as those who claim that gods do exist. First of all, it should be perfectly clear to all that those who claim that "gods exist" have the burden of proof. However, those who claim that "gods do not exist" are in fact making an assertion, but a negative one. The standard formation of the assertion is Not There Exists gods. From this formation, it becomes clear that although it is indeed an assertion, it is not a positive assertion and does not in argument have the full burden of proof. However, the burden of proof may be properly shifted to such a person however if a prima facie case is established, which brings us to the next point.
Some people do not really understand the why on that last point, so I shall attempt to explain further. The reason that a negative claim does not have the full burden of proof is because of the fact that they are claiming something to be false. To prove that in science is nearly impossible. While that hardly excuses a proposition, it is however a form of default position. If one assumes that things are false until shown otherwise, one is not likely to believe a positive assertion without reason, and that is part of the point of having the burden of proof--to avoid believing something is established when it has not yet been so. However, one is in danger of believing something false that is true, for this reason, there is some burden of proof on the belief in the negative. Again, the burden is to establish a prima facie case in support of ones position. Once one has done that, then one has established at least a reasonable reason for ones position. The phrase Burden of Proof is deceptive, for it doesn't mean rock solid proof, it means establishing of a rational case in defense of the position.
A prima facie case means a case that is sufficiently developed to require a response. This may mean a little or a lot. The claim is established to the point that if no refutation is offered, it stands in debate. As a general rule, it is better to err on the side of granting a prima facie case when one might not exist, than to allow a prima facie case to go unchallenged.
A proof is an argument that establishes that its conclusion must be true. A standard of proof is a formulation identifying the types of facts needed to establish a conclusion on a given subject matter. In general: the burden of proof is on the party claiming to know something (or making a positive assertion). The onus then falls upon the other party to refute either the logical inference of the conclusion to the premises, the validity of the argument, or its soundness.
Scientists who shift the burden of proof onto their critics by claiming they are correct if they haven’t be refuted, are guilty of the fallacy of drawing a conclusion from false assignment of burden of proof.
An arbitrary assertion is a claim devised entirely by the imagination, but asserted in defiance of the need for evidence. Arbitrary assertions of possibility shift "burden of proof" from "burden to provide evidence" to burden to discount imagination. Scientists sometimes say theories must be “falsifiable” to be admissible: really possibilities should be based on evidence to begin with, not arbitrary assertions. Recall that "proof" means ruling out possible conclusions consistent with the evidence.
A rational argument is one in which a reason or evidence is presented for which a reasonable inference can be made concerning a proposition. For a rational deductive argument to be considered valid, it must be impossible for the conclusion to be false given the premises. A sound argument is one which is valid and the premises are in fact true, and so the conclusion necessarily follows.
Inductive arguments on the other hand concern themselves with probabilities, i.e., given certain premises, the infered conclusion is improbable to be false. If the conclusion more likely than not follows the premise, then the inductive argument is considered strong. However, if the conclusion is not more likely to follow the premise, then the inductive argument is considered weak. A further distinction is made with respect to inductive arguments in that if a strong inductive argument's premise is indeed true, then the argument is considered to be cogent. All weak inductive arguments are considered to be uncogent.
Inductive arguments are subject to erosion however. Given that 9:10 Englishmen smoke a pipe, and Bob is an Englishman, then Bob smokes a pipe is a cogent inductive argument. However, if I add the premise that Bob belongs to Englishmen-Against-Smoking Association, then the argument becomes uncogent (in that it went from strong to a weak argument). Deductive arguments on the other hand are erosion proof. For example, if you're pregnant, then you're a woman. You're pregnant. Therefore, you are a woman. If it rains the streets get wet. It rained today. Therefore, the streets are wet today. For unsound or valid deductive arguments erosion is irrelevent. If it rains the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore it rained. This is NOT an erosion issue.
The issue pertaining to the ID/Darwanist debate pertains to causality, i.e., the origin of species. All reasoning with respect to causal conclusions is ultimately inductive. To be fallacious, a causal argument must violate the canons of good reasoning about causation in some common or deceptive way.
Causal conclusions can take one of two forms:
It is a logical mistake to assert that because a phenomenon is unpredictable (or inexplicable) by current scientific theories, that a better scientific theory cannot be found that provides an adequate natural explanatory model for the phenomena in question; and that therefore, one must assert that the only viable explanation of the unexplained phenomena is supernatural action. This variant is known as the God-of-the-gaps argument.
It is reasonable to, at least provisionally, reject an improbable proposition for which no adequate evidence has been presented. So, if it can be shown that all of the common arguments for a certain proposition are fallacious, and the burden of proof is on the proposition's proponents, then one does NOT commit a fallacy of Argumentum ad Logicam (Fallacy fallacy) by rejecting the proposition. Rather, the fallacy is committed when one jumps to the conclusion that just because one argument for it is fallacious, then no cogent argument for it can exist.
Statements which begin: "It is hard to see how...," "I cannot understand how...," or "it is obvious that..." (if obvious is being used to introduce a conclusion rather than specific evidence in support of a particular view), are usually the foundations for fallacies of the type Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, and specifically the fallacy of the sub-type "argument from personal incredulity". This is the case if the person making the assertion has solely their particular personal belief in the impossibility of the one scenario as "evidence" that their alternative scenario is true (the proponent lacking relevant evidence specifically for the alternative scenario).
Quite commonly, the argument from personal incredulity is used in combination with some evidence in an attempt to sway opinion towards a preferred conclusion. However, it becomes a logical fallacy to the degree that the personal incredulity is offered as further "evidence." In such an instance, the person making the argument has inserted a personal bias in an attempt to strengthen the argument for acceptance of her or his preferred conclusion.
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, believe the designer to be God. Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.
However, science is utterly mute with respect to the supernatural; there's nothing that it can say about it. It can't confirm it empirically, and it can't logically deny it. The supernatural is entirely outside of its purvue, and is opposed on two accounts.
The unscientific aspect of the ID proposition notwithstanding, nothing can be said in an absolute sense regarding the truth value of the propostition. The converse is also true however, in that despite the inherent scientific nature of the theory of evolution, nothing is known whatsoever regarding the truth value of its proposition. Despite a monumental mountain of evidence in support of the inference made for the proposition, its at best inductive logic (and could very well be false regardless of the probabilities). At the same time probabilities have been calculated with respect to processes and events with respect to the mechanics of evolution that have been found to be staggeringly inconceivably improbable. If on the one hand I point to mind boggling quantity of evidence FOR, and yet rational mathematics suggests it to be virtually impossible, am I left with I can't understand how it can be false so therefor it must be true? Isn't that fallacial reasoning?
Its been said that faith is reasonable because there's plenty of evidence for it (even so such evidence can never prove the cause). The converse is however NOT true, in that reason to exist by reason alone does not exist. Quite frankly I accept both propositions to be true in and so far that evolution is limited and constrained in accordance to the tenets of my Christian faith. Scripture is not only literally true, but its Absolutely True. Evolution on the other hand is only provisionally true in so far as the present state of scientific refinement of the model of the hypothesis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.