"What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"

[Esquilax]

Whateverist. I think the good questions IDers ask are especially around what they call irreducible complexity; how did systems with complex mutual-dependency evolve? I think that's an area where evolutionary science is currently weakest (certainly in being able to produce good evidence rather than to propose possible solutions), though progress is being made on what may have been the precursors to, for example, the DNA/mRNA/tRNA/protein system (taking the most fundamental form of 'irreducible complexity'). Having people outside of science pointing to the weakest bits is, I think, actually useful: antagonists are often better at critical review; which is why Plato always developed his philosophy in a dialectic setting (developing his argument with Socrates arguing against his detractors).

There are also some more tangential, but interesting, questions raised by IDers about the nature of information though I think that philosophy rather than science is the better partner to engage with those questions.

So, do the IDers have any answers to those questions of irreducible complexity? Or any evidence to support those? How do they falsify their claims?

Because if they don't have any of those then what they're actually doing is begging the question, not science; they're taking something they see, arbitrarily defining it as irreducibly complex (read: "a thing that proves ID," because they have no way of actually determining whether something is irreducibly complex, after all.) by fiat and then stopping. It's just a convenient label, a tarted up version of "look at the trees!" with a sciency sounding gloss.

The truth is that there are big swathes of what real science is that ID does not even bother with, and that is why they don't deserve scientific attention. It's not whether their questions are legitimate ones for scientists to answer, it's that they cheat.

[Michael]

Do they have answers? Yes. But not ones I find very satisfying :-)

I don't think, though, that people must always have answers to contribute. That would seem to be a science-stopper to me, as frequently the precursor to the great scientific paradigm shifts is the building voice of problems with the current paradigm. It's OK in science to simply raise an objection. Of course we remember those who then find solutions, and that is right and proper I think. But I don't understand those who think science can't or shouldn't engage with objectors. I think science itself, and public knowledge generally, thrives from science being actively engaged in the wider market place of ideas.

[ManMachine]

I see this claim made rather often by Creationists / ID proponents when it is said that neither of those views should be taught as science in schools. The reason they say this is because they believe that their views are banned because "evolutionists" are afraid of honest debate.

But are Creationists / ID proponents really interested in honest debate? From what i can see they are not (just look at the Nye vs Ham debate), creationists in particular engage in so much misrepresentation that one wonders if they actually do so deliberately and not simply due to ignorance of the facts. They also don't really have a scientific outlook but rather presuppose the truth of the bible and try to fit the evidence to their interpretation of it.

ID proponents on the other hands seem to just want to poke holes at evolution and it's mechanisms without providing a scientific solution of their own.

By the looks of it neither of them want to play by the rules of scientific inquiry and research and when asked why they don't publish their papers in respected scientific journals, they claim there is some kind of anti creationist / ID conspiracy going on.

If anything, I think what "evolutionists" are "afraid" of is the subverting and undermining of scientific education that would result by introducing these ideas into the classrooms.

Has a creationist / IDer ever asked you this question when you discuss evolution with them? In their mind what can possibly be the harm in teaching both sides or the so called "controversy"? It is all in the name of honest debate. So why not teach both sides? What are you afraid of "evolutionists"? :p

You do know when it was published the Theory of Evolution was not falsifiable, it was simply accepted by the scientific community at large - in much the same way religion spreads.

While the Theory of Evolution has since been demonstrated to be broadly correct by genetics, we should not forget that it was easy enough to look back when we eventually had proof to justify our earlier 'presuppositions', wasn't it.

MM

[Esquilax]

Do they have answers? Yes. But not ones I find very satisfying :-)

I don't think, though, that people must always have answers to contribute. That would seem to be a science-stopper to me, as frequently the precursor to the great scientific paradigm shifts is the building voice of problems with the current paradigm. It's OK in science to simply raise an objection. Of course we remember those who then find solutions, and that is right and proper I think. But I don't understand those who think science can't or shouldn't engage with objectors. I think science itself, and public knowledge generally, thrives from science being actively engaged in the wider market place of ideas.

You're not getting the point. Objections are fine, and should be raised if the objector thinks they have a legitimate case. It's the way we grow, by addressing the perceived flaws in our position.

The problem with the way ID proponents conduct themselves is that their entire position is built upon objections to the alternative view... and nothing else. There is no evidence for intelligent design, no hypotheses with predictive capabilities, and no falsification. Just objections to evolution. You can see it in the way the bigger name ID proponents argue their case, and even in what I see as their strongest argument, irreducible complexity: what actually is the position of irreducible complexity? "I can't see how evolution could have produced this, and therefore it must have been designed." That's literally it. Whenever an organism is said to be irreducibly complex, the person making that claim has no positive evidence that this is so, they just have a lapse in imagination when considering possible evolutionary pathways for that organism. The entire field is based upon negative evidence aimed at evolution.

Objections are no big deal. Hell, the entire process of peer review (something that ID seems desperate to avoid at every turn, by the way) is based around ferreting out objections before a piece of work even enters the public eye. But ID proponents take objections to be proof of their position, which is way out of line. For a real scientist, an objection is something to be studied and answered. For an ID proponent, an objection is something to be exaggerated and marketed, turned into a hyperbolic piece of merchandise to be cranked out absent peer review and fact checking without a care for evidence.

Objections are one thing. Sitting on those objections, rejoicing in the fact that something you're "against" has a hole in it, actively working to prevent that hole from being filled with knowledge because the argument from ignorance you can make out of it can be turned into a weapon for your ideological agenda, is quite another.

[Michael]

ManMachine

Something I would throw in there is that there is a slight anachronism talking about falsification in Darwin's day. The idea of falsification at the centre of science is quite a recent one (formalised only in the last 50 years). Darwin followed the scientific method of his day which was an inductive method, as described by the great philosopher of science Francis Bacon. Inductive science, such as Darwin's, is based on the accumulation of large amounts of data and the formulation of a model, after the data gathering ('post-hoc'), that best fits the data. Many now see falsification as 'the' scientific method, but I doubt Darwin would have ever come up with his theory using that one particular method of science: inductive, rather than deductive methods (as falsification is) are often behind the great paradigm shifts in science, with falsification then following on. There is a danger people get too wedded to falsification, forgetting that science has a broader range of tools in its toolbox. Inductive reasoning, as per Bacon's science, is still incredibly valuable especially for opening up new ground. And it's still the main foundation of wide-ranging theories like evolution that are not easily subject to simple falsification: we simply look for the best explanation of the available data (that's the inductive method in a nutshell).

Sorry, I just have a bit of a bee in my bonnet when science is equated with just falsification. That would remove centuries of great science, and significantly limit our scientific toolbox today.

[ManMachine]

ManMachine

Something I would throw in there is that there is a slight anachronism talking about falsification in Darwin's day. The idea of falsification at the centre of science is quite a recent one (formalised only in the last 50 years). Darwin followed the scientific method of his day which was an inductive method, as described by the great philosopher of science Francis Bacon. Inductive science, such as Darwin's, is based on the accumulation of large amounts of data and the formulation of a model, after the data gathering ('post-hoc'), that best fits the data. Many now see falsification as 'the' scientific method, but I doubt Darwin would have ever come up with his theory using that one particular method of science: inductive, rather than deductive methods (as falsification is) are often behind the great paradigm shifts in science, with falsification then following on. There is a danger people get too wedded to falsification, forgetting that science has a broader range of tools in its toolbox. Inductive reasoning, as per Bacon's science, is still incredibly valuable especially for opening up new ground. And it's still the main foundation of wide-ranging theories like evolution that are not easily subject to simple falsification: we simply look for the best explanation of the available data (that's the inductive method in a nutshell).

Sorry, I just have a bit of a bee in my bonnet when science is equated with just falsification. That would remove centuries of great science, and significantly limit our scientific toolbox today.

My point was not to denigrate centuries of scientific endeavour or to equate 'science with just falsification'. Having said that the flaws inherent in scientific inductive reasoning have been well covered by Popper, as C D Broad said, 'Induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy." so there is no need to reiterate that debate here.

The argument that eliminating anything not arrived at through a falsifiable theory removing centuries of great science and significantly limiting our scientific toolbox today is not a valid argument against Theology, as in the OP. The underlying point I am making is that the origins of science are no less irrational than Theology, regardless of what it has since become.

MM

[Michael]

Equilax. I wonder if we're talking across each other. What I am advocating is the engagement between different people. I'm not saying that ID doesn't have weaknesses, far from it. But I don't see that as a barrier to science and scientists engaging in a common market place of public discourse. Part of that can be, and should be, highlighting weaknesses in ID. It's the refusal to enter into the discourse that I was, and am, objecting to.

[Gawdzilla]

I think a lot of religious debate comes down to some form of "you can't prove it isn't." Poking holes seems to be the only thing left. Which is fine; poking holes in theories is one of the ways that science progresses and how we learn more about our world and universe.

Just so long as you don't mistake that hole as validation of your own pet theory, which is where creationism and ID proponents fall down, time and again.

Very true. You can't even begin to prove any god or gods unless you're actually addressing that subject.

[Diablo]

Equilax. I wonder if we're talking across each other. What I am advocating is the engagement between different people. I'm not saying that ID doesn't have weaknesses, far from it. But I don't see that as a barrier to science and scientists engaging in a common market place of public discourse. Part of that can be, and should be, highlighting weaknesses in ID. It's the refusal to enter into the discourse that I was, and am, objecting to.

We've just had 37 posts where people are doing just that.

[Esquilax]

Equilax. I wonder if we're talking across each other. What I am advocating is the engagement between different people. I'm not saying that ID doesn't have weaknesses, far from it. But I don't see that as a barrier to science and scientists engaging in a common market place of public discourse. Part of that can be, and should be, highlighting weaknesses in ID. It's the refusal to enter into the discourse that I was, and am, objecting to.

I agree with you right up until you assert that intelligent design has anything to add to the marketplace of public discourse. Frankly, some ideas just are not worthy of consideration, and the scientific community has better things to do than addressing every random idea that any given group of nutjobs decides to believe, no matter the veneer of scientific respectability they happen to adopt.

For the scientific community to be able to address an idea within the framework of actual science- which is their forte, really- then that idea needs to conform to certain minimum standards; demonstrability, falsifiability, predictive capability, and so on. Intelligent design is an unassailable position on all of those fronts, because it does not provide anything to discuss. Giving it any form of attention, in the state it's in right now, would roughly be akin to addressing a group of people who believe, for no reason at all, that air is actually jello. What conversation do you expect to take place?

By and large, if you want answers to the questions ID poses, then they're probably out there, being investigated and rigorously tested by the members of the actual scientific community. And when those answers are found, we all get to watch the ID guys move the goalposts to keep the answers out of reach; just look at how Michael Behe responded to counters to his claim that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex.

I guess that's the point I'm making, is that if you think the ID side has any interest in an honest conversation about science, if you think for even a minute that they'll come to the table of scientific discourse in the spirit of open and investigative study that you're advocating, then you are sorely mistaken. They have a track record of doing exactly the opposite, and that is why scientists refuse to engage with them. Their ideas are almost devoid of content to begin with, and the debate would involve one side being honest while the other wages an aggressive campaign of misinformation.

What you're suggesting, as intellectually sound as it is, would actually be incredibly damaging to scientific discourse.