Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders




As I mentioned before, ID proponents will point to the awesome
complexity of nature as evidence *for* ID and I strongly suspect
that
the vast majority of those who haven't made up their minds will find
that a compelling argument. So again I would implore us to stick to
the simple facts.

It doesn't matter if there is or isn't evidence for ID. "Evidence
for" is a very tricky and innately subjective thing.

It doesn't even matter if ID is or isn't "true." Science isn't
about
"truth"; it has no way of establishing "truth."

Complexity should be quantifiable. So the argument boils down to it
is improbable that life would evolve spontaneously. Once one says
that, it might be possible to calculate the probability. This is
where the ID hypothesis fails to measure up. I doubt they have a clue
as to how to calculate the probability. I doubt anyone has a clue.

History is littered with things that people said were impossible
(improbable?) that actually came to pass. What is the probability of
having a natural reactor, yet there is evidence that this actually
happened in a Uranium deposit.

The big difficulty is that the general public (70% of whom are below
the formal operational level of thinking) can be convinced by
arguments which do not have firm calculations to back them up.
Statistical reasoning is probably one of the most difficult, and even
formal operational thinkers may still lack this form of reasoning.
(the level may be defined by the Lawson test where advanced
statistical reasoning is generally the question most often missed.)

So ID depends on a statistical calculation that has not been made.
The claim is that evolution is extremely improbable, but even if the
calculation is made that might not disprove ID. The calculation could
knock out the argument, but ID could still survive as a
philosophical/religious belief. One can believe in ID, but the design
includes all of the evidence and statistics. At that point ID is not
opposed to evolution, but rather provides a prime cause, while
evolution provides the physical details.

Essentially all religious people who accept evolution would probably
espouse this form of ID. The fundamentalists are in the end making a
fatal mistake by hitching their theology to a particular model of
physical reality. The RC church was burned by this type of
controversy over Galileo, but eventually they came around. Of course
the thinking Protestants and most thinking Catholics agreed with him.
Unfortunately our country can be burned by the anti-scientific
attitudes, and countries which do not have these attitudes can inherit
the mantle of having superior science and technology. Is this
Lysenkoism all over again with us on the wrong side?

Incidentally teachers and administrators routinely do the same thing.
They accept propositions like technology improves education, without
having any evidence. After all everyone knows this is true! The
lecture system works well. Demonstrations help students understand.
I have seen supposedly intelligent people accept the work of a
salesman without asking for evidence that a particular expensive
technology will improve student learning. I was criticized when I
said there is not any evidence for this. They confused belief with
evidence.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX