[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders (response Part I)

[rmcder at PEOPLEPC.COM (R. McDermott)]

----- Original Message -----=20
=46rom: "Hugh Haskell" <hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: ID defenders [Response to R. McDermott, Part II]

> And Here is the rest of it, part II:
>
> > They believe
> > them to be logically formulated on the basis of what they observe. =
 That
> > they have not employed the scientific method may irk us, but MOST o=
f what
> > people believe is not based on the scientific method, and SOME of w=
hat
> > "science" believes (at the edges of our "understanding") is out and=
 out
> > guesswork.  Why pretend otherwise?
>
> Nobody is pretending otherwise. The issue is not that scientists
> guess about things, but that the guesses are testable, and that whe=
n
> they are found to be wrong, they are abandoned.

But, Hugh, they AREN'T all testable.  For a long time, many of Einste=
in's=20
predictions were untestable.  I don't know how you would go about tes=
ting=20
string theory or any number of other things that we lump into "scienc=
e".

> Of course, this is a complex process. Seldom can a decision be made
> based on a single experiment. Sometimes it isn't the theory or
> hypothesis that is wrong, but the experiment. sometimes the
> experiment was improperly done, or the prediction the experiment wa=
s
> to test was an incorrect extrapolation of the underlying theory. Wh=
en
> a theory is well-established it often takes a whole series of
> experiments to cause it to be overturned, and often the old theory
> will undergo many internal modifications before it is realized that
> it has become too unwieldy to by useful.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as everyone=
=20
understands "the rules".  The problem is that only a minority of the=
=20
population understands the rules under which science operates.  As we=
 are=20
among the very small percentage who DO, it is incumbent upon us to be=
 very=20
careful to convey the rules in what we say and write, and many of us =
are=20
not.

> > As to the second part of what you wrote
> > (falsity of "evolution"), evolution as a PROCESS cannot be disputed=
.
> True. But as I pointed out above, many young-earth creationists (th=
is
> doesn't include the ID-types, for the most part) do dispute evoluti=
on
> as a process.

Or do you mean Darwinism as the mechanism?  I find it hard to believe=
 that=20
anyone would dispute that organisms change over time!  It is so easy =
to=20
demonstrate that it is inconceiveable to me that anyone would have a =
problem=20
bringing a doubter around.

> > It is the extrapolation of  facts into an untestable hypothesis
> > that is in dispute.

For example, we have extrapolated from observations that there was a =
"Big=20
Bang".  However likely that extrapolation is to be true, I can't for =
the=20
life of me see how that can be tested!?

> I'm not sure what you are referring to here. If it is to the origin
> of life itself, then I would say that that is, by consensus, beyond
> the scope of biological evolution.

Yes, that is another example.

> Scientists are seeking the answer to the question of how life came
> about, but no one has yet come up with any definitive answers.

The process of science.

> Many have speculated on possible ways it
> could have happened, but no one is claiming that they have the
> indisputable answer.

But we routinely PHRASE what we say in such a way as to obscure that =
little=20
detail.  The public doesn't automatically add the qualifier that a sc=
ientist=20
does mentally: "What we observe leads us to believe such and forth.=
=20
Subsequent testing has not shown this to be in error, so we have a 75=
% (or=20
90%, or whatever) level of confidence in our speculation.  We do not =
KNOW=20
that this is correct, but we strongly (or very strongly) believe that=
 it is.=20
If it's shown to be incorrect tomorrow, we will cheerfully drop this=
=20
speculation in favor of a different one."  The public doesn't underst=
and=20
that concept, and it is incumbent upon those who DO to make it clear =
at some=20
point in what we say and write.  It's just carelessness on our parts.

> So far all anyone has is some rather vague
> possibilities, which need to be subjects to some rigorous
> experimental testing, much of which may still be technologically
> beyond our capability, or may depend upon knowledge of the early
> conditions on earth that we do not know well enough.

Agreed.

> If it is to the origins of different species, then I think the
> evidence is pretty well in. It may not be the completely defined
> continuum that those opposed to evolution insist upon, and it is
> unlikely that it ever will be that complete, but we keep finding th=
e
> intermediate stages between species, even among living species, and
> so far, we have not found any fossils or remains or even still
> existing species that cannot be fitted nicely into the patterns tha=
t
> have been constructed, that is, we don't find evidence for species
> with no connections to earlier varieties.

Again, if we are unable to convince people that organisms change over=
 time,=20
then we're poor educators.  If we expect them to accept extrapolation=
s as=20
"fact" when they fly in the face of their strongly held beliefs, then
we're deluding ourselves.  You say we see fossils that we can fit "ni=
cely=20
into patterns".  Well that is what we do as thinking organisms.  We s=
ee=20
patterns.  Sometimes we see pattens where none really exist (I make i=
t a=20
point in my classes to be very careful to avoid unintended "patterns"=
 for=20
the kids to pick up on as a short cut to solving physics problems - T=
hey are=20
amazingly creative about the patterns they detect <g>).  AS I've said=
, for=20
me personally, I have no problem with change over time.  Frankly, I d=
on't=20
really care what the mechanism is, or if there is more than one at wo=
rk.  I=20
confess to being skeptical about all life evolving from a single-cell=
ed=20
organism that itself derived from non-living chemicals.  I grant that=
 it is=20
a perfectly ok explanation of what we see, and as long as that is how=
 it is=20
presented, I have no problem with it.

> All DNA looks pretty much
> alike--it is made up of the same basic building blocks, all the coi=
ls
> rotate in the same sense, the connections are the same--only certai=
n
> bases connect to certain others--and the means of replication is th=
e
> same in all species. When one looks at living matter at the cell
> level and below, the similarities are striking--much more so than t=
he
> differences. While this doesn't rule out other possibilities, it
> certainly strongly suggests a common origin.

Agreed, the only issue is the nature of the common origin.

> In what other areas might you think that untestable hypotheses have
> been made by scientists?
>
> > That people, on both sides, so cavalierly toss around the term
> > "evolution" to mean something other than the PROCESS of evolution i=
s the
> > crux of the problem, imo.

> Quite possibly, but in my experience, those doing that are not the
> students of evolution but those opposed to it, who continually try =
to
> make evolution into something it is not and never was intended to b=
e.

I find both equally at fault.  Many biology teachers with whom I am=
=20
acquainted are careless in making the distinction, and they are not a=
ided in=20
the task by prior science teachers.  I'm sure that there are a few pe=
ople=20
out there who feel the need to "debunk" religion doing the same thing=
.  For=20
most of us, I think it is no more than careless phrasing.

> >   > As to the issue of oogenesis, that is a red herring raised onl=
y by
> > >   the creationists.
> >
> > Can't you see that instead of being a "red herring", this distincti=
on is
> > fundamental to the dispute?!
>
> I disagree. As I have stated many times here and elsewhere, evoluti=
on
> is not about the origin of life, only about the mechanism of its
> change.

If everyone agreed with your very correct definition, in what they sa=
y and=20
write, we wouldn't be in the position in which we find ourselves.  Th=
at's my=20
opinion anyway, for whatever than may be worth <g>.
<More in next piece>