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 (response Part I)



----- Original Message -----
From: "Hugh Haskell" <hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: ID defenders (response Part I)


At 11:43 -0400 8/26/05, R. McDermott wrote:

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

It is just that argument that has convinced the ID people to abandon
that aspect of young-earth creationism. It is easy to hold argue
against any type of change with time if you believe that the earth is
only about 6-10,000 years old. Read Duane Gish, or any of the
writings out of the Institute for Creation Science, in San Diego to
see the people who really do believe that change over time is a
misreading of the fossil record.

But evolution only requires observing successive generations of bacteria or
some other such short generation organism. By what you've written
previously, it doesn't require recourse to fossils at all.

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

It is tested by looking for the logical consequences of it, like the
cosmic microwave background and the expanding universe. There is more
to it, of course, and there have been lots of surprises along the way
that have led to some major modifications of the idea (like
"inflation', dark matter and energy, and accelerating expansion). And
"testing" in this manner doesn't "prove" that the big bang is *the*
way things happened, but it does show that it is a plausible
explanation of what we see. That is the best that science can ever
do. New data that we don't know about now can always come along and
force us to make big changes in the current theory, or completely
abandon it in favor of something new.

Agreed. I frankly don't know enough about the assorted data to make a
determination if there is any reasonable alternative explanation for the
data. In that respect we may have winnowed the possibilities down to a
single one in this case. I wouldn't attempt to argue that one way or
another. The point I'm attempting to make is essential the one you voiced
above.

When I teach special relativity to my classes, I point out that the
simple thought experiments that we use to "derive" the properties of
the Lorentz Transformation are not "tests" of the theory, but means
of devising what the consequences of the Einstein postulates. The
validity of the theory comes from looking at the consequences (time
dilation, mass-energy equivalence, etc.) that we can observe in the
real world. In principle that is doing the same thing as we do when
we "verify" the big band theory by looking at the consequences in
today's world, of what happened 13 billion years ago or so.

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

Who is this "we," kimosabe? I cannot speak for others. I only know
what I do, and what I urge others to do as well, and that is to make
clear in every breath the limitations on our knowledge of what *is*
and what *might be.*

As I do. Not everyone is so careful.

Those active scientists that I know also do the
same thing. Unfortunately, we all sometimes get a little sloppy in
our language, but usually we quickly correct ourselves when we do.

Essentially what I've been saying. Of course others are generally less
careful than scientists even if they have a "decent" science background. I
don't think that the kind of discussion occuring here happens very often as
children are educated about science in elementary, middle, and high school.
Thus very few people really understand the nuances.

Many of those who are using the truly misleading language are in two
groups: 1) the popularizers and reporters of science, mostly
journalists, whose training in science is minimal and who mostly have
missed this subtle point, and 2) those anti-science people who are
bent on distorting what science is by setting up straw-men to tear
down. Now if we could just get editors to recognize when the writers
who work for them are distorting what science is, half the battle
would be won, and then we could concentrate on the enemies of science
and wouldn't have to worry about our friends who are doing so much
damage.

If you'll excuse the phrase, Amen, brother <g>!

> 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.

Again, if we are unable to convince people that organisms change
over time, then we're poor educators.

But those who believe in a young earth are hard to convince.

Agreed, but there are so very few of them, that I don't think that it
matters. What is necessary is to remove their support base. You aren't
going to convert idealogues of any stripe. You MUST concentrate on the vast
majority of people instead.

They
find it easy to believe that their god created everything to look
like it changes over time, but it really doesn't. Apparently they see
this a somehow a "test" of their faith.

I suppose it's natural for them to see it that way.

However, most students don't have a problem with the change
over time idea. It's just a surprise to them when they hear it,
since they had never seen it presented before.

I guess other places are not like NY where everyone takes biology around 9th
grade?

If we expect them to accept extrapolations as "fact" when they fly
in the face of their strongly held beliefs, then we're deluding
ourselves.

Well, I don't expect them to see any explanation, whether scientific
or religious as "fact." And I emphasize over and over again, the only
things we can even remotely ascribe to "fact" (and even that is
suspect), is what we directly observe. It is difficult to get
students to stop reporting conclusions that they have been taught as
"facts" instead of the observations they actually make. When they see
something fall to the ground, instead of saying that they saw
something fall to the ground, they start blathering about gravity,
even though, at that point in the course, they know absolutely
nothing about gravity except that people have told them that it is
what "makes" thing fall to the ground. This is a habit that is hard
to break.

Agreed.

You say we see fossils that we can fit "nicely into patterns". Well
that is what we do as thinking organisms. We see patterns.
Sometimes we see pattens where none really exist (I make it a point
in my classes to be very careful to avoid unintended "patterns" for
the kids to pick up on as a short cut to solving physics problems -
They are amazingly creative about the patterns they detect <g>). AS
I've said, for me personally, I have no problem with change over
time. Frankly, I don't really care what the mechanism is, or if
there is more than one at work. I confess to being skeptical about
all life evolving from a single-celled organism that itself derived
from non-living chemicals. I grant that it is a perfectly ok
explanation of what we see, and as long as that is how it is
presented, I have no problem with it.

You are quite right, that humans are pattern-seeking animals, and
they often will find patterns where none exist, or patterns that are
in conflict with other, often better ones. One of the things we need
to do as science teachers is to help the students to learn to
distinguish between real patterns and false ones. It is a very subtle
skill.

Yep.

[snip]

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

Frankly, coming from the other side of the issue of religion, I find
many more teachers promoting various religious views in their
classrooms than I do debunking it.

I'm not sure about the "many more" part, especially since what you say is
happening is blatantly in violation of the separation of Church and State
requirement, but this is precisely why I have a problem with both sides.

>As I have stated many times here and elsewhere, evolution
> 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
say and write, we wouldn't be in the position in which we find
ourselves. That's my opinion anyway, for whatever than may be worth
<g>.

Again, in my experience, the idea that evolution is about the origin
of life itself comes not from the scientists or science teachers, but
from those opposed to the very idea of evolution.

My experience is mostly the opposite. I suppose it depends on one's point
of view.

Anyway, Hugh, I guess we've pretty much beaten this particular horse to
death, and I would say that we're more in agreement than we are in
opposition. A pleasure discussing this with you; all my experiences haven't
been as positive.