[Phys-L] Re: god friendly science

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@CSUPOMONA.EDU>]

> It is difficult to do because of our rigid training, but let's take an
> objective look at this discussion.

IMO our training is precisely what makes us best qualified to take an
objective look.

> ... There are still significant parts of "science" that are
> faith-based, relying upon tenets such as Occam's Razor rather than
> direct observational data (which may be unobtainable).

I disagree.  IMO science is exactly NOT "faith-based."  It is
"evidence-based."  Relying on evidence is precisely the opposite of
relying on faith.  Yes, the strength of the available evidence varies
in different areas.  Theories have our confidence in some direct
proportion to the degree that they are supported by evidence.  In
contrast they earn and deserve our suspicion in direct proportion to
the degree that they are based on faith.

> ... It is not sufficient to present incomplete studies and declare them as
> absolute truths.  We must get the students to think for themselves.

Amen.

> ... I'm not criticizing the "science" arguments only here, both
> sides are equally flawed.

That is your OPINION.  I do not share it.

> The idea that the "the natural world is so complex and well-ordered
> that an  intelligent cause is the best way to explain  it" is also
> refutable opinion

No, it isn't.  (And that is not merely my opinion.)

> and should be presented as such.

I couldn't disagree more.  Presenting it as "refutable opinion" gives
it a false cloak of scientific respectability.

> Now, onto the "supernatural".  The supernatural tends to get invoked
> whenever the data is inconclusive.

Excuse me?  In what way does it "tend to get invoked"?  Who is it
precisely that does this invoking of the supernatural "whenever the
data is inconclusive"?  I genuinely have no idea what you are talking
about here.

> Attempting to put a "natural" explanation on such data is no more
> scientific than a "supernatural" explanation.

I simply can't understand what you are referring to.  Can you give us
a single example of a case where 1) "the data is inconclusive," 2) a
natural explanation has been proffered, and 3) there is a
supernatural explanation that is at least equally "scientific" as the
natural explanation.

> The truth is that we don't know and it is a best guess given our
> background knowledge.  For 2 different people, one with a deep
> religious
> conviction and one with a deep belief that everything is explainable by
> cause-and-effect natural order, the two "best guesses" may be quite
> different, it does not make one any more valid than the other.

If by "valid" you mean "true" then I agree.

Science makes no claims about the "truth" of its conclusions.  "Doing
science" to a large extent MEANS trying to find evidence that will
strenuously test current theories.  We wouldn't test them if we
thought they were "true."  An experimentalist's fondest hope is to be
the first to perform a conclusive test that will overturn an accepted
theory.  History offers many examples.

Nevertheless, although science is always tentative and offers nothing
in the way of "truth," it has compiled a simply magnificent track
record of success--a record not even approached by any other human
pursuit--in building models that have breathtaking predictive and/or
postdictive precision--that is to say, models that specifically rule
out possibilities.

Indeed, the degree to which its statements rule out possibilities is
the degree to which a theory is vulnerable to evidence and it is
precisely that vulnerability to evidence that makes a theory
scientific--the more vulnerable the better.

Evolution, for instance, makes an endless number of forceful
statements about things that simply cannot have been.  As J.B.S.
Haldane has said, the discovery of a single fossil rabbit from the
Precambrian era would constitute strong evidence against evolution.


So I can't tell you that the world wasn't created 6000 years ago (or
even 600 million years ago) any more than I can tell you that there
are no teapots in orbit around Mars.  I can tell you, however, that
the theory that the world was created 6000 years ago (or 600 million
years ago for that matter) is not a viable scientific theory.

NOTICE: The theory that the world was created 6000 years ago IS IMO a
scientific theory because it makes fantastically precise quantitative
postdictions.  Specifically, it rules out the existence of Earthly
things more than 6000 years old.  Because the evidence is
overwhelmingly to the contrary, the theory is no longer viable
scientifically ... even though it still may be true.

Similarly, I can't tell you that an intelligent designer didn't just
make it all this way, but in this case I can go a little further.  I
can tell you not only that it is not a VIABLE scientific theory, but
that it isn't even a SCIENTIFIC theory.  This is because it rules out
nothing and, therefore, is invulnerable to evidence.

Still, it may be true.

> ... With that in mind, let's consider the specific discussion.  There is
> obviously a significant fraction of the population that does not trust
> evolution as an accurate description of the origin of multiple species.

I'm not sure what you mean by not "trusting" it.  Do you mean to say
that they do not find the evidence compelling?  If so, then I must
say I side with Richard Dawkins who is fond of pointing out that the
evidence for evolution is not merely strong, it is simply
overwhelming.  It comes from myriad sources and it forms a tightly
woven and consistent scaffold.  And although it rules out an infinite
number of possibilities, it is uncontradicted by a single piece of
credible evidence.  Again, that doesn't make the theory of evolution
"true," but it certainly qualifies it as first rate Science.

So I have no specific grievance with anyone who expresses his or her
belief that evolution isn't true.  But, allow me to be blunt:  In my
opinion anyone who denies the overwhelming strength of the evidence
for evolution, or who argues that "intelligent design" is an equally
viable scientific theory is either willfully ignorant or a charlatan.

John Malllinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l