[Phys-L] Re: god friendly science

[John Mallinckrodt <ajm@CSUPOMONA.EDU>]

Gary Turner took issue with my assertion that the idea that "the
natural world is so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent
cause is the best way to explain  it" is not a refutable opinion
saying

> I don't follow.  Refute -to deny the truth or accuracy of (Merriam Webster).
>  A refutable opinion is therefore one that has equally viable alternatives.
>  "the natural world is so lacking in intelligence that no intelligent being
> could possibly have been involved" has roughly equal logical support (that
> being approximately zero).  The concept is refutable.

Since you evidently took the time to look it up in Merriam Webster, I
wonder why you skipped the first definition

   1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous

in favor of the second.  Indeed, I would have thought it pretty clear
that I was using the word "refutable" in this, its most common sense.

It is easy "to deny the truth or accuracy of" intelligent design, but
it is not possible "to prove it wrong by argument or evidence" or to
"show it to be false or erroneous."  Accordingly, it is not a
scientific theory.


Gary goes on to offer the following supposed example of a case in
which a supernatural explanation that is at least equally
"scientific" as the natural explanation:

> Suppose I want to figure out why the wind blows, and develop a model
> in which some enormous bird just over the horizon causes the wind by
> flapping its wings.  That is a natural explanation, but is no more
> scientific than having a supernatural being blowing the air around.

This is utter nonsense.  (I'm sorry to be so blunt, but until we all
have our thinking caps firmly in place it appears that I must be.)
One explanation is vulnerable to evidence; the other is not.

> I'm trying to point out that "natural" and "scientific" are not synonymous

I'm willing to concede THAT limited point although I can't come up
with any examples that would render it relevant to the discussion and
neither have you.  More importantly, however, you will not be able to
provide an example of a theory based on supernatural explanation that
is also refutable.


Gary also offers the following:

> Let's compare three statements -
>
> 1. Creatures evolve by survival of the fittest, allowing them to adapt to
> their surroundings.  Small changes occur randomly, with the large changes
> between species being the result of an accumulation of small changes.

Refutable.  For instance, demonstrate that the changes are not
random, that they are directed in some as yet not understood manner
toward the production of more viable life forms.  Since we now
understand the mechanism by which the random changes are induced and
passed on we can test the theory with some precision.

> 2. Creatures evolve by survival of the fittest, allowing them to adapt to
> their surroundings.  Small changes are directed by an intelligent being,
> with the large changes between species being the result of an accumulation
> of small changes.

Not refutable.

> 3. Creatures evolve according to their suroundings following a
> pre-determined path layed out by a divine creator.  Small changes are
> directed by this divine creator, with the large changes between species
> being the result of an accumulation of small changes.

Not refutable.

> Clearly, #1 and #3 are very different, but where is the difference?

One very important difference is, as I have argued, refutability.
Another associated difference is that one can ask questions about the
underlying (natural) mechanism for explanation #1.

Indeed, those questions HAVE been asked AND answered.  There is a
fantastically beautiful and exquisitely NATURAL mechanism that we
have relatively recently discovered that not only fully supports
explanation #1, but that also allows for progress toward even deeper
understanding.  That mechanism raises additional questions and
promotes further hypothesis generation and further testing.
Explanations #2 and #3 offer nothing of the sort.


Gary wraps up his argument with a few final observations:

> The evidence for evolutionary processes is very strong

Indeed it is.  Moreover, while the theory of evolution is highly
vulnerable to the evidence and easily refutable (e.g., the "fossil
rabbit from the Precambrian era" example), there exists essentially
no credible evidence against it.

> However, believing in the driving mechanism as being random chance is no
> more scientific, IMO, than believing in a divine creator.

Again, I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this is an opinion that I find
not only to be utterly absurd, but bordering on the dishonest.  The
"random chance" mechanism by itself is a testable hypothesis as I
have explained above.  But we have progressed FAR beyond THAT simple
state of affairs and now understand, in previously unimaginable
detail, the precise mechanism for the random variations that underlie
the theory of evolution.

> Neither one is scientific because neither one can be systematically studied.

More nonsense.  See above.

> Yet, one is presented as science without question

Yet more nonsense.  The theory of evolution is presented as science
because it CAN be and IS not merely questioned, but vigorously
tested.  See above.

> and one is creating a lot of really interesting discussion.

Sigh.  The fact that ID generates "a lot of really interesting
discussion" does not make it science.

----------------

I will close by saying, again, that none of this makes the theory of
evolution "true."  It merely establishes the theory's awe-inspiring
credentials as Science.  Moreover, its status as first rate Science
has promoted the closely related research that is responsible for a
simply mind-boggling explosion of productive work and knowledge in
cellular microbiology.

Can you even for one moment imagine how different all that would be
if we accepted as "scientific" the theory that evolution is directed
by a supernatural force?

Please.

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