[Phys-L] Re: ID defenders

[mshapiro at EXCHANGE.FULLERTON.EDU (Shapiro, Mark)]

As to believing in things for which I don't have "direct evidence", I
don't have "direct" evidence that electrons exist.  I've never seen,
tasted, or felt one.  All my evidence that electrons exist is indirect.
Nevertheless, I think it is a much better bet that electrons exist than
that the universe and all the life in it was created in six days.

Dr. Mark H. Shapiro
Professor of Physics, Emeritus
California State University, Fullerton
Phone: 714 278-3884
FAX: 714 278-5810
email: mshapiro@fullerton.edu
web: http://chaos.fullerton.edu/Shapiro.html
travel and family pictures:
http://community.webshots.com/user/mhshapiro


-----Original Message-----
From: Forum for Physics Educators [mailto:PHYS-L@list1.ucc.nau.edu] On
Behalf Of R. McDermott
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:01 AM
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Subject: Re: ID defenders

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hugh Haskell" <hhaskell@MINDSPRING.COM>
To: <PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 1:01 AM
Subject: Re: ID defenders


> At 23:42  -0400 8/24/05, R. McDermott wrote:
> > Is it even remotely possible, Jack, that these examples might
represent
> > different organisms that developed and died out rather than a
progressive
> > "improvement" of a single organism?  How does one test the hypothesis?
> > Sure, it's a likely explanation for what we can observe, but can we be
> > certain that there is no other possible explanation for the
observations?
> > Would it be inconsistent, for example, for these to be "dead ends"
> > stemming
> > FROM a "human" precursor?  Tied up in all this, of course, is our
degree
> > of
> > confidence in dating technology.
>
> Not being a paleontologist, I cannot speak with any great authority,
> but it is my understanding that they seem to be pretty convinced that
> your alternative hypotheses are not realistic. I cannot specify the
> specific evidence that they would cite, but certainly the relative
> ages of the layers in which the bones were found are relevant, and
> the radioactive dating is really a pretty good clock, and it is
> entirely consistent with the evidence of the geologic strata--that
> is, we do not find relative geologic ages and radioactive ages to be
> inconsistent. The techniques of radioactive dating are not terribly
> difficult to understand, although actually carrying out the analyses
> is not without its sources of error. But the ages specified for the
> fossils that make up the human lineage are all found by several
> mutually consistent methods, not just a single one that might leave
> things open to question.

Another poster indicated the (potential) problems that exist in what
you've
written.

> On the other hand, I do agree with your comments about the
> impossibility of "proving" scientific concepts to be finally correct.
> The best we can do is provide compelling evidence for their validity
> (which usually includes evidence from several independent but
> consistent sources), or we can prove them false.

Yep.

> As John Mallinckrodt has cogently pointed out, there is no proving or
> disproving of ID or other religious doctrines, since they are not
> science-based.

I would amend that to being untestable.  The problem is that "science"
ALSO
believes in things that are not really testable.  Anything based on
extrapolation from data and not direct evidence has to be considered
suspect, wouldn't you agree?  As to there being evidence suggesting this
or
that theory, what constitutes evidence is very often a function of the
person doing the evaluating.  We often have to resort to Occam's Razor
which
amounts to a rule for "proper" guessing.

> In fact they are not even hypotheses, since the only
> thing they claim is that the evidence for evolution is flawed,
> spotty, incomplete, or incorrect (take your pick), and so therefore,
> since evolution is clearly wrong, our alternative must be correct.

Firstly one has to understand that there are indeed conflicting
definitions
of the term "evolution".  As I stated earlier, it is indisputable that
the
PROCESS of evolution takes place.  It is easily observable that rapidly
reproducing organisms change over time.  Those who are anti-religion
paint
Christians as disputing this issue which makes them appear to be fools.
Whether organisms change over time is NOT the issue!

Here's the issue - Did elephants, people, spiders, germs, etc all
originate
from a single primordial organism which itself developed from a "soup"
of
(apparently) nonliving molecules?  That is an untestable hypothesis.
There
is no COMPELLING evidence to support that specific hypothesis.  Would
the
observations support the premise that GOD created organisms which then
evolved?  Would the observations also support the premise that life here
on
Earth was "seeded" in some fashion by some unknown galactic or
intergallactic entity?  And about at this point good old Occam gets
dragged
out, right?

> Of course, if ID were to put forth some evidence *for* its validity,
> then it would be testable and it could be shown to be false.

Well, no, not necessarily, since as mentioned above "science" does
involve
untestable, or currently untestable hypotheses on a regular basis.
Proponents consider that the "evidence" suggests intelligent design.
Would
you care to try to falsify that hypothesis?

> Since
> they are not interested in establishing its truth except by
> establishing the apparent falsity of evolution, they will never be
> coerced into providing any evidence for their ideas.

But they do not require additional evidence for their ideas.  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 of
what
people believe is not based on the scientific method, and SOME of what
"science" believes (at the edges of our "understanding") is out and out
guesswork.  Why pretend otherwise?  As to the second part of what you
wrote
(falsity of "evolution"), evolution as a PROCESS cannot be disputed.  It
is
the extrapolation of  facts into an untestable hypothesis that is in
dispute.  That people, on both sides, so cavalierly toss around the term
"evolution" to mean something other than the PROCESS of evolution is the
crux of the problem, imo.

> As to the issue of oogenesis, that is a red herring raised only by
> the creationists.

Can't you see that instead of being a "red herring", this distinction is
fundamental to the dispute?!

> Evolution does not and never has even addressed the
> issue of the origin of life. That is an as yet unsolved question

Then why do science teachers, lecturers, etc routinely do exactly that?
"The universe began with the 'Big Bang'", right?  And "ALL life on Earth
evolved from simple, single-celled organisms in a primordial pool that
originally contained "organic" material".  How many times have you read
or
been told essentially that?  Did you hear any qualifications?  I know
that I
never did, and neither did my children when they were in school.  It is
that
kind of carelessness that has led to this confrontation between
Christians
and those who wish to use science as a club to "debunk" religion, with
reasonable people, on both sides, caught in the middle.  This antagonism
is
absolutely avoidable if we refuse to allow science to be improperly
applied,
and are careful in what we state and how we state it.

> It (evolution) only considers the explanation and
> implications of the observed fact that living forms change with time.
> I don't see how anyone can dispute that observation, and the ID folks
> don't.

Correct.  Most do not dispute what is obviously true.  So let's all put
that
up on the shelf since we all agree, and concentrate on where the points
of
contention actually lie.

> Their claim is that at least some of those changes occur by
> means that evolution cannot account for

Well, I can't say I'm up on all the prevailing arguments, but I have to
confess that I've NEVER heard that argument.  What you're saying is that
there is an ADDITIONAL argument that GOD is actively interferring in an
ongoing way (and so, presumeably is the Devil)?  I would have to think
that
this is limited to an even smaller fraction of the Christian community
than
the strict literalists!