Re: [Phys-l] Intelligent designists fight back

[kyle forinash <kforinas@ius.edu>]

I haven't followed this thread in detail (too long!) but, for better or 
worse, I will make a few comments which I hope are interesting.

Our evolutionary biologist here asks students in his evolution class do 
an interesting exercise at one point during the semester after the 
students have had a chance to see what evolution is. He formulates a 
series of typical biological problems (I don't have an example of this 
kind of problem but I imagine it might be something like, "why are there 
flightless birds on this island" or "why do we no longer have this 
species in this environment"). He then asks his students to formulate a 
solution to these questions using two methods. The first method is to 
apply what they have learned about evolutionary biology. The second is 
to use ID in any form and from any source they choose. He says this 
quickly convinces students (in a single homework exercise) why evolution 
should be taught and ID not.

The point is that evolutionary theory exemplifies several important 
characteristics that every good scientific theory should have: useful 
for explanation purposes, fruitful for suggesting new lines of 
investigation, shows continued progress over time, well integrated with 
existing knowledge in other fields (e.g. genetics), there is no 
competing theory which is better. Who decides these issues (e.g. 
utility, progress, etc.)? The community of informed participants 
(scientists who have studied the theory and its alternatives) decides. 
ID (even the mathematical, technical versions based on statistics) has 
none of those features.

It seems reasonable to me that if individual researchers want to spend 
time investigating ID to see if there are explanatory uses, if there is 
progress over time, if there is a way to test it, if it can be 
integrated with existing knowledge, etc.  then fine, let them. But until 
the community of biologists come to see ID as scientific (in the sense 
defined above) it should not be part of the curriculum. To compare with 
physics: alternative variants of general relativity at least have the 
virtue of making predictions equivalent to the current paradigm and even 
so, only specialists study them, they are not even mentioned in most 
textbooks. String theories haven't yet been tested but they have made a 
certain progress toward that goal and they have the virtue of trying to 
explain things (unification) for which viable theories don't yet exist. 
We do not, however, teach string theory except in highly specialized 
graduate courses. Moreover, experts in the community generally agree 
these ideas are worth pursuing. ID has none of these features so while 
we might tolerate a few researchers investigating it (on their own time 
and money), it seems ludicrous to claim it is scientific and insist it 
should be taught in high school as an alternative to evolution.

From time to time a first year student has appeared at my door and said 
something to the effect of "I don't believe in QM (or relativity or 
evolution, etc.) and I am going to disprove it". Fine I say. The first 
thing you have to do is learn really well what those theories are 
claiming. The only way to defeat the enemy is to know him well. You will 
get a Nobel Prize if you do but first, here is the theory you have to 
beat. Your theory has to be judged better (by the community of experts) 
than those theories. Most of us hope our students will go on to improve 
on what we have left behind. When we think about what we should teach 
these new scientists we should focus on teaching the best information 
that we currently have (evolution, chemistry, astronomy), the current 
front runner, the theory to beat, not poorly formulated, less useful 
ideas such as ID or alchemy or astrology.

Science is a pragmatic and contingent form of truth. Are some things 
wrong in what we think we know now for certain? You bet (we scientists 
would quickly be out of a job if we already knew everything). But until 
we have better information we are justified in believing (yes believing) 
that what is in the textbooks is true. As a community or individual it 
is a very reasonable position to hold dogmatically onto what we think is 
true UNTIL we are presented with better information. It may have been 
quite reasonable at one time to believe (as Newton did) that alchemy 
might lead to something useful. But no longer; we have better theories. 
Same with ID; ID (and its predecessor, creationism) has been 
unsuccessful in providing a better tool for understanding nature.

It is this contingent, pragmatic idea of truth that non-scientists have 
so much trouble with. Most people (maybe everyone) wants absolute truth 
(and as someone on the list said, they often want science to give them 
this absolute truth). I don't think there is such a thing. Scientific 
truth isn't like religious truth, it isn't absolute. We get to change 
our minds (and we should!) if there is better information. Until then we 
are entirely justified to hold tightly onto and defend what we think is 
true.

kyle


> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Intelligent designists fight back (R. McDermott)
>    2. Re: Intelligent designists fight back (R. McDermott)
>    3. Re: Intelligent designists fight back (John Mallinckrodt)
>    4. Re: Intelligent designists fight back
>       (Monsieur et Madame Vieuxbouc)
>    5. Re: Intelligent designists fight back (Jack Uretsky)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
------------------------------------------
 'Violence is the last refuge of the
     incompetent.'
            Issac Asimov

  kyle forinash   812-941-2039
  kforinas@ius.edu
  http://Physics.ius.edu/
-----------------------------------------