evolution and ID in public schools

[PatKelley]

The implication aside, the real point of my question is that your/my characterisation of the IR claim is designed to set it up to fail the falsifiability test (sorry, that hurts my head...) what I mean is:

The unfalsifability of the statement is dependent not on any intrinsic property of IR but on the fact that humans are very small, slow and localised, and the universe is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is.
[Got distracted there for a minute - back on track now.]

So for example, the existence of heritable elements is central to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. If there is no possibility of disproving the existence in the universe of a heritable element, there is no possibility to absolutely disproving TOEBNS. So TOEBNS is not science.

My point is that a poor characterisation of the main claim will allow any conjecture to be dismissed as unfalsifiable, and it might be more productive to discuss ways in which claims can be reformulated to satisfy the falsifability condition. [I'd also note that Newton's Laws of Gravitation are frequently described as 'Universal', without anybody complaining that this is unfalsifable.

Maybe you did not read my post on this subject. I suggest that you do so, and note that science's central assumption is that we assume that things operate this way (theory) everywhere until an exception arises (falsification) leading to a redefinition or reworking of theory to account for exception. For instance, look up "Phlogiston" or "Spontaneous Generation" for theories that were falsified and then discarded.

Reasoning from the other direction (we cannot discount a theory until it is proven false) is the inverse of this process. The key is that it account for current observation, as well as being subject to falsification.

Demanding the entire universe be shaken out to prove a theory wrong is not science. Somewhere there are fairies with wings who are pink and four inches tall. Prove that theory wrong.

I have shifted the burden of proof; it is up to me to show that my assertion is true; I cannot do this by saying "you can't prove me wrong." That is a negative assertion rather than the positive assertion that there are fairies with wings who are pink and four inches tall.

The point is, until you come up with proof there is no sense in incorporating your theory as there is no merit, extra explanation, better analysis or methodological evidence to it; true or not, it does not matter and can so be discarded.

 

[Upchurch]

The implication aside, the real point of my question is that your/my characterisation of the IR claim is designed to set it up to fail the falsifiability test (sorry, that hurts my head...) what I mean is:

The unfalsifability of the statement is dependent not on any intrinsic property of IR but on the fact that humans are very small, slow and localised, and the universe is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is.
[Got distracted there for a minute - back on track now.]

So for example, the existence of heritable elements is central to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. If there is no possibility of disproving the existence in the universe of a heritable element, there is no possibility to absolutely disproving TOEBNS. So TOEBNS is not science.

My point is that a poor characterisation of the main claim will allow any conjecture to be dismissed as unfalsifiable, and it might be more productive to discuss ways in which claims can be reformulated to satisfy the falsifability condition. [I'd also note that Newton's Laws of Gravitation are frequently described as 'Universal', without anybody complaining that this is unfalsifable.

Biology is not my strong suit. I can't argue the positive and negative aspects of it. Phsyics, on the other hand, is a different story.

It's funny that you mention Newton's Laws of Gravitation. Not only are they falsifiable, they've been falsified. They have been proven false. They are not true.

How was it done? Newton's Laws of Gravitation predicted that the orbit of Mercury around the sun should behave in a certain way. Observation shows that it does not behave in the way that Newton would predict. Close, but definitely wrong. (Einstein came along with the correct theory of gravity, which was close but significantly different to Newton's theory. But that's another post.)

Newton's Law of Gravitation is a very excellent example of a falsifiable scientific theory. All it took was one observation that didn't meet up with the prediction (and actually, there were more), for it to be falsified.

See how the process works? As I said, I'm not biologist. I'm not familiar enough with the theory of evolution to say difinitively how it might be falsifiable. I do know that IR is unfalsifiable because history has shown that no matter how many times a proclaimed irredibly complex system is shown to not be so, there will always be something else that will be proclaimed irreducibly complex. How many times does it have to be wrong before we accept that it is wrong?

 

[sphenisc]

Biology is not my strong suit. I can't argue the positive and negative aspects of it. Phsyics, on the other hand, is a different story.

It's funny that you mention Newton's Laws of Gravitation. Not only are they falsifiable, they've been falsified. They have been proven false. They are not true.

How was it done? Newton's Laws of Gravitation predicted that the orbit of Mercury around the sun should behave in a certain way. Observation shows that it does not behave in the way that Newton would predict. Close, but definitely wrong. (Einstein came along with the correct theory of gravity, which was close but significantly different to Newton's theory. But that's another post.)

Newton's Law of Gravitation is a very excellent example of a falsifiable scientific theory. All it took was one observation that didn't meet up with the prediction (and actually, there were more), for it to be falsified.

See how the process works? As I said, I'm not biologist. I'm not familiar enough with the theory of evolution to say difinitively how it might be falsifiable. I do know that IR is unfalsifiable because history has shown that no matter how many times a proclaimed irredibly complex system is shown to not be so, there will always be something else that will be proclaimed irreducibly complex. How many times does it have to be wrong before we accept that it is wrong?

I think you're missing the whole point of my argument. You can't declare that IR is unfalsifiable in one sentence and then in next say it's shown to be wrong?!

Either Newtonian Gravitation is unfalsifiable or it has been falsified (I'll discount the possibility that it is falsifiable but not yet falsified as it not relevant to my argument.)

If you characterise Newtonian gravitation in the same way as you do IR then it becomes unfalsifiable, but you don't -you make sure that you characterise it in a way which allows it to be falsified. My point is that IR should be treated in the same way.

Secondly, the argument from IR is that an IR system must be the product of an IDer i.e If something is IR then an IDer must exist.
Demonstrating that something thought to be IR is not IR does not invalidate the argument.

Cheers

 

[Upchurch]

I think you're missing the whole point of my argument. You can't declare that IR is unfalsifiable in one sentence and then in next say it's shown to be wrong?!

You misunderstand. IR can be shown in every specific case, but that would not be conclusive that IR is false because, apparently, the intellegence involved has the illusive ability to pick and choose what it designs and what it does not.

Either Newtonian Gravitation is unfalsifiable or it has been falsified (I'll discount the possibility that it is falsifiable but not yet falsified as it not relevant to my argument.)

Do not confuse falsifiable with having been falsified, nor unfalsifiable with not having been falsified.

Being unfalsifiable is not the alternative to having been falsified. One is the capacity, the other is the actuality. What ID lacks is the potentiality to be shown false. Newtonian gravity has the potential to be shown false and, indeed, was. Einsteining gravity likewise has the potential to be shown false, but has not been.

If you characterise Newtonian gravitation in the same way as you do IR then it becomes unfalsifiable, but you don't -you make sure that you characterise it in a way which allows it to be falsified. My point is that IR should be treated in the same way.

The trouble is that ID is not anywhere nearly as well defined as Newtonian gravity was. ID cannot be measured. There is no logic that describes the difference between something that is designed and something that is not.

Secondly, the argument from IR is that an IR system must be the product of an IDer i.e If something is IR then an IDer must exist.
Demonstrating that something thought to be IR is not IR does not invalidate the argument.

EXACTLY!! That's my point! Showing one that one planet did not follow Newton's gravity invalidated the argument. If we find one thing that does not behave by Einsteinian gravity, it will invalidate that argument. This is how a proper scientific argument is formulated and why ID does not fit the category. There is nothing that can be found to invalidate the argument. You can't prove the null hypothesis.

 

[sphenisc]

Maybe you did not read my post on this subject. I suggest that you do so, and note that science's central assumption is that we assume that things operate this way (theory) everywhere until an exception arises (falsification) leading to a redefinition or reworking of theory to account for exception. For instance, look up "Phlogiston" or "Spontaneous Generation" for theories that were falsified and then discarded.

Reasoning from the other direction (we cannot discount a theory until it is proven false) is the inverse of this process. The key is that it account for current observation, as well as being subject to falsification.

Demanding the entire universe be shaken out to prove a theory wrong is not science. Somewhere there are fairies with wings who are pink and four inches tall. Prove that theory wrong.

I have shifted the burden of proof; it is up to me to show that my assertion is true; I cannot do this by saying "you can't prove me wrong." That is a negative assertion rather than the positive assertion that there are fairies with wings who are pink and four inches tall.

The point is, until you come up with proof there is no sense in incorporating your theory as there is no merit, extra explanation, better analysis or methodological evidence to it; true or not, it does not matter and can so be discarded.

I've looked through the thread and I'm not sure which post you're referring to - so I may have misinterpreted your meaning somewhat. I was responding to Upchurch's post so this might have caused some confusion.

Yes, though I don't follow your 'reasoning from the other direction' bit -
" we assume that things operate this way (theory) everywhere until an exception arises " and "we cannot discount a theory until it is proven false" seems to be arguing in the same direction.

"Demanding the entire universe be shaken out to prove a theory wrong is not science."

Exactly, and the best way of addressing a theory which does this, is to rephrase/present it in such a way as to lessen the necessary work to prove it wrong.

If I say that Newtonian gravitation occurs somewhere in the universe then this is unfalsifiable, it 'demands 'the entire universe be shaken out to prove a theory wrong'. So we don't characterise NG in that way. My argument is that any statement about existence somewhere in the universe is intrinsically unfalsifiable, independent of whether it's IR, NG, fairies with wings who are pink and four inches tall or James Randi. Therefore an argument based on such a characterisation tells us nothing interesting about the subject under discussion. The claim of unfalsifiability against IR, ON THIS BASIS, is thus setting it up to fail, and thus 'unfair' treatment of this conjecture.

I hope that is clearer.

 

[Ossai]

BJQ87

youd rather teach it in english? history? math? theres no more relevant subject than science because it relates to science as the theory is that God created life....and science.

It’s religion and shouldn’t be taught in a publicly funded school at all.

Your ignorance shines through.

If evolution were more convincing

and

is not the big bang theory a part of evolutionary theory? If not then I admit i had that misconception, because it is taught in schools seemingly as part of evolutionary theory.

No the big bang (also old theory now and we’ve moved past it) is not part of evolutionary theory.

Because people respect what they are being taught in school, especially children, they see it as an authoritive way of seeing things, and are suseptable to brainwashing...

Apparently you are a key example of this very thing if you don’t understand the basic science put forth so far.

What would it take to convince you that evolution is a fact and that we have evidence for it? Fossils, different breeds sharing the same family tree, development of new abilities by existing life forms – we’ve got them all.

In regaurds to the first, it all depends if they have a religion class.

Why should a publicly funded school have a religious class? Maybe a comparative or history of religion class, but the same people that want ID taught would complain to have it banned as well.

(which i happen to disagree with) Then perhaps teach both theories in science so that they are in contrast

ID isn’t science, nor is does it have a theory, so what is the second theory you mention?

Ossai

 

[PatKelley]

I've looked through the thread and I'm not sure which post you're referring to - so I may have misinterpreted your meaning somewhat. I was responding to Upchurch's post so this might have caused some confusion.

Yes, though I don't follow your 'reasoning from the other direction' bit -
" we assume that things operate this way (theory) everywhere until an exception arises " and "we cannot discount a theory until it is proven false" seems to be arguing in the same direction.

"Demanding the entire universe be shaken out to prove a theory wrong is not science."

Exactly, and the best way of addressing a theory which does this, is to rephrase/present it in such a way as to lessen the necessary work to prove it wrong.

If I say that Newtonian gravitation occurs somewhere in the universe then this is unfalsifiable, it 'demands 'the entire universe be shaken out to prove a theory wrong'. So we don't characterise NG in that way. My argument is that any statement about existence somewhere in the universe is intrinsically unfalsifiable, independent of whether it's IR, NG, fairies with wings who are pink and four inches tall or James Randi. Therefore an argument based on such a characterisation tells us nothing interesting about the subject under discussion. The claim of unfalsifiability against IR, ON THIS BASIS, is thus setting it up to fail, and thus 'unfair' treatment of this conjecture.

I hope that is clearer.

Yes, much. How then would one define IR? Do we have an example, or no? I'm thinking we need to set up criteria for IR.
I would think that exclusion from IR would be if there exists a mechanism for a heritable trait.

So how do we come up with exclusion critera for IR? It does need to be addressed, provided such criteria can be detailed.

 

[sphenisc]

Yes, much. How then would one define IR? Do we have an example, or no? I'm thinking we need to set up criteria for IR.
I would think that exclusion from IR would be if there exists a mechanism for a heritable trait.

So how do we come up with exclusion critera for IR? It does need to be addressed, provided such criteria can be detailed.

Thanks PatKelley , can you say what you mean by "I would think that exclusion from IR would be if there exists a mechanism for a heritable trait. "?

Do you mean, anything with a mechanism for passing on a heritable trait is automatically not irreducibly complex? Why should that be true?

 

[PatKelley]

Thanks PatKelley , can you say what you mean by "I would think that exclusion from IR would be if there exists a mechanism for a heritable trait. "?

Do you mean, anything with a mechanism for passing on a heritable trait is automatically not irreducibly complex? Why should that be true?

To show IR, IR relies upon the idea of new information arising from a mechanism other than genetics. If an organism sported an entire genome that was not in either parent, this would be a heritable trait that has no mechanism.

An analogy:

Say I have a box full of blocks. I shake them, and however they end up, I glue any stacked ones so they don't move and stay stacked. After a while I end up with a few towers that are above the height of the blocks. Looking in, each time I expect to see either a block has fallen out of a tower, or a tower has another block on it.

This represents change over time, and selection. It's only a basic representation of the idea, and only as a basic illustration of the idea, so don't take this as evolutionary theory in a nutshell.

This represents the information in organisms. It is built up (in all of them) from blocks. No matter the configuration, still blocks. We can see the individual blocks. These represent the internal rules of chemistry in shape and the way they can stack; they are not totally equally random but have certain probabilites and manners of stacking that are possible.

We can add more blocks, or we can take some away.

Irreducable Complexity in this case says that one of the configurations could not have occurred by accident - or through our process of shaking then gluing. Indeed, some of the towers it is hard to see how they came about; maybe an arch formed from two towers touching and a block being on top of both. But they still are blocks and still follow the rules of stacking.

A method of showing our hypothesis on stacking to be false:
Show that one of the items is not a block.
Show a configuration of blocks that violates the rules (not stackable, one block suspended in space, and so on)
Show a configuration of blocks that is so improbable as to not be buildable from smaller towers or shapes.

The state of ID is to point to the arch as Irreducibly Complex. While the arch is improbable in one shake, it is probable from multiple shakes, and likely after a while.


ID has to find a prediction that would show that not all blocks are blocks, not all blocks follow the rules of stacking, or that a configuration could not arise by repeated stacking.

Currently, ID would state that an arch could not develop because the glued-together top would not stack on other towers; this is not an example of the three stipulated elements that would change our view of blocks and stacking; one can still arrive at an arch within the rules but not following the path stipulated by ID. ID cannot claim this as an example.

In short, ID relies on a failure of the imagination as proof, much like aliens-built-the-pyramids theories.

 

[sphenisc]

To show IR, IR relies upon the idea of new information arising from a mechanism other than genetics. If an organism sported an entire genome that was not in either parent, this would be a heritable trait that has no mechanism.

An analogy:

Say I have a box full of blocks. I shake them, and however they end up, I glue any stacked ones so they don't move and stay stacked. After a while I end up with a few towers that are above the height of the blocks. Looking in, each time I expect to see either a block has fallen out of a tower, or a tower has another block on it.

This represents change over time, and selection. It's only a basic representation of the idea, and only as a basic illustration of the idea, so don't take this as evolutionary theory in a nutshell.

This represents the information in organisms. It is built up (in all of them) from blocks. No matter the configuration, still blocks. We can see the individual blocks. These represent the internal rules of chemistry in shape and the way they can stack; they are not totally equally random but have certain probabilites and manners of stacking that are possible.

We can add more blocks, or we can take some away.

Irreducable Complexity in this case says that one of the configurations could not have occurred by accident - or through our process of shaking then gluing. Indeed, some of the towers it is hard to see how they came about; maybe an arch formed from two towers touching and a block being on top of both. But they still are blocks and still follow the rules of stacking.

A method of showing our hypothesis on stacking to be false:
Show that one of the items is not a block.
Show a configuration of blocks that violates the rules (not stackable, one block suspended in space, and so on)
Show a configuration of blocks that is so improbable as to not be buildable from smaller towers or shapes.

The state of ID is to point to the arch as Irreducibly Complex. While the arch is improbable in one shake, it is probable from multiple shakes, and likely after a while.


ID has to find a prediction that would show that not all blocks are blocks, not all blocks follow the rules of stacking, or that a configuration could not arise by repeated stacking.

Currently, ID would state that an arch could not develop because the glued-together top would not stack on other towers; this is not an example of the three stipulated elements that would change our view of blocks and stacking; one can still arrive at an arch within the rules but not following the path stipulated by ID. ID cannot claim this as an example.

In short, ID relies on a failure of the imagination as proof, much like aliens-built-the-pyramids theories.

So if I find a rubber ducky in the box with blocks and towers of blocks, would its presence be evidence of IR, and if so doesn't this allow the coexistence of IR and a mechanism of heritable traits within a system?

[We're trying to find criteria for IR here, please try not to be distracted into diatribes about ID in general.]

 

[PatKelley]

So if I find a rubber ducky in the box with blocks and towers of blocks, would its presence be evidence of IR, and if so doesn't this allow the coexistence of IR and a mechanism of heritable traits within a system?

[We're trying to find criteria for IR here, please try not to be distracted into diatribes about ID in general.]

Correct. It would represent something that could not be broken down into a block, and did not have any others like it in the box. ID does currently claim this coexistance with "micro" evolution, or the variance in heritibility of traits. However, not looking in every other box is not a refutation of the rules, nor is it a confirmation that somewhere there exists a rubber ducky.

And I did not mean the latter as a diatribe, it just came out that way, not by Design

 

[BillHoyt]

In particular, there is nothing in Origin of Species to suggest that. There is a single reference to a "Creator" in the first edition of OoS: "Endowed by their Creator with a few forms or one...". I understand that this was dropped from later editions. There is no reference whatsoever to any specific Christian beliefs, and I believe it would be most correct to call Darwin an agnostic.

Have you read the Origin of Species?

Have you read Darwin's autobiography?

 

[sphenisc]

Correct. It would represent something that could not be broken down into a block, and did not have any others like it in the box. ID does currently claim this coexistance with "micro" evolution, or the variance in heritibility of traits. However, not looking in every other box is not a refutation of the rules, nor is it a confirmation that somewhere there exists a rubber ducky.

Great, so we're getting somewhere ( though you mention ID again.. naughty ...naughty)

So, to present a 'slightly' more realistic example - I find a dead cat, and I take a DNA sample, I'm really,really clever so I can predict from the DNA, plus my knowledge of the cat's life experience blahdy blah, what potential states the cat could be in, from fertilised ovum, foetus, kitten etc.
I examine the cat and find a bullet in its brain. I can't account for this bullet from any of the stages of what a cat could look like. So is the bullet an example of IR (at least in the context of the cat/bullet system)?

[For anyone who got bored halfway through, the cat is equivalent to the box of blocks, bullet is rubber ducky, cat development is mechanism of inheritable traits]

 

[BillHoyt]

Can everyone agree to ignore that clown whose post is above this one?

 

[Ducky]

Can everyone agree to ignore that clown whose post is above this one?

Soon as he tells me where my cat went...

 

[sphenisc]

Can everyone agree to ignore that clown whose post is above this one?

No?

 

[PatKelley]

Great, so we're getting somewhere ( though you mention ID again.. naughty ...naughty)

So, to present a 'slightly' more realistic example - I find a dead cat, and I take a DNA sample, I'm really,really clever so I can predict from the DNA, plus my knowledge of the cat's life experience blahdy blah, what potential states the cat could be in, from fertilised ovum, foetus, kitten etc.
I examine the cat and find a bullet in its brain. I can't account for this bullet from any of the stages of what a cat could look like. So is the bullet an example of IR (at least in the context of the cat/bullet system)?

[For anyone who got bored halfway through, the cat is equivalent to the box of blocks, bullet is rubber ducky, cat development is mechanism of inheritable traits]

Finding one (the bullet) would show a trait not derived from heritable characteristics present in DNA. This is all it would show. Such an object would be a change in the somatic organism, and would not have any bearing on evolution, as it could not be passed on. Seriously. Finding a bullet in a cat would not show IC. Many animals incorporate foreign matter, but Darwinian evolutionary theory says it needs to be a trait present in the germ cells; somatic cell heritability (or Lamarckian evolutionary theory) stipulates acquired traits as heritable.

Back to the box analogy. Each box represents a creature. All we've been told is there is something in one of the boxes that is not a block, or is a set of blocks that don't follow the stacking rules.

Showing such an element (a not-block i.e. rubber ducky, or a block that floats and does not follow stacking rules) would bolster support for IC, as one has found an element that cannot be made with the stacking rules, or of blocks. Showing that someone painted on the box would not (change to the somatic or non-heritable cells).

Still, claiming all boxes have not been opened is not proof of a rubber-ducky.

 

[gnome]

I present them as equally probable, not equally supported. Perhaps you are just offended by me saying they are equally probable?

I'd ask what assessment of the probabilities you made.

But my main problem is that by using "theory" you invoke science, because that is a scientific term. If you don't mean "scientific theory" then what do you mean by "theory" at all? Can you define "theory" as you're using it?

 

[sphenisc]

Finding one (the bullet) would show a trait not derived from heritable characteristics present in DNA. This is all it would show. Such an object would be a change in the somatic organism, and would not have any bearing on evolution, as it could not be passed on. Seriously. Finding a bullet in a cat would not show IC. Many animals incorporate foreign matter, but Darwinian evolutionary theory says it needs to be a trait present in the germ cells; somatic cell heritability (or Lamarckian evolutionary theory) stipulates acquired traits as heritable.

Back to the box analogy. Each box represents a creature. All we've been told is there is something in one of the boxes that is not a block, or is a set of blocks that don't follow the stacking rules.

Showing such an element (a not-block i.e. rubber ducky, or a block that floats and does not follow stacking rules) would bolster support for IC, as one has found an element that cannot be made with the stacking rules, or of blocks. Showing that someone painted on the box would not (change to the somatic or non-heritable cells).

Still, claiming all boxes have not been opened is not proof of a rubber-ducky.

I've tried to follow this but I'm obviously misunderstanding the analogy somewhere.
Your orignal post said

"Say I have a box full of blocks..[snip]..This represents the information in organisms. It is built up (in all of them) from blocks."

I took this to mean that one box represented one organism, the block represented a heritable element e.g. a gene. The rules governing the stacking of boxes is equivalent to the way the rules of chemistry govern the production/development of the phenotype of the organism.

Yet in your latest point you say

"Finding one (the bullet) would show a trait not derived from heritable characteristics present in DNA."..."Finding a bullet in a cat would not show IC."

and

"Showing such an element (a not-block i.e. rubber ducky, or a block that floats and does not follow stacking rules) would bolster support for IC, as one has found an element that cannot be made with the stacking rules, or of blocks. "

To present my thoughts more logically:

The bullet is a trait not derived from heritable characteristics present in DNA

The rubber ducky is an element that cannot be made with the stacking rules or of the blocks.

I'm interpreting the bullet as equivalent to the rubber ducky,
'not derived from' as equivalent to 'cannot be made with',
and 'heritable characteristics present in DNA' as equivalent to 'the stacking rules or of the blocks'.

As far as I can see the points of the analogy match up, yet you draw opposite conclusions. What am I missing?

 

[Tricky]

Can everyone agree to ignore that clown whose post is above this one?

Nope, Sorry Bill. I find sphenisc to be an intelligent, non-abusive and even funny poster with whom I happen to disagree. But he seems quite open to reasoned discussion. I think this ought to be exactly the type of person JREF ought to be trying to attract.