For scientists who accept evolution

[Nucular]

I haven't signed it, because a) my degrees are in social sciences, and b) I haven't got my doctorate yet.

It seems there are a lot of people signing this new list who only have a bachelor's or master's degree, or who are qualified in fields far removed from biological evolution. Whilst some of the signatories of the Discovery Institute's list are qualified in, e.g. psychology or mathematics, rather than the biological sciences, they do all seem to at least claim to be PhDs and professors.

I think the noble creator of this new list of supporters of a pro-evolution, anti-ID stance should have defined "scientist", and should have stated in exactly which way it is comparable to other petitions such as the one linked to (if indeed it is intended to be).

I salute the sentiment, but I don't know who he wants to sign it, or why.

 

[Mercutio]

Saladin debates Gish

However, debating a creationist is a specialist job. Consider a paeleontologist put in such a position. He will know a lot about geology and fossils and animal morphology. He will be faced with an opponent who bases his arguments on false statements about the Big Bang, comets, the Moon, information theory, thermodynamics, the speed of light, comets, gravity, the imaginary "law of cause and effect", the position of God in scientific thought, the law of conservation of angular momentum, basic chemistry, and other things which have nothing to do with either the paelontologist's area of expertise nor with evolution. If you think I'm exaggerating, these all all topics covered in one single creationist tract, the title of which was "Evolution 101".

The paeleontologist would, of course, be unable to reply. Of course, the creationist is also singularly unqualified to talk about the subjects on which he discourses so glibly. But he doesn't know it.

To debate a creationist well, then, it is necessary to be an expert, not merely in biology, but also in creationist nonsense.

I saw Gish give a presentation about 10 years ago. I had brought with me a book, about 10 years old at the time, called "scientists confront creationism". The specific book is not important--there are probably a dozen or more similar books, which take the creationist presentation and break it down. You are absolutely correct--the strategy was "divide and conquer", and it worked beautifully. I saw at least 2 questioners at the end say something to the effect of "I am a [biologist, physicist], and what you said about [natural selection, the big bang] was completely wrong, but I am interested in what you said about [big bang, natural selection] and think you might have a point there."

But my point is that his lecture followed, point for point, the outline of the book. Even his jokes and rhetoric were predicted, and had not changed in a decade. I suspect that anyone who wanted to be prepared for a Gish (or whoever) debate could read just one or two of those readily-available books and be fairly certain that Gish was going to re-hash the same material he has all his life.

You still have the disadvantage of experience--he has done this for a lifetime.

 

[Tez]

Stamenflicker I do have a little sympathy for your position. However every field has crackpots and my feeling is the scientists within that field aren't under any obligation to place their ideas under scientific scrutiny. Peer review is no longer important as a vehicle to getting one's ideas "out there", it serves mainly as mechanism of affirmation - important for getting a job, perhaps, but not much else. I know of no one in my field who still uses peer reviewed journals as their primary conduit to the latest results and ideas. Crackpots are obsessed with peer review because they are obsessed with affirming they are not crackpots...

 

[flume]

I know of no one in my field who still uses peer reviewed journals as their primary conduit to the latest results and ideas. ..

What do they use?

 

[Tez]

What do they use?

http://www.arxiv.org

 

[Dr Adequate]

Surely 1988 isn't as good as it gets. YEC was peaking in its ignorance during the conservative 80's. I didn't read the link, but I will if you think its indicative of today's debates.

It's just one I could remember how to find easily. The name "Saladin" and "Gish" are quite distinctive. If, as Mercutio suggest, Gish hasn't changed his act in years, then debating him in the 80s is the same as debating him today.

More recently I think Michael Shermer has debated creationists, and quite probably the text will be on the Internet somewhere.

 

[Dr Adequate]

ID theorist have their ideas attacked in ways that are not even remotely similar to other fields of inquiry...

That is just not true. How popular with their peers are the HIV-doesn't-cause AIDS people? The vaccination-causes-autism people? (There was a huge row a year or two back over precisely the question of whether a given paper should be published at all, IIRC.) The no-such-thing-as-global-warming mob? The cold fusion brigade? Holocaust deniers?

Minority views are, by definition, not popular, and scientists, alas, are only human.

Given the above statement, personal agenda aside, how is it not "good science" to point out weaknesses of any theory?

That would be good science. But the ID crowd haven't actually done so. Have you read the works of their luminaries such as Behe and Demski?

I'm merely pointing out the facts regarding one man's treatment...

My underlining. What we have is one man making allegations (which I'm sure the people he's accusing would deny). Well, that's one man. This is an isolated data point --- an anecdote.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I'm merely pointing out the facts regarding one man's treatment after allowing an ID paper into print. This is the atmosphere, and like any and every fundamentalist I have ever met, most of the Darwinian community is unwilling to admit it exists.

As Dr Adequate stated above, it's one man's account of his treatment. But even giving him the benefit of the doubt, the hostile treatment he received was not the result of "scientific imperialism" or a "dictatorship", but rather of a stand-alone complex (<--geeky Ghost in the Shell reference) of individuals who all felt similarly.

Again, ID and validity. I'm not a proponent.

And I'm not a member of the non-existent "Darwinian community".

 

[jj]

ID theorist have their ideas attacked in ways that are not even remotely similar to other fields of inquiry which are generated outside the dominant purview. The "dissent" form that scientists signed when ID really got getting merely said this:

We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwianian theory should be encouraged.

Ok, I have to ask them, then, what they believe is unlikely given the huge quantity of experiments that happen every second at the molecular level. Something that is very unlikely per-trial is still just about certain in any sort of long run, actually. It may not happen very many times, but if it conveys a gigantic advantage to something that can reproduce ...

None the less, the italic sentence above is not entirely in support of ID, although it does open the door. I wonder how many of the people who signed that petition realize that their signatures are being used as claims that ID is credible, and who would object. Any?

 

[stamenflicker]

What we have is one man making allegations (which I'm sure the people he's accusing would deny). Well, that's one man. This is an isolated data point --- an anecdote.

These allegations were confirmed by the Office of Special Counsel according to the letter they wrote. Given the situation of ID first publication in a peer review journal, if not near the first publication of its kind, what we have is a precedent, not an anecdote.

The allegations are phenomenal and quite severe:

* Efforts to remove the editor, not only from his position with the magazine, but his position as a researcher.

* Limiting his access to specimens for research

* Dowsizing his office, not once but twice and removing his name plate

* Smearing his reputation as a scientist

* Investigating his personal religious beliefs in stark violation of the 1st Amendment

I frankly am surprised that the scientific community, the group of so-called intellectual free-thinkers, would behave in such a manner. Further, I'm bewildered that so many here could just easily dismiss this activity. We've moved beyond rationally debating an idea to irrationally punishing an individual who gave it just a little space to breathe.

You and I have discussed this before, its not the ideas of evolutionary theory that I find particularly distressing. I'm glad someone out there is doing the hard work and I tend to trust the sharper minds in these matters. Instead, it is the atmosphere in which these ideas are generated that makes me uncomfortable.

I hold the fundamental tenants of Christianity. But put me in a "fundamentalist" church and watch me puke. A rose by any other name might smell just as sweet, but if its sitting in a room of skunks a person's attraction with it will certainly be dampened.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Ok, I have to ask them, then, what they believe is unlikely given the huge quantity of experiments that happen every second at the molecular level. Something that is very unlikely per-trial is still just about certain in any sort of long run, actually. It may not happen very many times, but if it conveys a gigantic advantage to something that can reproduce ...

Well, I'm not them--far less educated in matters of science, but the statement itself isn't overwhelmingly disagreable to me. I sort break it down this way, feel free to correct my ignorance because I'm just going off the top of my head here. On the scale of skepticism, things are:

1) Empirically observable and experimentally repeatable
2) Empirically unobservable but experimentally repeatable
3) Empirically observable but experimentally unrepeatable
4) Empirically unobservable and experimentally unrepeatable
5) A collection of all these things used to deduce (logically) a tenable theory

I'm not an ID theorist or proponent, however they seem to want to point to item #4 and use that to debunk certainty in item #5, while neglecting the body of evidence generated in #1-3. For this reason alone, I'm not a proponent. However, I do believe that a healthy dose of skepticism is perfectly acceptable for item #4. And if that skepticism happens to come from ID theorists, I have absolutely no problem with it.

None the less, the italic sentence above is not entirely in support of ID, although it does open the door. I wonder how many of the people who signed that petition realize that their signatures are being used as claims that ID is credible, and who would object. Any?

That's a fair question. Again, the statement in and of itself isn't particularly offensive to me. I'd also like to know how many subscribe to the statement itself and not to ID.

Flick

 

[jj]

1) Empirically observable and experimentally repeatable
2) Empirically unobservable but experimentally repeatable
3) Empirically observable but experimentally unrepeatable
4) Empirically unobservable and experimentally unrepeatable
5) A collection of all these things used to deduce (logically) a tenable theory

Well, let's look at the list.
1) Evolution on a small scale has been observed, and we have repeatedly invented new antibiotics, only to see evolution proceed.
1) Covers 2) in this regard.
3) We have observed things in the wild change color, phenotype. We have observed organisms evolve through the fossil record. We have observed new shapes, body patterns, etc, evolve through the fossil record. In short, we have observed everything but the origin of life through the fossil record. So the worst that the TOE can come out as is #3 here.
4) really isn't the issue unless we're talking about biogensisis.

Now, if we're talking about biogenesis, we have seen precursor molecules happen through experiments with Miller apparatus, etc. Maybe the Miller atmosphere is wrong, but that really isn't the issue, because it demonstrates what can happen in a SHORT time, in a SMALL sample. One litre for one year is peanuts compared to the entire planet for 1 billion years.

 

[Dr Adequate]

1) Empirically observable and experimentally repeatable
2) Empirically unobservable but experimentally repeatable
3) Empirically observable but experimentally unrepeatable
4) Empirically unobservable and experimentally unrepeatable
5) A collection of all these things used to deduce (logically) a tenable theory

Well, the existence of living dinosaurs (pace Steven Spielberg) is unrepeatable, nor can I observe it, so that would put it into category #3, but that doesn't make me particularly skeptical of the proposition that they once lived. How about you?

(There are, however, fundies who believe that dinosaurs never existed, and I'm longing to lock them in a room with the fundies who think that dinosaurs are still alive and well and hiding behind a tree --- and watch the two groups fight it out.)

If something, according to theory, should be repeatable, but you can't repeat it, that doesn't just lead one to be skeptical of the theory, but to kiss the theory goodbye and look for a better one.

But the theory of evolution does not say that we should be able to repeat the history of evolution. We can't do that any more than we can repeat the history of the eighteenth century. And yet I'm confident that Queen Anne is dead.

Next time a fundie challenges me to "repeat" evolution, I'm going to say: "Sure I will, if you'll provide the equipment. I'll need a small rocky world orbiting a yellow dwarf star at such a distance from it that water is a liquid, inhabited by "a few forms or one" (Darwin). You provide that and come back in four billion years and see how far I've got."

I had a Jehovah's Witness round the other day telling me that "evolution is unscientific because its unrepeatable". By a complete noncoincidence, he was not a scientist. He was an estate agent. A nice guy, but fundies don't get to say what the scientific method is. Scientists do.

 

[Bronze Dog]

The whole history of evolution is certainly repeatable, like Dr.A's example. It's just very, very impractical, and we can't spend all of Earth's money every day.

We can, however test and repeat a lot of the mechanisms of evolution. Thanks to computers, we can even do some simplified versions very quickly.

 

[stamenflicker]

Well, the existence of living dinosaurs (pace Steven Spielberg) is unrepeatable, nor can I observe it, so that would put it into category #3, but that doesn't make me particularly skeptical of the proposition that they once lived. How about you?

I was specifically thinking of the fossil record with regards to evolution. Obviously something is observable in order for us to note the existence of dinasours, nes pas? It's not like we organized some DNA and said, "we think this is would look like a giant lizard under the right circumstances." Had this been the approach, it would fall under category #4 and quite possibly be suspect, depending on the support it could find from category #5. Anyway, its a pointless point you are making because dinasaur bones are observable.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

So the worst that the TOE can come out as is #3 here.

That's not the case actually. While there is a great deal that of TOE that falls into #1-3, the skeptics maintain that somethings cannot be explained by mutation and natural selection alone. And in fact, some things haven't. However, without observational or experimental evidence for things like blood cascades, we can still assume TOE in these cases because of #5. An ID theorist like Behe says that because TOE cannot explain blood cascades, then goddit, the evolutionists merely says, god-didn't-do-it and we'll figure out how to demonstrate that someday.

Flick

 

[Alkatran]

That's not the case actually. While there is a great deal that of TOE that falls into #1-3, the skeptics maintain that somethings cannot be explained by mutation and natural selection alone. And in fact, some things haven't. However, without observational or experimental evidence for things like blood cascades, we can still assume TOE in these cases because of #5. An ID theorist like Behe says that because TOE cannot explain blood cascades, then goddit, the evolutionists merely says, god-didn't-do-it and we'll figure out how to demonstrate that someday.

Flick

1) "Evolutionist" is a term used to make evolution seem like a religion. Don't use it, it's misleading.

2) Scientists don't say god didn't do it, they check to see if nature did it. There are a few examples of Behe saying "Don't bother looking at that, it's irreducibly complex, you'll never come up with a natural path of any kind." and then scientists go and find evidence of an evolutionary path... (if you take out many parts of the flagellum's 'motor', you're left with a useful thing, an injection system of some type I think)

Plus there are plenty of [evolutionary] scientists who have religious beliefs.

 

[Bronze Dog]

An ID theorist like Behe says that because TOE cannot explain blood cascades, then goddit, the evolutionists merely says, god-didn't-do-it and we'll figure out how to demonstrate that someday.

Flick

Straw man. If we don't know how it was formed, it means we don't know. That's it. One of the big differences, however, is that the biologist doesn't give up and go home like IDers do: They do tests, research, and so forth until they've found a way to explain it with evolution, or maybe even something else, if they have the evidence. They might work at it for a long time, but sometimes that's how things go. Considering what evolution can and does explain, it's a reasonable starting guess for a lot of things we don't yet know. ID is, thus far, argument from ignorance, and is therefore inherently unsound.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Anyway, its a pointless point you are making because dinasaur bones are observable.

I think it's quite a pointy point. Living dinosaurs are not observable. That they once lived is an inference from what we can observe (a bunch of bone shaped-rocks)... plus some assumptions about how those rocks got there which seems sensible... but which also involve mechanisms which we can't repeat, 'cos it would take too long...

And, as I've pointed out, there are indeed Creationists who reject the idea that dinosaurs actually existed, and their denial does indeed involve the words "No-one's ever seen a living dinosaur..." as if that proved anything.

 

[stamenflicker]

1) "2) Scientists don't say god didn't do it, they check to see if nature did it. There are a few examples of Behe saying "Don't bother looking at that, it's irreducibly complex, you'll never come up with a natural path of any kind." and then scientists go and find evidence of an evolutionary path... (if you take out many parts of the flagellum's 'motor', you're left with a useful thing, an injection system of some type I think)

I don't know enough about either blood cascading or flagellum motors to make a reasonable argument. However, I am in agreement that what is "irreducibily complex" today, may not be tomorrow. However, for today's skeptic, it would remain in category #4 above until proven otherwise.

Flick