On the disadvantages of a scientific theory

Of course, the first question to ask is: how is a scientific theory supposed to be disadvantageous? Does having a working, tested, reliable explanation for a phenomenon somehow put a person at a disadvantage over someone who shrugs his shoulders and says "Dunno"?

The reader might find this a strange topic, and frankly, so do I. However, it has been brought to my attention, via this post on Vital Remnants, that a least one legislator in Kentucky thinks there can be a disadvantage inherent to having a scientific theory, as stated in Kentucky House Bill 397. Text of the bill and commentary are below the fold.

Here is the entire bill:

AN ACT relating to science education and intellectual freedom.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:

SECTION 1. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 158 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
(1) Teachers, principals, and other school administrators are encouraged to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories being studied.
(2) After a teacher has taught the content related to scientific theories contained in textbooks and instructional materials included on the approved lists required under KRS 156.433 and 156.435, a teacher may use, as permitted by the local school board, other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, including but not limited to the study of evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.
(3) This section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
(4) This section may be cited as the Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act.

Thank goodness there is not one, but two separate religious disclaimers located in the text. Otherwise, given the specific mention of evolution, abiogenesis, global climate change, and cloning, people might think that the inclusion of the specific scientific topics that have mountains of religiously-motivated denialist materials published might stem from a religious motivation. Actually, I think I have come to that conclusion despite the disclaimer. Maybe the next time some legislator with more faith than brain offers a bill that's designed to undercut science, they could refer to the so-called controversies in physical science (Is the earth really flat?), physics (Can something move faster than light?), or geology (Is the earth 6000 years old?). That should fool everyone, right?

Still, it's pretty amusing to see how desperate the IDers have become. After packing their beliefs as 'equal time' and critical analysis' and watching them both get smacked down in court, after 'strengths and weaknesses' has become a non-starter, they keep trying to peddle the same book in a new cover, and today's cover is 'advantages and disadvantages'.

On another note, I have never heard an elementary/secondary teacher complain that they ran out of material to teach in science class, and need to introduce entirely new conversations regarding the material. Much more common is to hear that there is so much to teach and so little time. So, who does this legislator talk think has all this time in class anyhow? Perhaps those who are personally opposed to teaching the scientific consensus?

Also, it shows a very basic misunderstanding of science to talk about promoting critical thinking skills and logical analysis applied to scientific theories. Scientific theories are the results of applying critical thinking skills and logical analysis to evidence. This is like saying how buttered toast would be tastier if you put some butter on it, of that you could improve the game of basketball if you used a ball. Of course, there would be a lot to be gained from showing how critical thinking skills and logical analysis of the evidence has led to the theories, but that's not in the text of the bill, nor is that the purpose of the bill.

So, going back to the original question: what are the disadvantages of scientific theories? In some ways, I think that was answered in the previous paragraph: they come from using critical thinking and logical analysis of the evidence. If there is one thing the religious groups do not want to see, it is critical thinking skills and logical analysis applied to their beliefs and the evidence they present for those beliefs.
Read more!

Why ID advocates need proof of a Designer

In my recent discussions with JoeG at the self-styled Intelligent Reasoning, one of the topics that arose was that design is offered the default status in Dembski's Explanatory Filter. You supposedly rule out necessity at the first step, and chance at the next two, and are left with design at the end. This is also true of Dembski's Complex Specified Information formulation and of Behe's Irreducible Complexity. By claiming they can defeat the argument that certain types of objects can not arise through chance alone, they then present you with their only alternative: some outside-the-process designer who deliberately sought to create life as we have it, apparently with special care given to clotting cascades and bacterial mobility. In the course of the aforementioned discussions, I pointed out that there are two other alternatives beside the Designer and no design. JoeG, with the usual deftness of ID advocates, disputed that these were alternatives, and in the process created two I had not even considered, helping to defeat his own position. While I have seen reference to other possibilities existing, I don't recall reading a listing of them, so I thought I would provide one. Let's say that at some point in the future ID proponents succeed in their efforts at convincing us that necessity and chance can provide no sufficient explanation for life. For any program to prove a Designer exists, all of the options below will need to be disproved as well.

Suggestions from the commentators are welcome and may be added. In fact, I may make this my other annual re-post. Details below the fold.

The first option I proposed is life as a by product of some other intention by an outside agent. Life on earth might be a spandrel, something that happened when the Agent was in the process of organizing some other thing. This allows for all sorts of possibilities in the history of life, including the sudden appearance of features of organisms, or even entire organisms, not because the Agent cares about or even notices life here, but as a side-effect of some other intended cause. Any functions we perceive in biological systems would be reflections of the real design, unheard echos.

The next option I proposed was the interior designer, life having a gradually emergent consciousness that began to direct its own activities. The geek in me would call it the Force. As life grows, it begins to direct and design itself, shaping itself into greater levels of complexity, sacrificing some of its own forms in favor of other forms, weathering mass extinctions with determination and ferocity. Life would add it's own functions, choosing to make sure the bacteria got its flagellum, leaving all the hallmarks of design and purpose directly but having no outside designer they are attached to. It's very New Agey.

While disputing my first option, JoeG suggested the outside agent who doesn't even care what he's doing as an attempt at rebuttal, creating a third option: the random outside agent. ID proponents are fond of the tornado-in-a-junkyard argument, the equivalent metaphor here might be a sledgehammer-in-a-junkyard. Of course, the key difference is that the sledgehammer still has to be swung by some person. This is an outside agent that would leave traces that looked like they might design all over the places (the marks from the hammer), but involve no actual design intention on the part of the agent. So, merely detecting signs of design is not proof of design.

Finally, while discussing my second option, JoeG derisively referred to it as "poof". I thought about it, and decided that Poof is a poor description of that option, but an interesting alternative to it. One variation would be a sudden, persistent appearance of a consciousness for life, but an even more interesting variation is a consciousness life creates that appears only when it is needed to direct or preserve something about life, or life itself. Poof awakens when an asteroid hits the planet, or the global temperatures get too warm or too cold, etc. Poof then gets to work in changing the living things that remain, adding a flagellum her or altering a blood cascade there, to make sure life goes on as it should (or at all), and then disappears, ready to be summoned again at need.

So, even if the ID proponents somehow manage to topple the possibility of chance and necessity being sufficient, they have a long way to go to get to their Designer. I doubt I have exhausted the possibilities, either. If you want to say there is a Designer, you need proof of a Designer.
Read more!

Discussion on evolution, part 4

I think we are getting close to the end of this discussion. Response below the fold.

You may disagree with my point, if you truly understand it, but it cannot be because you disgree with my useage of the term theoretical. That's what you have tried to make "the point" but it aint, and never has been, mine. Call "natural selection" theoretical if it pleases you. I really don't care in the least what you "call" it in that respect. Either way the assertion of it's "existence" is a completely different issue than the issue of defining and explaining the exact role it plays in causing evolution.

I agree here too. Since my point is that theories can be as sure, as reliable, as supported as facts, and the issue of the role of a theoretical construct is a different discussion from it's existence, your point does not detract from mine.

Ok, finally we agree. Now, if we can just leave "natural selection" out of the process of creating novelty, we can perhaps make some progress on the issue I'm trying to discuss---the "mechanisms" by which genetic novelty is produced. Recombination aside (which itself "creates" nothing novel) do you agree that "mutations" are the sole source of genuine heritable novelty? If you say yes, then I will ask you about how the "randomness" part works.

That would almost be by definition, mutations are defined as heritable variations, unless you mean specifically mutations to DNA, in which case I would disagree.

Where, here again, I think we have two different understandings of what epistemology (whether used as a noun, an adjective, or whatever) is, so I suggest we quit using that term. Any meaningful statement of any kind will contain some "notions," but that does not make the nature of the claim itself epistemological (in the sense I think you are using it--which is not my sense). If I say "God is a big dude, probably at least 9 feet tall, who lives in the sky," I'm sure that claim must contain some element which you would call epistemological. The nature of the claim is nonetheless metaphyical.

We still need a way to categorize the difference between 'God is 9 feet tall', which would be a property God would have independent of the surrounding environment, and "God has helped me', which is a statement that only makes sense in a particular environment and is not just about God. I have accepted referring to both as ontological. If you want to call them both metaphysical, I think that is an abuse of term, since it allows the conclusions of science to be metaphysical, but I'm willing to live with it, as long as there is a way we can refer to the difference.

Yes, I do feel this is a very close analogy to the ways mutations are or are not considered random.

Well, in one sense of the term "metaphysical," it is precisely those assertions which are assumed as an unquestioned starting point which are "metaphysical."

It is always assumed that "metaphysical" claims are not subject to verification. In many places in this thread you seem to imply that the starting "axioms" of a theory are themselves empirically derived. This can't be the case.

This is why you don't understand scientific theories.

An assumption according to Asimov is...

At times you have also indicated that you think "scientific theory" is utterly devoid of any assumptions which have not been empirically proven (and at other times you seem to say you think otherwise). What is your stance on this issue exactly?

The assumptions of science include uniformitarianism (reactions that happen today are the same as those that happen yesterday, a million years ago, etc.), the ability to obtain objective measurements, and the actual existence of the universe to measure. I'm sure I could name more along those lines. They are metaphysical assumptions, not subject to verification.

Theoretical starting points like the constancy of the speed of light and the randomness of mutations with respect to the needs of the environment are inferential extensions based upon observation in a variety of conditions. They are not axioms in the sense a formal theory has axioms. They are always provisional.

I agree with your first paragraph. A naked hypothesis with no specific content, such as, matter is made up of atoms, is NOT a scientific theory,

That's not a hypothesis, it was a speculation (now I would say it is a fact).

even though, people may refer to the "atomic theory" of the ancient greeks as simply this. At a minimum, some specific content is require as an essential prerequisite for qualifying as a "scientific theory." That said, I do not think that mere fact that some claim has a semblance of "theoretical" overtones makes it a full-blown "scientific theory," and I take it that you don't either.

I'm not sure what you meant here, so I am assuming it is, 'I do not think the mere fact that some claim has a semblance of "theoretical" overtones makes it a full-blown "scientific theory," and I take it that you don't either'. I would agree that claims with theoretical overtones start as hypotheses. I would agree a claim that makes flat, simple assertion of mechanism is a poor theory in need of enrichment, and thus not a full-blown scientific theory. I'm not sure if that is what you meant.

This whole discussion relates to the NAS pamphlet and their equivocal use of the term "theory" in that pamphlet. I really don't care to dwell on semantics for semantics' sake. But when sophistical semantical tactics are used to mislead, I may take a greater interest.

I see the pamphlet as trying to communicate the idea correctly using language that would be imprecise in a discussion between science philosophers, but is understandable and communicates the idea correctly to laymen with far less exposure than us. I agree "factual" is less than ideal, but it does communicate the surety correctly.

In the next quote, you attributed your words to me. Please be more careful.

aintnuthin said: "Used in this sense, it is a mere hypothesis devoid of any broad explanatory content.

One Brow said :"It's a one-sentence summary of a long list of diseases to which the theory applies, the germs that cause them, the methods the germs have for entering and multiplying within the body, etc."

It could be taken as an (implicit) summary, but it doesn't have to mean that (that is simply the way you would read it).

I encourage you to email Orac at Respectful Insolence, or any other person who writes and thinks about such things, and ask them if saying 'the germ theory of disease is the theory that various germs cause various diseases' is the content of the theory or a summary of such as I described above.

That is the problem with the NAS pamphlet, they don't mean it the way you are interpreting it, but they know you are nonetheless likely to read it that way.

1) I am not the intended audience.
2) I believe that is exactly what they mean by 'germ theory of disease', or theory generally.

That's what they want you to do. They don't even attempt to clarify what they really mean, but they leave themselves an "escape route" if challenged, by claiming that if you take it the way they want you to, then you misread it. That this is exactly what they are doing only becomes fully exposed when you read other literature of theirs.

I have no idea what sort of exposing you think can happen.

As with germ theory, wiki has a generic definition of "atomic theory" which term basically serves to distinguish from the opposite hypothesis:

"In chemistry and physics, atomic theory is a theory of the nature of matter, which states that matter is composed of discrete units called atoms, as opposed to the obsolete notion that matter could be divided into any arbitrarily small quantity. It began as a philosophical concept in ancient Greece and India"

That is one defintion of "atomic theory."

Again, it is a summary, not a definition. I encourage you to email a few physicists who think about these things and ask them.
Read more!

A few less popular blogs looked at

While it can be interesting, and sometimes challenging, to look at the more popular blogs in the ID movement, I'm going to look at a couple that are not so well-traveled. Picking on someone my own size, so to speak. Also, many bloggers like to have regular blog-fodder, I'm no different there. These are the foot-soldiers of the movement. They cough up the money buying the books, and don't use weasel-words designed to give them an out.

Over at the self-styled Intelligent Reasoning, we have Joe G saying in this post that there really is a scientific statement lurking somewhere in ID, based upon Behe's statement

Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.

He also offers this note:

To test the design inference specific criteria must be met. Criteria such as irreducible complexity, complex specified information and/ or the mere presence of counterflow.

To falsify the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

However, Joe G misses a couple of basic problems with his arguments. First of all, the effects of design can exactly resemble the effects of nature. In fact, design uses naturally occurring elements to make changes. If I come across a few pebbles that have fallen onto some solid rock, and i move one or two pebbles into a configuration that I find pleasing, and leave the other 8-10 alone, there is no evidence that the resulting configuration is designed. Outside of finding actual fingerprints, or recognizing the configuration himself, Joe G would not even suspect design. Secondly, Behe's entire characterization is full of weasel-words, as any naturally generated ordering of separated components can be deemed 'not sharply dependent' or 'not truly identifiable' at need.

A post in the August 2009 archive of Intelligently Sequenced
titled "Commonly Employed Arguments Against ID", we see the attempted response:

39] ID is Nothing More Than a “God of the Gaps” Hypothesis may be the most common anti-ID argument.

ID is not proposing “God” to paper over a gap in current scientific explanation. Instead ID theorists start from empirically observed, reliable, known facts and generally accepted principles of scientific reasoning:

(a) Intelligent designers exist and act in the world.

(b) When they do so, as a rule, they leave reliable signs of such intelligent action behind.

(c) Indeed, for many of the signs in question such as CSI and IC, intelligent agents are the only observed cause of such effects, and chance + necessity (the alternative) is not a plausible source, because the islands of function are far too sparse in the space of possible relevant configurations.

(d) On the general principle of science, that “like causes like,” we are therefore entitled to infer from sign to the signified: intelligent action.

(e) This conclusion is, of course, subject to falsification if it can be shown that undirected chance + mechanical forces do give rise to CSI or IC. Thus, ID is falsifiable in principle but well supported in fact.

Of course, this is swallowed whole, despite that:
(a) I agree here.

(b) There are no reliable, scientific signs of designers.
We infer design by analogy top known human designers.

(c) There are no "islands of function" in the significantly multi-variate space described by typical protein construction. Function at a point (w', x', y', z') that, on a local level, ends quickly in direction w will often be unchanged in direction x and changed only mildly in directions y and z. Now, replace that four-dimensional model with a more common 100-dimensional model, and the notion of islands of function is easily seen to be preposterous. Further, the whole notion of "plausible source" is a direct invocation of a 'designer of the gaps'.

(d) Generally, the principle of "like causes like" comes from magic, not science.

(e) Every testable formulation of CSI and IC has been been falsified. This has resulted in definition changes to the concepts, especially IC, to the point they are identified post hoc instead by prior standards. That is, first they look at a sequence/construct, check to see if there is an origin, and only proclaim it CSI/IC after no origin exists. This a manifestly non-science.
Read more!

Discussion on evolution, part 3

Again, the previous thread have exceeded 200 comments, I am putting a response below the fold.


"Maynard Smith credits August Weismann’s germ plasm theory as a key factor in the modern synthesis ..."

See? Impossible, in principle, from the git-go, and we aint just talkin some kinda candyass "methodology" here, eh, Eric? We're talkin about what is otologically IMPOSSIBLE.

Thatr reduction allowed a great deal of work to get done, and was later discarded when found insufficient.

Well, apparently you didn't read them very closely (or else just read them with a pre-formed conclusion in mind, which was unshakable. "Explanation" (whatever that is) is the sine qua non of a theory. Mebbe this article is more direct, eh?

"A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[4]

A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[3]"

Did you miss the phrase "explain a phenomenon"? Scientific theories do use some formmal processes in their efforts to explain. If no explanation if offered, there is no theory.

"In pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by official organizations of scientists a definition such as the following may be promulgated.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences: Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory."

This causes the theory/non-theory distinction to much more closely follow the distinctions useful for consumers of science (e.g. should I believe something or not?)"

What this article calls "pedagogical" is more what I would call absurd brainwashing. This is definitely a thoroughly unique and unprecedented way to define "scientific theory," to say the least.

You have to ask yourself what level of evidence would be required to overthrow the theory? How ikely are we to discover that anthrax/measles/smallpox is not caused by pathogens (germ theory of disease)? Should consumers of science believe, and act, as if germs cause diseases? Would you be willing to accept that measles being caused by Morbillivirus is a fact?

"Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe..."

"Real world?" "Factual explanation?" And you claim that only "methodology," and not "ontology," is involved here?

You left out the rest of the quote.

It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Yes, the phenomenon of evolution is a fact. Yes, the theory of evolution is as facutal as atomic theory or germ theory.

I also note that this claim is made with specific reference to the "theory or biological evolution." They have now turned "theory" into fact, eh?

Evolution is a fact (we have measured all sorts of change) and a theory (explanations for why the change occurs, what it has meant for life, etc.).

This is really just incredible, ya know? Anyone with the least bit of sophisication with respect to the philosophy of science, or even used the least bit of critcal thought, would see the NAS claims as completely over the top on the propaganda scale.

An explantion becomes a theory when "no new evidence is likely to alter" it, at which point it is a "factual explanation" which serves as a "reliable account of the real world."

Simply incredible that NAS would promulgate that view. Are they actually retarded, I wonder?

I find it hard to believe you misunderstood a simple simile. Are you just trolling here, or so ideologically committed that you misunderstood a simile to be an equivalence?

One Brow said: "I don't see anything in this quote that equates to "unfortunate and misleading". I'm sure you had anopther quote in mind."

Then you are just as blind as every other devoted apologist I ever ran into, I guess. No doubt you missed the word "sadly." If you can't see where it was misleading (suggesting that development was irrelevant to evolution) then I really don't think there's anything you could see, unless mebbe you wanted to, ya know?

I think that putting development to the side was a limiting, necessary choice, and the "sadly" was a reflection on the current state of knowledge, and not the choice.

One Brow said: "of the various ways mutations are known to happen, none of them take the actual needs of the organism into account."

This appears to be claim of fact, eh, Eric? Or do you say that strictly as a "methodist," with no ontological intentions at all? If the latter, you might want to study the english language a little more, because that sho nuff aint the meaning you're conveying.

When I say "known to happen", that obviously refers to the limits of what is currently known, making the statement epistemological. Had I spoken 'all the ways a mutation can possibly happen', you would have a point. That you have trouble distinguishing them is not a failing of my English knowledge.

One Brow said: "I don't think he would argue that statement even after acknowledging the importance of development, for which he used the term "selected through their effect on development", as opposed to varying because of their development."

He might or might not argue it, I don't know (but, first, remember that Mayr is not Maynard Smith). I get the feeling that both you, Mayr, and possibly Maynard Smith are confusing genes with some kinda physical objects, as opposed to simply "packets of information," as they seen by George C. Williams (who is highly praised by Dawkins, Gould, Elridge, Maynard Smith (via Eldrige) and others here: http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/h-Ch.1.html

True enough. I am sure that by "gene", he meant 'packet of knowledge on a DNA strand'. Many scientitsts probably do mean something broader than that.

As noted by Magulis, "The neo-Darwinists say that variation originates from random mutation, defining mutation as any genetic change." The close association, if not virtual identity, that the neo-darwinists once tried to make between "genes" and dna has vanished, but many still seem to think in those terms.

Old habits die hard.

If "genes" are simply the message, irrespective of the medium; if, indeed, genes are ONLY information, then certainly the "epigentic" means by which regulatory genes "choose" to express the dna is at bottom a form of "genetic mutation." This would seems to imply that, in Williams' view, genes vary "because of their development," to use your words.

I would agree, with the caveat that if we use a braod notion of 'gene', we should probably be careful to note which type of gene were are discussing in such a context.

You can speak of galaxies and particles of dust in the same terms, because they both have mass and charge and length and width. You can't do that with information and matter."

Very true.

I said: We have already agreed that the notion of "random mutation" is at bottom a metaphyisical one that cannot be proved or disproved. So why is not neo-darwinism, like ID theory, untestable and hence "not scientific," I wonder.

You responded: We did? I must have been off my feed that day/week/month

Musta been, yeah. This is was you said on April 27: Me: You repeatedly say that all heritable genetic variation has been shown to be random.
You: I certainly hope I have not, because such a statement would be unprovable

April 28: You: "As we have agreed (I think), there is no known test for randomness/design per se.

Your current (and former) ongoing assertions that the "randomness" of mutations can be, and has been, confirmed, seems to relax on occasion, such as on May 3 when you said: "Even if Dawkins is uncomfortable with it, adaptive mutation (which is not classical Lamarckism by any means) happens, and we know this because we have tested mechanisms to demonstrate it."

Are "adaptive mutations" consistent with the claim that all mutations are random? Doesn't seem to be.

Ya know, going through some of these old posts, I realize that you must, as is typical, I guess, have entirely different definitions for "ontological" and "epistemological" than I do. I really can't make a lick of sense of a statement like this: "Neo-Darwinism is dead, remember? Even when it was alive, the biological version relied on epistomological randomness, specifically of the type where mutations are not controlled by the organsim, not ontological randomness."

On an ontological level, most mutations would seem to be non-random, as I mentioned before. They happen for chemical reasons. There are probably a very few that happen for reasons like quantum fluctuation which might be ontologically random. Outside of that, on a metaphysical level, mutations are not random. I don't see anything in the above statements that disagree with this. Even then, this does not of course address unknown methods of variation.

Mutations are random in the sense that, of the known methods by which mutations happen, we have no mechanism that connects that mutation to the needs of the organism. They are random in that regard within the limits of our knowledge. They are also random in sense that we are unable to predict them through an insufficient knowledge of the actual chemical interactions involved along any particular strand of DNA inside a organism. So, random in those two ways.

It would be impossible to prove something is metaphysically random. Even for quantum effects, where we have the stongest evidence, this is a possibility that can be easily overturned. The most we can ever say in that regard is that we have data that resemebles a probablitliy distribution.

The word 'random does not mean 'every occurence is equally likely'. Adaptive mutations seem to mean that the probability curve is adjusted in favor of changes occuring at certain locations on the DNA strand.

I don't know what definitions you are using for ontological claims versus episemological claims. Ontology, to myu understanding, is soncerned with how things are, what their true nature is, while epistemology is concerned with what we can know about things and how we can know it. Do you mean something different?

This all gets quite tedious, eh, Eric?

Yes, it does.

The question was this: "So why is not neo-darwinism, like ID theory, untestable and hence "not scientific," I wonder."

Do you have a direct answer to that question, or not?

Since neo-Darwinism was falsified, it was obviously falsifiable. What could falsify ID?

Is your answer that neo-darwinism makes no claims about reality? If so, does ID make claims about reality, or is such a hypothesis merely "methodological." If they are different in this respect, HOW are they different. You seem to agree that it is not in the "testability" of the two, insofar as their basic premises go.

ID seems to make the claim that a designer is responsible, in part, for the structure of life. Materialism would make the claim no designer is involved in life. Both are equally untestable. Niether is a claim of neo-Darwinism or modern evolutionary theory, in that the 'randomness' present in neo-Darwinism and modern evolutionary theory is compatible with the existence of a designer. Both are claims made by various men, including scientists, when speaking about life outside the scientific literature. Neither claim belongs in a science classroom.

It seems obvious that both views feel compelled to deny that all evolution is (was) random, sensing intuitively that would be prohibitively improbable. Both insist that evolution is NOT random, but disagree on the reasons why this is so. Philosophically speaking, these two viewpoints, as they relate to living matter, seem come down to "vitalism" vs. "materialism."

I disagree. Yo can be a Lamarckian materialist, or a wiesmannian who accepts design.

It is in no means self-evident that such inferences are "unreasonable" or "unscientific" unless one merely defines them as such. One can, for example, say: "I define any inference of design to be both unreasonable and unscientific." But, of course, definitions are arbitrary, and do not dictate the reality of the matter.

I agree.

Again, as I have said before, I can assume (or infer) that an object has been designed without that assumption in any way affecting the way I try to analyze it or explain it. Such an assumption may assist my investigation, but it does not change my methodolgy. If I know nothing about the workings of machines motivated by internal combustion engines, for example, I still will not "understand" one until I know how all the parts interact with each other and what function they serve, which requires investigation (for me). I do not purport to "explain" anything by simply saying: "this machine was designed." Science is ultimately about explanations, not metaphyscial presumptions, although the latter may inform the former. An assumption of "vitalism" would not change that. We would never have, or even be expected to, explain the ultimate nature of the "vital force" to simply investigate the phenomena.

I agree. This is why the discussion does not belong in a science class.

The point I'm making is this: Whether one ultimately believes in or presupposes vitalism (lamarckism in evolutionary terms) or materialsim (darwinism) has nothing to do with science as such. The vociferious outcry that materialism must be taught as an underlying presupposition, but that any notion of vitalism cannot even be discussed as an alternative presupposition, is not "scientific" either.

As noted above, I disagree on the associaiton of vitalism to Lamarckism. Outside of that, I agree.

Lamarckism, whether true or not, whether ever irrefutably demonstrated or not, is NOT off limits to either scientific investigation nor is it inherently outside the realm of "scientific thinking." Of course, neo-darwinists have always thought otherwise, but, still....

That's why the once fruitful school is not bveing discarded.

One Brow said: "But the warping of space is a mechanism for the attrction of bodies. There is no more "spooky action at a distance", just local effects."

Heh, as if the "warping of space" isn't spooky? Seriously, what exactly is "space, and how can it "warp" as a practical matter? Of course, for Einstein, there is no "space" per se. Only space/time. Now, tell me, what is "space/time," apart from a verbalization of the mathematics involved (as was the Newtonian use of the concept of "attaction of matter to matter" to verbalize the mathematical relationship detected)?

I doubt I could, although physicists might be able to. At any rate, that's a new level of mechanism. Anytime you explain something, the explanation itself will open up new questions.

More "pedagogical information," from the AAAS, eh?

...

Well, they pack all the theory in there, eh, and simply call the theory "evolution" which is "described," not hypothesized, interpreted, or deduced. Random mutation (why not just say "mutation," I wonder?--Why does "random" ALWAYS have to be inserted as a qualifying adjective?). Common descent, natural selection, macro-evolution = micro-evolution, the whole 10 yards.

This is an obvious simplification.

I wonder if anyone who aint plumb stupid doubts any of this, eh? Lemme see here....

"Is there "evidence against" contemporary evolutionary theory? No.

Do yo know of some? Against, as in saying evolution didn't happen?

Is there a growing body of scientists who doubt that evolution happened? No...Of the few scientists who criticize contemporary evolutionary theory, most do no research in the field, and so their opinions have little significance for scientists who do."

Well, there ya have it, then, eh? All wrapped up in a ribbon.

Who are the evolutionary biologists who feel there is evidence against evolution?

Hmm, where to even start trying to intrepret and assess this curious brochure, eh? Well, in passing, one might note that the last sentence quoted claims that "that evolution by natural selection is how life on Earth arose."

If "arose" refers to abiogenesis, that seems to be wrong. If they meant 'grew from a small part of the planet to being universally present', that seems to be accurate, but a poor word choice. Looking at the context, I'm inclined to pick the latter.

What you, Eric, have called a "mechanism," this brochure calls "process" [they say "Natural selection is the process by which some traits succeed and others fail..."], so let's use that as a substitute synonmyn is the next sentence, which would then read: "Scientists no longer question the basic facts of evolution as a mechanism."

So the "mechanism" (which Gould said was the theoretical part) is now a "basic fact," eh?

I would say there is more to being a mechanism that there is to being a process. Photosynthesis is a completely factual process, but it explains nothing in and of itself. Natrual selection can be explained as a process only, or an a larger level as a mechanism.

The care and authority which went into this dubious publication makes it all the more appalling to a disintered observer.

You think you are disinterested?

Ironically, this brochure has the gall to say (addressing ID theory, of course): "Teaching
non-scientific concepts in science class will only confuse students about the processes,
nature, and limits of science."

The opposite is probably true. Perhaps teaching ID theory would be one way of unconfusing students who are exposed to such "non-scientific" concepts as are contained in this brochure and help them understand the true "nature and limits" of science.

If "ID theory" ever starts to accurately discuss the true nature and limits of science, perhaps.

Well, first, that a "scientific theory" is an "explantion." Just any old explanation? Naw, apparently only those that "are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them." [In the entire history of science has there been a single case of such an explanation?].

The atomic theory of matter. The germ theory of disease. Heliocentric theory.

As a side attribute, a scientific theory also allows us to make predictions, they say.

Do they have an example? Well, yeah, they have two, actually. " A good example is the theory of gravity." Hmm, and you say that Newton's explanation of "gravity" is simply a law, not a theory--I wonder who's right here, you, or them? Whichever, they say "Scientists then use the theory to make predictions about how gravity will function in different circumstances" (as Newtonians did for the "hundreds of years" this brochure brings up). Of course, you also keep saying that Einstein's relativistic view of Newton's mathematical formula was a mere "refinement" of Newton, so let's not quibble here, OK? (having made that request, I expect you to quibble, but I will wait and see about that).

The brochure does not reference a *Newtonian* theory of gravity, so what makes you think they are referring to Newton's Law? Theories have to acount for all of the available evidence, old, new, and yet-to-be-tested, to be viable.

Also, surely you are not confusing what I said about Newton's Laws of Motion and his Law of Gravity. I believe I was clear and held different opinions on that.

Of course their second example is evolutionary theory: "Evolution stands on an equally solid foundation of observation, experiment, and confirming evidence." I mean, like, really now, is this a joke? Are they really trying to compare the predictive power and confirming evidence for "explanantions" advanced by evolutionary theory to that afforded by the strict mathematical formulaes used for gravity?

Only a straight-up chump would fall for that claim, I figure, but that's not to say I haven't found many darwinist cheerleaders swallowin it hook, line, and sinker.

Only a straight-up chump would fail to see that there have been thousands of predictions upheld.

Read this brochure critically, Eric. Look at this sentence and then tell me that the "creationists" who said the term "evolution" was used in multiple, confusingly unspecified manners, are not worth trusting. "Evolution stands on an equally solid foundation of observation, experiment, and confirming evidence."

Didn't you claim that nobody would use the word "evolution" to mean the theoretical elements thereof in a teaching setting?

I certainly hope not. All high-school and above science class should include theory.

The equivocal use of terms to "explain" the topic of evolution as used here is simply a method of misleading students into an extremely mushy, uncritical "understanding" of the theoretical issues, as I see it? Is it intentional? Well, either that, or totally incompetent, as far as "teaching" methods go.

I don't find your analysis persuasive or factually based.

OF COURSE IT IS(!), according to the NAS: "For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells." (Science and Creationism, 1999).

That sentence is not in the brochure you linked too. Pennock's statements in that don't necessarily have NAS agreement.

Why say that ID theory is "not science" if naturalistic processes could provide a basis for it, hmmmmm?

Creating a natrualistic basis does not rescue ID theory, because it makes no scientific claims.

I wonder if the authors of these pedagogical brochures, which stress natural selection as the virtually proven theory of evolution (remember, it's not even a theory unless it is doubtful that any new evidence could alter it), are familiar with the works of Masatochi Nei who wrote, just for example, a research paper called "The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution."

I think they might respond: "As scientists gather new results and findings, they continue to refine their ideas. Explanations are altered or sometimes rejected when compelling contradictory evidence comes to light." Same answer for most of the quotes.

"This is the fundamental reason why we already have the well formulated 'Atomic Theory' but not yet a comparable 'Living Systems Theory.'"

No "theory" because it's all just too complex, eh? Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya?

Everyone. It's probably not possible to have a system as well-reduced as Atomic Theory.
Read more!

Discussion on evolution, part 2

I am starting this post because I felt the comments on the previous one were too bulky (I'll probably do this when this post gets past 200 comments). This post is a response to 28 consecutive comments, and will be of interest to no one else besides aintnuthin. The content is below the fold.
aintnuthin, did you just return to the JazzFanz as aintsheeit? If so, you should know the account has been banned for a) being an obvious duplicate account (whether of yours or someone else's) and b) profanity filter avoidance in the username.

One Brow said: "Nor am I aware of any serious theoretical problems with the Theory of Evolution."

Which begs the entire question, i.e., what is THE theory of evolution in your view? The hypothesis of common descent?

If you are aware of no serious theoretical problems, maybe it's because you pay little or no attention to the proliferation of inconsistent views generated by different evolutionary theorists.

The inconsistent views are over the parts that people can't demonstrate and don't know how to test. It's all a great deal of fun, but not part of the Theory.

I get the feeling that for you, personally, THE theory is selected from items like a chinese menu. You take one from column A, one from B, one from C, etc., as each is most appealing to your personal tastes. The meal which is then served is, for you, THE dish served by that restaurant.

As long as "appealing to my tastes" is a metaphor for "having been validated by experiment", and "take one" is a metaphor for "accept every proved result", pretty much. I have no problem with a theory being messy.

I'm not sure how you get from "especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena," to your flat assertion that: "A theory is not really a theory until is has been confirmed."

Well, from "especially", I interpreted it to mean that the prototype of a theory is the one that has been confirmed (and by confirmed, as you should be aware by now, I do mean having generated predictions that have survived actual tests). The "especially", to me, said that this is when the usage is most appropriate, and that the word theory was somewhat less accurate if the predictions and verification had not been performed. Not to mention, he definition was not limited to scientific usage. Usually, scientists are more careful about calling something a theory that the general public. Do you disagree with the interpretations of either "especially" or "confirmed"?

Also, you seemed to bypass completely the difference between 1) as a theory for epistemological activities and 3) for formal systems. Did you feel my criticism of your use of 3) to apply to 1) was apt or off-base?

I don't agree with your conclusory assertion at all, and I don't see why you think the dictionary defintion you use supports it. Since it says "especially" ones which are widely accepted, etc., it implies that the definition is not limited to those in particular. If you are tryin to make some semantic hierarchial distinction between "hypotheses," "theories," and "laws," or sumthin OK, but I wasn't tryin to git that refined about it. To me a "hypothesis" is a theory because it is theoretical in it's basic nature, and can make testable predictions even if those predictions have yet to be tested. But if you are using a highly refined sense of the word "theory" we can go with that. Again, the question is what (which) hypotheses, of all those which have been offered over the years on the subject of evolution, is/are THE theory of evolution?

Many different hypotheses have been confirmed over the years in many different ways. They are all part of the Theory of Evolution, and I could write a book out of just listing the proved hypotheses and taking a paragraph or two to explain each one. Some of these hypotheses include descent with modification, the unity of life, the various mechanism involved, the adaptations of bacteria to various sorts of antibiotics, common descent, the pattern of geological radiation of populations, etc.

So, then, would you say that geocentricism, heliocentrism, and jupitercentrism are all equally compatible with the "Theory of planetary motion?" If they are "equally compatible" are they all the same theory, despite wildly different initial premises?

To my understanding, using either geocentrism or jupitercentrism would require massive inputs of energy into the system from sources unknown and unseen, to force the Sun to orbit these bodies under the Theory of Planetary Motion. So I would say that, to the degree that heliocentrism/jupitercentrism make predictions regarding why the Sun orbits the earth/Jupiter, its predictions fail, it is not compatible with the current theory.

Now, if you come up with a different example that does produce identical predictions, like various incarnations of string theory (according to my understanding), then I would say none of them are part of the theory, but all are compatible with it.

One Brow said: "It's an older book."

It's 21st century (2001 edition, accordin to Vallicella).

My error. I did not realize Mayr was alive for that long. However, since he was in his 90s when that book was written, it is understandable that it would not reflect the most modern understanding of evolutionary theory at the time of writing. In any case, strict genetic determinism is certainly older thinking.

If the new information contradicts a central claim of the pre-existing theory, does that contradiction automatically generate a brand new, widely accepted and thoroughly tested, theory, as you see it?

That's the first step in the process. You have to verify those observations, come up with new explanations for those observations, incorporate those explanations in a systemic way, and test the new system to get a revised theory.

One Brow said: "You think so? Perhaps you can quote a few texts penned within the last five years or so that agree?"

Well, Eric, why not ask for ones in the last 5 days? Those would be more likely to reflect THE theory of evolution, doncha figure?

How about quotes like this from a 1998 publication by the NAS entitled "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science?":

You are defending a claim about textbooks by quoting book of under 150 pages?

"...selection can work only on the genetic variation that already is present in any new generation, and genetic variation occurs randomly, not in response to the needs of a population or organism." http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=16

Note the breezy, strictly "a matter of fact," presentation of this claim. Note also that it purports to apply to any and all variation "present in any new generation."

When did "genetic variation" become "any and all variation"? When did evidence of non-random genetic variation (not regions where variation is more permitted, but the actual variation itself) appear?

This same publication approvingly cites another NAS publication which states that "Fossils found in rocks of increasing age attest to the interrelated lineage of living things, from the single-celled organisms that lived billions of years ago to Homo sapiens. The most recent fossils closely resemble the organisms alive today, whereas increasingly older fossils are progressively different, providing compelling evidence of change through time."

Note that this was in 1998, long after reputable scientists called attention to the fact that the fossil record essentially amounts to a disconfirmation of "interrelated lineage of living things," e. g."

The standard denailist tactics reappear. You're really better than this, on most topics most of the time. You don't even bother to try to show the quoted sentence is false, instead you bring in a range of quotes that have nothing to do with whether the sentence is true, with an apparent motive to cast doubt on fossil evidence generally.

1. "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)

How does a lack of confirmation of a species-to-species translation equate to a disconfirmation of the interrelated lineage?

2. "The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82)

How does the sudden appearance of some major groups equate to a disconfirmation of the interrelated lineage?

3. "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)

How does a lack of completeness in transitional sequences equate to a disconfirmation of the interrelated lineage?

4. The principle problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214)

How does morphological stasis equate to a disconfirmation of the interrelated lineage?

5. "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." (Woodroff, D.S., Science, vol. 208, 1980, p. 716)

How does a lack species-level translations equate to a disconfirmation of the interrelated lineage?

6. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)

Actually, thousands of gaps were filled in. Eldredge is making an observation for punctuated equilibrium, not against the interrelated lineage.

A few more, just for good measure, eh? These relate mainly to your recurring claim that we should expect the fossil record to be incomplete:

1. "One of the most surprising negative results of paleontological research in the last century is that such transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce. In Darwin's time this could perhaps be ascribed with some justification to the incompleteness of the paleontological record and to lack of knowledge, but with the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms." (Brouwer, A., "General Paleontology," [1959], Transl. Kaye R.H., Oliver & Boyd: Edinburgh & London, 1967, p. 162-163)

Other causes have been discussed and explored.

2.There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (Neville, George, T., "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, p. 1-3)

To be even close to complete, we would need some 100 complete vertebrate fossils for each vertebrate species (not to mention all the other types of living things).

3. "A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic )

Again a reference to the lack of species-level changes.

4. "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)

Obviously wrong. Many evolutionists make such a claim. It makes me wonder what he was really trying to say.

"We have long known about stasis and abrupt appearance, but have chosen to fob it off upon an imperfect fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Paradox of the First Tier: An Agenda for Paleobiology," Paleobiology, 1985, p. 7)

Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya!?)

*Yawn*. I am still waiting for some quote that addresses the interrelated lineage that fossils make evident.

With respect to the education about evolution of high school students, T. Ryan Gregory says:

...

Of course, it is these very "college graduates" (Alters) and biology majors with at least two years of undergraduate education (Gregory) who go on to teach the next generation of high school students, eh?

In schools with a reasonably large student base (let's say 800 students), the preference has been (in my experience) to hire biology teachers who took a full secondary biology education curriculum, which would have included a handful of upper-level courses. I think it would be much better if every single biology teacher had this background, but it's not always possible.

I don't see what this has to do with the content of textbooks on the subject.

Gould, after complaining about concessions to creationists in high school texts, go on to complain about a more serious problem:

This is from an essay that is pre-Edwards, referring to a 1983 textbook and the pre-Edwards texts generally.

According to that article: "The books critiqued are limited to 1991 editions of Biology I textbooks adopted by the state of Texas as listed under References.

Well, I sure hope no one is using that text anymore.

One Brow said: "By the way, I still have not heard an epistemological reason to call these variations non-random. When all of the experiments conducted show distribution's that are indistinguishable from being random, and there are no known mechanism for making the distribution non-random, then random is the only epistemological interpretation."

1. Your reference is to "these variations," whereas as my post was addressed to the source of variation (without limiting the question to a specific range of variation, such as "those which occur on the 3rd Sunday in each new millenium," or sumthin.

Variations can come from any number of sources, and I am not aware of sources that are inherently non-random within themselves. They are random with respect to the needs of the organism, as far as anyone can tell.

2. The literature is rife with examples which suggest that some variation is highly correlated to the needs of the organism with respect to, and are apparently generated by "interaction with," the environment. One such example I recall is of a certain type of insect that has several typical predators, one of which is the dragonfly. If dragonflies are present while the larva is still developing, the larva will be born with a certain color (say green) which makes it more likely to escape detection by dragonflies. If not, it will be born a different color, which provides more natural defense against other common predators.

So, if you don't feed a human food that has Vitamin C, they get scurvy? How does change the notion of random variation?

One Brow said: "When all of the experiments conducted show distributions that are indistinguishable from being random...

To begin with, I would interested in knowin how you came to be familiar with "all the experiments conducted," and just what the nature and methods of all experiments were.

You have mentioned yourself the work of James A. Shapiro, for example, wherein the mutations themselves seem to be randomly distributed within the high-mutation regions. I certainly don't claim to have read every paper on the subject. I'll happily revise my opinion when you provide a counter-example.

But let's leave that to the side. Randon mutation of DNA plays a central explicatory role in prevailing evolutionary theory, because it, and it alone, supposedly provides the "variation" which leads to hundreds of species (genera, phylum, or whatever) disversifying into thousands of species which diversify into millions of species, etc. But, as just noted, the fossil record does not seem to support such a notion, with long-term stasis of phenotype, rather than constant, continuous gradual changes to same, being what is found in the fossil record, and abrupt, rather than transitional, changes being the overwhelming norm.

That would be genetic variation, not all variation, and why is random genetic variation incompossible with long-term morphological stability?

The first answer, presumably from a "scientist," flatly states that: "The fact that chimpanzees and humans have different numbers of chromosomes immediately causes a reproductive barrier and would be an immediate speciation event."

Scientist or not, that's just wrong. Even today we can find humans with broken chromosomes (so they technically have more than 46), fused chromosomes, or a combination of the two, who mate and can pass this condition on their descendants

An "immediate speciation event," eh? How so, if the "speciation event occurred long before? And how, I wonder, would such a rare chromosome split thereafter become, by the process of natural selection, the ONLY type of chromosome structure found in humans?

Populationgenetics models do account for the occasional split/fusion becoming dominant and even exclusive over time, if it is one among many such events.

One last comment on the foregoing website. It is apparently a government-sponsered one for "K-12 educators," designed in part to provide answers to high school students. It identifies itself as follows: "NEWTON is an electronic community for Science, Math, and Computer Science K-12 Educators.
Argonne National Laboratory, Division of Educational Programs, Harold Myron, Ph.D., Division Director."

It appears that the answer a high school student gets to such questions is highly dependent on the "educator" who responds.

If you have recommendations for improving the quality of educators in high school science, that would be great to try to put into action, but seems to be off-topic here.

Eric, I kinda been waitin for you to go wild with a "quote-mining" charge, ya know?

Let's talk about "quote-mining" and the allegations thereof, for a second, whaddaya say?
...

This quote does not represent any purported "refutation" of Ridley's point, it IS Ridley's point (about use of the fossil record).

Since Ridley's point is that there are better reasons to accept evolution than the fossil record, it would be a legitimate use to quote him in the context of the appropriateness of fossils, and not legitimate to quote him in a effort to claim special creation is better supported. So, anointed-one.net would still be quote-mining.

It's seems that the allegations of "quote-mining" often rely on the imputation of disingenous attempts to "imply" sumthin which "attempts" are created, whole cloth, by the accuser in order to create a strawman through which he can level at unwarranted and unsubstantiated charge of dishonesty.

It is dishonest to take criticisms of certain types of evolution, or quotes that bemoan the lack of a particular types of fossil, and portray them as general proclamations against fossil evidence generally.

Here the author of the quote-mining entry claims that the quote has been used in an attempt to "discredit evolution." Where does the evidence of that "attempt" come from? Ridley is sayin the fossil record aint where it's at if one wants to argue for evolution, and that's all he bein quoted as sayin. What's the problem?

Quoting Ridley without the caveat Ridley added makes unwary readers think Ridley's issue is with evolution generally, and not fossils specifically, and this is the sort of error quote-miners rely upon.

Mebbe we can quit beatin round the bush here, a little, eh, Eric? An article I cited above summarizes some views of Yale biologist Keith Thomson as follows:.

I can always rely on you to pull out anti-evolution denialists, such as ARN, from far and wide. I see no reason to treat this as being an accurate summary.

"[Thomson] indicates three commonly employed meanings of evolution:

1. Change over time
2. Relationships of organisms by descent through common ancestry
3. A particular explanatory mechanism for the pattern and process of (1.) and (2.), such as natural selection.

Red flag: a biologist who says "evolution" means the same thing as "a mechanism of evolution"? Or, is the biologist critiquing some other work? Are you presenting a fourth-hand account (your quote of a summary of a critique of an original text), with a link to the third-hand account??

Thomson notes that factual patterns of change over time, particularly as seen in the fossil record, can be studied in the absence of theories of how these patterns came to be.

Didn't you just provide several quotes about how there were no factual patterns of change over time? No particular fossil changes, so there is no "factual change". However, the summarizer (which is quite possibly not an accurate reflection of Thomson) is willing to accept a certain amount of evolution (often described as "within kinds"), and so describes this amount of change as "factual".

Thomson also emphasizes that the second meaning, descent through common ancestry, is a hypothesis, not a fact, and that it is derived from the twin premises that life arose only once on Earth and that all life proceeds from preexisting life.

Actually, common descent is perfectly compatible with multiple origins of life, but Thomson may not have been familiar with the work of Woese, and once life becomes omnipresent on earth, there is no place for life to develop de novo. Also, descent through common ancestry as passed the hypothesis stage decades ago, it is now certainly theory. Either Thomson was speaking over a century ago, or this is editorializing on the part of the summarizer.

Cladistic analysis, championed currently by a number of biologists, has sought to eva1uate relationships among organisms without regard to the twin premises cited above. In regard to the third meaning, a particular explanatory mechanism, there are currently many alternative hypotheses. Darwin insisted that changes had to be small and gradual. However, Gould and his associates (1980) have proposed static intervals (stasis), followed by periods of rapid change (punctuated equilibrium).

You would think Thomson would be aware that the the changes in punctuated equilibrium are small and gradual, except when compared to neo-Darwinism.

The authors then state that:

Is this supposed to be Thomson, or the posters on ARN?

The biology texts, in general, do a poor job of distinguishing between these three different meanings of evolution. They generally fail to note that it is possible to accept the factual evidence for change over time, while having a more restricted view of descent through common ancestry. For example, to speak of ancestral descent in regard to the relationship of an ancestral horse to a modern horse would be a very restricted use when compared to the relationship of an ancestral one-celled organism to a modern mammal. Likewise, accepting the factual evidence for change over time does not require the acceptance of a particular explanatory mechanism for these changes.

It is possible to accept every part of the water cycle, except that you believe evaporation water is being skimmed by angels, and rain is caused by God, with no connection between the various molecules involved. After all, the water cycle is only a theory. Just because a position is possible does not make that position reasonable nor scientific.

On another level, many scientists prefer to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution: the former being the relatively small changes noted in the diversification of species, and the latter being the changes required in the development of new phyla, or possibly of new orders or classes. The term macroevolution has also been used in regard to development of new functions, such as vision or hearing..

Mostly, this terminology is preferred by anti-evolutionary scientists or by people responding to them.

Many proponents of Darwinian natural selection have argued that processes demonstrated for microevolution may be extrapolated to account for macroevolution as well. When this type of extrapolation is used in an attempt to validate a theory, we have moved beyond the reasonable bounds of science. Scientifically, we should simply state that at present, there is no satisfactory scientific explanation for macroevolutionary events. Those explanations that have been presented lie in the realm of philosophy.".

Gosh, an anti-evolutionist thinks we should state there is no scientifically supported explanation? Que surprise!

These observations strike me as sound. (1) is a simple fact, (2) is a hypothesis, one which entails certain (unproven) assumptions, and only with (3) do we enter into the realm of "theory.".

Except, (1), which is a fact and a theory, is supported by the exact same evidence as (2), which is also a fact and a theory, and (3) seems like wither a confusion or a distortion.

Of course not all which parades as "theory" is actually scientific in nature. The attempt to "validate" by projected extrapolation, rather than empirical evidence, is not, in itself, a "scientific" form of validation. It may be part of the theory, which I claim is independent from empirical validation, but it is not any kind of "evidence.".

Duh. It is the verification of the extrapolation that either raises the hypothesis to the level of theory of sweeps it to the dustbin of science.

Do you have any major disagreement with Thomson's summary? Are you using the term "theory" in the same sense Thomson does, or are you perhaps calling (1) and/or (2) THE theory?.

I would not presume to agree or disagree with Thomson based upon a quote of a summary of Thomson.

With regard to the issue of how much ideology is an inherent part of "evolutionary theory," I found the following report interesting. I am taking it as accurate:

"...in 1995 the NABT issued the following statement: ... On the last day of the October 8-11, 1997 annual NABT meeting, the board met again and voted to remove the two objectionable words, "unsupervised" and "impersonal"....

Good to know it was removed. The words don't belong in government-run schools.

But most prominent evolutionary biologists do not see the blind watchmaker thesis (as defined above) as an optional ideological add-on to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Rather, they see it as a central part of the propositional content of neo-Darwinian theory, as indeed Darwin himself did. .

Perhaps they just have not sufficiently considered the difference between their ontological and epistemological equivalents.

Is their a side on this matter which you agree with, Eric? Should the two words have remained? Is Pigliucci right that "NABT’s two-word alteration to the definition of evolution betrays the core...?".

While I think those words are accurate, I think you can find better ways to describe the concepts that only refer to epistemological concepts, possibly replacing "unsupervised" with "without apparent direction" and "impersonal" with "with no detectable outside influence".

Does it imply anything to you about how high school biology teachers may generally approach the teaching of evolution ...

Since some biology teachers are young-earth creationists, I don't draw any general conclusions from the statement of the NABT.

It seems that the website with Pigliucci's "open letter" to the National Association of Biology Teachers is no longer functional. A few excerpts appear here, though: .

Thiswould be the plea the NABT decided to reject?

Eric, you often suggest that you believe most, if not all, opposition to neo-darwinism is motivated by religious motivations. At the same time, you deny that "scientists" (with the exception of a few, like Dawkins) have any ideological agenda..

Since neo-Darwinism is dead, and was opposed by many scientists even when it was thought to be viable, this is plainly false, and seems worded to again attempt to intertwine neo-Darwinism with modern evolutionary theory.

I think this letter (apparently signed by a number of high profile "scientists")and the position of the high school biology teachers
indicates otherwise. While they may confess that naturalistic fundamentalism is "philosophy," that doesn't temper their certainty that is is ontologoically correct in the least..

Most philosophers, and most people, accept some unproven ontological truths as correct.

I have come to view both theism and atheism as equally "religious" doctrines. What's ironic about it is that the atheists come out looking worse than those they oppose in this view. This look like total hypocrites with little or insight or thoughtfulness because they deny their religious faith, and accuse their opponents of being "soft-minded" and "stupid" for openly admitting their religious faith..

Some forms of atheism make no ontological claim and require no faith, other forms do. Either way, they don't fit the term "religion". It is true there are fuzzy-headed atheists,both of the type that make no claims and of the type that do.

I did find the contents of Pigliucci's open letter after lookin a little more:.

I see no reason to care.

I am still unable to give meaning to your dual assertions that (1) Life could have independently arisen on earth a million times without in any way contradicting premise 1 from above, .

I feel it is unfortunate that, after all your efforts to quote Woese, et. al., you still retain this blind spot.

and (2) that anyone who even questions the the "factual" status of the doctrine of common descent is a "denialist.".

Denialism is a matter of tactics, not topic. Not everyone who questions common descent is a denialist (I used to question common descent, but I never used the tactics of denialism to do so, and changed my opinion after a careful examination of the evidence).

According to the NEScent website, this "workshop for educators" is "designed to provide an overview of key evolutionary concepts and explore cutting-edge topics in evolutionary biology for instructors at the high school and introductory college level."

http://www.nescent.org/eog/eognews.php?id=92

Cuttin edge, eh!? Sounds interestin, sho nuff! Like what, I wonder?.

I'm not going to go through the various topics individually, because I think you are missing the point. It's not about cutting-edge topics in biology, for the most part they don't even belong in introductory biology courses. It's about cutting-edge topics in biology education. I've been to math seminars that discussed cutting-edge ideas in mathematics. I assure, it was not the mathematics that was novel.

Arlin Stoltz, a research biologist in working in the CAMEL (Computational and Analyitical Molecular Evolution) lab at CARB (Center for Advanced Research in Biotechnology)

Is this supposed to be Arlin Stolzfus?

does a good job of articulating some of my general thoughts about both theory and the neo-darwinistic axiom of random mutation as the source of genetic variation, eh, Eric?

With respect to theory, he says, for example:

"Sometimes one hears the claim that, in science, "theory" refers to hypotheses that have been repeatedly confirmed and that are widely accepted by the scientific community, but (not to put too fine a point on it) this is a ridiculous position. One only hears of this interpretation of "theory" in discussions of evolution,

Actually, I've read a couple of similar discussion about string theory. Stolzfus seems to be ignorant of the general dispute on what is a theory.

Elsewhere he claims, with respect to the importance of variation to any evolutionary theory, that:

...

"Contempory discord" with "competing views," eh?

This is inevitable in science.

A "yet to be named" new view which abandons neo-darwinistic assumptions and acknowledges "non-randomness in evolution," eh?

Highly unlikely. For one thing, non-randomness was an essential component of many of the mechanisms in neo-Darwinism.

Is this now THE Theory of Evoluton, I wonder? If so, I wonder when they will tell the high school teachers, ya know?

Pretty much the same thing as always.

Read more!

A lesson in overly simple logic

Creationists really like their world simple, it seems to me. A simple interpretation of their holy book, simple ideas of right and wrong, and of course a simple logic to express it all in. Thus, we get a first lesson in logic from Martin Cothran that teaches a couple of ideas which are too simple to be correct.

Examples below the fold.
For example:

Just for fun, I am going to employ the most sophisticated and beautiful of all logical arguments: the dilemma. The dilemma is a way of putting your opponent in a box; it is a way of showing him that, no matter what in fact is the case, his assumption leads to an unacceptable conclusion. Again, there are numerous ways of attacking the truth of a statement—this is only one of them.

If I am making this argument, here’s how I do it: There are only two kinds of rights: those that originate in divine law and those that originate in human law. If the claim is that same-sex marriage is a right originating in divine law, then it must be false, since (if it is addressed at all) it is precluded by the holy books of all major religions. If the claim is that same-sex marriage is a right originating in human law, then it must, again, be false, since the law of the land (at least in the United States) does not acknowledge it. Therefore, in either case—whether the appeal is to divine or human law—the claim is false.

Note the nice clean division of originating in divine law or human law. Only the very naive, inexperienced would not that the argument does not address interactions between divine law and human law, nor the other potential sources of rights. This is not valid argumentation, it is a rhetorical trick. Unfortunately, Cothran seems to think this is some sort of valid method. Maybe this is a matter of necessity. maybe the world of the creationist can't survive in a world of shades and colors.

Then he gives what he imagines to be a lesson in reducito as absurdum, attempting to show that a lack of testability does rule ID out of science:

The best place to look for scientific theories that are not falsifiable is physics. Everyone accepts that physics, and the theories that are included under it, are scientific. But many of them are not falsifiable—at least not now. The most famous of these is superstring theory. Superstring theory is the theory that particles and fundamental forces in the universe can be explained by the vibration of very tiny symmetrical strings. The problem is that the theory is not only not falsifiable, but, as some scientists have pointed out, it isn’t even conceivably falsifiable. Some of Einstein’s thought experiments (many of which he later set forth as full scientific theories), the scientific status of which have never been questioned, are not falsifiable either.

Your opponent could swallow hard and say that these things are not science, but he will know he is on shaky ground—and he will know you know he knows it.

Note how he projects his own limited world-view onto others. In fact, I don't feel that I am at all on shaky ground in saying that any hypothesis which is not testable is not relevent scientifically. However, there are differences between hypotheses that are inherently untestable (Intelligent Design can not be falsified under any conditions) and those that are untestable under current technology, but may eventually prove testable. Neither is a part of science today, but the latter can at least eventually be scientific.
Read more!

Discussion on evolution

Below follows a response to a long list of comments in the third post in my series on Nagel's articles. If I have any other regular readers who are bored by this, my apologies.

I decided to move the bulk of the post to the comments.

aintnuthin,

Before a detailed response, let me see if I can correctly summarize our disagreement. You seem to be claiming that the Modern Synthesis of population genetics with natural selection is defunct, out of favor, discredit, or something similar. I have been saying that the many additional mechanisms we are seeing recently are things that will be incorporated into the Modern Synthesis, and that complement it rather than replace it.

On that topic, consider this link (with a hat tip to Panda’s Thumb).

LH: What are the most exciting recent developments in systematics / comparative methods?

JF: The availability of genome-scale information is certainly one. The arrival of a generation of young researchers who are comfortable with statistical and computational approaches is another. But the most important development is reflected in recent work on coalescent trees of gene copies within trees of species. What this does is tie together between-species molecular evolution and within-species population genetics. Those two lines of work have been developing almost independently since the 1960s. But now, with population samples of sequences at multiple loci in multiple related species, they are coming back together. This is not another Modern Synthesis, but it is a major event that needs a name. How about the "Family Reunion"? Long-estranged relatives who have not been in touch are getting together.

Read more!

Repost,enhanced: Probability and the 18 19 mechanisms

Every now and then I see bloggers repost someof their favorites. I think I might make this one an annual post, adding additional mechanisms as I learn about them. This post started with 15, and is now up to 18 19.

I'm expanding on a couple of different posts I made at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible Discussion Board, one of my favorite hang-outs. Basically, you see a lot of probability discussions in IDC literature. This is one more reason why they are nonsense. They generally looked at random mutation (that is, the replacement of one "letter" in the DNA with another letter) and natural selection.

There are at least 18 different mechanisms involved in evolution:

Mechanisms that increase diversity in a population
Random replacement mutation in DNA
Gene duplication
Frame shift mutation
Gene flow from other species
Recombination
Symbiosis
Environmentally generated changes to DNA decoding
Protein changes (prions, etc.)

Mechanisms that alter allele proportions in a population
Natural selection
Sexual selection
Sexually antagonistic selection
Random genetic drift
Kin selection
Molecular drive

Mechanisms that operate at a level above populations
Speciation
Punctuated equilibrium
Extinction/competition/invasive species
Mass extinction events
Parasitic/symbiotic relationships (note this is different from the symbiosis that occurs at the genetic/cellular level).

To do a probability calculation, you need to account not only for the probabilities of each of these mechanisms, but also for the independence of every possible subset of these mechanisms. that would be 524,288 (2^19) 262,144 (2^18) possible subsets, so any probability calculation would require you to factor in 524,288 262,144 different probabilities. The next IDC document I see that uses more than 10 factors will be the first.

Just one more way IDC falls short of even it's own goals.
Read more!

A Martin Cothran trilogy

Martin Cothran, spokesman for the Discovery Institute and Focus on the Family (at least, so I have heard), presented a trio of posts that I felt a need to correct over the past couple of weeks.

The first contains a very curious understanding of the Constitution.

Now whatever your view of Blagojevich or Burris, there is one thing that we know without a doubt: the Constitution leaves it up to the states. Reid has no business telling Illinois what to do. Blagojevich is still governor (even though most of the rest of us wish he weren't), and has perfect right to make the appointment.

Whether Burris serves as Senator from Illinois is a matter for the people of Illinois to decide, not the U. S. Senate.

However, the people who actually wrote the Constitution seem to have a different opinion on the matter. Quoting from Article 1, Section 5:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

So, there is certainly an argument that the Senate does indeed reserve the right to decide if a particular appointee has been too tainted by virtue of the person doing the appointing, and is therefore unqualified. The Senate is not able to decide who gets nominated for membership, but it does seem to have the right to turn people away. Strike one for Cothran.

In the second post, we have a vague attempt to define a word that means nothing to people who accept the Theory of Evolution, and something different to each different type of creationist, "Darwinism" (typically, it means whatever parts of the Theory of Evolution the creationist in question does not accept). Cothran's take on the word:

As a prelude to some more posts on the issue of Intelligent Design, I thought I might address a question that has come up on this blog several times, which I have answered in bits and pieces, but never, I think, directly. It is the question of why I use the term 'Darwinism' rather than using the term many Darwinists prefer that I use: 'evolution.'

I use the term 'Darwinism' simply because it is more accurate. By Darwinism I mean the belief, not simply that the complex organic world as we know it evolved from simpler life forms (the definition of 'evolution'), but that that process can sufficiently be explained by completely natural processes--the two reigning explanations, as I understand it, being natural selection and modern genetic theory.

Darwinists themselves seem to use this term when they think the rest of us aren't looking, but they don't seem to want the term to be used publicly because it has acquired a somewhat pejorative sense. To that, all I can say is that that's not my problem.

The distinction is important because there are some of us who don't have any particular problem with evolution, but have their doubts about Darwinism.

Cothran manages to make several mischaracterizations in a very short post. The first is that there is no such thing as a Darwinist, because no one (that I have read, at least) treats the writings of Darwin as being the the final or ultimate authority on biological development and history. Darwin was the not the first to note the history of biological development, and certainly not the first to note that selection can cause morphological change even within a person's lifetime. He took these ideas and put them together, but his works, like many works at the beginning of a scientific revolution, contain their fair share of errors, incorrect hypotheses, and discarded notions. Scientists don't believe anything because Darwin wrote it, they believe what the evidence of the 120+ years since Darwin has confirmed.

Second, knowledge that the natural process involved in evolution are sufficient to have fueled the world's biodiversity is not a belief, it is a fact. We know from decades of experience that the mechanisms of evolution are capable of doing astounding things. Of course, a careless person might confuse being sufficient with being actual, a problem that Cothran seems to have (as will be shown below). If I see a pile of rocks at the face of a cliff, it is a sufficient explanation that they fell of the cliff face due to erosion. This does not rule out the possibility of a person rearranging the rocks after they fell, causing them to fall, etc. It is sufficient, not conclusive.

Third is the common Creationist tactic of taking the 17+ mechanisms of evolution and ignoring at least 11 of them, referring only to natural selection and modern genetic theory

Fourth, the term Darwinism only comes up when discussing ID/Creationism. The reason it has any pejorative sense at all is because it was created to be a pejorative term.

It was nice of Cothran to confirm for us, in the last paragraph, that "Darwinism" is defined by what is rejected. Strike two for Cothran.

Finally, I will quote from the third piece of dreck put out in a four-day span.

This has been said before in different ways, but, put very simply, if you say that the assertion that the universe as a whole or any particular part of it are intelligently designed is by necessity a non-scientific assertion, then have you not also committed yourself to saying that the opposite assertion--that the world or the things in it are not intelligently designed--is equally non-scientific?

If so, then what are the ramifications for Darwinism, since Darwinism necessarily involves the denial of the assertion of Intelligent Design?

Cothran's rhetorical question in the first paragraph is absolutely correct: it is as equally non-scientific to make a positive denial of design (as opposed to an affirmation of the lack of evidence for design) as it is to make an affirmation of design. Going back to my pile of rocks under the cliff: to claim it is a design, all a person has to do is move one rock by any measurable amount, he has then a proper claim to design in the final result. If I come by six hours later, how am I supposed to make a positive claim that no one has designed the rock positions? They could have been designed on one side of the road,not designed on the other side, and there is no way for me to distinguish the two.

Cothran's second paragraph reveals the confusion to which I referred earlier. His very own definition of "Darwinism"refers to the notion that natural mechanisms are are sufficient, but again there is a difference between sufficiency and conclusiveness. The denial of ID has absolutely no ramifications at all for Darwinism under the very definition he provides!

And if so, then what does that say, not only about the anti-Intelligent Design proclamations of some in the scientific community, but about the scientific status of Darwinism insofar as it is a denial of the Intelligent Design assertion?

In his haste, Cothran seems to have forgotten to mention which of the many ID assertions that he's referring to. However, there is a blanket answer: any particular ID assertion that says merely that the mechanisms of the Theory of Evolution are insufficient to explain a particular biological phenomenon has made a scientific statement. It just happens to be a false one. Strike three for Cothran, he is again out of touch with reality.
Read more!

Nagel's folly Part 3 -- Comparisons of ID to other types of expanations

Today I am discussing another problem with the paper authored by Dr. Nagel, which supports teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. As a reminder, Jake Young at Pure Pedantry discussed why naturalism is essential to science, in Part 1 of this series I noted that evolution is not incompatible with design, and in Part 2 of this series I noted that there is no reason that being an atheist would make you a believer in evolution. Today I'm going to write about Nagel's comparison of the scientific investigation of ID with investigation of other sorts of phenomena, why such investigations are or are not possible, and how ID does or does not suffer the same sort of fundamental defect. The four notions mentioned are ghosts, telepathy, creationism, and ID.

What would it take to justify the claim that there are propositions such that the discovery of evidence against them can qualify as science, but evidence in favor of them cannot? Someone who accepts this view would probably extend it to propositions about ghosts or extrasensory perception. Research showing that effects that some benighted souls have attributed to ghosts or mental telepathy can be explained in a perfectly naturalistic way would count as science, but any argument that the evidence does not support those explanations, and that significant experimental or observational data are better explained by ghosts or by ESP, would not count as science, and could therefore be ruled out of consideration. On this view it would not even be a false scientific claim.

With regard to ghosts, I don't know what effects Dr. Nagel could be talking about about. How do you test for the presence of a ghost? How do you verify this is a successful test? I have seen magicians duplicate the feats of various psychics, while claiming is it all based on natural abilities, so you can't rely on physics to tell you if there are actually ghosts present. This is outside of science because we can not even verify if we have a functional test.

With regard to telepathy, and various other forms of ESP, there have been a variety of scientific studies done to determine if there is an effect to study. To my knowledge, all of the tests, when performed under controlled conditions, have determined that there is no reliable effect to study. If ESP is something that is supposed to used reliably at need, or under specific, reproducible conditions, then you obviously can study it scientifically. However, if ESP is presumed to be a phenomenon that appears and disappears without warning, for no reason, then it is immune to study because you can never have a true negative result.

It seems to me that in this respect ID is very different from young earth creationism, and the “creation science” that it spawned. There are people who believe, on the authority of the Bible, that God created the earth and all the creatures on it about six thousand years ago. The fact that this proposition is inconsistent with various scientific theories of cosmology, geology, and biology does not make it a scientific claim.

The claims of creationists may not be in agreement with science, but they can certainly be investigated by science. The very fact that there is a disagreement with science means that some sort of claim about science is being made. So, the fact that this proposition is inconsistent with various theories cosmology, geology, and biology does make it a scientific claim. It is a claim that leads to predictions of what we should expect to see with regard to cosmology, geology, and biology. Some scientific claims are just wrong.

Biblical literalism is not a scientific hypothesis because it is not offered as an explanation of the empirical evidence, but is accepted as a divine revelation. So long as no observations about the natural world are offered in its support, it is not even a false scientific claim. When, however, in response to the finding that the teaching of creationism in public schools was unconstitutional, the producers of creation science tried to argue that young earth creationism was consistent with the geological and paleontological evidence, they succeeded in putting forward a scientific claim, even though their reason for doing so was that they believed it to be true on other grounds, and their arguments were easily refuted.

When the assumption of a six-thousand-year-old earth led to predictions and interpretations that were scientific claims, it was because the original claim was scientific.

A scientific hypothesis can be false and unsupported by the evidence. That is a good enough reason not to teach it to schoolchildren. It is not necessary to argue that it is not science, not even hopelessly bad science.

Well, at least we agree here.

ID is very different from creation science. To an outsider, at least, it does not seem to depend on massive distortion of the evidence and hopeless incoherencies in its interpretation. Nor does it depend, like biblical literalism, on the assumption that the truth of ID is immune to empirical evidence to the contrary. What it does depend on is the assumption that the hypothesis of a designer makes sense and cannot be ruled out as impossible or assigned a vanishingly small probability in advance.

What ID has not done, does not do, and apparently will never do is give us a prediction about the world, a scientific claim, that can be tested. Regardless of how likely you think the notion of a designer is, the question remains: what is the testable evidence of a designer's footprints? Can you devise a functional, scientific test for a designer's involvement? We can rule out or confirm any designer that gives us a prediction, a testable entity. ID has not produced this entity.

Once it is assigned a significant prior probability, it becomes a serious candidate for support by empirical evidence, in particular empirical evidence against the sufficiency of standard evolutionary theory to account for the observational data. Critics take issue with the claims made by defenders of ID about what standard evolutionary mechanisms can accomplish, and argue that they depend on faulty assumptions. Whatever the merits, however, that is clearly a scientific disagreement, not a disagreement between science and something else.

I agree that many of the anti-evolution presented are at least arguments about science, and can be discussed in that venue. However, until ID can offer us something to make predictions, something to test, ID can never be science, no matter what the status of evolution.
Read more!