The goal of the Intelligent Design movement is the dismantling of modern science

[TheLurch]

[QUOTE=rogue06;n1245605]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a report in 1922 which says:/QUOTE]
Exactly what i was thinking of. Specifically:
"it has been asserted that there is not a fact in the universe in support of this theory, that it is a “mere guess” which leading scientists are now abandoning, and that even the American Association for the Advancement of Science at its last meeting in Toronto, Canada, approved this revolt against evolution"

[rogue06]

I can't find it on their site anymore, but the AAAS had a collection of resolutions it issued on evolution over the years. And if you go back to the earliest one, from the 1920s, it mentioned that opponents of teaching evolution back then were saying the theory was in crisis and about to collapse.

In other words, the sorts of language used by the intelligent design crowd goes back about 100 years, before intelligent design existed, and before we know about any of these things that are supposedly pushing evolution into crisis today. The reasons have changed, but the language hasn't.

And the whole time, here in the real world, evolution has just picked up more and more supporting evidence.


I was not aware of that occurrence. Interesting.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a report in 1922 which says:

Since it has been asserted that there is not a fact in the universe in support of this theory, that it is a “mere guess” which leading scientists are now abandoning, and that even the American Association for the Advancement of Science at its last meeting in Toronto, Canada, approved this revolt against evolution, and

Inasmuch as such statements have been given wide publicity through the press and are misleading public opinion on this subject, therefore,

The Council of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has thought it advisable to take formal steps upon this matter, in order that there may be no ground for misunderstanding of the attitude of this Association, which is one of the largest scientific bodies in the world, with a membership of more than 11,000 persons, including the American authorities in all branches of science. The following statements represent the position of the Council with regard to the theory of evolution.

1. 1. The Council of the Association affirms that, so far as the scientific evidences of evolution of plants and animals and man are concerned, there is no ground whatever for the assertion that these evidences constitute a “mere guess.” No scientific generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested evidences than is that of organic evolution.”

http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolu...php?doc_id=156

[TheLurch]

The rabbit embedded in Precambrian rocks was J.B.S. Haldane's famous example of a way to falsify evolution. Finding a fish with feathers would also do it. Talk Origins has a long list on their website.

The fact is that to date nothing has come along which has falsified evolution^[1] despite over a century and a half of many people working frantically to do so. This is powerful testimony to just how strong evolutionary theory is.

I can't find it on their site anymore, but the AAAS had a collection of resolutions it issued on evolution over the years. And if you go back to the earliest one, from the 1920s, it mentioned that opponents of teaching evolution back then were saying the theory was in crisis and about to collapse.

In other words, the sorts of language used by the intelligent design crowd goes back about 100 years, before intelligent design existed, and before we know about any of these things that are supposedly pushing evolution into crisis today. The reasons have changed, but the language hasn't.

And the whole time, here in the real world, evolution has just picked up more and more supporting evidence.

1. The aforementioned Karl Popper had at one point posited that natural selection was unfalsifiable, saying it was an untestable tautology. But not long after, in his Natural Selection and the Emergent Mind, admitted that he had been mistaken.

I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation.

I was not aware of that occurrence. Interesting.

[rogue06]

Congratulations, you've found a technology blogger that supports you!

I realize that suggesting you read Popper is a bit overly ambitious, but maybe you could try the Wikipedia summary of Popper? Or at least reread Rogue's last post?

The rabbit embedded in Precambrian rocks was J.B.S. Haldane's famous example of a way to falsify evolution. Finding a fish with feathers would also do it. Talk Origins has a long list on their website.

The fact is that to date nothing has come along which has falsified evolution^[1] despite over a century and a half of many people working frantically to do so. This is powerful testimony to just how strong evolutionary theory is.





1. The aforementioned Karl Popper had at one point posited that natural selection was unfalsifiable, saying it was an untestable tautology. But not long after, in his Natural Selection and the Emergent Mind, admitted that he had been mistaken.

I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation.

[TheLurch]

"In hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis usually states the contrary of the experimental or alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis provides the basis of falsifiability..." (WhatIs.com)

Congratulations, you've found a technology blogger that supports you!

I realize that suggesting you read Popper is a bit overly ambitious, but maybe you could try the Wikipedia summary of Popper? Or at least reread Rogue's last post?

[lee_merrill]

Rejecting the null is not the same as falsification. You keep trying to evade the root "false" in the term. But it's there, and it actually matters.

"In hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis usually states the contrary of the experimental or alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis provides the basis of falsifiability..." (WhatIs.com)

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Conclusions can be falsified if they're probabilistic, that's why we can speak of "rejecting the null hypothesis" in statistics.

Rejecting the null is not the same as falsification. You keep trying to evade the root "false" in the term. But it's there, and it actually matters.

[lee_merrill]

Exactly. If it's probabilistic, it cannot be falsified. End of story.

Conclusions can be falsified if they're probabilistic, that's why we can speak of "rejecting the null hypothesis" in statistics.

Your "argument" was to echo a blog post that said bilaterians originated in the Cambrian.

And to provide quotes saying the actual boundary was not critical.

Blessings,
Lee

[rogue06]

Sure it is, if natural processes could produce X, then we conclude a Designer is not required.

I guess we can now add "falsification" to the mountain of topics that you know absolutely nothing about and yet are quick to pontificate on. Showing that something can arise through natural processes does not falsify that it could have been designed. However, showing that something can arise through natural processes does falsify that it could only have been designed.

Look at the famous example often cited to one way that evolution could be falsified, namely the discovery of the remains of a modern rabbit found embedded in Precambrian or Cambrian deposits. If something like that were to be found then evolution would be largely falsified.

[TheLurch]

But I was talking about conclusions such as falsifying a Designer, such conclusions are probabilistic ones.

Exactly. If it's probabilistic, it cannot be falsified. End of story.

I think I can grasp his arguments, carbohydrate synthesis is hard, under early-earth conditions. It's even hard for labs without such restrictions!

See the thread for a demonstration that you don't know enough to evaluate his arguments. There's a whole lot of science he's apparently ignoring.

I don't think so, for example, one bilaterian wouldn't invalidate my argument. As I have said time and again, moving the boundary of the Cambrian explosion in such a way would not explain the diversification.

Your "argument" was to echo a blog post that said bilaterians originated in the Cambrian.

Apparently, you're perfectly comfortable with falsehoods when they come from people you want to believe. What does that say about you, Lee?

[lee_merrill]

That's falsification. It shows that something must be false.

But I was talking about conclusions such as falsifying a Designer, such conclusions are probabilistic ones.

But you lack the ability to evaluate whether Tour is right or wrong.

I think I can grasp his arguments, carbohydrate synthesis is hard, under early-earth conditions. It's even hard for labs without such restrictions!

1) No, you didn't. I knew the right answer, which was why i could continue to tell you that you were wrong, and explain it far more simply than you could after you had to resort to a script.
2) It is major if your contention is about the need for structure in proteins. It shows that you don't necessarily need it at all.
3) The existence of even one bilaterian in the pre-Cambrian made your entire argument wrong, since it was based on them not existing then.

Those are all major points.

I don't think so, for example, one bilaterian wouldn't invalidate my argument. As I have said time and again, moving the boundary of the Cambrian explosion in such a way would not explain the diversification.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Such conclusions deal with probabilities, not total provable impossibilities.

Nope. Once you do a double-slit experiment, it eliminates an massive number of possible classical physics concepts. They cannot possibly be accurate, because they are incompatible with the experimental results.

That's falsification. It shows that something must be false.

Because scientists (such as James Tour) can explain their arguments in such a way that laypersons can understand them. And you are exaggerating, I'm not making frequent major errors--it's an ad hominem.

But you lack the ability to evaluate whether Tour is right or wrong.

For the first one, I got the right answer before you did, so there!
For the second one, I was indeed unaware of them, but I would not count that as major.
For the third one, the evidence is not definitive for most of them, you are again exaggerating.

1) No, you didn't. I knew the right answer, which was why i could continue to tell you that you were wrong, and explain it far more simply than you could after you had to resort to a script.
2) It is major if your contention is about the need for structure in proteins. It shows that you don't necessarily need it at all.
3) The existence of even one bilaterian in the pre-Cambrian made your entire argument wrong, since it was based on them not existing then.

Those are all major points.

[lee_merrill]

No, that's not how falsification works. Falsification goes well beyond "not required" to "could not possibly be involved". And, since a designer could make things that only look like they're not designed, then it is never possible to rule it out.

Such conclusions deal with probabilities, not total provable impossibilities.

What gives you the confidence that you understand this stuff better than any scientist, despite the frequency of major errors that you make?

Because scientists (such as James Tour) can explain their arguments in such a way that laypersons can understand them. And you are exaggerating, I'm not making frequent major errors--it's an ad hominem.

As for disputing things:
Did you or did you not need a script to calculate basic probabilities that were simple to figure out by eye, and after having gotten them wrong several times prior to that?
Did you or did you not engage in an argument about protein structure without even being aware of the existence of intrinsically disordered proteins?
Did you or did you not make claims about the existence of bilaterians in pre-Cambrian strata while not being aware of definitive evidence for them?

All of these happened; i'm not making any of this up.

For the first one, I got the right answer before you did, so there!
For the second one, I was indeed unaware of them, but I would not count that as major.
For the third one, the evidence is not definitive for most of them, you are again exaggerating.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Sure it is, if natural processes could produce X, then we conclude a Designer is not required.

No, that's not how falsification works. Falsification goes well beyond "not required" to "could not possibly be involved". And, since a designer could make things that only look like they're not designed, then it is never possible to rule it out.

Think in terms of the double slit experiment falsifying the idea that photons travel as single, discrete objects. Given single photon double slit experiments, we know absolutely that this idea is not possibly correct.

I note that you have been mistaken in these threads, too, in regard to tRNA, for instance. And I would dispute several of these points. But let's not do ad hominems.

I am human, and i do make mistakes, absolutely. But my mistakes are typically getting a fact wrong; they're not of the nature of fundamentally misunderstanding a topic. Pointing out that this is something you've done repeatedly is not an ad hominem for two reasons. One is that it's simply stating a fact, as others here can attest. And two, i'm not using that to argue against any particular position anyway.

I'm using it to ask a question.

What gives you the confidence that you understand this stuff better than any scientist, despite the frequency of major errors that you make?



As for disputing things:
Did you or did you not need a script to calculate basic probabilities that were simple to figure out by eye, and after having gotten them wrong several times prior to that?
Did you or did you not engage in an argument about protein structure without even being aware of the existence of intrinsically disordered proteins?
Did you or did you not make claims about the existence of bilaterians in pre-Cambrian strata while not being aware of definitive evidence for them?

All of these happened; i'm not making any of this up.

[lee_merrill]

The problem is that, in Intelligent Design, the designer is not falsifiable...

Sure it is, if natural processes could produce X, then we conclude a Designer is not required.

Oh, Lee. In these threads, you've shown you can't manage basic probabilities, aren't aware of key aspects of the fossil records, don't know of entire classes of proteins that are central to the argument you're making, etc. etc.

Given all that, what makes you think you're capable of evaluating scientific evidence?

I note that you have been mistaken in these threads, too, in regard to tRNA, for instance. And I would dispute several of these points. But let's not do ad hominems, and instead focus on the evidence, such as Koonin's calculation (which you have ignored), such as James Tour's objections to abiogenesis, such as Behe's arguments (which I have continually had to correct you on).

Blessings,
Lee