Just so stories

It is strange that the guys that were caught with their pants down and that had nothing to offer about the science if intelligent design are concentrating their efforts in chruches and events sponsored by religious organizations. How do the guys like Nelson and Dembski explain this change in emphasis?

Once the intelligent design creationist political scam was exposed there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to pretend anymore.

Even Dembski has returned to his old love of apologetics and UcD is focused mainly on Christian arguments

As always, I want to know how design is a falsifiable concept. Exactly what do Dembski and Behe think a non-(god)-designed universe would look like? And how could one tell it wasn't designed? How do you distinguish design from non-design? And if they're capable of doing that at all, doesn't that imply that there must be some things in this universe their designer-who-isn't-God-no-really-we-swear has nothing to do with? And if that's the case, where did those things come from?

ID is just a dog and pony show, except with neither a dog nor a pony.

PvM wrote: "Even Dembski has returned to his old love of apologetics and UcD is focused mainly on Christian arguments"

I've noticed this too -- I follow UcD fairly closely and have noticed that the number of anti-evolution, anti-atheist blog entries seem to be on the rise. In fact, it's harder to find anything whatsoever that is directly related to ID and it seems to have settled into a very shrill anti-materialist collection of rantings (and not a single new idea about ID).

Furthermore, Dembski's idea of blogging is simply to write 1-2 sentences and then either provide a link or paste in copy from somewhere else. Hardly the fruit of a great intellectual mind at work. If he is supposed to be the 'Newton of Information theory' one would conclude that, although he may be an expert Googler, he doesn't actually have anything to say in his own words.

Slipping further and further into vacuity. Who is up for a Dover Day celebration this coming 20th of December?

Thanks for linking to my piece Pim. Fame at last! ;)

It does wind me up when the old 'just so story' line is trotted out, which is what inspired me to write the piece in the first place. As I pointed out, even Kipling's just-so stories are falsifiable, which is more than you can say for ID.

THIS is the picture of the Djinn making the beginnings of the Magic that brought the Humph to the Camel. First he drew a line in the air with his finger, and it became solid: and then he made a cloud, and then he made an egg--you can see them both at the bottom of the picture-- and then there was a magic pumpkin that turned into a big white flame. Then the Djinn took his magic fan and fanned that flame till the flame turned into a magic by itself. It was a good Magic and a very kind Magic really, though it had to give the Camel a Humph because the Camel was lazy. The Djinn in charge of All Deserts was one of the nicest of the Djinns, so he would never do anything really unkind.

— Rudyard Kipling, How the Camel Got His Hump (1902)

To take an illustration proposed seriously by Robert Wright in The Moral Animal, a sweet tooth leads to unhealthy obesity today but must have arisen as an adaptation. Wright therefore states: "The classic example of an adaptation that has outlived its logic is the sweet tooth. Our fondness for sweetness was designed for an environment in which fruit existed but candy didn't." This ranks as pure guesswork in the cocktail party mode; Wright presents no neurological evidence of a brain module for sweetness, and no paleontological data about ancestral feeding. This "just-so story" therefore cannot stand as a "classic example of an adaptation" in any sense deserving the name of science.

— Stephen Jay Gould

To take an illustration proposed seriously by Robert Wright in The Moral Animal, a sweet tooth leads to unhealthy obesity today but must have arisen as an adaptation. Wright therefore states: "The classic example of an adaptation that has outlived its logic is the sweet tooth. Our fondness for sweetness was designed for an environment in which fruit existed but candy didn't." This ranks as pure guesswork in the cocktail party mode; Wright presents no neurological evidence of a brain module for sweetness, and no paleontological data about ancestral feeding. This "just-so story" therefore cannot stand as a "classic example of an adaptation" in any sense deserving the name of science.

— Stephen Jay Gould

I think we're just looking at a pre-emptive first strike here. "Goddidit" is the quintessential just-so story boiled down to a single word. The creationists are painfully aware of this. Best to deflect the obvious.

Thanks for linking to my piece Pim. Fame at last! ;)

— Odd digit

To be fair, "god did it" is not a just so story. To be a proper just so story it would have to be "god did it in the following amusing and whimsical way..."

It's worth noting that even an evolutionary "just so" story is useful in debunking ID/creationist claims. As long as it's biologically plausible, it's more than sufficient to refute the contention that certain things (e.g. the flagellum, the immune system) can't possibly have evolved without conscious intelligent intervention.

I like so much your page... I recommend visit

10/325
- Vicoprofen - Lortab- Tylenol #3- - Ativan
All Major Medications are available right here at: http://www.crdrx.com

I agree with Larry, biologists have used the accussation of 'just-so-stories'. Againl I agree with Larry that it is a methodological problem. Kauffman has used the claim of 'just-so-stories' as well. The the difference is that Gould and Kauffman are not claiming that natural selection or gradualism don't happen at all, but rather biologists take the claim too far in their theorectical claims. It is basically to pull the reigns back somewhat, but not to claim that evolution is a myth (I'm not saying Larry is claiming this though).

Source: The Origins of Life, p.42-43

The "just-so" stories, at the very least, have something in common with the "gedanken experiments" often done by physicists. They are a way of checking the internal consistency of ideas in a theoretical structure and exploring the ramifications of a theory. They frequently guide researchers to the way things actually happen in Nature by helping researchers construct experimental programs to test the issues raised by a theory. A particular "just-so" story may itself turn out to be incorrect in certain details because of unforeseen contingencies leading to the present state of a system or an organism, but its principal thrust can still be correct.

In stark contrast, the "just-because-I-said-so" stories ID/Creationist leaders tell their followers require no particular internal consistency or correspondence with the physical universe. Instead, one starts with a sectarian, ideological construct, and then asserts that the physical universe is consistent with this construct. Thus, any experimental program that finds otherwise is wrong. And, if you don't believe it, there will be hell to pay.

A just-so story need not be false. At least 2 of Kipling's Just So Stories are plausible explanations of how writing developed. The explanation for why we have a sweet tooth is also plausible. I like the idea that good just-so stories are akin to Gedankenexperiments that give you something to think about.

Of course Dembski is going to say:
"It's not ID's task to match 'your pathetic level of detail'."

After all, the DEVIL is in the details...**eg**

My response to William Dembski's "I'm not going to take the bait" post:

WD: You're asking me to play a game:

No, you're already playing a game. We're asking you to stop.

WD: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position."

We'll settle for less detail, since we've had a few years' head start. Unless you count Paley, in which case you had the head start. But we don't just need "causal mechanisms," we also need you to tell us what those mechanisms explain. You know, the "what happened and when" of biological history. Even YECs can do that part, so we're confident that you can too.

WD: ID is not a mechanistic theory,...

It isn't a theory, period.

WD: ...and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.

ID can't match any level of detail, which is why you no longer demand that it be taught in schools. So you just promote the phony "critical analysis" of evolution, which insulates all the other attempts at "theories", e.g. YEC, OEC, saltation, front loading, etc., from a
real critical analysis. Nice trick, I must admit.

WD: If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots.

Tell that to the YECs and OECs who insist on connecting the dots in the wrong way.

Besides, you conveniently overlook the fact that when a designer is detected in forensics and archaeology - using the "side information" that those fields have that yours lacks - investigators continue to "connect the dots" by determining what the designer did, when and how. In contrast, the object of your game is to get your critics to dwell on whether or not there is a designer. That saves you from having to say what the designer did, when and how. And you don't want to do that because you know that the answer is "it's still evolution." Maybe not your "Darwinism" caricature, but still evolution.

WD: True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

Then what exactly are the "fundamental discontinuities?" They must not be biological because Michael Behe made it clear that there is "biological continuity" (his phrase for common descent at the Kansas Kangaroo Court), and you have not challenged him on it. So for all your gyrations about "the" flagellum, barring any extraordinary evidence to the contrary, the most reasonable explanation is still that modern flagella originated "in vivo" not "in vitro." Likewise humans are "modified monkeys," not "modified dirt." And the
process is still evolution.

But we understand. You can't say too much because you need YEC political support. We know the game. Like astrology, which Behe likened it to at Dover, ID continues to fool millions of people, but it fools no biologists except the handful who already sold out to pseudoscience. And since the sell-outs seem to know that it's a scam, we can't necessarily say that it fools them either.

I can understand it may feel as though some sort of intelligence threw everything into motion. But beyond that everything else is just a guess.

I can understand it may feel as though some sort of intelligence threw everything into motion. But beyond that everything else is just a guess.

I agree that when you set them side-by-side, the oft-derided just-so stories suggested by some evolutionary biologists are preferable to the essentially content-less "it was designed" argument. At least a good just-so story comes packed in lots of potentially-testable details.

If I remember correctly, Behe was responding to a laundry list of counterexamples to his claims of irreducible complexity. The whole concept of irreducible complexity is that, "X is logically impossible because there are no plausible evolutionary paths to X." When presented with a pile of literature on plausible evolutionary paths, the goalposts move to, "Well, you can't prove that it actually *is* the path that was taken." There is no need to show that the "just so" story actually happened when all you're doing is demolishing the claim that there are no possible explanations. Sure, those hypotheses aren't conclusively supported, but they're enough to show that the concept of irreducible complexity does not apply to the systems in question.

Of course, all the ID camp has to do is pick up another IC-looking system and start waving that one around. If that isn't an obvious god-in-the-gaps tactic, I don't know what is.

Mark, perhaps the designer is the Gasolinen Djinn? Good Ford!

When presented with a pile of literature on plausible evolutionary paths, the goalposts move to, "Well, you can't prove that it actually *is* the path that was taken."

When presented with a pile of literature on plausible evolutionary paths, the goalposts move to, "Well, you can't prove that it actually *is* the path that was taken."

Is there any room for compromise? There is both a little bit of necessary faith in evolution theory and a little bit of science in ID. Why must everything be so dualistic? Folks here ignore most of the subjective and ID folks ignore most of the objective.

Compromise on what?

You can believe and speak what you like--this is America, still, mostly.

But high school science class is not for the "subjective." That should be for fundamentals of well-accepted science methods and observations.

Is there any room for compromise? There is both a little bit of necessary faith in evolution theory and a little bit of science in ID. Why must everything be so dualistic? Folks here ignore most of the subjective and ID folks ignore most of the objective.

— Brad

Is there any room for compromise? There is both a little bit of necessary faith in evolution theory and a little bit of science in ID. Why must everything be so dualistic? Folks here ignore most of the subjective and ID folks ignore most of the objective.

— Brad

While you may not support any logical or scientific pieces of ID, what you're really failing to realize is that there is a fair amount of unknowable "subjective" stuff in evolution theory (such as much of macro-evolution... most of which is non-falsifiable) And a possible point of compromise would be to fill in the unknowable with at least a tolerance for some aspects of ID. I'm not talking about in the science classroom... I'm talking about your personal realm of openness.

Oh, ah'm personally "open" all right.

Slurp!

But ah'm not too suah that ya'll really want to trespass fah enough inta mah "realm" ta find out just how "evolved" ah really am...

Slurp!

While you may not support any logical or scientific pieces of ID,

— Brad

what you're really failing to realize is that there is a fair amount of unknowable "subjective" stuff in evolution theory (such as much of macro-evolution... most of which is non-falsifiable) And a possible point of compromise would be to fill in the unknowable with at least a tolerance for some aspects of ID. I'm not talking about in the science classroom... I'm talking about your personal realm of openness.

— Brad

I've heard little of scientifically proven ID "facts"... however the notion of irreducible complexity although unscientific, deserves some inquiry. I've never read anything by Behe or anyone but I did manage to hear him speak during college... he gave an analogy of a mousetrap that was at lesat interesting. To rule out logic and philosophy in ardent pursuit of scientific data will get a person nowhere.

Personally I'm somewhat of an agnostic. So I'm not going to try and claim that whatever I believe in will explain everything. But doubts abound across this entire subject field. For example. I've always wondered, that if the primordial soup eventually turned into organisms then its very first notion would have to be to develop evolution. And evolution (if it exists) is the most complex of our traits. How was the first adaptation the most complex. How did a few proteins decide that there were bigger and better things out there? And that they should develop the ability to adapt to this environment? We're talking about a world without perceptions. And how did these proteins form in the first place? Also this presents a chicken and egg quandry. How did evolution evolve? How is any of that falsifiable?

I'm very interested in continuing this conversation.

I suppose it might be all right to point out what I'm sure is obvious to many, that a molecular chemist like Behe wouldn't understand the useful, though not completely certain, stories which the historical sciences regularly produce as helpful interpretations. In chemistry you can often come up with stories that almost certainly are legitimately "just so", just as it happens, because one may look at all of the steps (yes, not really "all", in every case", but frequently all that are included within the explanation).

What he calls "just-so stories" would only be that if biologists really believed that a partially conjectural explanatory sequence really is exactly what happened, rather than being a very good possibility. Geology is rife with similar stories, and in both disciplines there are frequently alternative stories which are awaiting confirmation, or distinguishing details which might lead to confirmation even further down the road.

Does he complain about geology's so-called "just-so stories"? Nah, he probably knows little or nothing about them, doesn't care how geology is conducted, and merely wishes to harp about biology's supposed failings. This is why he demands stories that tell "just how" it all happened, then complains when a plausible scenario is presented to him. He knew that the full details never could be produced, and wishes for the hollow triumph of demonstrating that not all can be known, in order to smother up the fact that nothing is known via his pet "hypothesis".

And he neglects that aspects of the evolutionary stories are often known to a high level of accuracy, notably the aspects which tell of where fossils and living organisms exist in relationship with one another, along with the relative sequences of splits which occurred during adaptive radiations. Not every split is unambiguous, of course, however many are essentially known without any question, which means that these particular splitting stories are "just so" because there is actually nothing ambiguous about them or the evidence, and are not "just so" because they are fictions to any important degree.

He didn't ask for those details? No, of course he didn't, because he knew that they exist, and they conform extremely well with the predictions of known evolutionary causation. He only demands "just so stories" where he knows that a good deal of (educated) guess is needed to fill in the gaps (along with the solid evidences), and does not ask for detailed cladistic evidence which coincides, as well as the resolution permits, with the predicted patterns of evolution.

Thus he avoids the fact that he has absolutely no mechanism to explain cladistic patterns of radiative splitting, and he merely acts as if the splits predicted by known "mechanistic" constraints are predicted by his magical "evolution" as well. He thereby illegitimately subsumes the predictions of real science into his "poof, a miracle happens" story, and demands of us the sorts of evidence that we all know is lost to time (or at least will take a good while yet to find out).

Of course he has never wanted any explanations at all, merely hoping that anthropocentric prejudices will default to his miraculous design scenario if he can obscure the fact that much has already been explained by known evolutionary mechanisms.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

"To rule out logic and philosophy in ardent pursuit of scientific data will get a person nowhere."

— Brad

I don't agree with Behe's notion of numerous frail just-so theories backing up evolution. There is much data on micro-evolution. However the flip side of this just-so stuff begs the question of an is-ought problem. If his attacks of these weakpoint "just-so" areas isn't valid then why is evolution's attack of ID's subjective and logical structures also not valid? It can't answer the tough questions either. Evolution theory attempts to claim ownership of these questionmarks on the subject... it wants to extend what is (adaptation) into what it wishes ought (big unprovables).

What use is preaching one ideology (faith based portions of evolution theory) in the science classroom than the other... unscertainty, doubt, subjectivity.

Steviepinhead wrote:

"But high school science class is not for the "subjective." That should be for fundamentals of well-accepted science methods and observations."

I've always wondered, that if the primordial soup eventually turned into organisms then its very first notion would have to be to develop evolution. And evolution (if it exists) is the most complex of our traits.

What use is preaching one ideology (faith based portions of evolution theory) . . .

Richard Simons wrote:

"Evolution is not a trait that develops, it is the process by which other traits develop ...like bits of computer code) having inexact replication and differential survival."

Richard Simons wrote:

"And what might these 'faith based portions of evolution' be?"

Bits of computer code that is exactly the type of analogy of which I was thinking.

Your saying that the soup had a function built into it that called for it to adapt.

There are HUGE questions still unanswered.

Richard Simons wrote:

"You ask 'How did evolution evolve?" I imagine pretty much the same way as gravity fell."

Richard Simons wrote:

"do you have any information on this top secret research that ID people claim they are doing?"

I've heard little of scientifically proven ID "facts"... however the notion of irreducible complexity although unscientific, deserves some inquiry.

— Brad

For example. I've always wondered, that if the primordial soup eventually turned into organisms then its very first notion would have to be to develop evolution. And evolution (if it exists) is the most complex of our traits. How was the first adaptation the most complex. How did a few proteins decide that there were bigger and better things out there? And that they should develop the ability to adapt to this environment? We're talking about a world without perceptions.

And how did these proteins form in the first place?

How is any of that falsifiable?

is it widely accepted among evolution proponents that evolution is a universal principle?

Anyway none of this is provable. None of it falsifiable. All I want is for someone to admit that there is doubt involved. This website is all about certainty. It's hilarious to me.

Anyway none of this is provable. None of it falsifiable. All I want is for someone to admit that there is doubt involved. This website is all about certainty. It's hilarious to me.

"So what is so hilarious to you?"

"enlighten us as to what HUGE questions are still unanswered."

The questions may have answers but they are comprised and bridged by the same sort of functionalist concepts that ID folks use. Inference, filled in data (i.e. bootstrapping) etc. My argument is not a scientific one but rather a question of the philosphy of science. You certainly have answers to these questions as do the ID people. But don't act as though your "well-known" concepts represent the truth. The universe is infinitely complex. No amount of data and research is ever going to resolve this argument.

"Science is as sure of evolution as it is of anything"

Good cause practice of science is inherently about being not sure of anything.

My argument is not a scientific one but rather a question of the philosphy of science. You certainly have answers to these questions as do the ID people. But don't act as though your "well-known" concepts represent the truth.

Brad said... Bits of computer code that is exactly the type of analogy of which I was thinking. And it in fact disproves what you are saying. Think of the concept of an object in computer programming. Through abstraction numerous functions and elements are placed within it that denote what it is and what it does. Your saying that the soup had a function built into it that called for it to adapt.

Brad, evolution is as true as relativity/gravity/atomic theory. When you understand how we can accept all those things without scouring the entire universe, you'll understand why evolution is such an accepted fact.

It's hilarious that the same denial and "fanboy" rejection occurs on the evolution side as does the creation side. I love that you said "Science is never about certainty" I totally agree. It just seems as though most of the comments on this site don't allow room for uncertainty. And dealing with uncertainty is what this topic is all about.

Is there any room for compromise? There is both a little bit of necessary faith in evolution theory and a little bit of science in ID.

— Brad

There are HUGE questions still unanswered.

The difference here though is that gravity is truly universal. There is nothing that gravity does not effect. Evolution seems only to effect only organic structures. I don't see any evolving rocks or adapting chemicals out there. This is grasping at straws though.

— Brad

There are HUGE questions still unanswered.

Faith in exrapolating the data we have (via an is-ought sort of method) is used to fill in the gaps for your guys.

They are in fact infered via these just-so stories. I'm not the one claiming to have all the answers. My point is that evolution theory won't admit that it don't have all the answers and con't concede anything. Science should be about doubt not certainty.

I've heard little of scientifically proven ID "facts"... however the notion of irreducible complexity although unscientific, deserves some inquiry.

I've never read anything by Behe or anyone but I did manage to hear him speak during college... he gave an analogy of a mousetrap that was at lesat interesting.

To rule out logic and philosophy in ardent pursuit of scientific data will get a person nowhere.

The difference here though is that gravity is truly universal. There is nothing that gravity does not effect. Evolution seems only to effect only organic structures. I don't see any evolving rocks or adapting chemicals out there. This is grasping at straws though.

But I am curious about this... is it widely accepted among evolution proponents that evolution is a universal principle?

Is there any school of thought that it's a trait?

If it is a universal principle then it seems to be the only one that didn't begin right along with the universe.

Imagine gravity taking effect only after certain contributing circumstances allowed it to. Mass most probably has always existed. Biology has not.

Anyway none of this is provable. None of it falsifiable.

All I want is for someone to admit that there is doubt involved.

This website is all about certainty. It's hilarious to me.

Hi Brad! you wrote:
It just seems as though most of the comments on this site don't allow room for uncertainty. And dealing with uncertainty is what this topic is all about.

Brad, there are huge amounts of uncertainty in genuine evolutionary science. There is a big dispute recently in the news about whether Neanderthals have contributed any of their genetic traits to modern humans. Some scientists claimed to have found a fossil of a tiny hominid on the Island of Flores, and others claimed its just a diseased modern human. Scientists fight about whether past mass extinctions were caused by, among other possibilities, climate change, volcanic activity, meteor strikes and hunting by humans. There are all sorts of scientific controversies that scientists are deeply engaged in, so don't imagine that legitimate scientists reject IDism because they think they already have all the answers. Scientists reject IDism because it doesn't have any answers.

It's more than ironic IDers complaining about Darwinian just-so stories when all they have to offer is a just nothing story of an unknown designer with unknown abilities and purposes acting at unknown times. You'd think they'd feel ashamed at having even less than "pathetic" level of detail to offer.

Glen D. I am not an IDer. I don't agree with Behe... I believe that Evolution is proven on the adaptation level. Most of your attacks on me have been trying to prove evolution, that's not what I'm arguing about. I'm arguing about certainty, compromise and openness. You didn't read my above posts. However I have never disassociated this field "abiogenesis " with evolution. (thank you OddDigit for bringing it up) And I have trouble with the whole chance thing.

It is true, I am not a scientist, I know just the surface facts of either side. I'm just a curious guy doing an argument project at university. Thanks for being the oposition. But the rudeness that I have encountered from many people through these posts has sincerely taught me never to question anything again! Asking questions will get me killed by both the IDers and you folks. This has proven my point that when you try to encourage openness from a heavily biased community you get lynched. There is a great deal of assumed certainty here. I understand that when you get viciously attacked by the ID folks you need to react. They ignore your data and attack you in the soft points, you attack their entire theory as a soft point with no data, nothing gets done. It'd be nice if there was some compromise on both sides. However, I do believe that you guys are suprisingly more flexible, which doesn't say much for the ID folks!

I appreacate that many on this site have made VERY good comments that have aided in my curiousity Aagcobb, stevaroni, OddDigit. However Glen D. & Richard Simons you guys have been very unhelpful.

It is true, I am not a scientist, I know just the surface facts of either side. I'm just a curious guy doing an argument project at university. Thanks for being the oposition. But the rudeness that I have encountered from many people through these posts has sincerely taught me never to question anything again! Asking questions will get me killed by both the IDers and you folks. This has proven my point that when you try to encourage openness from a heavily biased community you get lynched.

— Brad

This has proven my point that when you try to encourage openness from a heavily biased community you get lynched.

I have encountered from many people through these posts has sincerely taught me never to question anything again! Asking questions will get me killed by both the IDers and you folks.

Glen D. I am not an IDer. I don't agree with Behe...

I believe that Evolution is proven on the adaptation level.

Most of your attacks on me have been trying to prove evolution, that's not what I'm arguing about. I'm arguing about certainty, compromise and openness.

You didn't read my above posts.

However I have never disassociated this field "abiogenesis " with evolution. (thank you OddDigit for bringing it up) And I have trouble with the whole chance thing.

It is true, I am not a scientist, I know just the surface facts of either side.

I'm just a curious guy doing an argument project at university. Thanks for being the oposition. But the rudeness that I have encountered from many people through these posts has sincerely taught me never to question anything again!

Asking questions will get me killed by both the IDers and you folks. This has proven my point that when you try to encourage openness from a heavily biased community you get lynched.

There is a great deal of assumed certainty here.

I understand that when you get viciously attacked by the ID folks you need to react. They ignore your data and attack you in the soft points,

you attack their entire theory as a soft point with no data, nothing gets done. It'd be nice if there was some compromise on both sides.

However, I do believe that you guys are suprisingly more flexible, which doesn't say much for the ID folks!

I appreacate that many on this site have made VERY good comments that have aided in my curiousity Aagcobb, stevaroni, OddDigit. However Glen D. & Richard Simons you guys have been very unhelpful.

I believe that Evolution is proven on the adaptation level

I know just the surface facts of either side.

— Brad

Brad Wrote:

"But the rudeness that I have encountered from many people through these posts has sincerely taught me never to question anything again! Asking questions will get me killed by both the IDers and you folks. This has proven my point that when you try to encourage openness from a heavily biased community you get lynched. There is a great deal of assumed certainty here. I understand that when you get viciously attacked by the ID folks you need to react. They ignore your data and attack you in the soft points, you attack their entire theory as a soft point with no data, nothing gets done. It'd be nice if there was some compromise on both sides."

Honey, you have no idea how patient these guys were with you. Many of the answers were (in so many words) "you need to learn more about the basic science here" and yet when you persisted, they still were patient. I assume that in their long experience with trolls, they recognized someone who truly wanted to know, rather than someone who just wanted to argue from a position of ignorance. Get out there and read, and spend time watching this and other science blogs. I can't tell you how much I have learned in the 18 months I have been "lurking" on this site, and my background IS in science and science education.

Some of the folks here may have watched Richard Dawkin's talk at Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg, VA. During the Q&A session at the end of his talk, Dawkins was challenged by a number of students from nearby Liberty "University".

I don't know if anyone on PT sensed the same thing I did, but listening to the Liberty students was almost like watching someone defecating on a public street corner. I don't think the Liberty students were aware of how much they were embarrassing themselves in spite of the snickers from the rest of the audience.

It seems that Brad has been immersed in some of the same crap that the Liberty students are. It points up the difficulties the scientific community has in trying to educate people who have been so thoroughly intimidated into fleeing from learning by their religious handlers. They no longer seem to have the will or the ability to tackle challenging ideas. Then we are seen as the cruel ones when we take them to task for their scientific and philosophical pretensions while at the same time trying to push them to get off their duffs and start doing some serious investigating and learning.

Handling them gently simply panders to the state they are already in, yet being tough on them merely elicits the kind of self-pity Brad exhibits. It is still a long road ahead.

Ok this is a summary...

I started by saying "Is there room for compromise?"

People here said "hell no!"

I said "Oh... well there are unknowns in evolution and there are knowns is ID... doesn't that leave some room for openness? There are still big questions."

People here said "Like What?"

I offered some weak ones, hoping to get some direction on where the unknown areas were and to get some answers for myself. Some people provided me with good answers. But...

Many here thought I was attacking them. Called me an IDiot, told me I'm ignorant, swallowing ID's hooks and wallowing in self pity. The argument turned into 1. why evolution is true (which I never denied) and 2. why I'm so ignorant about science (I never claimed to be a professional) when the argument started out as "is there room for compromise?"

Glen D. I choose not to respond to you for three reasons 1. this argument is not about proving or disproving evolution, which you seemed to think it was 2. If that were the argument then I would neither want to or be capable of participating in it. 3. You're a total asshole!

I would like to bring it back to what I was intending, this... Everyone said "Like what?" when I said there were unknowns, as though there are none. Are there no more unknowns? I believe that there are not only unknowns but unknowables. Is this not true? An infinitely complex universe can't be scribed out in outline format. Or am I going to be accused of steeling that from the ID people. Just asking. Please be civil. Once again, not a scientist, not an IDiot, not attacking evolution, just curious.

Brad's responses clearly show he has not read or understood any pf the comments made here. He has however hijacked this thread with his meaningles drivel. Once recognized, a troll should be ignored. Brad has no intention of learning or understanding ans those of you that took the time to help him have wasted your time.

all we got from Braad is a hijacked thread, no other gain
(reading his last response verifies that)

I am not an IDer. I don't agree with Behe... I believe that Evolution is proven on the adaptation level.

— Brad

My position is that of a young curious agnostic (who doesn't even know what YEC means!) And believes solely that there is an abundance of uncertainty in the universe. I don't support either theory! There is no way to know everything... it's impossible... the universe is infinite in complexity. That is the weak point of science which I was speaking. Science should be about the pursuit of truth, not truth itself. The second it becomes about truth itself it turns into just another ideology.

and thank you for saying... "As you have been told many times, no one denies that evolution has many unanswered questions."

Thant solidifies my point. That's all I wanted.

The paranoia shown to me here is like a war... "Don't talk to him, he's one of them! He doesn't have the secret password!" Please!

There are "just so stories" and then there are "just plain funny stories". I know this might not be a fit for this thread but again, this is just plain funny. Taken from The Onion (www.theonion.com/)

Kansas Outlaws Practice Of Evolution
November 28, 2006 | Issue 42*48

TOPEKA, KS---In response to a Nov. 7 referendum, Kansas lawmakers passed emergency legislation outlawing evolution, the highly controversial process responsible for the development and diversity of species and the continued survival of all life.

Lawmakers decried spontaneous genetic mutations.
"From now on, the streets, forests, plains, and rivers of Kansas will be safe from the godless practice of evolution, and species will be able to procreate without deviating from God's intended design," said Bob Bethell, a member of the state House of Representatives. "This is about protecting the integrity of all creation."

The new law prohibits all living beings within state borders from any willful adaptation to changing environmental conditions. In addition, it strictly limits any activity that may result in enhanced health or survival beyond the current average lifespan of their particular species.

Violators of the new law may face punishments that include jail time, stiff fines, and rehabilitative education and training to rid organisms suspected of evolutionary tendencies. Repeat offenders could face chemical sterilization.

To enforce the law, Kansas state police will be trained to investigate and apprehend organisms who exhibit suspected signs of evolutionary behavior, such as natural selection or speciation. Plans are underway to track and monitor DNA strands in every Kansan life form for even the slightest change in allele frequencies.

"Barn swallows that develop lighter, more streamlined builds to enable faster migration, for example, could live out the rest of their brief lives in prison," said Indiana University chemist and pro-intelligent-design author Robert Hellenbaum, who helped compose the language of the law. "And butterflies who mimic the wing patterns and colors of other butterflies for an adaptive advantage, well, their days of flaunting God's will are over."

Human beings may be the species most deeply affected by the new legislation. Those whose cytochrome-c molecules vary less than 2 percent from those of chimpanzees will be in direct violation of the law.

Under particular scrutiny are single-cell microorganisms, with thousands of field labs being installed across the state to ensure that these self-replicating molecules, notorious for mutation, do not do so in a fashion benefitting their long-term survival.

Anti-evolutionists such as Hellenbaum have long accused microorganisms of popularizing "an otherwise obscure, agonizingly slow, and hard-to-understand" biological process. "These repeat offenders are at the root of the problem," Hellenbaum said. "We have the fossil records to prove it."

"No species is exempt," said Marcus Holloway, a state police spokesman. "Whether you're a human being or a fruit fly---if we detect one homologous chromosome trying to cross over during the process of meiosis, you will be punished to the full extent of the law."

Although the full impact of the new law will likely not be felt for approximately 10 million years, most Kansans say they are relieved that the ban went into effect this week, claiming that evolution may have gone too far already.

"If Earth's species were meant to change over successive generations through physical modifications resulting from the adaptation to environmental challenges, then God would have given them the genetic predisposition to select mates and reproduce based on their favorable heritable traits and their ability to thrive under changing conditions so that these advantageous qualities would be passed down and eventually encoded into the DNA of each generation of offspring," Olathe public school teacher and creationist Joyce Eckhardt said. "It's just not natural."

Some warn that the strict wording of the law could have a deleterious effect on Kansas' mostly agricultural economy, since it also prohibits all forms of man-made artificial selection, such as plant hybridization, genetic engineering, and animal husbandry. A police raid on an alleged artificial-insemination facility outside McPherson, KS on Friday resulted in the arrest of a farmer, a veterinarian, four assistants, one bull, and several dozen cows.

Agribusiness leaders, who rely on evolution science to genetically modify crops, have voiced concerns about doing business with Kansas farmers.

"If Kansans want to ban evolution, that is their right, but they must understand that we rely on a certain flexibility in the natural order of things to be able to deliver healthy food products to millions of Americans," said Carl Casale, a vice president with the agricultural giant Monsanto. "We're not talking about playing God here. We are talking about succeeding in the competitive veggie-burger market."

Hey, Brad, take some advice from a fellow learner:

Go to www.talkorigins.org. Read as much as you can, starting from the basics of what science is. You are right in one statement, science is not about the Truth, it is about the search. However, it is not about the search for the Truth. Science is about gathering information, organizing that information, coming up for explanations that fit, and then gathering more information. Theories are developed that explain the information, but must be modified to fit new information.

ID is not a scientific theory because a) it does not fit the evidence b) relies on forces/explanations outside that of science. (the "intelligence, as you were). Behe's examples have been explained using evolutionary mechanisms. In spite of that, he won't let it go. It has been shown over and over that ID is religious apologetics, pushed by political reasons into the public domain. One does not shift a established scientific paradigm unless one has a better paradigm that fits all the evidence and provides new evidence that the old paradigm cannot answer. ID has not done this, and no work currently is being done by anyone. One does not shift the paradigm using public opinion, either. Science is about scientific consensus under its own strict rules, not public consensus.

The regular posters here have explained this over and over to people who appear on this blog. When the conversation shifts away from science and tries to bring in the philosophical, religious, fantastical, superstitious, etc., they get a bit impatient. They also are life-time learners themselves, and want others who are truly interested to do their homework, to read scientific sites, and to avoid accepting information as "Truth" from sources that have agendas that are not scientific, such as political or religious sites. Also, they like to see people be skeptical of any new claims until the evidence from multiple sources finally fully backs it, and those who are experts have their chance to evaluate it.

If you really are a troll, this (rather lengthy) post will bounce off. If you are not, perhaps you will begin a terrific journey into the realm of science, something I have enjoyed since high school. It's exciting and there's more out there than anyone can learn in a lifetime.

Glen D. I choose not to respond to you for three reasons

1. this argument is not about proving or disproving evolution, which you seemed to think it was

2. If that were the argument then I would neither want to or be capable of participating in it.

3. You're a total asshole!

Brad's responses clearly show he has not read or understood any pf the comments made here. He has however hijacked this thread with his meaningles drivel. Once recognized, a troll should be ignored. Brad has no intention of learning or understanding ans those of you that took the time to help him have wasted your time. all we got from Braad is a hijacked thread, no other gain (reading his last response verifies that)

My position is that of a young curious agnostic (who doesn't even know what YEC means!)

— Brad

and thank you for saying... "As you have been told many times, no one denies that evolution has many unanswered questions."

— Brad

"When the conversation shifts away from science and tries to bring in the philosophical, etc., they get a bit impatient."

Thanks KL for the patient words.

Just so.

When the conversation shifts away from science and tries to bring in the philosophical, etc., they get a bit impatient.

I offered some weak ones, hoping to get some direction on where the unknown areas were and to get some answers for myself. Some people provided me with good answers. But...

"So will you heed KL's patient words and actually learn something before you tell other how they ought to be?"

It's not me who is telling people how they "ought" to be. I did say science should leave room for uncertainty... which many here agreed with. I doubt everything and I treat the objective as I do the subjective... people can't handle that.

Ok, Richard and everyone.

The HUGE questions that I've referred to have been brought up as "abiogenisis" I did not see this as a seperate field before this arguement. Thank you for letting me know. Logically this field would have no basis for observation. Am I right? If so, it is a subjective field.

Also, I've brought up the infinite complexity of the universe. Is it truly infinite? If it is then there must be questions.

When I said there were HUGE questions still out there... people responded by saying "like what?" at this point I should have just said "Oh, so you've got it all figured out?"

There is both a little bit of necessary faith in evolution theory and a little bit of science in ID. Why must everything be so dualistic? Folks here ignore most of the subjective and ID folks ignore most of the objective.

people can't handle that

... what you're really failing to realize is that there is a fair amount of unknowable `subjective´ stuff in evolution theory (such as much of macro-evolution¥ most of which is non-falsifiable) And a possible point of compromise would be to fill in the unknowable with at least a tolerance for some aspects of ID.

To rule out logic and philosophy in ardent pursuit of scientific data will get a person nowhere.

[High school science classes] show the students the "well-accepted science observations" then they take ownership of the gray areas too.

Is there no room for doubt and true curiosity in this world?

Anyway none of this is provable. None of it falsifiable. All I want is for someone to admit that there is doubt involved.

think science should be about doubt and uncertainty and the pursuit of truth rather than the espousing of static truths and the inference of dynamic ones in their absence. Once things are assumed to be certain (as they are on this website and on opposing creationist websites) no progress is made.

It just seems as though most of the comments on this site don't allow room for uncertainty.

Good cause practice of science is inherently about being not sure of anything.

[Evolution] can't answer the tough questions either. Evolution theory attempts to claim ownership of these questionmarks (sic) on the subject... it wants to extend what is (adaptation) into what it wishes ought (big unprovables) (sic).

Your (sic) saying that the soup had a function built into it that called for it to adapt. I think that is just as far out on a limb as anything I've ever heard from ID.

My point is that evolution theory won't admit that it don't (sic) have all the answers and con't (sic) concede anything. Science should be about doubt not certainty.

Evolution seems only to effect only organic structures. I don't see any evolving rocks or adapting chemicals out there.

My argument is not a scientific one but rather a question of the philosphy of science.

My position is that of a young curious agnostic (who doesn't even know what YEC means!)

The IDers' use of the term "just-so story" is indeed vacuous, but it should be noted that biologists have occasionally used the same phrase to criticize each other's evolutionary narratives.

This ranks as pure guesswork in the cocktail party mode; Wright presents no neurological evidence of a brain module for sweetness, and no paleontological data about ancestral feeding.

Brad,

It's good to see that you're still hanging around, and it seem that things have moderated on both sides a little.

But you still never found your compromise.

Problem is, you're dealing with a subject were there's not all that much room for a middle ground.

Its' not like we're discussing the politics of abortion, or the best path to peace in the Mideast.

These are subjects where there is no definitive answer to be found answer, and reasonable people can have differing opinions.

But biology isn't like that. There are no competing valid viewpoints. There is only one answer, and the job is to find it..

Something happened long ago and it ought to be possible to figure out what that was, just as surely as it is possible to figure out a host of other mysteries that leave physical evidence.

Right now, it seems like there are really only two options; either we are the end product of a natural process or we are the end product of divine intervention. There simply is no middle ground.

And none of the available evidence points to the hand of God option.

The other side yells "teach the controversy" but there's just no controversy to teach, because there just are no counterfacts on the ID side.

There' s no fingerprint from the hand of God, and that's a pretty damning fact since they ought to be all over everything but, as a species, we've been looking for 3000 years and still haven't found a single one.

There's some math that nobody aside from Dembski can demonstrate, and there's Behe's long-discredited analysis of the immune system, but there's never been anything that anyone can verify.

Am I wrong? If so, show me. One single tiny bit of verifiable evidence. That's not much to ask, is it?

Science, on the other hand, has lots of evidence, since answering questions by assembling physical evidence is what science is all about.

In many ways, it's like putting together a giant jigsaw puzzle. It's challenging puzzle, to be sure, especially since we don't have the box cover, the pieces are spread all over the house, and it's likely some pieces have been lost forever.

And just like a puzzle, in the beginning, it's tough to tell what you have. Could be polar bears in the snow, could be tropical islands, or maybe autumn in new england.

And the few pieces you have don't help much.

What's this one? May be be a coconut, or maybe a polar bear's eyeball. Can't tell yet.

But the pieces keep turning up, and once you get enough, they start fitting together, and the picture starts resolving itself.

Any you might never have every detail, but sooner or later, you know you've got the tropical islands and not the polar bears in the snow.

Yes, there are always some people who say "You can't prove it's not polar bears till you get every single piece. Technically true, I guess, but at some point the argument looses real-world credibility.

We still argue vigorously about how all the pieces might finally fit together, but all the pieces we have are the color of palm trees, surf, or sand.

Thing is, every single piece ever found leans toward evolution. Nobody has ever shown a piece that unambiguously demonstrates design.

Never.

That's why there' s not much tolerance in here for ID arguments, since most people who come here with stuff like that have lots of bluster but no working facts, since, of course, there are no actual facts to be had..

It's not being contrary, or having a closed mind. It's just that at some point, it feels like you're standing in an airport with a guy who claims that heavier than air flight is impossible and, despite what you both see around you, you shouldn't believe it for some obscure religious reason.

That's why you walked into a free-fire zone.

But it ought to be obvious by now that plenty of people in here who will thoughtfully discuss this stuff all day so long as the discourse is logical, and polite.

Which is much more than you can say for the ID bulletin boards, where asking tough questions will get you banned forever.

So hang around and argue, you're welcome, but try not to call people assholes. That's not so helpful.

I did say science should leave room for uncertainty... which many here agreed with. I doubt everything and I treat the objective as I do the subjective... people can't handle that.

And notice how ID activists insist that detection of ID is separate from identification of the 'designer'.

Of course it is and reality supports that. The ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer or the specific process involved, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

Abiogenesis and evolution are separated even though the origin of living organisms directly impacts any subsequent evolution-? That is because if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via stochastic/ blind wathmaker-type processes there would be no reason to infer the subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes.

As for ID being an "argument from ignorance"- quite the opposite. ID is based on what we know about designing agencies coupled with what we know about what nature, operating freely, is capable of.

Now if one wants to falsify ID all one has to do is show that nature, operating freely, can account for itself and the laws that govern it, as well as accounting for living organisms arising from non-living matter. Do that and ID falls.

As for the "evolution" of the immune system- I hope the same tactic used in Dover is used the next time- and there will be a next time- because further research has shown the references used do not suport the anti-ID claims. The debate is not about "evolution", it is about the mechanism(s). For example the immune system could have been designed to evolve. (see SciAms feb 2003 "Evolving Inventions")

Right now, it seems like there are really only two options; either we are the end product of a natural process or we are the end product of divine intervention. There simply is no middle ground. And none of the available evidence points to the hand of God option.

— stevaroni

And notice how ID activists insist that detection of ID is separate from identification of the 'designer'. Of course it is and reality supports that.

Abiogenesis and evolution are separated even though the origin of living organisms directly impacts any subsequent evolution-? That is because if living organisms did not arise from non-living matter via stochastic/ blind wathmaker-type processes there would be no reason to infer the subsequent diversity arose solely due to those types of processes.

As for ID being an "argument from ignorance"- quite the opposite. ID is based on what we know about designing agencies coupled with what we know about what nature, operating freely, is capable of.

Now if one wants to falsify ID all one has to do is show that nature, operating freely, can account for itself and the laws that govern it, as well as accounting for living organisms arising from non-living matter. Do that and ID falls.

I hope the same tactic used in Dover is used the next time

the immune system could have been designed to evolve.

For example the immune system could have been designed to evolve. (see SciAms feb 2003 "Evolving Inventions")

What I find so interesting about your post, Joe G, is that your entire post hinges on accepting the notion that living organisms and all of their complexity could NOT have arisen through natural processes.

Why would any rational person assume intelligent design, when they had not yet been able to sort out which features are designed and which ones are not? Haven't your noticed that each time one of ID's big shots goes out on limb and states this or that could not have evolved, they get shot down? Furthermore, when the features that were presumed to be designed (flagellum, immune system, eye, etc) were later shown to be the product of natural processes wouldn't a person reevaluate their original hypothesis? Please Joe G, choose a feature and PROVE it is designed. Please show how it isn't the product of natural processes. So far your sources are not even close to convincing.

What I find so interesting about your post, Joe G, is that your entire post hinges on accepting the notion that living organisms and all of their complexity could NOT have arisen through natural processes.

Why would any rational person assume intelligent design, when they had not yet been able to sort out which features are designed and which ones are not? Haven't you noticed that each time one of ID's big shots goes out on limb and states this or that could not have evolved, they get shot down? Furthermore, when the features that were presumed to be designed (flagellum, immune system, eye, etc) were later shown to be the product of natural processes wouldn't a person reevaluate their original hypothesis? Please Joe G, choose a feature and PROVE it is designed. Please show how it isn't the product of natural processes. So far your sources are not even close to convincing.

hool:
What I find so interesting about your post, Joe G, is that your entire post hinges on accepting the notion that living organisms and all of their complexity could NOT have arisen through natural processes.

Both intelligence and design are natural, ie they both exist in nature. And complexity is just part of the equation.

And again the debate is NOT about "evolution". And IC does NOT say that X could not have evolved. It is the MECHANISM. And yes design is a mechanism- just get a dictionary and look up the words "design" and "mechanism".

The SciAm article "Evolving Inventions" is all about goal-oriented programs, which in the end all GAs are.

Both intelligence and design are natural, ie they both exist in nature. And complexity is just part of the equation.

Methinks you're mixing metaphors here. And your thinking here is a mite muddy.

B:
Many mainstream branches of science deal with "design" in one form or another--- forensics, archaeology, etc. None of these branches of science separate the detection of design from the identification of the designer.

Yes they do for the reason provided:

The ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer or the specific process involved, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

B:
Below, you state that the immune system "could have been designed to evolve". Could the first organisms have been designed to evolve? In that case, the inference that biological diversity is due to natural processes (evolution) would be correct despite the fact that living organisms did not arise via stochastic/ blind-watchmaker processes.

If they were "designed to evolve" then it ID not NDE. And again "natural" has nothing to do with it.

B:
And what do we know about the "design agency" behind biology? According to ID, it is an unknown entity with unknown abilities, unspecified motivations, and unknown limitations, which acted at some unspecified time and place on some biological structures or functions (we're not sure which exactly) by unknown methods. Is that not ignorance?

It is ignorance and that also demonstrates why we need science- to answer those questions. However ignorance about a designer or a process does not equate to total ignorance. For example almost 150 years after "On the Origins of Species..." was published you still can't account for the differences observed between chimps and humans.

B:
Except that when ID is falsified in one instance--- for example, when it was demonstrated that the blood-clotting cascade could have evolved--- its proponents merely abandon that particular instance and argue about another one instead. "All one has to do" to falsify ID is to demonstrate the origin of every biological structure and function on this planet.

Wishful thinking and speculations do not refute anything.

B:
In that case, is there any feature, on any organism, that could not have been designed?

Dr Behe:

Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.

Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.

GuyeFaux writes We dislike "Poof" because it's outside the realm of science, and not because it has no evidence in its favor. I.e. the evidence doesn't matter one way or the other.

the immune system could have been designed to evolve

B:
Many mainstream branches of science deal with "design" in one form or another--- forensics, archaeology, etc. None of these branches of science separate the detection of design from the identification of the designer.

Yes they do for the reason provided:

The ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer or the specific process involved, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

B:
Below, you state that the immune system "could have been designed to evolve". Could the first organisms have been designed to evolve? In that case, the inference that biological diversity is due to natural processes (evolution) would be correct despite the fact that living organisms did not arise via stochastic/ blind-watchmaker processes.

If they were "designed to evolve" then it ID not NDE. And again "natural" has nothing to do with it.

B:
And what do we know about the "design agency" behind biology? According to ID, it is an unknown entity with unknown abilities, unspecified motivations, and unknown limitations, which acted at some unspecified time and place on some biological structures or functions (we're not sure which exactly) by unknown methods. Is that not ignorance?

It is ignorance and that also demonstrates why we need science- to answer those questions. However ignorance about a designer or a process does not equate to total ignorance. For example almost 150 years after "On the Origins of Species..." was published you still can't account for the differences observed between chimps and humans.

B:
Except that when ID is falsified in one instance--- for example, when it was demonstrated that the blood-clotting cascade could have evolved--- its proponents merely abandon that particular instance and argue about another one instead. "All one has to do" to falsify ID is to demonstrate the origin of every biological structure and function on this planet.

Wishful thinking and speculations do not refute anything.

B:
In that case, is there any feature, on any organism, that could not have been designed?

Dr Behe:

Intelligent design is a good explanation for a number of biochemical systems, but I should insert a word of caution. Intelligent design theory has to be seen in context: it does not try to explain everything. We live in a complex world where lots of different things can happen. When deciding how various rocks came to be shaped the way they are a geologist might consider a whole range of factors: rain, wind, the movement of glaciers, the activity of moss and lichens, volcanic action, nuclear explosions, asteroid impact, or the hand of a sculptor. The shape of one rock might have been determined primarily by one mechanism, the shape of another rock by another mechanism.

Similarly, evolutionary biologists have recognized that a number of factors might have affected the development of life: common descent, natural selection, migration, population size, founder effects (effects that may be due to the limited number of organisms that begin a new species), genetic drift (spread of "neutral," nonselective mutations), gene flow (the incorporation of genes into a population from a separate population), linkage (occurrence of two genes on the same chromosome), and much more. The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important.

The SciAm article "Evolving Inventions" is all about goal-oriented programs, which in the end all GAs are.

GF:
In particular, the GAs that were mentioned in the article invented solutions to problems which were equal to or better than the human-designed solutions.

Goals- specified goals. And when you can demonstrate an algorithm, any algorithm, arising without the aid of an intelligent agency please let me know.

To Steveroni,

How is just saying "it evolved" NOT a cop-out?

And what, exactly, is the materialstic alternative to ID if not sheer-dumb-luck? (that is from the laws that govern this physical realm to our own existence)

Do you guys even understand what is being debated? Methinks you do not and instead have erected and worship a strawman. The strawman that was erecetd and ruled against in Dover.

Please rewrite your post so it makes sense. Your verbiage is confusing enough without the strange formatting.

And when you can demonstrate an algorithm, any algorithm, arising without the aid of an intelligent agency please let me know.

Goals- specified goals.

The strawman that was erecetd and ruled against in Dover.

Joe G cites Dr. Behe as saying, "The fact that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent does not mean that any of the other factors are not operative, common, or important."

What is funny is that all of the other methods Dr. Behe mentioned can be observed and/or tested, but the one he says is factual (intelligent design) is the one that can't be observed and/or tested. So, Joe, why would Behe lump together an unobserved, untested, unfounded idea like ID in a group of theories/facts that are well tested and /or observed? Seems to me he made an illogical leap of faith.

Furthermore, you responded to my earlier post by saying that , "Both intelligence and design are natural, ie they both exist in nature." Duhhh, I wasn't talking about intelligence and design, I was talking about the Intelligent Designer that is supposedly responsible for all these IC systems that are supposedly all over the place. Isn't the whole point of your design detection to detect the hand of an Intelligent Designer? Your not testing for intelligence and your not testing for design separately! Your testing for evidence of Intelligent Design! If you determine that humans display intelligence does that prove an intelligent designer created the biological complexity on earth? If you prove that humans can design stuff, does that prove an intelligent designer created the biological complexity on earth? NO!

B: Many mainstream branches of science deal with "design" in one form or another--- forensics, archaeology, etc. None of these branches of science separate the detection of design from the identification of the designer. Yes they do for the reason provided: The ONLY way to make ANY determination about the designer or the specific process involved, in the absence of direct observation or designer input, is by studying the design in question.

B: Below, you state that the immune system "could have been designed to evolve". Could the first organisms have been designed to evolve? In that case, the inference that biological diversity is due to natural processes (evolution) would be correct despite the fact that living organisms did not arise via stochastic/ blind-watchmaker processes. If they were "designed to evolve" then it ID not NDE. And again "natural" has nothing to do with it.

B: And what do we know about the "design agency" behind biology? According to ID, it is an unknown entity with unknown abilities, unspecified motivations, and unknown limitations, which acted at some unspecified time and place on some biological structures or functions (we're not sure which exactly) by unknown methods. Is that not ignorance? It is ignorance and that also demonstrates why we need science- to answer those questions. However ignorance about a designer or a process does not equate to total ignorance. For example almost 150 years after "On the Origins of Species..." was published you still can't account for the differences observed between chimps and humans.

B: Except that when ID is falsified in one instance--- for example, when it was demonstrated that the blood-clotting cascade could have evolved--- its proponents merely abandon that particular instance and argue about another one instead. "All one has to do" to falsify ID is to demonstrate the origin of every biological structure and function on this planet. Wishful thinking and speculations do not refute anything.

B: In that case, is there any feature, on any organism, that could not have been designed?

To Steveroni, How is just saying "it evolved" NOT a cop-out?

To Steveroni, How is just saying "it evolved" NOT a cop-out?

And what, exactly, is the materialstic alternative to ID if not sheer-dumb-luck?

The HUGE questions that I've referred to have been brought up as "abiogenisis"

To test the theory of a chemoautotrophic origin of life in a volcanic, hydrothermal setting, we explored mechanisms for the buildup of bio-organic compounds by carbon fixation on catalytic transition metal precipitates. We report the carbon monoxide---dependent formation of carbon-fixation products, including an ordered series of {alpha}-hydroxy and {alpha}-amino acids ...[snip]... The results narrow the gap between biochemistry and volcanic geochemistry and open a new gateway for the exploration of a volcanic, hydrothermal origin of life.

— from the abstract

Joe G;

Oops, server burp. My full response to you is in Comment #147697, comment Comment #147693 somehow hiccuped out of the spell-check page. It was a draft and missed your second question.

Sheer dumb luck is the explanation! Random chance is perfectly adequate to explain how the natural world works.

I thought this might be apropos here:

http://www.webamused.com/blogosophy/archives/002064.html

heh heh

Re "From the point of view of science, this is the kiss of death, with garlic and onions to boot,"

But I like garlic and onions (well, depending on what they're on). :)

Henry

It's a never ending theme, discussion for the next millenium. It's about taking sides.

As an example, a Biology professor specialized in Cyanobacteria (ultimate Extremophiles) that held my Astrobiology classes was a Godly woman with strong Christian rhetoric. With great enthusiasm she talked there must be life 'out there'. I asked, since she knows what elements constitute life on Earth, whether she knows are those elements present, general atomic, molecular, chemical composition and aboundances in a near-by or any Star System from which life can arise, she said she doesn't. If a person doesn't take sides and believes in two opposite things, that's a paradox.

Astrobiology by its nature is a none-Christian science, it searches for life beyond (and alternative to) the world of Adam and Eve, it strives and is driven to find traces of organic matter in distant planets' atmospheres from which life and evolution can build upon. It may be the choice not to take sides or be paradoxical and stay neutral in just-so stories.

Brad, if you're still here, regarding abiogenesis:

Don't confuse the fact that abiogenesis occurred at least once by definition with details of how it occurred. There is not yet a theory of "how" but many promising hypotheses. "Evolutionists" are working on it - and admit what is not yet known - while anti-evolutionists are content to spin "impossibility" arguments, conflate it with evolution, and pretend that mainstream science necessarily rules out a designer's involvement, which it does not.

What "evolutionists" have concluded beyond the trivial "by definition" is that abiogenesis occurred once, or at most a few times, all nearly 4 billion years ago. Michael Behe is one of the few anti-evolutionists who has publicly agreed with that part. I ask again, do you?

Most other anti-evolutionists state or imply that abiogenesis occurred many times, either off-and-on during the 4 billion years, or in the case of YECs, all at once ~6000 years ago. They have zero, repeat zero, evidence for the timeline, let alone mechanisms, and resort to the aforementioned conflation, and other word games to deflect attention from the flaws and contradictions.

If you are truly trying to learn, you might want to keep us posted as to your progress.

"There is not yet a theory of "how" but many promising hypotheses. "Evolutionists" are working on it - and admit what is not yet known - [they] pretend that mainstream science necessarily rules out a designer's involvement, which it does not."

This is the kind of compromising attitude which I was originally inquiring about, it leaves room for doubt and inclusion, Thank you.

"I ask again, do you?"

I cannot yet answer that question. I will say that it seems plausible. But as I have said before I am an agnostic, let me be clear that I'm not just agnostic concerning God, but concerning Science as well which I'm sure is difficult for you to understand since you have "facts." Observation I can be more certain of it's models theories and concepts that I cannot.

"If you are truly trying to learn, you might want to keep us posted as to your progress."

I fear that if my "learning" isn't wholly in line with your accepted doctrine then it won't be called learning.

I attempted to ask this question a few days ago (under a different name for fear of attack) and got blocked or something. So I'll try again... What philosophical viewpoint is the frontier of science approached with? I'm sure that some will say that this question is invalid... but we are still human, it is impossible to purge yourself of opinion. Here are some possible choices, kind of a spectrum (there are many more)

Logical Positivism: Objective meaning is all there is. Metaphysical, theological, and ethical questions are cognitively meaningless.

Post positivism: Objective meaning is conjectural. Human knowledge is not based on unchallengeable, rock-solid foundations.

Model Agnosticism: Objective meaning not ultimately knowable. And philosophical/metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought.

Nihilism: The world, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.

Are these approaches different for every scientist? Is there a consensus? How does the scientific world view epistemology?

"There is not yet a theory of "how" but many promising hypotheses. "Evolutionists" are working on it - and admit what is not yet known - [they] pretend that mainstream science necessarily rules out a designer's involvement, which it does not."/quote>

'pretend that'? Your portrayal of evolutionists is unnecessarily confrontational and without any merit.
Mainstream science, or science cannot really address the involvement of a 'designer'. However it can show that the claims of the ID movement are scientifically vacuous.

hope that clarifies.

What philosophical viewpoint is the frontier of science approached with?

— brad

Observation I can be more certain of it's models theories and concepts that I cannot.

Roughly put, scientific realism is the thesis that the unobservable things talked about by science are little different from ordinary observable things (such as tables and chairs). ... Scientific realism is related to much older philosophical positions including rationalism and realism. However, it is a thesis about science developed in the twentieth century. Portraying scientific realism in terms of its ancient, medieval, and early modern cousins is at best misleading. Scientific realism is developed largely as a reaction to Logical positivism.

I should add that I think that description of realism is clumsy and philosophy heavy.

I fear that if my "learning" isn't wholly in line with your accepted doctrine then it won't be called learning.

— Brad

Scientific realism says the universe really contains just those properties which feature in a scientific description of it, and so does not contain properties like colour per se, but merely objects that reflect certain wavelengths.

Here is an analogy for Brad.

The various strands of evidence for evolution can be compared with the various tracks on a multiple track recording.

A multi-track recording done by an amateur can sound reasonably good to an unsophisticated ear. However, to someone with a trained ear and professional music experience, the recording will display a lot of problems. Each individual track may be full of mistakes and these may be covered up by what is going on at the same time in the other tracks. The music may reveal a lack of maturity and sophistication because only a single chord is used throughout but this is hidden by embellishments on other tracks. The instruments on each track may not be in tune with instruments on other tracks. By focusing on the individual tracks, the trained listener will be able to see that the overall impression is merely a blend of multiple efforts by a relatively untrained individual or group.

The overall impression of evolution having taken place on this planet is somewhat similar to a blend of multiple tracks coming from the fossil record, physical similarities among organisms, molecular information, geological information, and a host of other information coming from many different disciplines. The main difference in this case is that each track is professionally and competently done with data provided from Nature. What is remarkable is that all tracks mesh together to give the unmistakable impression of evolution by selection of random variations among individuals within larger populations. The music is clear, and intelligent design is not clearly evident in the emerging tune.

Unfortunately, some folks don't like the tune. So they go back and mess around with the various tracks, redoing them by leaving out things or putting in suggestions that, when blended together begin to give the impression of design. But scientists who are thoroughly familiar with the individual tracks provided by Nature easily recognize the clumsy attempts to change the tune or the impression given by the blend of data.

Studying evolution is not an exercise in artistic creativity or license. Scientists are not trying to produce a preconceived impression with the multiple tracks of data, but rather are looking to faithfully record as competently and professionally as possible the various tracks of evidence so that the music that Nature is providing can come out as forcefully as possible. To the sophisticated and well-trained "ear" it is a fascinating tune. Not necessarily comforting to some, but nevertheless as truthful as we can make it.

similar to a blend of multiple tracks coming from the fossil record, physical similarities among organisms, molecular information, geological information, and a host of other information

Dayan S writes.... Astrobiology by its nature is a non-Christian science, it searches for life beyond (and alternative to) the world of Adam and Eve

Or, if I may try to simplify the above analogies for my pinhead--

--if there wasn't something pretty compelling to this evolution notion, then there would be no necessary reason that the fossil record, compiled independently by the vagaries of wind, water, deposition, etc., should match up at all with the genomic information, compiled independently by the vagaries of mutation, inheritance, etc., or with the grouping of currently extant and once-living but now extinct species by their phenotypic resemblances and differences, compiled independently, and, in its overall outlines, well before the ToE was ever developed, by generations of "folk" naturalists, hobbyists, enthusiasts, and other formal and informal systematists.

(While these included such giants as Linnaeus (1707-1778), they also included many individuals with no commitment to the ToE--and many who might well have resisted it had its implications been known to them--parsons, ship captains, bug and butterfly collectors of all descriptions, persusions and motivations...)

That the geological time table--again compiled independently of any necessary commitment to evolution (much less to modern understandings of human origins) by reference to "typical" fossils found in given layers (which might, however, have had no "descent and diversity" relationship to fauna found in other layers), by reference to chemical and mineralogical correspondences, and only much more recently by reference to yet another independently compiled set of radiographic measurements based on nuclear physics (containing within itself multiple independent but overlapping techniques involving different elements with wildly-varying half-lives)--"fits" so harmoniously with the fossil "track" and the genetic/genomic "track" and the phenotypic systematics "track" and other such independent "tracks," is simply nothing like what we would expect of either the whims or the deliberate intentions of some hypothetical interventionistic designer.

(Which of course doesn't tell us anything, one way or the other, about whether the "laws" of nature of the universe itself may have been framed by, or may be otherwise compatible with the existence of, some less-meddlesome Designer.)

Or, setting aside the arguments for design, nothing like what we would expect if some entirely different principle or set of principles, natural or supernatural, were behind the recording of these multiple "tracks"....

Astrobiology by its nature is a none-Christian science, it searches for life beyond (and alternative to) the world of Adam and Eve

— Dayan Smreca

Off the topic: Bible talks about only one Adam and Eve, not Adams and Eves. The science of Astrobiology is vice versa, at the time of being it is based upon finding elements like methan and such in the atmospheres of Solar System Satellites and distant Planets, if it depends on, i.e., first clues of organic molecules, that can evolve into... then live evolution into... and eventually to Adams and Eves, is like stating evolution is the intelligent design itself. Those are two different stand-points. People combine them, though.

In regards to Anton Mates, if you do or don't think/feel/believe that bandicoots go through evolution, there's the answer.

huh?

One more question and then I am done bugging people... probably. How does methodological naturalism deal with values such as curiosity? Curiosity seems to be what both science and religion are trying to fulfill. This is from a wikipedia article on it... "We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is."

I like the agnostic part... that's what I came here looking for. But the "as if" part is a bit hard to swallow... it cannot be proven that nature is all that there is. But I suppose that isn't my question...

How does methodological naturalism deal with curiosity? There is much value in finding these answers. How can the drive to find answers be explained by the natural world.

To Brad,
Science cannot (yet) deal with values. It also cannot deal well with such things as love, curiousity, hate, reaction to the arts or artistic value, effects of music, beauty, etc. (give science another 100 years it may have some neurological explanation for why these things exist) If scientists cannot gather empirical evidence for these things, then they lie outside the realm of science. I can explore the evidence for the paleontological and geological past of the earth, but I have no clue why I am so fascinated by it, nor why others in my family have zero interest in it and think I'm nuts.

This does not mean that my interest doesn't exist. There just isn't (yet) a scientific explanation for it. That's okay with me; I will still like the color green, think the Grand Canyon is one of the coolest places on earth, enjoy movies and certain types of music, like dogs, snakes and horses and love my husband and family even if I don't know why. I don't need scientific proof of these things to appreciate that they exist. But I am not asking science to prove them or explain them.

Just for background-I am a teacher in a church affiliated private school (Episcopal) and an atheist. How do I teach in a church school when I am a non-believer? The school uses Christian values as the basis for their policies, but does not insist on shoving it down anyone's throat or controlling them using fear. I happen to believe that ethical behavior does not require religion, but is part of being human.(notice that I use the term "believe"-I am not trying to find proof of that either)Contrary to what some Christians might think, I'm not a baby-killer, I don't have sex on the street or with animals (I think it would be cruel to the animal, personally) and I try to be kind to everyone because I think the best part of being human is lifting up others around you and making them believe that they are worthy of love, not because I want a place in heaven or want to avoid hell.

How does methodological naturalism deal with curiosity? There is much value in finding these answers.

How does methodological naturalism deal with curiosity?

This is from a wikipedia article on it... "We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is."

Brad is pulling your chains.

"I offered some weak ones, hoping to get some direction on where the unknown areas were and to get some answers for myself."

He never wanted any direction. He is just trying to provoke you so he could see how the group collectively builds an argument. He's doing some stupid sociology test.

Brad is pulling your chains.

"I offered some weak ones, hoping to get some direction on where the unknown areas were and to get some answers for myself."

He never wanted any direction. He is just trying to provoke you so he could see how the group collectively builds an argument. He's doing some stupid sociology test.

Brad is pulling your chains.

Interesting that Brad may be pulling our chains for a sociology paper. His website (or at least the website http://www.thesundaythursday.com, he connected with his name in one of his earliest posts) does mention that he is "busy as heck with final papers for school now..."

I wonder how honest he will be in the paper he presents to his instructor.

Maybe he is learning from the ID/Creationist crowd how to elicit responses from the science community that will become the grist for their future distortions.

Well, if true, we've seen all this crap before. Yawn.

Comment #147605 Posted by Brad on November 30, 2006 5:21 PM (e) "So will you heed KL's patient words and actually learn something before you tell other how they ought to be?" It's not me who is telling people how they "ought" to be. I did say science should leave room for uncertainty... which many here agreed with. I doubt everything and I treat the objective as I do the subjective... people can't handle that.

— Brad

To Wayne E. Francis: The truth about spiritual teachings where there is no materialistic proof is that you can prove anything you want to believe in, as long as rhetoric is concincing enough.

Upon previous example, if a group of people, let's say, Canadian/Mexican nation wants to disrespect the southern/northern neighboor by disrespecting the President, a group of psychologists can be formered to come up with the insignificant fact like, i.e., the President didn't have Sunday dinners with his family, thus they conclude he lacked love in childhood, thus as he grew up it developed in the aggression seeing other children be happy. If in the group of 100 people, 99 people believe in something, 1 is not supposed to say 'well, let's take a moment to discuss...', that 1 is already on the other side being a non-believer. It's the either-or situation.

A few centuries ago, Astronomers were prosecuted for claims that the Earth in not situated in the center of the Universe with all Planets and Stars revolving around it, people who presented themselves as the direct representatives of religion found it was not according to the Psalms like 93:1 and 96:10. Today it is and it can't be said Galilei, Kopernikus... were not Christians for what they saw through telescopes, on the contrary. Perhaps they understood things more widely and clearly by broading and opening their horizons. In many religions, representatives of the religion were utmost science researchers.

A person once told me: 'In the world of science, I met some of the greatest Christians I have ever come accross in my life'. Some people of faith don't take scientific data for just-so stories, some do. History often proved just-so stories are a time consuming process.

How does methodological naturalism deal with curiosity?

How does methodological naturalism deal with curiosity?

Sorry for the now famous PT double-comments. For some reason the preview didn't show the earlier queued comment - off the queue but still not on my view.

" "Naturalism" (the idea that science can only work on natural, not supernatural,
explanations) has become a bad word because it is mistakenly viewed as a
philosophical commitment by scientists to atheism. Instead, science works by
applying a practical naturalism in which scientists seek natural explanations, not
because these are the only ones possible, but because they are the only ones
we can test by reason and evidence (i.e., scientifically). "

Massimo Pigliucci, Member
Jessica Gurevitch, Executive Vice-President
Dolph Schluter, President
Society for the Study of Evolution

Re "science works by applying a practical naturalism in which scientists seek natural explanations, not because these are the only ones possible, but because they are the only ones we can test by reason and evidence (i.e., scientifically)."

Depending on how one defines "naturalism", that sentence might be circular - i.e., "naturalism" could be defined as "things testable by reason and evidence". But that might be get-around-able by defining "practical naturalism" as "using repeatable verifiable testing of conclusions". In which case the word "natural" could actually be removed entirely from the description of how science works, which imo would undermine anti-science arguments that use the natural vs. supernatural distinction.

Henry

Comment #148062 Posted by Dayan Smreca on December 4, 2006 6:45 AM (e) To Wayne E. Francis: The truth about spiritual teachings where there is no materialistic proof is that you can prove anything you want to believe in, as long as rhetoric is concincing enough. ... A person once told me: 'In the world of science, I met some of the greatest Christians I have ever come accross in my life'. Some people of faith don't take scientific data for just-so stories, some do. History often proved just-so stories are a time consuming process.

— Dayan Smreca

MWayne E. Francissaidy
"point, agian, is that Brad is basically saying "You can never know anything for sure so making up something out of the blue should hold as much weight as the current theories that are supported by data.". In that case he is a pig ignorant rube that should hope that he's ignored at best and at worst accept that people will point out his flawed logic with a good dose of slander."

Perfect, and right on.

And when you can demonstrate an algorithm, any algorithm, arising without the aid of an intelligent agency please let me know.

it cannot be proven that nature is all that there is.

it cannot be proven that nature is all that there is

you should say that the null hypothesis is that nature is all there is

"this is what Brad is saying... You can never know anything for sure so making up something out of the blue should hold as much weight as the current theories that are supported by data."

This isn't exactly what I'm saying. I'll clarify.

Red = empirical data

Blue = unknowns, uncertainty, unknowables

ID = Making something up out of the blue which is contrary to much of the red.

TOE = Discovering the red and making other things up out of the blue which are supported by much of the red.

Go ahead.. go hog wild with that one... this is just some stupid sociological test.

In which case the word "natural" could actually be removed entirely from the description of how science works

which imo would undermine anti-science arguments that use the natural vs. supernatural distinction.

ID = Making something up out of the blue which is contrary to much of the red.

TOE = Discovering the red and making other things up out of the blue which are supported by much of the red.

What philosophical viewpoint is the frontier of science approached with? I'm sure that some will say that this question is invalid... but we are still human, it is impossible to purge yourself of opinion. Here are some possible choices, kind of a spectrum (there are many more) Logical Positivism: Objective meaning is all there is. Metaphysical, theological, and ethical questions are cognitively meaningless.

How does methodological naturalism deal with values such as curiosity?

I apologize for not daring to attempt how to use KwickXML formatting to make a quote in 'Comment #148062'.

It seems me confusing to read words like ' Darwinism' 'evolution' and 'Intelligent Design' 'religion', as if someone put vs. between those two. It knows to end-up like that.

Darwin was buried nearby a church, most of us have childhood memories of Christmases with our families, many of us grew up to be researchers in the field of biological evolution, astrophysical evolution of other planets' atmospheres, life consequently.

For someone to come up with a spiritual teaching and say: 'just-so stories are the achievements of science published so our civilization can better understand the world around us, National Geographic documentaries broadcasted so people can be educated by the findings...', feels like a rather ignorant manner.

Brad claims on his website that the folks at PT are certain that he is wrong about not being certain about things. That would be an illogical claim by anyone.

No one at PT would ever claim that people do not have uncertainties. On the contrary, most would probably agree that superficial approaches to learning tend leave people in the most uncertain and vulnerable state. People who don't learn how to learn or whose will to learn had been destroyed will remain in the state they are in.

There are many things in this universe that yield to diligent investigation which improves the certainty one can have about them. What's more, the knowledge one obtains about such things is pretty much independent of the individual observer. These happen to be the areas in which the scientific attitude operates effectively.

However, even musical and artistic ability are also very much improved and made more certain with rational approaches using tried-and-true techniques that have been worked out by generations of skilled artists. Feelings alone don't usually get you there. Knowledge accumulates in these areas also.

And, I would suggest, using one's uncertainties to justify remaining uncertain is evidence that one is wallowing in self-pity about ones own shortcomings while refusing to address those shortcomings. It's a common pattern that must be fought.

Every human being faces self-doubt and uncertainty. The best approach is to turn those feelings into a motive for learning and, in the process, learn how to move beyond where you are. And then continue this throughout the rest of your life. In the process, one's BS filter gets better and better.

I see that my friend Brad got in some trouble here. I followed this link from http://www.theSundayThursday.com It's funny that you guys took him seriously. He doesn't take himself that seriously. He's a bit of an eccentric, I mean an agnostic concerning facts?!?!?! HOW!?!?! WTF does that mean? Sorry buddy.

This is a guy who kayaks in drainage ditches and has worked extensively around Lead-based paints (I'm not kidding, it was to help children) a mountaineer and a musician who records and posts two new original songs a week on his website while working 40 hrs a week and attending night classes... I mean who does that?!?! He has an uncommon brilliance.

And some advice from a communications student... you guys should distance yourselves personally from your arguments or else ad hominem becomes the rule.

Apparently Brad didn't recognize that we were dropping hints (many not so subtle) that we suspected he wasn't being serious. As an undergrad at Pitt, he may enjoy the humor of the Borat or Animal House genre. That comes across in some of his stuff.

But, just in case he may have had a hint of seriousness, we didn't want to totally brush him off. Many of the people who post on this site are, or have been, instructors of various types in addition to being researchers. So we have seen a lot of crap mixed in with genuine desires to learn. We're not that naive; we know the games students and trolls play.

Assuming that "DJ" isn't just Brad himself dropping by to whine some more about Brad's well-earned mistreatment here, and that separate-person "DJ" really does know some things about what kind of guy Brad "really" is (when Brad isn't busy being a schmuck on a global blog), and assuming, therefore, that Brad really does spend some time in the mountains--as I do myself--then I would ask Brad whether he's inclined to let his uncertainties about science and the facts influence his relationship with gravity when he's poised on the brink.

I rather expect that Brad has formed the habit of behaving a good deal more respectfully around gravity than he has around the ToE, or Brad would by now be nothing but a past "fact" himself, a statistic in the obits column of one of yesterday's papers.

I'm not wishing any harm on the Brad. I'm just suggesting that nature isn't quite as whimsical or uncertain as Brad is sophomorically indulging himself in believing. And, when actually engaged with the world, as opposed to engaged with his masturbatory "intellectual" musings about the world, I'm pretty sure that Brad knows that the world is as chock-full of hard-edged and unforgiving certainties as it is of dreamy, fluffy uncertainties.

Come back when you're prepared to get real down on it, Brad.

science attempts to disprove hypotheses, so more correctly you should say that the null hypothesis is that nature is all there is, and we have yet to be able to disprove this.

If nature isn't all there is, then what distinguishes that which is in nature from that which isn't in nature?

And some advice from a communications student... you guys should distance yourselves personally from your arguments or else ad hominem becomes the rule.

...you guys should distance yourselves personally from your arguments or else ad hominem becomes the rule.

If one choose to not try to make it a definition but an observation

Laws of physics are the same over appreciable spacetime volumes.

Perhaps one could imagine a chaotic universe, but the way to bet is that it wouldn't work.

Regardless, on our observed background of symmetries such imaginary things as local 'miracles' are in principle easily distinguishable.

As PG says, "super-natural" is an supposedly for ever unknown cause

"non-natural" sporadic causes

I would also argue that making nature not what can be observed but what is observed is a philosophy which seems more in the spirit of science's de facto empiricism.

observations are necessarily of nature --- remember, science is based on methodological naturalism.

How distinguishable are the angels dancing on the head of a pin?

The notion of a non-natural cause is incoherent.

Torbjörn Larsson · 6 December 2006

You can't make an observation about X before even establishing what is or is not X.

Which I did in the same sentence. Symmetries is a fundamental observation of the nature we observe.

observations are necessarily of nature --- remember, science is based on methodological naturalism.

This works for me: "the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism ). All observations are fine, but theories must contain natural objects and relations. So I don't preclude watching a miracle. I haven't seen any, though. As far as I can see this is a perfectly consistent philosophy, as consistent as precluding unknown causes. As I noted, it is more in the spirit of de facto empiricism. It also leads to the possibility of hypotheses testing on sporadic causes, which is my larger frame.

this is a chaotic universe

I believe you are conflating contingency, randomness and deterministic chaos here, while still missing what I am trying to describe. I was discussing chaos from having our fundamental laws varying locally over spacetime. We could call it fundamental chaos, to distinguish it from deterministic chaos. Yes, I doubt it will be realizable. Without symmetries, no conserved charges. (Noether's theorem.) Not only different physics in each point in spacetime, but no energy and no action principle so no physics.

How distinguishable are the angels dancing on the head of a pin?

I agree this is a problem, which is why I said "in principle". Moran's levitating bus is still a problem. But I believe this is only a problem if you have an (imaginary) theory describing how gods act. But I preclude such theories. Besides, no observations yet. :-) (In my larger frame, I am only out looking for observations of sporadic behaviour, observations looking like fundamental chaos.)

please don't make me incoherent by putting your words in my mouth.

Is that possible? :-) But it wasn't my intention to misquote. I was trying to paraphrase, to suit me in this case. I thought it was OK since the original text was close and close by. Sorry.

The notion of a non-natural cause is incoherent.

That remains to be shown, of course. It is, an admittedly somewhat clumsy named, description which isn't meant to clash with the definition of methodological naturalism above. It stands for what we shouldn't observe being realized, natural vs non-natural, while still being theoretical natural causes. Supernaturalistic causes are those agents that can't be allowed in theories since it is not natural objects or relations. Too powerful and stops further description. I have answered your problems. Is there a remaining inconsistency?

So the backside of the moon isn't part of nature?

This is either a problem for both views, or for none. They are both based on observations and explaining them by natural cause theories.