Science, Non-Science, and Pseudoscience

#6) How about attempting to go around the usual scientific checks and scrutiny and pretend to the public that their snake-oil is a fully legitimate alternative to the standard science, without having done any work to get there? A good example would be where in the Wedge Document, the first stated goal was to establish a credible scientific theory of Intelligent Design and the second was to push it through to the public, whereas in actuality they didn't bother doing any work at all and went straight to the PR machine.

So efforts that exist almost exclusively as publicity and salesmanship would be "pseudoscience" when trying to pass themselves as actual science.

6. Petitions or lists This is a converse to #5. Pseudoscientists often claim that they represent a widely supported view, by collecting lists of experts who support them. Such lists often include experts with no expertise in the subject area, and sometimes with no credible claim to expertise in anything (see also #1). Sometimes the claim on the list is actually fairly innocuous as worded, but is then rephrased in presentation as saying something stronger (see also #3). An example is the Dissent from Darwinism list.

I believe this topic is covered in detail in the "crackpot" entries on the net.

One well-known one is at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

jonathan said: I believe this topic is covered in detail in the "crackpot" entries on the net. One well-known one is at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Thinking a bit more about inflationary credentialism, I remembered another instance that struck me at the time. Decades ago Robert Gentry, the old-time creationist physicist, came to the local Nazarene college to speak on creation science and polonium, haloes. As it happens, Gentry has no earned doctorate but has an honorary degree from Columbia Union College, now called Washington Adventist University, a Seventh Day Adventist institution. Nevertheless, he was introduced by the chairman of the biology department as Dr. Robert Gentry. As Gentry began he remarked almost sotto voce that "my doctorate is honora causa," and then went on with his talk. This to an audience of American undergraduates who wouldn't know an "honora causa" from a carp. It was an interesting instance of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too: allow the credential to be attributed while quietly disclaiming it.

Assertions or conclusions not warranted by the evidence presented. Your own recent (Sep. 9) PT post about the Demski/Marks journal article points to just one very recent and nicely detailed example. But most ID/Creationist literature is packed with "conclusions" that are simply non-sequiturs relative to whatever "observations" they might mention.

This stands apart from the vagueness and doubtful veracity of whatever "observations" they mention, which is yet another common symptom.

Inflated credentials, absolutely. I like the one used by Stephen Meyer regarding his "peer reviewed" paper snuck in by Sternberg. The journal resubmitted the paper for a real peer review, resulting in a retraction of the paper with the summary that it had no scientific merit. Yet such items continue to appear, and are presented when these people make appearances (when lecturing the church circuit).

The second one is outrageous claims, e.g., if the universe, which is googly light years across, were it just "one inch" shorter, we wouldn't be here. The ooohs and aaaahs upon hearing such jibberish point to the ignorance of the audience, yet they ignore to respond to challenges. Could we make that 2.54 cm instead?

Maybe something about trying to wage a debate in popular media and appeals to the intelligence of the masses.

Aside from a discussion we had earlier on this topic, I would emphasize the persistent set of misconceptions, promulgated by the pseudo-science practitioners, of those working concepts that are already well-established in science and its technological spin-offs.

All of the ID/creationist nonsense has its roots in these persistent misconceptions and their concomitant misrepresentations of science and scientific practice. In over forty years of observing these characters, I have yet to see an exception.

Pseudo-scientists as a group do not understand even the current science; and it is their egos as well as their ignorance that leads them to push ideas that directly conflict with what anyone can verify with a little effort.

So they already get all the tested and verified stuff wrong to begin with. Their only advantage in pushing their own junk is the ignorance or naiveté of many in the general public.

When they attempt to drum up support and business using political means in front of naive audiences, it is a pretty good bet they are fakes.

Pseudo-scientists can’t stand the crucible of scientific peer review. The only time they want to interact with scientists is to leverage “credibility” from the scientific community in front of people who don’t have enough knowledge or judgment to tell the difference.

I tried posting this to Smyth's blog, but it's too long or something. Here are my thoughts:

Hi Nick (Smyth) -- Nick Matzke here, I worked on the Dover case along with Pennock et al.

I understand that your post is well-intentioned, but it really isn't very convincing. Primarily all of the important points on the demarcation issue have been made by Pennock 2009 in depth and with great force, and you haven't responded to them in any depth except for just reasserting all the same mistakes that Larry Laudan made and which Pennock points out, so I won't go over it all. But several very obvious things which you have apparently missed should be pointed out.

Claim #1. "In the defense of progress and civilization, some very smart people are marshalling a weak and ill-defined concept which cannot support the rhetorical weight they have placed upon it. The cranks may one day discover that this is so, and they will immediately (and devastatingly) point to the irony involved in being called irrational by people who do not know what they are talking about."

This warning is a bit late. The creationists have used the anti-demarcationist argument ever since Laudan first made it after the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas decision against "creation science." In fact, the ID people dependably cited Laudan's demarcation critique in virtually every single discussion they ever had of the McLean decision in the 1990s and 2000s. We knew they would do it in the Kitzmiller case, and they did. They quoted Laudan at trial. They read Laudan to Robert Pennock on cross, and he responded. They had their own philosopher of science (Steve Fuller) testify for their side.

Well, so how did this devastating tactic, which you are so afraid of, work for them in court? It didn't!! The claim that science can't be distinguished from pseudoscience is just absurd on it's face in court. Courts do it *all the freakin' time*. **It's part of their job.** The Supreme Court put forward a number of guiding criteria in the famous Daubert case on the use of extra testimony. The criteria were explicitly put forward to help courts to discount "expert" testimony that was actually junk science.

Furthermore, the claim that we can't tell science from pseudoscience, or that particular criteria aren't important, is easily rebutted on cross-examination. As Behe found out, if you loosen the definition of "scientific theory" enough so that something like astrology comes in, then you've effectively just refuted yourself.

Another common bind the ID people, and other fans of anti-demarcationism, get into is self-contradiction. Like everyone else, they actually all know/agree that testability, peer-reviewed publication, reliability, etc. are good signs for scientific credibility, and the lack of these are bad signs. And a classic pattern with pseudoscientists is that they think science is right about the bogusness of all the other pseudosciences, it's just that it's made a mistake with their pet one. But when they say why the other ones are wrong, they invoke the same typical criteria everyone else uses too.

Claim #2: "To put my position bluntly, the problem with creationism isn't that it's “pseudoscience”. The problem with creationism is that it's bollocks."

If you can tell the difference between science and bollocks, you can tell the difference between science and pseudoscience in just the same way. That's pretty much what people mean by pseudoscience, perhaps with the only addition being something like "It's bollocks which some people are trying to give credibility by wrapping it in the aura of science."

3. "Take, for example, the second and third requirement. If we banish everyone who has either (2) seriously employed a false argument, or (3) has had some position refuted, it's hard to imagine that there will be many scientists left to speak of. These requirements are patently absurd."

What, so now judges are not allowed to hear testimony and decide that one side's arguments don't work? In (2) and (3), Jones is just summarizing the points made extensively at trial, namely (2) the IC argument is just a negative argument against evolution, even if true it wouldn't establish that ID is correct, because "not evolution, therefore ID" is a contrived dualism ("contrived dualism" is a phrase that the judge in McLean used). And (3) just summarizes the point that the IC argument, and the other anti-evolution arguments that the ID movement used, were refuted in great detail at trial. The plaintiffs had days of testimony devoted to showing transitional fossils which refuted the claim that there were no transitional fossils, and showing biochemical intermediates which refuted the claim that biochemical intermediates to IC systems were impossible, and scientific literature on the evolution of "IC" systems which refuted the ID movement's claims that there was no scientific literature showing the evolution of IC systems (and note the ID movement trying to use a standard demarcationist argument against evolution! irony alert!).

Nothing drives me more nuts in poorly-considered critiques of the Kitzmiller case than critisms that ignore the details of the massive amount of empirical, exhibit-ridden scientific testimony, and assume instead that the judge just went out for a walk one day and decided to judge certain things to be science or not on a total lark, or on the assertion of just one of the witnesses, Robert Pennock. Pennock was but 4 hours of a 6-week case, and but 4 hours of about 8 days of scientific direct and cross-examination from each side.

3. PS: Pretty please, for the love of the FSM, don't now jump to the claim that "You're saying that ID is both false and unfalsifiable!" This argument, again, was explicitly brought up at trial, discussed by Pennock in Pennock 2009, and explicitly mentioned in the decision. I.e.:

ID's negative claims *about evolution* are testable and refutable, because they are claims about evolution, a specific theory with empirical implications and consequences. But all this says is that *evolution* is testable, which we already knew.

ID's positive claims *about the 'explanation' of ID* are so vague and unconstrained as to hardly even exist, and as such are not testable.

4. "Want to keep creationism out of schools? Point out that we shouldn't teach bollocks in schools, and that constitutional freedom of religion cannot imply that false things should be taught as if they were true things."

It's true that we shouldn't teach bollocks in schools. That is a (rationally) effective moral argument, and a (somewhat less) effective political argument. But it has jack squat to do with the Constitutional prohibition on establishment of religion. The Constitution bans governmental promotion of particular religious or anti-religious views, whether they are bollocks or not. Pseudoscience is totally cool, Constitutionally speaking. The Constitution won't stop the public schools from teaching about Bigfoot. One might argue that the Constitution *should* have been written differently, but that's a different argument.

So, some people who think they're being clever then proceed to ask: "Hey! That's right! All the Kitzmiller folks needed to do was show that ID was religious, they didn't have to get into the oh-so-mysterious question of what science is! They could have avoided all of that deep philosophical water entirely!"

Clever, but totally ignorant of the facts of the case, which were:

a. The plaintiffs filed suit asserting that teaching ID was a constitutional violation of church-state separation.

b. The *Defense* then argued, *in their official Reply*, that, no, ID wasn't teaching religion in science class, because, actually, it's teaching science in science class! That argument was the Defense's defense!

c. Faced with this Defense, the plaintiffs had no choice but to rebut it. Which was done. Extremely effectively. But apparently a few people think they know better, and that the "ID is science" claim should have just been allowed to pass unchallenged, apparently mostly because Larry Laudan said some incredibly naive things about a previous court case 20+ years ago.

In other words, it's the ID movement's fault that science came up in the case, and it's their own fault that they were hoisted on their own scientific petard. The moral of the story is, don't claim you've got a scientific theory unless you can back it up and show it's ready for prime-time. At least, don't do it in court, where the whole point of the exercise is to decide a specific legal question after a thorough-but-not-endless examination of the evidence.

Point #5 Lastly, words like "true", "false", "right", "wrong", etc. tend to get used in a very binary way by anti-demarcationists. I.e., they seem to have the view, which is totally freaking absurd in many real-life situations, that claims are either all true or all false. They seem to have lost the gene for approximation -- even though approximation is absolutely central to understanding truth statements in science (or law). Thus, I close with the following:

-----------------------------------------------------
"[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Isaac Asimov (1989). "The Relativity of Wrong." The Skeptical Inquirer, 14(1), 35-44. Fall 1989.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
====================================================

Thanks for letting me comment. Forgive my sharp tone, I don't have any hostility towards Nick who is obviously sincere and on the right side of the evolution/creationism issue for instance. But he did make some blanket statements about how the Kitzmiller decision and its fans were full of it, and thems' fightin' words, so I replied in kind. So anyway, if you're ever in Berkeley, let's have a beer. ;-)

As Laudan puts it, "If we could stand up on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science.'. . . They do only emotive work for us."

FL, thank you for reiterating Nick (Matzke)'s point that creationists have been arguing for years that science and pseudo-science should be one big happy family. And thanks for that word "Methodological" again. It's always fun seeing that one pop up somewhere. And Stephen C. Meyer too. It's always such wonderful joy hearing about Stephen C. Meyer.

#6 'Appeals to the Masses.'(Which I actually believe should be more robustly attempted by the real researchers)

Direct appeals to Church Groups, School Boards, scout groups, cooking clubs, anything to bypass inspection at any moderately serious level.

These are primarily features of ID advocates, and not features of ID theory. I think that that is the place where you really see the difference between science and pseudo-science, in the features of researchers rather than the features of theories, but it's also certainly part of the reason the line is hard to draw. People working on real scientific theories certainly act very badly some of the time, and while ID is an especially bad case, there have been sincere researchers in many fields we'd call pseudo-science; as you note, creationism was a real research project in times past.

This distinction also seems to be the source of considerable amounts of confusion, as some have seemed to think that they can make distinctions among theories rather than among researchers (Popper, for example), and as a result others (like Laudan) have claimed that there can't be any distinction because they have (correctly) noticed that the distinction can't be drawn at the level of theories.

Nick (Matzke) said: I tried posting this to Smyth's blog, but it's too long or something. Here are my thoughts: Hi Nick (Smyth) -- Nick Matzke here, I worked on the Dover case along with Pennock et al. I understand that your post is well-intentioned, but it really isn't very convincing. Primarily all of the important points on the demarcation issue have been made by Pennock 2009 in depth and with great force, and you haven't responded to them in any depth except for just reasserting all the same mistakes that Larry Laudan made and which Pennock points out, so I won't go over it all. Thanks for letting me comment. Forgive my sharp tone, I don't have any hostility towards Nick who is obviously sincere and on the right side of the evolution/creationism issue for instance. But he did make some blanket statements about how the Kitzmiller decision and its fans were full of it, and thems' fightin' words, so I replied in kind. So anyway, if you're ever in Berkeley, let's have a beer. ;-)

"I did not write this work merely with the aim of setting the exegetical record straight. My larger target is those contemporaries who -- in repeated acts of wish-fulfillment -- have appropriated conclusions from the philosophy of science and put them to work in aid of a variety of social cum political causes for which those conclusions are ill adapted. Feminists, religious apologists (including "creation scientists"), counterculturalists, neoconservatives, and a host of other curious fellow-travelers have claimed to find crucial grist for their mills in, for instance, the avowed incommensurability and underdetermination of scientific theories. The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is -- second only to American political campaigns -- the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time." — Larry Laudan (Science and Relativism: Some Key Controversies in the Philosophy of Science)

ID [Intelligent Design] fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (Jones 2005, 64) It’s hard to properly describe how bad this ruling was, how incredibly vulnerable it is to logical and factual attack. Take, for example, the second and third requirement. If we banish everyone who has either (2) seriously employed a false argument, or (3) has had some position refuted, it's hard to imagine that there will be many scientists left to speak of. These requirements are patently absurd.

[Your contribution here]

— Richard B. Hoppe

Perhaps another feature that identifies pseudoscience is that it is almost always either 1) based on pre-scientific folk knowledge, confirming what ordinary people either believe or want to believe or 2) it makes promises that are too good to be true, like miracle cures, free energy or that the universe was custom designed with you in mind.

Real science, in contrast, often reaches results which are counterintuitive or noone has ever thought of before, or splashes cold water on cherished beliefs.

Of course IDC is not science. There is no designer science for it to be. What about biology, geology, astronomy, and so forth? There is a vast amount of science under each of these headings. IDC on the other hand consists of bad arguments, false claims and quote mines.
A complete "demarkation" of a category is not needed to recognize cases of something not being in that category. There may be close calls, but there are also clear strikes and balls.

Some comments notice that the top post refers to actions as well as results. Sure, science is both an activity and its results, as is pseudoscience (a form of non-science). I would still note, despite RBH not meaning the post to be about generic crankery, that Denialism is an important idea in the context of creationism.

I have to agree with Nick Matzke on nearly all his points, especially on what has been well and rightly dealt with in court. I think he is too generous in calling Fuller a philosopher of science, but that's just his generous nature.

#6) claims exist (solely) to promote an agenda and/or product. Snake-oil salesmen engage in pseudoscience to SELL SNAKE OIL, IDiots wage their anti-evolution campaign to further their religion - if one applies something like the Lemon-test, and the claim in question fails, it's not science.

correction - if one applies something like the Lemon-test, and the claim in question fails, it MIGHT NOT be science (or MIGHT be psudeo-science)

read aloud in the voice of Jeff Foxworthy - if you promote a 'potentially scientific claim' that is counter to or disproven by established science, solely to promote your personal religious views (or product), you might be a crackpot

A few additional factors that advocates of genuine scientific theories never think of doing -- some of which were obliquely covered in earlier comments:

1. Websites promoting pseudo-science often have a "Statement of Faith" requirement, clearly indicating that their goal is the validation of scripture, rather than producing a verifiable explanation of natural phenomena.

2. Lacking genuine research to support their "science," promoters resort to polls and popular opinion to "validate" their position.

3. Engaging public relations to promote their "science."

4. Recruiting scientifically ignorant allies to promote their "science" -- such as elected school boards, elected legislators, and journalists.

The descriptor given here is in essence a sociological descriptor of pseudoscience. It declares something to be pseudoscience based on the behavior of the individuals promoting the idea. That seems worrisome even if as a heuristic such data might be useful to decide what is worth paying attention to and what is not worth paying attention to.

A relevant distinction I am fond of is that of Imre Lakatos. Lakatos suggested that we should think in terms of research programs. A research program has a central core of ideas and has surrounding hypotheses that expand and protect it. A good research program leads to new ideas, experiments and broader hypotheses or even separate related research programs. A degenerate research program is a research program where the only hypotheses generated are purely defensive hypotheses to preserve the core theories of the program. Extremely degenerate research programs are pseudoscience. Under this test, ID is clearly pseudoscience.

More generally, for all these tests, the exact dividing lines are not clear. We make a mistake if we think that these tests are therefore not helpful. The line between species is not always clear, but the notion is still a very helpful one that we would be foolish to reject. Just because their are borderline cases or difficulties with certain types of demarcation does not mean that any form of general approach is not helpful. Moreover, there's some correlation between meeting one of the criteria for pseudoscience or meeting one of the criteria for being bollocks and meeting other such. This suggests that all these criteria can be useful.

If a subject meets many different descriptors of pseudoscience such as that given by Hoppe or the various commentators here, one can safely consider a subject pseudoscience. If it also meets the bollocks criteria, then a fortiori it is pseudoscience. Indeed, most subjects widely considered to be pseudoscience (such as ID) meet many such criteria.

Interesting post & discussion. To dispense w/ Creationism & ID, all we need is a mildly sophisticated standard for what counts as a good scientific theory. On any such standard, ID is a lousy theory.

Trying to come up with symptoms for pseudoscience can run us into unnecessary difficulties. A young, immature but promising theory can possess quite a few symptoms of psuedoscience. For example, you can plausibly make the case that all 5 of these proposed symptoms held to at least some degree for Copernicanism in (say) 1616.

To be clear: I'm not arguing that Copernicanism in 1616 was pseudoscience. It wasn't. It was a very promising theory that had some pretty serious problems & some very powerful opponents. I'm just saying that you want to make sure your weedwacker takes out just the weeds and not the ready-to-bloom roses.

Copernicanism in 1616 would not fail criterion 1,2, or 3 above (nor my proposed 6)

- I like the weekwhacker analogy - but if one examines INTENT the roses would be safe

Nick Matzke somewhat anticipated what I had planned to say. The "demarcation problem" is a higher-stakes issue in the United States because there's no constitutional objection to teaching bad science, only to teaching religion. Therefore, we in the colonies have a practical need that the mother country does not to find some way to say "X is not science at all," rather than "X is bad science." To be sure, I cringed a bit at the McLean court's excursion into philosophy of science, but, as often happens in law, an inadequate theory often still works well enough to get the right result.

I don't think we've yet had: references to scientific papers which are long outdated, and known to be outdated by everyone in the field. For example the moon-dust argument. Or articles on human evolution in the 1990's which didn't reference anything less than 30 years old.

That's a classic example of pseudoscience: something looking superficially like science without actually being science.

Pseudoscience has attracted earlier significant work. Robert Park lists seven indicia:

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

He does not require all seven to categorization. These are from his book "Voodoo Science," but they are expanded from earlier concepts of Vannevar Bush.

I suggest you read Paul R. Thagard's famous piece, "Why Astrology Is A Pseudoscience" on this topic:

http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/PH29A/thagard.html

Rather than categorizing an entire "science" as pseudo, it might be more useful to categorize individual theories as scientific or not. A scientific theory must propose a mechanism that can be investigated by physical methods and must lead to repeatable physical results.

In "Signature in the Cell," Stephen Meyer attempts to place ID on a scientific footing. However, in all 611 pages, he fails to propose any mechanism (I'd call it a "noetic interface") by which his intelligence actually imparts biological information into a physical medium. He refuses to characterize any capabilities, attributes, or limitations of this intelligence. For this reason, we can justifiably label ID as a pseudoscientific theory. Contrast this with Darwinian evolution.

(As a test case, how about string theory? It does propose a mechanism, and people are working on ways to investigate it experimentally, even though these might not be feasible with today's technology. Maybe string theory is on the edge, a protoscientific hypothesis :-)

jasonmitchell said: Copernicanism in 1616 would not fail criterion 1,2, or 3 above (nor my proposed 6) - I like the weekwhacker analogy - but if one examines INTENT the roses would be safe

Olorin said: Pseudoscience has attracted earlier significant work. Robert Park lists seven indicia: 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. 5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. 6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. He does not require all seven to categorization. These are from his book "Voodoo Science," but they are expanded from earlier concepts of Vannevar Bush.

Galileo was a special case. Unlike the creationists, he really did have data, and it seemed to fit the Copernicus model. It's well known that he observed the predicted phases of Venus -- a clear contradiction of the geocentric model. Kooks never manage to do stuff like that.

A less-remembered fact is that in observing the moons of Jupiter, he discredited an old "proof" for an un-moving Earth -- it had been argued that if the Earth moved we'd leave the moon behind! The Jovian moons clearly discredited that argument. There wasn't an explanation for this until Newton, a generation later, but Galileo still had data to support the heliocentric model.

Pseudoscience has attracted earlier significant work. Robert Park lists seven indicia:

I think that the first thing a claimed hypothesis has to do to be scientific is to provide an explanation for a consistently observed pattern (or more than one) in the relevant data.

The existence of unanswered questions is not pattern (it's simply an inevitable fact), yet anti-evolution advocates try to use it as one.

Of course, to become generally accepted, a proposed theory must produce some testable predictions, and must have areas in which conflicting data could be (or could have been) found.

But, I.D. doesn't manage even that first requirement; there's no described pattern that it is attempting to explain.

Henry

Nick (Matzke) said: ID's negative claims *about evolution* are testable and refutable, because they are claims about evolution, a specific theory with empirical implications and consequences. But all this says is that *evolution* is testable, which we already knew. ID's positive claims *about the 'explanation' of ID* are so vague and unconstrained as to hardly even exist, and as such are not testable.

Point #5 Lastly, words like "true", "false", "right", "wrong", etc. tend to get used in a very binary way by anti-demarcationists. I.e., they seem to have the view, which is totally freaking absurd in many real-life situations, that claims are either all true or all false. They seem to have lost the gene for approximation -- even though approximation is absolutely central to understanding truth statements in science (or law).

Joshua Zelinsky said: A relevant distinction I am fond of is that of Imre Lakatos. Lakatos suggested that we should think in terms of research programs. A research program has a central core of ideas and has surrounding hypotheses that expand and protect it.

Applying these criteria to Galileo is going to lead to uncomfortable results, I think:

Closely related to 3) is:

6) Cherry picking evidence.

For creationists this usually means citing one 40-yr-old study on a subject when the weight of research since that time has shown that study was an error.

Pseudoscientists who actually do research also cherry-pick by performing many studies and only reporting the successful ones. Do Zener card tests on enough people and one of them will get 8 out of 10 right; but to know whether this is meaningful, you have to know the total number of tests. Pseudoscientists often don't report this, or make up reasons to exclude unsuccessful trials.

(This type of misreporting can also be a problem in legitimate science when there is a conflict of interest, such as when a company tests its own drug. But because it so regularly happens in pseudoscience, its a good indicator.)

Joe Felsenstein said: One thing that opponents of ID do wrong in blog posts, in my view, is to simply say that "ID isn't science". As Nick has noted, the attacks ID people make on evolutionary biology -- their negative criticisms -- are scientific arguments, so it is relatively easy for the ID debaters to refute the statement that their arguments aren't science. It is their positive arguments for ID that get so nebulous as to not be science (or maybe not be anything).

"Classical pseudosciences" sounds like an interesting field of study. :)

Here's another item for Richard's list of diagnostic properties:

6. Appeals to "common sense" or "everyday experience" as a scientific justification.

Meyer makes heavy use of this principle in his book. The 19thC flat-earthers were also inordinately fond of it, because their enemy was an elitist estasblishment who supposedly were deficient in common sense.

Not definitive but common characteristics of pseudoscience.

1. Cranks resort to threats, intimidation, and violence if they can. Galileo and Bruno found this out. Today over a dozen evolution supporters have been fired, beaten up, persecuted, or in one case, killed. This is an ongoing process and a group incluing an MD from Loma Linda is trying to fire the biology department at La Sierra C.. No point in trying to make people believe the impossible when you can simply herd them into concentration camps like Tom Willis, Kansas, advocates.

2. Refusal and inability to falsify their theories. Most creationists admit that no matter how much evidence cosmology and biology accumulates, the earth will always be 6,000 years old and Noah had a boatload of dinosaurs. Some of these are Ph.Ds, like Wise, Wells, and Jeanson.

3. Making extraordinary claims without supplying extraordinary proof. The perpetual motion machine people and creationists do this all the time.

And, oh yeah, lie a lot.

I dealt once with HIV denialists. Highly dishonest people.

1. They would cite some obscure paper from decades ago to back up a point. If you actually look the paper up, it doesn't say what they claimed. They lied.

2. Cite some obscure paper from decades ago with a quote. "HIV does not cause AIDS." The original paper woud say, ...."HIV causes AIDS." Adding that "not" in there is forgery.

3. Speaking of no data being able to change people's minds. A minority of HIV denialists are, in fact, HIV positive people, who don't want to hear it. They occasionally die of...AIDS. Even when they are dying, they deny it has anything to do with a retroviral infection. They die of Kaposi's, B cell lymphoma, P. carini pneumonia, opportunistic infections etc..

One thing about the demarcation problem that I don't think gets enough attention that the falsifiability criteria between science and pseudoscience is not merely whether or not the putative science can be falsified, but rather whether or not its practitioners are willing to consider it false if it fails the test.

Take the young-earthers for example. Many of their ideas could be, as Laudan pointed out, falsified. But even when one could get one to say what would falsify their "theory," one can be very sure that finding what would falsify their ideas will either be ignored or or some "bollocks" will be invented to dismiss it. And indeed their ideas where all falsified by the 1840s and indeed many instances long before that. This has not stopped them.

The ID advocates are not any different. One could imagine Dembski after he got to Heaven and God told him that life evolved that Dembski would argue the matter eternally with God (or until God will decide to end the argument by magically removing Dembksi's mouth).

This being said, though a discussion of demarcation can be very useful for long, detailed, and academic discussions of issue, in most venues it is far more profitable to point out the countless falsehoods which the evolution deniers wish to push. Anyone ever see Dembski debating Michael Ruse on the issue? Ruse will go though the dry philosophical points of demarcation while Dembski will go on about his "evidence" while Ruse only repeats demarcation points and never seems to consider pointing out that Dembski's "evidence" is full of it. I think that most people will be more impressed by a demonstration that Dembski is full it than a demonstration that he violates some rules that academic philosophers are pushing. Luckily at Dover, evidence was presented in detail on that very point: ID is outright wrong in what it says about evolution.

Of course Nick Matzke is very right that merely being bad science is not enough to get the courts into action (though it should be enough to get science lovers into action). ID claims to have a scientific case. That scientific case was expertly dismantled at Dover (thanks in large measure to Matzke and others the NCSE). If there is no scientific case then one certainly should wonder if a scientific motive is involved. Then the evidence that the school board was indeed motivated by religious motives comes into play. That the board and ID organizations are religiously motivated combined with undeniable evidence that ID claims are indeed false makes the case that ID is nothing more than pushing religion.

Mike said: 3. Galileo's telescopic observations in the 1610s were "at the very limit of detection." Of course, they did not remain that way!

D'oh! That should be:

"...while real phenomena do not change when your instrument gets better."

a lurker said: ... ID is nothing more than pushing religion.

I agree--ID is not merely anti-science, it is antiscience. The IDCs seek not to generate useful knowledge but to destroy it. The revelations of science diminish their superstitions, they choose to believe, and instead of facing reality they wage a culture war against science.

If the authors of Wedge had their way (among a great many other horrors, I think), evil atheist science would be forever crippled and made slave to theocracy--and we'd probably never find a cure for AIDS, humans would never walk on Mars, and innocent children would be forever born with horrible birth defects while we squat in our huts and pay mandatory homage to their awesome god.

I picked up a book not too long ago by Nathan Aaseng, "Science versus Pseudoscience" (Impact Books, 1994, ISBN 0531111822)that attempts to use the demarcation argument to determine what science is. Although written for juvenile consumption, I found the list on page 29 amusing and useful-especially points 9 and 10. "Science does not accept coincidence as proof." and "Science does not accept anecdotal evidence as proof." Could these points be turned around and used as evidence of pseudoscience?

6. Numerable specious claims that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are false with no evidence presented what-so-ever

I agree–ID is not merely anti-science, it is antiscience.

raven said:

I agree–ID is not merely anti-science, it is antiscience.

Don't forget, they are polyhaters. They also hate physics, astronomy, paleontology, geology, neurobiology, archaeology, and history. All of which contradicts their 2 pages of bronze age mythology. They came for the biologists, but I wasn't a biologist.....The next targets would be astronomy because of the Big Bang and neurobiology. Despite billions of dollars spent on brain research, no one has yet found the soul.

The pseudoscience examples from Park differ from IDC. They were mostly individuals with inventions or strange effects. IDC is a movement with a hidden agenda. A recent book explores a similar movement: Flat Earth The history of an Infamous Idea, by Christine Garwood (Thomas Dunn 2007). Surprisingly, this movement is relatively recent (mid 19thC), and was originally a middle-class reaction against an "elitist" scientific establishment. Then it was co-opted by Bible literalists. And it endured through the Moon landing.

One could consider Immanuel Velikovsky a similar movement-type pseudoscience. These have some different characteristics from the more personal nut-job pseudos that Park treats; Park does not even consider IDC in his book.

Olorin said: One could consider Immanuel Velikovsky a similar movement-type pseudoscience. These have some different characteristics from the more personal nut-job pseudos that Park treats; Park does not even consider IDC in his book.

This might have been covered already, but to me ID/creationism is characterized not only by position on the science-pseudoscience axis, but also by going in the wrong direction. IOW not only is it's "y" in the wrong place, so is it's "dy/dx." 40 years ago there was at least an attempt at convergence (on round earth YEC), even though it required the "seeking and fabricating" that is exactly the wrong way to do science (any excuse to cite my favorite JPII quote). But nowadays they don't even try for convergence, but steadily retreat into "don't ask, don't tell what the designer did, when or how."

Frank J said: But nowadays they don't even try for convergence, but steadily retreat into "don't ask, don't tell what the designer did, when or how."

Regarding the issue of heliocentrism in its early time there are other issues going on there.

First, note that there were at least four systems floating around. There was Ptolemy's geoocentric system (with circular orbits around the Earth and each containing a few epicycles). There was Copernicus's system of circular orbits around the Sun (which used fewer epicycles than Ptolemy). There was Tycho's system of circular orbits around the sun with the sun orbiting the Earth (which required almost no epicycles). And there was Kepler's theory of elliptic orbits around the sun, which required zero epicycles. So it was a much more complicated situation than Galileo v. everyone else. Moreover, many other thinkers supported Galileo's ideas.

The real problem that heliocentric theories had was the complete lack of stellar parallax (the observed changed angle to see of stars due to the changing position of the Earth). Acceptance of a heliocentric solar system implies that stars had to be mind bogglingly far away, easily at least thousands of times the distance from the Earth to the sun. This struck people are really strange. It wasn't until the mid 19th century that telescopes were sensitive enough to measure stellar parallax.

I'm not sure that pointing out that Galileo would have failed some of these conditions is that helpful: If we don't believe that these are absolute indicators but rather heuristics we shouldn't be surprised if every so often we get an incorrect result from applying them. A single bad use out of four hundred years is not a bad rate.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the great-granddaddy of such lists, Irving Langmuir's lecture on pathological science.

first, since it's a pre-existing useful concept, I'd like to see the category Bullshit, as used by Frankfurt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit)

second, I'd like to suggest "I'm about to release a paper demolishing X" as a category very closely related to Inflationary Credentialism. Both relate to the central importance of appeal to authority in the way these people think (yes, a great irony as most authority resides with the other team). Briefly, rather than actually arguing the facts, they'd rather you bought the story that the facts don't need arguing (see also "you're gonna be really really really sorry when you die and God is judging you")

snaxalotl said: first, since it's a pre-existing useful concept, I'd like to see the category Bullshit, as used by Frankfurt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit)

There is one characteristic of pseudoscience that hasn't been mentioned, though perhaps it leans towards the demarkation problem.

With real science you can get children doing the science, so you can point to it and say that that is the particular science. You can introduce levers and pulleys and "does your bicycle pump get hot when you pump up your tyres" and say, that's physics. You can burn paper and collect the gas, dissolve the gas in water and add a drop of litmus and watch the colour change and say, that's chemistry. You can grow mustard seeds on flannel and say, that's biology. And the children can do all these things for themselves and check up on you.

It's a lot of steps from levers to LHC, but the levers are the first step.

But for pseudoscience there is no such entry level.

Keith Harwood said: With real science you can get children doing the science, so you can point to it and say that that is the particular science.

I read this and thought of Bjorn Lomborg.

The right-wing and business press and think-tanks like the Heartland Institute call him a climate expert. Confronted with that, he becomes an economist, confronted with his lack of credentials there, he is a statistician. Then a game theorist, finally you get to his actual academic training, political science. I guess if PR flack and senatorial aide to creationist James Inhofe, Marc Morano, can be called a climate expert, as he is, Lomborg must feel It's out of order to point out that his credentials involve knowing enough math and science jargon to sound. convincing, and being willing to shift his lies according to how they poll-test and are delivered to him.

He has not only persisted with arrant nonsense on dozens of topics, but won't even acknowledge that it's settled that he said what he said. Basic repetition, but shifted to fit his audience.

Perverse mistreatment of evidence is literally his entire career.

Claims of exclusion are directed at any and all environmentalists, except the 1-member subset of skeptical ones.

Same for maverick status.

snaxalotl said: first, since it's a pre-existing useful concept, I'd like to see the category Bullshit, as used by Frankfurt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit)

In the essay, Frankfurt defines a theory of bullshit, defining the concept and analyzing its applications. In particular, Frankfurt distinguishes bullshitting from lying: while the liar deliberately makes false claims, the bullshitter is simply uninterested in the truth.

Mike Elzinga said:

Frank J said: But nowadays they don't even try for convergence, but steadily retreat into "don't ask, don't tell what the designer did, when or how."

And don’t you get the impression that their little brains are working away furiously at new shticks and new “stump-the-scientist” routines which they allow their rubes to run up the flag pole to see how they will work?

A bullshit artist, as we call the type here, has a slightly different mindset from the common-or-garden liar, it's true.

To a liar, facts are inconveniences to be avoided, but they exist and they may present difficulties. To the true BSA, the facts are an irrelevant abstraction so theoretical, so attenuated and so inconsiderable that they hardly exist at all. They certainly cannot compete with the grandeur and glory of the vision he wishes to present.

Hence, the liar treats the facts with due caution. The BSA simply displays contempt for them.

Olorin said: Pseudoscience has attracted earlier significant work. Robert Park lists seven indicia: 1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media. 2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work. 3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection. 4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal. 5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries. 6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. 7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation. He does not require all seven to categorization. These are from his book “Voodoo Science,” but they are expanded from earlier concepts of Vannevar Bush.

Applying these criteria to Galileo is going to lead to uncomfortable results, I think: 1. Galileo fails, as he was very concerned to popularize his work. 2. Galileo obviously fails. (The powerful establishment was trying to suppress his work!) 3. Galileo’s telescopic observations in the 1610s were “at the very limit of detection.” Of course, they did not remain that way! 4 & 5. Galileo passes - he doesn’t do these things. 6. Galileo fails, I believe. He did not work collaboratively. 7. Famously, Galileo’s Copernicanism needed a “new physics” to replace Aristotle’s. So Galileo fails 4 of these criteria (1,2,6,7), one is iffy (3), and he does fine on 2 of these criteria (4,5).

Dave Luckett said: Hence, the liar treats the facts with due caution. The BSA simply displays contempt for them.

another way of looking at pseudoscience: There have been many forms of poor rhetoric (convincing statements that convince for the wrong reason). Even today the churches still prefer (internally) the Mrs Doyle approach from Father Ted, viz. "ohhhh go on go on go on go on go on go on" (ie social pressure). However, it has become relatively accepted that the standard for truth (about facts of the world rather than purely logical argument) is scientific truth. Even by an alarming (to the religious) number of the religious. So ALL "proofs" are now dressed in the modern fashion of science. Pseudoscience is essentially the modern form of poor rhetoric.

Joe Felsenstein said: One thing that opponents of ID do wrong in blog posts, in my view, is to simply say that "ID isn't science". As Nick has noted, the attacks ID people make on evolutionary biology -- their negative criticisms -- are scientific arguments, so it is relatively easy for the ID debaters to refute the statement that their arguments aren't science. It is their positive arguments for ID that get so nebulous as to not be science (or maybe not be anything).

Speaking of Robert Park and his Voodoo Science, he has a new book out, Superstition.

Producing negative arguments against evolution, both models and verbal scenarios, is indeed much of what creationists do as creationists. But that alone is not creationism.

— Pete Dunkelberg

The crucial part of ID is the unfounded positive claim. IDists themselves say that a special re-definition of science is needed to include their unfounded claim.

— Pete Dunkelberg

The "plead the Fifth" game I suspect is not merely because it evades the Establishment Clause. It also is part of the "pseudoskeptic" act, the fact that the safest place in an argument is to play critic while claiming one has nothing to prove.

That's weak, of course, but as Gould pointed out the evobashers are good at winning arguments. Of course he pointed out they also do very badly in court because they embarrass themselves when asked specific questions -- in an environment where they are required to give an answer and suffer if they don't give a straight answer.

Frank J said: ID's positive claim is the completely useless "some designer did something at some time."

Pete Dunkelberg said:

Joe Felsenstein said: One thing that opponents of ID do wrong in blog posts, in my view, is to simply say that "ID isn't science".

I'm guilty. I said there is no ID science for ID to be. ... Creationism isn't just "Here's a way evolution wouldn't work." They are saying (or sometimes implying clearly enough) that evolution (the natural process, not their scenario) does not and did not work, and instead the Designer did it. That's the actual creationism (or ID) part of it. ... Is there anything that says that just bad arguments (plus any amount of posturing) are enough to make a branch of science? Criticism of current or proposed scientific scientific ideas is part of science, and scientists (not creationists) do lots of it. But all critics are not scientists. The crucial part of ID is the unfounded positive claim. IDists themselves say that a special re-definition of science is needed to include their unfounded claim. So I still say ID is not science. But looking back at what I quoted from Joe, we're not that far apart.

Frank J said: IMO at least half of the discussion should be geared to what the ID/creationist thinks "happened when." As they evade the questions and frantically try to change the subject back to "weaknesses" of "Darwinism," some of the rubes will remain impressed, of course. But some will not. Especially if their religion is centered more on "thou shalt not bear false witness" than on stories that their own religious leaders may not take literally.

Joe Felsenstein said: Where the problem is, is in any public forum (blogs, debates etc.) where there are undecided folks. They hear the ID people say "here is our scientific argument (etc., etc. etc.)" and then what are they supposed to think if all the evolutionary biologists do is say "that's not science"?

Mike Elzinga said: My impressions are that these ID/creationist forays into enemy territory are still part of the “tweaking-the-tail-of-the-dragon” shtick. It’s the points they get among their peers and followers that count; not what they know or don’t know about science.

Wheels said: Then again I don't hang out within anti-evolutionist circles.

Appeals to emotion. Attributing Hitler's eugenics to "Darwinism," as in Expelled, falls into this category, as well as (indirectly, through prejudice against atheism) equating evolutionary theory with atheism or "materialism." Of course, many appeals to emotion also fall under other categories, especially #2, but in addition strive to provoke a "gut" response in the audience. Highly correlated with Robert's appeals to the masses, above.

However, many of the ID/creationist writers of letters to the editor of our local newspaper haven’t figured that out yet. They still have a lot of ignorant confidence in their misconceptions.

— Mike Elzinga

Where the problem is, is in any public forum (blogs, debates etc.) where there are undecided folks. They hear the ID people say “here is our scientific argument (etc., etc. etc.)” and then what are they supposed to think if all the evolutionary biologists do is say “that’s not science”? Especially if the ID types concentrate on their negative criticisms of evolutionary biology and point out that those are, in fact, scientific arguments? (Which they are). In my view, that becomes a big win for them.

Joe and Harold:

Pardon my jumping in your debate, but here's my 2c on what constitutes a "win" for the anti-evolution activists:

First, I guess we all agree that they are losing miserably in the courts. Or at least their fans are, who get stuck with the legal bills. Then again, they have an authoritarian "thank you sir, may I have another" culture, so it's hard to say what constitutes a loss.

OTOH, in the "court of public opinion," from various surveys, it seems that only 20-30% of adult Americans will not accept evolution under any circumstances. But ~50% have doubts of it, and another ~20% accept it (more likely a caricature of it) but still think it's fair to teach anti-evolution pseudoscience in science class. In order to maintain that % discrepancy (which has been the case for 25+ years) anti-evolution activists must be doing something right, and/or their critics are doing something wrong.

OTOH, in the “court of public opinion,” from various surveys, it seems that only 20-30% of adult Americans will not accept evolution under any circumstances.

But ~50% have doubts of it,

and another ~20% accept it (more likely a caricature of it) but still think it’s fair to teach anti-evolution pseudoscience in science class.

In order to maintain that % discrepancy (which has been the case for 25+ years) anti-evolution activists must be doing something right,

and/or their critics are doing something wrong.

harold said: Joe Felsenstein -

Where the problem is, is in any public forum (blogs, debates etc.) where there are undecided folks. They hear the ID people say “here is our scientific argument (etc., etc. etc.)” and then what are they supposed to think if all the evolutionary biologists do is say “that’s not science”? Especially if the ID types concentrate on their negative criticisms of evolutionary biology and point out that those are, in fact, scientific arguments? (Which they are). In my view, that becomes a big win for them.

Could you please link to even a single specific, definitive example of this happening? I've been involved in forums dealing with creationism since 1999, and I have never seen any lack, on the science side, of strong logical dispute of both false negative claims about evolution or illogical positive claims by YEC or ID.

I would suggest "lack of originality" as a vitally important criteria to define pseudo-science.

How often have you encountered the creationist/ID/IC argument that runs thus:

"If you have not read Marvin Von Fafootnick's super-magnificent treatise that proves that evolution could not possibly be true, how could you possibly know it is not true!"

I have on occasion looked through the internets to see the screeds that ID people put there. Without exaggeration I can guess (notice the irony) that there are tens of thousands of "super-magnificent treatises" that all make the same arguments, all have failed to bother to have any hint of originality.

Without a requirement that the so-called maverick has bothered to do a literature search or even read a handful of seminal works, then this demand to read so-and-so's treatise puts an impossible burden on everyone else. Practicing scientists, science professors, science teachers and science librarians, etc. can not slog through literally tens of thousands of self-proclaimed mavericks' "work." No one would be able to anything else, like their own research, grading papers, going to conferences, seeing their spouses and children, etc. The burden Has to rest on the upstart "maverick" otherwise no one can accomplish anything.

In defense of Thomas Kuhn, his term "paradigm shift" has been badly mis-appropriated. Business writers have gotten their dirty little hands on it too. (There's a great Dilbert cartoon about this, but I digress).

As a follow-up to my earlier post, I suggest that adding originality (or lack thereof) to the criteria of science/pseudo-science will take care of the people who cry out "I call paradigm shift!" (What are we? Ten years old?). Most attempts to invoke Kuhn's concept entail someone attempting to bring up a "theory" that someone already proved false decades (or centuries) ago.

Which brings up the next point: verification. Rather attempt to use definitions to parse out "science" from "pseudo-science" I suggest focusing on the fact that ID has failed verification. The attempt to dismiss ID as "Not science" is an idea I once had firmly in my head. As I studied the subject more (and with the guidance of someone much smarter than I am) I have come around to seeing forms of verification as the best focus for sorting out this mess.

I mentioned this in a comment on Bad Astronomy: someone want to explain why one of my wisdom teeth came in sideways, please? What's intelligent about that design? The rejoinder that it's my punishment for my original sin then requires verification as well, and so on.

If it failed and continues to fail verification, it does not belong in a public school science classroom as anything other than an example of how an explanation fails verification and Not as an "alternative" theory (which implies passing verification when in fact it has done no such thing).

There exists a large amount of confusion over what constitutes the "scientific method" which comes in part from the The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper. His over-reliance on falsification makes this criteria for pseudo-science a bit tricky. It's important to emphasize that, although contrary to Popper, you do not have to start with a falsifiable hypothesis, you must have one (and have it stand up to tests) before the theory stands as the best (or equal to the best) explanation of the evidence. I suggest focus on verification without bogging down into questions of process and/or "method" in order to add failure of verification to the criteria for pseudo-science.

Steven Dunlap said: There exists a large amount of confusion over what constitutes the "scientific method" which comes in part from the The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper. His over-reliance on falsification makes this criteria for pseudo-science a bit tricky. It's important to emphasize that, although contrary to Popper, you do not have to start with a falsifiable hypothesis, you must have one (and have it stand up to tests) before the theory stands as the best (or equal to the best) explanation of the evidence. I suggest focus on verification without bogging down into questions of process and/or "method" in order to add failure of verification to the criteria for pseudo-science.

As our formulation shows, the empiricist meaning criterion lays down the requirement of experiential testability for those among the cognitively meaningful sentences which are neither analytic nor contradictory; let us call them sentences with empirical meaning, or empirical significance. The concept of testability, which is to render precise the vague notion of being based--or rather baseable--on experience, has undergone several modifications which reflect an increasingly refined analysis of the structure of empirical knowledge. In the present section, let us examine the major stages of this development...

As a consequence, the empiricist criterion of meaning, like the result of any other explication, represents a linguistic proposal which itself is neither true nor false, but for which adequacy is claimed in two respects: First in the sense that the explication provides a reasonably close analysis of the commonly accepted meaning of the explicandum--and this claim implies an empirical assertion; and secondly in the sense that the explication achieves a "rational reconstruction" of the explicandum, i.e., that it provides, together perhaps with other explications, a general conceptual framework which permits a consistent and precise restatement and theoretical systematization of the contexts in which the explicandum is used--and this claim implies at least an assertion of a logical character. Though a proposal in form, the empiricist criterion of meaning is therefore far from being an arbitrary definition; it is subject to revision if a violation of the requirements of adequacy, or even a way of satisfying those requirements more fully, should be discovered. Indeed, it is to be hoped that [p.62:] before long some of the open problems encountered in the analysis of cognitive significance will be clarified and that then our last version of the empiricist meaning criterion will be replaced by another, more adequate one.

These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows. 1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations. 2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory. 3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. 4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. 5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks. 6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.") 7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.") One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Chip Poirot said: But it is also important to point out that theories are often very complex entities, so one observation sentence cannot **logically** refute a single portion of it. In addition, when faced with recalcitrant evidence, we have more options than just "falsify" or "fail to falsify".

Chip Poirot said: Clearly, requiring that theories be "falsifiable" in terms of their syntactic structure is not sufficient and will lead us to silly conclusions-regardless of what Popper did or did not mean. 2) Another interpretation of Popper is his demarcation criterion has to do with both the structure of the theory and the actual practice of the community of scientists. For example, Popper notes that Marxism originally made falsifiable predictions, but when these failed to come about, Marxists refused to revise the theory, so the scientific status of Marxism was lost. While 2) makes more sense, it is insufficient as a demarcation criterion. But that said, I do think Popper is on to something and that something is the difference between genuine vs. sham inquiry. But it is also important to point out that theories are often very complex entities, so one observation sentence cannot **logically** refute a single portion of it. In addition, when faced with recalcitrant evidence, we have more options than just "falsify" or "fail to falsify". The problem with ID (among many other things) is that it is either 1) a falsified theory ; 2: too vague to be saying anything at all and or. 3) just a sham.

Steven Dunlap said: I have also noticed that creationists have mangled and/or quote-mined from Paul Feyerabend's Against method as well as from Kuhn. A thoughtful reading of Feyerabend can help clarify some of the problems with Popper.

But to live outside the law you must be honest I know you'll always say that you'll agree

Olorin said:

Frank J said: ID's positive claim is the completely useless "some designer did something at some time."

Another item for Richard's list of diagnostic properties: 6. The claim made is so vague that almost anything will satisfy it. Another way of stating this is that the claims explains everything. (As the physicists say, a theory that explains everything explains nothing.)

My apologies, I cannot respond to the enormous number of comments, here. I can only begin by taking serious issue with the claim in the original post:

It seems to me that it’s quite possible, in principle at least, to argue that ID/creationism, for example, is “pseudoscience” without the necessity of reference to a demarcating definition of science. If one starts with the complementary problem, namely defining pseudoscience independent of any particular definition of science, then we might make more progress.

Of course it's possible to continue using the term "pseudoscience" without knowing what science is. The question is whether it's rational to do so.

There are several reasons to think that it is, in fact, irrational to do so. Pseudo is a modifier: it is a prefix that modifies an existing term. It simply indicates that the item in question is a pretender, a false and poor copy of the actual original concept. How can you possibly make these judgments without having a good idea of what the original concept is?

If I called you a "pseudo-blogger", what would your response be? Would you not immediately want to know what I thought a genuine blogger was? Furthermore, what if I then said that a pseudo-blogger is someone whose blogs start with the letter "P"? You'd be furious and say that blog titles have nothing to do with the status of the blogger as such. But that claim itself presupposes that we are arguing over what a blogger is, not about what a "pseudo-blogger" is.

My response, perfectly analogous to your post here, could just be "oh, I'm not interested in defining blogger for you, I just want to define this term pseudo-blogger". You would then--justifiably--ask what the hell was going on, why I was suddenly uninterested in defining the very concept from which I am attempting to exclude you.

IN any case, more generally, two of your criteria (2 and 3) here are epistemological. That is to say, they point towards reasons to suspect the truth of ID theories. This, I say again, does not support a categorical science/pseudoscience distinction. At most, it supports a distinction between good and bad inquiry, between truth and falsity. In order to support the science/pseudoscience distinction, you have to show that there is some essential formal difference between science and pseudoscience. Otherwise, you're basically just agreeing with me.

The other criteria point to features of individuals, not of theories. This debate, in the courts and outside the courts, is explicitly cast in terms of theories: which body of claims should we teach in schools, and which ones should be kept out? Listing various nasty features of certain creationists does nothing to help resolve the issue.

Despite all of this, I am happy that everyone here is thinking about this issue, and I am very happy to see that it provokes such thoughtful discussion.

Stuart Weinstein said: A theory th(at) explains everything isn't a theory.

Frink: "Yes, over here, [...] in Episode BF12, you were battling barbarians while riding a winged Appaloosa, yet in the very next scene, my dear, you're clearly atop a winged Arabian! Please do explain it! Lucy Lawless: Uh, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that... a wizard did it. Frink: Yes, alright, yes, in episode AG04-" Lucy Lawless: Wizard! Frink: Oh for glaven out loud. - The Simpsons, "Treehouse of Horror X"

Stanton said: Indeed, a theory that is capable of encompassing literally everything isn't a theory: it's a catch-all excuse.

Chip Poirot said: But Feyerabend's point about novelty was that it was sometimes necessary for scientists to take huge, huge risks-sometimes even apparently against evidence and against prevailing scientific consensus. In other words, in order for science to progress, you have to be willing to break the rules. In some respects, Darwin broke rules. But he maintained the rule of engaging in intellectual honesty, even where he made mistakes. But I still think it comes down to that other great philosopher of science, Bob Dylan:

But to live outside the law you must be honest I know you'll always say that you'll agree

Phillipp Johnson isn't honest. And the other point that Feyerabend doesn't address is what do you do when people make an appeal to dogmatism and revelation to rescue a theory that has been widely discredited in the name of doing something novel. And then sometimes, something is novel and its just plain crap.

Joe Felsenstein -

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist".

Having said that, I strongly agree that if someone who defends science advocates responding to ID merely by saying that "it isn't science" or that "it's pseudoscience" and not being more vigorous in critique of it, that would be a bad idea.

I haven't seen anyone advocate or practice that, but I agree with you that it's a bad idea.

Nick (Matzke) said: We knew they would do it in the Kitzmiller case, and they did. They quoted Laudan at trial. They read Laudan to Robert Pennock on cross, and he responded. They had their own philosopher of science (Steve Fuller) testify for their side. Well, so how did this devastating tactic, which you are so afraid of, work for them in court? It didn't!!

If you can tell the difference between science and bollocks, you can tell the difference between science and pseudoscience in just the same way. That's pretty much what people mean by pseudoscience

perhaps with the only addition being something like "It's bollocks which some people are trying to give credibility by wrapping it in the aura of science."

...What, so now judges are not allowed to hear testimony and decide that one side's arguments don't work? In (2) and (3), Jones is just summarizing the points made extensively at trial

ID's negative claims *about evolution* are testable and refutable, because they are claims about evolution, a specific theory with empirical implications and consequences. But all this says is that *evolution* is testable, which we already knew.

ID's positive claims *about the 'explanation' of ID* are so vague and unconstrained as to hardly even exist, and as such are not testable.

b. The *Defense* then argued, *in their official Reply*, that, no, ID wasn't teaching religion in science class, because, actually, it's teaching science in science class! That argument was the Defense's defense! c. Faced with this Defense, the plaintiffs had no choice but to rebut it.

Which was done. Extremely effectively.

Nick Smyth -

Pseudoscience is a common vernacular term.

It refers to fields which are superstitious or fraudulent in nature, but which have features which superficially resemble science.

It is not a technical term from philosophy. However, it can be useful.

Astrology is a commonly used example of pseudoscience. It involves precise measurements, calculations, and graphs. It actually incorporates potentially testable hypotheses (which fail when tested rigorously).

ID is a bit different, in a number of ways. First of all, astrology is comparatively socially harmless, whereas ID is intended to do severe social harm. Second of all, astrology merely "adds to" scientific reality. A typical astrology advocate might understand and accept a great deal of modern science and deny none of it. Many probably meet this description. But they might "also believe" that the motions of the planet Mercury have something to do with the details of their daily life on earth. ID directly contradicts scientific reality.

However, in my view, in addition to its many other flaws, ID is clearly pseudoscience.

Indeed, it is more pseudoscientific than astrology, because ID/creationism advocates go to the point of consciously imitating legitimate scientists. They tout (often irrelevant or fake) scientific credentials, name their wingnut welfare ward the "Discovery Institute", publish books full of "science-y" language, bill for their time as "expert witnesses" on matters related to evolution, and so on.

There is a big difference between advocating a poorly supported but defensible hypothesis, versus peddling clear nonsense for monetary gain and to do social harm. ID is right up there with snake oil salesmanship, and one of the many things it deserves to be called is "pseudoscience".

By the way, what would a "pseudo-blogger" be like? A pseudo-blogger would be someone who claimed to have a blog, when he didn't, perhaps in order to collect money from naive advertisers or supporters of the ostensible blog content, or to impress the opposite sex in bars. Such a person might not have a blog at all, or might misrepresent himself as being a contributor to a well-known blog.

Nick Smyth said: My apologies, I cannot respond to the enormous number of comments, here. I can only begin by taking serious issue with the claim in the original post: It seems to me that it’s quite possible, in principle at least, to argue that ID/creationism, for example, is “pseudoscience” without the necessity of reference to a demarcating definition of science. If one starts with the complementary problem, namely defining pseudoscience independent of any particular definition of science, then we might make more progress. Of course it's possible to continue using the term "pseudoscience" without knowing what science is. The question is whether it's rational to do so. There are several reasons to think that it is, in fact, irrational to do so. Pseudo is a modifier: it is a prefix that modifies an existing term. It simply indicates that the item in question is a pretender, a false and poor copy of the actual original concept. How can you possibly make these judgments without having a good idea of what the original concept is?

It denotes rubbish, nonsense, or claptrap with guttural force and not-very-subtle sexual undertones. Say it to yourself right now. Its derisive power should strike you immediately.

Perhaps our readings of Feyerabend led us in different directions. I see him making the case to avoid rigidly applying rules such as Popper recommends... Although Feyerabend argues against the use of rigid rules to define a process, he readily acknowledges the need for verification. He simply argues against Popper's dictum that one must be working to test a falsifiable hypothesis or you're "not doing science" (my paraphrasing and a bit simplified, but you get the idea). That's why I keep coming back to verification.

Nick Smyth said: If I called you a "pseudo-blogger", what would your response be? Would you not immediately want to know what I thought a genuine blogger was? ... My response, perfectly analogous to your post here, could just be "oh, I'm not interested in defining blogger for you, I just want to define this term pseudo-blogger". You would then--justifiably--ask what the hell was going on, why I was suddenly uninterested in defining the very concept from which I am attempting to exclude you.

IN any case, more generally, two of your criteria (2 and 3) here are epistemological. That is to say, they point towards reasons to suspect the truth of ID theories. This, I say again, does not support a categorical science/pseudoscience distinction.

The other criteria point to features of individuals, not of theories. This debate, in the courts and outside the courts, is explicitly cast in terms of theories: which body of claims should we teach in schools, and which ones should be kept out? Listing various nasty features of certain creationists does nothing to help resolve the issue.

Despite all of this, I am happy that everyone here is thinking about this issue, and I am very happy to see that it provokes such thoughtful discussion.

Oh yeah, and thanks to Olorin for mentioning the book.

6. The claim made is so vague that almost anything will satisfy it. Another way of stating this is that the claims explains everything. (As the physicists say, a theory that explains everything explains nothing.)

Having said that, I strongly agree that if someone who defends science advocates responding to ID merely by saying that “it isn’t science” or that “it’s pseudoscience” and not being more vigorous in critique of it, that would be a bad idea.

You can do science by accident, as the engineers who won the Nobel prize for discovering the evidence that verified the big bang theory did (one of whom did not understand why he won until he returned from Sweden, prize in hand, then read a NYT article which explained what he accomplished in a way he could follow).

The irony, of course, is that this “wrapping” maneuver would disappear if we stopped putting such extraordinary emphasis on the term “science”, and concentrated on which claims are justifiable and which claims are not.

RBH: The "that's just semantics" retort is, in this context, totally bizarre. We're talking about a word, about the definition of a word, and you resort to accusing me of playing "semantic tricks"? This entire debate is about semantics. You seem to want to continue to use a prefix while totally ignoring the standard, accepted definition of the prefix.

In any case, I think you're overestimating the importance of the word "bollocks" for my argument. The simplest version of my argument goes like this:

1. We should not teach falsehoods in schools.
2. Creationism, as a theory, is a demonstrable falsehood.
3. Therefore, we should not teach creationism in schools.

I conclude that this is all we need. We do not need a demarcation to keep creationism out of schools, and when nobody has successfully performed the demarcation, it seems like a project that is worth abandoning.

Wheels:

You say: "It may be more productive to establish first that the IDists use pseudoscience rather than science".

I am a little confused about how we are supposed to "establish" this without criteria. If you mean "assume right off the bat", then you are never, ever going to convince a creationist (or any fair-minded person) that you're being fair and rational, because you're assuming right off the bat that their position is pseudoscience.

I mean, I could just stipulate in advance that you're a racist, and then use your features to determine what a racist actually is. But this would not in any way demonstrate that you ARE a racist, it would just be a crude logical trick on my part.

Nick Smyth said: Wheels: You say: "It may be more productive to establish first that the IDists use pseudoscience rather than science". I am a little confused about how we are supposed to "establish" this without criteria. If you mean "assume right off the bat", then you are never, ever going to convince a creationist (or any fair-minded person) that you're being fair and rational, because you're assuming right off the bat that their position is pseudoscience.

Nick Smyth said: The simplest version of my argument goes like this: 1. We should not teach falsehoods in schools. 2. Creationism, as a theory, is a demonstrable falsehood. 3. Therefore, we should not teach creationism in schools. I conclude that this is all we need. We do not need a demarcation to keep creationism out of schools;

and when nobody has successfully performed the demarcation, it seems like a project that is worth abandoning.

Nick Smyth said:

Generally Judge Jones this Judge Jones that, and you don't like it. Wrong, it's not Judge Jones and the trial ruling was proper. The Judge followed precedent and testimony given in the trial, including expert testimony, as he should have. You have a beef with the expert testimony and with the strategy chosen by the lawyers, not with the Judge. I think you can formulate your position that way.

Small detail: "Creationists assert that the earth is 8000 years old ...." You were responding to a statement about ID not YEC.

I think what you really want is that like other countries we should not deliberately teach false and dumb stuff in science class just because it is false and dumb, without needing some other reason not to teach it. We all agree with that. How do we get there from here?

Regarding ID, not only is science not what IDists as such do, the Wedge tells us that science is what they mean to do away with, and replace with something else.

Nick (Matzke) said: I tried posting this to Smyth's blog, but it's too long or something. Here are my thoughts: Hi Nick (Smyth) -- Nick Matzke here, I worked on the Dover case along with Pennock et al. I understand that your post is well-intentioned, but it really isn't very convincing. Primarily all of the important points on the demarcation issue have been made by Pennock 2009 in depth and with great force, and you haven't responded to them in any depth except for just reasserting all the same mistakes that Larry Laudan made and which Pennock points out, so I won't go over it all. But several very obvious things which you have apparently missed should be pointed out. Claim #1. "In the defense of progress and civilization, some very smart people are marshalling a weak and ill-defined concept which cannot support the rhetorical weight they have placed upon it. The cranks may one day discover that this is so, and they will immediately (and devastatingly) point to the irony involved in being called irrational by people who do not know what they are talking about." This warning is a bit late. The creationists have used the anti-demarcationist argument ever since Laudan first made it after the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas decision against "creation science." In fact, the ID people dependably cited Laudan's demarcation critique in virtually every single discussion they ever had of the McLean decision in the 1990s and 2000s. We knew they would do it in the Kitzmiller case, and they did. They quoted Laudan at trial. They read Laudan to Robert Pennock on cross, and he responded. They had their own philosopher of science (Steve Fuller) testify for their side. Well, so how did this devastating tactic, which you are so afraid of, work for them in court? It didn't!! The claim that science can't be distinguished from pseudoscience is just absurd on it's face in court. Courts do it *all the freakin' time*. **It's part of their job.** The Supreme Court put forward a number of guiding criteria in the famous Daubert case on the use of extra testimony. The criteria were explicitly put forward to help courts to discount "expert" testimony that was actually junk science. Furthermore, the claim that we can't tell science from pseudoscience, or that particular criteria aren't important, is easily rebutted on cross-examination. As Behe found out, if you loosen the definition of "scientific theory" enough so that something like astrology comes in, then you've effectively just refuted yourself. Another common bind the ID people, and other fans of anti-demarcationism, get into is self-contradiction. Like everyone else, they actually all know/agree that testability, peer-reviewed publication, reliability, etc. are good signs for scientific credibility, and the lack of these are bad signs. And a classic pattern with pseudoscientists is that they think science is right about the bogusness of all the other pseudosciences, it's just that it's made a mistake with their pet one. But when they say why the other ones are wrong, they invoke the same typical criteria everyone else uses too. Claim #2: "To put my position bluntly, the problem with creationism isn't that it's “pseudoscience”. The problem with creationism is that it's bollocks." If you can tell the difference between science and bollocks, you can tell the difference between science and pseudoscience in just the same way. That's pretty much what people mean by pseudoscience, perhaps with the only addition being something like "It's bollocks which some people are trying to give credibility by wrapping it in the aura of science." 3. "Take, for example, the second and third requirement. If we banish everyone who has either (2) seriously employed a false argument, or (3) has had some position refuted, it's hard to imagine that there will be many scientists left to speak of. These requirements are patently absurd." What, so now judges are not allowed to hear testimony and decide that one side's arguments don't work? In (2) and (3), Jones is just summarizing the points made extensively at trial, namely (2) the IC argument is just a negative argument against evolution, even if true it wouldn't establish that ID is correct, because "not evolution, therefore ID" is a contrived dualism ("contrived dualism" is a phrase that the judge in McLean used). And (3) just summarizes the point that the IC argument, and the other anti-evolution arguments that the ID movement used, were refuted in great detail at trial. The plaintiffs had days of testimony devoted to showing transitional fossils which refuted the claim that there were no transitional fossils, and showing biochemical intermediates which refuted the claim that biochemical intermediates to IC systems were impossible, and scientific literature on the evolution of "IC" systems which refuted the ID movement's claims that there was no scientific literature showing the evolution of IC systems (and note the ID movement trying to use a standard demarcationist argument against evolution! irony alert!). Nothing drives me more nuts in poorly-considered critiques of the Kitzmiller case than critisms that ignore the details of the massive amount of empirical, exhibit-ridden scientific testimony, and assume instead that the judge just went out for a walk one day and decided to judge certain things to be science or not on a total lark, or on the assertion of just one of the witnesses, Robert Pennock. Pennock was but 4 hours of a 6-week case, and but 4 hours of about 8 days of scientific direct and cross-examination from each side. 3. PS: Pretty please, for the love of the FSM, don't now jump to the claim that "You're saying that ID is both false and unfalsifiable!" This argument, again, was explicitly brought up at trial, discussed by Pennock in Pennock 2009, and explicitly mentioned in the decision. I.e.: ID's negative claims *about evolution* are testable and refutable, because they are claims about evolution, a specific theory with empirical implications and consequences. But all this says is that *evolution* is testable, which we already knew. ID's positive claims *about the 'explanation' of ID* are so vague and unconstrained as to hardly even exist, and as such are not testable. 4. "Want to keep creationism out of schools? Point out that we shouldn't teach bollocks in schools, and that constitutional freedom of religion cannot imply that false things should be taught as if they were true things." It's true that we shouldn't teach bollocks in schools. That is a (rationally) effective moral argument, and a (somewhat less) effective political argument. But it has jack squat to do with the Constitutional prohibition on establishment of religion. The Constitution bans governmental promotion of particular religious or anti-religious views, whether they are bollocks or not. Pseudoscience is totally cool, Constitutionally speaking. The Constitution won't stop the public schools from teaching about Bigfoot. One might argue that the Constitution *should* have been written differently, but that's a different argument. So, some people who think they're being clever then proceed to ask: "Hey! That's right! All the Kitzmiller folks needed to do was show that ID was religious, they didn't have to get into the oh-so-mysterious question of what science is! They could have avoided all of that deep philosophical water entirely!" Clever, but totally ignorant of the facts of the case, which were: a. The plaintiffs filed suit asserting that teaching ID was a constitutional violation of church-state separation. b. The *Defense* then argued, *in their official Reply*, that, no, ID wasn't teaching religion in science class, because, actually, it's teaching science in science class! That argument was the Defense's defense! c. Faced with this Defense, the plaintiffs had no choice but to rebut it. Which was done. Extremely effectively. But apparently a few people think they know better, and that the "ID is science" claim should have just been allowed to pass unchallenged, apparently mostly because Larry Laudan said some incredibly naive things about a previous court case 20+ years ago. In other words, it's the ID movement's fault that science came up in the case, and it's their own fault that they were hoisted on their own scientific petard. The moral of the story is, don't claim you've got a scientific theory unless you can back it up and show it's ready for prime-time. At least, don't do it in court, where the whole point of the exercise is to decide a specific legal question after a thorough-but-not-endless examination of the evidence. Point #5 Lastly, words like "true", "false", "right", "wrong", etc. tend to get used in a very binary way by anti-demarcationists. I.e., they seem to have the view, which is totally freaking absurd in many real-life situations, that claims are either all true or all false. They seem to have lost the gene for approximation -- even though approximation is absolutely central to understanding truth statements in science (or law). Thus, I close with the following: ----------------------------------------------------- "[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov (1989). "The Relativity of Wrong." The Skeptical Inquirer, 14(1), 35-44. Fall 1989. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm ==================================================== Thanks for letting me comment. Forgive my sharp tone, I don't have any hostility towards Nick who is obviously sincere and on the right side of the evolution/creationism issue for instance. But he did make some blanket statements about how the Kitzmiller decision and its fans were full of it, and thems' fightin' words, so I replied in kind. So anyway, if you're ever in Berkeley, let's have a beer. ;-)

Thanks, Ray. I think you've brought up another point we can add to the list: accusations of bias by the mainstream, not just rejection of their views or accusation of persecution.

Ray Martinez said: Nick: your criteria for deciding what science is, is altogether predictable and shallow: based on bias. All Federal Judges are Darwinists, evolutionists. Their "rulings" are predetermined. Darwinian Judge Jones ruled as expected.

Here he is again.

Judge Jones ruled against creationism. Ray sez Judge Jones did it because the judge is a "Darwinist". How does Ray know that Judge Jones is a "Darwinist"? Why, sez Ray, he ruled against creationism, didn't he? Round and round and round we go.

Attempts to define science rigorously (and hence exclude non-science, including non-science that attempts to mimic science) are set about with thorny problems. This is common to all human activities. Try defining art, for example, or music, or religion, or science fiction, or poetry. Always you run into edge cases and boundary conditions, difficulties in precise distinctions, apparent counter-examples.

Ray thinks that because there is difficulty in definition, that there is no definition at all. Garbage, Ray. It's interesting to debate the matter, but no definition of science that could ever be adopted - or allowed for an instant - would include the magic non-realism of creationism.

And as a final monument to the chaotic shambles of unintelligible confusion that passes for Ray's thought processes, we have him actually coming out and saying that creationism was here first, and that means that it can't be revised. Or something. Idiot.

Darwinian Judge Jones ruled as expected.

— Ray Martinez

I’m not sure that’s the case. Just because they do a lot of things “right” doesn’t mean that the response has been wrong.

— harold

Ray wrote:

"Nick: your criteria for deciding what science is, is altogether predictable and shallow: based on bias. All Federal Judges are Darwinists, evolutionists. Their “rulings” are predetermined. Darwinian Judge Jones ruled as expected."

Really. Then perhaps, oh fount of knowledge, oh oracle of truth, perhaps you could give us your definition of science. Perhaps you could explain why no real scientist seems to agree with you. Perhaps you could explain how the judge and everyone else could get it so wrong. Perhaps you could tell us if you agree with Behe that astroloigy should be considered science. Perhaps you can tell us how your definition would allow for the teaching of creationism in public schools? Perhaas you could explain why everyone except you is so biased. Perhaps not.

In any event, if the ruling was so predictable, then why did these yahoos waste all their time and effort? Why did they take the case to court? Why did they have to commit perjury under oath? Why did they lie for Jesus if they already knew they could not win? Why did they waste all that money if they knew they were doomed from the start? Why don't they move to another country if they they don't like the constitution in this one?

As for creationism being here first, that is certainly true but irrelevent. Do you really want to return to the dark ages or are you just yanking chains? Do you really think that redefining science will improve it, or do you care about what happens this planet at all?

Mike Elzinga said: The issue comes down to the fact that any fool or klutz can falsify anything just by sheer incompetence. There is a lot more to interrogating Nature than most fools know.

Steven Dunlap said: A friend who trained as a bio-medical engineer once remarked that if God were an engineer, he'd fire him. The "design flaws" in just the human body alone could make for a lengthy post. I used my sideways wisdom tooth as an illustration and not as proof in itself.

Really. Then perhaps, oh fount of knowledge, oh oracle of truth, perhaps you could give us your definition of science.

— DS

Our job is to be ready to point out how “design flaws” are the product of evolution, not an intelligent or unintelligent designer.

— Paul Burnett

Ray whines... Nick: your criteria for deciding what science is, is altogether predictable and shallow: based on bias. All Federal Judges are Darwinists, evolutionists. Their “rulings” are predetermined. Darwinian Judge Jones ruled as expected.

Frank J said:

Our job is to be ready to point out how “design flaws” are the product of evolution, not an intelligent or unintelligent designer.

— Paul Burnett

Good point. Too often a critic of ID/creationism "takes the bait" and argues that "an intelligent designer would not do it that way". An intelligent (& almighty) designer can do it any way he/she/it wants, and perhaps an unintelligent (or incompetent) designer could do it that way. But those 2 claims are useless at best. If the audience is predisposed to believing that a particular designer "did it" whatever "it" is, the onus must be on the anti-evolution activist to spell out what their designer did, when, and how, if not by evolution.

Eventually, (or so I hope) this will lead to a “It’s turtles all the way down” sort of statement on their part showing the ridiculousness of the whole ID argument.

— Steven Dunlap

Frank J said: The ID version of "turtles all the way down" is that "Darwinists" are all involved in a "conspiracy" to "censor" dissent and protect an "atheistic" theory that leads to Nazism.

Steven Dunlap said: As for Paul Burnettt's statement, above, I agree in principle but in arguments with ID people they often resort to the "it's a matter of interpretation" argument, making any explanation of how traits result from evolution pretty much lost on the audience.

I may be responsible for alerting Ray to this thread and I beg forgiveness.

I had (how stupid of me)a slight hope he might realize the subject was far beyond his capability to discuss.

Won't ever do it again.

Rolf Aalberg said: Won't ever do it again.

At least Ray can be instructive; an example (albeit somewhat extreme) in the kind of reason-trumping, wishful thinking that allows pseudoscience to flourish.

Wheels said: ... albeit somewhat extreme ....

Mike Elzinga said:

Ray Martinez said: Nick: your criteria for deciding what science is, is altogether predictable and shallow: based on bias. All Federal Judges are Darwinists, evolutionists. Their "rulings" are predetermined. Darwinian Judge Jones ruled as expected.

This complaint is simply more evidence that ID/creationists are totally unaware of how the real world works. Science and evidence are so far beyond their understanding that they think all those non-sectarian evildoers are messing with their minds and their imaginary concepts. ID/creationists live in the closed dungeon of their own minds.

Dave Luckett said: Here he is again. Judge Jones ruled against creationism. Ray sez Judge Jones did it because the judge is a "Darwinist". How does Ray know that Judge Jones is a "Darwinist"? Why, sez Ray, he ruled against creationism, didn't he? Round and round and round we go.

Attempts to define science rigorously (and hence exclude non-science, including non-science that attempts to mimic science) are set about with thorny problems. This is common to all human activities. Try defining art, for example, or music, or religion, or science fiction, or poetry. Always you run into edge cases and boundary conditions, difficulties in precise distinctions, apparent counter-examples. Ray thinks that because there is difficulty in definition, that there is no definition at all. Garbage, Ray. It's interesting to debate the matter, but no definition of science that could ever be adopted - or allowed for an instant - would include the magic non-realism of creationism.

And as a final monument to the chaotic shambles of unintelligible confusion that passes for Ray's thought processes [SNIP....]

"Hump? What hump?"

Frank J said:

Darwinian Judge Jones ruled as expected.

— Ray Martinez

Expected by you, but not by Dembski. Why didn't you alert him? Were you already banned from his blog? Oh wait. Maybe you did alert him, which may be why he chickened out of testifying after proclaiming an almost certain victory.

Hey Ray, you forgot:

"Could we expect a 'Darwinist' not to ask us simple questions that we refuse to answer?"

I'm still waiting. What are you afraid of? If you're so confident about your "theory" you should be able to support it on its own merits.

DS said: Ray wrote: "Nick: your criteria for deciding what science is, is altogether predictable and shallow: based on bias. All Federal Judges are Darwinists, evolutionists. Their “rulings” are predetermined. Darwinian Judge Jones ruled as expected." Really. Then perhaps, oh fount of knowledge, oh oracle of truth, perhaps you could give us your definition of science.

Perhaps you could explain why no real scientist seems to agree with you. Perhaps you could explain how the judge and everyone else could get it so wrong.

[SNIP....] Perhaps you can tell us how your definition would allow for the teaching of creationism in public schools? [SNIP....]

In any event, if the ruling was so predictable, then why did these yahoos waste all their time and effort? Why did they take the case to court?

Why did they have to commit perjury under oath? Why did they lie for Jesus if they already knew they could not win? Why did they waste all that money if they knew they were doomed from the start? Why don't they move to another country if they they don't like the constitution in this one?

How do you know that Judge Jones lied for Darwin? Because of the testimony of Dembski's farting video?

Good point. Too often a critic of ID/creationism “takes the bait” and argues that “an intelligent designer would not do it that way”. An intelligent (& almighty) designer can do it any way he/she/it wants, and perhaps an unintelligent (or incompetent) designer could do it that way. But those 2 claims are useless at best. If the audience is predisposed to believing that a particular designer “did it” whatever “it” is, the onus must be on the anti-evolution activist to spell out what their designer did, when, and how, if not by evolution.

Ray Martinez said: The "ruling" of Judge Jones was predetermined since he has been a Darwinist since college.

Ray wrote (lots of nonsense):

"We have the same criteria as Nick Matzke: worldview bias. The point is: we can admit, Matzke cannot."

So your answer is no, you have no useful definition of science. Thought not.

"Darwinists cannot ever be expected to agree with Creationists."

Sure, but that doesn't make creationists right.

"My definition says Creationism is science because it is scientifically true. Darwinists say the exact opposite (quite predictably). Their belief is held as true because all Federal Judges are Darwinists."

So science is what's true? Really? And just how do you go about determining that? Oh yea, I forgot, your worldview. No mention of evidence or statistical analysis or level of confidence for you, right. No experiments, data or data analysis. Well, how many genetic diseases has your "worldview" found a cure for? How many do you think it will find?

"Because they made a bad mistake in judgement. They actually forgot that all Federal Judges are Darwinists. If Jones had ruled in favor of ID then Darwinists would be making my argument in reverse."

Well I guess they won't make that mistake again. I guess they will never break the law by teaching creationism in public school again. I guess they will never defy the Constitution while there are any federal judges left to stop them. Terrific.

"Jones lied for Charlie."

Really? Exactly what did he lie about? Exactly why did he do this? Can you say projection? He got mad because the defendant's committed perjury under oath you twit. You really do have trouble dealing with reality don't you?

"The fact that Jones sided with the AtheistCLU tells any honest and objective person that Jones is an Atheist."

The fact that anyone would make such a foolish and illogical statement tells any honest and objective person that that person is seriously deluded. Denial ain't just a river in Africa.

stevaroni said:

Ray whines... Nick: your criteria for deciding what science is, is altogether predictable and shallow: based on bias. All Federal Judges are Darwinists, evolutionists. Their “rulings” are predetermined. Darwinian Judge Jones ruled as expected.

Classic. Nick writes a detailed post of 1625 words, with 5 specific bullet points and several external references. Ray responds with conspiracy theories, while completely avoids addressing Nicks points. Wouldn't want to let those pesky facts get in the way of a good persecution complex. Creationism in a nutshell.

"When it doesn't smell any more, you're in it up to the eyes."

Stanton said: How do you know that Judge Jones lied for Darwin? [SNIP....]

Judge Jones’ ruling was not predetermined but based on what was presented in his court

Ray,

Apparently you didn't read or understand my reply either. Here, I'll spell it out for you:

The evidence is all that is important, not worldview, not political beliefs, not religious affiliation, nothing but the evidence. You have not even considered the idea of evidence in your "definition" of science. Why would anyone take you seriously?

Judge Jones was persuaded by the evidence. You have not addressed any of that evidence. You want everyone to ignore all of that evidence just because you cry discrimination or bias. No one is fooled by that. You can cry sour grapes all you want, no one cares. Deal with the evidence or shut up and go away.

Of course you have absolutely no evidence. No one has missed that point either. Creationists had the perfect chance to present evidence in court, they did not, I wonder why? Maybe the biased judge prevented them from presenting it. Yea, right.

DS said: [Ray Martinez:] "Jones lied for Charlie." Really? Exactly what did he lie about? Exactly why did he do this?

[SNIP....] He got mad because the defendant's committed perjury under oath you twit. You really do have trouble dealing with reality don't you?

Ray Martinez said:

Stanton said: How do you know that Judge Jones lied for Darwin? [SNIP....]

Because he ruled in favor of the AtheistCLU.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: [Ray Martinez:] "Jones lied for Charlie." Really? Exactly what did he lie about? Exactly why did he do this?

He lied when he ruled that ID is not science and when he ruled that Christianity is compatible with evolution.

DS said: Ray, Apparently you didn't read or understand my reply either. Here, I'll spell it out for you: The evidence is all that is important, not worldview, not political beliefs, not religious affiliation, nothing but the evidence. You have not even considered the idea of evidence in your "definition" of science. Why would anyone take you seriously?

Judge Jones was persuaded by the evidence.

You have not addressed any of that evidence. You want everyone to ignore all of that evidence just because you cry discrimination or bias. [SNIP....]

"Hump? What hump?"

You have not explained to us how Creationism is scientific. You have not shown us any experiments done using only Creationism.

Stanton said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: [Ray Martinez:] "Jones lied for Charlie." Really? Exactly what did he lie about? Exactly why did he do this?

He lied when he ruled that ID is not science and when he ruled that Christianity is compatible with evolution.

Then how come Intelligent Design proponents have yet to demonstrate that Intelligent Design is a science, despite having over 20 years to do so, and if Christianity is incompatible with Evolution, then how come the last two Popes did not get the memo? Oh, wait, it's because you're a troll.

Ray Martinez said:

Stanton said: How do you know that Judge Jones lied for Darwin? [SNIP....]

Because he ruled in favor of the AtheistCLU.

Ray whines... I did. I said that Creationism is scientifically true. Of course this means that evolution is scientifically false.

Ray Martinez said: Protestants do not accept Papal authority---in any way, shape or form. That was the whole reason for the Reformation. Imagine that; the Vicar of Christ siding with the same theory that Richard Dawkins rabidly accepts? The Pope is a dope.

stevaroni said:

Ray whines... I did. I said that Creationism is scientifically true. Of course this means that evolution is scientifically false.

Yes, Ray. You said a lot of things. But, unlike evolution, you back none of them up with any actual evidence.

Stanton said: You have not explained to us how Creationism is scientific. You have not shown us any experiments done using only Creationism.

Ray,

So science is whatever you say it is, anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a liar and you don"t need any evidence at all for any claim you make.

OK, I'll play. How about this:

Science is whatever I say it is and I says creationism ain't science. If you disagree with me you are a liar and I don't need no stinkin evidence, so just piss off.

Now see how easy that was. I'm right and you're wrong just cause I says so, so there. You can't argue with that logic, just go ahead and try.

DS said: Ray, So science is whatever you say it is, anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a liar and you don"t need any evidence at all for any claim you make. OK, I'll play. How about this: Science is whatever I say it is and I says creationism ain't science. If you disagree with me you are a liar and I don't need no stinkin evidence, so just piss off. Now see how easy that was. I'm right and you're wrong just cause I says so, so there. You can't argue with that logic, just go ahead and try.

Stanton said:

Ray Martinez said: Protestants do not accept Papal authority---in any way, shape or form. That was the whole reason for the Reformation. Imagine that; the Vicar of Christ siding with the same theory that Richard Dawkins rabidly accepts? The Pope is a dope.

So you're saying the Pope is not Christian, or are you saying you know better about Christianity than the Pope?

Ray comments several more times...

But, um, still doesn't put any actual evidence on the table...

Just sayin....

We understand perfectly that you revel in being an idiotic, religious bigot, now go away.

stevaroni said: Ray comments several more times... But, um, still doesn't put any actual evidence on the table... Just sayin....

Ya'll take this guy seriously? Really?

wile coyote said: Ya'll take this guy seriously? Really?

Ray,

"As I have been saying, from Creationist perspective, that is Matzke’s entire argument."

Um, you do know don't you that Nick published a paper destroying the creationist flagellum nonsense in a peer reviewed journal article? The argument I was ridculing was yours and yours alone. That is the argument you are making. It is not the argument Nick or any scientist made or would make.

But then again, you wouldn't understand that would you? You still haven't presented any evidence whatsoever and you still haven't refuted any evidence presented in the trial. Can you refute the paper Nick published? Thought not. Your "worldview" still hasn't cured any diseases and it never will. Sad thing is, that's the way you want it. More is the pity.

No rational person would take your argument seriously. And if they did, then I have already refuted your position using your own inevitable logic.

wile coyote said: Ya'll take this guy seriously? Really?

Go away? He likes to argue, you like to argue -- everyone's happy.

Ray Martinez said: The “ruling” of Judge Jones was predetermined since he has been a Darwinist since college.

Simply put - a college education predisposes one to understand and accept science.

wile coyote said: Go away? He likes to argue, you like to argue -- everyone's happy.

Frank J said: ... sooner or later ...

Ray Martinez said: The “ruling” of Judge Jones was predetermined since he has been a Darwinist since college.

Well, of course prejudice has something to do with it. As a colleague of mine like to put it: "I'm bigoted. I hate stupid people."

Henry J said:

Judge Jones’ ruling was not predetermined but based on what was presented in his court

I dunno - given that the I.D. side had no case, and anybody who'd been paying attention knew it, it looks to me like the correct decision was never in question.

And Jones ended up with people threatening to kill him. He commented that he would have expected such on a drug trial, but was astounded to get it on an Establishment Clause case.

Ray Martinez said: Protestants do not accept Papal authority---in any way, shape or form. That was the whole reason for the Reformation. Imagine that; the Vicar of Christ siding with the same theory that Richard Dawkins rabidly accepts? The Pope is a dope.

Sylvilagus said: Are you seriously suggesting that just because Dawkins accepts a theory, Christians must reject it?

Setting that aside, I'm not a big fan of the Pope, but I doubt seriously he is a dope. Is everyone who has a different opinion than you treated to the same disrespect?

Or is this just bigotry on your part towards others who espouse a Christianity you reject?

Ray Martinez said:

Frank J said:

Darwinian Judge Jones ruled as expected.

— Ray Martinez

Expected by you, but not by Dembski. Why didn't you alert him? Were you already banned from his blog? Oh wait. Maybe you did alert him, which may be why he chickened out of testifying after proclaiming an almost certain victory.

Dembski got fooled by Jones's alleged status as a Christian-Conservative. The fact that Jones sided with the AtheistCLU tells any honest and objective person that Jones is an Atheist. Like a lot of Atheists, Jones wears sheeps clothing. He perfectly embodies the agenda and m.o. of Satan.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Ray, Apparently you didn't read or understand my reply either. Here, I'll spell it out for you: The evidence is all that is important, not worldview, not political beliefs, not religious affiliation, nothing but the evidence. You have not even considered the idea of evidence in your "definition" of science. Why would anyone take you seriously?

I did. I said that Creationism is scientifically true. Of course this means that evolution is scientifically false. Only Darwinists believe evolution is true. Only Darwinists believe there is evidence of evolution. Creationism is true because the evidence says Creator-did-it, not unintelligent process that only exists in the deluded minds of Darwinists.

Judge Jones was persuaded by the evidence.

False. Since Jones has been a Darwinist since college, his ruling was predetermined.

You have not addressed any of that evidence. You want everyone to ignore all of that evidence just because you cry discrimination or bias. [SNIP....]

No one is crying. We have pointed out a self-evident fact: Matzke's "criteria" for deciding what science is is the predictable and predetermined opinions of Darwinists. You cannot defeat the sad fact except by egregious evasion and misrepresentation.

I said that Creationism is scientifically true. Of course this means that evolution is scientifically false.

— Ray Martinez

3. How evolution proceeds despite the barriers to speciation. >(And how much research have you done to see how biologists have addressed them?) In my fifth year of full time research. >4. When were Salmonella, Giardia, and ichneumonid wasps created, and by whom or what? "When" is irrelevant to Creationism. Creationism is an explanation of scientific evidence that says "Creator-did-it." The evidence says each species was caused to exist by Divine power operating in reality. Ichneumonid wasps are fascinating. Charles Darwin said their existence is good evidence against Creationism. I will explain, in my paper, how the exact opposite is true.

Ray wrote:

"I did. I said that Creationism is scientifically true. Of course this means that evolution is scientifically false. Only Darwinists believe evolution is true. Only Darwinists believe there is evidence of evolution. Creationism is true because the evidence says Creator-did-it, not unintelligent process that only exists in the deluded minds of Darwinists."

Right Ray, and I say that evolution is true and creationism is false, so you lose if you think that that is a valid argument. The difference is that I actually have evidence, you know, the evidence presented at the trial, the evidence that you still refuse to acknowledge, the evidence that the creationists didn't present, the evidence that you say only exists in someone's mind but is right there in the scientific literature and the trial transcritpts. You are the only one whose evidence exists only in your mind, if not then let's see it.

"False. Since Jones has been a Darwinist since college, his ruling was predetermined."

False. Judge Jones was persuaded by the evidence. Since the creationists presented no evidence, he really had no choice. Your accusation of bias exists only in your mind.

"No one is crying. We have pointed out a self-evident fact: Matzke’s “criteria” for deciding what science is is the predictable and predetermined opinions of Darwinists."

No, "we" haven't. That is the argument you used. No one agreed with you. You're dead wrong. And once again, you have presented exactly zero evidence for your ridiculous claim.

"You cannot defeat the sad fact except by egregious evasion and misrepresentation."

Once again, pure projection. You have no evidence. You ignore all evidence. You are the one who evades and misrepresents. You are not a true christian and you are not a true creationist, not by my definition, which I'm not going to tell you, so there. Piss off.

“When” is irrelevant to Creationism.

Ray Martinez Wrote: I said that Creationism is scientifically true. Of course this means that evolution is scientifically false.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Ray wrote:

"How evolution proceeds despite the barriers to speciation."

Well Ray, species can be defince by genetic discontinuity, therefore the only possible barrier to speciation would be interbreeding. Gee, I guess there is absolutely no way to prevent that huh? That and the fact that speciation has been observed and the mechanisms are well known means you are once again completely wrong. Unless of course you have some evidence to support your ridiculous assertation. Thought not.

"Ichneumonid wasps are fascinating. Charles Darwin said their existence is good evidence against Creationism. I will explain, in my paper, how the exact opposite is true."

Man I can't wait. A real honest to goodness "paper" from Ray. I bet it has lots of evidence in it. I bet he has lots of genetic data and developmental data. Oh wait, this is the guy that thinks that his worldview is evidence of something. Never mind. Maybe if he publshes it in a peer reviewed scientific journal someone will care. Maybe not.

As for the wasps, Darwin had trouble seeing how a loving, caring God could create such disgusting creatures to reign terror on innocent and unsuspecting larvae. The larvae are devoured alive from the inside out in the most grotesque way possible. Some of the adaptations are truly insidious. Apparently Ray's worldview is consistent wth such a malevolent and capricious diety. Who cares?

Maybe he'll co-publish with Paul Nelson and his "ontogenetic depth" iconoclastic blockbuster.

A person cannot be all three at the same time: intelligent, Christian, and accept evolutionary theory.

Bull! i am all three and I am really getting tired of eegotistical IDiots like you trying to tell me what I am.

nmgirl said: A person cannot be all three at the same time: intelligent, Christian, and accept evolutionary theory. Bull! i am all three and I am really getting tired of eegotistical IDiots like you trying to tell me what I am.

fnxtr said: Maybe he'll co-publish with Paul Nelson and his "ontogenetic depth" iconoclastic blockbuster.

Ray wrote:

"A person cannot be all three at the same time: intelligent, Christian, and accept evolutionary theory."

Well, assuming the first to be true, the third necessarily follows, therefore number two would have to be the one to go, if any. Not that anyone really has to choose.

Ray on the other hand, doesn't qualify for one, assumes two and on that basis rejects three. So what? I guess, since he will never give up his "faith" and he will never question his own "intelligence" he will never allow himself to condsider the possibility that evolution might be true. Now there is a guy who allows his own inane "worldview" to dictate his scientific beliefs, the very thing he accuses others of. A blacker pot there never was.

Frank J said:

fnxtr said: Maybe he'll co-publish with Paul Nelson and his "ontogenetic depth" iconoclastic blockbuster.

Nah. Competition might speed things up. Nelson in 2004 promised to explain OD "any day now," and in 2007 Ray promised that his paper would be out by the end of the year.

nmgirl said: A person cannot be all three at the same time: intelligent, Christian, and accept evolutionary theory. Bull! i am all three and I am really getting tired of eegotistical IDiots like you trying to tell me what I am.

stevaroni said:

Ray Martinez said: The “ruling” of Judge Jones was predetermined since he has been a Darwinist since college.

Yeah, ya gotta watch those unanimously confirmed Republican appointees with a long prior history of conservatism - some would say prudism - in his prior career as chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. He was an elder in his church and a Boy Scout leader for cryin' out loud! How many flags could you want? Of course he's going to throw the game because of his liberal biases! What else could we have possibly expected when a man like this man reached the bench and had to decide a factual question after reviewing weeks and weeks of data that all went one way?

Ray Martinez said:

nmgirl said: A person cannot be all three at the same time: intelligent, Christian, and accept evolutionary theory. Bull! i am all three and I am really getting tired of eegotistical IDiots like you trying to tell me what I am.

Christians accept the Biblical view of biological production, not the view that Richard Dawkins accepts. The fact that you accept the view that Dawkins accepts is THE EVIDENCE disproving your claim that you are a Christian.

Stanton said: You have not explained to us how Creationism is scientific. You have not shown us any experiments done using only Creationism.

Is FL a Ray Martinez sock puppet, or is Ray Martinez a FL sock puppet? They're both fascinated with the idea that, if they get to define "evolution" and "Christianity" however they want, they win the "Christianity is incompatible with evolution" argument by default. Who cares? Certainly not the tens of thousands of working biologists who advance the science of evolution each day, nor the vast majority of two billion Christians who go about their lives totally unconcerned with the kind of narrow, insipid judgments RM and FL would pass on them.

Ray Martinez said: His ruling in favor of the AtheistCLU and Darwinism makes Jones is a Darwinist. This fact makes his "decision" predetermined. This fact also dictates that Jones is a wolf in sheeps clothing (= Atheist).

Ray Martinez said:

Stanton said: You have not explained to us how Creationism is scientific. You have not shown us any experiments done using only Creationism.

I offer the exact same criteria that Nick Matzke offers: the predictable and predetermined opinions and conclusions of Darwinists. Again, only Darwinists, as one would expect, think evolution is science. Creationists, as one would expect, think Creationism is science. We do so because the evidence supports Creator-did-it, not evolution-natural-selection-did-it. Nick Matzke has been exposed. His long-winded message is hot air, extravagant question begging from start to finish. Unless you had told me that Nick has a degree I wouldn't have known it by reading his essay.

His ruling in favor of the AtheistCLU and Darwinism makes Jones is a Darwinist.

Thanks Ray. Now I understand. Only scientists accept science as science.

stevaroni said:

His ruling in favor of the AtheistCLU and Darwinism makes Jones a Darwinist.

Or, maybe he's just an honest man who took seriously his oaths to decide cases based on facts. Naw, couldn't be that. After all "thou shalt bear false witness" can't possibly apply to deciding creationism cases, right, Ray?

mplavcan said: Thanks Ray. Now I understand. Only scientists accept science as science.

Your argument presupposes a Federal Judge ignorant, uneducated, not having a previously held opinion about Darwinism-ID until the Dover trial.

Ray wrote:

"I offer the exact same criteria that Nick Matzke offers: the predictable and predetermined opinions and conclusions of Darwinists."

As has been pointed out to you Nick never did this. Nick provided evidence. You are the only one who is doing this, cut it out already.

"Again, only Darwinists, as one would expect, think evolution is science."

Really, so no physicist accepts evolution as science? No chemist, no mathematician, no one except those who you label "darwinisats"? Unless of course you label anyone who accepts evolution for any reason a "darwinist". In that case, the statement becomes a meaningless tautology. So what? Who cares?

"Creationists, as one would expect, think Creationism is science. We do so because the evidence supports Creator-did-it, not evolution-natural-selection-did-it."

Creationists can think whatever they want, that doesn't make them right. They have no evidence. They are not doing science. Ignoring all of the evidence will not get you anywhere.

"Nick Matzke has been exposed. His long-winded message is hot air, extravagant question begging from start to finish. Unless you had told me that Nick has a degree I wouldn’t have known it by reading his essay."

Really? So, exactly what gives you the right to judge Nick? What is your degree in? Remember, your opinion is irrelevant, the opinion of the judge is all that matters and he disagrees with you. Too bad. Deal with it.

It's really rather hilarious to find Ray assuming that a knowledgeable and educated man would necessarily accept the Theory of Evolution. It's that pesky education, Ray! First thing to go, come the Rapture!

What the hell is “Biblical view of biological production”? Are you talking about David and Bathsheba having sex? or Cain and Abel having to marry their sisters? Another troll on another thread I post on goes on and on about "biblical Christianity" and I don't know what that is either. :ast week I saw a sign advertising " environmental agriculture" It's a meaningless phrase just like the other examples above.

Ray's logic: "He's a 'Darwinist'. 'Darwinists' deny creation. They do it because they're 'Darwinists'. He denied creation. Therefore he's a 'Darwinist'."

Driver, can I get off at the next stop? I'm feeling a little dizzy.

Another thing I find interesting is that the IDiots like to impugn Judge Jones but no one has filed an appeal of his decision. If he was guilty of such horrendous judicial error and it can be proved, why wasn't the decision appealed? Just another unanswered question in paradise.

nmgirl said: Another thing I find interesting is that the IDiots like to impugn Judge Jones but no one has filed an appeal of his decision. If he was guilty of such horrendous judicial error and it can be proved, why wasn't the decision appealed? Just another unanswered question in paradise.

Stanton said:

nmgirl said: Another thing I find interesting is that the IDiots like to impugn Judge Jones but no one has filed an appeal of his decision. If he was guilty of such horrendous judicial error and it can be proved, why wasn't the decision appealed? Just another unanswered question in paradise.

They just want to smear his good name because they don't like him. They would provide evidence, but, they're allergic to evidence, so they'll just settle for fart videos and whipping up their faithful stupid followers to send more death threats.

Ray Martinez said:

mplavcan said: Thanks Ray. Now I understand. Only scientists accept science as science.

Correction: only Darwinists, as one would expect, hold evolution to be scientific and creationism to be unscientific, pseudoscience.

Maybe they’re both closet believers in the “day-age” model …

— SWT

Is FL a Ray Martinez sock puppet, or is Ray Martinez a FL sock puppet?

— ben

nmgirl said: Another thing I find interesting is that the IDiots like to impugn Judge Jones but no one has filed an appeal of his decision. If he was guilty of such horrendous judicial error and it can be proved, why wasn't the decision appealed? Just another unanswered question in paradise.

nmgirl said: Another thing I find interesting is that the IDiots like to impugn Judge Jones but no one has filed an appeal of his decision.

Ray Martinez said: Again, only Darwinists, as one would expect, think evolution is science. Creationists, as one would expect, think Creationism is science. We do so because the evidence supports Creator-did-it, not evolution-natural-selection-did-it.

Keep hammering Ray on what biblical science is - that’s a much better unanswered question. :)

— eric

nmgirl said: Another thing I find interesting is that the IDiots like to impugn Judge Jones but no one has filed an appeal of his decision. If he was guilty of such horrendous judicial error and it can be proved, why wasn't the decision appealed? Just another unanswered question in paradise.

Judge Jones and the AtheistCLU have yet to pursue their claims of perjury. Do you know why?

Ray Martinez said:

nmgirl said: Another thing I find interesting is that the IDiots like to impugn Judge Jones but no one has filed an appeal of his decision. If he was guilty of such horrendous judicial error and it can be proved, why wasn't the decision appealed? Just another unanswered question in paradise.

Good point. But IDists now get the point: they have no chance since ALL Federal Judges are Darwinists. Judge Jones and the AtheistCLU have yet to pursue their claims of perjury. Do you know why? Answer: because such a pursuit would place the laser beam back on their lies too, that is, the lie that evolution and Christianity are compatible. Every evolution witness who testified that the two are compatible straight out lied. Judge Jones lied when he pretended that the lie was true. It is common knowledge that Naturalism, the ideology of evolution, is not compatible with Theism. Naturalism assumes God is absent from nature---that is why evolution is necessary. Again, the lies of Jones and the AtheistCLU are brazen. One day this illegal ruling will be reversed.

Ray Martinez said:

nmgirl said: Another thing I find interesting is that the IDiots like to impugn Judge Jones but no one has filed an appeal of his decision. If he was guilty of such horrendous judicial error and it can be proved, why wasn't the decision appealed? Just another unanswered question in paradise.

Good point. But IDists now get the point: they have no chance since ALL Federal Judges are Darwinists. Judge Jones and the AtheistCLU have yet to pursue their claims of perjury. Do you know why? Answer: because such a pursuit would place the laser beam back on their lies too, that is, the lie that evolution and Christianity are compatible. Every evolution witness who testified that the two are compatible straight out lied. Judge Jones lied when he pretended that the lie was true. It is common knowledge that Naturalism, the ideology of evolution, is not compatible with Theism. Naturalism assumes God is absent from nature---that is why evolution is necessary. Again, the lies of Jones and the AtheistCLU are brazen. One day this illegal ruling will be reversed.

stevaroni said: Ummm, because they're busy living actual lives?

Ray wrote:

"Judge Jones and the AtheistCLU have yet to pursue their claims of perjury. Do you know why?"

Yes I do. They followed the teachings of Jesus and showed a little compassion to guys who lost. They could have tried to throw them in jail, but they didn't. They probably would have succeeded, then you would be crying even more crocodile tears.

If you think that Judge Jones made the wrong decision, that's too bad. you cannot appeal. If you think that he committed perjury, that's too bad, it's not even possible. Do you deny that the defendent's committed perjury? Do you deny that they should be in jail?

As for the ruling being reversed. if ALL federal judges are "darwinists" that seems highly unlikely. The evil "darwiist" conspiracy is all-powerful, you cannot stand against it, don't even try. Only those who such as yourself, whose views are incompatible with reality, are the real liars.

Ray Martinez said: Judge Jones and the AtheistCLU have yet to pursue their claims of perjury. Do you know why?

It is common knowledge that Naturalism, the ideology of evolution, is not compatible with Theism.

eric said: Wrong in fact. Jones did pursue perjury charges to the best of his ability. He submitted his findings to the DA and recommended that Ohio charge Buckingham and Bonsell with perjury. That is all he could legally do; it was up to the DA - not judge Jones - to decide whether to bring suit.

Ray Martinez said:

nmgirl said: A person cannot be all three at the same time: intelligent, Christian, and accept evolutionary theory. Bull! i am all three and I am really getting tired of eegotistical IDiots like you trying to tell me what I am.

Christians accept the Biblical view of biological production, not the view that Richard Dawkins accepts. The fact that you accept the view that Dawkins accepts is THE EVIDENCE disproving your claim that you are a Christian.

here were only a few them. We know the human race consists of more than just clones of a few genotypes. Put all this together and what do you get? Descent with modification! Its right there in Genesis - theistically compatible evolution!

Ray wrote:

"It is common knowledge that Naturalism, the ideology of evolution, is not compatible with Theism."

Really? So I guess no one who believes in any scientific theory can believe in God? Not the theory of gravity, not cosmology, not meterology, not geology, not electromagnetics, not nuclear physics. not chemistry, not the study of lighning, not the study of earth quakes, not the science of medicine, not genetics, not any field that is based on "naturalism? Are you willing to live without those things Ray? Are you willing to force others to live without them? More is the pity.

Have you ever been to see a doctor Ray? Did you say "no thanks I don't need to have my appendix removed, I'll just pray about it"? DId you refuse the antibiotics and all of the other medicines because they were based on "naturalism"? Can you take any medication and still believe in God Ray, or do you want people to have to make that choice as well?

Apparently our good friend Ray has never heard of methodological naturalism. Too bad for him.

Ray wrote:

"The fact that you accept the view that Dawkins accepts is THE EVIDENCE disproving your claim that you are a Christian."

Well Ray is getting closer, at least he fiinally actually used the word evidence. Apparently he still thinks that opinions are evidence, oh well.

As for his myopic and baseless assertation, the fact that one has beliefs that the pope accepts should then automatically make them not only a christian but a catholic as well. Granted anybody who agrees with Dawkins about anything can probably not be Ray's brand of christian, so what? I guess when you have your own little religion going you get to decide who can join and who cannot. You also get to decide which flavor of kool aid will be served at the next meeting.

Apparently he still thinks that opinions are evidence, oh well.

wile coyote said: Interesting -- so perjury in a Federal court ends up being covered by state authorities?

But IDists now get the point: they have no chance since ALL Federal Judges are Darwinists.

— Ray Martinez

DS said: Ray wrote: "It is common knowledge that Naturalism, the ideology of evolution, is not compatible with Theism." Really? So I guess no one who believes in any scientific theory can believe in God? Not the theory of gravity, not cosmology, not meterology, not geology, not electromagnetics, not nuclear physics. not chemistry, not the study of lighning, not the study of earth quakes, not the science of medicine, not genetics, not any field that is based on "naturalism? Are you willing to live without those things Ray? Are you willing to force others to live without them? More is the pity. Have you ever been to see a doctor Ray? Did you say "no thanks I don't need to have my appendix removed, I'll just pray about it"? DId you refuse the antibiotics and all of the other medicines because they were based on "naturalism"? Can you take any medication and still believe in God Ray, or do you want people to have to make that choice as well? Apparently our good friend Ray has never heard of methodological naturalism. Too bad for him.

eric said: Conclusion: Ray is still wrong in thinking it was Jones' responsibility to pursue perjury charges.

Ray Martinez said: Again, the lies of Jones and the AtheistCLU are brazen. One day this illegal ruling will be reversed.

DS said: Creationists can think whatever they want, that doesn't make them right. They have no evidence. They are not doing science.

Ray Martinez said: Again, the lies of Jones and the AtheistCLU are brazen. One day this illegal ruling will be reversed.

fnxtr said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, the lies of Jones and the AtheistCLU are brazen. One day this illegal ruling will be reversed.

Oh, Ray, you do make me laugh.

Cracky McCrackhead Martinez burbled: " ALL Federal Judges are Darwinists...Again, the lies of Jones and the AtheistCLU are brazen. One day this illegal ruling will be reversed."

-----------------------------------------

How, if all Federal Judges (including, presumably, all district, appeals judges and the Supreme Court Justices) are Darwinists? Do you even think at all? "Overturned" has a specific meaning, you know.

Oh, and your creo buddy FloydLee is getting his clock cleaned arguing that evolution is incompatible with christianity, ray-ray. Also, didn't you have threads you abandoned at Talk Rational and other sites? The voices in your head should tell you to go back there, Ray -- ericmurphy misses taking chunks out of your ass.

fnxtr said:

DS said: Creationists can think whatever they want, that doesn't make them right. They have no evidence. They are not doing science.

Great. I just got this image of a church full of paklids. "We're doing science!"

Stanton said:

fnxtr said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, the lies of Jones and the AtheistCLU are brazen. One day this illegal ruling will be reversed.

Oh, Ray, you do make me laugh.

Let me guess, you also laughed when they had to shoot Ol' Yeller, too?

I agree with fnxtr here: Ray has got to be the most brittle, childish, rigid, hateful name-calling crybaby I've ever encountered. Even among people who use cliches and labels as a crutch to help them pretend to understand the world around them, Ray stands out as the most inadequate -- with Ray, it's not mostly about the labels, it's ALL about the labels. The few times he's tried to post anything other than relentless name-calling, it's obvious he cribbed it from someone else, didn't understand what he was repasting, and couldn't even make it coherent; and he went right back to argument-by-labeling anyway.

Ray isn't even a mediocrity; he's at the absolute bottom of the cretinist crowd, too stupid and inflexible even to adopt a few trappings of respectability.

Don't hold yourself back, RB. Tell us what you really feel.

Does this list really classify creationists? It seems more like an effort to set up a straw man than define who is a pseudoscientist and who is a "real" scientists. I would like to see the description for real science - bet I could guess.

Jordan wrote:

" I would like to see the description for real science - bet I could guess."

Why don't you do that.

Ray isn’t even a mediocrity; he’s at the absolute bottom of the cretinist crowd...

— Raging Bee

Frank J said: I'm guessing you don't know about [M]adman and spintronic.

Wanna know what's REALLY sad about Martinez? He embraces a totally simpleminded religion to hide from reality -- and he can't even understand the religion! Even his fantasy world is too complicated for him. No wonder he's so angry all the time.

PS: Oh good, Jordan's here...now we'll have to get used to having reasonably-intelligent-sounding cdesign proponentsists again.

Jordan Wallace said: Does this list really classify creationists? It seems more like an effort to set up a straw man than define who is a pseudoscientist and who is a "real" scientists. I would like to see the description for real science - bet I could guess.

Jordan Wallace said: Does this list really classify creationists?

Raging Bee said: Wanna know what's REALLY sad about Martinez? He embraces a totally simpleminded religion to hide from reality -- and he can't even understand the religion! Even his fantasy world is too complicated for him. No wonder he's so angry all the time. PS: Oh good, Jordan's here...now we'll have to get used to having reasonably-intelligent-sounding cdesign proponentsists again.

Jordan Wallace said: Does this list really classify creationists? It seems more like an effort to set up a straw man than define who is a pseudoscientist and who is a "real" scientists. I would like to see the description for real science - bet I could guess.

deadman_932 said: Oh, and your creo buddy FloydLee is getting his clock cleaned arguing that evolution is incompatible with christianity, ray-ray.

Mike Elzinga said: This shtick is so old that I’m surprised he is still getting away with it.

Raging Bee said: I agree with fnxtr here: Ray has got to be the most brittle, childish, rigid, hateful name-calling crybaby I've ever encountered. Even among people who use cliches and labels as a crutch to help them pretend to understand the world around them, Ray stands out as the most inadequate -- with Ray, it's not mostly about the labels, it's ALL about the labels. The few times he's tried to post anything other than relentless name-calling, it's obvious he cribbed it from someone else, didn't understand what he was repasting, and couldn't even make it coherent; and he went right back to argument-by-labeling anyway. Ray isn't even a mediocrity; he's at the absolute bottom of the cretinist crowd, too stupid and inflexible even to adopt a few trappings of respectability.

Stanton said:

Ray Martinez said: Again, the lies of Jones and the AtheistCLU are brazen. One day this illegal ruling will be reversed.

Why is ruling that the Dover School District must abide by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution be an "illegal ruling"? Oh, wait, it's because you're a religious bigot.

It appears Ray has just confirmed that the only reason he shows up here is simply to piss people off.

I think that also pretty well confirms everyone’s assessment of his emotional and mental state.

DS said: Ray wrote: "It is common knowledge that Naturalism, the ideology of evolution, is not compatible with Theism." Really? So I guess no one who believes in any scientific theory can believe in God? Not the theory of gravity, not cosmology, not meterology, not geology, not electromagnetics, not nuclear physics. not chemistry, not the study of lighning, not the study of earth quakes, not the science of medicine, not genetics, not any field that is based on "naturalism? Are you willing to live without those things Ray? Are you willing to force others to live without them? More is the pity. Have you ever been to see a doctor Ray? Did you say "no thanks I don't need to have my appendix removed, I'll just pray about it"? DId you refuse the antibiotics and all of the other medicines because they were based on "naturalism"? Can you take any medication and still believe in God Ray, or do you want people to have to make that choice as well? Apparently our good friend Ray has never heard of methodological naturalism. Too bad for him.

Why do you spend so much time lying about your fellow Christians, Ray? And why are you the one appointed to say who is really a Christian and who isn't?

Ray: liar, moron, tool of the theist establishment.

Dale Husband said:

Ray Martinez said:

nmgirl said: A person cannot be all three at the same time: intelligent, Christian, and accept evolutionary theory. Bull! i am all three and I am really getting tired of eegotistical IDiots like you trying to tell me what I am.

Christians accept the Biblical view of biological production, not the view that Richard Dawkins accepts. The fact that you accept the view that Dawkins accepts is THE EVIDENCE disproving your claim that you are a Christian.

No, Ray, that is a lie. And your saying that in public like this makes you a blasphemer. Only God can judge who is truly a beleiver.

"Hump? What hump?"

Evolution....says Creationism is false; God is absent from nature.

Ray wrote:

"The biological production theory that all Atheists rabidly support and defend is NOT compatible with Christianity, Theism. Evolution has objective claims. It says Creationism is false; God is absent from nature."

Yea, and all alligators lack a sense of humor, so there. See, I can make unsubstantiated generalizations that are just as baseless and just as irrelevant as yours.

"So called Christian evolutionists like Ken Miller are fools and buffoons, or Atheists in sheeps clothing."

That's right. Ray knows that Ken Miller is really an atheist in disguise. He has to be, otherwise all of Ray's claims are completely falisfied. Sure, that makes it true, at least to Ray.

Ray, you really aren't making anybody mad here, we're too buzy laughing out butts off. Get real dude. Reality doesn't care what you think, Deal with it.

Ray wrote:

"Evolution has objective claims. It says Creationism is false; God is absent from nature."

ben responded:

"Evolution does not include your god because no evidence has been found to support including your god in it, or in any other scientific theory. For some reason it’s only in evolutionary theory that this omission bothers you."

Well, here is a list of some of the things that Ray should object to on this basis:

meterology

medicine

engineering

genetics

computers

Well, I could go on and on, but you get the idea. God is "left out" of lots of things, nobody ever complains. Why should they? Funny that Ray feels completely comfortable using a computer that leaves out God. Go figure.

Ray has apparently still not learned the difference between methological and philosophical naturalism. I don't know why, since the distinction has been pointed out to him. Maybe he just needs to feel like he is tilting at windmills. Who cares?

ben said:

Evolution....says Creationism is false; God is absent from nature.

Evolution "says" no such thing. Evolution does not include your god....

Evolution does not include your god because no evidence has been found to support including your god in it, or in any other scientific theory. For some reason it's only in evolutionary theory that this omission bothers you.

DS said: Ray wrote: "The biological production theory that all Atheists rabidly support and defend is NOT compatible with Christianity, Theism. Evolution has objective claims. It says Creationism is false; God is absent from nature." Yea, and all alligators lack a sense of humor, so there. See, I can make unsubstantiated generalizations that are just as baseless and just as irrelevant as yours. "So called Christian evolutionists like Ken Miller are fools and buffoons, or Atheists in sheeps clothing." That's right. Ray knows that Ken Miller is really an atheist in disguise. He has to be, otherwise all of Ray's claims are completely falisfied. Sure, that makes it true, at least to Ray. [SNIP....]

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Why do you spend so much time lying about your fellow Christians, Ray?

Ray Martinez said:

Dale Husband said:

Ray Martinez said:

nmgirl said: A person cannot be all three at the same time: intelligent, Christian, and accept evolutionary theory. Bull! i am all three and I am really getting tired of eegotistical IDiots like you trying to tell me what I am.

Christians accept the Biblical view of biological production, not the view that Richard Dawkins accepts. The fact that you accept the view that Dawkins accepts is THE EVIDENCE disproving your claim that you are a Christian.

No, Ray, that is a lie. And your saying that in public like this makes you a blasphemer. Only God can judge who is truly a beleiver.

This argument presupposes silently that every claim must have evidence in support except a claim of Christianity. Why is a claim of being a Christian exempted? Answer: Because in this context the evidence says the persons in question are not real Christians.

Ray, when you get through here, maybe you could help your fellow Creationist FloydLee out here:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4ac8039bd254a52a;act=ST;f=14;t=6313

Hey, we could at least use another lying bigot to laugh at.

Ray wrote:

"The evidence of acceptance of Naturalism, the ideology of evolution, dictates that Ken Miller is not a Christian."

Just keep repeating that over and over again Ray. Everyone can see that you still have not learned the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism. Still using that godless computer I see,

"Christians accept ID, the Bible, not the Atheist explanation of nature (Darwinism)."

Real christians can accept whatever science they want Ray, you should try it sometime.

"Any person who argues against Creator-did-it is not a Christian. Evolution says Creator did NOT do it. This is why all Atheists are Darwinists, evolutionists. Ken Miller is a wolf in sheeps clothing or a buffoon. Either way he is explained."

All people named Ray are false christians in snakes clothing. There, if you think baseless generalizations are an argument, you lose again.

"There is no evidence of evolution ever occurring on this planet. Atheists have no choice but to accept evolution because Creationism-ID is not an option."

Right Ray, everyone is blind to all of the evidence except you. No real scientist is aware of the real evidence. Right Ray, just keep repeating that over and over and over and over. Oh wait, you already have.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Ray wrote: "The biological production theory that all Atheists rabidly support and defend is NOT compatible with Christianity, Theism. Evolution has objective claims. It says Creationism is false; God is absent from nature." Yea, and all alligators lack a sense of humor, so there. See, I can make unsubstantiated generalizations that are just as baseless and just as irrelevant as yours. "So called Christian evolutionists like Ken Miller are fools and buffoons, or Atheists in sheeps clothing." That's right. Ray knows that Ken Miller is really an atheist in disguise. He has to be, otherwise all of Ray's claims are completely falisfied. Sure, that makes it true, at least to Ray. [SNIP....]

The evidence of acceptance of Naturalism, the ideology of evolution, dictates that Ken Miller is not a Christian. Christians accept ID, the Bible, not the Atheist explanation of nature (Darwinism). Any person who argues against Creator-did-it is not a Christian. Evolution says Creator did NOT do it. This is why all Atheists are Darwinists, evolutionists. Ken Miller is a wolf in sheeps clothing or a buffoon. Either way he is explained. There is no evidence of evolution ever occurring on this planet. Atheists have no choice but to accept evolution because Creationism-ID is not an option.

Like I said: I agree that evolution is godless---"Christian" evolutionists are fools and buffoons.

Ya know, I am really getting tired of IDiots like you telling me how to believe. What gives you the right to decide who is a Christian?

nmgirl said: [Ray Martinez:] Like I said: I agree that evolution is godless---"Christian" evolutionists are fools and buffoons. [nmgirl:] Ya know, I am really getting tired of IDiots like you telling me how to believe. What gives you the right to decide who is a Christian?

John Kwok said: Ray - Sorry to burst your bubble, baby, but Ken [Miller] is a devout Roman Catholic Christian. [SNIP....]

nmgirl said: Like I said: I agree that evolution is godless---"Christian" evolutionists are fools and buffoons. Ya know, I am really getting tired of IDiots like you telling me how to believe. What gives you the right to decide who is a Christian?

Wheels said:

Jordan Wallace said: Does this list really classify creationists?

You're thinking too specifically. This list was set up to help recognize signs useful for identifying pseudoscience in general. Anti-evolution conveniently falls under that label, but in theory you should be able to take this list and apply it to, say, homeopaths or free-energy cranks. Try it and see for yourself.

Jordan wrote:

"Loosely defined science is the systematic process of observations. But science involves inferences as well. ID would be included in such a definition."

OK Jordan, exactly what observation has been made to justify the assumption of ID? Exactly what observation would be considered evidence for ID? Exactly who is looking for this evidence and exactly what experiments are they doing? Exactly where have they published their observations?

You see Jordan, the rules for science are not arbitrary. Science has revolutionized our understanding of the natural world in the last 500 years. Religion, not so much.

Many of the evidences that validate the evolutionary hypothesis can be approached from an inference of Intelligence rather than an inference of natural selection. The problem in a cause effect system like evolution is that it renders reason as unreliable. If you trust your reason, why? What evidence do you have that what you experience is in fact reality. Unless you arbitrarily place yourself above other animals in relation to your reasoning and conscience faculty, you cannot explain those faculties or validate them as real. But if you assume that humans are reasonable and that our senses are reliable in observing the cosmos you make a claim that cannot be validated by evidential matters. ID is another manner of providing inferences.
As for science, the last 500 years have been particularly bloody due to our science. Yet its value is undisputed...at least by me. Religion has revolutionized the world sense the beginning - but whether you believe that or not has no bearing on this conversation. If you hold that faith has no bearing on science then ignore it. As for me, science is the discovery of designed systems that have helped mankind develop a more robust experience.

Ray Martinez said: It [TOE] says Creationism is false; God is absent from nature.

“Evolution does not include your god

Nice. Do you want Italian Balsamic or Thousand Island dressing on that word salad?
"ID is another manner of providing inferences", indeed.

Let's try this once again. Read this word carefully:

EVIDENCE

Got any? You know, besides "science is bad"?

By the way, science gave you your computer, your clothes, your heat and light... it didn't magically appear through the power of prayer, pal.

fnxtr writes... Nice. Do you want Italian Balsamic or Thousand Island dressing on that word salad? “ID is another manner of providing inferences”, indeed.

Jordan Wallace said: Many of the evidences that validate the evolutionary hypothesis can be approached from an inference of Intelligence rather than an inference of natural selection. The problem in a cause effect system like evolution is that it renders reason as unreliable. If you trust your reason, why? What evidence do you have that what you experience is in fact reality. Unless you arbitrarily place yourself above other animals in relation to your reasoning and conscience faculty, you cannot explain those faculties or validate them as real. But if you assume that humans are reasonable and that our senses are reliable in observing the cosmos you make a claim that cannot be validated by evidential matters. ID is another manner of providing inferences. As for science, the last 500 years have been particularly bloody due to our science. Yet its value is undisputed...at least by me. Religion has revolutionized the world sense the beginning - but whether you believe that or not has no bearing on this conversation. If you hold that faith has no bearing on science then ignore it. As for me, science is the discovery of designed systems that have helped mankind develop a more robust experience.

nmgirl said:

Jordan Wallace said: Many of the evidences that validate the evolutionary hypothesis can be approached from an inference of Intelligence rather than an inference of natural selection. The problem in a cause effect system like evolution is that it renders reason as unreliable. If you trust your reason, why? What evidence do you have that what you experience is in fact reality. Unless you arbitrarily place yourself above other animals in relation to your reasoning and conscience faculty, you cannot explain those faculties or validate them as real. But if you assume that humans are reasonable and that our senses are reliable in observing the cosmos you make a claim that cannot be validated by evidential matters. ID is another manner of providing inferences. As for science, the last 500 years have been particularly bloody due to our science. Yet its value is undisputed...at least by me. Religion has revolutionized the world sense the beginning - but whether you believe that or not has no bearing on this conversation. If you hold that faith has no bearing on science then ignore it. As for me, science is the discovery of designed systems that have helped mankind develop a more robust experience.

WTF?

Jordan wrote:

"Many of the evidences that validate the evolutionary hypothesis can be approached from an inference of Intelligence rather than an inference of natural selection."

Perhaps, but much of it cannot. That is in fact the basis of hypothesis testing Jordan. You must test hypotheses that actually make different predictions. Now in the case of evolution, we have perfectly satisfactory explanations for the following observations:

Hippos and whales share common SINE insertions.

Chimps and humans share common SINE insertions.

All arthropods share a nearly identical mitochondrial gene order.

All organisms share a nearly identical genetic code.

There is a nested hierarchy of genetic similarities between all living things that precisely correlates with thier time of appearance in the fossil record.

I could go on and on, and I could provide scientific references for each if you like. However, I have never seen any creationist who could give a satisfactory explanation for these observations. GODDIDIT doesn't cut it. If that is your answer, you have to expalin why she did it this way and no other and you have to actually predict some other observations before they are made. In short, you must present a more predictive and explanatory explanation for all of the observations of nature than those provided by science.

In normal circumstances, the number of molecules in each of the four groups-three ortho and one para - is roughly equal. All the magnetic moments cancel out, so that water normally has no net magnetic moment of its own. However, God was under no requirement to create the water molecules in their normal order. For example, He could have created all the molecules with their proton magnetic moments lined up in a given direction, producing the maximum magnetic moment possible from the protons. Or, He could have lined up the protons of the third ortho group (Figure 4(D)) along the field axis. Figure 5 shows this order. This would produce a field having one-fourth of the maximum strength with a minimum of deviation from the normal order. I do not know from Scripture what proportion of the protons God aligned in each case. In the previous article I put an arbitrary factor, k, into the equations. This alignment factor represents what fraction' of the maximum field God chose.

There is much yet to be learned and understood in this strange and beautiful universe, but the aura of mysticism and 'spookiness' some people are so fond of actually obscures the real strangeness and true beauty, and hampers that learning and understanding.

Gilding the lily is offensive in so many ways.

Jordan,

Still waiting. Perhaps you could explain how all of the observations I cited can be "approached from an inference of intelligence". Perhaps not. Perhaps you were just blowing smoke.

Perhaps you could tell us how the backward construction of the human eye is explained by intelligence.

Perhaps you could tell us how the starting position of the dolphin blowhole in development is explained by intelligence.

Perhaps you can tell us why humans possess so many broken genes for vitamin C production and smell and how this can be explained by intelligence.

Perhaps you can explain to us why the limbs of vertebrates, which perform very different functions, are all based on the same bone pattern. Doesn't seem very intelligent to me.

Now modern evolutionary theory can explain all of these observations and much more. GODDIDIT on the other hand explains absolutely nothing, unless of course God is an idiot.

Ritchie Annand said: Eric, you're uncomfortably close to discovering the way creation science operates...

Jordan,

Still waiting.

Perhaps you are buzy on another thread? The other guy whose name begins with j can't seem to answer any questions either.

(Munches on last handfull of popcorn)

Some of the comments here remind me of this quote generator over at RationalWiki.

DS said: Jordan, Still waiting. Perhaps you are buzy on another thread? The other guy whose name begins with j can't seem to answer any questions either.

Jordan Wallace said: What evidence would convince you of a designer? None?

Jordan Wallace, it would help if you and other Intelligent Design proponents first explain how Intelligent Design is a science, explain how Intelligent Design can help us understand the diversity and mechanics of Life and living organisms better, and, most importantly, provide evidence of Intelligent Design in the first place before you attempt to browbeat us for being cruel and fiendish Philistines for rejecting Intelligent Design as a pseudoscience.

So, you are arguing that because these matters seem to have no intelligent pattern, evolution must account for them.

No, we're arguing that "evolution must account for them" because evolution DOES account for them; and no other theory has been formulated that accounts for them better.

You offer evidence that could be defined easily within a common designer theory especially if one considers this creation as a work of beauty.

First, you can't say the evidence fits a "common designer theory" unless, and until, you formulate the theory, which no ID proponent has ever done. And second, if "beauty" is considered evidence of a "common designer," then what about the beauty I see in a snowfall? Does the fact that I think it's beautiful prove a "designer" hand-made and placed every snowflake where I found it?

Your carelessness and dishonesty is showing. Again.

Jordan your "forms and species" is nice poetry but misses the mark. Most humans appreciate beauty. So what? How does that impact the fossil record, nested hierarchies, deep time, or any other facts that make you uncomfortable?

Why do you acknowledge the beauty of nature? or do you? Does it help you survive? reproduce? What evidence would convince you of a designer? None?

Please disregard the last sentence of my first paragraph, editing error...

wile coyote said:

Jordan Wallace said: What evidence would convince you of a designer? None?

Well, I would find the idea of the actions of Mysterious Alien Designers (or Functional Equivalent) more persuasive if there were some specifics on who precisely the MAD(FE) were, what they did, when they did it -- you know little details like that. Now if you want to claim the whole UNIVERSE is a product of Design, I don't have a problem with that at all -- but that's as much as Ken Miller or Frances Collins would say, and I should add in a fashion that makes for much more pleasant reading. And I don't see any problem with that for the sciences because they work exactly the same whether you believe the Universe was Designed or not. PS: I still haven't got an answer on my questions on probability.

Jordan Wallace said: An acknowledgement of some prime-mover of the universe is still an ID argument.

Reply to Ben (something went wrong with the block quoting)

Is my argument valid? Suprised you give it any credibility.

Negative arguments are an acceptable logical method though not a complete one - I agree on this. My arguments are posted elsewhere.

But for sake of full disclosure...I am a Christian who believes in the Genesis story. God is the creator of all things. We see beauty because our faculties are for more than survival. Humans have true purpose, true will, true virtue. God defines reality. Science is the discovery of this created order, not arbitrary conjecture about nature - as was the sin of the Church in the past.

wile coyote said:

Jordan Wallace said: An acknowledgement of some prime-mover of the universe is still an ID argument.

Ah, so you admit that "God intelligently designed evolution" as would Frances Collins or Ken Miller? And that AiG and UD and all those lads are barking up the wrong tree? Is evolution part of the Design? Or isn't it? Yes? No? Simple question.

Jordan Wallace said: Science is the discovery of this created order, not arbitrary conjecture about nature

Jordan Wallace said: No

You assume alot from science. In fact you seem to assume that it gives you answers.

No, we OBSERVE that science gives us answers -- very useful answers, which your dumbass religion has yet to match.

You are using the word "assume" incorrectly, despite being explicitly informed of this in the past. I therefore conclude you are being intentionally dishonest.

On top of that, the rest of your comments are just plain incoherent and nonsensical, at best, if not observably false.

Jordan wrote:

"So, you are arguing that because these matters seem to have no intelligent pattern, evolution must account for them. But wait, you didn’t say they have no pattern, just that there could not have been an intelligent pattern. How do you know? The similarities may actually be evidence for a common intelligence."

Thanks for responding to my questions.

Yes, my point is that these observations make absolutely no sense whatsoever, assuming there was an intelligence responsible. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate exactly why an intellignce would have designed things this way. Notice that the observations are exactly what are expected if no intelligence or planning was involved in evolution.

You do know that SINEs are genetic mistakes shared between species, right? You do know that the nested hierarchey of SINE insertions exactly matches the molecular phylogeny for these species right? You do know that the phylogeny constructed using SINEs is concordant with the fossil record right? You do know that there is no reason for these plagarized errors to be produced by intelligence right? Or are you claiming that God copied the mistakes?

Please notice the "God works in mysterious ways" is not an explanation for anything. Also please notice that most people would not want to worship a God who is deceitful or a moron.

I will wait patiently for your response.

Wily asks: Is evolution part of the Design? Or isn’t it? Yes? No? Simple question. Jordan answers: No

Thus the complexity of a cell (for instance) has two options, 1) it was designed and this guides the inferences one draws or 2) we observe the cell and have to theorize of all the potential anomalies that could have led to the existence of that cell. That seems to allow for a great deal of imagination.

DS said: Jordan wrote: "So, you are arguing that because these matters seem to have no intelligent pattern, evolution must account for them. But wait, you didn’t say they have no pattern, just that there could not have been an intelligent pattern. How do you know? The similarities may actually be evidence for a common intelligence." Thanks for responding to my questions. Yes, my point is that these observations make absolutely no sense whatsoever, assuming there was an intelligence responsible. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate exactly why an intellignce would have designed things this way. Notice that the observations are exactly what are expected if no intelligence or planning was involved in evolution. You do know that SINEs are genetic mistakes shared between species, right? You do know that the nested hierarchey of SINE insertions exactly matches the molecular phylogeny for these species right? You do know that the phylogeny constructed using SINEs is concordant with the fossil record right? You do know that there is no reason for these plagarized errors to be produced by intelligence right? Or are you claiming that God copied the mistakes? Please notice the "God works in mysterious ways" is not an explanation for anything. Also please notice that most people would not want to worship a God who is deceitful or a moron. I will wait patiently for your response.

Raging Bee said: You assume alot from science. In fact you seem to assume that it gives you answers. No, we OBSERVE that science gives us answers -- very useful answers, which your dumbass religion has yet to match. You are using the word "assume" incorrectly, despite being explicitly informed of this in the past. I therefore conclude you are being intentionally dishonest. On top of that, the rest of your comments are just plain incoherent and nonsensical, at best, if not observably false.

Jordan,

Thanks for trying, but no you are completely wrong. The shared SINE insertions are evidence that speciation did indeed occur. The assumptions concern only the dynamics of retro transposition which are well studied and well understood. That is precisely why these characters are optimal for use in phylogenetic reconstruction. They are extremely unlikely to undergo convergence or reversal and they provide a very strong phylogenetic signal.

Now, your turn. Please explain why hippos and cetaceans share the same SINE insertions. Please explain why this data shows that hippos are the closest living relative to cetaceans, exactly the topology shown by many other moleculac data sets. Please explain why the intelligent designer created a pattern exactly congruent with speciation and macroevolution for no apparent reason. Please explain exactly why your hypothesis should be preferred since it was not predicted by ID and cannot be explained by ID.

Also, please note that the same argument can be made for human evolution. There are many data sets that demonstrate conclusively that chimps are the closest living relative to humans, including SINE insertions. How do you explain this?

Jordan wrote:

"You arbitrarily assume a common ancestor and massive speciation. The fossil record does not support massive speciation and intermediary fossil evidence that builds the theory of phylogeny."

As I have already explained, the SINE data is completely congruent with the fossil record. There are at least eleven different species intermediate between artiodactyls and cetaceans in the fossil record and they occur in precisely the right sequence expected if cetaceans are derived from artiodactyl ancestors. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the fossil record of this group.

Also, please note that the developmental evidence is completely consistent with this hypothesis as well. You are the one who is assuming that speciation did not occur. This is totally unwarranted and contrary to all the available evidence.

As for decay, what are you talking about? Do you understand anything about retro transposition? The whole point is that the transposons are inserted into the genome and are stable, they persist for millions of years, through speciation events. Do try to formulate hypotheses consistent with the available evidence,

Perhaps the best inference is that these SINEs exist due to a common decay.

Jordan Wallace said: Actually, you observe data sets and probabilities and THEN make assumptions. At best you cannot reject your hypothesis, at worst you have to reject it. Your inference to fact is only a ratification of probabilistic hypothesis into personal assumptions. If you make inferences, you make assumptions.

Jordan Wallace said: You arbitrarily assume a common ancestor and massive speciation. The fossil record does not support massive speciation and intermediary fossil evidence that builds the theory of phylogeny. Your argument is dubious because you assume phylogeny. Perhaps the best inference is that these SINEs exist due to a common decay. If phylogeny is untrue and decay is occuring then the SINEs can be accounted for. The better question is why the designer would allow this decay. As a matter of definition - as one commentor has challenged - I use evolution as macroevolution more commonly held in Darwinian notions, not as small variation within typically acknowledged species.

I agree with Mike on this part: Interesting post & discussion. To dispense w/ Creationism & ID, all we need is a mildly sophisticated standard for what counts as a good scientific theory. On any such standard, ID is a lousy theory.

The most generally applicable rules of science don't seem to have changed much since Isaac Newton wrote some rules for "natural philosophy". And we can very easily show how ID breaks at least three of his rules, probably all four.

Finding ways to recognize pseudo-science as opposed to non-science may have value. But the original list here -- I don't know how you divide "non" from "pseudo" in practice (maybe by asking if they call it science?), but consider religion. Christianity seems to meet all five criteria. I assume you don't require every single creationist to give false arguments or what have you before calling their view pseudoscience. And we could easily find Christian apologists showing each of the five properties. Even if we ignore this odd creationist fellow here, I mean.

(I don't think I've read all the comments; I can see Stephen P makes a good suggestion, but one that doesn't help laymen.)

The fossil record does not support massive speciation and intermediary fossil evidence that builds the theory of phylogeny.

You forget, henry: for the hard-of-thinking,"god did it" explains everything. End of discussion.

To dispense w/ Creationism & ID, all we need is a mildly sophisticated standard for what counts as a good scientific theory.

I think a more solid approach is to ask whether or not the scientist wannabes can point to a substantial program of research that is bearing fruit and currently forms the foundation for research by others in the established research community.

We no longer have to be concerned with what happened in the past when the whole notion of scientific investigation was in its nascent stages. We already have a well-established and working model and program in our hands right now. We have a few centuries of hard evidence that it works and we know why it works.

Scientists who have done research successfully, who have been in the game for a while, who know the current issues; these are the people who can smell a rat far more sensitively than can anyone who has no research experience. And rats fear them most because rats don’t know their way around in the science laboratory or in the science community.

We don’t push speculative science off onto unsuspecting school children even when the speculative ideas come from within the established scientific community. If these ideas are mentioned at all, they are pointed out as the frontier areas of science where questions are still open.

But these newer ideas are bootstrapping off current understandings; and those working in these areas know that results cannot violate already well-established science, and that currently established theories must somehow be limiting cases of any newer theories. The people in the science community know in great detail what these constraints are. Pseudo-scientists don’t; hence, an additional reason for their fear of real scientists.

In short, if you want to know if it is science, make the wannabes run their ideas by the people who have the best judgments about these questions; namely, the experienced people who do it routinely for a living and know the territory.

If that became the required rule, we might have fewer fakers attempting to slip past the novices currently guarding the gates.

Jordan,

Still waiting. If you are having trouble finding information on cetacean phylogeny, perhaps the following references would be helpful:

Mitochondrial DNA
J. Mol. Evo. 50:569-578 (2002)

Casein Genes
Mol. Bio. Evo. 13:954-963 (1996)

Overlapping Genes
Nuc. Acid Res. 30(13):2906-2910 (2000)

SINE Insertions
Nature 388:666-370 (1997)
PNAS 96:10262-10266 (1999)

You might find the last reference particularly instructive. It has a nice figure of artiodactyl phylogeny, including cetaceans. You know, the stuff you claimed could not happen. Perhaps you could provide references from the scientific literature for your claim about the limits of speciation. I can also provide references for the palentological and developmental evidence as well, if you are interested.

I would also recommend the talkorigins.org archive. Just search on the term "plagarized errors". The article is complete with scientific references and refutations of all creationist claims. Enjoy.

Actually, you observe data sets and probabilities and THEN make assumptions.

No, fool, we draw CONCLUSIONS based on, and attempting to explain, what we observe. There's a difference. Your continued misuse of the word "assumption" proves your intentional dishonesty. Beneath all the sciencey word-salad, you're a liar and a fraud.

Jordan,

Still waiting.

Jordan,

Still waiting.

Mike Elzinga said: And rats fear them most because rats don’t know their way around in the science laboratory or in the science community.

stevaroni said:

Mike Elzinga said: And rats fear them most because rats don’t know their way around in the science laboratory or in the science community.

Maybe the rats are afraid because they do know what happens to rodents inside a laboratory.

If this thread is still open, I would like to take a shot at distinguishing science from pseudoscience.

I have developed a rather crude criterion as to what counts as science; Science is what is done by the scientific community.

For the past 400 years, there has been a tremendous expansion in human knowledge due to science. The vast bulk of theories devised by human minds has been flawed, and these theories have been refuted by scientists. The theories which are currently held as viable comprise a minute fraction of the sum-total of theories generated by human minds. The continued viability of these current theories is by no means assured - because science (unlike pseudoscience) is a self-correcting endeavor. Where science advances through the replacement of its theories, pseudoscience cannot advance because none of its "theories" are replaceable.

The case involving Mr. Darwin and the scientific community is rather instructive. Darwin was no biologist; In the Origin and the Descent, to me, he seems an amateur - enthused and winging it with his then novel depiction of nature - especially in the Descent with his quaint descriptions of the mating behavior of non-human organisms. Even though Darwin was no "official" biologist, his theories of natural and sexual selection were taken up rather quickly by the scientific community, where they have been subject to criticism, revision and possible refutation for over 140 years. ("ID theorists" should take note from Darwin when they are whining that their "scientists" are given short shrift and their "evidence" ignored; Darwin endured far more defamation in his day for trying to get his theories on the map than any "ID scientist" could begin to experience today.)

It is uncanny (and scary) that experimental research some 140 years after the publication of the Descent continues to sustain (and amplify) what Darwin said. No other scientist with the possible exception of Einstein can lay claim to such prescience and validation. For example in the last 2 decades or so (due to the explosion in the knowledge of genetics), the theory of sexual selection has picked up a momentum and a salience which would have made Darwin's head spin; Some biologists (notably the late Ernst Mayr) have predicted that once science had a good understanding of genetics, sexual selection would eventually become recognized as the dominant driver of evolution.

Whenever I visit this board, I am struck by a rubbish notion implicit in posts of the ID people that biologists have - somehow - lost their final say over matters foundational to biology, ie. evolution. It is as though the final say over biology has been illicitly handed over to preachers, politicians (who have been grafted to take up the cudgels for ID theorists), judges or those in pressure groups whose interest in science is more about religious axe grinding than pursuing objective knowledge about this world.

Physicists, I do not believe, would sit idly by allowing an appearance that their branch of science was no longer under their control. If Quantum Mechanics were ever hauled out in front of a court or a legislature to "assay" its status as a scientific theory, I think that physicists would take to the streets, demanding that they be left alone to develop and test their own theory. How and why did biology become different from physics in this regard?

Physics is what physicists do; Astronomy is what astronomers do, and biology is what biologists do. When (or if) biologists decide (as a result of dis-confirming evidence) that evolutionary theory no longer explains what needs explaining, then it will - too - take its place in the ash-can of failed, scientific theories. Until then, we all should have a minimal amount of intellectual maturity to accept what biologists say about biology - that it pictures how nature works to the best of our current knowledge. (We should accept this unless we can produce stronger evidence and a superior theory (as Darwin once did) than the evidence and the theory which we now have.)

I have developed a rather crude criterion as to what counts as science; Science is what is done by the scientific community.

Henry J said:

I have developed a rather crude criterion as to what counts as science; Science is what is done by the scientific community.

That rule of thumb would be adequate if it weren't for the deliberate misrepresentations of science by certain groups.

Some criticisms of ID from philosophy of science:
http://ottoneurathsboat.blogspot.com/2009/11/evolution-empiricism-and-purposeness.html