Cornelius Hunter and the Mystery of the Missing Scientific Theory

Dont you think its great, creation, its design for hearing the beauty of sound.
Think ther is sound as a primal of the plyns, and until thee ear is designed it cannot be defined.
Here we are able to define such wonderous awe, which is, Sound, with that perfection of design, thee Ear.
Take time, keep strong, be watchful.

Anyone wanna clarify what elon-leon just said? Anyone else want to address what joe asked? On the latter point, I'd like someone to sum up the creationist's non-position so I don't have to wade through their effluvium to find it myself, and on the former I'd just like to know if anagram-margana actually conveyed a thought without having to decode it.

Elon-Leon said: Dont you think its great, creation, its design for hearing the beauty of sound. Think ther is sound as a primal of the plyns, and until thee ear is designed it cannot be defined. Here we are able to define such wonderous awe, which is, Sound, with that perfection of design, thee Ear. Take time, keep strong, be watchful.

cs,

I believe that what Elon wrote is properly translated as follows:

"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves. Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe."

Well s/he certainly seems to be playing Humpty-Dumpty with language.

Joe -

I haven't read much of Cornelius Hunter's nonsense, but does he contend, like Stephen Meyer, that it is possible to test how far a "design" has "degenerated" (When I read that in Meyer's book, I thought, "Oh no, the Creator is gonna get mad with Stevie boy".). WOuld be interesting to see whether Hunter buys Meyer's argument.

Thanks,

John

John Kwok said: I haven't read much of Cornelius Hunter's nonsense, but does he contend, like Stephen Meyer, that it is possible to test how far a "design" has "degenerated" (When I read that in Meyer's book, I thought, "Oh no, the Creator is gonna get mad with Stevie boy".). WOuld be interesting to see whether Hunter buys Meyer's argument.

Science has a method but its purpose is not to do the method but to discover the workings of the natural world.
The scientific method is not useful to origin subjects period.
Therefore I.D or YEC lines should be that origin subjects can only be explored by a weighing of evidence but not a testing of it.
It seems to I.d people and some YEC people they are doing the same work as their opponents but thats the point.
Predictions doesn't work in past and gone events. all that is left is the remnants of processes. Not the processes themselves.
Now I.d folk would say God has made a machine of the universe and so it can be open to science even about origins.
So God's fingerprints are all over the machine.
Yet God is not the machine. So complexity still only suggests or insists on God. God as a agent of influence is can';t be a part of investigation.
As Mr Hunter said, I think, prediction of a designer's work is not possible because of open options but predictions based on disorder/order can establish the hypothesis.
Disorder would not be a part of the order of a creator. So disorder can not be.

One immediately wonders: To avoid making this supposed religious presupposition, what should Penny et al. have done? What are the “scientific premises” that a design or creation advocate would recognize?

— Joe Felsenstein

Elon-Leon said: Dont you think its great, creation, its design for hearing the beauty of sound. Think ther is sound as a primal of the plyns, and until thee ear is designed it cannot be defined. Here we are able to define such wonderous awe, which is, Sound, with that perfection of design, thee Ear. Take time, keep strong, be watchful.

I believe that what Robert wrote is also properly translated as follows:

“Twas brillig, and the slithy toves. Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.”

But seriously, Robert doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word "prediction" as used in the scientific method. You can add that to the list of all of the other words that he doesn't understand. I especially like the use of the new plu perfect subjunctive negation tense: is can';t.

Keelyn said: P.S. - I see Booby Byers is back. This should be more laughs.

Robert Byers said: Predictions doesn't [sic] work in past and gone events.

Disorder would not be a part of the order of a creator. So disorder can not be.

Frank J said:

One immediately wonders: To avoid making this supposed religious presupposition, what should Penny et al. have done? What are the “scientific premises” that a design or creation advocate would recognize?

— Joe Felsenstein

I don't know if Hunter acknowledges it elsewhere, or conveniently omits it, but as you know, even some anti-evolution activists (e.g. Michael Behe) concede common descent. Whether one reluctantly concedes common descent or uses a purely negative argument against it, the reason is the same. They know, and can't admit, that the alternative means that many lineages arose from nonliving matter independently. And that raises all sorts of interesting testable questions, starting with when each lineage originated. Unlike Behe, Hunter apparently desperately wants to keep YECs under the big tent (hence his "agnosticism" on the ages of past events). So he will do anything to avoid those questions. Please don't let him.

I thought it used to be that the "designer dunnit" if it was impossible for nature to do it. Now I guess it's the designer dunnit if the odds are, like, ten million to one or something. Somebody must have sent out new fundie memos or something. Or maybe they just didn't read the old ones. Or maybe it never really mattered all along.

May I feed the troll, please? :-)

Someone argued on another blog that you can't make "historical" predictions. The example used was climate prediction. Say you have 100 years of data. In essence, if you want to make a real prediction, you have to make the prediction about the future, then wait 10 years to see if your prediction turned out to be correct. The term "model" was not used in the original argument.

It sounded reasonable to my wife, until I explained that you can take the last 100 years of data, build and train your model on only the first 90 years of data. Then, let your model run for 10 years. If the model "predicts" the last 10 years accurately, you know your model is reasonable.

I think one fallacy might be the notion that a "prediction" from a mathematical model is just like a "prediction" from the entrails of a dove: "prediction" = "guess", just like "theory" = guess".

I think the the more subtle fallacy of not being able to make "real" "predictions" about the past gets back to the fallacy that scientists front-load their experiments, if only by the very act of designing the experiment in the first place (or something like that). Everyone knows what happened in the last 10 years, so everyone "knows" the scientists must have biased their experiment to make it look good. If they didn't knowingly fudge the data, they must have done so unknowingly.

Even someone who is intelligent, but not versed in the art of mathematical modeling can get confused about how a model is developed and how it is used to make "predictions" about something you already know. "But, if your first prediction doesn't match the last 10 years of data, and you then go back and change the model until it does, aren't you also using the last 10 years of data to train the model too?" Sure, it could, if all you do is tweak your coefficients until the data fits all 100 years of data.

But let's say the mismatch between the first "prediction" and the last 10 years of data merely suggests that you overlooked some subtle factor in the first 90 years of data. If you then add new coefficients to your model, but still base them on only the first 90 years of data, then your next "prediction" is also reasonably free from influence from the last 10 years of data. Iterate until convergence.

I'm no modeling expert, but I've had enough experience to feel this is a reasonably accurate lay understanding of the process.

Scott,

Of course you are right. However, it's even worse than that. Robert seems to think, (it's always hard to tell because Canadian is apparently his first language), that it is impossible to make predictions about what one would expect to find today based on models of past history. I know, it doesn't even make any sense. This guy should watch CSI more often.

Then again, on another thread, he claimed that the story of Jericho in the bible accurately predicted what archaeologists found. So, I guess even he doesn't believe his own nonsense. I guess he thinks that only biblical studies represent valid historical science. Or maybe it's only stuff he wants to believe that's valid. What a joke.

Scott,

P.S.

You don't have to ask permission in order to feed the troll. As long as the people who run this site allow trolls like this to post with impunity, everyone should feel perfectly free to point out the logical errors in their arguments. The best you can do is to try and keep them on-topic. But since disruption is apparently their only goal, that can be difficult.

I am a big fan of sending off-topic nonsense to the bathroom wall. But, as long trolls are allowed to pollute these threads, reasoned responses such as yours seem appropriate.

DS said: ... Then again, on another thread, he claimed that the story of Jericho in the bible accurately predicted what archaeologists found. So, I guess even he doesn't believe his own nonsense. I guess he thinks that only biblical studies represent valid historical science. Or maybe it's only stuff he wants to believe that's valid. What a joke.

Scott said: I think one fallacy might be the notion that a "prediction" from a mathematical model is just like a "prediction" from the entrails of a dove: "prediction" = "guess", just like "theory" = guess".

David Hume anticipated all of these arguments. The Wikipedia article on him has a whole section on this. See: The design argument.

If a fossil that hasn't yet been found is predicted by theory and then found after the prediction was made, then the finding of it was a predicted future event at the time at which the prediction was made. It was not a prediction about the past, it was a prediction about a future event - the finding of the fossil.

Henry

Joe Felsenstein said: One immediately wonders: To avoid making this supposed religious presupposition, what should Penny et al. have done? What are the “scientific premises” that a design or creation advocate would recognize? If there are none, then the Design he speaks of is an infinitely flexible hypothesis that predicts nothing, and thus is really not a scientific hypothesis at all … which is what I originally said. Hunter has objected to my statement. So what in the way of a scientific hypothesis does he offer instead?

socle said:

Joe Felsenstein said: One immediately wonders: To avoid making this supposed religious presupposition, what should Penny et al. have done? What are the “scientific premises” that a design or creation advocate would recognize? If there are none, then the Design he speaks of is an infinitely flexible hypothesis that predicts nothing, and thus is really not a scientific hypothesis at all … which is what I originally said. Hunter has objected to my statement. So what in the way of a scientific hypothesis does he offer instead?

I recall Hunter being pressed on this issue in a more general context over at UD, and he mentioned that he does find the evidence for the Big Bang persuasive. I'm not sure why he thinks his usual "religious presuppositions" argument wouldn't apply to cosmology just as well as it does to common descent, however. He asserts that the evidence for common descent relies on the presumption that the designer would not have placed certain patterns in his creation; for some reason he fails to raise the same objection against the use of Hubble's Law or the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation as evidence for the Big Bang.

I think that you can see Cornelius Hunter evolving his arguments. When he briefly appeared at ATBC, his argument was simply that old "we are looking at the same data but interpreting it differently". Byers has recently been making the same argument at ATBC.
I think that when it was pointed out to Cornelius that when you examine all of the data, his interpretation falls flat on its face. So you can see here that Hunter has retreated to his current (and weirder) argument about making any predictions is religious.
Byers, however, has yet to upgrade his argument and is defending the indefensible.

Byers "arguments" are the linguistic equivalent of The Weasel Ball.

That's the last time I'll make that comparison.

Robert Byers said: Science has a method but its purpose is not to do the method but to discover the workings of the natural world.

The scientific method is not useful to origin subjects period.

Therefore I.D or YEC lines should be that origin subjects can only be explored by a weighing of evidence but not a testing of it.

It seems to I.d people and some YEC people they are doing the same work as their opponents but thats the point.

Predictions doesn't work in past and gone events. all that is left is the remnants of processes. Not the processes themselves.

Now I.d folk would say God has made a machine of the universe and so it can be open to science even about origins. So God's fingerprints are all over the machine.

Yet God is not the machine. So complexity still only suggests or insists on God. God as a agent of influence is can';t be a part of investigation.

As Mr Hunter said, I think, prediction of a designer's work is not possible because of open options but predictions based on disorder/order can establish the hypothesis.

Disorder would not be a part of the order of a creator. So disorder can not be.

Dave Luckett said: Well, I guess getting goats is what trolls do. Byers is a troll, after all.

fnxtr said: Byers "arguments" are the linguistic equivalent of The Weasel Ball.

Robert Byers said: The scientific method is not useful to origin subjects period.

@ KwoK: That's all fine and dandy, but I'll just keep holding my breath until Corny comes up with an actual routine for collecting data about degenerate design.

This should be fun.

Joe - I haven’t read much of Cornelius Hunter’s nonsense, but does he contend, like Stephen Meyer, that it is possible to test how far a “design” has “degenerated” (When I read that in Meyer’s book, I thought, “Oh no, the Creator is gonna get mad with Stevie boy”.). WOuld be interesting to see whether Hunter buys Meyer’s argument. Thanks, John

Joe Felsenstein said:

John Kwok said: I haven't read much of Cornelius Hunter's nonsense, but does he contend, like Stephen Meyer, that it is possible to test how far a "design" has "degenerated" (When I read that in Meyer's book, I thought, "Oh no, the Creator is gonna get mad with Stevie boy".). WOuld be interesting to see whether Hunter buys Meyer's argument.

I have not read Meyer's book so I don't know whether Hunter's argument is similar to Meyer's. Hunter's argument chastises evolutionary biologists for their alleged religious presuppositions when they try to make predictions from Design or creationism. But Hunter does not come up with any scientific predictions of his own. So if Meyer does come up with some, then his argument must be different from Hunter's.

Steve P. said: Professor Felsenstein, The fact that Cornelius Hunter can point point out flaws in your logic has nothing to do with whether he is able to offer a counter argument. This seems to be a popular line of attack but is a false argument. IOW, counter arguments are not prerequisite to any criticism. Rather, criticism initiates the first logical step of opening the door through which new ideas can arrive. If you logic is wrong, it needs to be corrected. If it can't be, then new avenues need to be explored to resolve the logical problem. Re bad design, IMO is it a losing battle for proponents of TMS to evoke bad design since there is no way to support such a qualitative assertion. More so, it seems to also be an admission of design (not just the appearance of design); a major faux pas for your side, no?

stevaroni said:

fnxtr said: Byers "arguments" are the linguistic equivalent of The Weasel Ball.

I propose a new construct, "Beyer's Weasel", to be applied to an explanation so twisty and convoluted that, like the Weazel Ball, it reaches the point that it can confuse itself without any further human intervention, and it's only practical application is to make cats dizzy.

It certainly would be interesting to hear Cornelius Hunter tell us what he thinks has evolved, and what he thinks hasn’t. Over at Uncommon Descent it is very common for some people to post or leave comments saying that “there is no evidence for evolution” while in the same thread others will angrily say that there is no one there who denies common descent. And they never, ever, argue with each other!

Steve P. said: There is certainly evidence that could be interpreted to fit the TMS. But this also depends on a whole lotta conceptual assumptions. I mean how are you able to prove a negative? How is non-teleology and non-direction demonstrated?

Steve P. said: The fact that Cornelius Hunter can point point out flaws in your logic has nothing to do with whether he is able to offer a counter argument. This seems to be a popular line of attack but is a false argument. IOW, counter arguments are not prerequisite to any criticism. Rather, criticism initiates the first logical step of opening the door through which new ideas can arrive. If you logic is wrong, it needs to be corrected. If it can't be, then new avenues need to be explored to resolve the logical problem.

Re bad design, IMO is it a losing battle for proponents of TMS to evoke bad design since there is no way to support such a qualitative assertion. More so, it seems to also be an admission of design (not just the appearance of design); a major faux pas for your side, no?

A bullet hole appears in a victim’s head.

Forensic science says: “I can use ballistics to trace that bullet to the specific gun that originated it.”

Robert Byers says: “The scientific method is not useful to origin subjects period.”

A blackmail letter appears on a victim’s desk.

Forensic science says: “I can use fingerprints on that paper to find who originated it.”

Robert Byers says: “The scientific method is not useful to origin subjects period.”

A new comet appears in the sky.

Astronomical science says: “I can calculate that comet’s orbit and find where it came from before we observed it.”

Robert Byers says: “The scientific method is not useful to origin subjects period.”

Anthrax is mailed in envelopes to congressional offices.

Microbiological science says: “I can trace that strand of anthrax back to the lab that originated it.”

Robert Byers says: “The scientific method is not useful to origin subjects period.”

No need to be "technical."

Housewife says: "I put a cake in the heated oven and now the same cake is in the oven but it is baked."

Robert Byers says: "The scientific method is not useful to origin subjects period."

This is why creationists are scumball liars who can't help themselves. They think they have a different "worldview" but it's no different from anyone else's. They just enjoy pretending that it's different and telling self-serving lies in certain contexts. It actually makes them feel better to behave this way.

It's a form of mental illness, albeit benign in most instances and indistinguishable from profound ignorance.

Steve wrote:

There is no irrefutable evidence for Darwin's (and TMS) version of evolution, where small non-teloeological, undirected, step-wise fortuitous mutations build up, creating emergent layers of biological complexity.

There certainly is, you just couldn't be bothered to look at it.

DS said: Steve wrote: There is no irrefutable evidence for Darwin's (and TMS) version of evolution, where small non-teloeological, undirected, step-wise fortuitous mutations build up, creating emergent layers of biological complexity. There certainly is, you just couldn't be bothered to look at it.

DS said: Steve wrote: There is no irrefutable evidence for Darwin's (and TMS) version of evolution, where small non-teloeological, undirected, step-wise fortuitous mutations build up, creating emergent layers of biological complexity. There certainly is, you just couldn't be bothered to look at it.

DS said: Steve wrote: There is no irrefutable evidence for Darwin's (and TMS) version of evolution, where small non-teloeological, undirected, step-wise fortuitous mutations build up, creating emergent layers of biological complexity. There certainly is, you just couldn't be bothered to look at it.

Steve P. said: There is no irrefutable evidence for Darwin's (and TMS) version of evolution, where small non-teloeological, undirected, step-wise fortuitous mutations build up, creating emergent layers of biological complexity.

Welcome back, Steve P.

I need to remind everyone that you have at least as many problems with Hunter's "agnostic age" "theory" as you have with evolution. Hunter's "theory" allows (if not commits to) absurdly recent ages that apparently preclude the common descent that you and Michael Behe concede. But I guess you'll let Hunter off the hook because he's one of those poor "expelled" underdogs. Which he wouldn't be if he stated his own hypotheses of what the designer did, when and how, and tested them on their own merits.

Steve P. said: More so, they ironically employ many teleological analogies of co-option, cooperation, and competition in order to explain supposedly non-teleological processes. Now why is that?

alias Ernest Major wrote:

"But unimpugnable would be a better choice of word that irrefutable. (T.o's great debunker of ID, Tony Pagano, likes unambiguous.)"

Right. But he didn't refute anything, nor did he impugn anything. He didn't even read anything. What's more, he never provided any alternative explanation. All this guy has got is "I don't believe it". Since he is abysmally ignorant of even the most basic biological concepts, his opinion is completely worthless.

Now if this guy actually concedes common descent as Frank observed, exactly how does he think that it is supposed to work if there is no competition or selection? Did god create each species from other species by two million separate divine interventions? Yea, that makes lots of sense. Much simpler that all that complicated competition and selection stuff. You don't even have to read a book to understand that nonsense.

Steve P. said: There is no irrefutable evidence for Darwin's (and TMS) version of evolution, where small non-teloeological, undirected, step-wise fortuitous mutations build up, creating emergent layers of biological complexity.

Cornelius Hunter said: Unfortunately these misrepresentations are typical of evolutionists. Not only are evolution’s metaphysical arguments from dysteleology, or bad design, perfectly valid, they can also be quite powerful. Felsenstein’s strawman that we say otherwise would be bizarre if it wasn’t so common.

How ironic. The supposedly scientific theory of evolution relies on religious assumptions about divine intent to rebuke the religious theory of creation about its concerns that empirical observations indicate biological variation is limited.

Hawks said: I'm a tad surprised that Cornelius would say such a thing. ... Cornelius has made loads of these kinds of posts where he tries to say that evolution is religious because evolutionists sometimes use these "religious" assumptions. I always took this to mean that Cornelius thought that such arguments were invalid, but in his first quote above he makes it clear that they are valid. I suppose that this means that Cornelius thinks that using religious assumptions is perfectly valid?

The metaphysics in evolution run deep. It is one long religious argument, filled with non scientific claims and speculation. But it recognizes none of this in itself, and instead projects it onto opposing ideas. In the height of hypocrisy, evolutionists locate these problems in their neighbor’s eye. Opposing ideas, they say, don’t fit the evidence very well, are non falsifiable, are science stoppers, and are religious. All of this in defense of a theory that isn’t even wrong. Religion drives science and it matters.

Joe Felsenstein said: It is certainly hard to put all this together into a coherent whole.

Why discuss design at all? Science is about *process*. Science is not about is not about "ultimate causes" or "purpose and meaning".

Scott said: But let's say the mismatch between the first "prediction" and the last 10 years of data merely suggests that you overlooked some subtle factor in the first 90 years of data. If you then add new coefficients to your model, but still base them on only the first 90 years of data, then your next "prediction" is also reasonably free from influence from the last 10 years of data. Iterate until convergence. I'm no modeling expert, but I've had enough experience to feel this is a reasonably accurate lay understanding of the process.

John Stockwell said: Why discuss design at all? Science is about *process*. Science is not about is not about "ultimate causes" or "purpose and meaning".

There is no irrefutable evidence for Darwin’s (and TMS) version of evolution,

where small non-teloeological, undirected, step-wise fortuitous mutations build up, creating emergent layers of biological complexity.

There is certainly evidence that could be interpreted to fit the TMS. But this also depends on a whole lotta conceptual assumptions.

I mean how are you able to prove a negative?

How is non-teleology and non-direction demonstrated?

"I argued that...If you predict every possible outcome, the ones that are seen and the ones that are not, then you have not predicted anything! "

Don't we have pretty much the same problem?

"Evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything. "

Sylvilagus said:

Robert Byers said: Predictions doesn't [sic] work in past and gone events.

This would seem to suggest that Gravitational Theory and the theory of orbital mechanics don't predict solar eclipses during the time of the ancient egyptians before these theories were developed. Or that Germ theory doesn't predict the effects of malaria before in past epidemics. You don't seem to understand what "prediction" means in science. This is the problem with trying to discuss complex scientific issues without understanding science concepts.

Disorder would not be a part of the order of a creator. So disorder can not be.

How do you know this to be true?

Dan said:

Robert Byers said: The scientific method is not useful to origin subjects period.

A bullet hole appears in a victim's head. Forensic science says: "I can use ballistics to trace that bullet to the specific gun that originated it." Robert Byers says: "The scientific method is not useful to origin subjects period." A blackmail letter appears on a victim's desk. Forensic science says: "I can use fingerprints on that paper to find who originated it." Robert Byers says: "The scientific method is not useful to origin subjects period." A new comet appears in the sky. Astronomical science says: "I can calculate that comet's orbit and find where it came from before we observed it." Robert Byers says: "The scientific method is not useful to origin subjects period." Anthrax is mailed in envelopes to congressional offices. Microbiological science says: "I can trace that strand of anthrax back to the lab that originated it." Robert Byers says: "The scientific method is not useful to origin subjects period."

The whole point of I.D and YEC is that disorder is impossible if there is a creator and a created universe.

— Robert Byers

Given that this is a central point for him, it is totally relevant and totally fair to ask him what scientific position they should instead attribute to creation or Design advocates.

So how about you trying to provide the scientific prediction creationism or Design makes in that case?

Brenda said: "I argued that...If you predict every possible outcome, the ones that are seen and the ones that are not, then you have not predicted anything! " Don't we have pretty much the same problem? [SNIP list of examples]

Brenda said:

[This was actually a quote from me, in the original post of this thread] "I argued that...If you predict every possible outcome, the ones that are seen and the ones that are not, then you have not predicted anything! "

Don't we have pretty much the same problem? "Evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything. "

Steve P. said: Appreciate the response professor. ... It takes a extended argument like emergence to try to explain just why design is illusory. So why would we choose a complicated explanation seeking to refute apparent design to the direct experience of design? And what is the goal of refuting design. Would not science, observing apparent design, seek to confirm it first, rather than deny it? i.e. things appear designs so lets investigate to confirm whether it is designed or not? Sound logical and reasonable on its face. ... If we finally conclude that design in fact is embedded in nature, it does not stop science. Rather, we would now have to consider what mechanisms are responsible for this embedding, and then how we can detect it. I fail to see how hypothesizing design is somehow an appeal to religion.

Steve P quoting me Given that this is a central point for him, it is totally relevant and totally fair to ask him what scientific position they should instead attribute to creation or Design advocates.

If we happen to detect design empirically as a possible combination of interacting forces acting on matter in a particular way, then we will be able to make predictions based on our detailed understanding of these hypothesized interactions of forces and how they affect the formation and development of organisms.

Steve P

... quoting me So how about you trying to provide the scientific prediction creationism or Design makes in that case?

Steve P. said: The darwinian hypothesis suggests design is only illusory which strikes me as not in line with directly observable phenomena. It takes a extended argument like emergence to try to explain just why design is illusory. So why would we choose a complicated explanation seeking to refute apparent design to the direct experience of design? And what is the goal of refuting design. Would not science, observing apparent design, seek to confirm it first, rather than deny it? i.e. things appear designs so lets investigate to confirm whether it is designed or not? Sound logical and reasonable on its face.

Robert wrote:

"Not the same thing.
Origin subjects are not just about past events but the processes are past events and so explain the events of the past.

A bullet in the head is not a past process but a modern one even if in the past the guy took a bullet.

The evolution of a bacteria to a a bug to a bear is not a testable thing. Its all over and gone. The creatures said to be intermediate and the processes claimed to have been happening.
Testing past and GONE processes and events/results is mostly impossible. So Origin subjects can't claim the prestige of science.

Anything about the unseen past can only weigh evidence but not test it.
how can it be tested?"

Jericho is not just about past events but the processes are past events and so explain the events of the past.

Walls falling down is not a past process but a modern one even if in the past the walls fell down.

The evolution of a bacteria to a a bug to a bear is a testable thing. Its all over and gone, but like everything else it has left evidence. The creatures said to be intermediate and the processes claimed to have been happening have been identified.
Testing past and GONE processes and events/results is absolutely possible. That is the way that archaeology works. That is the way that forensics works. Get a clue.

Anything about the unseen past can weigh evidence and test it.
how can it be tested? By confirming the predictions of the hypothesis. By examining the evidence left behind. By the same methods that you claimed were valid when studying biblical archaeology or using the same methods used in forensics.

See Robert, you may desperately need to believe that studying the past is outside of the realm of science, but you are dead wrong. Just admit it go away.

Steve P. said: The darwinian hypothesis suggests design is only illusory which strikes me as not in line with directly observable phenomena.

It seems logical that we should consider the possibility that design is possibly embedded in nature

Brenda wrote:

"Don't we have pretty much the same problem?"

Actually, no we don't. Evolutionary theory absolutely does NOT predict every possible outcome. There are many potential observations that would be completely impossible for modern evolutionary theory to explain. Some would require a complete revision of all of the history of life on earth. But some would be completely inconsistent with the most fundamental aspects of evolutionary theory. In this case, the theory could not be modified in order to account for the observations. So, either the theory would be falsified, or some other explanation outside of evolution would be necessary.

One example of such an observation would be if the nested hierachy of genetic similarities did not correspond to the order of appearance of major groups in the fossil record. Another would be a completely different genetic code in an organism nested deeply within a clade with the ancestral genetic code. There are many other such potential observations, most of which Darwin could never even have imagined, let alone forseen. Thing is, none of these things has ever been observed, so the theory remains unfalsified - for now.

If creationists had the courage of their convictions, they would be out there looking for such evidence. Since they don't, one can only conclude that even they know they are completely wrong.

Joe Felsenstein said: As for your [Brenda's] quote, it is certainly well-written and interesting. I am not sure who originated it but I found it on the Web here. Hmm.

Brenda said: Evolution explains everything. "

Some unknown genius wrote:

"Evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything. "

Exactly. Thanks for describing the tremendous explanatory power of one of the most tested theory in science. Evolution explains everything that we actually observe about living things. What is doesn't explain is all of the potential observations of things that have never been shown to exist. Evolution is falsifiable, it just hasn't been falsified.

If you want to prove evolution wrong, you will have to come up with an observation that it cannot explain rather a list of things that are observed that it can explain. Lack of imagination does not invalidate evolutionary theory.

As Joe pointed out, theories correctly explain lots of things. That is why theories are useful. Just don't confuse everything that is actually observed with everything that could potentially be observed.

"Would not science, observing apparent design, seek to confirm it first, rather than deny it? i.e. things appear designs so lets investigate to confirm whether it is designed or not? Sound logical and reasonable on its face." -- Steve P.

Well, have at 'er, Steve! Go ahead, investigate to your heart's content! The DI gets millions of dollars every year, maybe they could channel a few bucks here and there for actual, you know, science or something.

Show your work, Steve P., that's all we're asking. Show your work. "This looks designed" and number juggling are not going to cut it in the real world.

Thing is, as has been pointed out above, it's been done. Looking for design, researchers found none. They found evolution. Suck it up, princess.

Frank J said:

John Stockwell said: Why discuss design at all? Science is about *process*. Science is not about is not about "ultimate causes" or "purpose and meaning".

Exactly! Which is why it boggles my mind why those "Darwinists" who can compose far better technical refutations of anti-evolution arguments than I can, nevertheless almost always stop short of asking anti-evolutionists simple questions about what their designer did when. When they do ask, the ones who do answer (~30% in my experience) give an embarrassing set of mutually contradictory answers, and the ones who evade the questions come across as dishonest to all but their most hopeless fans. And almost none of them challenge other anti-evolutionists, which (along with their refusal to conduct original relevant research) demolishes any pretense that they think they have a better scientific explanation.

Steve P. said: The darwinian hypothesis suggests design is only illusory which strikes me as not in line with directly observable phenomena. It takes a extended argument like emergence to try to explain just why design is illusory. So why would we choose a complicated explanation seeking to refute apparent design to the direct experience of design?

And what is the goal of refuting design. Would not science, observing apparent design, seek to confirm it first, rather than deny it? i.e. things appear designs so lets investigate to confirm whether it is designed or not? Sound logical and reasonable on its face.

Evolution is falsifiable, it just hasn’t been falsified.

Steve P. said: There is no irrefutable evidence for Darwin's (and TMS) version of evolution, where small non-teloeological, undirected, step-wise fortuitous mutations build up, creating emergent layers of biological complexity.

It would seem science is utterly unable to answer and necessarily ambivalent to the question of teleology either way. Yet many proponents of TMS are sure that evolution is non-directed and non-teleological. More so, they ironically employ many teleological analogies of co-option, cooperation, and competition in order to explain supposedly non-teleological processes. Now why is that?

Why are we not seeing explanations for biological development expressed solely in terms of physics and chemistry? This would seem the only way of avoiding the contradiction of using teleological language to refute teleological conclusions.

Henry J said: If a fossil that hasn't yet been found is predicted by theory and then found after the prediction was made, then the finding of it was a predicted future event at the time at which the prediction was made. It was not a prediction about the past, it was a prediction about a future event - the finding of the fossil. Henry

“I argued that…If you predict every possible outcome, the ones that are seen and the ones that are not, then you have not predicted anything! “ Don’t we have pretty much the same problem?

“Evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything. “

I have to disagree with posters who claim that evolution (or any other theory for that matter) is falsifiable. A theory consists of a combination of any number of hypotheses. It any of these hypotheses were wrong it would not necessarily mean that the theory was also wrong. Moreover, a hypothesis that might appear wrong might not actually be so since it might itself depend on another incorrent hypothesis.

An example that is often brought up as a potential falsifier of evolution is the discovery of a Devonian bunny (true mammals are thought to have first appearad hundreds of million years after the Devonian). Such a discovery could certainly shake up a lot about what we know about evolution - or perhaps not. Which of the following is more likely to be accepted (I realise that I'm provide a false trilemma, but I'm just trying to make a point):

1. A lot about what we know about common ancestry and evolutionary "progress" is wrong.
2. The methods for dating the bunny was wrong.
3. The fossil bunny is a fake.

I vote for 2 or 3 (potentially in reverse order).

Note: I have come to realise in the last few weeks that my ability to explain my thoughts is even worse than I originally thought (and I never thought I was any good to begin with). Because of this, I'll supply the following link to a Wikipedia article which explains what I wrote above in more detail and, more to the point, it does so much better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_holism

Hawks said: I have to disagree with posters who claim that evolution (or any other theory for that matter) is falsifiable... An example that is often brought up as a potential falsifier of evolution is the discovery of a Devonian bunny...Which of the following is more likely to be accepted (I realise that I'm provide a false trilemma, but I'm just trying to make a point): 1. A lot about what we know about common ancestry and evolutionary "progress" is wrong. 2. The methods for dating the bunny was wrong. 3. The fossil bunny is a fake. I vote for 2 or 3 (potentially in reverse order).

Hawks said: I have to disagree with posters who claim that evolution (or any other theory for that matter) is falsifiable. A theory consists of a combination of any number of hypotheses. It any of these hypotheses were wrong it would not necessarily mean that the theory was also wrong. Moreover, a hypothesis that might appear wrong might not actually be so since it might itself depend on another incorrent hypothesis.

I have to disagree with posters who claim that evolution (or any other theory for that matter) is falsifiable. A theory consists of a combination of any number of hypotheses. It any of these hypotheses were wrong it would not necessarily mean that the theory was also wrong.

Moreover, a hypothesis that might appear wrong might not actually be so since it might itself depend on another incorrent hypothesis.

An example that is often brought up as a potential falsifier of evolution is the discovery of a Devonian bunny (true mammals are thought to have first appearad hundreds of million years after the Devonian). Such a discovery could certainly shake up a lot about what we know about evolution - or perhaps not. Which of the following is more likely to be accepted (I realise that I’m provide a false trilemma, but I’m just trying to make a point): 1. A lot about what we know about common ancestry and evolutionary “progress” is wrong. 2. The methods for dating the bunny was wrong. 3. The fossil bunny is a fake. I vote for 2 or 3 (potentially in reverse order).

Note: I have come to realise in the last few weeks that my ability to explain my thoughts is even worse than I originally thought (and I never thought I was any good to begin with). Because of this, I’ll supply the following link to a Wikipedia article which explains what I wrote above in more detail and, more to the point, it does so much better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_holism

Robert Byers said:

Sylvilagus said:

Robert Byers said: Predictions doesn't [sic] work in past and gone events.

This would seem to suggest that Gravitational Theory and the theory of orbital mechanics don't predict solar eclipses during the time of the ancient egyptians before these theories were developed. Or that Germ theory doesn't predict the effects of malaria before in past epidemics. You don't seem to understand what "prediction" means in science. This is the problem with trying to discuss complex scientific issues without understanding science concepts.

Disorder would not be a part of the order of a creator. So disorder can not be.

The whole point of I.D and YEC is that disorder is impossible if there is a creator and a created universe. The point of order and complexity in the universe therein is the power of I.D in claiming a creator. Disorder is not a option for those saying a creator is here

I understand prediction. In your cases indeed one can not predict these orbits/germs going on in the old days. These are past and gone events. So any interfering option can be possible and so make impossible predicting about the past based on the present. origin issues deal with events and processes never witnessed. The scientific method can not or seldom be used for these things as testing requires knowing things have not changed. How would one know. its speculation..

Robert Byers said: The scientific method is not useful to origin subjects period. ... Anything about the unseen past can only weigh evidence but not test it.

Robert Byers said: The scientific method can not or seldom be used for these things as testing requires knowing things have not changed. How would one know. its speculation..

However, if there actually were valid rabbit fossils from the Devonian, it would be a massive challenge to the theory of evolution in general, and to current ideas of rabbit evolution in particular.

— harold

However, if there actually were valid rabbit fossils from the Devonian, it would be a massive challenge to the theory of evolution in general, and to current ideas of rabbit evolution in particular.

— harold

Steve P. said: Appreciate the response professor. I think this has been made clear already, maybe not by Hunter himself but by other ID advocates. Intelligent design is not speaking to the quality of design but the basic fact of the existence of design in nature.

The darwinian hypothesis suggests design is only illusory which strikes me as not in line with directly observable phenomena.

It takes a extended argument like emergence to try to explain just why design is illusory.

So why would we choose a complicated explanation seeking to refute apparent design to the direct experience of design?

And what is the goal of refuting design.

Would not science, observing apparent design, seek to confirm it first, rather than deny it? i.e. things appear designs so lets investigate to confirm whether it is designed or not? Sound logical and reasonable on its face.

Further, why would we develop cognitive skills to design in particular all the while denying design in general?

It seems logical that we should consider the possibility that design is possibly embedded in nature...

just as much as we have considered the possibility design capabilities of humans somehow emerges from numerous layers of increased complexity.

If we finally conclude that design in fact is embedded in nature, it does not stop science. Rather, we would now have to consider what mechanisms are responsible for this embedding, and then how we can detect it.

I fail to see how hypothesizing design is somehow an appeal to religion.

If we happen to detect design empirically as a possible combination of interacting forces acting on matter in a particular way, then we will be able to make predictions based on our detailed understanding of these hypothesized interactions of forces and how they affect the formation and development of organisms.

RBH said: The most they pretend to do is label phenomena: 'designed or not designed.' A label is not an explanation.

Unless of course they secretly actually believe in evolution and already know what they will find.

harold said: That's just not what a theory is. Here is a decent discussion of what theory means in science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory The key point is that it explains empirical observations.

The theory of evolution has made and can make predictions about empirical findings.

eric said: Falsifiability means that when investigation eliminates 2 and 3 from reasonable contention, science will accept 1.

If you are implying that when I say that evolution can’t be falsified, it also means that it can’t make predictions, then you are wrong.

I think we might have to go back a step and that I have to ask what we actually mean by "falsifiable". Do we mean in Popper's original deductive sense. Do we mean his later version where probability statements were included? Is the theory outright rejected or merely modified? Or even that it can only be falsified when a better theory is proposed? Or something else? And when it is falsified, why is it the theory rather than some hypothesis that is falsified.

harold said: Hawks -

If you are implying that when I say that evolution can’t be falsified, it also means that it can’t make predictions, then you are wrong.

Can the theory of relativity be falsified? Answer please. If the theory of evolution can't be falsified (according to you), what difference does it make? Answer please.

Can the theory of relativity be falsified? Answer please. If the theory of evolution can’t be falsified (according to you), what difference does it make? Answer please. I think we might have to go back a step and that I have to ask what we actually mean by “falsifiable”. Do we mean in Popper’s original deductive sense. Do we mean his later version where probability statements were included? Is the theory outright rejected or merely modified? Or even that it can only be falsified when a better theory is proposed? Or something else? And when it is falsified, why is it the theory rather than some hypothesis that is falsified.

My view on the matter is that the theory of relativity (just like any other) can only be replaced by a better theory. I.e. a theory is only considered sufficiently wrong when there is a better explanation, not just because there seem to be some observations going against it.

Steve wrote:

"It would seem science is utterly unable to answer and necessarily ambivalent to the question of teleology either way. Yet many proponents of TMS are sure that evolution is non-directed and non-teleological. More so, they ironically employ many teleological analogies of co-option, cooperation, and competition in order to explain supposedly non-teleological processes. Now why is that?"

No they don't. You just keep claiming that they do. Now why is that?

Look Steve, there is nothing "teleological" about competition. It is not an analogy, it is a documented mechanism operating in nature. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? Do you remember when you claimed that lions have no competition? Well, as I pointed out at the time, you were dead wrong. Now I know how much you love scientific references, so here are two more for you to read:

Caro and Stoner (2003) The potential for interspecific competition among African carnivores. Biological Conservation 110(1):67-75.

Cooper (1991) Optimal hunting group size: the need for lions to defend their kills against loss to spotted hyaenas. African Journal of Ecology 29:130-136.

Now Steve, when you have proven that you have read, understood and refuted these papers, then perhaps someone one will care about your opinion. Until then, quit making a fool of yourself.

My view on the matter is that the theory of relativity (just like any other) can only be replaced by a better theory. I.e. a theory is only considered sufficiently wrong when there is a better explanation, not just because there seem to be some observations going against it.

TomS said:

RBH said: The most they pretend to do is label phenomena: 'designed or not designed.' A label is not an explanation.

Is there any example of a phenomenon with the label "not designed"?

Hawks said: I think we might have to go back a step and that I have to ask what we actually mean by “falsifiable”. Do we mean...

I have to disagree with posters who claim that evolution (or any other theory for that matter) is falsifiable.

I have often speculated about the actual beliefs and motivations of creationists.

— harold

Frank J -

I just noticed that to a large degree you, I and Bailey are saying exactly the same thing.

The commonality is that they don't care whether or not the evidence favors evolution.

Whether they secretly accept evolution, or have defenses in place to prevent that, we can't know.

What we can observe is that they will argue against it, no matter what the evidence, and they will attempt to use legal and political strategies to force submission of those who defend science and push anti-evolution on the uniformed.

It still boils down to an authoritarian agenda. Whether you hide the truth from the peasants, or believe your own propaganda, saying anything to win, and focusing on the courts, the high schools, and the popular press in what is ostensibly a "scientific" debate, is what it is.

Falsify Evolution? Easy (in principle.) Demonstrate-empirically demonstrate-the existence of a barrier between "micro"- and "macro"evolution.

tresmal said: Falsify Evolution? Easy (in principle.) Demonstrate-empirically demonstrate-the existence of a barrier between "micro"- and "macro"evolution.

How about just define, describe, or even just hypothesize where there might be such a barrier or how it might operate? If it’s at the family level, for example, why life is still organized at the order (and class, etc.) level; and whether humans are “micro”related to others of the Hominid family.

— TomS

harold said: I've tried not to respond to this until I got some answers to some very simple questions, but since it seems clear that my questions will go unanswered, I'll comment on this.

However, when creationists make the argument that "evolution cannot be falsified", we understand what they mean. What they MEAN is "people who current accept the theory of evolution would not accept any other theory under any circumstances, no matter what hypothetical evidence emerged". This implied meaning is false.

There is some merit in the suggestion that it is better to refer to theories as being "replaced" (or perhaps in some cases "abandoned") rather than "falsified". Replaced is in some ways a more accurate term. I did not invent the term "falsified", and have often used it as being synonymous, in this context, with "replaced" or "abandoned", because others who initiated its use were using it that way.

Although this is not, strictly speaking, a purely semantic problem, it is a problem that can be fixed with a word processor. Simply replace the word "falsified" with the word "replaced" in the above discussion.

eric said:

Hawks said: I think we might have to go back a step and that I have to ask what we actually mean by “falsifiable”. Do we mean...

But earlier you said:

I have to disagree with posters who claim that evolution (or any other theory for that matter) is falsifiable.

What is this "we?" You, Hawks, claimed evolution was not falsifiable. Why don't you tell us what your definition of falsifiable was when you said that? I assume you DID have some definition in mind when you made that claim?

harold said: If the theory of evolution can’t be falsified (according to you), what difference does it make? Answer please.

harold said: Hawks said -

My view on the matter is that the theory of relativity (just like any other) can only be replaced by a better theory. I.e. a theory is only considered sufficiently wrong when there is a better explanation, not just because there seem to be some observations going against it.

I have no problem with the above statement, and it is entirely compatible with everything I and others have said already.

Evolution is falsifiable, it just hasn’t been falsified.

I think this is an important point that NO creationist I’ve ever seen ever gets. We test evolutionary theory EVERY SINGLE DAY. Every fossil excavation is a test of evolution. Every cladistic analysis is a test of evolution. Every gene sequence we determine is a test of evolution. Evolutionary theory COULD FAIL AT ANY TIME. It just hasn’t. Ya wanna overthrow the theory? Find the failures. No creationist ever has. No creationist ever will. Because they can’t. Either they don’t understand the science or they don’t care.

However, when creationists make the argument that “evolution cannot be falsified”, we understand what they mean. What they MEAN is “people who current accept the theory of evolution would not accept any other theory under any circumstances, no matter what hypothetical evidence emerged”. This implied meaning is false.

Does this really matter? Have I implied this? Did I not even say that theories get replaced by better theories?

Although this is not, strictly speaking, a purely semantic problem, it is a problem that can be fixed with a word processor. Simply replace the word “falsified” with the word “replaced” in the above discussion.

As far as I know, you have now redefined the meaning of falsification.

It’s still a theory with predictive power. The best one there is. Is that the sort of answer you were looking for?

This seems to imply that mere observations are required for falsification (although “Rilke” perhaps(?) doesn’t seem to want as many as you). I.e. there is no test against any other theory.

Hawks said:

eric said: Falsifiability means that when investigation eliminates 2 and 3 from reasonable contention, science will accept 1.

Do you reckon that you have now falsified evolution or merely the idea of common descent? Or perhaps common descent still stands and the bunny is explained as an outlier that evolved separately from a pre-mammalian ancestor.

Hawks said:

harold said: Hawks -

If you are implying that when I say that evolution can’t be falsified, it also means that it can’t make predictions, then you are wrong.

Can the theory of relativity be falsified? Answer please. If the theory of evolution can't be falsified (according to you), what difference does it make? Answer please.

My view on the matter is that the theory of relativity (just like any other) can only be replaced by a better theory. I.e. a theory is only considered sufficiently wrong when there is a better explanation, not just because there seem to be some observations going against it.

Hawks said: Anyhow, I don't think that any theory is falsifiable.

Dan said:

Hawks said: Anyhow, I don't think that any theory is falsifiable.

Let's try these: The theory that the earth is flat. The theory that birds don't have stomachs. Does Hawks really believe that these two theories cannot be proven false?

Stuart Weinstein said: Certainly the modern theory of evolution will be falsified.

Stuart Weinstein said: This is false.

Just because a theory has been falsified doesn't mean it is not still useful.

Hawks said:

Dan said: Let's try these: The theory that the earth is flat. The theory that birds don't have stomachs. Does Hawks really believe that these two theories cannot be proven false?

Two problems here. First of all, I would call neither a theory. Second of all, both are false because there is good evidence that the Earth is spherical (although that is not really true either, I suppose) and that birds have stomachs.

Anyhow, I don’t think that any theory is falsifiable.

Hawks said:

Dan said:

Hawks said: Anyhow, I don't think that any theory is falsifiable.

Let's try these: The theory that the earth is flat. The theory that birds don't have stomachs. Does Hawks really believe that these two theories cannot be proven false?

Two problems here. First of all, I would call neither a theory. Second of all, both are false because there is good evidence that the Earth is spherical (although that is not really true either, I suppose) and that birds have stomachs.

I don’t see why a theory that failed could not be replaced with “absence of a theory” if no alternate theory was available. It might take time to develop another theory. This is common critique of ID/creationism, in fact. They attack the theory of evolution, rather than make positive predictions and explanations. But why should ID be the “default” even if the theory of evolution were seriously challenged?

— harold

Hawks,

The theory of evolution could have been falsified in exactly the same way that the theory of a flat earth was falsified. Until evidence was found that the earth was not flat, that was the most reasonable explanation for all of the observations. Now, it is unlikely that the theory that the earth is round will ever be falsified. It may be modified to account for slight variations in shape, but in order to be falsified, some evidence must be found that the earth is some shape other than round. And that alternative theory must account for all of the available evidence better than the theory that the earth is round or it will not be preferred.

In exactly the same way, the theory of evolution has been tested. The fossil record has revealed that the simplest organisms appear first and the more complex organism only appear later. If this pattern were not found, evolution would have been falsified. Likewise, the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities, found only long after Darwin was gone, is completely consistent with the order of appearance of major groups in the fossil record. Once again, the theory could very well have been falsified, it just wasn't. Now, many potential observations could still falsify the theory of evolution, but they will also have to account for all of the available evidence better than the theory of evolution already does. That seems unlikely at this point, but that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable or that it is not science, any more than the theory that the earth is round is not science.

As far as I can tell, Hawks' arguments amount to claiming that under some definitions of the terms "theory" and "falsifiable," the statement "theories are not falsifiable" is true. Whoopeee! Philosophical navel-gazing at its best.

Hawks,

If you're right, why should we care? So what if scientific theories are not falsifiable under some definition of falsifiable? Until you show why your particular definition is relevant, your argument - even if true - remains about as valuable as the philosophical statement "the absolute is infinite."

The theory that birds don’t have stomachs. Does Hawks really believe that these two theories cannot be proven false?

Two problems here. First of all, I would call neither a theory. Second of all, both are false because there is good evidence that the Earth is spherical (although that is not really true either, I suppose) and that birds have stomachs.

Hawks said:

Stuart Weinstein said: This is false.

No, really. That is my view:)

Just because a theory has been falsified doesn't mean it is not still useful.

If something's useful, it's useful.

Hawks said:

Stuart Weinstein said: Certainly the modern theory of evolution will be falsified.

Would that apply when any evolutinary hypothesis was shown to have problems? For example, if the discovery of new hominid fossils meant that we had to revise some of our ideas regarding human evolution.

As Duhem argued, theories on their own can't make predictions. Auxiliary propositions (and I assume hypotheses in general) need to be used as well. That would mean that when a hypothesis' predictions fail, the predictions of the theory fail as well. This is, in essence, what a falsification is meant to be. Therefore, it would seem that my reason for claiming that theories aren't falsifiable was wrong.

I wish to thank everyone who was involved in this discussion. It was a pleasure this time as well.

Re: my original post in this thread (remember that?)

Cornelius Hunter has now posted at his blog Darwin's God a response calling on me to defend the absolute requirement for methodological naturalism. But he has not answered my call for him to put forward his preferred alternatives. I have now replied to his post at his blog (comment of 8:50pm) by once again calling for him to show us, in the case of David Penny's test of common descent, what alternative hypothesis he has that make any prediction. Will the Missing Scientific Hypothesis stay missing? Stay tuned ...

Hunter's general complaint seems to be that IF there are in fact any non-natural causes and effects out there, the scientific method is incompetent to evaluate them, and that it's self-serving and circular to demand a scientific approach to something science, in principle, is inappropriate to apply.

I would suggest that the proper methodology would be to pray for enlightenment. To the best of my knowledge, no supplicant has EVER had his prayers answered by being informed that his opinion is wrong. So Hunter could confidently expect his non-natural methodology to ratify his preconvictions according to the methods and standards he prefers.

Another time-tested metholdology is to either ignore or censor away inconvenient questions, or permanently ban anyone presuming to ask any. This is technically known as the "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" method, and seems to have an outstanding track record. I've never seen a single argument "lost" by anyone who's used it, in his opinion.

Flint said: Hunter's general complaint seems to be that IF there are in fact any non-natural causes and effects out there, the scientific method is incompetent to evaluate them, and that it's self-serving and circular to demand a scientific approach to something science, in principle, is inappropriate to apply. [some extremely funny remarks snipped]

Whoo, that's the first time I've seen someone with all those fancy honors so blatantly confusing "artificial" with "magical."

Wheels said: Whoo, that's the first time I've seen someone with all those fancy honors so blatantly confusing "artificial" with "magical."

Joe wrote:

"...my take on Hunter’s position is different. I think he is saying instead that scientists, by limiting themselves to considering only natural explanations, are preventing themselves from finding the truth."

That would be true IF there were supernatural causes that affect nature. Of course, then the scientific method would be practically useless in that case. That is why creationists are always going on about scientists not knowing everything. The God of the gaps mentality is alive and well.

The big problem is that, so far at least, there is no evidence of any supernatural causes. And even if some were discovered, they would probably represent only a miniscule portion of the things observed in nature. So why abandon all of science for that remote possibility? Meanwhile, science marches on discovering things about the natural world. I think science envy is really what motivates many people to rant so incessantly against science.

For example, even if life originated by some miracle, evolutionary theory is still valid in explaining how it has evolved since, something it would have apparently been created to do. So, when creationists harp on the details of abiogenesis, as if it were some kind of argument against evolution, they are really fighting the wrong losing battle.

DS said: Joe wrote: "...my take on Hunter’s position is different. I think he is saying instead that scientists, by limiting themselves to considering only natural explanations, are preventing themselves from finding the truth." That would be true IF there were supernatural causes that affect nature. Of course, then the scientific method would be practically useless in that case. That is why creationists are always going on about scientists not knowing everything. The God of the gaps mentality is alive and well.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Wheels said: Whoo, that's the first time I've seen someone with all those fancy honors so blatantly confusing "artificial" with "magical."

... but it's not the first time I've seen someone make a totally incomprehensible comment. Care to explain?

Cornelius Hunter "I think you're the one mischaracterizing MN. It absolutely does not exclude the actions of intelligent life affecting things that we later observe, " False, ID is routinely said to violate MN. " I believe the foundation for the use of the term "methodological naturalism" in science was made by Paul de Vries in the early 1980s, as Ron Numbers explains in this newsgroup posting [http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200308/0439.html]. " You are confusing the terminology with the concept which has been around for centuries. It goes back at least to Descartes. " You may as well say "biologists," then, since some 99.x% would be "evolutionists," and they would be the experts on biological evolution who work with the idea every day. " False, few biologists work on evolution every day. Evolution is the art of telling stories about the past -- it has little positive influence on today's science. " Evolution is an observed and thoroughly documented occurrence, verifiable under a variety of conditions and reproducible by anybody who cares to try. " False, silly just so stories (and then a new protein evolved) don't count as scientific documentation. If evolution is to qualify as a scientific fact it will need to do more than claim that if there are enough universes in the multiverse then evolution, though unlikely, is bound to happen. If you are interested in facts, the fact is that evolution's fundamental predictions are routinely found to be false (www.DarwinsPredictions.com).