Falsifiability is a nice rule of thumb. But it’s not the defining characteristic of scientific propositions.

And yet when it comes to God, that sort of thinking goes right out the window and falsifiability becomes the end all and be all of proof.

n other words, evolution and natural selection are no longer falsifiable. Oops. Falsifiability is required to be part of any scientific theory. …

cmay on June 11, 2007 at 9:30 AM

As I also covered in one of the posts (far) above, while Popper thought falsifiability was a clear means of differentiating between scientific and non-scientific propositions, and that it offered benefits over the verificationism of the Logical Positivists, he was wrong. Falsifiability is a nice rule of thumb. But it’s not the defining characteristic of scientific propositions.

“Snow leopards exist” is a good example of a clearly scientific propositions that is not falsifiable by any conceivable observation, yet is still meaningful and demonstrably true.

In other words, evolution and natural selection are no longer falsifiable. Oops. Falsifiability is required to be part of any scientific theory. But for those with faith in evolution, omitting science is perfectly acceptable as long as it advances their philosophy.

cmay on June 11, 2007 at 9:30 AM

It’s even worse than that cmay… There is a steady stream, literally daily, of evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory. But it doesn’t matter how much evidence there is AGAINST evolution, because they simply adjust the theory to fit the data. The members of the Church of Darwin here see no problem with this and say “that’s how science works”, but they ignore the HUGE problem with this. It isn’t just tiny insignificant inconsistencies that are discovered regularly, there are problems both great and small, and no matter what, because evolution is ALWAYS assumed and not to be questioned, it will go on because they simply adjust the theory to fit the new data, no matter how stupid it is to do so, by any honest or logical independent thinking person’s standards. Like you said, they’ve taken away the ability to falsify it, when no matter the amount of evidence piled up against it, they’ll simply say evolution is “more complex” or “works differently” than we’d “previously assumed”. This is something they do CONSTANTLY. But no one ever forces them to show, in these Holy “peer reviewed” publications, where there is evidence for evolution in stories/discoveries that simply showed only that their previous assumptions were wrong, but in no way presented evidence that anything evolved.

I am so glad to read from your own keyboard what you consider science. It’ll give folks who followed this discussion to see just how rational you are.

cmay on June 11, 2007 at 8:39 AM

Do you understand what “in principle” means? Even demonstrably false statements can, in principle, be scientific in nature. “Scientific” and “true” are not synonymous.

Evolution is a hypothesis, not a scientific theory (a scientific theory, by definition is predictive). It is a theory only in the looser sense of the word, but not by scientific definition.

The arguments for evolution tend to be philosophical rather than scientific because of the lack of evidence. But the significant problem with evolutionist’s arguments is that they tend to shift the burden of proof from themselves (i.e., they must show their theory to be true or at least probable) to its critics (i.e., if you disagree with it you must prove it false). This is an inversion of scientific principle and is anti-scientific.

Punctuated equilibrium is a good example of this. According to Gould this mechanism explains the lack of fossil records and predictive capacity for evolution while maintaining the mechanism of natural selection. The problem with this notion is that it is anti-scientific. If we don’t find evidence then punctuated equilibrium is upheld but we still haven’t demonstrated evolution or natural selection. If we do find evidence, punctuated equilibrium is false but natural selection is demonstrated. In other words, evolution and natural selection are no longer falsifiable. Oops. Falsifiability is required to be part of any scientific theory. But for those with faith in evolution, omitting science is perfectly acceptable as long as it advances their philosophy.

I originally said in this post that evolution and global warming were similar in that:

They rely on faith rather than proof. Ironically, todays “scientists” want to excommunicate and censure those who have contrary theories.

We don’t do polls to find out what percent of Americans believe in Aristotelean physics because it’s been disproved. Likewise, nobody argues for “spontaneous generation”, which used to be a scientific law. No theory replaced it. It was proven untrue and left to lie in the dust bin.

If evolution were proven, nobody would run a poll like this, just like we don’t ask folks if they believe in quantum theory or relativity. But “scientists” are miffed (like the global warming crowd) that they are being held to their own standards for proof. “But, dammit, this theory is 150 years old and hasn’t been disproved!”

I have not invoked creationism, “Young Earth”, or intelligent design. I’ve not argued for any of these or other hypotheses. I’m just saying, the burden of proof is on the scientist, not the skeptic.

Blacklake on June 10, 2007 at 11:49 PM

Once again, Blacklake, you argue against a claim I’ve not made. I never claimed that God existed or that if He did what kind of God he was.

Even if the entirety of evolutionary theory consisted of the claim that human beings were genetically engineered from turtles by three-legged aliens, it would at least stand out as being a claim, no matter how outlandish, about the physical world, and at least in principle scientific.

I am so glad to read from your own keyboard what you consider science. It’ll give folks who followed this discussion to see just how rational you are.

Some evolutionists try to obfuscate the issue by claiming the theory of evolution is about nothing more than allele changes. Of course, what they always fail to admit that no allele changes that have been observed have ever resulted in one living thing becoming something else. They can get two groups of fruit flies to stop mating with each other, but they remain fruit flies. They can breed new types of dogs and flowers, but they remain dogs and flowers.

Four billion years not enough for you? Is it that you think it could happen (over a longer amount of time, say 20 billion years) or do you think evolution isn’t possible at all?

Given 4 billion years, no, there’s not enough time to go from the extremely simple one-celled organism to humans. How many changes does it take to get from one cell to us? Thousands? Hardly. Millions? Not even close! Billions? Trillions, maybe. The point is that the changes would have to be non-stop – so much so that if evolution were true, it would be easily observable today with how frequent the changes would have to be.

And you seem to think that there is evidence for evolution.

cmay on June 10, 2007 at 10:16 PM

For the sake of argument, I’m perfectly happy to proceed as if there weren’t. It doesn’t change anything. Even if the entirety of evolutionary theory consisted of the claim that human beings were genetically engineered from turtles by three-legged aliens, it would at least stand out as being a claim, no matter how outlandish, about the physical world, and at least in principle scientific. We would know what kind of evidence to look for.

Then your beef is with the scientific community who believe that codes are a sign of intelligence. Please write SETI, NASA, ESA, MIT etc. and tell them they’re wasting their time.

cmay on June 10, 2007 at 10:02 PM

It’s hard to take a discussion with you seriously, when it seems you skip at least every other sentence of my posts. If you look back, you’ll see the very next thing I wrote was (with some emphasis in the hopes you won’t miss it this time): “Because we understand, from observing our own example (the only case of highly intelligent life we have to study), that intelligent animals are responsible for the production of the machines that produce certain types of radio transmissions.”

I don’t think the folks at SETI, NASA, ESA, MIT, or even Carl Sagan himself would take even marginal issue with that (though I do suspect they’re wasting their time looking for alien life, for other reasons).

As for the continuing goings-on about faith, God, and whatnot, I certainly never made an argument about a “lack of God.” I made the observation that, apparently, whatever God is, it is not physical. The fact remains that I’ve yet to see anybody suggest in even the most tentative fashion how physical evidence could conceivably demonstrate the existence of a non-physical entity. That’s not a matter of faith on my part; it’s an observation of a genuine epistemological problem. (I will offer, for what its worth, that I suspect nobody cares to take on the issue because it is in fact insurmountable.)

The fact that you don’t even see this problem is exemplified by your analogy between deistic belief and the works of men like Newton, Aristotle, and a bevy of quantum theorists. Right or wrong, all of those individuals were offering theories about the physical world, which are subject to the dictates of physical evidence. To espouse the existence of God is to advance a theory inherently not about the physical world, and (unless one can explain the mechanism by which the ontological schism this creates is to be bridged, cannot possibly be subject to the dictates of physical evidence.

Again, I can’t make this any more clear. My perspective is “scientific” only to the extent that it focuses exclusively on the physical world, from which we can collect evidence. Perspectives including “God” are inherently different, because the allow claims about things that not of the physical world. In other words, I recognize the existence of one ontological class: physical things. Deists recognize the existence of two: physical things and non-physical things (or at least one non-physical thing). That is not an insignificant distinction.

Here is an excellent article on evolution from a philosophical point of view. It’s not science and doesn’t claim to be.

Creationism, when you cut to the core, is neither. It is, ultimately, an assertion about an entity that does not exist in the physical world, the existence of which cannot possibly be demonstrated by evidence.

Blacklake on June 10, 2007 at 9:49 PM

The funny thing here Blacklake is yo think there is nothing in between Creationism and evolution.

And you seem to think that there is evidence for evolution. Then why did Gould come up with punctuated equilibrium (a mechanism to explain why there is inconclusive evidence for evolution)? It was hailed as a breakthrough for evolutionists because it removed the necessity to find conclusive evidence. In other words, because they now had a mechanism, evolutionists could rely on faith alone rather than scientific principle.

Your assertion about the lack of God is based entirely on faith too. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean that something doesn’t exist. It means that you can’t establish something conclusively and scientifically. Nobody here has argued that God’s existence can be proven scientifically. But by your principle (lack of evidence means lack of existence) evolution does not exist because there is a lack of evidence for it. Or how about this, gravity did not exist before Newton explained it. Or quantum mechanics is less than 100 years old. Before that the universe operated strictly on Newtonian physics. And prior to the 17th century, it was all Aristotelean physics.

Once again, you lack scientific method in your analysis.

No. . . .

Blacklake on June 10, 2007 at 11:06 AM

Then your beef is with the scientific community who believe that codes are a sign of intelligence. Please write SETI, NASA, ESA, MIT etc. and tell them they’re wasting their time. Seriously, the degree to which you bend over backwards to support your a priori faith in what you consider science and rational thought is very strange.

You’re advancing the argument from design.

I didn’t advance a design argument. I’m just waiting for someone to show me how evolution is predictive.

And so what if Theobald isn’t trying to make the case for random mutation+natural selection specifically?

Jenny P

Actually he specifically avoids this. He states very clearly in his introduction and his summary that he is not attempting to show the mechanism (e.g., natural selection). But don’t trust me, let Theobald do his own talking:

Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid.

I added that last emphasis because it is obvious you have no idea what you just read.

How the first living cell came to exist is irrelevant to the evolution

Maybe to you, but not to scientists.

Anyway, my point in bringing up the article was that evolution makes lots of predictions, and creationists spend their time trying to show that those predictions fail. So evolution is perfectly scientific.

Apparently your definition of “predictive” is far different than what is accepted in the scientific community. BTW, evolutionists realize that, so far, evolution has been lacking in its predictive ability. Stephen Gould came up with the concept of punctuated equilibrium to explain the relative dearth of evidence. However, in the end, it’s nothing but an excuse as to why evolution fails to be predictive. You may want it to be, but the scientific community itself admits the lack of predictive capacity of it.

I’ve never heard of that one. Are you referring to Creationist Claim CB811

Actually de Beer was an evolutionist, not a creationist. This is actually a different argument than one I made since I referenced DNA sequence not genes. However, my favorite line in the refutation of de Beer was this one:

But although such cases are not explained, that does not mean they are unexplainable.

Yes, it’s unexplained. And the “scientist” has chosen not to explain it although it is explainable? Strange. I call that “faith”, not science.

BTW, I’ve never resorted to “Young Earth” advocates nor to a creationist argument. You seem to try to lump me in with those folks. Once again: I am neither for or against evolution. I am against bad science. Your arguments show a lack of understanding of scientific terminology and method.

To the scientists who act like evolution is fact, and that to [not?] believe in evolution is ignorant, I ask them to explain why they know next to nothing about 70 percent of the universe. (Read the caption of the picture)

ITookTheRedPill on June 10, 2007 at 8:43 PM

Because science has nothing to do with certainty or omniscience. The statement “I don’t know” is, in fact, the keystone of the entire scientific endeavor.

I think the view that non-belief in evolution is ignorant stems from the fact that, no matter how incomplete it may be, evolutionary theory is indeed a theory about the world, and, no matter the quality or quantity of the evidence, it is at least concerned with evidence. Creationism, when you cut to the core, is neither. It is, ultimately, an assertion about an entity that does not exist in the physical world, the existence of which cannot possibly be demonstrated by evidence.

I think the point you’re completely overlooking is that we recognize design the the most basic of things we create, yet people overlook the ridiculous complexity (that as science advances becomes more and more apparent as molecular machines, etc. are discovered.) of life and all of it’s components, and expect people to believe that long periods of random unguided chance mutations could “evolve” them.

RightWinged on June 10, 2007 at 7:56 PM

I didn’t overlook that point. In fact, I specifically addressed it. Here’s, again, is what I said:

“That doesn’t mean they [DNA, life, etc.] happened by chance, anymore than thunderstorms or anything else in the natural world happen by chance. Presumably there was some natural process at work, though I’ve no reason to pretend I know what it was. Not being a biologist or a chemist or a geologist, etc., it’s not even an issue of particular interest to me.”

Did you read the same article you posted? Among the little tidbits: Theobald chose not address are abiogenesis and the mechanism behind macroevolution.

He is being very responsible here since there is no evidence for abiogenesis or for what mechanism drives evolution. This leaves the door wide open for Intelligent Design.

How the first living cell came to exist is irrelevant to the evolution of the subsequent organisms. And so what if Theobald isn’t trying to make the case for random mutation+natural selection specifically? He says right there that “the predicted pattern of organisms at any given point in time can be described as “groups within groups”, otherwise known as a nested hierarchy. The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. Common descent is a genetic process in which the state of the present generation/individual is dependent only upon genetic changes that have occurred since the most recent ancestral population/individual. Therefore, gradual evolution from common ancestors must conform to the mathematics of Markov processes and Markov chains…”

Intelligent design implies there were a plethora of changes to species that have no relation to what came before. This implies that the overall pattern of changes would not be nested hierarchies, since nested hierarchies is the pattern that falls out of the data when the changes are constrained by what comes before. Theobald explains this in that very section. Any lurkers still following this discussion should simply read the whole section you quoted that snippet from (just a couple pages).

Prediction 2 is equally poor.

That certain organisms merely are similar to each other is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern that satisfies the macroevolutionary process is very specific

Something he does not bring up here is that the DNA sequence for parahomologies (such as limbs that end in 5 digits) are different between supposedly related species. This alone makes his model collapse because they would necessarily, by his logic, be the same.

I’ve never heard of that one. Are you referring to Creationist Claim CB811 (Gavin de Beer via the Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter), or CB732 (frogs vs. mammals via Answers In Genesis), or something else?

Anyway, my point in bringing up the article was that evolution makes lots of predictions, and creationists spend their time trying to show that those predictions fail. So evolution is perfectly scientific.

I think the point you’re completely overlooking is that we recognize design the the most basic of things we create, yet people overlook the ridiculous complexity (that as science advances becomes more and more apparent as molecular machines, etc. are discovered.) of life and all of it’s components, and expect people to believe that long periods of random unguided chance mutations could “evolve” them. I find this ridiculous. It’s like the old tornado through a junkyard building a 747. As complex as that is, it doesn’t compare to what would have had to have happened in order for the evolutionist fairytale to be right.

RightWinged on June 10, 2007 at 7:56 PM

With all due respect, that argument is similar to how a communist views the free market: Such complexity must have been rationally designed & guided by an “Economic Design Bureau”, full of intelligent economic planners imbued with the authority to carry out their intricate 5-year plans.

(Yes, yes, I know, she said impatiently, the participants in a free market are themselves intelligent beings. But these intelligent beings do not design and create the industries they work in. To a large extent they don’t even design the companies they work for, even when they try. Those things evolve over time, in ways that are often unanticipated by the participants. If this were not the case, there would be far fewer bankruptcies & shotgun mergers in the world, and there would be no such thing as Christensen’s “disruptive innovations”.)

In both cases, the individuals and their actions create spontaneous orders over time that they neither anticipate nor control. These systems grow in complexity as people (or species) specialize, the fitness landscape changes, etc.

Blacklake, it seems like you’ve missed the entire point of both mine and cmay’s comments.

I certainly think I understand, as well as it can be understood. You’re advancing the argument from design. I submit that argument is based, at best, on a misapplication of the word “design.” At any rate, in the end it doesn’t effectively argue from physical evidence to the conclusion that there is a non-physical entity. That only works if the existence of that non-physical entity is assumed a priori, in which case, there’s no need for the line of argument anyway.

The reason I suspect you think “I’ve missed the entire point” is that I’m not accepting (or more accurately, can’t even comprehend) that a priori component, so I’m simply proceeding it as if the statements were just normal propositions about the world; Computer monitors are made; trees and DNA molecules aren’t (in fact, to suggest that things we know no human could possiby have designed are in fact designed is downright weird). If you don’t hold (or can’t understand) the a priora non-physical belief, that’s the only thing you can do.

DNA is a very complex coded string. Is this a sign of an intelligent Creator?

cmay on June 10, 2007 at 9:10 AM

No. Because we understand, from observing our own example (the only case of highly intelligent life we have to study), that intelligent animals are responsible for the production of the machines that produce certain types of radio transmissions. Conversely, we know we didn’t make DNA, and, barring bizarre and unsupportable notions of aliens descending from the sky to seed the earth, presumably nothing else living did, either.

How about this total tangent… if you came across this computer monitor, in tact, sitting in the woods, you wouldn’t have assumed that it came to be by sitting their long enough in the sun and rain and wind. You’d recognize the design and creation of what you saw. Life, and especially when you get in to things like DNA, are infinitely more complex than a hunk of metal that makes up that computer monitor. But it happened by chance?

It is indeed a tangent. Our entire conception of “design” derives from our knowledge of things like computer monitors, which we recognize as having been crafted by other human beings. (It’s not even a matter of complexity–extremely simple things are also designed, and we recognize them as such because, from experience, we know that humans were in the loop).

So far as I know, humans did not construct DNA molecules or trees or mountains. Hence, those things aren’t designed.

That doesn’t mean they happened by chance, anymore than thunderstorms or anything else in the natural world happen by chance. Presumably there was some natural process at work, though I’ve no reason to pretend I know what it was. Not being a biologist or a chemist or a geologist, etc., it’s not even an issue of particular interest to me.

DNA is a very complex coded string. Is this a sign of an intelligent Creator?

Yes.

Nonfactor on June 10, 2007 at 12:24 AM

The computer monitor too? Surely you wouldn’t look at something so complex (yet paling in comparison to life) in the middle of a jungle or forrest and say that “nature” created that computer monitor, with it’s circuitry and power cord, and glass screen, and say it simply “took time”… would you?

But it happened by chance?

RightWinged on June 10, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Yes.