Saturday, May 24, 2014

Evolution Professor: “None of these facts would make sense, if we weren’t related”

The IFF Statement

In his 1924 classic The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science E. A. Burtt explored the non scientific ideas that motivated and influenced the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But the story doesn’t end there and today non scientific ideas drive science as much as ever. Of course there is nothing wrong with non scientific, metaphysical reasoning, per se. Indeed science would be unable to proceed without a metaphysical basis. So the problem is not that science is driven by metaphysics, but rather that science is driven by bad metaphysics. Consider the recent Nelson-Velasco debate where professor Joel Velasco relied on the if-and-only-if reasoning that underlies evolutionary thought.

If there was any doubt about evolution’s reliance on metaphysics before the debate began, it was quickly dispelled when Velasco began his segment with what has effectively become the motto of evolution: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This motto comes from the title of a famous paper written by evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky and it is none other than an if-and-only-if statement. For example, if-and-only-if evolution is true, then we should observe X. Here is a sequence of equivalent statements to illustrate this:

● Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
● Everything in biology makes sense only in the light of evolution.
● Only with evolution does anything in biology make sense.
● Only evolution can explain anything in the entire biological world.
● If-and-only-if evolution is true, then we should find what we find in the entire biological world.

But a scientist, qua scientist, cannot know that a particular theory is the only explanation for a particular observation (much less the entire biological world). That knowledge simply cannot come from science.

As I have discussed many times (here, here, here and here, for example), this if-and-only-if statement (or IFF for short), is bad metaphysics. It cannot be known to be true, and yet evolutionary reasoning entails just this. It is practically the official motto of evolution and, true to form, was a constant theme for Velasco. No less than ten times in the debate Velasco made this non scientific claim. Here are some examples, in Velasco’s own words:

[23:15] Now I’m going to tell you how I know that [all life is related via common ancestry] is true. So, the basic reason is the following. Now, Theodosius Dobzhansky was an important geneticist, he passed away in 1975, but before he did, in 1974, he penned an essay called, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” Now he was a committed Russian Orthodox Christian, who in the actual article defended theistic creationism, he said, “Well, God got it started and then evolution,” but I’m not going to talk about that part. I’m just going to talk about the basic fact that he was right. [23.50] Nothing in biology makes any sense unless you believe in evolution, and then it does. That’s the basic argument.

[28:16] How do you predict this nested hierarchical structure? What does this have to do with evolution? Well only an evolutionary process—only descent with modification can possibly explain why when you look at different traits you get the same classification, over and over and over again.

And you know what? There are transposon elements, ALU elements, in exactly the same place in the chimp genome as in the human genome. With exactly the same sequences. Why? I’ll tell you why. Because actually, when the transposon jumped, it was in an ancestor of humans and chimps, and then just got passed on. That’s why. [49:05] None of these facts would make sense, if we weren’t related. It would be a massive coincidence.

[52:35] So common ancestry explains all the similarities we share with the other apes, and not just similarities—it’s not like “well we’re bound to be close to something,” similarities in precise ways. That only can be explained by common descent. But common descent leads to puzzles. If we’re related, how can you get there from here? Lots of times we don’t know. But we can still see the effects. Here, now, we know.

[53:02] Nothing else could explain this data other than a fusion, and the fusion answers the puzzle of how we got there from here. So I want to just say that there is so much evidence, that backs this up. Now I don’t have time to go through it all, but in fact it’s the same kind of reasoning that goes all the way through, all of life. I know Paul wants me to say that because that’s what he’s going to focus on, but everything is related. We see the effects throughout our bodies, throughout our fossils, throughout all life. We see the effects of common descent, nothing else can explain it. Thanks.

[1:32:59] And they started in one place. Why are there penguins in South America and Antarctica, and the bottom of Africa? Well because they’re all in one place. Well you might say, “They’re not in one place.” Well 150 MYA that was one place because it was connected. Common descent explains these facts, nothing else does, even if you don’t know the origin of the penguins.

This repeated theme is not a slip of the tongue. It was a consistent, underlying and crucial theme for Velasco, as it has been for evolutionary thought in general. Indeed, Velasco canonizes it as “the basic argument.” This is the type of reasoning that proves evolution is a fact.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

48 comments:

  1. Cornelius, Joel Velasco here. I just read this post and the four earlier ones you linked to. I am afraid it is just too tempting to point out that 'only' is standardly understood to not be equivalent to 'if and only if' and it is clear in this context that it is not. For example, 'shared pseudogenes broken in the same place can only be explained by common descent'. This in no way entails that if evolution is true we would predict broken pseudogenes in this place. A only if B means that B is a necessary condition for A, but it doesn't follow that A if B - that B is a sufficient condition. The 'only in the light of evolution' is supposed to mean that evolution is a necessary condition for explanation. -- Now of course the heart of what you say isn't affected by this error. If you are making a logical point of course you are correct - there are other possible explanations for every single thing in biology. But obviously what we mean here is that the best explanation is evolution. That certain things only 'make sense' with common descent. For example, in the debate I pointed out a few times that of course it was possible things like an endogenous retrovirus with the same sequence in the same place in humans and chimps COULD BE a coincidence - but this is not really a serious explanation when we see hundreds of instances. When two humans share them we don't even question that it is because they are related. Of course there are other possible explanations - an intelligent alien put them there while we were sleeping. But common descent, if true, would explain these cases very well. What exactly do you think the explanation is? That God created us with the retroviruses inside us already? Or that God directed the same virus to infect Adam and Eve and the chimps on the ark in the same place? Of course that is possible, but it doesn't seem like a serious explanation to me.

    Just to be fair (but hard on myself) of course it should be pointed out that logically, The 'everything only' statement is just clearly false. Plenty of things in biology would make sense without common descent - say an adaptation that is unique to one species. But the real principle is that there are a huge number of things that are well-explained by common descent and not well explained by any other explanations that we can think of. The pithier version is more rhetorically powerful though and it is clear in context it is not meant to be taken literally.

    And by the way, I read your posts and I can't see how this is supposed to be 'metaphysics'. Fine, you think it is bad science. But why metaphysics? Is it because a possible explanation is that it was designed and that is a metaphysical hypothesis or something? Does common descent count as metaphysical? What about coincidence? So science is filled with metaphysics. So what? So is everything else. Do you think that it is metaphysics or religion when a physicist assumes that there is a law-like connection between variables when we have observed a bunch of instances of some hypothesized law? For example, what is the best explanation for why the motion of the planets and the motion of projectiles on earth act in the various ways they do? If there were a universal gravitational force operating by an inverse square law that would come pretty close to the data that we have (that Newton had). No other reasonable explanation works. I guess we should believe in gravity. This same 'best explanation' argument is why we believed in continental drift before we knew about plate tectonics and how we knew the earth went around the sun before we observed the parallax of any stars. Isn't this just how science works?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joel:

      This in no way entails that if evolution is true we would predict broken pseudogenes in this place. … The 'only in the light of evolution' is supposed to mean that evolution is a necessary condition for explanation.

      Point well taken, but this just reinforces my even further that the evolutionary truth claims are based on contrastive thinking. That is, they are based on other theories, and specifically *all* other theories.


      Now of course the heart of what you say isn't affected by this error.

      OK, good.


      But obviously what we mean here is that the best explanation is evolution. That certain things only 'make sense' with common descent.

      But I don’t think this makes much difference. Both claims (i.e., “all other theories make no sense on X” and “X is unlikely on all other theories”) entail (i) knowledge of the list of all other theories and (ii) an intimate knowledge of all those theories and the relevant biology.


      For example, in the debate I pointed out a few times that of course it was possible things like an endogenous retrovirus with the same sequence in the same place in humans and chimps COULD BE a coincidence - but this is not really a serious explanation when we see hundreds of instances.

      OK, so we can check one off the list.


      Of course there are other possible explanations - an intelligent alien put them there while we were sleeping.

      OK, we can check two off the list.


      What exactly do you think the explanation is?

      I don’t know, I’m not as smart as you guys.


      That God created us with the retroviruses inside us already? Or that God directed the same virus to infect Adam and Eve and the chimps on the ark in the same place? Of course that is possible, but it doesn't seem like a serious explanation to me.

      OK, we can check three off the list.

      Continued …

      Delete
    2. Joel:

      Just to be fair (but hard on myself) of course it should be pointed out that logically, The 'everything only' statement is just clearly false. Plenty of things in biology would make sense without common descent - say an adaptation that is unique to one species.

      Agreed.


      But the real principle is that there are a huge number of things that are well-explained by common descent …

      I didn’t know that. You mentioned the pentadactyl pattern as an example, but even evolutionists have agreed that it doesn’t fit common ancestry (e.g., Gould: “The conclusion seems inescapable, and an old ‘certainty’ must be starkly reversed.”).


      and not well explained by any other explanations that we can think of.

      But the history of evolutionary thought is full of things we could not think of that we now understand better and so have to starkly reverse our conclusions.


      The pithier version is more rhetorically powerful though and it is clear in context it is not meant to be taken literally.

      I appreciate the concession, but I don’t think this is accurate. In fact, what is quite clear from the literature (as well as discussions with evolutionists) is that it is meant to be taken quite literally. But in any case, we are left with a rather undesirable dichotomy. Either it is meant literally, in which metaphysics is doing the heavy lifting, or it really is meant to be taken as a misrepresentation--powerful rhetoric that exaggerates the case for evolution. Can you imagine the sheer magnitude of this misrepresentation? I mean this runs all through the literature. Can you imagine all the lay readers of evolutionary literature who are not clued in?


      And by the way, I read your posts and I can't see how this is supposed to be 'metaphysics'.

      Because you can’t know all the alternatives. For example, how do you know there isn’t an alternative you haven’t thought of? How do you know there isn’t a common mechanism? This is a strange question, actually, because in fact evolutionists themselves must appeal to such common mechanisms (even though we might not know what they are) for all the violations of the expected common ancestry pattern. What you have is a mix of evidence with some that falls into the common ancestry pattern and some that don’t, and when they don’t it is not even close. But the proof is in the contrastive thinking.


      For example, what is the best explanation for why the motion of the planets and the motion of projectiles on earth act in the various ways they do? If there were a universal gravitational force operating by an inverse square law that would come pretty close to the data that we have (that Newton had). No other reasonable explanation works.

      We’re a long, long way from theories such as projectile motion and the 2-body solution, which work well within their very well understood noise levels. The deviations of the planets and projectile motion we observe are easily within the magnitude of higher-order gravitational terms, atmospheric variations, winds, and so forth. These are not based on contrastive thinking, these are based on models that works well. True, Newton had fun showing how Descartes’ vortices failed, but that was hardly crucial to establishing his physics. If it had turned out that there was another good theory then, sure, you would have two competing explanations and you wouldn’t hold Newtonian physics as high. So I’m not saying a consideration of the other explanations is not important or irrelevant, but first things first. You have to have some meat in your own explanation. You can’t have a model full of false predictions and things you can’t explain (beyond conjecture), and yet make truth based on the other guys. For Newton it was “Look this works great, and by the way that other guy’s idea is clearly wrong.” For evolutionists it is “Look those other guys are clearly wrong, so we must be right even though we haven’t figured it out yet and so far we’ve been pretty much all wrong.”

      Delete
    3. Velasco: But obviously what we mean here is that the best explanation is evolution. That certain things only 'make sense' with common descent.

      Why is common descent only evidence for evolution and not evidence for intelligent design? Using previous designs to create new designs is a time honored tradition in intelligent design. Software engineering, for example, could not work without the use of common descent in class hierarchies. Reusing what already works is the intelligent thing to do, no?

      Delete
    4. Velasco: As hard as it may be for you to believe, Darwinism does not even qualify as a proper science:

      Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
      Excerpt: “Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859.”…
      http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/05/05/oxford-university-seeks-mathemagician/

      Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science - Part II
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit

      Moreover, if neo-Darwinism were true, it would lead to the epistemological failure of science! Don't believe me? Well how about believing Dawkins?

      Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True - video
      Excerpt: "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life."
      Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion"
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs

      Delete
    5. CH: For evolutionists it is “Look those other guys are clearly wrong, so we must be right even though we haven’t figured it out yet and so far we’ve been pretty much all wrong.”

      We haven't "figured it out yet" because we lack an exhaustive explanation? That's bad philosophy.

      So far, we've pretty much been all wrong? Again, that's bad philosophy.

      The explanation is: biological complexity emerges from variation and selection. It falls under the umbrella of our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge. Common decent represents a specific example of this same explanation.

      CH: Because you can’t know all the alternatives. For example, how do you know there isn’t an alternative you haven’t thought of? How do you know there isn’t a common mechanism?

      As I've pointed out elsewhere we discard an infinite number of logical possibilities every day in, every field of science, a-priori. It's unclear why your designer should be any different?

      Furthermore, ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. As such there it has no necessary consequences for the current state of the system we can test. For example, one such non-limitation is knowing how to build any organism that has, does or could exist. As such, ID's designer could have created organisms in the order of most complex to least complex, or even all at once. "That's just the order some designer must have wanted" is a bad explanation.

      This is in contrast to biological Darwinism, which does have necessary consequences for the current state of the system, which we can test. Specifically a limitation is that the knowledge of how to build those organisms was genuinely created and did not exist previously Nature cannot produce organisms with knowledge that hasn't been created yet. As such, it's the only necessary explanation for the particular order we do observe.

      So, to rephrase, no theory has necessary consequences for biology except evolutionary theory. A designer could have made griffins or Chimera like creatures. But these are necessarily excluded by evolutionary theory. A designer could have made organisms appear in the order of most complex to least complex, or even all at once. On the other hand the order we observe is necessary given biological Darwinism.

      In this sense, it's a hard to vary theory.

      Delete
    6. "So, to rephrase, no theory has necessary consequences for biology except evolutionary theory. A designer could have made griffins or Chimera like creatures. But these are necessarily excluded by evolutionary theory. A designer could have made organisms appear in the order of most complex to least complex, or even all at once. On the other hand the order we observe is necessary given biological Darwinism. "

      This is all metaphysical crap, more like religion or superstition.

      Delete
    7. So, the goal or idea of explaining how knowledge grows is, well, crap? Is that what you're suggesting?

      Delete
  2. Those thar dudes needz ta give my "Method Metaphysics" a listen for I am a Philosopher...I boldly go where no Math can ever go. Ain't that a bad-ass quote :) You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius responds to Joel,

    "And by the way, I read your posts and I can't see how this is supposed to be 'metaphysics'.

    Because you can’t know all the alternatives. For example, how do you know there isn’t an alternative you haven’t thought of? How do you know there isn’t a common mechanism? This is a strange question, actually, because in fact evolutionists themselves must appeal to such common mechanisms (even though we might not know what they are) for all the violations of the expected common ancestry pattern. What you have is a mix of evidence with some that falls into the common ancestry pattern and some that don’t, and when they don’t it is not even close. But the proof is in the contrastive thinking."

    Cornelius, this is not an argument against evolution, this is an argument against ALL science. There could ALWAYS be some explanation we haven't thought of, even for simple problems like Newtonian physics where high-precision predictability is possible.

    What we want in science is models that maximize explanation of the data with a minimum number of free parameters. This isn't some evolutionist conspiracy, this is basic principle of statistics used in all science. The problem with your desired "God did it according to his good pleasure" explanation, which is what you say you think when you are being honest, in your books, is that it predicts nothing beyond whatever free parameters you assume represent God's good pleasure.

    Really, if you ever want anyone serious to take you seriously, you have to come up with some way of judging scientific matters where (a) your view is superior to evolution as an explanation of the data, and which also (b) doesn't destroy most of the rest of routine science which even you accept.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick:

      Cornelius, this is not an argument against evolution, this is an argument against ALL science.

      I would say it is an argument against claims that are empirically unwarranted and underwritten by metaphysics that aren’t so good.


      There could ALWAYS be some explanation we haven't thought of, even for simple problems like Newtonian physics where high-precision predictability is possible.

      Which is why scientists are more comfortable making claims about how well their theory fits the data rather than ultimate truth claims like “it is a fact that the world arose spontaneously.”


      What we want in science is models that maximize explanation of the data with a minimum number of free parameters.

      Agreed. Evolution doesn’t fit these criteria very well, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be useful. Geocentrism didn’t either but it worked pretty well.


      This isn't some evolutionist conspiracy, this is basic principle of statistics used in all science. The problem with your desired "God did it according to his good pleasure" explanation, which is what you say you think when you are being honest, in your books, ...

      Nick I think you are projecting. Evolutionists such as yourself make a plethora of metaphysical truth claims, concluding evolution is a fact, but now when questioned it’s all just operationalism. Gone are the truth claims and instead evolution is merely an exercise in data modeling. Let’s just model the data with a minimum of parameters, that’s all.

      Well if that were the claim then there would be no problem. But that’s not the claim is it? There’s a lot more going on in the presentation and claims of the theory. And then you call me dishonest.


      … is that it predicts nothing beyond whatever free parameters you assume represent God's good pleasure. Really, if you ever want anyone serious to take you seriously, you have to come up with some way of judging scientific matters where (a) your view is superior to evolution as an explanation of the data, and which also (b) doesn't destroy most of the rest of routine science which even you accept.

      There is a long history of “intellectual necessity” arguments for evolution. That is, evolution is required for good science. You repeat it here in (b). This is a philosophical argument. Scientific problems and empirical failures don’t matter—we need evolution for the good of science.

      Delete
    2. Nick M:
      What we want in science is models that maximize explanation of the data with a minimum number of free parameters.

      But unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution can't be modeled, Nick. So we should discard it, right?

      Delete
    3. Nick: Really, if you ever want anyone serious to take you seriously, you have to come up with some way of judging scientific matters where (a) your view is superior to evolution as an explanation of the data, and which also (b) doesn't destroy most of the rest of routine science which even you accept.

      CH: There is a long history of “intellectual necessity” arguments for evolution. That is, evolution is required for good science.

      Nick's comment represents a criticism of your objection. Specifically, your objection to evolutionary theory represents a general purpose means of denying anything, including the entirety of science. As such, it represents bad philosophy. See my comment below.

      CH: You repeat it here in (b). This is a philosophical argument. Scientific problems and empirical failures don’t matter—we need evolution for the good of science.

      Again, see the OPERA experiment. Observations did matter. They led to a better question: why were neutrinos "observed" traveling faster than the speed of light in just the OPERA experiment? We conjectured a theory of why, which we then tested. At which point, we determined the observations were in error.

      Nor is HGT an ad-hoc modification, as I've indicated elsewhere.

      IOW, you're presenting a false dilemma regarding problems and their implications. In fact, I'd suggest that observations mean more to me than they do to you. Observations are not merely "wrong" but they are wrong is very specific ways, which tells us something about reality. Finding errors in our theories is how we make progress.

      That unexpected observations can only be "failures" is bad philosophy because it interferes with the growth of knowledge.

      Delete
    4. CH "Which is why scientists are more comfortable making claims about how well their theory fits the data rather than ultimate truth claims like “it is a fact that the world arose spontaneously.”

      Red flags go up for me when I hear "anyone serious" redefining words like "only", "nothing", "everything". Very illuminating conversation Dr. Hunter.

      Delete
  4. " I am afraid it is just too tempting to point out that 'only' is standardly understood to not be equivalent to 'if and only if' and it is clear in this context that it is not."

    I do a lot of technical writing, and I can't think of a single case where the use of "only" can be used to mean "some". To use "only" in a legal argument with the implied exclusion of all other possible causes or motives when other causes and motives are possible is done for the specific purpose of misleading the jury.

    But to ignore the meaning and intent of this common English word, "only" is used in statements of authority. That is, the speaker or writer is telling the audience that one thing is allowed and all other similar things are not allowed. (Parking only from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vinnie Mahuna: Parking only from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

      It doesn't mean that parking is required from 9 to 4.

      Delete
    2. I said 'only' is used to introduce a necessary condition - as in your parking case. It is not used to introduce a sufficient condition. If and only if implies two things - the 'if' clause and the 'only if' clause. Cornelius says "If-and-only-if evolution is true, then we should find what we find in the entire biological world." I am saying the claim should read "we should find what we do only if evolution is true" which does not imply that if evolution is true, we should find what we do. You are right, logically speaking, the claim does rule out other possible explanations. And that is exactly what I said.

      Delete
  5. Bob/ Joel:
    "we should find what we do only if evolution is true" which does not imply that if evolution is true, we should find what we do.

    If by "evolution" you mean unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution, then we should find what we do only if evolution is true AND we started with the Created Kinds, thousands of them. Because neither natural selection nor genetic drift are up to the task of anything else. Heck just saying they can account for everything since the Creation is giving those processes too much credit.

    However if by "evolution" you mean Intelligent Design evolution, a biological world in which organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design, then I agree we should find what we do only if evolution is true.

    ReplyDelete
  6. While you are correct that IFF is unscientific, you mischaracterize Velasco's argument. He is not saying evolution is the best theory of all possible theories. He is saying evolution is the best theory that we presently know of. This is a straw man argument and unbecoming of you Cornelius. While your other criticisms of Velasco are spot on, this one should be thrown in the waste bin and forgotten.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter:

      I'm not sure that, for evolutionists, there is much a distinction between the two (i.e., the set of theories we presently know of and the set of all possible theories).

      Delete
    2. 1) Velasco's statements could be interpreted that way:

      'Common descent explains these facts, nothing else (known) does,'

      2) As we are obliged, as opposed to evolutionists, to take the higher moral ground your interpretation should be generous, giving Velasco the benefit of the doubt.

      3) It is doubtful an evolutionists could be philosophically capable of dealing with an abstractions such as the set of all possible theories.

      Therefore, I still believe you are on shaky ground with this line of reasoning.

      Delete
  7. CH: So the problem is not that science is driven by metaphysics, but rather that science is driven by bad metaphysics.

    The problem of how scientific knowledge grows is the philosophy of science. Your might recall, this is the same philosophy of science I've been asking you to disclose directly and repeatedly.

    For example, logical positivism is an example of science based on bad philosophy. So is instrumentalism. Both are bad philosophy not just because they are false, but because they are false *and* prevent the growth of other knowledge. There's nothing wrong with false philosophy, per-se, because error is our default state. But being false in that it actively interferes or even denies the growth of other knowledge is what makes it bad.

    CH: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” This motto comes from the title of a famous paper written by evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky and it is none other than an if-and-only-if statement.

    Is it? I'll again ask: are dinosaurs merely an interpretation of our best explanation of fossils? Or are they *the* explanation for fossils?

    We never speak of the existence of dinosaurs, millions of years ago, as an interpretation of our best theories of fossils. Rather, we say that dinosaurs are *the* explanation for fossils. Nor is the theory primarily about fossils, but about dinosaurs, in that they are assumed to actually exist as part of the explanation. And we do so despite the fact that there are an infinite number of rival interpretations of the same data that make all the same predictions, yet say the dinosaurs never existed, millions of years ago, in reality.

    For example, there is the rival interpretation that fossils only come into existence when they are consciously observed. Therefore, fossils are no older than human beings. As such, they are not evidence of dinosaurs, but evidence of acts of those particular observations.

    Another interpretation would be that dinosaurs are such weird animals that conventional logic simply doesn't apply to them.

    One could suggests It's meaningless to ask if dinosaurs were real or just a useful fiction to explain fossils. (Which is an example of instrumentalism)

    Not to mention the rival interpretation that designer chose to create the world we observe 30 second ago. Therefore, dinosaurs couldn't be the explanation for fossils, because fossils didn't exist until 30 seconds ago.

    None of these other interpretations are empirically distinguishable from the rational theory of dinosaurs, in that their existence explains fossils. But we discard them because they all represent a general purpose means to deny absolutely anything. They all represent bad philosophy.

    "That's just what a designer must have wanted" is shallow and easily varied without effecting it's ability to explain the phenomena in question. It's a bad explanation for reasons I've outlined elsewhere. As such, we discard it as well. "Idea x might be wrong" is a bad criticism because it's applicable to all ideas. As such, you can't even use it in a critical way.

    CH: But a scientist, qua scientist, cannot know that a particular theory is the only explanation for a particular observation (much less the entire biological world).

    Un-conceived explanations cannot explain anything because, well, they have yet to be conceived. Nor are mere logical possibilities explanations.

    What is or is not a good explanation, or that we should even prefer explanations at all, isn't science - it's philosophy. As is the role that empirical observations play in science. IOW, the question of whether evolution is or is not science depends on our explanation of how science works, in practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No matter how you spin it, Darwinian evolution is just superstition. Only brain-dead morons and dirt-worshippers with an agenda subscribe to it. LOL.

      Delete
  8. Excellent thread and another important point for creationists to press home.
    First I say nothing ever made sense that came out of Russia!
    Second. In saying evolution is proved by a lack of other options is indeed not scientific proof. its just proving something true by a line of reasoning without competition.
    Then all a creationist need do is come up with another option and its not just another option but blows away the claimed proof for evolution.
    Common design can match and trump common descent on every point.
    Genesis creationism can easily explain ape/man likeness.
    in fact it demands it by a line of reasoning.

    the fall can explain like dna reactions to like needs all in a rush.
    Its just a line of reasoning to see likeness in biology as proof of like descent by reproduction.
    A common deswign does the trick fine.
    ANYWAYS however evolutionists sincerely persuade themselves that likeness equals SCIENTIFIC proof of common descent.
    Its in fact not scientific investigation. its just mere logic.
    right or wrong thats all it is.
    Thats a historic flaw in their logic that they have science biology proof of common descent by looking at looks.
    Whoops!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wish to express thanks to Dr. Joel Velasco (assuming "Bob" is who he says he is) for joining this conversation. This was a terrific exchange here the past day or two.

    I truly hope Dr. Velasco sensed that the treatment he received here was courteous and thoughtful and that his comments are Welcome with a capital W.

    I agree with Dr. Hunter that evolutionary thought is essentially "contrastive" in nature and metaphysical in structure.

    I agree with Joe G that Common Design accounts observation in biology at least as well as Common Descent if not much, much better. Common Descent must "imagine" all sorts of mechanisms--not just natural selection--but, a vast number of special purpose, one-way mechanisms that purportedly occurred "only" at some point in the unobservable past.

    But we are familiar with the mechanisms of Common Design because we see them every day in everything thing around us; from that first cup of coffee from a common coffee-maker to the mass-produced book I read at night just before turning out the commonly designed beside light.

    Such familiarity makes the Common Design argument FAR more likely and founds the argument on FAR firmer footing than the truly impossible-to-imagine mechanisms of Common Descent theory which claims "something from nothing", "blind chance", "serendipity on steroids" for all of superbly engineered life.

    Dr. Hunter mentioned the famous theory of Geocentricity. The ever accumulating "epicycles" of evolution which seem to grow geometrically more complex with each new crop of Master of Science graduations bear a remarkable similarity to the ever increased complex epicycles of Ptolemaic Astronomy.

    Occum's Razor carves away incessantly at the plausibility of evolutionary theory. Common Design is simple to understand, though as Scot and others here have proven many times that it is not easy to believe.

    So, Dr. Velasco, thank you for contributing here today. Please come back.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Glenn J said:
    << Occum's Razor carves away incessantly at the plausibility of evolutionary theory. Common Design is simple to understand ...>>

    Sorry, but only according to your caricature of the Occams' Razor (not Occum, by the way), see here . One theory that is “simple to understand”, is not obviously much true than one that need more intellectual effort. It is more the case that the Occams' razor eliminates the CD hypothesis becuase it requires to postulate an additional unknown entity like the designer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for correcting my spelling.

      CDesign doesn't require a postulation; it is the obvious inference.

      Intellectual contortions are required to deny obvious inference. Where ever we seen design--the coffee maker, the book, the lamp--the inference to a designer is the simplest explanation for their existence.

      But GREAT intellectual effort is required to explain the existence of any of these things when a priori the plain inference of the evidence is ruled out.

      That's how "only" gets redefined to mean "some" as Dr. Velasco explained.

      Delete
    2. Glenn J: CDesign doesn't require a postulation;

      Of course it does.

      Glenn J: it is the obvious inference

      So are mountain and forest spirits, and angry volcano gods.

      Glenn J: Where ever we seen design--the coffee maker, the book, the lamp--the inference to a designer is the simplest explanation for their existence.

      They're the simplest because we have evidence of their manufacture.

      Delete
    3. Mountain and forest spirits are not obvious inferences of design. The many imagined (hypothetical) mechanisms of evolution are more akin to mountain and forest spirits. The concept that design infers designer is very straightforward and takes no imagination.

      Delete
    4. Glenn J: Mountain and forest spirits are not obvious inferences of design.

      Hundreds of generations of humans have thought otherwise.

      Delete
    5. Irrelevant to the concept that design implies a designer.

      Delete
    6. No. Hundreds of generations have used their intuition to conclude that natural occurrences were due to spirits acting in the world; that these events are designed, therefore there is a designer.

      You said your own intuition led to valid conclusions. So were they right? Does Zeus hurl bolts of lightning from Mount Olympus at the wicked below?

      Delete
    7. You put words in my mouth. I do not claim infallible intuition. You should be employing your arguments toward the imaginations of you sacred leader, Darwin: "We may imagine that the early progenitor of the ostrich had habits like those of a bustard, and that as natural selection increased in successive generations the size and weight of its body, its legs were used more, and its wings less, until they became incapable of flight."
      No science at all. Why find fault with my plain assertions when your own camp reeks with "intuitive" speculation?

      Delete
    8. Glenn J: I do not claim infallible intuition.

      Actually, you said "CDesign doesn't require a postulation; it is the obvious inference."

      As you didn't provide any evidence or reasoning, it's not an inference, but you think it is still obvious. As we pointed out, other people have thought it obvious that forests were spirits, and lightning was the actions of an angry sky god.

      Glenn J: Why find fault with my plain assertions when your own camp reeks with "intuitive" speculation?

      Because Darwin provided an argument and evidence to support his postulates. You have not, indeed, declaimed it didn't require such a thing.

      Delete
  11. That's what I'm saying... When you see something that has obviously been designed, you know it was manufactured.

    Good point. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glenn J: When you see something that has obviously been designed, you know it was manufactured.

      We have evidence they were manufactured by a peculiar species of simian. If you investigate, you can probably find evidence of how they make them.

      Perhaps you are a member of that species, in which case, it's your familiarity with lamps and coffee-makers which form your "obvious inference".

      Delete
    2. It is my ability to recognize the purposeful design.

      I do not have to know how it was manufactured or where or when or by whom.

      Delete
    3. Glenn J: It is my ability to recognize the purposeful design.

      Yes, you are adept at recognizing human designs. Perhaps you have some familiarity with the species?

      Delete
    4. I have the ability to recognize design where ever I see it. Human designs or molecules. Clearly hemoglobin is purposefully designed for capture and release of oxygen atoms. Design is design. I am quite certain of my ability to detect design. In fact I was no doubt designed to recognize design. But, if you are "evolved", how do you know whether you have the capability of recognizing designs that are not designed by humans? Maybe your particular evolution is defective, an offshoot of the main branch of evolution?

      Delete
    5. Glenn J: I have the ability to recognize design where ever I see it.

      That's very nice, but your subjective impressions don't constitute scientific evidence. Many people once thought that lightning was an angry sky god throwing bolts at the wicked.


      Delete
    6. And now.... Many people imagine a blind, purposeless force that brings something out of nothing and creates purposeful design constructed by pure chance. Pretty much the same as the angry sky god except red tooth and claw replaces lightening.

      Delete
    7. Glenn J: Many people imagine a blind, purposeless force that brings something out of nothing and creates purposeful design constructed by pure chance.

      You were attempting to show that your subjective judgment about design makes scientific investigation unnecessary. Did you abandon that point?

      Delete
    8. My ability to recognize design isn't subjective. Sometimes I may not recognize something as designed that has been purposely designed to appear designed such as a rock garden. But where an object exhibits specified complexity such as a hemoglobin molecule, the design inference is very clear.

      Delete
    9. Glenn J: My ability to recognize design isn't subjective.

      Of course it's subjective.

      Glenn J: But where an object exhibits specified complexity such as a hemoglobin molecule, the design inference is very clear.

      Or the complex machinery of the planetary orbits, or the power required to make lightning.

      Delete
    10. And you know these were not designed...how?

      Delete
    11. Glenn J: And you know these were not designed

      We didn't make a claim one way or the other, but lightning is usually explained as the result of physical currents inside clouds which generate an electrical potential. Are you saying that lightning is created by an angry sky god?

      Delete
    12. Now YOU are the one making subjective inferences...
      You infer you somehow know the atmosphere wasn't designed to operate the way it does...
      I ask again, "And you know these were not designed...how?"
      I think you make just as many unscientific inferences as you accuse me of making, but you think your inferences are completely obvious and so don't need to be explained.
      This is what Dr. Hunter says here time and time and time again, but you still don't get it.

      Delete
    13. Glenn J: Now YOU are the one making subjective inferences...

      It was a question. Are you saying that lightning is created by an angry sky god? Is there anything that is not designed?

      Delete