Re: Defining terms

From: David Bradbury (dabradbury@mediaone.net)
Date: Sat Jul 22 2000 - 17:04:41 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: Star Physics Prove the Delicacy of Life"

    .....On 7/14/00
    Brian D Harper wrote:

    > At 03:02 PM 7/14/00 -0400, David wrote:
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > >This is the classic manner in which science is supposed to work. And
    > >while it works well in the physical (hard) sciences (as above), folks
    > >"believing" the concept of evolution to be true, and professing it to be
    > >scientifically established, somehow feel they need not live up to these
    > >classic accepted standards. Evolution, being an historical (soft)
    > >science, does not (cannot) meet the requirements of empirical science as so
    > frequently asserted.
    > >
    > >The qualifying criteria of empirical science ( confirmable reliability,
    > >observable by the five senses, physical experiments, etc.) are admittedly
    > rigorous. But they are the best way discernible to man by which personal
    > bias and human emotion can be minimized. To the extent historical sciences
    > (evolution, particularly) do not follow this "testability" standard, the
    > least that can be expected (demanded) is a description of precisely what
    > criteria they substitute, and which has to be met, for an evolutionary
    > statement or conclusion to properly qualify as 'scientific'.
    >
    > First I'm curious how ID would fare better. It has to deal with the same
    > evidence, which is historical.
    > Second, I'm curious whether you think the orbital period of Pluto is an
    > established scientific fact.
    >

    Bradbury replies:

    Thanks for you direct approaches ... its great to be communicating with a
    get-to-the-point engineer. First, my post wasn't written with ID in mind.
    But my initial thoughts suggest that to the extent 'irreducibly complex'
    structures CAN be readily and demonstrably produced by 'Intelligent Direction'
    of 'natural' inanimate forces (which when undirected, are ALL degrading ... as
    decay, 2nd law, entropy, etc.), the ID explanation does appear more supportable
    than metaphysically postulating that undirected 'natural' processes were more
    creative in the past than they can be shown to be today.

    If we accept empirical science as that which is physically verifiable, ID does
    fare better than undirected, purposeless mass/energy interactions. This is
    particularly apparent with information-laden constructs or in complexities
    involving/requiring chemical or physical components at increasing internal
    energy levels (the opposite of decay).

    It has been demonstrated innumerable times that ID (even where the source may
    not-yet-be scientifically-identified) can modify an existing, functioning
    coded program to add beneficial features (say, a spell-checker to NotePad).
    Here it appears to require a more reasonable 'faith' to accept the involvement
    of some yet-to-be-scientifically-identified 'programer' than to presume the
    existence of some new yet-to-be-scientifically-identified natural force
    (duplicating 'intelligence') as proposed by evolution. That this is the case,
    we cite Dr. Murray Eden's concluding remarks in Wistar Institute, Symposium
    Monograph No.5, MATHEMATICAL CHALLENGES TO THE NEO-DARWIN INTERPRETATION OF
    EVOLUTION, 1966. Here leading evolutionists (Medawar, Mayr, Wald, Lewontin,
    Fox, etc.) met with leading mathematicians (Eden, Schutzenberger, Ulam, etc.)
    specifically to attempt to derive mathematical support for the concept of
    evolution. Dr. Eden's summary is but one of several (unwelcome) conclusions.

          "It is our [mathematician] contention that if 'random' is given a serious
    and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness
    postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of
    evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws --
    physical, physico-chemical and biological."

    The second part of your question references Pluto's orbital period. Yes, I
    accept this as being established by empirical methods. It is an "established
    scientific fact" in that the measurements drawn are "repeatable". It is as
    accurate as the procedures followed and assumptions involved allow.

    > >While leading evolutionary gurus readily acknowledge the inability to
    > >adhere to the "testability" criteria of empirical science, Can you give the
    > names of these gurus and where they acknowledge this?

    This one's easy.

    "However, if we enlarge the methodology of science so as to include historical
    narratives, we can often explain unique events rather satisfactorily, and
    sometimes even make testable predictions." Dr. Ernst Mayr, NATURAL HISTORY,
    May 1997, Pgs. 8-12

    "During the 50-year life of The American Biology Teacher there has been a
    change in the general view of method in biological science. A brief look at
    this change and its possible consequences for biology education may interest
    those who are searching for ways to improve education at the high school and
    college levels. The change was from descriptive biology to
    hypothetico-deductive biology, that is to theoretical biology." Dr. Ralph
    Lewis, Prof. Emeritus, M.S.U., East Lansing, MI in "Biology: A
    Hypothetico-Deductive Science" published in THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, Vol.
    50, No. 6, Sep't. 1998.

    "Whether biology can be reduced to physical science is a question that has
    received much attention in recent decades." Dr. Francisco Ayala in his chapter
    in EVOLUTION AT A CROSSROADS; Depew & Webber, MIT Press, Pg. 65, 1985

    "For the interpretative roll of conceptual models, on which Mayr and Stent
    place such great emphasis, is precisely what the progressive testing of
    hypotheses is supposed gradually to be eliminating from science, as the latter
    prosecutes its search for ever more comprehensive and basic Laws. Faced with a
    choice bestrewn this ideal of science and reality, it is clear, on Mayr's view,
    that we should reject the physicalist model of science that generates this
    dilemma." Concluding summary by editors Depew and Webber, EVOLUTION AT A
    CROSSROADS: THE NEW BIOLOGY AND THE NEW PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE; MIT Press, Pg.
    223, 1985.

    These are but a few examples. All from contexts discussing/explaining (in
    somewhat obscure language, but understandable to their peers) why conventional
    standards of science as currently presented in most all biology texts really do
    not apply to evolutionary concepts.

    [...skip...] While I didn't reference Popper, I appreciate your providing his
    following quote.

    "The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so
    has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved
    from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single
    organism."
    -- Karl Popper, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", _Dialectica_,
    vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355

    As we are talking about possible 'uncertainties' in evolutionist's definitions,
    perhaps you could briefly indicate what he (evolutionists) mean:
    1) By the term "Darwinism" (what is the nature and extent of changes in the
    gene pool, does it go beyond biological variation)?
    2) By what precise criteria does he (you) define "theory" (is it physically
    well tested, speculative consensus, or other?)
    3) Popper appears to differentiate between "Darwinian" theory and the theory of
    "evolution". (What is the difference, if any, at the gene pool level?)
    4) And does the criteria you select for "theory" apply equally to both
    "Darwinism" and to "evolution"?

    I understand that "Darwinism" may apply to more detailed genetic changes while
    "evolution" (in this context) probably is used as some broader
    generalization. Hopefully, you can clear this up for me. As it is, I have
    trouble judging which, if either, qualifies as proper scientific 'theory'.

    >
    > >this word [the inability of evolution to adhere to the "testability"
    > criteria of empirical science] apparently hasn't filtered down to the
    > 'faithful'. Even more disappointing (even anti-scientific) is their failure
    > to share precisely WHAT alternate criteria they do apply, to what degree it
    > minimizes bias and emotion in conclusions and their estimate of the relative
    > level of compelling certainty (compared to physical demonstration) meeting
    > such criteria will provide.
    >
    > Actually, you'll find a wealth of different opinions on this among
    > physicists. If you really have a complaint here then recognize it applies to
    > all science.

    I'm pleased to see that we are at least in partial agreement on the fact that a
    problem exists. While this may encompass all science as you suggest, I suggest
    it is most apparent in evolutionary biology. Here textbook authors present
    and openly claim the respect and compelling level of certainty associated with
    classic empirical science when communicating with students and the public.
    While, at the same time, in their smaller circulation more specialized
    journals, acknowledging that (for whatever reason) empirical standards just do
    not fit, and are not applicable to evolutionary conclusions. Evolutionists'
    failure to apply the empirical proof-criteria detailed in their textbooks is
    readily apparent in the lack of ANY empirical evidence establishing the ability
    of non-intelligently directed changes (RM&NS, et al) to produce the new,
    increasingly complex, beneficial genetic code in a gene pool as MUST occur
    before any visible (protein) evolutionary change can appear.

    This is only compounded by evolutionists' failure (inability) to share with the
    public the specific proof-method they propose be substituted in place of
    physical testability. Without a clear description of the alternative criteria
    that must be met before evolutionary conclusions can properly be termed
    "science", anything can be claimed. Which, it appears to me, is where we are
    today. That this is increasingly being recognized as both bad science, and
    damaging to the image of all science, is apparent in the following:

     "Traditionally one encountered statements, both in the literature of the
    physical sciences and in philosophy, that the physical sciences obey strictly
    deterministic laws, while biology, as J. Herschel said of evolutionary biology,
    obeyed the law of higgledy-piggledly. There seemed to be a total contrast
    between the two sciences." J. Herschel, quoted by Ernst Mayr in his chapter
    in EVOLUTION AT A CROSSROADS ; Edited by Depew & Webber, MIT Press, Pg. 48,
    1985.

    "..Ruse's remarks at the AAAS meeting on Feb. 13, 1993, noting that Ruse has
    conceded his (Philip Johnson's) main point: that Darwinism is not a scientific
    inference but a philosophical preference."
       "Later I showed a transcript of Ruse's remarks to several biologist
    colleagues, one of whom muttered darkly over Ruse's neurological condition and
    concluded that 'he's given away the store.'" Arthur M. Shaperio; "Did Michael
    Ruse Give Away the Store"; in NCSE REPORTS, Spring 1993, Pg. 20-21

    "'Fact' is a difficult word. I would never say 'the fact of evolution', but
    good biologists continue to say it. I think this stems from their poor
    understanding of theory, from habit, and from their scientific fundamentalist
    outlook on the topic." Prof. Ralph W. Lewis, Prof. Emeritus Biology, MSU, East
    Lansing, MI; Personal correspondence 5/2/89

    "In 1986, biologist Nobelist Sir Peter Medawar commented: 'Ask a scientist what
    he conceives the scientific method to be, and he will adopt an expression that
    is at once solemn and shifty-eyed; solemn because he feels he ought to declare
    an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he
    has no opinion to declare." Schick, Theodore, Jr.; "The End of Science"; THE
    SKEPTICAL INQUIRER; Apr. '97, Pg. 36-39

    > >Actually, such uncertainty ... and the inability to provide even a single
    > >example of empirical evidence establishing biological macro-evolution ...
    > has to be frustrating. And the necessity to depend upon 'words' (head
    > experiments), rather than 'examples' (physical experiments), can only
    > compound their anxiety.

    >
    > Well, I believe there is a wealth of physical evidence that macroevolution
    > occurred. But this will depend on precisely what one means by macroevolution.
    > What do you mean by this term?

    Brian, I'm glad you used the term "believe" .... but this is more a religious
    term than a scientific one. Science is more than 'belief' ... I like the
    observation that 'science' is distinguishing 'belief' (wishful thinking,
    speculation, delusion) from 'reality'. The classic Baconian, empirical,
    scientific method as set forth in most all science textbooks is commonly
    understood and accepted today. This emphasis upon "physical verification" was
    a distinct and purposeful change from the "thought experiments" that prevailed
    up thru the dark ages... and which is being reintroduced and depended upon by
    evolutionary believers today. I have no problem evolution being qualified as a
    'belief', or even 'speculative' or 'evolutionary' science ... I am merely
    championing that it NOT be qualified as 'empirical' science until proper
    qualifying evidence becomes available.

    You inquired as to my definition of "macroevolution". For me, and most of the
    rest of the general public, macro-evolution is what is meant when the word
    'evolution' is used without any hyphenated prefix or clearly contextually
    conveyed more specialized variation. This being the postulated long, gradual
    accumulation of new, increasingly complex, beneficial DNA genetic code in a
    gene pool. That is, the the process by which lesser coded information in the
    amoebae gene pool came to contain the greater information found in mammalian
    gene pools today.

    > >If the more dogmatic evolutionists could only bring themselves to focus on
    > >the actual, available, demonstrable, scientific 'facts' ... they would not
    > >have to fall back on passion and dubious semantics to emotionally defend
    > >their favored (philosophical, religious) position. There is nothing wrong
    > >in science to say "I don't know." There is something wrong in science to
    > >claim to "know" something without being willing (or able) to define the
    > >proof-method used and provide the evidence establishing successful
    > >fulfillment of the test-criteria applied.
    > >
    > >That the great majority of ALL disagreement in the on-going
    > >creation/evolution controversy is based more on careless (sloppy,
    > >ambiguous, deceptive) semantics than on any testable science is well
    > >reflected in the following approach to language by a well respected
    > >evolutionist:
    > >
    > >"The most basic facts in science are the 'brute, sensory facts' from
    > >perceptions which are shared and on which we agree. ...When biologists
    > >say that 'evolution is a fact', I think they mean that they accept the
    > >following statement so firmly that they considers it to be as true as any
    > >basic sensory fact: Each species arose from another species that preceded
    > >it in time, and higher taxa arose by a continuation of the speciation
    > >processes. The term fact as commonly applied to such statements signifies
    > >not the kind of content in the statements but, rather, the strength of our
    > >acceptance of the statements. So, if we are willing to accept a broad
    > >definition of fact, biologists are correct in saying that '[evolution is a
    > >fact.'" Dr. Ralph Lewis, Prof. Emeritus Biology, MSU, East Lansing, MI;
    > >CREATION-EVOLUTION JOURNAL: No. XXII; Pg. 34; 1988.
    > >
    > >No wonder we can't make sense out of each others statements! We never
    > >know for sure what an evolutionist really means when he uses a word.
    >
    > On the contrary, I've found most authors quite willing to define terms
    > carefully.
    >
    > >DAB
    > >
    > >P.S. I'm just beginning to organize a few thoughts as to how one might
    > >best distinguish between 'natural' and 'intelligent' designs (patterns,
    > >organization, complexity, etc.). Hope to get this out shortly.
    >
    > Look forward to seeing it.
    >
    > Brian Harper
    > Associate Professor
    > Mechanical Engineering
    > The Ohio State University
    > "One never knows, do one?"
    > -- Fats Waller

    While many authors are undoubtedly willing to define their terms when
    requested, my emphasis above was that there are so many subtlety different
    meanings in so-called scientific writings you can never quite be sure what
    individual authors mean when they use them in articles and textbooks. A
    secondary concern is that when they do more precisely define the criteria they
    intend to convey by the use of a word, it is quite different than you expect.

    For instance, how do you define "fact"? As described by Dr. Lewis in the
    paragraph above? Or do you prefer the more generally understood definition of
    scientific "facts" as inductive observations (primary information is sensory)
    that can be verified by others?

    Another example (and there are myriad) is how do you suppose Dr. Mayr above
    describes the "scientific method" he uses? Or Dr. Lewis, for that matter?
    Both profess that their 'historical narrative' and 'hypothetico-deductive'
    methods are improvements on the Baconian scientific method.
    Both, along with others, have written extensively on this, but as yet NONE have
    actually stated any criteria to be followed in qualifying one's evolutionary
    conclusions as 'science'.

    Rather than overdoing things in this reply, I'll close by thanking you for your
    interest and caring enough to respond.

    <dabradbury@mediaone.net>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 22 2000 - 17:06:20 EDT