From: David Bradbury mailto:dabradbury@mediaone.net
>
>Richard Wein wrote:[8/15/00]
[...]
>> I think that when we use the word "propaganda", we generally mean it in a
>> more pejorative sense, implying that the material so described is in some
>> way misleading, even deceptive. Well, that's what I mean anyway. I think
>> that the material produced by the ID movement achieves its goals to a
large
>> degree through deception. I make no comment, however, as to the extent to
>> which this deception is practised consciously by ID proponents. I suspect
>> they are often unaware of how deceptive they are being. My own experience
>> suggests that ID proponents, like others who espouse crank theories, are
>> blinded to facts and logic by the strength of their beliefs.
Nevertheless,
>> sometimes the deception is so blatant that this charitable interpretation
is
>> difficult to maintain.
>
>To which I add that the very same concerns (misleading, deceptive
presentations;
>evolutionary proponents seemingly "blinded to facts and logic by the
strength of
>their beliefs", etc.) are also equally troublesome to non-evolutionists.
Such
>problems are invariably compounded by fuzzy or ambiguous definitions for
terms
>used by both sides. Indeed, I again repeat that the great majority of ALL
>disagreement encountered within this newsgroup is reflective of, or at
least
>significantly exacerbated by carelessly (possibly selective) imprecise
>semantics.
I'm willing to accept that people on both sides of the dispute perceive the
other side's arguments to be misleading and contrary to fact or logic.
However, it does not follow that both sides are correct in this perception.
I would agree that imprecise use of language is widespread on the internet,
and this certainly doesn't help. But I doubt that there would be much more
agreement even if both sides were very careful with their language.
I think that, when judging the arguments of each side, we should concentrate
on the major works of the main proponents, and not what Fred Bloggs said in
some newsgroup or other. ;-)
[...]
>> Dembski has published a monograph, "The Design Inference", in which he
lays
>> out a purported method for identifying designed objects. I've already
>> critiqued the book in this forum. It is vague, equivocal, misguided and
>> buries a very simple idea beneath layers of unnecessary obfuscation.
>>
>> However, the most damning criticism of Dembski's work is that he claims
to
>> have detected design in nature despite the fact that he has never (to my
>> knowledge) applied the method described in his book to any natural
>> phenomenon. I have asked many ID supporters to cite an example in which
he
>> has applied his method, or approved the application of his method by
anyone
>> else, but no example has been forthcoming. It seems he is able to get
away
>> with this amazing omission thanks to the equivocation, obfuscation and
>> innuendo which seem to be the hallmarks of ID arguments.
>
>Without condemning Richard's use of emotion-laden terms as "vague,
equivocal,
>misguided" and obfuscation" to describe Dembski's initial efforts to
describe ID
>(Intelligent Design) ... let me point out these are the very same terms
we're
>often tempted to apply to each other's uncompelling definition for much
older,
>and more basic terms as "science", "evolution", etc.
Regardless of what emotions they may evoke, the terms mentioned here are
descriptive and relevant. I see no reason not to use them. The alternatives
are to turn a blind eye to reality, or to find more euphemistic terms. I
prefer to call a spade a spade.
It's an unfortunate fact that there is no rigorous definition of the
scientific method available. Many philosophers of science have struggled
with this issue, but with limited success. Until such time as someone comes
up with a definition which can be shown to be useful, we must simply
consider science to be that which scientists do. Since it is scientists
themselves who are making the discoveries, and not philosophers, IDers or
anyone else, I believe that they are in the best position to judge what is
and isn't science. In other words, in the absence of any better method, we
should accept the scientific consensus.
I think "evolution" was very well defined by Futuyma, as quoted here
recently by Tedd Hadley. It's certainly true that, in internet debates, the
word is often misused by people on both sides of the argument. I do my best
to use it clearly.
I think it's also important to distinguish between the imprecise use of
language in the argey-bargey of heated debate, and such usage when it occurs
in supposedly scholarly works, such as those of Dembski and Behe.
>Evolutionists and non-evolutionists appear to have widely (and
significantly)
>different meanings for any number of key terms. In many instances these
are
>selective definitions adopted because they fit one's philosophical goals,
rather
>than to provide clearcut, unambiguous meaning to key terms.
I do not believe that's generally true of the scholarly works of
evolutionary biologists. Such ambiguities would quickly be exposed by their
colleagues in peer reviews and at conferences.
>More dogmatic (or trustingly misguided) evolutionists define "evolution",
for
>instance, as simply being change in gene frequencies over time. But
there are
>many different ways in which gene frequencies can change. Some are
>scientifically demonstrable ... as those leading to extinction, or those
induced
>by artificial selection (breeding experiments) or even the everyday mixing
and
>shuffling of genetic code pre-existing in a gene pool (more precisely
termed
>"variation"). But the particular changes in gene frequencies necessary in
>biological macroevolution are not similarly verifiable... a fact invariably
>overlooked (deceptively ignored?) when evolutionists piggy-back on the
above and
>make the grand statement that evolution is "scientific".
Evolution is a very general word with many meanings. The important thing is
for writers to be clear about which meaning they are using in a given
context, and to stick to the same meaning throught the course of a given
argument. The statement that "evolution is scientific" is meaningless unless
one clarifies which sense of the word is intended. I recommend that, when
you see such a statement, you challenge the writer to clarify his/her
meaning.
>Much the same problem exists in defining "science". Here however, as
>participants regularly cite the criteria of empirical "science" when
describing
>what they accept by the term ... and specifically require non-evolutionary
>interpretations of the evidence to meet these standards if they seek to be
>considered "science" ... the evolutionists seldom, if ever, apply these
criteria
>to their own favored evolutionary explanations.
One principle of science which *is* generally agreed, and which cannot be
avoided as far as I can see, is the principle of parsimony. We apply this
principle (usually without knowing it) whenever we draw any rational
conclusions about the real world. To repeat an example I've given before:
suppose you see a man enter a changing cubicle and 2 minutes later an
identical man comes out. We have no way of knowing whether this is the same
man, his identical twin or a shape-changing demon. It is the principle of
parsimony which forces us to accept the first conclusion unless we have a
very good reason to do otherwise. Similarly, the principle of parsimony
places the burden of proof on those who hypothesize an unknown intelligent
designer with unknown powers and unknown motives.
>Richard, just as you mention above your inability to get a specific example
from
>IDers demonstrating successful fulfillment of their proposed confirmatory
>(scientific) method, I have had the identical experience with
evolutionists.
>The need for such fulfillment of method is here well stated in a widely
used
>biology text.
>
>"A good hypothesis must undergo testing. Only if there is a test can the
>scientist be certain his hypothesis is correct. Experimentation is a
singular
>aspect of science. Make certain that students understand the need for and
>importance of this crucial part of the scientist's work."
>"To be of value or promise, a hypothesis must be subject to
experimentation. A
>hypothesis which cannot be tested is of no significance." BIOLOGY: LIVING
>SYSTEMS, by Omar, Hummer & Smoot, Teachers Edition, Pg. 26, 1926
1926!!! It is now generally recognized that experimentation is not the only
means of gathering empirical evidence. If it were, then we would have no
historical sciences, including forensic science.
>And here I request of you, will you (can you) provide me with even a single
>example of evidence establishing biological macroevolution (hypothesis or
>theory) that has met this widely publicized and accepted standard? Lacking
such
>example, by what other (non-experimental) criteria do evolutionists qualify
>macroevolution as "science"?
Speciation is a form of macroevolution, in the sense that the word is used
by biologists (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html), and has
been observed in practice
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html).
But I guess you are referring to higher levels of macroevolution. Since we
know that speciation occurs, and the fossil record shows patterns of small
changes building up into larger changes over long periods of time, the onus
is on anti-evolutionists to show that some barrier exists which prevents
small changes from building up in this way.
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 17 2000 - 11:37:21 EDT