In Defense of Evolution

[Al Moritz]

Here is an excellent interview with Ken Miller:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html

[drogulus]

     Q: Does science have limits to what it can tell us?

Miller: If science is competent at anything, it's in investigating the natural and material world around us. What science isn't very good at is answering questions that also matter to us in a big way, such as the meaning, value, and purpose of things. Science is silent on those issues. There are a whole host of philosophical and moral questions that are important to us as human beings for which we have to make up our minds using a method outside of science.

     Miller sees such ultimate questions as values questions, and confirms that the attempt to fuse the religious with the scientific can't be done, because while science is explicitly about what's true about the world, religious narratives are about "the meaning, value, and purpose of things". This is exactly right. Miller simply doesn't acknowledge that a value can't stand in for a fact, or be a fact equivalent, in any view about what exists. He says that the existence of God isn't a scientific question, which further confirms that it's not a question of fact, because all such questions are scientific. A god can't be "valued" into existence over the head of the only apparatus that can really answer such questions. In such circumstances the only thing you can do is treat god questions as unquestionable premises. The parallelism that Miller offers isn't viable, because the narratives can't be understood in terms of each other. They're inert, lying there side by side wondering what's on the tube tonight.

     

[PSmith08]

He says that the existence of God isn't a scientific question, which further confirms that it's not a question of fact, because all such questions are scientific. A god can't be "valued" into existence over the head of the only apparatus that can really answer such questions. In such circumstances the only thing you can do is treat god questions as unquestionable premises. The parallelism that Miller offers isn't viable, because the narratives can't be understood in terms of each other. They're inert, lying there side by side wondering what's on the tube tonight.

While, from a scientific or even strictly logical standpoint, the existence of God is an undecidable proposition speaking of a matter of fact, I don't think that the scientific narrative need be so completely divorced from the religious narrative. Why? At its root, religion tells a story. Such stories are full of what one would call facts. That might not appear to be the case at first glance, since those facts have been layered with varnish (artistic, interpretative, and doctrinal varnishes are some examples). Science, in describing natural phenomena, can, then, be a powerful tool for getting at the facts lurking in the background of the religious narrative. If science can provide a description and explanation of phenomena mentioned in a religious narrative, then the understanding of the religious narrative is improved. This goes from, to the agnostic or unbeliever, a nice (or not-so-nice) story that is largely cut from whole cloth to an interpretation of a natural event or process by civilizations incapable of understanding the event in analytical terms.

I do, however, take issue with the characterization of all fact questions being scientific. The homomorphism theorems from abstract algebra describe facts, but my hat goes off to the natural scientist who can derive them by observation of phenomena of the natural world. In other words, the viability of those tremendously important theorems is a question of fact, but not a question for natural scientists. Now the trivial objection to my point is that the homomorphism theorems are abstract and theoretical, which should make them somehow less cogent examples of the fact-vs-natural-science question. I would respond to that by saying that much of what we think about the basic building blocks of everything and how it all works is abstract and theoretical. My question, then, is what's the difference between the Higgs boson (which is a major, as I understand it, test for the Standard Model) and the homomorphism theorems? Well, one "exists" and the other hasn't been observed. And that's my point: something can exist as a matter of fact without coming under the observation of science. I don't mean to make a statement on the "big" question, other than to say that answering it on fact/science grounds might not produce an answer for reasons other than nonexistence.

[Al Moritz]

In any case, I think the article is worth a read for its excellent explanations of what evolution is, what the scientific data for it are, and why it is such a good scientific theory*).



*) A generalization, based on many observations and experiments, by which scientific facts are explained – like the atomic theory, the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity, to name a few examples. Or as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it, in science a theory is "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

[Bunny]

Another great site to explore wrt the defense and teaching of evolution is the National Center for Science Education.  The NCSE is dedicated to promoting evolution and helping those who have been punished for teaching evolution in the classroom as well as working to prevent creationism from being put into the science curriculum anywhere in the nation.  You will find numerous links to other sites also concerned with the teaching of science in America.

[Shrunk]

I've already linked this story on the "Intelligent Design" thread, but I hope no one minds if I repeat it here.  It's regarding a recent California court decision that touches on the issue of teaching creationism in high schools:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/CA/782_victory_in_california_creation_8_12_2008.asp

[Al Moritz]

Bunny,

seconded.


Shrunk,

yes, the judge made the right decision, obviously.

[Bunny]

If anyone wants to have a laugh at Ben Stein's expense, then try this YouTube video: Why People Laugh at Creationists (part 23)

Then you can start at the beginning with part 1 and learn quite a bit about intellectual dishonesty as well as the errors of Creationism and ID.

[Bunny]

More videos on YouTube:
Evidence for Evolution Part III (and I hope everyone here can recognize the music. )
Creationism Disproved?

Be sure to check out all of the related videos.


I'm really beginning to love YouTube

[drogulus]

While, from a scientific or even strictly logical standpoint, the existence of God is an undecidable proposition speaking of a matter of fact, I don't think that the scientific narrative need be so completely divorced from the religious narrative. Why? At its root, religion tells a story. Such stories are full of what one would call facts. That might not appear to be the case at first glance, since those facts have been layered with varnish (artistic, interpretative, and doctrinal varnishes are some examples). Science, in describing natural phenomena, can, then, be a powerful tool for getting at the facts lurking in the background of the religious narrative. If science can provide a description and explanation of phenomena mentioned in a religious narrative, then the understanding of the religious narrative is improved. This goes from, to the agnostic or unbeliever, a nice (or not-so-nice) story that is largely cut from whole cloth to an interpretation of a natural event or process by civilizations incapable of understanding the event in analytical terms.

I do, however, take issue with the characterization of all fact questions being scientific. The homomorphism theorems from abstract algebra describe facts, but my hat goes off to the natural scientist who can derive them by observation of phenomena of the natural world. In other words, the viability of those tremendously important theorems is a question of fact, but not a question for natural scientists. Now the trivial objection to my point is that the homomorphism theorems are abstract and theoretical, which should make them somehow less cogent examples of the fact-vs-natural-science question. I would respond to that by saying that much of what we think about the basic building blocks of everything and how it all works is abstract and theoretical. My question, then, is what's the difference between the Higgs boson (which is a major, as I understand it, test for the Standard Model) and the homomorphism theorems? Well, one "exists" and the other hasn't been observed. And that's my point: something can exist as a matter of fact without coming under the observation of science. I don't mean to make a statement on the "big" question, other than to say that answering it on fact/science grounds might not produce an answer for reasons other than nonexistence.

      Yes, there are facts of logic and mathematics which are not derived empirically. No doubt the use of deductive proof for the existence of creator gods is a misappropriation of the example they set. So I'll repeat that the existence of anything is a factual and not a purely logical question, and therefore always a scientific one. That encompasses the kind of theories you have in mind. The Higgs Boson is not the equivalent of a god in it's position in theories that are at least in part empirical. If our past theories about the existence of heretofore unknown particles had never been confirmed by observation, and if the only support for their existence came from an ideology that said that not only evidence but reason itself could not give knowledge of them we would hardly be likely to just say: "OK, you get a pass, they exist" unless that "unnecessary" confirmation actually took place.

       When you say something can exist without being under the observation of science you're certainly right, but this says nothing about what we're entitled to say is true about the existence of such entities. Sure, entities the existence of which are a matter of recent theorizing in the hope of empirical confirmation can be said to exist. Here we're talking about the interplay between the logical/mathematical and what can be confirmed by the evidence of observation. It's a very different ball game when you're using this example as a wedge to admit beings that play no role in such theorizing. It's a form of bait and switch: Admit the existence of the unobserved particle predicted mathematically and you must admit the creator god predicted by some guy with a long beard 2,500 years ago. Uh.....no, I don't think so. Is it clever? OK, you got me, it's a smooth move. Is it remotely plausible as a substitute/equivalent for science? No, it's not.

     Religious theories are scientific theories when they say anything at all about the world. They are bad theories because not enough sense can be made of them to falsify them. They shouldn't be treated as though they were true because of this. I can't prove the UFO isn't there. So it is, right? Isn't that a shabby way to think about it? Of course it is. So let's not make excuses for this sort of thing. The religious proponents must raise their game, and if we make allowances for them like this they'll never have to. That hurts all of us, as the ID controversy shows.

[Al Moritz]

     He says that the existence of God isn't a scientific question, which further confirms that it's not a question of fact, because all such questions are scientific.      

Incorrect. All questions of facts of nature are scientific ones, yes, but not the question of the fact or non-fact of God, who stands outside nature -- how can He be nature when He created nature in the first place?

[drogulus]

Incorrect. All questions of facts of nature are scientific ones, yes, but not the question of the fact or non-fact of God, who stands outside nature -- how can He be nature when He created nature in the first place?

     Incorrect. There are mathematical or logical facts of abstract relations, and there are empirical, that is scientific, facts about the world. There's no category for a supposed fact that doesn't belong to these. But you're right about this, how can nature be created by something outside itself? It can't, outside of word games.

[Al Moritz]

Let's not complicate things here. It is really quite simple:

If you sculpt an object, are you in that object? Of course not. You designed it, but you are most patently not part of it. Thus, if God designed and made nature, why should He be part of nature and therefore open to scientific investigation? This makes no sense.

***

Certainly, one might ask if He could be deduced from the design of the world, just like the involvement of a human hand can be deduced from an object's design. To anyone who is open to that possibility and allows for commonsense logical thinking, the design should be absolutely obvious, in the particular, exceedingly special, fine-tuned laws of physics that we see (we had discussed that before on "The Religion Thread"), and which allow for physical and biological evolution in the first place.

A universe where the natural laws that govern it were created by God (theistic version) is, on the level of scientific observation, indistinguishable from a universe where the natural laws just are (atheistic version). It is really that simple.

[Al Moritz]

     But you're right, how can nature be created by something outside itself? It can't, outside of word games.

I have addressed this question of basic logic in my previous post.

[drogulus]

Let's not complicate things here. It is really quite simple:

If you sculpt an object, are you in that object? Of course not. You designed it, but you are most patently not part of it. Thus, if God designed and made nature, why should He be part of nature and therefore open to scientific investigation? This makes no sense.

***

Certainly, one might ask if He could be deduced from the design of the world, just like the involvement of a human hand can be deduced from an object's design. To anyone who is open to that possibility and allows for commonsense logical thinking, the design should be absolutely obvious, in the particular, exceedingly special, fine-tuned laws of physics that we see (we had discussed that before on "The Religion Thread"), and which allow for physical and biological evolution in the first place.

A universe where the natural laws that govern it were created by God (theistic version) is, on the level of scientific observation, indistinguishable from a universe where the natural laws just are (atheistic version). It is really that simple.

    That's why the creator model is so empty. You have to do intellectual somersaults to try and show that what you left out of nature because it isn't there must now be admitted by necessity just to justify a model that can't be justified any other way. The universe is not the sort of thing that can be created, since it's everything by definition. Everything can't be created by another thing except in a word game.

[drogulus]

A universe where the natural laws that govern it were created by God (theistic version) is, on the level of scientific observation, indistinguishable from a universe where the natural laws just are (atheistic version). It is really that simple.

      I agree. So leave out the extra term and order lunch. 

      I should say that I applaud Millers efforts to combat ID regardless of other disagreements. And your efforts as well, Al.

[Don]

Incorrect. All questions of facts of nature are scientific ones, yes, but not the question of the fact or non-fact of God, who stands outside nature -- how can He be nature when He created nature in the first place?

Do you entertain the possibility that He might be She or some mix of the two?

[Lilas Pastia]

Let's not complicate things here. It is really quite simple:

If you sculpt an object, are you in that object? Of course not. You designed it, but you are most patently not part of it. Thus, if God designed and made nature, why should He be part of nature and therefore open to scientific investigation? This makes no sense.

***

Certainly, one might ask if He could be deduced from the design of the world, just like the involvement of a human hand can be deduced from an object's design. To anyone who is open to that possibility and allows for commonsense logical thinking, the design should be absolutely obvious, in the particular, exceedingly special, fine-tuned laws of physics that we see (we had discussed that before on "The Religion Thread"), and which allow for physical and biological evolution in the first place.

A universe where the natural laws that govern it were created by God (theistic version) is, on the level of scientific observation, indistinguishable from a universe where the natural laws just are (atheistic version). It is really that simple.

It is really that simple for simple minds. That game of a question with a yes or no answer and a "therefore" conclusion is now, what? 2500 years old, if not more. Socrates was a great proponent of that method, and the sophists (his contemporaries) were quick on the rebound, able to turn any argument into something "really that simple".

I'm not taking a position here - I have little interest in such a debate - but I take exception to such ultimately dishonest ways. Logic has no business in theology and not as much as could be thought in science.

[Al Moritz]

      I should say that I applaud Millers efforts to combat ID regardless of other disagreements. And your efforts as well, Al.

Thank you.

[Al Moritz]

Funny when someone brings up straightforward points that opponents do not like, he is accused of playing games, being "simple-minded" and intellectually dishonest.