blevkog

Thanks for the followup and the links, Flash. I also have to do some reading on the philosophy of science.

I just wanted to reiterate a point that I discussed in the response earlier. The debate on evolution ended many years ago - it is an observed fact; there is no real debate any more. The discussion that you have laid out here on the various types of evolution really is a discussion of pacings and mechanisms and should be separated from the discussion of evolution for the purpose of discussing Creationism and it's modern mask, intelligent design.

A standard tactic of creationists is to pull together the theory of natural selection and the fact of evolution into one; sometimes using the all-in-one term "Darwinism" and sometimes "evolution". Dan was absolutely right in pointing this out that this identifs the original commentor as either a creationist or a non-scientist. It is an Orellian tactic that intentionally confuses the argument and I think that it is really important for us on the science side to be careful about it.

Just to state this more clearly - there is no reasonable debate going on about evolution - we see it every day. There is a discussion on the driving mechanism behind evolution, and that's where discussions about strict natural selection, punctuated evolution, and others occur.

As you say, creationists will use this debate as an indication of controversy and dispute in the scientific community. That kind of argument is not going to ever win over anyone to their side, but it will keep those within the community ignorant of the real debate.

Or lack thereof.

Well said.

I will be adding "The Golem" to my book reading list, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn I have read in good detail from my "Philosophy of Science" course that most philosophy majors take. As a background check I am not a believer in any diety, religion or creed. I am not a supporter of intelligent design but that does not however mean that I cannot show some of the power of their arguments. These arguments I would call non-scientific.

However this is on the issue of the duelity of courts. Many times courts have hard cases where they are forced to define a term they would rather not. In this case in order to say that intelligent design is not science a person must properly designate what is and what is not science. This is how the courts work (read Ronald D. Dworkin's "Law's Empire" for the whole story).

Science as you put it is a method of looking at the world to find cause and effect relationships that are used in nature.

Courts would have a hayday with this definition. First off it is too abstract. What pray-tell does "nature" refer to here? Does it mean the same as "hinterland." Does it mean some sort of platonic realm of universal truths? Does it mean "how a thing is." Does it mean "how a thing ought to be." Does it mean "how a thing normally is." Does it mean the opposite of artificial? Nature unfortunately in our literature has come to mean all of these (but not all of them at once of course). This may seem like knit-picking to you but this is an essential topic. Newtonian "nature" is all of the forces that make us move. But look at "human nature" and you get more than just this broad definition of how we move. If you look at "the nature of political structures" you see something that neither moves nor has a personality. This term "nature" is problematic and is not one that people can agree upon in meaning.

Second, under that definition is the effects of natural selection actually science? Science as you say is a mechanism that looks for cause and effect relationships. It however does not substantiate that the results of this process is science. Gravity for example wouldn't be science because it is the product of a method, and is not actually a method. Is there a relationship between the cause of labor and the effect of labor that makes them the same?

Thirdly and finally, courts organize definitions in terms of a criterion, as in if it passes all the criteria it is an object of that definition. This is a discussion about highschool science so it means a proper criteria for what kind of science should be taught in highschool. I've given one example in the teaching of natural selection:

Common Premise: Man evolved to become a rational animal. Man began to use tools like rocks, bowls, and spears in order to make life easier. These contributed to the natural evolution of man into what he is today.

Theory 1: Because men used spears it meant they had to use less of their shark-like teeth to bite into animals for a kill. Because of this the trait slowly vanished from usage. Those who still had these teeth were more likely die younger as a result of more injuries while the spear wielders lived to breed.

Theory 2: Women began to use bowls and gathered berries and fruits. At a time when men became dependent on this women chose their husbands. Women chose men with less sharp teeth so that they would be better able to eat the berries. As time went on the sharp teeth vanished from mankind.

Now both theories are supported by archaeological evidence, but only the first one is taught in highschools (different high schools like teaching different bodyparts, mine school taught the teeth, the nextdoor school taught the nose). In defining this criteria are you going to get rid of the feminist version of natural selection, both of these or neither of these? A strict criteria could do any of these results. Since it is not science but simply a hypothesis (supported by untestable evidence) do you want to eliminate this from highschools.

So you're saying now that Intelligent Design isn't scientific, so it should be taught in Science Class? Whatever courses you're taking as a Philosophy Major, Paul - I'm guessing Logic isn't among them. Once again, where's the cite for your 'tooth theory' - I've never seen any credible claims for human's having 'shark-like' teeth - in fact, considering that we evolved from a common ancestor with the apes, you might want to try looking at a chimpanzee's mouth sometimes. Also once again, you fail to explain your definition of 'Darwinist', in spite of numerous requests - once is misunderstanding, twice is bad manners, three times is just hubris. As a matter of fact, your posts seem to be committing one of the primary fallacies of assumption called begging the question - you're using questionable premises to entail your assumption - another factoid to suggest weakness in logic theory.

Finally, if you're going to use Karl Popper as a basis for your premise that Natural Selection isn't scientific - you might want to try reading "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355, where Popper recants his earlier statements and accepts the scientific validity of Evolution - of course, someone who claims to be a Philosophy Major and claims to have read Popper should know this.

Paul,
I'm having a really hard time understanding where you come from on this, except that you seem to be trying to have both sides of the argument and can't. I don't personnaly care if you are a creationist, a zionist or paleoantologist, the "power of the argument" (your words) does not make it a scientific theory. I'll use a big philosophy word here that you might have even learned in first year: non-sequitur.

You steadfastly refuse to define terms germaine to the argument like "Darwinism" and then flood the room with definitions of "nature", many of which are obviously just tossed out there to confuse the issue. Interesting ploy - you tell me how I define science, take one of the words from the definition that you claim for me, and then pull it out of proportion. Yeah, I define science as "a method of finding cause and effect relationships in the hinterland". Or better,"a method of finding cause and effect relationships of things that are the opposite of artificial".

From this, I gather that you either consider the keyboard a form of masturbation, or you think I'm an idiot. If you want me to treat you seriously, then don't fucking insult me.

As for your theories of tooth development; fine, so there are two - I'd be surprised if there weren't ten. I can assure you that no high school science class is going to teach every theory and hypothesis. If I understand your argument to now, all I get is, there are two theories about the origin of teeth in man, so we should teach intelligent design.

Allow me a brief analogy. When you did Phys. Ed. in high school, did you try every sport in the world? Of course not, that's idiotic. So, if Phys. Ed. class didn't introduce you to every sport in the world, what good is it? It got you moving around, showed you ways to stay physically active and healthy, and hopefully, might have set up some good habits that you carry on later in life.

Like Phys. Ed. class, when the bell rings in science class, time is up. You can only fit so much in. Unfortuntately, because *you* are having trouble defining what science is, your science class is becoming either infitely long or infinitessimally short. Now no tax payer is going to pay anyone to teach science class in an infinitessimally short time, and it's not possible to suffer through an infinitely long class, so we have to make compromises as to what gets taught. And through those compromises we hope to teach things that will stick later in life. Having married a science teacher, I can assure you that scientific method is high on the list - higher than any single topic, because it weaves its way through everything. It is a method of inquiry and analysis; the rest is the result. I'm sure my wife would be happy if no one remembers plate tectonics or the shape of DNA but knew how to test a hypothesis.

Now on to the another in the discussion thus far - the conflation of the terms "hypothesis", "theory", and "science". In your last paragraph you state "since it is not science but simply a hypothesis" - either this was a grammatical brain fart and doesn't make any sense, or you have totally misunderstood the role of theory, testing, hypothesis, etc. in the scientific method. Since I have noted this confusion in several other places in your posts, I don't think it is a grammar problem. No, a hypothesis or a theory are not "science" in the same way that an apple is not an orchard. Also, I have noted the standard confusion of "hypothesis" and "theory" that are the hallmarks of someone that hasn't actually "done" science, like say a Creationist.

All of this aside, I am still confused by the "thesis" of your argument. I know that it is partly the medium - it's hard to write things out like this as quickly as you think of them. However, I get the feeling that you're a bit out of your depth here, half understanding the philosophy that you've read and not at all understanding the real issues, ie evolution vs ID/creationism.

And for the record, I'm not impressed by all the name dropping and references; arguing from citations only works if you've connected the dots, and since I have no idea what you're talking about, you obviously haven't. Telling me "he says something, you really should go read it" adds nothing to the discussion because I'm not going to go read it, there isn't enough time in the day to read all the stuff that actually interests me. If what they have to say is pertinent, bring it out yourself. As far as I'm concerned it's all a bit of keyboard exercise and little else.

I don't want you to be left with the thought that Dan and I are beating up on you, because we're not. Well, maybe Dan is, I can't speak for him, and I know that does have a bit of a malicious streak sometimes, but I'm not. It just saddens me that people waste so much bandwidth and brain cells on stuff like this that should have been settled 100 years ago. IDiots and Creationists have nothing constructive to add to scientific discourse. End stop.

Kevout.

Alleluia, Kevvy and Dan! Testify!

As a bit of background for you, I have a Master's degree in Sociology, with a specialization in epistemology.

You can infer from this that I know quite well what I am talking about.

Part of the difficulty, as Kevvy so rightly points out, (albeit slightly differently) is that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Master the ideas before you start the argument.

Here's a tip: establish a meaning for the terms you use, then stick with them.

You claim not to be arguing from a religious standpoint. That's troubling, since it was the only firm viewpoint I could infer from your scattershot arguments.

NATURE, the noun, refers to elements of the environment other than those that were artificially created. It can also be used to refer to commonly repeated patterns, such as in 'Human Nature'. Any lawyer, let alone any judge, has the ability to use a dictionary.
The effects of natural selection are not science. They are, however, observed and recorded using the scientific method, which classifies it as a scientific activity.

By the way, what the hell is the feminist theory of natural selection? Is there also a feminist atomic physics? A feminist astronomy?

There is no power to the argument. In fact, it is dishonest and deceitful from the start by denying the obvious link to ID. The judge that handed down the decision not long ago pointed this out, and he had no difficulty discerning what was not science. Just because you don't understand it, don't invoke some vague conspiracy theory to explain why others don't either. "What pray tell" my ass. Either bring your intelligence to bear on discussing this honestly, or keep your fucking sarcasm to yourself.

Science is a method, not an outcome. Intelligent design is not science, so it does not belong in a class with a scientific focus. Those authors I have mentioned are quite comfortable in defining science, despite your obvious misgivings about it.

I feel the need to quote you directly:
"Now both theories are supported by archaeological evidence..."

"... Since it is not science but simply a hypothesis (supported by untestable evidence) do you want to eliminate this from highschools."

Make up your mind.

The definitions of "nature" was not used to "throw you off" it was used to show you exactly how difficult it is to craft the necessary and sufficient conditions for a thing to be considered science. Your definition was very abstract and interpretive values leave it open to allow for more or less than what science is.

My point was not that ID belongs in the classroom. My argument was that if you got into the court decisions on this it could risk legitimate science being taught. That claim is yet to be debunked. Instead there are tones of strawmans insisting that I'm a bible thumper and am arguing for the scientific value of intelligent design.

Paul,
I am working on something right now and don't have time for a full response, but will get around to it later. However, the definition of nature has not to my mind been a stumbling block in the court proceedings to this time. I might be wrong, but at least in the media reports I've read to now that's not the case.

For the record, this has been in the court quite a number of times going back to Scopes. It will not be any different now, and sadly is unlikely to ever end, at least in the US. It *is* a problem if the judges are scientific illiterates, which sometimes is the case.

What claim hasn't been debunked; Intelligent design or that it might prevent real science from being taught? I'll talk about both, because I'm not sure what you mean.

If the first, then, arguably no, because it is not a scientific theory - it produces no testable hypothesis. Just saying that the eye is really complicated doesn't prove that it was designed and neither does providing clever parables and analogies about watches. That is all ID is about. Natural selection produces testable hypotheses that have held up so far.

If the latter, then you are probably right. It has certainly put a chill on biology class in some places. Luckily for me, it is relagated to the US and for what it's worth if Americans learn that the world is flat I couldn't give less of a damn.

Sorry if I've misinterpreted your argument to now, it's just that your writing is fairly convoluted and I'm not sure I've actually understood what you've been saying.

One more thing.

Dan and I are pretty convinced that you are an ID proponent, not necessarily only because of your arguments, but because we see IDiots on the web all of the time pleading for this "middle ground" solution to what they see as a problem.

If you are not, then so be it, you have my apologies because, yes it has been used as a bit of a straw man. However I will not concede the point that it stands a chance in court because I read from your posts a dreadful understanding of the science behind evolution, and indeed the actual mechanism of doing science. Poor enough, that I think you are martialling argumentative boogiemen that are not real problems.

In short, if your arguments are all that ID has to take to court, it's an open and shut case. Come back with a proof that ID is a science and then perhaps you have an argument. But do not come forward with another "what is the meaning of nature" type question - shit like that just takes time out of my day.

First off, Mr. Vincent - you have a lot of gall accusing us of using strawman arguments - where in any of our subsequent posts, after you claimed to be a non-believer have we called you a bible-thumper? Not that I actually expect you to give an honest answer - you haven't bothered to answer any questions directed to you - so I'll ask you again:

Firstly, where is your evidence that anyone has ever taught that primitive humans had 'shark-like' teeth? If all you've got for this is a 'I was taught this in high school' whine then at least tell us the name of the school, the name of the teacher and the name of the textbook. I note from your blog profile that you're from St George's, NL and unless the Newfoundland School System has changed drastically since I went through it, I very much doubt you were taught it here.

Second, answer Flash's question - what is the feminist theory of natural selection? If, as you claim, there's archaeological evidence to support it - where is the Archaeological Journal that supports it?

Third - WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF DARWINISM?

Fourth - you want a definition of science - how about the National Centre of Science Educators - "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us" - Natural meaning limited to the observable universe surrounding us. Kindly explain what is 'abstract' about that.

Fifth - obviously you didn't take my advice to look into the Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision - here's a link to the decision - come back with a rejoinder showing that you've read it and can explain how it's wrong on a legal standpoint and I'll listen to you.

Sixth, you haven't addressed Flash's and my statements that you've misread Karl Popper - aside from your snotty 'I took one semester of Philosophy of Science therefore I know more than you' remark.

Seventh, as has been pointed out to you - Flash has his Masters, with a background in Epistemology, Kev's got a degree in Geology, I've got a strong background in Physics and a lifelong reading in the scientific fields (don't even get me started on your statements on Newton and Gravity), and the Other Paul has a degree in both Geology and Education. You, on the other hand, are a 21 year old 3rd year student - who evidently got to that level with an academic outpour of bafflegab, cause I haven't seen anything of substance in your postings. If you're objecting to us asking you to answer direct questions - I suggest you look into the mirror and start practicing the phrase "Would you like fries with that" cause I doubt you'd survive defending a thesis.

So finally, unless you're prepared to actually answer some questions when you post back here, I'll just assume that you're another self-important, wanna-be poseur passing himself off as an intellectual. On the other hand, if you want to lose the attitude, and engage in a meaningful discussion - you're more than welcome to come back here.

Yikes!

Quote from comments to Kevvyd's original post:
"I'm not defending intelligent design as an acceptable scientific theory, I'm defending its place in a classroom."

Quote from current comments:
"My point was not that ID belongs in the classroom."

This is why we take issue with you. Inconsistency and illogical arguments from an ill-informed point of view.

It's nothing personal, but rest assured that our presence here indicates that NONE of us are willing to lie down and have our intelligence insulted by a philosopher wannabe.
I may not post on political topics as often or from as informed a position as my compatriots, but rest assured that if I did, I'd try to have a logical viewpoint to start with. And I trust that my friends would have a logical, informed viewpoint from which to object if they took issue with something I wrote. And I would respect them for it.
You, through consistent contradiction and misuse of concepts, not to mention a total misapprehension of the issues at hand, have earned none of that respect. Had you paused to ask (or answer) a question without first attempting to 'show us up', I might have enjoyed debating.
As it stands, you're a crank, as far as I'm concerned.
Have a nice day. Go away now.