Not because it's false, mind you. There is no reasonable definition of science that includes Intelligent Design and Creationism, and it is perfectly legitimate to point that out. In certain contexts, like when you are arguing that it is unconstitutional to teach ID in public high school science classes, it is even an important and relevant point.
But it is not the main reason serious scientists want nothing to do with the notion and it should not be the first thing you say when debating the subject. Case in point, consider how the usually excellent Steven Novella opens this post about ID:
The primary scientific criticism of ID is that it is not a legitimate scientific theory, but rather a transparent attempt at recasting religious faith (creationism) in scientific-sounding jargon.
No, no, no!! That is not the primary scientific criticism of ID. The primary scientific criticism of ID is that the specific assertions made by ID folks, about irreducible complexity, complex specified information, the alleged holes in evolutionary science, and so on, are universally false. That's why scientists reject ID.
Stating things as Novella has plays right into ID hands. It creates the false impression that scientists won't give ID a fair hearing because it fails to conform to some definitional contrivance. The reality is much simpler and so much more powerful. ID's scientific claims are rejected because they are wrong, in precisely the same sense that it is wrong to say that 1+1=3. ID claims are wrong independent of whether evolution in its modern form is substantially correct. If tomorrow a stunning discovery is made that shows common descent to be a lot of nonsense, it will still be true that William Dembski's probability calculations are meaningless. It will still be true that his use of the No Free Lunch theorems is not legitimate. It will still be true that “irreducibly complex” biological systems can evolve via a variety of well-understood mechanisms.
Just so we are clear, ID isn't science, and it is just a transparent attempt to conceal an especially blinkered sort of religious faith beneath the clothing of science. That, however, is not the primary reason that scientists reject ID. Nor should it be. If there were any merit to the charges the ID folks make, their lack of conformity to some definition of science would hardly be the big news.
That said, go read the rest of Prof. Novella's essay. After my annoyance at his opening died down, I found I enjoyed it a quite a bit.
Life Science
Comments
Jason - Thanks for reviewing my blog post, but I must respectfully disagree with you. The fact that ID is not falsifiable and therefore not science is the primary scientific criticism of ID. All of the things you mentioned are also proper criticisms, but I think they are trumped by the fact that ID is not even science. Nowhere did I state that ID being not science should end the criticism.
Also - when ID proponents try to defend themselves on the very points you mention, they invariably wiggle out of criticism by creeping their position over to one that is not falsifiable. In the end, they always end up outside the arena of science defending an unfalsifiable version of ID. So your position is also a bit of a false dichotomy since - the points you mention and the unfalsifiable nature of ID are related in the way that I stated.
Further, I agree that we have to be mindful of how we state the case for evolution and against ID so as not to be easily exploited. However - the fact the ID is not science is not a point we should gloss over. It is an incredibly important point - we should fight over it and win. Keep in mind that ID was created for the very purpose of expanding the definition of science - this is actually THE fight. Everything else - while legitimate and important - is actually a distraction. Don't get distracted.
Posted by: Steven Novella | April 9, 2008 4:05 PM
I just wrote up almost exactly what Steven Novella posted above, so there's no point in rehashing. It's good to point out that ID has other flaws, but from the start, it doesn't pass the very first threshold for reasonability in the realm it portends to inhabit, science. It's from this point that we springboard to most other points in the debate, or else those other points orbit this one, such as the minutia of details regarding irreducible complexity and other flaws in mathematical/scientific reasoning.
Posted by: infopractical | April 9, 2008 4:15 PM
I'd have to agree with Jason, at least on a philosophical basis. ID proponents don't really care if someone says their overall theory is not falsifiable - that means nothing to the general public who in the end run the school boards, the legislatures, and especially the broadcast media. It's the specifics of ID that need to be challenged as unteachable as true science at any level. And in addition, there needs to be a willingness to attack them on a philosophical basis that puts their particular brands of religion to the test as to just how the creation of both the world and its life forms were seemingly cobbled together out of thin air. ID makes a lot of inference, openly and covertly, as to what was done and why, which captures the public's imagination as the best explanation for anything. But they invariably omit the "how" part of the equation. That aspect is not supposed to be fair game. But they shouldn't be left as the sole referees of that game. Especially when their side continues to cheat.
Posted by: royniles | April 9, 2008 5:09 PM
The key sentence.
Quite right; I agree wholeheartedly. Other more meta-issuse are really just analysis of how anyone could have proposed such a travesty. The bedrock problem; the one thing that kills ID stone cold dead, is that the arguments are simply wrong.
To show this requires taking each individual argument, on a case by case basis, and showing where it is false to fact. This has been done already. Not because of links to religion, not because of philosophical concerns about naturalism, not because of definitions of what is or is not science; but because the arguments themselves fail, one by one, due to sophomoric basic errors of fact.
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | April 9, 2008 5:26 PM
A scientific hypothesis is essentially a philosophical concept until it's tested. That's the framework in which I used the term. A philosophical concern that leads to a workable hypothesis is a perfectly valid way to present what might otherwise have been a purely religious argument.
Posted by: royniles | April 9, 2008 5:54 PM
The thing is that there are unfalsifiable positions and unfalsifiable positions. There are unfalsifiable positions for which there is no conceivable evidence that could either reinforce or rebut them. There are also positions that are unfalsifiable only because the holders of them keep dodging or explaining away would-be failures. ID falls into the latter category. ID isn't so much a case of something that fails a Popper-style falsifiability test (which itself can be a bit dodgy) as it is a case of a hypothesis with a poor track record.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | April 9, 2008 6:00 PM
So far no one has addressed my actual points.
The notion of attacking the false claims rather than the fact that ID is not falsifiable is a false dichotomy. You have to do both - because as soon as you try to attack the false claims ID proponents retreat to unfalsifiable land.
Also - the entire ID construct was created (remember Philip Johnson) so as to allow supernaturalism (i.e. unfalsifiable causes) into the arena of science. That is the fight. It always comes back to that.
If you focus ONLY on the false claims, you are playing their game. You have been duped. It was never about the scientific claims - it's about allowing god into science.
In short - It is far more true to say that ID is not science than to say that it is a failed science.
Posted by: Steven Novella | April 9, 2008 6:09 PM
Steven: I for one specifically pointed out a way to attack the plausibility of letting god and supernaturalism into science, and it's more consistent with jason's position than with yours as to the best way to present ID's weaknesses to the general public. Of course ID is not falsifiable, but the point is that there are better ways to attack their position than to lead off with that argument. The question at hand is one of the proper strategy rather than one of deciding how fine are the differences between failed science and no science at all.
Posted by: royniles | April 9, 2008 6:32 PM
I understand Jason is making an argument about strategy - as I indicated in my first comment. This is a strategic failure. The entire conflict matters the most when it comes to the question of ID in the public schools. And as Jason admits - in that (most important)context the fact that ID is not science is most relevant.
Relaying the issue to the public? - I think that properly arguing that ID is not science is more effective. If you make some complex argument as to why it is wrong, then the public will think this is some convoluted argument AMONG SCIENTISTS - that lets in the whole academic freedom, minority opinion, EXPELLED crap. How is this a winning strategy?
And - as I said - you often cannot argue that ID claims are wrong without also explaining how they are not falsifiable. Explain how irreducible complexity is wrong without resorting to the notion that it cannot be scientifically falsified.
Posted by: Steven Novella | April 9, 2008 6:41 PM
Steven: You explain it in part by pointing out how ID is unable to demonstrate that their hypothesis of an immaculate conception of life, and the earth it sprang from, is in any way a less irreducibly complex explanation than the one offered by the theory of evolution. Included with that would be the most "common sense" analysis feasible of why ID's various proposals in this regard would turn all known laws of science on their heads.
Coincidentally, I received a notice today from he Council for Secular Humanism that "God: The Failed Hypothesis" is now out in paperback. There's apparently some good science there that is quite suitable for the above purpose.
Posted by: royniles | April 9, 2008 7:25 PM
Let me add what is obviously an oversimplification, but hopefully outlines the differences in approaches here. Yours to me is primarily a "point out what has to be wrong" approach, but I'm suggesting more emphasis on a "point out why it's not right" approach as well.
Posted by: royniles | April 9, 2008 7:45 PM
Jason is absolutely correct. When ID proponents attempt make formal arguments for ID those arguments fail. Those failed attempts are frequently incorrectly cited as sucesses by ID proponents to serve as the Trojan Horse to get into the curriculum. If some ID proponents also retreat into unfalsifiable assertions, that doesn't by itself make ID unscientific since ID proponents are also make these other arguments. The best approach for defending science is to understand the formal arguments made by ID proponents and how those arguments have been decisevely refuted.
Posted by: Explicit Atheist | April 9, 2008 8:29 PM
I think there's the 2 sides of ID and each here (Jason and the first commenter) is addressing their own.
ID side 1 - evolution is false because of (insert creationist claim here). this really translates to "the scientific claims made by ID are false" is the exclusive position that should be taken in higher education academia and the media.
ID side 2 - ID postulates that the problems pointed out with evolution in side 1 above (never mind that they've been proven false and were proven false long before Darwin) can be resolved by acknowledging the actions of some intelligent designer (but we're not going to say who, how, or why). This is the "unscientific" part, the back door to get their religious indoctrination into public schools. This is where their "you're not letting us be science because of your materialistic philosophical definition of science that intentionally denies God exists" at the heart of the Wedge document comes into play.
So yes, there's truth on both sides of the anti-ID argument. And (yes, that framing thing) the right one needs to be used at the right time. science doesn't need to address ID because 1) the claims made by ID on evolutions flaws are false (ID is bad science), and 2) the postulates assumed by ID to explain those claims rely on some supernatural entity (ID postulates a scientifically unsupportable tenant).
its up to the context of each anti-ID writing, or really the specific claim of the ID supporter being reacted to, that the author decides which of the two points is the more important.
when dealing with science in the public media, ID is proposing claims easily shown to be false.
when dealing with science education in public schools, ID is proposing a religious entity as an alternative to the accepted scientific explanations, which is unconstitutional. oh, and its bad science, too.
both are fully legitimate "primary scientific criticisms" against ID.
Posted by: Joe Shelby | April 9, 2008 8:29 PM
I find myself going back and forth between Jason's and Steven's positions.
Interesting that both claim that each other's approach is "playing their game."
Posted by: itchy | April 9, 2008 9:47 PM
Steven Novella wrote:
the entire ID construct was created (remember Philip Johnson) so as to allow supernaturalism (i.e. unfalsifiable causes) into the arena of science.
Not really. ID was invented as a legal stratagem, and a rather clever one, to circumvent anti-creationist Supreme Court rulings. That's what lawyers do. Johnson couldn't care less about science, he just wanted the Bible back in schools. The whole redefining science thing was just a feeble justification forced on ID when nothing else was selling. Same with the vacuous irreducible complexity and the rest, just smoke and mirrors to try and prop up the legal strategy.
Posted by: tomh | April 9, 2008 11:25 PM
I can agree this was at least partly a legal strategy to get the bibles back in schools, but it was also a strategy to have them stay in the schools by having an alternative to the science that might otherwise negate the effects expected from the initial legal victories. So it was a strategy with both short term offensive and long term defensive tactics.
And Johnson didn't just come up with a creationist theory for the particular occasion. He was "born again" and really did give a damn about this view of "science." He did however craft a particular strategy for the occasion.
Posted by: royniles | April 10, 2008 12:56 AM
What I think that Dr. Novella is missing here is that falsification is not the only reason that ID fails as a science. ID also fails because it explains nothing (the designer did it) and it predicts nothing. A hypothesis that explains nothing, predicts nothing, and is not falsifiable is not science. Period, end of discussion.
Just as an example, what does ID predict relative to the fusion of ape chromosomes 12 and 13 to form human chromosome 2? The only thing that ID can state ex post facto is that that's the way the designer designed it!
Posted by: SLC | April 10, 2008 8:48 AM
I've got to agree with Steven. While it's important to point out that ID's specific claims are wrong, it can't be the "primary" objection to it, because as we've seen they'll just back off the strong claim and move to a weaker one, or come up with some other false claim. If you're relying only on knocking back specific claims, you're just playing whack-a-mole. Witness Behe's shifting of the goalposts over IC. The fundamental point is that their claims are false because the heart of the ID enterprise is using anti-science (Goddidit) to attack well established science. This inevitably produces false claims.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | April 10, 2008 8:57 AM
I tend to look at this from an entirely different direction. To me, the ultimate problem isn't ID. The ultimate problem is millions of Americans who don't know what science really is and only know that it's teaching their childern things which are contradicting their literal interpretation of the bible.
I think down deep most of these fundamentalists realize that believing dinosaurs were roaming around America 5,000 years ago is laughable, but they don't want to think about it. They prefer being ignorant. They love the benefits of science, but otherwise, they see it as a real threat to their faith.
I don't think science has to choose what is the number one problem with ID. Science has already won the battle in court and will keep on winning it. I think that what needs to be done now is to energeticly push against the irrationality af fundamentalists in every way possible.
Unfailingly challenge their lack of any rational basis for believing what they believe. Basically, that is what has been done against religionists in Europe and it has worked admirably. In my opinion, it's just a matter of time until it happens here too. Keep the faith, baby.
Posted by: gary | April 10, 2008 8:58 AM
As a lawyer, I've been working for some time now on some anti-ID work and I'm getting close to publishing. This is a perfect opportunity to have my ideas critiqued while commenting. :-) (Hey, we need good guy lawyers too!)
Let me start with this comment by tomh:
ID was invented as a legal stratagem, and a rather clever one, to circumvent anti-creationist Supreme Court rulings. That's what lawyers do. Johnson couldn't care less about science, he just wanted the Bible back in schools.
Having spent the last year reading most everything Johnson has written on the topic, I disagree. The ID position is (sometimes) more sophisticated than that. Johnson is arguing that he has found Truth by a means other than the typical scientific method.
That would be just fine, except this position was not enough for the ID side. It was not enough because of the dominance of science in our society and the general muddled understanding that science produces Truth. When that is the situation, the ID side has to make one of two choices. Either (1) knock science off its pedestal, or (2) co-opt science for your own purposes. They went for #2. They wanted to "liberalize" the definition of science so that their Truth could be produced by the (changed)scientific method.
At the risk of writing a really long comment, I'll say it a different way. Take these three statements:
1) God created the world 6,000 years ago, and the process of creation left the fossil record and carbon deposits that we see today.
2) God "helped" evolution over important bumps and created the soul in humans
3) Evolution happened
(I tried to write all three to be consistent with natural evidence.) For science, the "correct" answer is #3. But it is correct by default; the other 2 answers are no good scientifically. That is important, because we at this blog do rule out the first 2 answers, we just rule them out for other (atheistic) reasons. Many religious people rule out #1 and #2 because they think "science" rules them out. It doesn't.
A limited definition of science forces people to confront their implicit atheism. That, I think, is why ID went with "enlarge science" over "knock science off its pedestal." They were worried that atheism would step on the pedestal in science's place.
Based on that, I must cast my lot with Novella.
Posted by: Chris Bell | April 10, 2008 9:22 AM
I find myself going back and forth between Jason's and Steven's positions.
Interesting that both claim that each other's approach is "playing their game."
Posted by: msn nickleri | April 10, 2008 9:26 AM
Interesting discussion. Let me clarify a few points about my position.
I am saying that we need to criticize ID from every angle - we need to point out that it is not science (and yes, I agree, as I have written elsewhere, that it fails to be science for several reasons - not falsifiable, makes no predictions, explains nothing) AND we need to point out that its specific criticisms of evolution are false. But also point out that these are connected - it criticizes evolution because it CAN'T support ID because it is not science. Then they fall back on the false dichotomy - it's either evolution or ID; not evolution therefore ID - without ever having to provide evidence FOR ID.
This is one comprehensive strategy - you can't really pick it apart and "retire" one piece of it.
To get around the "not science" problem - they try to redefine science ala Philip Johnson - which predates the ID movement and in many ways kicked it off. The specific change from "God" to "Intelligent Designer" was the legal dodge. The redefinition of science was to get around the not science problem. And then the ID movement coalesced around a few writers who formulated specific false criticisms of evolution. It's a package - and we have to take on the whole thing.
It is misguided to avoid a piece of it as a "strategy." IMHO the most important piece is to teach the public what is and is not science. If we get bogged down only in the minutia of the false arguments against evolution (again - I am NOT saying we avoid this) that is playing defensively, it is a losing strategy, and it doesn't keep them out of the game. They become a minority scientific opinion - not an ideological attack against science.
Read my latest post replying to Egnor: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=270#comments
Posted by: Steven Novella | April 10, 2008 10:38 AM
Steven: Come on now, I don't recall anyone advocating avoiding a piece of your strategy or of retiring it. The question was one of what part of the strategy to emphasize. Answering that question to the complete satisfaction of others is difficult if not impossible, as everyone will have their own reasons, including those that are emotionally charged, for presenting their side of the matter and approving of the position of any others. Ultimately those who have attained the status as effective advocates in this fight will have to make up their own minds as to their particular strategy, and more importantly, their particular tactics.
Chris Bell, for example, has done that and I predict will be very effective in the way he carries it out. Sometimes strategy is simply decided on because of the capabilities of the strategist to apply it. That may have made your strategy, with your tactics, a better fit for him, and I expect he has approved of it partly on that basis.
When you said 'It is misguided to avoid a piece of it as a "strategy", ' you used a false assumption and a false description of the process in the bargain, doing exactly what you most strongly object to in others.
And you are framing this now as a question of right way versus wrong way, when it is clear there is no definitive way to decide on the winner.
Posted by: royniles | April 10, 2008 1:09 PM
Roy - read the actual blog entry at the top of the comments again, including the title.
And I did not mean to imply that my opinion as to the best strategy is definitive. IMHO means "in my humble opinion." I wrote that for a reason.
For the record - I agree no one has the final answer as to the best strategy. We are all just doing what makes sense to us. And I welcome this conversation. But, keep in mind, Jason started this with a very clear statement about what he thinks is the best strategy, couched as a criticism of my take on it. It does seem like you forget there was a blog entry.
Posted by: Steven Novella | April 10, 2008 1:28 PM
I've attended quite a few ID and Creationist conferences. At every one I've seen speakers proudly present claims to the effect that “ID isn't science,” as evidence that scientists refuse to give ID a fair hearing because they simply rule it out of bounds by definition. They obviously don't think this point hurts them, and I think they are right to see it that way. Most people don't care about internecine disputes about the proper definition of science, or about the fact that a design hypothesis offers nothing that a scientist can bring into the lab to guide his work. They care about whether the claims are true, and until you make it clear that the claims are not true you should not be arguing on procedural grounds.
The public face of ID is a series of books, public presentations, newspaper op-eds and so on that make a lot of specific scientific assertions about modern evolutionary theory. That's what most people see. It is a message that is being marketed to a public that is already somewhat suspicious of scientists, and is also vaguely theistic in its outlook. Telling such people that ID isn't science, without also making it very clear that its specific claims are utterly without merit is not rhetorically effective. In fact, it makes precisely the point the ID folks are selling.
I speak partly from personal experience here. When I first got interested in this subject as a graduate student in mathematics, knowing relatively little about biology, I found it very annoying to have Michael Behe, say, tell me that modern biology had no explanations to offer for complex anatomical systems, and then have various reviewers reply with, “Design isn't science!” Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but what I cared about was whether Behe's claims were true.
That's why I am mystified that anyone can say the question of whether ID is or is not science is the primary issue. That's an academic/philosophical dispute far removed from what most people care about, including myself. The main point that should be front and center is that ID folks and Creationists have no good point to make about anything. After that is made clear, then you can go on to argue about the nature of science.
Posted by: Jason Rosenhouse | April 10, 2008 1:44 PM
Steven, I read it, and read it again, and I just don't see where Jason advocated either avoiding or retiring your strategy. Or your tactics, which would have been a better way to describe what the post was about.
Admittedly the title is provocative, but in his post he seemed rather specific in stating when it was important to point your strategy/tactics out.
I took the use of the word Meme as a reference to how the tactic was being used - memes being a somewhat questionable concept to begin with.
So I didn't forget this blog entry at all (even though I have on occasion done that), and yes he did make a clear statement as to what he thinks is the best strategy, and perhaps he did contribute to the framing of a right or wrong question.
if all this has ended in an agreement on the bottom line, then the whole provocative process seems to have worked - this time anyway.
Posted by: royniles | April 10, 2008 2:01 PM
It seems when I was two-finger typing my marvelous response, the fickle finger of fate was pointing out that what I thought had worked was till being worked on.
Posted by: royniles | April 10, 2008 2:09 PM
I think Jason's last comment (1:44pm) was excellent, and it shows why I am thinking differently about this than him. We know (and the ID folks know) that ID is not science. In fact, that's their entire point. They think ID is not science but still true. As atheists we reject this.
Jason said, "I am mystified that anyone can say the question of whether ID is or is not science is the primary issue. That's an academic/philosophical dispute far removed from what most people care about, including myself." Jason cares about truth, not science v. non-science.
I am saying that I think we have to do the science v. non-science thing first because regular people (mistakenly) think that science is truth, and non-science is non-truth. The ID crowd is not happy if the general public thinks ID is non-science because that also means that the general public thinks ID is false.
I am arguing in my work that the fight over classroom education will never end as long as regular people mistakenly think science/nonscience is truth/nontruth. Religious people are angry that their religious claims are excluded from the science class because they think it is the same as denying those claims.
That's why Jason and I came out different ways. Jason says the public is "somewhat suspicious of scientists" and "vaguely theistic." I semi-agree, but I think the public also respects science in a schizophrenic manner.
It's perversely funny, in a way. The creationists dislike "godless" science, but they try so hard to have their ideas taught (!)in science class(!) because they recognize that science=legitimacy in the mind of the modern (wo)man. And legitimacy is what they crave.
---
In the end, I guess it depends on what you are doing. If you are debating truth, like Jason, then wade right in. The science/nonscience issue is totally irrelevant. Get down with your bad atheist self.
If you are concerned with the separation of church and state and, like me, then the science/nonscience debate is crucial because we have to explain why a statistically popular idea is excluded in a democracy. Moreover, we have to convince the excluded side that exclusion is not denial, and we can't do that if, at the same time, we are repeating Jason's atheistic talking points.
Posted by: Chris Bell | April 10, 2008 2:25 PM
I think the differences of opinion show how thorny this issue is - because the ID crowd are intellectually dishonest and engaged in propaganda with an ideological agenda. It is difficult to be dedicated to science and logic and deal with a movement founded on a complete disrespect for science and logic. I have seen the pro-evolution side recently reduced to a great deal of in-fighting over the issue of "framing" and strategy - because every strategy we choose is met by a clever deception on the other side.
Jason - you seem to be saying that the ID crowd are using the claim that "ID is not science" to their rhetorical advantage, therefore we should avoid/minimize our use of it. But I think you are missing that they use EVERYTHING we say to their rhetorical advantage. If you say ID is not science they cry "unfair". If you say Behe's scientific arguments are wrong they say "well, at least you admit it's science, so let's teach the controversy and let the public/students decide for themselves."
Your other unstated premise is that it is more important to convince the public than to convince legislators and judges. So your strategy is aimed at the public. But we live in a Republic - you get much more bang for the buck by convincing those in government, and toward that end "ID is not science" is THE issue.
But again - as skeptics, the defenders of science and reason - we have to lay it all out there. Our job is to educate. I am against downplaying or hiding points because you fear how they will play in public or be twisted by the IDiots.
We have to take on both major aspects of ID - falsely promoting ID as science, and false attacks against evolution. They are a combined strategy that works together - and we need to address them both. What's wrong with saying - ID itself is not even science (and here's why) AND their arguments against evolution are demonstrably wrong (and here's why)? Don't get hung up on the "primary" comment - that totally depends on your purpose and perspective. I have given equal time to both sides of this issue.
Posted by: Steven Novella | April 10, 2008 2:51 PM
"I've attended quite a few ID and Creationist conferences. At every one I've seen speakers proudly present claims to the effect that “ID isn't science,” as evidence that scientists refuse to give ID a fair hearing because they simply rule it out of bounds by definition. "
Well, yes, but they're doing so to an audience of committed anti-evolutionists. They're pretty much a lost cause, for so long as fundamentalism holds any sway in the US. The people we need to convince (besides politicians, judges etc) are those who don't go to conferences, but who read articles about ID in the press. For them the Gish Gallop approach to ID can be effective. Which is why the "science-stopper" argument is (in my opinion) more important than knocking down individual claims. The point isn't just to say that ID isn't science, but to explain simply and clearly why it is a science-stopper, why it cannot lead to new knowledge. I think the uncommitted general public will be receptive to that approach, and it kills all the false claims in one go rather than dealing with them piecemeal.
Again, this isn't to say the false claims shouldn't be rebutted vigorously. But it gets to the core of why ID is dangerous, and helps to counter the "evolutionists are so angry" line. Why should we be angry about false claims? Lots of things turn out to be wrong in science. But the ID endeavour aims dishonestly to stop research, to put hard limits on our knowledge. That's something to be angry about, and people can understand that.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | April 10, 2008 3:28 PM
I would think you could legitimately propose that religious faith per se does not require a denial of evolution any more than it requires a denial of the scientific method in general.
But if the faith itself rests on a denial that scientific explanations, and in particular those of the biological sciences, have any validity, then there would be no effective way to deal with that other than by a confrontation which would necessarily involve an attack on the dogmatic structure of the faith itself.
The tactic for attacking the scientific dogma of that faith could or should be one that puts the faithful in a position of needing to defend that "science" without necessarily having to defend the concept of faith itself. Other faiths, such as that of many Catholics, have found ways to evolve when faced with such a dilemma. The fundamentalist way of evolving is often though factionalism, an apt term for a dispute over the factual basis for their overall beliefs.
All faiths in the end have had to adapt or die. They all have a need for constant reinforcement, and over time there are subtle changes in the reinforcement process that allow for such adaptation.
Science can hope to facilitate that adaptation, but hasn't much hope of facilitating an extinction of the species any time soon. And we don't know yet if we should really want to.
Posted by: royniles | April 10, 2008 3:43 PM
They at least try to use everything to their rhetorical advantage, but some things are easier to take advantage of than others. A claim such as "ID isn't science" is far easier to spin than "ID has a lousy track record of failed explanations, misrepresentation, and outright deceit," and the latter claim is also far less fuzzy, too. Furthermore, it's that lousy track record, especially the part about deceit, that is the real reason for the scientific rejection of ID.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | April 10, 2008 6:12 PM
"the specific assertions made by ID folks, about irreducible complexity, complex specified information, the alleged holes in evolutionary science, and so on, are universally false. That's why scientists reject ID"
In fact, what some creationists have done for decades now is simply copy some completely true and valid arguments form the scientific community about the limitations of neodarwinism and frame it as if implying a questioning of common descent. It is not hard at all to find people with the following attitude; science has triumphed, there are no problems or disgreements of importance. It's called neodarwinism and anything else is a kookish". These people are likely to reinforce the creationist's trick, since there is indeed lots of truth in the long standing and just criticism of neodarwinism that has been ripped off by the ceationists.
There is controversy about the actual power of the theoretical framework of neodarwinism. Of course, this mostly unchanged paradigm from the 40's is still upheld by a significant percentage of biologists, specially those in the more ecological sciences. Yet not everyone thinks population gentics is THAT wonderfully explicative and insightful (or if it doesn't even sometimes just get in the way!). However, the interest in the more organismal-developmental level of evolutionary mechanisms has always presented a steady trickle and of late can be described to be indeed in very good health. The same for other areas of evolutionary research that do not require much of neodarwinism at all (phylogenetic systematics, paleontology) and that traditionally have harbored critics that did not share in the neodarwinian enthusiasm.
I guess what I'm saying is that you cannot paint things as if all that the steps in the argumentation of the creationists are constructed upon errors of logic and falsehoods. We simply are not that lucky. What you say further seems to me an ultimately useless and shallow attitude, because you provide no tools to dintinguish what's crap from what isn't. All the help you provide in this sense seems to boil down to this message: "no matter what a creationist says, it is false" Which is quite obviously a recipe to be caught in error.
I wish to end this saying that ID IS NOT SCIENCE, and THAT is THE problem.
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | April 10, 2008 9:11 PM
Another and fairly obvious reason to favor a strategy fashioned more for the public than for their legislators is that you may change one's mind but not their vote unless you have changed their constituents' minds as well. Also, any proposals that reflect more than a tinge of atheism as well as agnosticism will just not fly, as there are no representatives for any substantial constituency of such adherents in this country.
Posted by: royniles | April 10, 2008 9:15 PM
Let me clarify a little more:
By legitmizing ID as a scientific hypothesis with simply a bad scientific track, we are practically ensuing a niche for creationists, since the debate of every single nonsensicality (there is no macroevolution, no continental drift, no old earth)This is indeed pointless when on ALL these topics what it actually comes down is simply this: "Open your eyes, and SEE".
The debate on a stupidity is a fabrication: IT IS NOT SCIENCE. You know they'll move right onto the next "fact" and have another "scientific" debate.
So what you basically say is that, we argue with them fact denial after fact denial, and show them just how creationism is nothing but BAD science. There is never-ending well for the debate of "facts". All they have to do is choose one they don't like and deny it.
In the US, I have encountered one grad student who was open about his belief in ID. We discussed the "appereance of design a little", where I simulated complicity; but then I switched and all I had to say was, "well, but ID is not a SCIENTIFIC explanation. It provides no mechanism". That's all it took. He completely switched sides, dissing ID from then onwards, pretending hard that he never was once an ID believer hehehe
The poitn being that, unlike the discussion of each phony denial of a well-established scientific fact, this is an argument for once and for all.
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | April 10, 2008 10:15 PM
Mr. Vargas: Not that I disagree, as believe I have advocated a similar approach, but it also appears that your guy was more open to recognizing the best argument than a lot of the rest seem to be. And hopefully that's not the only guy you tested it out on.
The inference I'm getting (possibly because I want to get it) is that those still on the fence may be the best candidates for understanding that yours is the best argument.
Posted by: royniles | April 11, 2008 12:49 AM
It's as simple as this. Your car broke down. You have two ways of explaining it: 1) God wanted my car to break down and made it happen 2) My car's structure has been altered. Upon identifying and reversing that change I'll get the car going again. Which is the scientific explanation? Which one is a matter of faith?
Regular people will get it (believe it or not, most people are reasonable). Now, if you are confronting a vocal creationist, there is one thing you immediately know about him. He does not know what he is talking about; and to do that is not possible without some part of the brain realizing it. Yet some of these people are sufficiently fake and unauthentic as to not admit that, and they are indeed very willing to talk about what they do not know about.
I won't discuss science with them because, it's useless (they cannot, and further won't, understand). I use the philosophical basic argument that ID is not science as well as other arguments that they cannot wriggle themselves out. I make them face their true religious churchy background and motivations. That inhibited part of their brain that knows they are phony may become stimulated.
Not that any of those has ever manifested changing their minds, but they decreased their attacks.
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | April 11, 2008 3:17 AM
You're talking about self-deception and self-delusion, which is often complicated by the ID adherent being consciously deceitful as well to protect his own delusions - in addition to being their advocate. The part of the brain that may suspect it's ideas are phony is also the part that doesn't want to believe it. Anyway, if this method works for you, whatever the dynamic, then go for it.
Posted by: royniles | April 11, 2008 4:52 AM
I think both sides in this argument are essentially right. The problem is that there are two separate issues at work here. One, is whether ID itself is true. The other is whether evolution by natural selection is true. The ID proponents bait and switch these two issues endlessly, creating confusion.
The first argument of ID proponents is that evolution by natural selection is false. This is where the counterargument that all the assertions of these people about scientific findings supporting evolution are flase. These guys just get the science wrong in a thousand different ways.
The other argument is that ID is true. This is where the counter-argument demonstrating that ID isn't even a scientific theory comes in.
The problem is that ID proponents try to link the two, at least by implication, such that if evolution by natural selection can be show to be false, improbable, or unsupported by rational argument and evidence, then ID is the logical default truth. This of course doesn't follow.
So it seems that both counterarguments being discussed here are needed, depending on which of the two arguments is being made by ID proponents. Each is essential to each of those arguments.
Posted by: conradg | April 11, 2008 3:21 PM
What about the simple fact that ID is not science because its advocates do absolutely no laboratory or field research (and therefore have no original scientific findings to publish in real scientific journals). If I remember correctly, Behe (supposedly one of their head gurus) admitted as much at the Dover trial. On that basis, it follows that they cannot possibly have anything useful to say about science.
Posted by: WKM | April 11, 2008 5:16 PM
That in itself hasn't stopped them from claiming it's nevertheless a valid theory in the nature of a self-evident truth.
Posted by: royniles | April 11, 2008 7:24 PM
I thought briefly that perhaps ID should be more correctly labeled as an anti-theory - and then I found that as usual someone else (probably a number of someones) had already described it as such, and they have what looks like an interesting site for that subject.
http://www.jonathantweet.com/jotevolutionantb.html
Posted by: royniles | April 11, 2008 9:23 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | April 12, 2008 9:40 AM
"That in itself hasn't stopped them from claiming it's nevertheless a valid theory in the nature of a self-evident truth."
Self-evident truths are not scientific theories. They are religious assertions, and you can't argue against them scientifically. People can believe them all they like, but they can't be taught in the schools as a valid scientific theory. Knowing the difference between a self-evident truth and a scientific theory is something kids need to be educated about.
Posted by: conradg | April 12, 2008 2:31 PM
conradg, of course self-evident truths are not scientific theories. They don't have to be confined to religious assertions to demonstrate their lack of evidence, however.
And in the case of ID or creationism, and this was my inference, these theories are neither true nor evident.
Posted by: royniles | April 12, 2008 4:16 PM
This is not a rhetorical device, but an honest question. I've been skulking around the web, trying to find if any scientist at any time has observed a species (maybe a fruit fly or something) evolving in the following sense: that the newly evolved organisms breed true, but cannot breed with their predecessors.
I'm not a biologist... but to me that would be somewhat convincing evidence of the kind of evolution required for so-called "macro" evolution.
Anybody know of such a thing?
If not, I would think that a determined biologist could more or less force something like that to happen: find a short lived sexually reproducing organism of some kind, with very short generations, start inducing mutations, cull the fatal ones, and keep trying, to you come up with something.
comments?
Posted by: harmonicminer | April 13, 2008 1:15 AM
"And in the case of ID or creationism, and this was my inference, these theories are neither true nor evident."
The problem is, you can't prove a "self-evident truth" to be false. So scientists run in circles if they try to do so. Creationists can always laugh and point at their folly if they try. It's pointless. It has to be pointed out that these aren't theories at all, and because they can't be falsified, they aren't science either. They are religious beliefs, plain and simple.
Posted by: conradg | April 13, 2008 4:01 AM
Actually I think you can prove that a "truth" based on a religious assertion does not qualify as a self-evident truth in that the truth of the religion is only evident to the adherents of that religion. Of course you can't prove to them that the religion isn't based on truth, but you can at least demonstrate it's the only basis for what has now become a non-scientific proposal. In which case we may have made some headway with those in the public that are on the fence, including those that some call functional agnostics.
But the theme of this post has been one of strategy, about which there is a disagreement on emphasis - in other words, which part will find most resonance with which audience, and why. And about some suggestions as to different tactics as well.
My suggested tactic was to recognize and affirm that it's about religion and not science, avoid a fruitless attempt to attack the religion itself, and then basically do as you suggest and attack the lack of any workable theory as to how these apparent miracles were accomplished in any way consistent with what we regard as science. And that if they can't, they haven's shown why it should be taught as such.
And of course people are doing this - but it isn't necessarily a preferred method. I think it should be, but as I said before, I have no status as an effective advocate in this fight.
Posted by: royniles | April 13, 2008 4:46 AM
While it's good to emphasize both points - scientific vacuity and patently false and ridiculous claims, I don't think anyone should take how *they* use our points as a good indication that they aren't successful. ID proponents have shown themselves to be wildly incompetent in precisely this way in the past (like Behe in Dover), so our best bet for these kinds of things would be real data! Get some legitimate pollsters (oxymoron?) together and see which side should be emphasized! It would be like framing, only the legitimate form!
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | April 13, 2008 8:16 AM
harmonicminer: Well, you could check the Wikipedia article on speciation for one. ;)
There's the often-cited example of sexual speciation in lab fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster), but some incredulous people exclude this because it's "artificial". It's silly, as the conditions are just a simple bottleneck, but there are other examples, especially among plants (polyploidy ftw!). This article is longer and more technical, but it has quite good explanations: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html .
"I'm not a biologist... but to me that would be somewhat convincing evidence of the kind of evolution required for so-called "macro" evolution."
--- Perhaps. Far more interesting is phylogeny and developmental biology, imo, not to mention fossil transitions for easily-recognized properties (like nostrils-> blowhole in cetaceans). I don't understand sexual speciation terribly well aside from the generalities, but so far as I know daughter species need not be vastly different and I believe this is the case for the observed speciation events.
"If not, I would think that a determined biologist could more or less force something like that to happen: find a short lived sexually reproducing organism of some kind, with very short generations, start inducing mutations, cull the fatal ones, and keep trying, to you come up with something."
--- This is called artificial selection, at least if the culling is done in an active manner for various traits. It's what we did with dogs and cats (we still do it, actually) and would be trivial to do in a lab assuming there was financial backing and interest in such an endeavor. For an example of specialized animals for labs, there are plenty. Many of the microbes and lab animals are differentiated from their parent population and are anomalies, be it the albino lab mice or immortal cancer cell lines (HeLa).
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | April 13, 2008 8:32 AM
Shirakawasuna: "While it's good to emphasize both points - scientific vacuity and patently false and ridiculous claims ..."
The catch is that the claim being spread is not that ID is vacuous, but rather that it "isn't science," and the latter has been spun into the claim that ID isn't considered science for reasons that are arguably arbitrary.
Shirakawasuna: "It would be like framing, only the legitimate form!"
Yes, this is essentially about framing. The idea is to get out the word that ID is wrong, and if you are aiming that at laypeople, you don't want to get bogged down in the minutiae of the philosophy of science but rather make clear that ID is garbage that doesn't make a lot of sense. "IDers lie and distort the facts" is a clear message that makes clear why ID isn't scientific.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | April 13, 2008 9:29 AM
Thanks, Shirakawasuna.
You said there are specialized microbes and lab animals that are differentiated from their parent populations.
Do you mean that these lab animals cannot breed with the predecessor population, but that the mutation(s) they exhibit (making them useful lab animals) breed true among themselves?
Forgive stupid questions, please. Just to want to understand your meaning.
A common assertion among some ID proponents is that we have never observed an actual speciation event taking place. We only infer them from fossil and DNA history, and so we infer the mechanism as random mutation/natural selection.
If we could show some obvious mutation that now existed in a population which could only breed true with itself, and could not breed with un-mutated populations, that would, I think, permanently settle the matter.
I think a whole bunch of biologists need to be working on this if it hasn't been done. And if it HAS been done, it needs to not be hidden in technical literature, but should be trumpeted far and wide.
Thanks for the links. The wiki article didn't directly address the matter. The talk.origins article did, but, as you say, in a highly technical manner... I couldn't really tell if it answered my question or not. I note it is about 15 years old, judging by the age of the references, and refers more than once to failures to duplicate results.
I would love to get this settled in the public mind, in a way that does require a expert to understand, with some unmistakable mutation that breeds true and can only breed with itself.
Posted by: harmonicminer | April 13, 2008 12:31 PM
Shirakawasuna, I think I need to be clear about one thing. It would be awesome if the mutation could be "environmentally induced", that is, if it could be shown to be adaptive to the (presumably artificial) environment, regardless of the actual mechanism that causes the mutation.
Imagine if we could show an environmentally useful mutation that exclusively bred true, and could point at the history and mechanism by which it happened, with before and after pictures. Even non-scientists would understand THAT.
Posted by: harmonicminer | April 13, 2008 12:44 PM
harmonicmimer: when people say something "breeds true", they usually mean traits that are reliably inherited through generations, not groups that only breed within themselves. We can show useful mutations that "breed true", but a single mutation is not likely to produce both full reproductive isolation and a new adaptation to the environment. It's much more likely that speciation happens gradually.
Posted by: windy | April 13, 2008 1:03 PM
Harminicmimer: About "breeding true" - there are numerous examples of species which can be hybridized (i.e. interbred), with the most famous being the cross of a horse with a donkey, which produces either a mule or a hinny. Camels and llamas can be interbred, although this requires artificial insemination and a low success rate. Camels and llamas are separated by tens of millions of years. Given the time usually required, the low number of speciation events observed within modern scinetific history is not at all surprising (although, if you go the the Talk.Origins link above, it may be higher than many people realize.) The question amounts to "show me 50 million years of evolution by next Thursday."
Posted by: Bayesian Bouffant, FCD | April 13, 2008 1:56 PM
Are you claiming that gravitation (at least before general relativity), for instance, would have been a religious assertion?
Posted by: JimCH | April 13, 2008 3:24 PM
If strategy is the issue, we need to look at who the target demographic is. Obviously the 5% of the population who are scientific atheists are not the target. Likewise, I don't think the 25% who are biblical fundamentalists are the target either. They aren't going to listen in any case. The target audience is that middle 70% who are religious to varying degrees without being fundamentalist about it. It's really a debate between the 5% and the 25% for the hearts and minds of the 70% (assuming my numbers are accurate, but the categories remain the same even if the numbers are different).
First point is, I don't think the 5% can win this argument if they position themselves as being against religion, or trying to invalidate religious beliefs, and the self-evident claims of religious people, since the 70% are religious, or at least hold some basic religious beliefs. That's why I think it's important to use the argument that ID is a religious belief, not a scientific theory, in order to separate evolution from religion. It moves the argument away from falsification of religion to a separation of religious belief from science, which I think is a winning approach. It doesn't alienate religious people, or make them feel that their basic religious beliefs (as opposed to certain specific religious beliefs) are in opposition to science. Once the argument is moved away from a falsification of religion, the audience feels re-assured that evolution is not being used to promote atheism or to knock religion itself, and they can look at evolution as a scientific study rather than a religious debate.
The second point is that from this tactical approach is aimed at marginalizing and segregating the 25% of fundamentalists from the mainstream religious population (the 70%). Rather than attacking religion, it aims to position the science of evolution as merely refuting certain religious beliefs directly implicated by scientific investigation, not religion altogether. The effect is to separate out the fundamentalist religious people who oppose religion from the mainstream of religious people (the 70%), who are then portrayed as trespassers upon scientific territory that has been well-explored and found to be valid.
The third point of this strategy, which some may not like, is that it requires restraint on the part of evolutionists to refrain from trying to use evolution be bash mainstream religion altogether, or to promote atheism. I think the scientific evolution argument is hurt most of all by those who try to equate it in the public mind with atheism – whether those people are atheists or fundamentalists. It's clear that some atheists do indeed try to promote this perception, because they think it will further the cause of atheism. But even more so, it's a perception that is promoted by fundamentalists, because they feel certain that it will help alienate the 70% from the arguments of scientific evolutionary theory. To the degree that atheists do this, they are playing into the hands of fundamentalists, who are all too happy to agree that scientific evolutionary theory states that atheism is true, and religion false, because they know that the 70% does believe in God, or some form of religion, even if not in a fundamentalist answer, and they will reject scientific explanations if they are seen as inexorably leading to atheism.
So I would say that there's an inherent conflict within the scientific community between promoting evolutionary theory and promoting atheism. It's not a zero-sum proposition, but there are real conflicts on the level of public perception and sympathy that have to be taken into account.
Personally, I don't think the scientific community has any business promoting atheism, in that atheism is not a scientific theory, it's a religious one. The scientific community needs to make clear that choosing to be an atheist is not a scientific choice, it is a personal one that many scientists make on their own. Likewise, they need to make clear that scientific theories such as evolution are not in conflict with religion, because religious propositions and religious truths are not studied by science. It is only when religion makes claims that can be studied by science that science has anything to say about it, and it cannot address the fundamental religious perspective itself. So while it can refute the notion that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, it cannot refute the notion that God created the universe ultimately. The notion that the laws of physics and the universe itself were “designed” is simply not something science can ever support or deny, because it is not a scientific proposition.
So I don't think it helps to put aside the argument that ID isn't science, when that's really the best way to marginalize it. Scientists have to accept, whether they are atheists or not, that most people believe in God in some form or other, and that they are not going to accept evolutionary theory if it is presented as being in conflict with those general beliefs. They will only accept it if they are given the message that it's okay to believe in both God and evolution, as long as the two are kept separate, and not encroach upon one another. Thus, religion can't make assertions about the world that are incompatible with science, and science can't make assertions about religion that are unsupported by science (such as atheism). I don't know if atheists can accept that approach, however, in that it requires them not to try to wrap atheism in the flag of science, or vice versa.
Posted by: conradg | April 13, 2008 5:41 PM
JimCH,
"Are you claiming that gravitation (at least before general relativity), for instance, would have been a religious assertion?"
No. Newton's theory of gravitation was a scientific theory supported by loads of evidence, data, and rational argument. It was not a "self-evident truth", in that Newton didn't simply declare to everyone "gravity makes things fall", and then leave it at that. He set out to logically demonstrate this theory, and support it with evidence. Likewise, Newton never asserted that gravitation was self-evident, nor has any scientist that I'
ve heard of.
A self-evident religious proposition would be "God makes things fall in whatever way he wants them to fall". To a religious person, this might be self-evident, and to a scientist, completely impossible to either prove or refute. Whatever scientific theory is developed, whether Newton's or Einstein's or whoever's, the religious person can always say, "Yes, it's self-evident that's exactly how God wanted things to fall".
The same is true of evolutionary theory. A religious person can always say that it's self-evident that God created the universe so that human beings could evolve through natural selection. That does not make evolution by natural selection a self-evident truth, however. It was certainly never self-evident to anyone before Darwin, and Darwin himself never asserted that it was self-evident.
Posted by: conradg | April 13, 2008 5:54 PM
"Self-evident truths are not scientific theories. They are religious assertions ..."
I think that you are misusing the term "self-evident." It's a dicey term in the first place, but one could say, for example, that the law of non-contradiction is self-evident, or that syllogistic reasoning is self-evidently correct, and those are not religious propositions.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | April 13, 2008 6:42 PM
Oh, and on the issue of speciation, Talk.Origins is your friend.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | April 13, 2008 6:48 PM
Hi my name is Matt and I am a high school biology student attending a private school. We teach both sides of the spectrum at our school, but in different classes. Science is based off of facts and evidence and can be tested. Religion and creation can not. It is possible to agree with both. Science is not shooting down ID it just does not support it because it is not science. Science fully explains evolution and everything that happened that has led to where we are now, but I can not say I agree with how science says the world was created. Possibly both can be true to where the world was created by some supernatural greater power and has evolved from that. Evidence can not prove that.
Check out our class blog at: www.missbakersbiologyclass.com/blog
Posted by: Matt | April 13, 2008 11:02 PM
J.J. Ramsey,
I think the term "self-evident truth" refers to propositions which do not, and perhaps cannot, require evidentiary or rational proof.
The law of non-contradiction, and syllogistic reasoning, are both forms of reasoning, and thus require reasoning to be upheld.
You are perhaps right to say that self-evident truths need not be specifically "religious", in that they could be purely philosophical propositions, or foundational principles. But in the context of our discussion, such things could generally be referred to as "religious".
Take the famous line in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal..." If evidentiary or rational proof is required of this statement, it falls apart. The "self-evident" nature of human equality rests upon the specifically religious nature of the proposition that we are "created equal". An evidentiary or rational investigation would reveal that men are not equal, but it is impossible to investigate our spiritual "creation", and thus the proposition can stand unchallenged. That is the nature of self-evident truths, and I'd suggest that it is very much a religious assertion, not a rational one.
Posted by: conradg | April 14, 2008 12:29 AM
Matt: Although there are theories or conceptions that cannot be proved false, these same constructs can be shown as extremely improbable and not worthy of belief to any degree of certainty. There is for example a difference between scientific standards for proof and philosophical standards. And science DOES shoot down the claims made by ID precisely because they claim to be scientific, even if not actually science. So in fact it is NOT possible to believe in these two extreme versions of creation (and I assume that includes the creation of humans) at the same time. To believe one is to necessarily disbelieve the other.
If you want to believe in supernatural forces, such as good and evil, karma, and the like, that's your choice. Just don't kid yourself that they offer any illustrations of creation that are in any way as comparable to a believable explanation as those offered by science..
Nice website, however. Have you tried talking to your teacher about the viability of a claim that God created the world, then created humans separately, and other such "scientific" claims? Or are you even allowed to ask such questions in your science class?
And if not, why not, if scientific claims are being questioned in another class at your same school?
Posted by: royniles | April 14, 2008 12:33 AM
Thanks Bayesian,
I'm just trying to wrap my head around the vocabulary.
Your comments on the timeframe of inferred speciation are why I suggested trying to actually DO it in a lab with an organism of very short lifespan, so that in the lifetime of a human experiment, we could hope to observe a non-fatal mutation that was conserved because it was adaptive, and which resulted in a large enough change that the population could not breed with its predecessors.
Look: we want people to believe that over a 100,000 years homo sapiens sapiens developed out of... well, no one is quite sure, last time I looked. We should be able to estimate the number of generations involved, and induce some considerably less complex yet adaptive mutation that will result in a new species in a similar number of generations, in some sexually reproducing organism of far shorter generation length.
And your assertion of "long times to create new species" is not what everyone says. I hear a lot more talk about isolated populations speciating relatively quickly in response to specific environmental pressures. I'm suggesting we do the isolation, create the specific environmental pressures, maybe even help create the mutations, and see what happens.
And I'm suggesting that a LOT of biologists should be doing this, with different kinds of organisms, and different protocols, so that we don't have all our eggs in one basket. If we're confident of our theories, why don't we set about directly proving them, once and for all, even if it takes time scales on the level of a couple of human generations? We'd learn a lot of fascinating things along the way, I think, and these are the sorts of timescales that will be required to explore Pluto with robot craft or... you get the idea. It's doable. We should be about it.
or so it seems to this admittedly ignorant layman
Posted by: harmonicminer | April 14, 2008 12:52 AM
In fact, a self-evident truth is very much intended to be a rational assertion, often, but not always, used to justify a religious assertion. And in an epistemological sense (whatever that means) its "truth" relies on an inference that the truth is obvious when you compare
it to things you already believe to be true.