Intelligent Design is often dismissed as unscientific because it violates various criteria used to define "science." One of the restrictions imposed upon science by some philosophers is "methodological naturalism." This rules out any hypothesis that invokes a non-materialistic cause such as an intelligent designer.
I reject that limitation on science as a way of knowing. Are there any other reasonable definitions of "science" that can be used to exclude Intelligent Design while still including other hypotheses that we'd like to keep?
Here's Stephen Myer arguing that the answer is "no." Is this a good argument? Note that I'm not asking whether you agree with intelligent design. I'm simply asking whether there's a good argument for dismissing it as nonscientific and, therefore. should never be discussed in a science class. If you think the answer is "yes" then please give a definition of "science" that excludes Intelligent Design but includes speculations on the origin of life, string theory, and whether Bigfoot exists.
You expect IDiots to be idiots so it's not surprising that they consistently screw up their analyses of scientific papers. The latest is a post by David Taylor on the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology [Revisiting the Cental Dogma] [Revisiting the Central Dogma]. He has just noticed a paper published in 2011 where two scientists challenge the Central Dogma. Naturally, this is interpreted to mean that Intelligent Design Creationism is true.
It's frustrating to read yet another scientific paper announcing the demise of the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. If you've been following the literature, you'll know that the Central Dogma is regularly killed off about ten times per year—a rate that's been fairly constant for thirty years. But to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the Central Dogma are greatly exaggerated.
Let's look at the paper by Sarah Franklin and Thomas M. Vondriska from the David Geffen School of Medicine in Los Angeles California (USA) (Franklin and Vondriska 2011). This is a paper that specifically addresses the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology so you'd expect that the authors understand what they are attacking, right?
Luca Gerard Tarabokia was born early on Sunday morning. He's named after Michael's great grandfather, Luca Tarabokia, who came to America almost one hundred years ago from an island in the Adriatic Sea (now Croatia). Here's a photo of Luca with his mother (my daughter), Jane, and his big sister Zoë.
We're in Venice, California (USA) (near the beach to the west of Los Angeles) awaiting the birth of our grandson. Last night we went trick or treating with granddaughter Zoë. She loved her witch costume and she applied her makeup all by herself.
Halloween is a very big deal in Venice—probably because it's so "bohemian/hippie." There were hundreds of kids in the streets and most houses had elaborate Halloween displays that have been up for days (see And Now for the Spookey Part, and Halloween in the Hood).
Fourteen people have been invited to a special meeting in Stockbridge Massachusetts (USA). They are: Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Terrence Deacon, Simon DeDeo, Dan Dennett, Owen Flanagan, Rebecca Goldstein, Janna Levin, David Poeppel, Alex Rosenberg, Don Ross, Steven Weinberg, and Massimo Pigliucci. On the first day they discussed "naturalism" (morning session) and evolution, complexity and emergence (afternoon session"). Read the summaries in the links to my first post [The Stockbridge 14].
We all use the term "critical thinking to describe one of the primary goals of education. What do we mean by "critical thinking"?
As usual, it takes a philosopher to sort out the various meanings and arrive at a reasonable definition. (Philosophers are experts at critical thinking, although they often use it when it's not necessary.) Read what John Wilkins has to say at: What is critical thinking. Contrast his critical thinking about the subject with that illustrated in the Wikipedia article on Critical Thinking.
Here's his bottom line but you really need to see his examples of what is not critical thinking.
Critical thinking is the application of careful analysis and rational reconstruction to arguments, so that the correctness of the reasoning and the truth of the premises can be evaluated and the support for the conclusion determined.
Rational thinking is the assent of the reasoner to any conclusion that is both correctly reasoned and founded on known to be true, or likely to be true, premises.
In short, a critical and rational thinker is one who accepts the conclusions of good arguments.
I agree with John and this is what Chris DiCarlo and I teach in our course. But, you should read the comments on John's blog.
Once you've mastered the basic rules of logic, most arguments should be about whether the premises are likely to be true.
Fourteen people have been invited to a special meeting in Stockbridge Massachusetts (USA). They are: Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Terrence Deacon, Simon DeDeo, Dan Dennett, Owen Flanagan, Rebecca Goldstein, Janna Levin, David Poeppel, Alex Rosenberg, Don Ross, Steven Weinberg, and Massimo Pigliucci. So far they've discussed the meaning of "naturalism," including the nature of reality (morning session) and evolution, complexity and emergence (afternoon session") [Moving Naturalism Forward].
You can read Jerry Coyne's description at: Interim report: Moving Naturalism Forward Meeting. Massimo Pigliucci has also written about the first day at: From the naturalism workshop, part I.
So far it sounds quite boring. It looks looks like some of the philosophers have tricked the scientists into debating the precise meaning of words that nobody has been able to define precisely in the past one hundred years. Does anyone outside of philosophers actually care whether we have precise definitions of "naturalism" and "supernatural"? We all know what we're talking about when we discuss the existence of god(s).
And what about "emerging properties"? Surely that's a topic that's already been debated to death? What in the world do they expect to learn other than the fact they disagree on the definition of what an enregent property actually means?
As for complexity, it's either so simple that we all recognize it when we see it, or so "complex" that nobody cares. Here's what Coyne says ...
The discussion of complexity, introduced by Simon DeDeo and much discussed by Janna Levin, was way over my head. I found some consolation in the fact that Dennett, too, announced that he didn’t understand what was being said!
That doesn't sound very promising.
I'm not looking forward to the results of the next two days because they're going to tackle silly topics like the nature of morality, free will, "meaning," and "purpose". I wonder if they're going to debate the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism? I wonder when they'll get to the issues of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
[Photo Credit: One Angel Dancing on the Head of a Pin]
Melissa Travis writes for a blog called Hard-Core Christianity. Her latest post is: Top Five Myths Christians (and Non-Christians) Often Believe About Intelligent Design. It's interesting because it reveals the standard myths that Intelligent Design Creationists believe about themselves.
Here's the list of "myths" along with what Mellisa Travis has to say about them.
MYTH #1: Intelligent Design (ID) is just a fancy name for Creationism.
The true story: Intelligent Design theory is not a form of, nor is it synonymous with “creationism.” Rather, it is an over-arching scientific theory that disputes wholly naturalistic/materialistic accounts of the origin of the universe and the origin of life. As such it is an indispensable ally for those who espouse various creation models. ID makes NO CLAIM about the age of the earth.
FACT: Modern Intelligent Design Creationism evolved from the creationist movement in the 1980s as was proven conclusively in the Dover trial. Intelligent Design Creationism is not a scientific theory. Instead, its a hodgepodge of criticisms of evolution and of scientists and materialism. Just look at the posts on Evolution News & Views (sic) to see what it's all about. Count the number of posts promoting a "scientific" view of Intelligent Design Creationism as opposed to disjointed helter-skelter criticisms of evolution that often contradict each other.
There's no "over-arching" scientific theory in sight.
Is it True? Uncovering the Heart of Each of the World's Religions
The University of Toronto Secular alliance (UTSA), in conjunction with Power 2 Change, Muslim Students Association and the Multifaith Centre is hosting a lecture and discussion series entitled "…is it true?"
This series will feature the following speakers:
Oct. 24: Islam (Amjad Tarsin, Muslim Chaplain, U of T)
Oct. 31: Christianity (Kyle Hackmann, Grace Toronto Church)
Nov. 7: Judaism (Yishaya Rose, Chaplain, Chabad House, U of T)
Nov. 14: Atheism (Professor Larry Moran, U of T, Secular Alliance)
Each speaker will speak on behalf of the philosophical framework to which they subscribe to. Following the lecture, there will be a period of Q and A following by an open discussion amongst attendees.
I encourage you to attend these talks as I suspect a lot of fruitful conversations can emerge. To this end, specifically, we are delighted to have biochemist Dr. Larry Moran, represent our side of the conversation.
University College 5:30pm-7:00pm, rm 52. Light dinner will be served.
Please find event page below:
Facebook
Hope to see some of you there!
Last week's molecule was L-dopa. The winner was Raul A. Félix de Sousa (again, but this time only by four minutes!) [Monday's Molecule #190].
This week's molecule is much more complicated and it's also much more important. You need to identify this complex making sure you distinguish it from other similar complexes. You don't need to name the exact species but you should have some idea of which organisms have this complex and which ones don't. There's not enough room in the comments for the complete IUPAC name!
You'll get special bonus points (and the expensive lunch in the dining room instead of the pub) for explaining how an irreducibly complex structure like this could have evolved.
Post your answer as a comment. I'll hold off releasing any comments for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch.
There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your comment.)
American Atheists have decided that it's in their best interests to take sides in the Presidential election. They produced a billboard and mounted it on a truck to drive around Boca Raton, Florida, the site of this evening's third presidential debate [American Atheists Demand Answers on Romney's Religious Loyalty].
This is not only an attack on religion—as opposed to an attack on the existence of god(s)—but it's an attack on a particular religion that just happens to be the religion of one of the candidates. There's no balanced attack on the religion of the other candidate even though his religion is just as bad.
This is really stupid and American Atheists should be ashamed of themselves. It's the sort of thing that rightly fuels the accommodationist objections to the New Atheists.
Chris Stedman is currently the Assistant Humanist Chaplain1 and the Values in Action Coordinator for the Humanist Community at Harvard [Chris Stedman]. He has a Master's degree in religion and is a former evangelical Christian.
As you might imagine from his position at Harvard, Stedman supports the non-theistic Humanism "religion." His goal is to advance particular social policies and often that goal is shared by theists. Hence, cooperating with theists to achieve common goals, such as social justice, is a major part of his life.
That's noble. Even though I don't share his humanist worldview—and have no intention of becoming a humanist—I can support many of the issues he is passionate about. Like all my atheist friends, I have no problem working with theists of all stripes when it comes to making our society a better place—just as I have no problem working with conservatives, homeopaths, anti-abortionists, people who favor capital punishment, pro-gun lobbyists, and even misogynists and racists if the issue is important enough.
The IDiots are remarkably good at uncritical thinking. When you couple this tendency to ignorance of evolution, you come up with some remarkable conclusions.
Take, for example, the well-known fact that rich people tend to have fewer children than poor people. What this means is that poor people are better at passing on their genes (alleles) to the next generation than rich people. If there is a genetic component to richness and poorness then poor people are "more fit" than rich people and, eventually, the poorness alleles will become fixed in the population. That's just a fact and it doesn't matter what you might think about the genetic advantage of being rich.
Of course there may not be any significant difference in the genetic compositions of rich people and poor people in which case the argument becomes moot.
Let's see how an anonymous IDiot deals with this information on their main blog site, Evolution News & Views (sic) ... [Survival of the Poorest: Another Evolutionary Paradox].
Here's another evolutionary paradox: the "demographic transition." We've alluded to this before, but why not recall the point? Darwin notwithstanding, it seems to support the view that the meek shall inherit the earth.
By all accounts, the rich should be, in Darwinian terms, the fittest. They have the most resources, and the most opportunities for advancement. Yet they leave fewer offspring. That's the finding of a large study of Swedish families that's just been completed.
Nature recently recognized that this has been a known contradiction to evolutionary theory.
"Fitness" is defined in all evolutionary biology textbooks as ...
The fitness of a genotype is the average lifetime contribution of individuals of that genotype to the population after one or more generations ... A general term for this number is reproductive success, which includes not simply the average number of offspring produced by the reproductive process, but the number that survive, since survival is prerequisite to reproduction.
Futuyma, D.J. (2009) Evolution p. 306
Do the IDiots ever read basic introductory evolution textbooks or do they just pull out "evolutionary paradoxes" from their nether parts? There's no contradiction with evolutionary theory and there's nothing in "Darwinian terms" that defines fitness as anything but reproductive success.
The only "puzzle" might be the naive presumption that rich people should have more reproductive success than poor people but we've known that this isn't true for over one hundred years.
[Photo Credit: Ten children of Ethel and Bobby Kennedy (the 11th child was born after Bobby was killed). This is the exception that proves the rule. Prompted by last night's viewing of the remarkable documentary Ethel which also prompts the question, "Why doesn't America have principled politicians like Bobby Kennedy any more?"]
I don't know what's happening at Science these days. It got caught up in the arsenic affair last year and it recently made a fool of itself over the ENCODE publicity fiasco where it was completely duped by Ewan Birney.
Now it has published the following "perspective" in the October 12th issue. It reads like a Sokal hoax but it's perfectly legitimate. That's actually how Stuart Neuman proposes to solve the mystery of the Cambrian explosion.
Stuart A. Newman
Physico-Genetic Determinants in the Evolution of Development
Science 338:217-219 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1222003]
Abstract
Animal bodies and the embryos that generate them exhibit an assortment of stereotypic morphological motifs that first appeared more than half a billion years ago. During development, cells arrange themselves into tissues with interior cavities and multiple layers with immiscible boundaries, containing patterned arrangements of cell types. These tissues go on to elongate, fold, segment, and form appendages. Their motifs are similar to the outcomes of physical processes generic to condensed, chemically excitable, viscoelastic materials, although the embryonic mechanisms that generate them are typically much more complex. I propose that the origins of animal development lay in the mobilization of physical organizational effects that resulted when certain gene products of single-celled ancestors came to operate on the spatial scale of multicellular aggregates.
Neuman was one of the Alternberg 16, a group of scientists who met in Altenberg, Austria in 2008. Their purpose was to develop a new theory of evolution. The proceedings were collected in a book edited by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. M^uuml;ller, Evolution: The Extended Synthesis.
This story has been promoted by a rogue journalist named Suzan Mazur and she has written a book on the subject. Here's her interview with Stuart Newman, The New Master Of Evolution?. Elizabeth Pennisi, a senior editor at Science, helped publicize the Altenberg 16 back in 2008 by publishing an article in Science [Modernizing the Modern Synthesis]. She has been sympathetic to the bizarre views of some Altenberg 16 members so I suspect she's behind the publication of Stuart Newman's article in Science.
Imagine that I asked you to "prove" evolution by transforming a chimpanzee into a human. Would you recognize the fallacy that I described recently in Why Are Chimps Still Chimps?. Of course you would. Any intelligent person who understands evolution knows that chimps and humans share a common ancestor and both have evolved substantially since the two lineages diverged. In order to change a chimp into a human you would first have to "devolve" it back to the common ancestor and proceed from there. That requires a lot of changes.
Now let's think about two enzymes that are members of the same gene family but have evolved different functions. It's easiest to think of these as two enzymes that are now specific for similar but distinct substrates. Imagine that you were asked to "prove" evolution by changing one of those enzymes into the other? Would you recognize the same fallacy? Would you realize that the most likely evolutionary scenario is that the two different enzyme specificities evolved from an ancestral enzyme that carried out both reactions? [see: The Evolution of Enzymes from Promiscuous Precursors]
Changing one of the modern enzymes into the other would require many changes because in most cases the common ancestor dates back hundreds of millions of years. Many of the changes that have become fixed in the two lineages were not directly involved in selecting one of the substrates over the other (i.e. increasing specificity). They were neutral mutations fixed by random genetic drift after the enzyme became specialized for one or other of the substrates. Many would have to be "reversed" in order to re-create the dual specificity because they would have been detrimental in the ancestral enzyme.
Think about these facts as you watch Douglas Axe explain why his research shows that evolution is impossible [Video: Doug Axe on Protein Evolution's Magic Number (It's Six)].
