You've been a very bad boy, Dean. You challeneged a set of assumptions and beliefs that a large number of people have a very large amount invested in - professionally, personally, financially, and emotionally. For that crime you shall be chastised. Be thou as pure as snow and as chaste as ice, thou shalt not escape calumny.
For the record, this twit Myers called me a "creationist," while some of his intellectual allies called me a "fundamentalist" and a member of the "religious right."
Hah! He is twit. Mind you, I have many agreements with his side of politics and science, but, boy, if there was ever a hope of converting me to ID and GOP politics, it would be continued reading of his juvenile blog.
I'm serious: if I were one to believe in conspiracies, I'd honestly suspect Myers is on the Discovery Institute's payroll. He's that big of an a**hole, and that blatantly dishonest. He's like someone out of one of Jack Chick's idiotic pamphlets.
No doubt some defenders of Darwin are more rabid than rational. But then of course, on the other side, there stand beacons of rationality like Pat Robertson.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that in college, I roomed with a guy who came from a religious background, and was quite devout about it. Naturally this shocked me-- this was Caltech, for crying-out-loud. People here were supposed to be rational.
I'd had occasional evolution-vs-creation-spats with a friend or two in high school, but it wasn't until this roommate in college that it really bloomed into a full-blown furor. We filled sheets of paper with fully annotated diatribes that looked like particularly zealous and bilious precursors of what would eventually become blog comment threads (this was back in 1994). Invoking mathematical and physical and Biblical arguments (I found out I knew a lot less about the latter than I thought I did), we pasted these sheets on the walls, covering them from floor to ceiling, until they spilled out into the hallway so people walking by would find this string of tiny-lettered scrawlings on printer paper sheets taped on the wall stretching twenty feet down the hall.
What's funny was that we never spoke about the subject face to face. We got along perfectly well; we were very cordial friends. But on the sheets covering our walls, you'd think we were the bitterest of foes.
What I slowly came to realize was that he was about ten billion times smarter than I was, and though I thought at the time that I was holding my own admirably well (after all, I had science on my side-- how could I fail?), by any standard I might hold in retrospect he wiped the floor with me. Even my creationist (or what would be now called ID) friend from high school was way smarter than I was. I'm sure he's achieved great things.
As for my religious zealot roommate, he went on to rock the world of planetary science and astronomy, submitting theses on the nature and history of the universe that floored everybody in their brilliance. That's right: while believing fervently in creation, he managed-- somehow-- to maintain a deep and abiding interest in science and a far greater desire than I possessed to figure out the physical details of what, to him, was God's works.
That's why I can only belly-laugh when people today suggest that teaching ID theories, or even mentioning that they exist, will cause kids to give up on scientific inquiry and colleges to wither away or turn into cloisters of monks. My experience may be uncharacteristic, but it tells me that if you really want to get a kid interested in evolutionary biology or physics or chemistry, you can do far worse than to let him make it into an expression of his deepest faith.
Aye, daf9, there are rabid (irrational) partisans on both sides that make it difficult to hold a rational discussion.
I don't have any particular regard for the difficulties Robertson has in adjusting his worldview.
The Myers are going to have a hard time dealing with things coming at them from quantum mechanics. Things like "Spooky action at a distance" and "emergent behavior" will be unsettling to them. It should be good fun to watch them squirm.
I liked most of Adam's message, but found the bit about the 'good' arguments on both sides being too hard for him to understand a little depressing. He's right in saying that unless you can understand what each side thinks is its best argument, you're left with trying to figure out who's more credible, who's got more PhDs, who's meaner, who's smarter, etc. Ultimately, that seems to me to be kind of a haphazard way to decide.
I just don't understand the shrillness of many on the evolutionist side of the equation.
It's kinda sorta, like the hard-leftist side of the Democratic side of the political equation, where I also reside (much to Dean's chagrin!).
In politics, I think sensible Dems, who love America, and ain't too fond of the corporatist, GOP country club, Bible-thumping crowd, could easily form a centrist majority.
But, then Cindy Sheehan and Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore get most of the ink.
Same thing with evolution crowd.
Myself, I was taught evolution way back when. I don't think it corrupted my brain or converted me into a raging, secularist. I thought it was good science, then and now. (Although, incomplete on the issue of origins.)
But, the problem is that you have these hacks in academia, who've never earned an honest paycheck, let alone met a payroll, displaying insuferrable haughtiness at all whom deign to challenge them. Wow, stop the presses! Somebody, somewhere, doesn't agree with me, I better indoctrinate this fellow quick, or shun him forever!
It just strikes me as bizarre. ID is more philosophy of science, than science, and that's ok.
Someone saw an advertisement for a home chemistry set in the back of a comic book and gave it to "God" for Christmas. He threw in a bunch of this, a pinch of that, a smidgen of the other...
Then he sat back and watched to see what would grow.
We are the home experiment of some pre-teen alien. We're acually all growing in a quart-sized Mason jar.
Heh. If you listen to some of Ray Kurzweil's more wild stuff, if the universe isn't dominated by some intelligence now it certainly will be in the near future...
I fully expected to validate my preconceived notion that the Darwinists had a mountain of credible evidence and the Intelligent Design folks were creationist kooks disguising themselves as scientists. That’s the way the media paints it.
The way the media paints it. For example, the NYTimes:
Once it was the left who wanted to redefine science.
In the early 1990's, writers like the Czech playwright and former president Vaclav Havel and the French philosopher Bruno Latour proclaimed "the end of objectivity." The laws of science were constructed rather than discovered, some academics said; science was just another way of looking at the world, a servant of corporate and military interests. Everybody had a claim on truth.
On Tuesday, fueled by the popular opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, the Kansas State Board of Education stepped into this fraught philosophical territory. In the course of revising the state's science standards to include criticism of evolution, the board promulgated a new definition of science itself.
The redefinition by the Kansas board will have nothing to do with how science is performed, in Kansas or anywhere else. But Dr. Holton said that if more states changed their standards, it could complicate the lives of science teachers and students around the nation.
Yes, the NYTImes is painting the BOE in KS as creationist kooks out of step with the rest of the country when it comes to defining science. Makes a great story. Only problem is that the reality is 180 degrees apart.
The New York Times report that Kansas state has redefined science is in fact false and the reporting misleads the public in regards to how science is defined by most states across the country.
In a Science Times article echoing other mainstream media's misreports, the New York Times today reports that Kansas has "redefined science," stating:
"In the course of revising the state's science standards to include criticism of evolution, the board promulgated a new definition of science itself."
This is not accurate, the state did not adopt a "new definition of science." In fact, the standard now in place in Kansas realigns the state with all other states in the nation that define science in their standards.
Kansas reinstated a traditional definition of science which reads: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory-building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." This is nearly identical to the definition of science adhered to in 40 states across the country (nine states do not define science at all). Kansas is the only state that did not have a traditional definition of science.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. A questioning person will be branded either a heretic or a fanatic; it only depends on the powers that be at the time.
Roger: it's pretty obvious who's redefined science here, and it's not the people in Kansas.
Science doesn't attempt to define things as natural or supernatural. Indeed, if you believe this hokum that "science is about seeking natural explanations," then you can never use science to try to debunk or verify claims of the supernatural.
Scientists have investigated life after death, ESP, ghosts, reincarnation, psychokinesis, mediums, and other forms of reputed supernatural phenomena. In all cases I know about results reported were either negative or too equivocal to brag about. There are other cases, in astronomy and physics and occasionally biology, where we have no explanation at all for a phenomenon, but we can still empirically document its occurrence; the question of whether it's "supernatural" remains open until an actual explanation is given.
These people are just plain making sh** up to suit their ideological agenda. I'm not religious and I can see that clear as day.
I have had it with Richard Bennett and this P.Z. Myers and the rest of that crowd who think smears are "the scientific method". Dean is as far from being a creationist as I am from being an evolutionist, if not more so. He is instead a true liberal in the tradition of John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, and John Milton.
Not knowing their politics well enough to judge, I will not go so far as to say that Bennett and Myers are Communists or even necessarily Communist fronters, but the smear tactics they use (including against Dean's family and personal life) are the same as those used by Communists to discredit their opponents. That plus their virulent hostility toward even the possibility of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer.
"Question everything with boldness, even the existence of a God, for if there be one, He must approve the homage of reason rather than of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
Today, in some circles, one must not dare question the non-existence of a God.
(And no, this does not include anyone who currently has a working comment account here on Dean's World, since almost all of you guys, even those of you who disagree with me vehemently, have usually been entirely rational.)
Just wanted to see if I still have a working comment account...
Regarding Scott's article, especially the Part 2 article. Wow a new tack! Attacking both sides instead of just one. Scott's point is that he doesn't know who to believe because he finds neither side Credible. That's Credible with a capital C. He intends this an an idictment of each side.
Well Duh! Why should he accept an answer based on faith in the speaker in the first place? He should figure it out for himself. If he has no time, or no inclination, or no ability to do so, it would be nice if could just shut up. No side can be credible on the merits if you do not understand the merits.
On the other hand, he must confront practical issues such as voting for or against certain school boards. Given absence of knowledge on the merits, he must choose his position based on peripheral issues such as why religious types get under his skin, or why scientist types are so superior and condecending; or perhaps observe which side appears to have more foam at their mouth, and choose the other side. This is a probably a reasonably practical way to make choices after all. But certainly inferior to having a well grounded understanding yourself.
His desire for a credible source is understandable, but unless he is willing to invest a little into how and why a source is credible, his desire is in vain. Incorporating ID into school science curriculum will generate more people like Scott, who apparently can't tell Up from Down, and instead needs credible sources to inform him of which case is likely to apply when he steps off a roof.
However, and outrageously, in the end even Scott won't stand by his own assertion that he can't tell the difference. In the end he comes down 90% science, 10% ID. Why? Because I suspect that when results are on the line, he prefers his doctor to base his understanding of medicine on science "science" rather than ID "science". He prefers the people curing diseases and developing new drugs to understand "science" science rather than ID science. (Not to mention K-12 teachers).
What that last paragraph really brings home is that if Scott were not the author of Dilbert, his writings on the relative merits of "Darwinists" versus "IDists" would be as highly regarded as farts in the wind. Interestingly, just as Scott wanted to move the issue from the substance the argument to the arguers of the arguement, the only point of substance he actually makes is not about the arguers of the argument, but about the recipients of the argument, i.e. the unwashed masses. Unlike himself (90/10), he purports that the unwashed masses are unable to reach a correct conclusion in the absence of Credible sources; further that this inability is to be expected and accepted.
Personaly, I hope he's wrong. I'm hoping our school system will teach people how to think versus teaching techniques of non-think. I'm also wishing they would smack non-thinkers up-side the head, but I'm not holding my breath. Meanwhile, I'm hoping that the unwashed masses manage to reach at least 55/45 on the science/ID issue
Tut, tut, tut! You (and Dean) search far and wide for bad actors to excoriate, while ignoring the beam in your own eye(s).
Why does no one respond to Elizabeth? She posts technically and coherently. She is never angry or sarcastic or mean. She never denigrates a person. Instead she posts patiently again and again. She makes new attempts to demonstrate her points and questions as if you truly didn't understand her rather than as if you were purposely ignoring her. She Is A Saint! And a smart one too.
(Dean, if you do not already have a cannon, I suggest that you establish one, and I nominate Elizabeth for cannonization immediately.)
Most of all she has a point. Where are your counterpoints? Not your complaints about something else; you counterpoints!.
Well Duh! Why should he accept an answer based on faith in the speaker in the first place? He should figure it out for himself. If he has no time, or no inclination, or no ability to do so, it would be nice if could just shut up. No side can be credible on the merits if you do not understand the merits.
His desire for a credible source is understandable, but unless he is willing to invest a little into how and why a source is credible, his desire is in vain. Incorporating ID into school science curriculum will generate more people like Scott, who apparently can't tell Up from Down, and instead needs credible sources to inform him of which case is likely to apply when he steps off a roof.
Zoom!! Right over your head. You miss Adams' deeper point because of your obssession with this specific issue, and where he stands on it. That, to me, is the most fascinating aspect of this debate: why the supposed voices of reason and logic exhibit anything but.
Your solution that folks curious about this debate will become experts to satisfy their curiosity misses the point. It is not practical in today's world to become an expert on every issue about which one has a curiosity. It is said that Thomas Jefferson had a working knowledge of most of what was known scientifically about the world in his time. Whether true or not, that just isn't possible today, even for the smartest folks.
Most folks rely on sources they consider credible. That doesn't mean "absolutely correct all the time". It means sources that tend toward the objective, and transparency. That the source makes clear that which can be verified as fact, and that which is opinion. Spin isn't one of their tools.
You think one needs to become an expert, and then one can decide which sources are "credible". But that misses the point. The stopped clock (OK, this doesn't translate well to the digital age) is correct twice a day. The clock one minute slow is never correct. Which is more credible? Which is more useful?
Although you think folks like Adams are detrimental to society and should be discouraged by the school system, I couldn't disagree with you more. This is the type of person we need in the information age. It is the basis of our legal system, where juries of common folks are called on frequently to evaluate complex cases. And if you want to see the hazards of not understanding how to evaluate credible sources, you can check out the Fronline episode on the Little Rascals Daycare case.
This brought home to me, in a way all of my schooling didn't, how our courts are supposed to work. And the hazards of a population that can't evaluate arguments based on their logical consistency. One of the most cogent comments I've seen about educational issues, is the gentlemen who said our public education system should strive to produce students who can competently produce a logical argument for a given proposition. That, he claims, is an educated student.
Scott Adams is asserting that people who are rabidly invested with a position on this issue distort the other side (or anything they perceive to be on the other side) in order to bolster their position.
JFC appears to be hell-bent on proving Adams's point, with statements like these:
In the end he comes down 90% science, 10% ID.
and:
Interestingly, just as Scott wanted to move the issue from the substance the argument to the arguers of the arguement, the only point of substance he actually makes is not about the arguers of the argument, but about the recipients of the argument, i.e. the unwashed masses.
and:
Unlike himself (90/10), he purports that the unwashed masses are unable to reach a correct conclusion in the absence of Credible sources; further that this inability is to be expected and accepted.
None of these positions are Scott's. In fact, he has explicitly disavowed some of them.
And, as for this:
Why does no one respond to Elizabeth?
I wonder which blog he's reading to come to such a conclusion. Has he not read my responses, for example?
(Though I do agree that Elizabeth has been both intelligent and cordial in the discussions.)
Holy smokes, after mulling over what Roger R had to say, I found myself pounded by Jeff before I had time to come back. What I have concluded from these posts is that I am not communicating worth a damn. I'll try again. What the heck? :-)
Roger, what I find difficult about your post is that half the things you say are things that I agree with, but you say them as if refuting me! The other half of the things that you say are positions and motivations that you incorrectly attribute to me, then go about refuting them as if you are refuting me. I agree with your refutations of positions I do not hold! I conclude you don't know what I am saying, and I'll relucatantly hold myself responsibile for that.
Jeff, I will leave it to Elizabeth to answer if her very cogently expressed and concrete positions have been adequately acknowlegded or refuted by Dean and Steven. You may have addressed her, I have not gone back to check. But I do not recall her statements ever being really confronted rather than sidestepped.
Jeff, as for your characterization of my characterization of Scott Adams (whew!), I'm feeling a little lost. Scott didn't put out the number 90/10? Scott didn't complain that the arguers are not credible? Scott didn't point out that the recipients are left without good direction? Scott didn't belie the whole basis of his pair of articles by eventually coming out 90/10 in favor of traditional science? -- implying that the sources are in fact credible enough for him to tell fact from fiction?
Maybe I missed the point of what he was saying, I'll grant that. But then what was it? I can't believe that you are going to restrict yourself to this tiny statement:
Scott Adams is asserting that people who are rabidly invested with a position on this issue distort the other side with no broader implication. When you write an article that has many layers and can mean different things to different people, then you get a variety of interpretations. If you don't like my inference, what inference do you draw?
Jeff and Roger both, you appear to consider me rabidly invested and obsessed with the Darwin vs ID conflict. Believe it or not, I am not. (Actualy I believe that each of you are. Would you really give a damn if it were Scientist A versus Scientist B? If it were "Dinosaurs ARE early birds." vs "Dinosaurs are NOT early birds. You IDIOT!" Somehow, I think not) For me, ID is merely the particular subject at hand. What I am obsessed with is the distinction bewteen science and psuedo-science, or in the case ID, between science and non-science. If you read the archives, you'll find I've said so before. I don't give a hoot about problems with evolution, and I don't give a hoot about the religious overtones of ID.
IMNSHO, the problem of distinguishing psuedo-science from science is the broader topic of Scott's article. Evolution vs ID is sexy because of the relgion and the first amendment issue. But as a practical issue, the actual meat of the controversy is mere brain-food fluff (although crucial to determining the arena in which the non-fluff operates). There are much meatier issues:
- nuclear winter => global cooling / greenhouse gases => global warming / very weak conjectures each
- climate cycles are man-made disasters / climate cycles happen willy nilly
- vacination wipes out killer diseases / vacination is a plot by pharmaceutical companies to make obscene profits by government mandate while causing autism and numerous other harder to pinpoint problems
- DDT causes (imaginary) harm to bird of prey eggs / DDT would have saved hundreds of thousdands of (real) lives that were lost to malaria without DDT
- Nuclear poison / source of nuclear energy free from traditional pollutants
- oil depletion catastrophe / more coal that we know what do with for centuries
- genetically modified crops can feed millions / GM crops are "unatural" and therefore horrible
- certain types of asbestos cause lung problems / Do not!
- Tobbaco causes lung cancer / Does Not! / Does So! / So what?
- mercury cause Hatters to go Mad / Go away, you bother me.
- mercury in canned tuna causes birth defects / Go away, you bother me.
OK, you get the idea. Sometimes threats are real, sometimes it is hard to tell, sometimes it is crap. The point of Scott's article is that people in general are unable to make good decisions on these issues. I'll admit I didn't read Scott carefully enough to determine what solution he proposed. But unlike what Roger suggested, I do not expect everyone to become an expert on everything. What I do expect is that people should refine their science versus bullshit detectors. You don't need to be an expert on snake-oil to recognize a snake-oil salesman when he appears. You learn from sad experience how not to get burned by the next incarnation of the snake-oil salesman. There are patterns involved. (Sometimes the scientists are the ones full of bullshit. The same detector is needed.)
As I noted, people in real life are forced to make decisions based on the amount of foam at the speaker's mouth, various preconceived notions, various factors of credibility based on who they trust, or based on their own experience with issues where they do have personal knowledge and experience, etc. They don't need to be experts on everything. They need to be experts on not getting fooled. Teaching them that ID is science will not help them. It will fool them.
I don't really care what school children are taught about evolution. I do really care that school children are taught to tell the difference between science and pseudoscientific crap. I'll admit that that is not easy job, but I beleive that teaching ID = science is a move in the wrong direction. It's not that I'm particulary (vehemently , obsessively) opposed to ID; it's just that ID is the particular cause currently trying to slip in the back door via the courts, and currently being discussed on Dean's World.
And now that I have exceeded all bounds of posting-length decency, I will compound my error by adding two side issues.
Side issue (1): the term "psuedo-science" is tricky in Deans' World. I prefer to reserve it for explanations such as those that purport to explain why magnets on the fuel line will increase automobile miles per gallon when my laboratory shows repeatedly that they have no effect. I e., I use it to describe crackpot versus traditional science.
Dean prefers to use the term "pseudo-science" to describe situations where establshed scientists fail to face evidence and dogmatically support traditional views despite Dean's clear understanding of where those views are indequate. (Come on Dean, smile at least a little! :-)
Those are two different uses of the term. Each has meaning and relevance. Just beware.
Side issue (2): If as Scott suggests, people are unable to reach reasonable practical conclusions on scientific issues, how in God's name do you expect them to reach reasonable practical conclusions on meta-physical issues? If the public can not figure out scientific questions when science is supported by a vast array of observable evidence such as apples falling on your head with a certain velocity and acceleration, how can the public possibly be expected to figure out a philosophical debate.
Philosphy is much harder than science, because wrong science fails (cold fusion) and right science prevails (Einstein will live or die on the verdict of perfect spheres). Philosphy requires reason and reason alone to distinguish fact from fancy. That is infinitley harder than science. If the public can not figure out science, I'm pretty confident that they can not figure out philosophy either.
Instead of science being replaced by philosophy, science will get replaced by feelings. Feelings are manipulable. They may feel good for a time, but they will fall hard when reality rears its ugly head.
An exhausted good night,
John
P.S. If any poor sould has read this far, including Roger or Jeff, could your offer an opinion on whether or not I made a lick of sense? I willing to be considered dead wrong, missing the point, etc. And I know I'm annoying, dismissive, etc. But am I incoherent as well?
Roger, what I find difficult about your post is that half the things you say are things that I agree with, but you say them as if refuting me! The other half of the things that you say are positions and motivations that you incorrectly attribute to me, then go about refuting them as if you are refuting me.
Let's take one step back. I try to avoid comments about motivations or what positions you hold or believe. I try to deal with your words. So, when you say:
Why should he accept an answer based on faith in the speaker in the first place? He should figure it out for himself. If he has no time, or no inclination, or no ability to do so, it would be nice if could just shut up. No side can be credible on the merits if you do not understand the merits.
That seems to conflict with:
But unlike what Roger suggested, I do not expect everyone to become an expert on everything. What I do expect is that people should refine their science versus bullshit detectors.
But rather than argue about about whether that conflicts with a prior post, let us move on from there. How does one go about "refin[ing] their science versus bullshit detectors"? What tools does one use to evaluate whether somebody is peddling snake-oil? If it isn't by becoming an expert on elixirs, then the logical fallback is to evaluate the arguments of the salesman. And that is where Adams' point comes in. The arguments of many Darwinians frequently fail even the simplest logical tests. I.e., they aren't credible. Now what?
And since the demarcation problem has puzzled great philosophical minds for centuries, what makes you think the average Joe can make any useful progress on his own? You say you aren't obssessed about ID v. Darwinism, but are more concerned about science v. non-science. But it seems you are at least implying that ID falls in the latter category. But the demarcation test you proposed seems to be significantly flawed, as was Elizabeth's.
So, what would you teach High Schoolers about what is science vs non-science? If you can make a case that holds up, and implicates ID as non-science, then ID might be useful as an example to show HS students what non-science is. But I don't seem to see that test from you or most other Darwinians. I see only the claim that ID is non-science, or demarcation tests that fail even simple analysis.
So let us focus not on ID v. Darwinism, but science v non-science.
Nevertheless, scientists themselves insist that the kinds of insights Kirschner and Gerhart present need to be more effectively communicated. ''We have failed to prepare our public to deal with challenges to the nature of science, from people who don't like our findings," says Alberts. As president of the National Academy of Sciences-his term ended in July-Alberts says he ''has tried to use this, with the [Intelligent Design] movement now outraging scientists, as a teaching moment for faculty to re-think their courses....We want people to understand what science is and why [Intelligent Design] isn't science."
And what are Kirschner and Gerhart trying to communicate:
Kirschner likes to invoke the much-quoted declaration of famed 20th-century biologist Theodesius Dobzhansky that ''nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (the title of a 1973 essay). ''In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself," Kirschner declares. ''Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."
Now this is interesting. I've been involved in this debate for several years, and this claim is 100% in accord with what I've been arguing, along with people like Behe, and opposed to the arguments made by many Darwinists. This isn't a matter of "effective communications", despite what Alberts says, but apparent confusion about what their principled position really is. I've given many opportunities to Darwinists to climb on that bandwagon, and they would have none of it.
As to their proposed mechanism of "facilitated variation", that seems to conflict with the "random with respect to fitness" dogma that Darwinists have claimed for years. I'll reserve judgement until I've gotten the book and read it. I've heard it said both that mechanism is explained, and that it isn't. I get the impression that it may be similiar to Punctuated Equilibrium in this regard, that it remains a description of what we see more than an understanding, but again, that is offered in ignorance of the book itself.
Another point:
In so doing, Kirschner and Gerhart say, they are tackling an issue evolutionists have often left unexamined. ''The question of how variation could be produced has been there from the beginning," says Gerhart, referring to the publication of Charles Darwin's ''On the Origin of Species" in 1859. By the 1940s, the so-called ''Modern Synthesis" of evolutionary theory powerfully buttressed Darwin's insights on natural selection with the post-Darwinian discoveries about the mechanisms of heredity. But, the authors write, the Modern Synthesis was ''silent" about the way organisms generated variation. It is not coincidental, they add, that because ''variation is the least understood of the theoretical underpinnings of evolutionary theory," it thus ''is currently the favorite target" of creationists.
Again, supporting the arguments made by Darwinian critics. That such a major flaw should be a "favorite target" of critics, creationsist or otherwise, would seem to be a compliment to the perceptive skills of the critics, and an argument against the credibility of the Darwinian defenders who failed to acknowledge weakness of Darwinism in this regard, but merely claimed the critics did not "understand" the power of RM&NS, or were being deceptive.
I bought a copy last night and am reading it now (well, not NOW, but you know what I mean). I'll have more to say in a day or two whether I think it adds anything.
Work overloads have kept me away from Dean's world. In case you are as crazy as I am and check back on this topic, I will continue to populate this private Idaho of our own.
Quoting you:
What tools does one use to evaluate whether somebody is peddling snake-oil? If it isn't by becoming an expert on elixirs, then the logical fallback is to evaluate the arguments of the salesman.
We agree that you can not become an expert on elixirs, the universe, and everything in it. Instead you become an expert on detecting the underlying patterns. I do not need to read beyond the first paragraph of a Dembski piece to recognize what Elizabeth describes as "inkblot". The inkblot is there for a purpose, and it is valid cause for dismissing the whole. Have you ever been suckered on the Atlantic City Boardwalk into voluntarily(!) giving up your money? Have you ever been suckered into investing in fine art, or real estate, or penny stocks, etc. by someone expert at separating you from your money? You learn to recognize the signs; you don't need to be expert on each scam.
You again:
And that is where Adams' point comes in. The arguments of many Darwinians frequently fail even the simplest logical tests. I.e., they aren't credible. Now what?
Now what? NOW WHAT?! You search for new explanations, that's what! You develop new scientific theories or flesh out old ones. You most certainly DO NOT throw up your hands and say "God did it". That question of yours represents the fundamental divide between us. That you can offer it in support of your position demonstrates a fundamental difference between how I think and how you think.
A little more from you:
And since the demarcation problem has puzzled great philosophical minds for centuries, what makes you think the average Joe can make any useful progress on his own?
And we're back to "What I said!"
As I have said, the demarcation problem is a philosphy problem, way harder than the evolution problem. I do not expect Average Joe to solve this by himself. Especially not in grammar school or high school. I would prefer not to attempt teaching demarcation at this level. I would simply teach the evolution science, including any problems and failures. I am open to using ID as an example of non-scientific thinking, but I beleive that discussion is too complicated. Have you got a teenager in high school? I also believe that ID proponents would scream bloody murder at that use of ID.
Some questions:
What demarcation test that fails simple analysis did I propose?
Why do I have to demonstrate that ID is "non-science"? (Which I believe has been done in several threads here already.)
Why don't you present me with a sets of scientific evidence and hypotheses and consequences and predictions which makes ID a legitimate object of scientific inquiry.
In conclusion, I feel that we are going in circles. Perhaps we are doomed.
We got to this page by talking about the arguers of the argument and the receivers of the argument. Now you are demanding that I prove ID is not science. I.e., you are demanding a resolution of the argument.
I feel that is circular on your part. When confronted with the assertion that ID is not science, you shift to arguments about how it should be taught anyway, it is just as valid as science anyway, the people can't tell the difference anyway, maybe it is science anyway, the proponents of both sides are whores anyway, blah, blah, blah. Then when discussing why ID should not be taught anyway, and discussing the nature of the argument, you return to demanding that Darwinsits prove that ID is not science. Make up your mind. If you wish to debate the science or nonscience nature of ID, then go back to the non-Scott Adams threads, and answer Elizabeth. I firmly believe that you have no legs to stand on there. If you really wish to dent my thick headed opposition to your view, then start by convincing me and Elizabeth that ID is science. Everything else flows from there. Despite appearances, I have been known to change my mind.
Shame on you.
Hah! He is twit. Mind you, I have many agreements with his side of politics and science, but, boy, if there was ever a hope of converting me to ID and GOP politics, it would be continued reading of his juvenile blog.
Man, I can't stand college professors!
Barnes, Hank
Dale
I'd had occasional evolution-vs-creation-spats with a friend or two in high school, but it wasn't until this roommate in college that it really bloomed into a full-blown furor. We filled sheets of paper with fully annotated diatribes that looked like particularly zealous and bilious precursors of what would eventually become blog comment threads (this was back in 1994). Invoking mathematical and physical and Biblical arguments (I found out I knew a lot less about the latter than I thought I did), we pasted these sheets on the walls, covering them from floor to ceiling, until they spilled out into the hallway so people walking by would find this string of tiny-lettered scrawlings on printer paper sheets taped on the wall stretching twenty feet down the hall.
What's funny was that we never spoke about the subject face to face. We got along perfectly well; we were very cordial friends. But on the sheets covering our walls, you'd think we were the bitterest of foes.
What I slowly came to realize was that he was about ten billion times smarter than I was, and though I thought at the time that I was holding my own admirably well (after all, I had science on my side-- how could I fail?), by any standard I might hold in retrospect he wiped the floor with me. Even my creationist (or what would be now called ID) friend from high school was way smarter than I was. I'm sure he's achieved great things.
As for my religious zealot roommate, he went on to rock the world of planetary science and astronomy, submitting theses on the nature and history of the universe that floored everybody in their brilliance. That's right: while believing fervently in creation, he managed-- somehow-- to maintain a deep and abiding interest in science and a far greater desire than I possessed to figure out the physical details of what, to him, was God's works.
That's why I can only belly-laugh when people today suggest that teaching ID theories, or even mentioning that they exist, will cause kids to give up on scientific inquiry and colleges to wither away or turn into cloisters of monks. My experience may be uncharacteristic, but it tells me that if you really want to get a kid interested in evolutionary biology or physics or chemistry, you can do far worse than to let him make it into an expression of his deepest faith.
...yes, who recently suggested God would visit his wrath upon the evil voters of Dover for throwing out their school board.
What an idiot.
I don't have any particular regard for the difficulties Robertson has in adjusting his worldview.
The Myers are going to have a hard time dealing with things coming at them from quantum mechanics. Things like "Spooky action at a distance" and "emergent behavior" will be unsettling to them. It should be good fun to watch them squirm.
I just don't understand the shrillness of many on the evolutionist side of the equation.
It's kinda sorta, like the hard-leftist side of the Democratic side of the political equation, where I also reside (much to Dean's chagrin!).
In politics, I think sensible Dems, who love America, and ain't too fond of the corporatist, GOP country club, Bible-thumping crowd, could easily form a centrist majority.
But, then Cindy Sheehan and Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore get most of the ink.
Same thing with evolution crowd.
Myself, I was taught evolution way back when. I don't think it corrupted my brain or converted me into a raging, secularist. I thought it was good science, then and now. (Although, incomplete on the issue of origins.)
But, the problem is that you have these hacks in academia, who've never earned an honest paycheck, let alone met a payroll, displaying insuferrable haughtiness at all whom deign to challenge them. Wow, stop the presses! Somebody, somewhere, doesn't agree with me, I better indoctrinate this fellow quick, or shun him forever!
It just strikes me as bizarre. ID is more philosophy of science, than science, and that's ok.
Hank Barnes
Someone saw an advertisement for a home chemistry set in the back of a comic book and gave it to "God" for Christmas. He threw in a bunch of this, a pinch of that, a smidgen of the other...
Then he sat back and watched to see what would grow.
We are the home experiment of some pre-teen alien. We're acually all growing in a quart-sized Mason jar.
The way the media paints it. For example, the NYTimes:
Philosophers Notwithstanding, Kansas School Board Redefines Science
Yes, the NYTImes is painting the BOE in KS as creationist kooks out of step with the rest of the country when it comes to defining science. Makes a great story. Only problem is that the reality is 180 degrees apart.
Kansas Definition of Science Consistent With All Other States Contrary to Media Claims
Science doesn't attempt to define things as natural or supernatural. Indeed, if you believe this hokum that "science is about seeking natural explanations," then you can never use science to try to debunk or verify claims of the supernatural.
Scientists have investigated life after death, ESP, ghosts, reincarnation, psychokinesis, mediums, and other forms of reputed supernatural phenomena. In all cases I know about results reported were either negative or too equivocal to brag about. There are other cases, in astronomy and physics and occasionally biology, where we have no explanation at all for a phenomenon, but we can still empirically document its occurrence; the question of whether it's "supernatural" remains open until an actual explanation is given.
These people are just plain making sh** up to suit their ideological agenda. I'm not religious and I can see that clear as day.
For marrying the Queen.
I admire the Queen
For marrying Dean.
I have had it with Richard Bennett and this P.Z. Myers and the rest of that crowd who think smears are "the scientific method". Dean is as far from being a creationist as I am from being an evolutionist, if not more so. He is instead a true liberal in the tradition of John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson, and John Milton.
Not knowing their politics well enough to judge, I will not go so far as to say that Bennett and Myers are Communists or even necessarily Communist fronters, but the smear tactics they use (including against Dean's family and personal life) are the same as those used by Communists to discredit their opponents. That plus their virulent hostility toward even the possibility of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer.
"Question everything with boldness, even the existence of a God, for if there be one, He must approve the homage of reason rather than of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
Today, in some circles, one must not dare question the non-existence of a God.
Just wanted to see if I still have a working comment account...
Cheers,
Well Duh! Why should he accept an answer based on faith in the speaker in the first place? He should figure it out for himself. If he has no time, or no inclination, or no ability to do so, it would be nice if could just shut up. No side can be credible on the merits if you do not understand the merits.
On the other hand, he must confront practical issues such as voting for or against certain school boards. Given absence of knowledge on the merits, he must choose his position based on peripheral issues such as why religious types get under his skin, or why scientist types are so superior and condecending; or perhaps observe which side appears to have more foam at their mouth, and choose the other side. This is a probably a reasonably practical way to make choices after all. But certainly inferior to having a well grounded understanding yourself.
His desire for a credible source is understandable, but unless he is willing to invest a little into how and why a source is credible, his desire is in vain. Incorporating ID into school science curriculum will generate more people like Scott, who apparently can't tell Up from Down, and instead needs credible sources to inform him of which case is likely to apply when he steps off a roof.
However, and outrageously, in the end even Scott won't stand by his own assertion that he can't tell the difference. In the end he comes down 90% science, 10% ID. Why? Because I suspect that when results are on the line, he prefers his doctor to base his understanding of medicine on science "science" rather than ID "science". He prefers the people curing diseases and developing new drugs to understand "science" science rather than ID science. (Not to mention K-12 teachers).
What that last paragraph really brings home is that if Scott were not the author of Dilbert, his writings on the relative merits of "Darwinists" versus "IDists" would be as highly regarded as farts in the wind. Interestingly, just as Scott wanted to move the issue from the substance the argument to the arguers of the arguement, the only point of substance he actually makes is not about the arguers of the argument, but about the recipients of the argument, i.e. the unwashed masses. Unlike himself (90/10), he purports that the unwashed masses are unable to reach a correct conclusion in the absence of Credible sources; further that this inability is to be expected and accepted.
Personaly, I hope he's wrong. I'm hoping our school system will teach people how to think versus teaching techniques of non-think. I'm also wishing they would smack non-thinkers up-side the head, but I'm not holding my breath. Meanwhile, I'm hoping that the unwashed masses manage to reach at least 55/45 on the science/ID issue
John
Tut, tut, tut! You (and Dean) search far and wide for bad actors to excoriate, while ignoring the beam in your own eye(s).
Why does no one respond to Elizabeth? She posts technically and coherently. She is never angry or sarcastic or mean. She never denigrates a person. Instead she posts patiently again and again. She makes new attempts to demonstrate her points and questions as if you truly didn't understand her rather than as if you were purposely ignoring her. She Is A Saint! And a smart one too.
(Dean, if you do not already have a cannon, I suggest that you establish one, and I nominate Elizabeth for cannonization immediately.)
Most of all she has a point. Where are your counterpoints? Not your complaints about something else; you counterpoints!.
Late night rambling,
John
Zoom!! Right over your head. You miss Adams' deeper point because of your obssession with this specific issue, and where he stands on it. That, to me, is the most fascinating aspect of this debate: why the supposed voices of reason and logic exhibit anything but.
Your solution that folks curious about this debate will become experts to satisfy their curiosity misses the point. It is not practical in today's world to become an expert on every issue about which one has a curiosity. It is said that Thomas Jefferson had a working knowledge of most of what was known scientifically about the world in his time. Whether true or not, that just isn't possible today, even for the smartest folks.
Most folks rely on sources they consider credible. That doesn't mean "absolutely correct all the time". It means sources that tend toward the objective, and transparency. That the source makes clear that which can be verified as fact, and that which is opinion. Spin isn't one of their tools.
You think one needs to become an expert, and then one can decide which sources are "credible". But that misses the point. The stopped clock (OK, this doesn't translate well to the digital age) is correct twice a day. The clock one minute slow is never correct. Which is more credible? Which is more useful?
Although you think folks like Adams are detrimental to society and should be discouraged by the school system, I couldn't disagree with you more. This is the type of person we need in the information age. It is the basis of our legal system, where juries of common folks are called on frequently to evaluate complex cases. And if you want to see the hazards of not understanding how to evaluate credible sources, you can check out the Fronline episode on the Little Rascals Daycare case.
This brought home to me, in a way all of my schooling didn't, how our courts are supposed to work. And the hazards of a population that can't evaluate arguments based on their logical consistency. One of the most cogent comments I've seen about educational issues, is the gentlemen who said our public education system should strive to produce students who can competently produce a logical argument for a given proposition. That, he claims, is an educated student.
I think he nailed it.
Thanks, but unfortunately I've disqualified myself for sainthood in the comments on Dean's Tamiflu post!
Not exactly the right topic, but I just saw this on Amazon, thought you might find it interesting.
The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma
It just came out, so I'd expect it to be relatively up-to-date on the best answers available.
I've disqualified myself for sainthood in the comments on Dean's Tamiflu post
Hmm, so I see. I guess lives at stake get you more worked up than skulls full of mush.
Oh well, even Lucifer slipped once! But the Dark Side need not be permanent.
I think we are talking crosswise to each other, sort of right past each other's head, and I'm not sure who is standing sideways.
I'll read your post more carefully and get back to you.
HAL: I'm sorry, Dean, I can't do that."
:)
JFC appears to be hell-bent on proving Adams's point, with statements like these:
In the end he comes down 90% science, 10% ID.
and:
Interestingly, just as Scott wanted to move the issue from the substance the argument to the arguers of the arguement, the only point of substance he actually makes is not about the arguers of the argument, but about the recipients of the argument, i.e. the unwashed masses.
and:
Unlike himself (90/10), he purports that the unwashed masses are unable to reach a correct conclusion in the absence of Credible sources; further that this inability is to be expected and accepted.
None of these positions are Scott's. In fact, he has explicitly disavowed some of them.
And, as for this:
Why does no one respond to Elizabeth?
I wonder which blog he's reading to come to such a conclusion. Has he not read my responses, for example?
(Though I do agree that Elizabeth has been both intelligent and cordial in the discussions.)
Roger, what I find difficult about your post is that half the things you say are things that I agree with, but you say them as if refuting me! The other half of the things that you say are positions and motivations that you incorrectly attribute to me, then go about refuting them as if you are refuting me. I agree with your refutations of positions I do not hold! I conclude you don't know what I am saying, and I'll relucatantly hold myself responsibile for that.
Jeff, I will leave it to Elizabeth to answer if her very cogently expressed and concrete positions have been adequately acknowlegded or refuted by Dean and Steven. You may have addressed her, I have not gone back to check. But I do not recall her statements ever being really confronted rather than sidestepped.
Jeff, as for your characterization of my characterization of Scott Adams (whew!), I'm feeling a little lost. Scott didn't put out the number 90/10? Scott didn't complain that the arguers are not credible? Scott didn't point out that the recipients are left without good direction? Scott didn't belie the whole basis of his pair of articles by eventually coming out 90/10 in favor of traditional science? -- implying that the sources are in fact credible enough for him to tell fact from fiction?
Maybe I missed the point of what he was saying, I'll grant that. But then what was it? I can't believe that you are going to restrict yourself to this tiny statement:
Scott Adams is asserting that people who are rabidly invested with a position on this issue distort the other side
with no broader implication. When you write an article that has many layers and can mean different things to different people, then you get a variety of interpretations. If you don't like my inference, what inference do you draw?
Jeff and Roger both, you appear to consider me rabidly invested and obsessed with the Darwin vs ID conflict. Believe it or not, I am not. (Actualy I believe that each of you are. Would you really give a damn if it were Scientist A versus Scientist B? If it were "Dinosaurs ARE early birds." vs "Dinosaurs are NOT early birds. You IDIOT!" Somehow, I think not) For me, ID is merely the particular subject at hand. What I am obsessed with is the distinction bewteen science and psuedo-science, or in the case ID, between science and non-science. If you read the archives, you'll find I've said so before. I don't give a hoot about problems with evolution, and I don't give a hoot about the religious overtones of ID.
IMNSHO, the problem of distinguishing psuedo-science from science is the broader topic of Scott's article. Evolution vs ID is sexy because of the relgion and the first amendment issue. But as a practical issue, the actual meat of the controversy is mere brain-food fluff (although crucial to determining the arena in which the non-fluff operates). There are much meatier issues:
- nuclear winter => global cooling / greenhouse gases => global warming / very weak conjectures each
- climate cycles are man-made disasters / climate cycles happen willy nilly
- vacination wipes out killer diseases / vacination is a plot by pharmaceutical companies to make obscene profits by government mandate while causing autism and numerous other harder to pinpoint problems
- DDT causes (imaginary) harm to bird of prey eggs / DDT would have saved hundreds of thousdands of (real) lives that were lost to malaria without DDT
- Nuclear poison / source of nuclear energy free from traditional pollutants
- oil depletion catastrophe / more coal that we know what do with for centuries
- genetically modified crops can feed millions / GM crops are "unatural" and therefore horrible
- certain types of asbestos cause lung problems / Do not!
- Tobbaco causes lung cancer / Does Not! / Does So! / So what?
- mercury cause Hatters to go Mad / Go away, you bother me.
- mercury in canned tuna causes birth defects / Go away, you bother me.
OK, you get the idea. Sometimes threats are real, sometimes it is hard to tell, sometimes it is crap. The point of Scott's article is that people in general are unable to make good decisions on these issues. I'll admit I didn't read Scott carefully enough to determine what solution he proposed. But unlike what Roger suggested, I do not expect everyone to become an expert on everything. What I do expect is that people should refine their science versus bullshit detectors. You don't need to be an expert on snake-oil to recognize a snake-oil salesman when he appears. You learn from sad experience how not to get burned by the next incarnation of the snake-oil salesman. There are patterns involved. (Sometimes the scientists are the ones full of bullshit. The same detector is needed.)
As I noted, people in real life are forced to make decisions based on the amount of foam at the speaker's mouth, various preconceived notions, various factors of credibility based on who they trust, or based on their own experience with issues where they do have personal knowledge and experience, etc. They don't need to be experts on everything. They need to be experts on not getting fooled. Teaching them that ID is science will not help them. It will fool them.
I don't really care what school children are taught about evolution. I do really care that school children are taught to tell the difference between science and pseudoscientific crap. I'll admit that that is not easy job, but I beleive that teaching ID = science is a move in the wrong direction. It's not that I'm particulary (vehemently , obsessively) opposed to ID; it's just that ID is the particular cause currently trying to slip in the back door via the courts, and currently being discussed on Dean's World.
And now that I have exceeded all bounds of posting-length decency, I will compound my error by adding two side issues.
Side issue (1): the term "psuedo-science" is tricky in Deans' World. I prefer to reserve it for explanations such as those that purport to explain why magnets on the fuel line will increase automobile miles per gallon when my laboratory shows repeatedly that they have no effect. I e., I use it to describe crackpot versus traditional science.
Dean prefers to use the term "pseudo-science" to describe situations where establshed scientists fail to face evidence and dogmatically support traditional views despite Dean's clear understanding of where those views are indequate. (Come on Dean, smile at least a little! :-)
Those are two different uses of the term. Each has meaning and relevance. Just beware.
Side issue (2): If as Scott suggests, people are unable to reach reasonable practical conclusions on scientific issues, how in God's name do you expect them to reach reasonable practical conclusions on meta-physical issues? If the public can not figure out scientific questions when science is supported by a vast array of observable evidence such as apples falling on your head with a certain velocity and acceleration, how can the public possibly be expected to figure out a philosophical debate.
Philosphy is much harder than science, because wrong science fails (cold fusion) and right science prevails (Einstein will live or die on the verdict of perfect spheres). Philosphy requires reason and reason alone to distinguish fact from fancy. That is infinitley harder than science. If the public can not figure out science, I'm pretty confident that they can not figure out philosophy either.
Instead of science being replaced by philosophy, science will get replaced by feelings. Feelings are manipulable. They may feel good for a time, but they will fall hard when reality rears its ugly head.
An exhausted good night,
John
P.S. If any poor sould has read this far, including Roger or Jeff, could your offer an opinion on whether or not I made a lick of sense? I willing to be considered dead wrong, missing the point, etc. And I know I'm annoying, dismissive, etc. But am I incoherent as well?
Let's take one step back. I try to avoid comments about motivations or what positions you hold or believe. I try to deal with your words. So, when you say:
That seems to conflict with:
But rather than argue about about whether that conflicts with a prior post, let us move on from there. How does one go about "refin[ing] their science versus bullshit detectors"? What tools does one use to evaluate whether somebody is peddling snake-oil? If it isn't by becoming an expert on elixirs, then the logical fallback is to evaluate the arguments of the salesman. And that is where Adams' point comes in. The arguments of many Darwinians frequently fail even the simplest logical tests. I.e., they aren't credible. Now what?
And since the demarcation problem has puzzled great philosophical minds for centuries, what makes you think the average Joe can make any useful progress on his own? You say you aren't obssessed about ID v. Darwinism, but are more concerned about science v. non-science. But it seems you are at least implying that ID falls in the latter category. But the demarcation test you proposed seems to be significantly flawed, as was Elizabeth's.
So, what would you teach High Schoolers about what is science vs non-science? If you can make a case that holds up, and implicates ID as non-science, then ID might be useful as an example to show HS students what non-science is. But I don't seem to see that test from you or most other Darwinians. I see only the claim that ID is non-science, or demarcation tests that fail even simple analysis.
So let us focus not on ID v. Darwinism, but science v non-science.
Missing links Proponents of Intelligent Design have exploited a vexing question at the heart of Darwin's theory. Now, say two leading biologists, scientists can - and must - answer back.
And what are Kirschner and Gerhart trying to communicate:
Now this is interesting. I've been involved in this debate for several years, and this claim is 100% in accord with what I've been arguing, along with people like Behe, and opposed to the arguments made by many Darwinists. This isn't a matter of "effective communications", despite what Alberts says, but apparent confusion about what their principled position really is. I've given many opportunities to Darwinists to climb on that bandwagon, and they would have none of it.
As to their proposed mechanism of "facilitated variation", that seems to conflict with the "random with respect to fitness" dogma that Darwinists have claimed for years. I'll reserve judgement until I've gotten the book and read it. I've heard it said both that mechanism is explained, and that it isn't. I get the impression that it may be similiar to Punctuated Equilibrium in this regard, that it remains a description of what we see more than an understanding, but again, that is offered in ignorance of the book itself.
Another point:
Again, supporting the arguments made by Darwinian critics. That such a major flaw should be a "favorite target" of critics, creationsist or otherwise, would seem to be a compliment to the perceptive skills of the critics, and an argument against the credibility of the Darwinian defenders who failed to acknowledge weakness of Darwinism in this regard, but merely claimed the critics did not "understand" the power of RM&NS, or were being deceptive.
I bought a copy last night and am reading it now (well, not NOW, but you know what I mean). I'll have more to say in a day or two whether I think it adds anything.
Work overloads have kept me away from Dean's world. In case you are as crazy as I am and check back on this topic, I will continue to populate this private Idaho of our own.
Quoting you:
What tools does one use to evaluate whether somebody is peddling snake-oil? If it isn't by becoming an expert on elixirs, then the logical fallback is to evaluate the arguments of the salesman.
We agree that you can not become an expert on elixirs, the universe, and everything in it. Instead you become an expert on detecting the underlying patterns. I do not need to read beyond the first paragraph of a Dembski piece to recognize what Elizabeth describes as "inkblot". The inkblot is there for a purpose, and it is valid cause for dismissing the whole. Have you ever been suckered on the Atlantic City Boardwalk into voluntarily(!) giving up your money? Have you ever been suckered into investing in fine art, or real estate, or penny stocks, etc. by someone expert at separating you from your money? You learn to recognize the signs; you don't need to be expert on each scam.
You again:
And that is where Adams' point comes in. The arguments of many Darwinians frequently fail even the simplest logical tests. I.e., they aren't credible. Now what?
Now what? NOW WHAT?! You search for new explanations, that's what! You develop new scientific theories or flesh out old ones. You most certainly DO NOT throw up your hands and say "God did it". That question of yours represents the fundamental divide between us. That you can offer it in support of your position demonstrates a fundamental difference between how I think and how you think.
A little more from you:
And since the demarcation problem has puzzled great philosophical minds for centuries, what makes you think the average Joe can make any useful progress on his own?
And we're back to "What I said!"
As I have said, the demarcation problem is a philosphy problem, way harder than the evolution problem. I do not expect Average Joe to solve this by himself. Especially not in grammar school or high school. I would prefer not to attempt teaching demarcation at this level. I would simply teach the evolution science, including any problems and failures. I am open to using ID as an example of non-scientific thinking, but I beleive that discussion is too complicated. Have you got a teenager in high school? I also believe that ID proponents would scream bloody murder at that use of ID.
Some questions:
What demarcation test that fails simple analysis did I propose?
Why do I have to demonstrate that ID is "non-science"? (Which I believe has been done in several threads here already.)
Why don't you present me with a sets of scientific evidence and hypotheses and consequences and predictions which makes ID a legitimate object of scientific inquiry.
In conclusion, I feel that we are going in circles. Perhaps we are doomed.
We got to this page by talking about the arguers of the argument and the receivers of the argument. Now you are demanding that I prove ID is not science. I.e., you are demanding a resolution of the argument.
I feel that is circular on your part. When confronted with the assertion that ID is not science, you shift to arguments about how it should be taught anyway, it is just as valid as science anyway, the people can't tell the difference anyway, maybe it is science anyway, the proponents of both sides are whores anyway, blah, blah, blah. Then when discussing why ID should not be taught anyway, and discussing the nature of the argument, you return to demanding that Darwinsits prove that ID is not science. Make up your mind. If you wish to debate the science or nonscience nature of ID, then go back to the non-Scott Adams threads, and answer Elizabeth. I firmly believe that you have no legs to stand on there. If you really wish to dent my thick headed opposition to your view, then start by convincing me and Elizabeth that ID is science. Everything else flows from there. Despite appearances, I have been known to change my mind.