Stephen Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell" lucidly covers several of these. Here I will provide several overall conclusions of my own on the subject:
We cannot perceive function without at least rudimentary intelligence. Is that a more basic activity than enacting or adapting a function? Probably so. Detection and identification are likely a magnitude of order simpler than systems creation and startup. Thus more complex systemic activities like sensory feedback, information application/enhancement, and enlisting/prescribing of functions are likely prerequisites for evolution to occur.
I differ some with Stephen Meyer some: Memory, i.e., backpropagated feedback or recursive import/impetus from other events, could supply directional bias though admittedly not the original information framework needed for upwardly complex as opposed to cycling biological progress. Without it, new information arrives in a meaningless manner as countless windfalls from 'nowhere'. We also see the routine arrival of statistically improbable fortuitous twists thru repeated functional confluences in the fossil record- in the form of elaborately enhanced, intricately applied new information. Is upward impetus or a dreamy-eyed catalyst at work?
On the other hand, multiple outcomes and survivor bias chained together with every conceivable possibility played out through innumerable, branching realities would create multiple and some very special universes. We have no framework for tracing all finite possibilities yet, so theory involving such multiverses remains more metaphysical than ID and evolution. In a strictly sequential cause-effect universe, you can only get ever increasing complex functions by the interaction of useful developments or experience in some form of information feedback loop, not through accumulative incremental change alone, since functions are network-constrained, systemic solutions.
One profound ID finding: 3.5 billion years isn't enough biological time; it's either ID, or evolution in the multi-universe sense. So, does the mind envisaged in ID evoke a sense of timelessness, or does evolution have a mind of its own?
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Has Science Been Sheltering Evolutionary Theory?
Proper tact should come as second nature to any avid hypothesis tester. For one, I wouldn't mix in astringent discounters in debate with surface commentary. For eg., I often read evolutionists writing, "There are no ID hypotheses." Also, statements such as "There is no ID theory, period" litter anti-ID comments. What amounts to the drumhead approach is simply bombastic, overbearing, and uni-disciplinary. It could even be shooting one's ability to extrapolate discussions in the foot. This is because uses of the term theory are varied in science, applied to even propositional explanations and low-level modeling. This is seen to all but undergraduates. Narrowly circumscribing theory for intelligent design is uncalled for. I see it as some what (sic)- basically a smear issued out of creationist spite!
Evolutionists are being so parochial without being religious! They are getting blind-sided, shooting their own intellectual scientific efforts in the foot. Theory and hypothesis testing should be what science is about, not the worship and exploitation of naturalism!
Now let's get down to business: ID is teleology, not theology. Someone can't spell. It is no more theology than evolution is metaphysics; yet, ID is less esoteric. It firmly clings to technical distinctions drawn into its argument; formal definitions are an integral part of its logic and organization. Most ID critics on A. Books avoid such vigorous incisiveness. In the strictest sense, historically speaking, macroevolution explanations typically use analogy for logical support, since assertions often go untested, at least in terms of the foundational scientific exercise of hypothesis testing.
My claim here is not that evolution lacks evidence. Relatively small changes have been observed, but that's like constructing a web by pl(a)ying with LEGOs. Nothing comparable to the level of the fossil record's tree and branches results; just a crude outline. It's my blue Jeans (depressed single mothers, deploring missing 'Gene') hypothesis. It's also the paleontologist's view versus the geneticist's.
Shall we be so cheeky as to equivocate purpose with motive to speak of lies? "No evidence!" and "No theory!" then are among the evolutionist's best: weak arguments prompted by blissful ignorance, willful blindness, and myopic impudence. More professional and honest would be any tempered extreme, for eg., "There's always evidence, just not good evidence."
Evolution shows evidence of being old and crusty as a theoretical construct. It is broad and general enough to warrant ever more diverse elaborations and extensions. Even lay persons toy with it, manipulating it in linguistic use as a concept, analogy, and rubric. And its scientific feature set has been significantly altered over the years. The last point is actually voicing alarm, not criticism; the next point is a criticism, however: Evolution is often used exclusively as a thesis (as it is used in history) in technical and scientific writing, and in this manner it has seen much more application than as a theoretical tutor or judge for hypothesis testing. I am talking about the social sciences; here it is being used as a thesis for packaging research, not as a theory guiding it. It has waxed into a more generalized concept referring to broadly construed developmental changes of any type and nearly waned into household cliche', losing some logical distinctiveness and linguistic usefulness along the way. Hasn't history demonstrated a less grand unified theory would be more scientific-better for hypothesis testing? Like esoteric Marxist theory, has it no operationalized models or theorems to test?
I classify evolution as a pattern theory based on the way it receives anecdotal inclusion in scientific research reports. With metaphors and analogues arrived at for illustrative purposes after the data has been gathered, it is often used to paint findings, not guide them in an exercise of what to look for and how to interpret it-used in tandem. Causal-oriented models demonstrate a more continuous reference to theory at least in my experience. The notion of cause itself is a more direct premise, constituting a flow line demonstrated throughout the conduct of research and shown in the activity of report writing!
I think ideological and conceptual developments made to the theory of evolution subsequent to Darwin carried us askance from causal inference instead of towards it embracingly in the social sciences. What of the physical sciences?
Evolutionary theory has been subjected to remarkable sequential revisions. And these changes include rather drastic alterations and additions made to the internal mechanisms of the theory. Every 30 years or so, evolution gets a make-over of dramatic revisions to correct what I maintain are long-forestalled corrections to its categorically denied flaws. Changing it's name would allay a host of problems. Evolution's updates are to the point now that the theory does not appear or function as evolution in the classical Darwinian sense any more, except to its single-minded idealistic luminaries: neonates, loyalists, and antiquaries.
No wonder ID proponents and others have taken issue with certain aspects of the original theory as well as these subsequent updates! Using typical evolutionists' after-the-fact logic, ID gets blamed for its inadequacies in 'blame the critic for all the town's ills' fashion and gets farmed out as religion. It's happening protect established positions and leaders or to maintain the initial placard of bigotry set out typically by wider society against newcomers and outsiders in America.
Discount ID's criticisms of evolution out of hand in a libelous manner? It's a far more useful position in terms of discussing socio-cultural issues to take the tact that there is no genuine macro-evolutionary theory and see what happens- simply poke around like many a diagnostician! Evolution in an applied societal sense frequently appears religious. At times, it even looks like simple ideology wrapped in worship- considered above reproach, held untouchable and unassailable like an icon, sacred relic or time-worn liturgical utensil. At minimum, the theory carries a traditionally assigned, compelling scientific status. This is in spite of its showing some evidence of erosion. In addition, it is nonempirical in several areas, routinely passing through theoretical muster while using untested and in some cases untestable propositions (at least, in terms of hypothesis testing). Here still, I am essentially connecting the dots in what I consider to be areas I am most knowledgable in, evolution in the social sciences. This includes anthropology, my specialty.
Is ID not theory? The term "theory" is applied to scientific models that generate hypotheses that CAN be tested, not to models that hold a track record of having been tested and yielding supportative, valuable findings. If theories' underlying hypotheses first have to be comprehensively tested before they could have the designation as theory assigned them, then they would be mere social devices, not the inductive and predictive technical guides they really are. They would also constitute fly-paper for hypotheses more than the catapults for ideas they really are!
Here's the real reason ID is assaulted: It competes with Evolution, a theory being 'shorn up'. Over time, evolution has evolved from the cause-effect model Darwin proposed it to be to a pattern-elaboration one it is used nowadays in actual practice. This is actually understandable, for evolution has had to be used in this way due to its sweeping scope, particle reductionism, and intractible hypothesis testing status. It has exhibited a strong incapacity for hypothesis testing to be accomplished with it. Maybe testing lengthy multivariate events on such a grand, sequential time scale is a futile exercise. Popper had a fit once over the atypicality of this theory.
Evolutionists at times present a decidedly overfocused view of theory, implying a capital 'T' as in Grand Theory when discussing ID. It's narrowly applied, thus contrived, overspecified definition. Maybe it's the act of using a reserved, populist view for the political purpose of enacting an invective against ID. Dumping diatribe on my bandwagon once more, some highly specialized, ad hoc, contrived definitions are being used to weigh ID in the prejudiced accounts. Yes indeed, I hold this social viewpoint very religiously! So slip me over into the religious book section p(r)etty please!
If only related groupings of successfully tested hypotheses are allowed to constitute legitimate scientific theory, then certain mechanisms and various aspects of evolutionary theory make it fail the same test, at least as Smokey has defined it here. I think it is an overly elaborate definition of theory he has suggested here.
Theory as a general construct for scientific methodology and testing is a far cry from the particularized coverage given here by Smokey. Still, we cannot explain such complex matters to grade school children, so such highly resolved views can have some social merit: This one appears an awe-inspiring embellishment of a vital scientific concept made of simple scientific jargon, apparently to instill admiration for science in grade schoolers.
Is this the kind of scientific coverage that gets used against ID by proponents of evolution? Yes, I think so. Is it also being done for purposes of curriculum control in our elementary schools? Are grade school teachers the ones in control, making ID a special case? I hope not. Then it would basically constitute a process of mixing innocent overspecifications in with a few lazy inaccuracies to fill the educational goals of some interest group. I think other similarly defined terms are being used to heap insincere and inequitable social ridicule and defamation on ID.
Once again, I have frequently stated that evolution's more arrogant proponents are consistently imprecise in their handling of definitions and inaccurate in terms of their language. They tend to be spiteful. I attribute the spiteful tendency to schools of thought attempting to maintain traditional distinctions and a sense of intellectual confidence, spilling over into pomposity and overconfidence. Thus the status quo can be disadvantaged. Evolution's foundational rhetoric often incorporates a single-minded, confidence-assertive approach based on a group of highly repetitious, traditions/platitudes for purposes of self-assurance and even self-aggrandizement in its neonates. This is the historical process of responsible scientific professions working at their optimal best.
Is a successful track record of predictions needed in order to qualify as a theory? Maybe famous and traditional ones. Is that what evolutionists' mean by theory? No test of successful or superior adaptation to a particular niche has been established longitudinally in evolution. And without IDing superior adaptations, there's no tracking progress upward. Without operational (measurable) definitions of them taken from past experience, we simply have no benchmark except superficial complexity for future tracking of meaningful biological progress on any scales that would allow humans to directly observe it. Is evolution a sheltered theory?
Evolutionists are being so parochial without being religious! They are getting blind-sided, shooting their own intellectual scientific efforts in the foot. Theory and hypothesis testing should be what science is about, not the worship and exploitation of naturalism!
Now let's get down to business: ID is teleology, not theology. Someone can't spell. It is no more theology than evolution is metaphysics; yet, ID is less esoteric. It firmly clings to technical distinctions drawn into its argument; formal definitions are an integral part of its logic and organization. Most ID critics on A. Books avoid such vigorous incisiveness. In the strictest sense, historically speaking, macroevolution explanations typically use analogy for logical support, since assertions often go untested, at least in terms of the foundational scientific exercise of hypothesis testing.
My claim here is not that evolution lacks evidence. Relatively small changes have been observed, but that's like constructing a web by pl(a)ying with LEGOs. Nothing comparable to the level of the fossil record's tree and branches results; just a crude outline. It's my blue Jeans (depressed single mothers, deploring missing 'Gene') hypothesis. It's also the paleontologist's view versus the geneticist's.
Shall we be so cheeky as to equivocate purpose with motive to speak of lies? "No evidence!" and "No theory!" then are among the evolutionist's best: weak arguments prompted by blissful ignorance, willful blindness, and myopic impudence. More professional and honest would be any tempered extreme, for eg., "There's always evidence, just not good evidence."
Evolution shows evidence of being old and crusty as a theoretical construct. It is broad and general enough to warrant ever more diverse elaborations and extensions. Even lay persons toy with it, manipulating it in linguistic use as a concept, analogy, and rubric. And its scientific feature set has been significantly altered over the years. The last point is actually voicing alarm, not criticism; the next point is a criticism, however: Evolution is often used exclusively as a thesis (as it is used in history) in technical and scientific writing, and in this manner it has seen much more application than as a theoretical tutor or judge for hypothesis testing. I am talking about the social sciences; here it is being used as a thesis for packaging research, not as a theory guiding it. It has waxed into a more generalized concept referring to broadly construed developmental changes of any type and nearly waned into household cliche', losing some logical distinctiveness and linguistic usefulness along the way. Hasn't history demonstrated a less grand unified theory would be more scientific-better for hypothesis testing? Like esoteric Marxist theory, has it no operationalized models or theorems to test?
I classify evolution as a pattern theory based on the way it receives anecdotal inclusion in scientific research reports. With metaphors and analogues arrived at for illustrative purposes after the data has been gathered, it is often used to paint findings, not guide them in an exercise of what to look for and how to interpret it-used in tandem. Causal-oriented models demonstrate a more continuous reference to theory at least in my experience. The notion of cause itself is a more direct premise, constituting a flow line demonstrated throughout the conduct of research and shown in the activity of report writing!
I think ideological and conceptual developments made to the theory of evolution subsequent to Darwin carried us askance from causal inference instead of towards it embracingly in the social sciences. What of the physical sciences?
Evolutionary theory has been subjected to remarkable sequential revisions. And these changes include rather drastic alterations and additions made to the internal mechanisms of the theory. Every 30 years or so, evolution gets a make-over of dramatic revisions to correct what I maintain are long-forestalled corrections to its categorically denied flaws. Changing it's name would allay a host of problems. Evolution's updates are to the point now that the theory does not appear or function as evolution in the classical Darwinian sense any more, except to its single-minded idealistic luminaries: neonates, loyalists, and antiquaries.
No wonder ID proponents and others have taken issue with certain aspects of the original theory as well as these subsequent updates! Using typical evolutionists' after-the-fact logic, ID gets blamed for its inadequacies in 'blame the critic for all the town's ills' fashion and gets farmed out as religion. It's happening protect established positions and leaders or to maintain the initial placard of bigotry set out typically by wider society against newcomers and outsiders in America.
Discount ID's criticisms of evolution out of hand in a libelous manner? It's a far more useful position in terms of discussing socio-cultural issues to take the tact that there is no genuine macro-evolutionary theory and see what happens- simply poke around like many a diagnostician! Evolution in an applied societal sense frequently appears religious. At times, it even looks like simple ideology wrapped in worship- considered above reproach, held untouchable and unassailable like an icon, sacred relic or time-worn liturgical utensil. At minimum, the theory carries a traditionally assigned, compelling scientific status. This is in spite of its showing some evidence of erosion. In addition, it is nonempirical in several areas, routinely passing through theoretical muster while using untested and in some cases untestable propositions (at least, in terms of hypothesis testing). Here still, I am essentially connecting the dots in what I consider to be areas I am most knowledgable in, evolution in the social sciences. This includes anthropology, my specialty.
Is ID not theory? The term "theory" is applied to scientific models that generate hypotheses that CAN be tested, not to models that hold a track record of having been tested and yielding supportative, valuable findings. If theories' underlying hypotheses first have to be comprehensively tested before they could have the designation as theory assigned them, then they would be mere social devices, not the inductive and predictive technical guides they really are. They would also constitute fly-paper for hypotheses more than the catapults for ideas they really are!
Here's the real reason ID is assaulted: It competes with Evolution, a theory being 'shorn up'. Over time, evolution has evolved from the cause-effect model Darwin proposed it to be to a pattern-elaboration one it is used nowadays in actual practice. This is actually understandable, for evolution has had to be used in this way due to its sweeping scope, particle reductionism, and intractible hypothesis testing status. It has exhibited a strong incapacity for hypothesis testing to be accomplished with it. Maybe testing lengthy multivariate events on such a grand, sequential time scale is a futile exercise. Popper had a fit once over the atypicality of this theory.
Evolutionists at times present a decidedly overfocused view of theory, implying a capital 'T' as in Grand Theory when discussing ID. It's narrowly applied, thus contrived, overspecified definition. Maybe it's the act of using a reserved, populist view for the political purpose of enacting an invective against ID. Dumping diatribe on my bandwagon once more, some highly specialized, ad hoc, contrived definitions are being used to weigh ID in the prejudiced accounts. Yes indeed, I hold this social viewpoint very religiously! So slip me over into the religious book section p(r)etty please!
If only related groupings of successfully tested hypotheses are allowed to constitute legitimate scientific theory, then certain mechanisms and various aspects of evolutionary theory make it fail the same test, at least as Smokey has defined it here. I think it is an overly elaborate definition of theory he has suggested here.
Theory as a general construct for scientific methodology and testing is a far cry from the particularized coverage given here by Smokey. Still, we cannot explain such complex matters to grade school children, so such highly resolved views can have some social merit: This one appears an awe-inspiring embellishment of a vital scientific concept made of simple scientific jargon, apparently to instill admiration for science in grade schoolers.
Is this the kind of scientific coverage that gets used against ID by proponents of evolution? Yes, I think so. Is it also being done for purposes of curriculum control in our elementary schools? Are grade school teachers the ones in control, making ID a special case? I hope not. Then it would basically constitute a process of mixing innocent overspecifications in with a few lazy inaccuracies to fill the educational goals of some interest group. I think other similarly defined terms are being used to heap insincere and inequitable social ridicule and defamation on ID.
Once again, I have frequently stated that evolution's more arrogant proponents are consistently imprecise in their handling of definitions and inaccurate in terms of their language. They tend to be spiteful. I attribute the spiteful tendency to schools of thought attempting to maintain traditional distinctions and a sense of intellectual confidence, spilling over into pomposity and overconfidence. Thus the status quo can be disadvantaged. Evolution's foundational rhetoric often incorporates a single-minded, confidence-assertive approach based on a group of highly repetitious, traditions/platitudes for purposes of self-assurance and even self-aggrandizement in its neonates. This is the historical process of responsible scientific professions working at their optimal best.
Is a successful track record of predictions needed in order to qualify as a theory? Maybe famous and traditional ones. Is that what evolutionists' mean by theory? No test of successful or superior adaptation to a particular niche has been established longitudinally in evolution. And without IDing superior adaptations, there's no tracking progress upward. Without operational (measurable) definitions of them taken from past experience, we simply have no benchmark except superficial complexity for future tracking of meaningful biological progress on any scales that would allow humans to directly observe it. Is evolution a sheltered theory?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)