Miller’s meanderings: only the same bogus contentions

Post Reply New Topic

Firstly, educated scientists can sometimes know that induction and causality are not entirely valid, but rather they can take the whole matter in a Popperian or semi-Popperian manner, which is to say that we theorize and these theories predict and/or fail to be disconfirmed by the evidence. I say "semi-Popperian" because reasonable scientists and philosophers/historians of science recognize that no great theory gets thrown out because of a problem in one observation, particularly given that this one observation could possibly be explained away later in many circumstances.

The rule about direct observation really doesn't matter so much given that scientific explanations of reality are often still considered science, just not laboratory science. Such a rule that all science must be laboratory science would outright exclude a lot of social scientific inquiry, as well as cosmology, geology, etc. The problem is that such a rigidity of definition just makes no sense, as the logical method of inquiry bears some similarity to actual science, and the knowledge used has overlaps with laboratory science. I wouldn't necessarily call this the same as "origins science" although I can see how a creationist might, but given that economics, sociology, and anthropology cannot have a laboratory component, but are not origins, I think the labeling scheme is obviously flawed.

Now, I would probably disagree somewhat with Lewonton's skepticism (and I wouldn't even know his context, as anybody could say anything in any context to make any point.)

Even further, I would also tend to agree with the naive view "follows the evidence wherever it leads", but that's because I think my view is correct, and also because I think that despite the flaws and problems, generally science does this and to some extent, I'd bet the biases likely make science better than the robots. The fact that creationists are open about their bias does not make them more honest though.

David Hull's statement doesn't really help Sarfati's point as far as I can see.

Todd's statement also doesn't prove anything, because we also know that most of the data points away from an intelligent designer. He's just being consistent to a set of philosophical presuppositions. Even then though, what he says wouldn't matter because scientists are philosophically naive and no one scientist determines the path of all science.

I don't see the use of examples of evolution in progress to be a bait-and-switch either, or even improper. I mean, no, these don't literally prove evolution, but they certainly show that evolution is a really great explanation, and possibly can be used to show that it is the best explanation that we have.

Thanks for actually reading and replying to the content of one of my posts AG, I'll get back to you later when I am more able to return the favor.

Yes, but just remember, I do this STRIDENTLY.

I know I shouldn't respond, but oh well...

The problem with dismissing these arguments as "straw men" is that Miller is arguing against what many creationists actually believe. There is no real authority or consensus in the Creationist/ID movement on a lot of issues, and there are major figures in the movement who do promote all sort of nonsense. You cannot prohibit honest people from responding to that nonsense by saying that to do so would be a "straw man."


Wow, just wow. There are mountains of evidence for evolution. A "conjecture?" It is far, far beyond the level of conjecture. It is a major paradigm in the field.


Disclaimer: I have not read Miller's book, so I cannot vouch for specifics in it, as much as I would generally trust Miller. The idea that "only naturalism is science" really is correct, though, as science is the attempt to understand natural phenomena. I highly doubt that the technicalities of his arguments have been even close to refuted by ID proponents, but without specifics I can say no more.


Well... Miller is a Christian. A lot of biologists are, and even among non-religious biologists there is usually no desire to attack Christianity. Unless you're going to posit that anyone who disagrees with one particular interpretation of Scripture is not a "true Christian," you have to accept that Miller really is an honest Christian.


OK. So? That's to be expected; the only opposition to evolution is ideologically driven by a specific subset of religious people. Fewer religious people in general also means fewer religious people who adhere to any given interpretation of Scripture, including the ones that mandate opposition to science.


Except that there are a great many Christians who accept evolution.


ID is repackaged creationism; there is no serious argument to be made here. I mean, you might claim that it is a slightly different branch of creationism, but it is still creationism.


It's not just the number of chromosomes, the homology between human chromosome 2 and the two chimp chromosomes which appear to have fused into it is quite remarkable and makes little sense from a "common design" standpoint.


I have seen Christian apologists employ a similar argument, and I don't see what's so terrible about it. Something that seems so unlikely that the possibility should be dismissed out of hand can nonetheless be true. My existence is incredibly unlikely, as is yours, and as is any given individuals. And yet I don't argue that the chances that iamnotaparakeet are so remote that I don't believe he could ever have existed; rather, I observe that you do exist. How do I explain the fact?


If you want to see a straw man, this is it. Failing to focus on non-coding DNA has nothing to do with accepting evolution.


That is more just a refutation of the "irreducible complexity" argument, by showing that less complex forms are still functional.


The general ad hoc nature of creationism is unfalsifiable. The specific claims made are, in many cases, falsifiable.


Right... because changing our beliefs in response to contradictory data is a bad thing. It's always better to close our eyes and cover our ears, and just pretend that as long as we ignore data it doesn't affect us.


I have no idea where he's going with aliens. I must have missed the part where he listed a testable prediction of ID.

Is there one that applies to life as we know it on this planet?


Well, the design argument has typically been employed only when evolutionary biologists are still working on understanding the specifics of a naturalistic explanation (although not always, Behe sometimes forgets to check the literature before publishing on irreducible complexity).


The issue here is that if you posit a perfect Designer, you have to have an explanation for obviously sub-optimal designs. Evolution provides cogent explanations for these.

Once again, I refuse to bother dealing with Woodmarappe's aliens.


Ok then, I will be more precise for Miller: all ID contentions that have been put forth thus far are discredited. The main leaders in the movement have been discredited and show to be woefully ignorant of the science.


Undermining our education system is no trifling matter. Important research is hindered and delayed by this type of nonsense.


All we really use of Linnaeus is his nomenclature; the taxonomies he constructed were completely made up with no evidence to support them. And taxonomies make a lot more sense from the evolutionary perspective when you look at it as an extended family tree.


Undermining science has far-reaching consequences.


How is it irrelevant? The only advocates of design are Biblical literalists. There are none who oppose evolution except those who are ideologically driven to do so by their commitment to Biblical Literalism. I don't see any possible way for you to get around that simple empirical fact.


Except that it is convincing to everyone who has studied the evidence in detail.


HA HA HA!

No, they really aren't.


No, they really won't. There have even been studies done on this, and it is pretty well-supported that people are quite willing to oppose truths that they do not like.


There we go, I knew he would have at least one true statement in this polemic. It is only tangentially relevant to the question of "why is there opposition to evolution if it is such a well-supported theory?" and that is an argument that creationists often bring up.


That actually depends on theology, as some branches of Christian theism allow for an element of chance (and several allow for free will, which basically requires that many things be unplanned). To deny the existence of stochastic processes seems far-fetched to me.


The scientific debate is over; that is what you must recognize. Some evolutionary biologists will take their case to the public because they must counter the claims of Creationists. The reason the Dover ruling is seen as significant is because a conservative Republican Bush appointee who has absolutely no reason to be biased against creationism soundly rejected it. That is a crushing defeat.

... oooOOOOAAAAAHHHHH!! !!


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmzYR4IQ_kM[/youtube]

With this, I agree. Good on you for acknowledging that prior to the rest of your composition.

Yeah, that's very true actually. I even know some very smart people who won't accept things if they disagree with other ideas they like.

Orwell will make up his own mind, but I think that to dismiss a well-reasoned answer in this way is offensive. After this, I have very little respect for you.

That's just keet's MO. Use sarcasm or veiled insults to dismiss any opposing arguments, and shortly thereafter to turn around and cry about ad hominems if anyone says something he finds vaguely offensive.

And what I meant by "I shouldn't respond" is that it would be futile to do so because of the nature of the other person in the discussion.

I'm just tired after arguing so long. Everyone gets cranky after so much effort attempted and so much crap received. Take offense if you like, but take it elsewhere.

Wrong, for the most part I am willing to argue points, such as with AG and previously Gromit, but I'm currently tired of you and your attempted appeal to authority and claiming that I'm not capable of understanding. I am sick of you, for now anyway. Perhaps if I become an emotional masochist I'll get back in the fray with you, but not until you drop the activities such as the blatant insults against me personally. Maybe my perspective is just skewed due to all the random argumentation aside from you assisting me to be cranky, but I just don't want to deal with it as I think it is more than just mere perception on my part.

Technically, I've made the same "appeals to authority" (I say it like this to distinguish between the inductive appeal and the deductive fallacy) and believe that opponents of evolution generally are not capable of understanding it. (to be fair, lay proponents are also not really capable)

I've linked you to that article (titled "would you like fries with that theory?") half a dozen times and won't do so again, but appealing to a legitimate, recognized authority is not fallacious. And my assertion that you do not understand the subject is not a slur or an insult; it is just a fact. Look, I've been studying biology intensively for the past four years, and I have barely scratched the surface of all that is known in the field. I will continue studying it in depth for at least the next six years, and even then, after a decade devoted to understanding biology, I will still have a very long way to go. You cannot just pick up a book and suddenly be an expert in a field. And there is nothing wrong with being unable to understand a field; I do not now (and probably never will) understand enough climatology to meaningfully evaluate the evidence of global warming. Trying to understand these kind of subjects is a lot like this comic. People want to learn the grand overarching theory, but unlike the character here most fail to realize that there actually is a significant amount of background work that must be done first.


My first response in this thread did not contain any insults, and there weren't even any statements directed at you personally (I may have used the rhetorical "you" once or twice).

Evolution, creation and explanations topic

Keet is one of those rare persons who can espouse a Creationist belief in which he has actually thought about it. This is a rare stance to take, and it appears he is sincere about it, without malice aforethought and hidden agendas.

Nevertheless, I find the creationist credo a simplistic explanation for a rather exponentially complex topic. By this I mean that scientific answers do change over time as more evidence is discovered. The creationist answer is one frozen in time,(non-evolving!) and thus does not improve and remains stagnated in a murky primeval soup. Such an explanation leaves me unsatisfied and for good reason. For example, there are more than two galaxies, according to recent research. There may be a billion or more of these huge starry clusters out there. It boggles the mind. Hence I can see why many ordinary people find creationism a satisfactory explanation for hugely diverse phenomena, but is a position that leaves me unconvinced.

You told AG:

That's what Orwell did, too. He read and replied to the content. I have seen comments directed at you that I think are crap, but I can't remember one from Orwell and I can't find crap in the post you dismissed. The closest Orwell came to a personal attack on Woodmorappe was when he laughed at the claim that I was surprised that you let this pass without comment. It is an an appeal to the majority, a fallacy in deductive reasoning. Of course, in induction it is not a fallacy if you can show that people's reasoning is unbiased and independent. Reasoning is not unbiased when people find a (possible) truth repugnant. If you don't believe me, I think I can find references for you. I will search if you pledge not just to ignore the point but either to refute it or to acknowledge that Orwell is right to object.

Appeal to authority is also not a fallacy in inductive reasoning if it can be demonstrated that the authority being appealed to really is better at predicting things. That can be tested. It is Orwell's contention (and mine, and AG's) that biologists are better at making correct predictions regarding biological matters than most laypeople. There is also an incentive to show everyone else is wrong. That makes a false consensus by following the crowd less probable. That's why the consensus of relevant authority is worth including when you engage in probabilistic reasoning. And that kind of reasoning is what you have to use when you deal with the empirical sciences. The propositional logic you like so much is not enough.

Here is a final thought: you keep posting articles that you appear to see as persuasive argument and evidence in favour of creationism, but you have a history of ignoring counterarguments unless you think you can refute them. What about all the stuff you don't know how to answer? Do you remember the ten arguments you posted for a young Earth, with the first being about comets? I spent some time writing a refutation about just that first one and asked for your reaction. I never saw one. Did I miss it, or did you ignore it? If you ignored it, why should I believe an argument you are not willing to defend? Much more importantly, if you can't defend the argument, why do you believe it? Could it be that you trust Sarfati and other authors associated with CMI but not Orwell or me? If you trust them but not Orwell or me, even though you can't evaluate their arguments enough to defend them, what is the basis for your trust if not an appeal to authority? If you really think appeal to authority is crap, think carefully about whether you have done the same.

Yes, there wasn't anything in his first post in this thread in particular. It's across multiple threads previously to this and I'm just not going to deal with him anymore.