Paranoia - Ben Stein - Evolution & No Intelligence FOUND

[_Moniker]

Actually, the name mentioned was 'Critical analysis of evolution'.

It's mentioned right at the end of this presentation by Ken Miller (start at 100 mins to see the 'Critical analysis bit...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjv ... re=related

by the way - this presentation is great! I really recommend watching the whole thing...

Ah! Cool! Thank you! I will watch it. I had tentative plans tonight... then blew them off...

So, what else do I have to do but watch youtube videos about ID? Weeeeeeeeeeeee

[_Ren]

Anyway, I started reading a board a few months back with a lot of debate in it. But it was so bogged down with nonsense I didn't get a lot out of it. So I've been looking at websites to try to better understand precisely what their criticisms are. Yet, if they start out with misstating what evolutionary theory is to begin with I sort of zone them out.

Probably the most consistent and 'solid' criticism they've come up with has been irreducible complexity. While I think they've failed (and if you do manage to make it through that Ken Miller presentation - you'll see why in there...), I think it would be fair to say that the 'problem' proposed by Behe - and the ID camp - has stretched science in answering the question. It certainly made me think a little harder about some of the details...

...although saying that, 'Irreducible complexity' is not really much more than a re-packaging of one of Darwin's own proposed falsifications back in 'Origin Of a Species' - so not all 'that' impressive. But still - credit where credit is due :)

The only thing I found really interesting in what I linked is the paranoia... it reminded me a bit of Coggies (blink) and other people I've come across that get rather excited about it.

I think you're right about the paranoia :)
To some people, evolution means 'anti-God', and there is no dissuading them.
These same people also seem to have the same misconceptions about evolution:

* That it's all 'blind, random chance'
* That it's like a whirlwind hitting a bunch of timber, nails and cement and suddenly a house popping into existence...
* That for evolution to be true, we'd need to see a genetic mutation that created a 'new species' in 'one hit'. (Literally, people actually believe this is how evolution is proposed to work...! No wonder they can't quite believe it...)

etc. etc.

So, what else do I have to do but watch youtube videos about ID? Weeeeeeeeeeeee

Could there be anything better?!
Hmmmm............ Actually, don't answer that please :D

[_asbestosman]

Actually, the name mentioned was 'Critical analysis of evolution'.

It's mentioned right at the end of this presentation by Ken Miller (start at 100 mins to see the 'Critical analysis bit...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjv ... re=related

by the way - this presentation is great! I really recommend watching the whole thing...

I thought it was interesting at the beginning it was mentioned that scientists not only do not consider Intelligent Design to be a scientific theory, they do not consider it to be a scientific topic. I guess my Michelson-Morey comparison isn't all that apt after all from a scientific perspective. I'd think that criticism is a legitimate part of science. Maybe the criticisms just aren't very apt. I'll grant that none of the particular examples so far (blood clotting, flagellum) have particularly good. So perhaps what they mean is that there are no current objections to evolution that have any merit. Perhaps that could change if the opposition could provide a good example of something that changed too fast for evolution to have occurred. However, it would be tricky because we can't currently see all the possible paths that genes could take. That said, we might not have to know all possibilities if there are good scientific reasons to place a bound on the fastest evolution expected with current models. Maybe that wouldn't disprove evoltuion, but it would at least disprove some of our current models.

[Guest]

I thought it was interesting at the beginning it was mentioned that scientists not only do not consider Intelligent Design to be a scientific theory, they do not consider it to be a scientific topic.

...can you give us a time reference? (It's not literally at the beginning...)

I remember that some way into the presentation, Ken talks about the 'collapse' or 'death' of ID at Dover (in his opinion and perception). I think he described it as a scientific 'idea'.

How could it 'collapse' or 'die' as a scientific idea if it was never a valid one in the first place...?

[_Sethbag]

I think they'd have to propose a rigorous, mathematical model demonstrating the impossibility of evolution for some particular set of genes. Without a rigorous, mathematically provable theory, they won't be able to prove that evolution "couldn't have happened".

So far their claims consist of what I call the "boggle theory", that is, "we don't understand how it could have happened, so it must have been God", and claiming a lack of evidence, ie: "there's no missing link found between these two states, therefore one cannot have evolved into the other."

The irreducible complexity idea is probably the closest they come to a rigorous model, but it falls well short when it becomes merely a cataloguing of things they claim couldn't have evolved. These are "intuitive" attempts at disproving evolution. The problem is that intuition isn't acceptable as a standard of proof in science. That's why their ID arguments aren't properly even a scientific topic. If they want to move their claims into the realm of a proper scientific topic, they need to get rigorous and then define and prove a mathematical model that can disprove evolution as a possibility.

[_Moniker]

Ren, I only watched about half last night. I'm sure it will consume my time this evening. :)

So far their claims consist of what I call the "boggle theory", that is, "we don't understand how it could have happened, so it must have been God", and claiming a lack of evidence, ie: "there's no missing link found between these two states, therefore one cannot have evolved into the other."

That's what I see as well.

[Guest]

The irreducible complexity idea is probably the closest they come to a rigorous model, but it falls well short when it becomes merely a cataloguing of things they claim couldn't have evolved. These are "intuitive" attempts at disproving evolution. The problem is that intuition isn't acceptable as a standard of proof in science. That's why their ID arguments aren't properly even a scientific topic.

Actually, I'd say you've got to give them a little more credit than this. (Not a whole lot more, but a little bit more).

They didn't just claim 'This thing couldn't have evolved', and then leave it at that. They made a very specific claim. They claimed 'Irreducable Complexity' to be a very specific, objective catagorisation, that could be described thus:

'If any single part is removed from the 'system', then the system ceases to function'.

That's not the exact wording (and the exact wording is quite important actually - I'll take some time later and look the exact wording up, but anyway...) If this idea was in fact correct, then it would very much challenge our notions of evolution, because evolution relies on small, incremental changes.

The trouble isn't with the framing of the question. If an organism which is proposed to exist due to evolutionary process COULD be demonstrated to be irreducibly complex, then it would be devastating to the ToE. Even Darwin said so.
The problem isn't with the challenge. The problem - for ID-ers - is with the reality of the situation. ID-ers - at the Dover trial - constantly went on about the bacterial flagellum as THE example of an 'Irreducibly complex' organism. They bought it up time and time again.

...and yet Ken Miller and co. simply demonstrated that the bacterial flagellum was NOT irreducibly complex. There can be no argument about it. Take away one part, or in fact as many parts as you like - take away whole chunks of it - and it still functions. It does 'different things', but it still functions.
The same idea is destroyed in relation to blood clotting - with REAL examples from the natural world.

All that is somewhere around the middle of the presentation I linked to. (Can't remember where exactly...)

[_Ren]

OK - go to 39:30 in the presentation for the bits about Irreducible Complexity...

Ren, I only watched about half last night. I'm sure it will consume my time this evening. :)

If you don't enjoy it as much as I did, then you aren't as sad as I am!

[_EAllusion]

I'm looking forward to seeing this film actually. (Has it already come out in the U.S.?)

I'm guessing it will demonstrate two things:

1. Most scientists don't view ID as legitimate science. (Which would be accurate)
2. Some scientists put up 'unreasonable' resistance to the very idea of ID. (Which has happened to every other truly 'ground-breaking' idea in the history of science).

I'm guessing many will promptly add 2 and 2 together to make 5.

It purports to demonstrate that dogmatism and personal biases has unfairly closed academia to a powerful scientific view known as Intelligent Design and has resulted in systematic persecution of IDists. This will be accomplished through the tried-and-true technique known as lying.

[Guest]

I recently heard that the name 'Intelligent Design' is being phased out, and the name 'Rational Criticism of Natural Selection' - or something like this, is replacing it for this very reason...

For purposes of teaching scientific creationis....err Intelligent Design in schools the new tactic is to favor teaching "critical analysis of evolution" or a close variant like "teaching the contraversy over darwinism". Those criticisms are a code-word for the anti-evolution component of ID arguments. Instead of explicitly making a case for a creator, that's left more as a wink. It's a transparent wink, but a wink nonetheless. It's the next step in trying to get around first amendment constraints after their recent legal defeats. There's a textbook ready to go to implement the strategy. It's called Explore Evolution. (http://www.exploreevolution.com/). Here is a sample page from it: (http://www.exploreevolution.com/pdf/peek_inside_1.pdf) Notice that has students design a mock lung, then immediately make an implied case against the evolution of the avian respiratory system. *wink*

The history of creationism has involved continual repackaging driven by legal defeat. (See Ronald Numbers extensive history of the movement called The Creationists.) This appears to be the next, pardon the pun, evolutionary step - the new line in the sand.