Evolution vs Creationism

[AngryAnt]

Just some questions: is the search for intelligent life in the universe falsifiable? It is considered science and millions are spent doing it. How do you suppose they are going to detect putative alien intelligences?

That's an easy one.

SETI is really an experiment (not a theory) that looks for evidence of intelligent alien life (evidence SETI defines as radio signals) from a small part of the universe (defined as the area of space from which SETI could conceivably detect such radio signals). So the falsifiable theory that SETI tests is there is intelligent alien life that uses and transmits radio signals in our tiny corner of the galaxy that coincides with our own time of existence and our capability to detect such signals.

SETI cannot test for alien life that exists beyond our own corner of the galaxy, or that does not transmit radio signals, or that has existed at other times in the history of the universe when we were not looking for them. So SETI is testing a falsifiable theory that has clearly defined boundaries. If SETI doesn't find an "intelligent" radio signal, this doesn't disprove that intelligent alien life exists - merely that this intelligent alien life doesn't fulfil the necessary criteria to make it detectable by the means SETI uses.

 

[AngryAnt]

Demonstrate the evolution of a multicellular differentiated organism from a bacterial colony. Show an actual traceable lineage in the fossil record that changes from one kind to another. Demonstrate the 'unassisted' formation of life from chemicals. Demonstrate the evolution of a completely new complex characteristic never before seen in an organism. Any thing along those lines.

So you are arguing that the falsifiable component of your "scientific" theories of ID or Creation is any concrete evidence of evolution? That's a very dangerous game for you to be playing Djevy

 

[Djevv]

That's an easy one.

SETI is really an experiment (not a theory) that looks for evidence of intelligent alien life (evidence SETI defines as radio signals) from a small part of the universe (defined as the area of space from which SETI could conceivably detect such radio signals). So the falsifiable theory that SETI tests is there is intelligent alien life that uses and transmits radio signals in our tiny corner of the galaxy that coincides with our own time of existence and our capability to detect such signals.

SETI cannot test for alien life that exists beyond our own corner of the galaxy, or that does not transmit radio signals, or that has existed at other times in the history of the universe when we were not looking for them. So SETI is testing a falsifiable theory that has clearly defined boundaries. If SETI doesn't find an "intelligent" radio signal, this doesn't disprove that intelligent alien life exists - merely that this intelligent alien life doesn't fulfil the necessary criteria to make it detectable by the means SETI uses.

Ok pretty good answer. How does it know an 'intelligent' radio signal when it hears one?

 

[Djevv]

So you are arguing that the falsifiable component of your "scientific" theories of ID or Creation is any concrete evidence of evolution? That's a very dangerous game for you to be playing Djevy

I don't think there is much danger of falsification. But its certainly possible. I put it in those terms because in terms of simplicity evolution is clearly a superior theory. Any of those would be fatal to creationism, as science anyway.

You could argue irreducible complexity is a falsification criteria along the lines of what you said re SETI. ID predicts it may occur if ID is operational, science can verify or falsify any claimed IR. Doesn't falsify the whole idea though.

 

[AngryAnt]

Ok pretty good answer. How does it know an 'intelligent' radio signal when it hears one?

That's also a good question and I don't know the answer except to say that "we'll know it when we find it". I'd imagine any radio signal that is regular in some way, or contains a mathematical sequence or encoded information, or some other signal that we can't explain from known "natural" sources of radio signals might be considered to have come from an intelligent source.

Probably a good time to remind you though that in science, a theory is a generally accepted consensus supported by a range of sources/experiments and empirical evidence, and a hypothesis is something that has not yet been "proven" in that sense - so I'd say that SETI is trying to test the hypothesis that intelligent alien life exists, is nearby, uses radio signals etc.

 

[Djevv]

That's also a good question and I don't know the answer except to say that "we'll know it when we find it". I'd imagine any radio signal that is regular in some way, or contains a mathematical sequence or encoded information, or some other signal that we can't explain from known "natural" sources of radio signals might be considered to have come from an intelligent source.

Probably a good time to remind you though that in science, a theory is a generally accepted consensus supported by a range of sources/experiments and empirical evidence, and a hypothesis is something that has not yet been "proven" in that sense - so I'd say that SETI is trying to test the hypothesis that intelligent alien life exists, is nearby, uses radio signals etc.

They are looking for transmitted information. In other words intelligent design. Science does recognize it, in this context anyway. Information theory says coded information only ever comes from an intelligent source. Apply that to DNA and well.....makes you think.

 

[AngryAnt]

I don't think there is much danger of falsification. But its certainly possible. I put it in those terms because in terms of simplicity evolution is clearly a superior theory. Any of those would be fatal to creationism, as science anyway.

And here's the crux of it - if you argue that Creation as described in Genesis is a scientific theory, I can disprove it - as I can provide a lot of empirical evidence that the universe has been around a lot longer than 5000 years (for example).

But if you say "oh that part of it is allegorical" or "God faked the old rocks to trick us" or "even so God did create everything despite the messy timelines" I will say, ok, that's your belief, it's not falsifiable, therefore its not scientific, and I cannot disprove it with science.

And so it is with ID - you say "an eye is irreducibly complex and this is evidence of an Intelligent Designer" - even though I can show you organisms with photo receptive cells, and other organisms with rudimentary eyes, and then animals with increasingly complex eyes. But you can then say "yeah but this is not evidence of evolution, an ID just created all those different designs at the same time in different animals". At which point I throw up my hands and say OK, your "theory" of an intelligent designer is not falsifiable, not scientific, and therefore I can't disprove it.

By the way, the wing is not even a good example of irreducible complexity.

 

[AngryAnt]

They are looking for transmitted information. In other words intelligent design. Science does recognize it, in this context anyway. Information theory says coded information only ever comes from an intelligent source. Apply that to DNA and well.....makes you think.

That's an interesting misdirection but again a tired one.

Information theory actually states no such thing and ties in quite nicely with molecular codes and modal selection in ecology. Evolution, mutation, natural selection explain very well the complexity of information contained in DNA. Proponents of ID often claim that there can be no mutative increase in information, only a reduction, but this is a facile misapplication of the the second law of thermodynamics. It's a false comparison to compare information contained in human language or algorithms to the "information" in DNA.

Again, you fall for the "complexity must equal an intelligent designer" fallacy.

 

[Djevv]

And here's the crux of it - if you argue that Creation as described in Genesis is a scientific theory, I can disprove it - as I can provide a lot of empirical evidence that the universe has been around a lot longer than 5000 years (for example).

You just attempted falsification of an unfalsifiable theory! This turned me off YECism. But they claim it is a work in progress. Fair enough lots of models have their problems.

But if you say "oh that part of it is allegorical" or "God faked the old rocks to trick us" or "even so God did create everything despite the messy timelines" I will say, ok, that's your belief, it's not falsifiable, therefore its not scientific, and I cannot disprove it with science.

I think don't think the interpretation of ancient literature is an exact science.

And so it is with ID - you say "an eye is irreducibly complex and this is evidence of an Intelligent Designer" - even though I can show you organisms with photo receptive cells, and other organisms with rudimentary eyes, and then animals with increasingly complex eyes. But you can then say "yeah but this is not evidence of evolution, an ID just created all those different designs at the same time in different animals". At which point I throw up my hands and say OK, your "theory" of an intelligent designer is not falsifiable, not scientific, and therefore I can't disprove it.

By the way, the wing is not even a good example of irreducible complexity.

I think eyes evolved in around 50 separate lineages. I gave falsification criteria. This could mean any number of things one of which is naturalistic evolution.

 

[Streak]

Ok pretty good answer. How does it know an 'intelligent' radio signal when it hears one?

Don't know, but it undoubtedly knows that Kylie Minogue singing the locomotion is an "unintelligent" radio signal.

 

[AngryAnt]

You just attempted falsification of an unfalsifiable theory! This turned me off YECism. But they claim it is a work in progress.

Which is therefore not science right? I have no issue with people choosing to believe in Creation, but just don't claim it's science. It ain't.

I think don't think the interpretation of ancient literature is an exact science.

It's not a science. It's a discipine of the humanities, which is fine, but it's not science. Right?

I think eyes evolved in around 50 separate lineages. I gave falsification criteria. This could mean any number of things one of which is naturalistic evolution.

Sorry, not following you on this.

You said before "You could argue irreducible complexity is a falsification criteria along the lines of what you said re SETI. ID predicts it may occur if ID is operational, science can verify or falsify any claimed IR. Doesn't falsify the whole idea though."

Can you rephrase?

 

[Djevv]

That's an interesting misdirection but again a tired one.

Information theory actually states no such thing and ties in quite nicely with molecular codes and modal selection in ecology. Evolution, mutation, natural selection explain very well the complexity of information contained in DNA. Proponents of ID often claim that there can be no mutative increase in information, only a reduction, but this is a facile misapplication of the the second law of thermodynamics. It's a false comparison to compare information contained in human language or algorithms to the "information" in DNA.

Again, you fall for the "complexity must equal an intelligent designer" fallacy.

I certainly do think DNA is coded information. It codes for every teleological looking function in a cell. It builds from a master plan in its self a multicellular organism of staggering complexity. I've even seen DNA expressed in terms of Giga-bytes as well. Do you know of coded blue prints that are the result of 'noise'? Where does the information come from?

Complexity = ID is certainly a fallacy, but this is specified complexity, encoded complexity with a meaning and purpose?Surely this is what SETI is looking for!

 

[Djevv]

Which is therefore not science right? I have no issue with people choosing to believe in Creation, but just don't claim it's science. It ain't.

I don't agree, a model is allowed to have problems. I think in principle it is falsifiable. There are issues in evolution too. Even with things as fundamental as the tree of life. You can also modify a model and not throw it out all together.

It's not a science. It's a discipine of the humanities, which is fine, but it's not science. Right?

Yes I agree. But this is religion not science. Im talking science. Yes you can interpret Genesis differently. Mind you you interpret genesis differently you get a different model. Again I gave my criteria. They are independent of how you interpret Genesis.

Sorry, not following you on this.

You said before "You could argue irreducible complexity is a falsification criteria along the lines of what you said re SETI. ID predicts it may occur if ID is operational, science can verify or falsify any claimed IR. Doesn't falsify the whole idea though."

Can you rephrase?

Science is able to investigate and falsify claims of IR.

OK thats me for a while. Gnight!

 

[KnightersRevenge]

If 'phlogiston', 'spontaneous generation', 'vital force' and 'epicycles' are part of the science course, the creationism deserves its place. I think it is a bit amusing that people think creationism is 'unfalsifiable' given how much verbiage on the net is dedicated to exactly that.

This is a self-defeating argument isn't it? Each of these have been scientific theories in their own time. Creationism isn't part of this continuum of discarded science and as such it has no place. You seemed to me to be suggesting a chronology of scientiftc thought in which creationism was an accepted contemporary scientific explanation of biology that was displaced by Darwin's (and Wallace's) evolution. To my knowledge this is not the case. As I said this argument can be made for the creation myth but then it wouldn't be science and so would have no relevence to a science class. Your response doesn't address this.

 

[Djevv]

This is a self-defeating argument isn't it? Each of these have been scientific theories in their own time. Creationism isn't part of this continuum of discarded science and as such it has no place. You seemed to me to be suggesting a chronology of scientiftc thought in which creationism was an accepted contemporary scientific explanation of biology that was displaced by Darwin's (and Wallace's) evolution. To my knowledge this is not the case. As I said this argument can be made for the creation myth but then it wouldn't be science and so would have no relevence to a science class. Your response doesn't address this.

To my knowledge there was also Lamarkism and 'great circle of being' , but Special Creation was there as well as a scientific theory overturned by Darwin. I mean evolutionary ideas were there but were not dominant because up until Darwin there was no change mechanism. Even Darwin himself had no knowledge of genetics and believed in a form of Lamarkism. Special Creation was a theory and did make predictions, namely that no species ever changed significantly. It was wrong. Can't see any problem in saying that in a science class. You can't say it isn't science if it makes predictions and can be (and was) falsified.

 

[Djevv]

To CT if he is still about. Just to get off this thread, which takes an inordinate amount of time and after a fair bit of thought on the matter. I think YEC is actually science and makes testable predictions based on their young Earth model some of which have been falsified (remember Moon dust?). I think it is capable of falsification but only by direct experimentation which i have mentioned. I think it has made some successful predictions which I have also mentioned. Other creationism such as TE and ID don't do as well and are not really falsifiable. If you want further thoughts on this please PM me.

If you were thinking of a form of creationism you could present favorably as science in class - YEC is the only candidate I can think of.

 

[evo]

I certainly do think DNA is coded information. It codes for every teleological looking function in a cell. It builds from a master plan in its self a multicellular organism of staggering complexity. I've even seen DNA expressed in terms of Giga-bytes as well. Do you know of coded blue prints that are the result of 'noise'? Where does the information come from?

Complexity = ID is certainly a fallacy, but this is specified complexity, encoded complexity with a meaning and purpose?Surely this is what SETI is looking for!

"Meaning" and "purpose" are human constructs, much the same as "beauty" or "good". They aren't inherent, so to speak.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

To my knowledge there was also Lamarkism and 'great circle of being' , but Special Creation was there as well as a scientific theory overturned by Darwin. I mean evolutionary ideas were there but were not dominant because up until Darwin there was no change mechanism. Even Darwin himself had no knowledge of genetics and believed in a form of Lamarkism. Special Creation was a theory and did make predictions, namely that no species ever changed significantly. It was wrong. Can't see any problem in saying that in a science class. You can't say it isn't science if it makes predictions and can be (and was) falsified.

In what way was "special creation" a scientific theory? In post-Inquisition Europe I imagine there was much of religious doctrine that went unquestioned and as such the divine explanation was predominant but I can't see how it was scientific? It didn't so much predict as suppose the fixed nature of biology due to its having been divinely created. It may have been a theory but it was hardly a scietific theory.

 

[Coburgtiger]

To CT if he is still about. Just to get off this thread, which takes an inordinate amount of time and after a fair bit of thought on the matter. I think YEC is actually science and makes testable predictions based on their young Earth model some of which have been falsified (remember Moon dust?). I think it is capable of falsification but only by direct experimentation which i have mentioned. I think it has made some successful predictions which I have also mentioned. Other creationism such as TE and ID don't do as well and are not really falsifiable. If you want further thoughts on this please PM me.

If you were thinking of a form of creationism you could present favorably as science in class - YEC is the only candidate I can think of.

Thanks Djevv,
Clearly there is a lot to be considered. I appreciate your responses, along with everyone else's.

 

[Azza]

People need to get a grip. Just because you find something testable by sifting through all the desperate creationist ideas doesn't mean it should be in the biology curriculum. Stand back a moment and think about what's being proposed. The stories that you happen to believe in, made-up/borrowed by an ancient tribe, should be taught in biology classes? Come on.

The only way creationism should get anywhere near a science classroom is as a warning against the corruption of science and the science curriculum by vested interest.