DIYbanter - View Single Post

wrote:

SNIP

A more apt analogy would be the modern working *scientist*
the overwhelming majority of whom feed at the public
trough. This is once of the principal sources of the
intertia in the science establishment IMO.

That could become true if the 'science establishment'
backslides to the point where it must placate the
'religiosu establishment' to avoid a fiery demise tied
to a stake.

Hey, if the science establishment wishes to not be
under the scrutiny of populist politics (which I think
we both agree damages science) it ought to find private,
voluntary funding for both research and schools.
Then no elected school board could dictate much of anything.

_might be_ correct. Scientists do not determine the correctness
of theory by argument alone, They require physical evidence
and THAT Mr Daneliuk is one of the most important features
that distinguishes science from metaphysics.

"Physical Evidence", huh? Well ... some of that is
pretty tenuous "evidence" arrived at by abstract modeling
and induction upon the slightest physical hints. The whole
Big Picture of evolution hinges on a lot of inductive steps
far removed from physical evidence. I cited one such
example previously: There is no direct physical evidence
showing a jump from lower- to higher biocomplexity. This
step is inferred from what physical evidence does exist.

Moreover, Science and Metaphysics both proceed from
undemonstrable starting points. They both assume their
foundational methods to be reliable and correct. There
is no a priori way to show one as better or more correct
than the other except, possibly, by means of utilitarian
arguments. Metatphysics too requires "evidence" just
not apparently of a sort your willing to grant has equal
status with "physical evidence".

SNIP

The fact is that the central theory of modern biology gets
short shrift at best in almost all the public schools.

Uh .. pretty much *all* thinking get short shrift in
public schools - they're *public* which means that by
their very nature their first allegiance is to
political forces and secondly to the NEA...

The fact that anyone *dares* to now question it
hardly demonizes it. Your level of bunker mentality here
rivals the Evangelical Fundamentalists who also believe
that they are the downtrodden and oppressed in these
matters.

You, for example, are not merely 'daring to question'
evolutionary biology. You accuse 'the science establishment'
in general and in particular editors and peer reviewers
of supressing papers, claiming the motive for this
conspiracy is 'adherance to scientific orthodoxy'.
I daresay demonization is apt.

That's not exactly the emphasis of my accusation. My
emphasis is that the science establishment, faced
with a political environment (public school) has appeared
to be running from the fight rather than confront it.
It makes some of us wonder just why. I do not attribute
any particularly Machiavellian motive to this at all.

SNIP

"Intelligent Design" is just a reformulation of Creationism
in which the Creator "guides' the evolution of species rather
than creating them directly by divine will. It is pretty

That's not exactly the case. Some versions of "author"
theories accept evolution as a mechanism, some do not.

But that doesn't change the fact that the esential element
of each is "God did it".

The essential elment of the *metaphysics* is "God did it",
but this is not necessarily presupposed in the scientific
claims of such theories - at least some of them. Moreover,
Science ought to remain completely mute to the statement
that "God did it" because it has nothing to offer in either
support or refutation. Whether the Universe operates by
magic, having sprung forth from a burst of smoke from
Nothing Whatsoever, or is the product of a creating God
involved in His creation at every quanta is not a question
Science can remotely address. This does not keep a good
many Scientists from treating Theists like idiot children.

"Intelligent Design", like all theologically based philosphical
constructs rests on the premise of some sort of divine
intervention.

Again, you are overstating a strawman. The proponents of ID are
theologically motivated, without question. But they assert that their
*claims* are rooted in science. Why is it so painful to give them the
hearing necessary to refute at least the scientific components of their
claims? I do not get the visceral objection to this that you and others
in the community of scientists seem to have.

Asuming for the moment that ID papers are being rejected, why
is it so hard for you to believe that they are being rejected
because they do not rise to the objective standards of the
journals to which they have been submitted.

Because I have read/heard far more ad homina commentary from
people defending establishment science than I have seen/heard
thoughtful refutation. This may be a knowledge problem on
my part. So, if you can direct me to a clear refutation of
ID that points out why it has no merit being considered as Science,
I'm all eyes ...

You seem to be saying "So what if the paper may be a bad paper, how
could it hurt to publish it." Publishing a bad paper hurts plenty
and that is why journals have peer review.

Oh c'mon. There are plenty of lousy or marginal papers published
in all manner of Scientific journals. Sometimes this happens
by accident, sometimes because the claims of the writer are
sufficiently opaque that it needs wider peer review.
Putting an ID paper on "trial" in a journal like "Nature" would
be good for everyone involved. It would require the IDers
to get their story clear and to the poing scientifically, and
the critics could line up to take their swing at it.

Don't you think that the people suing school boards would sieze
upon the publication of any paper, no matter how bad or how
thoroughly disproved and present it as proof of an issue in
controversy?

The IDers are desparate to get a paper referring to GOD published
becuase they want to use it as a means of forcing religious
teaching back into the public schools.

Again, the foul here is having public schools in the first place.
This is a debate much like the one about the Plege Of Allegiance.
These problems disappear when we quit abusing taxpayers to pay
for schools and let parents figure out which schools they
wish to fund themselves. This would also have the salutary
effect of elimination the anti-knowledge madrassas found in
most major universities's humanities and social science programs.

In my opinion, this visceral objection is not driven by science per se
but by the regnant personal philosophy of many people within the
community. A good many scientists are self professed atheists and/or
agnostics. It just kills them to consider the possibility that
the discipline to which they clung as a sole source of knowledge
may in fact be better served by means of metaphysical considerations.
So, they retreat to "Not on *my* watch, this isn't really science,
etc."

I daresay that is the sort of approach you typically label
"ad hominem". However, I will point out that there are legions
of scientists who believe in God and practice a variety of religions
who also regard ID as unscientific.

I would be grateful for a cite here.

I think we've pretty much beat this to death and will leave the last
word to you on the matter. I do appreciate the civil tone you've
maintained throughout...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/