xFrockx said:

But particular patterns of combinations being more likely than others might skew the odds a bit.

---

Qubit said:

johnm214 said:

and what does any scientific theory strive to be but a useful way of describing our observable world?  That's not really a drawback, its the pinnacle of achievment.

---

Right, people looking for the truth in science will inevitably be disappointed and disillusioned.  Even if god came to the earth and physically told us that evolution did not happen, and he put all fossils in the earth intact - evolution by natural selection would still be the scientific theory because evolution would still make testable, qualitative and quantitative, descriptions and predictions that the theory of 'god put them and us there' cannot make.

---

xFrockx said:

Apparently you can't read either.  I said I know about science.  Your little foray into deductive argument is just a straw man.  In my sentence, science is the object of my knowing, it would be totally stupid to say I knew all of science, that's not even possible given its constant development.  Maybe you need to understand that not all people who can be critical of scientific theories are religious wingnuts with an appetite for the gestalt and no knowledge of scientific method.  Read some William James or something.  You're so thick I think I'll risk a retaliatory rating just for you.  Learn to read before arguing philosophy.

Oh, your argument is also invalid, completely, let me drag this out for you:

  "Science is the search for objective truth, so claiming that you know science is like claiming that you know objective truth, which you don't."

1.  Science is the search for objective truth
2.  Knowing science is knowing objective truth
3.  Knowing objective truth is impossible
Therefore, knowing science is impossible.

The problem is #2, you say that science is the SEARCH for objective truth, and rightly so, but you claim that to know science is to know objective truth ITSELF.  How can you say that science is, on one hand, objective truth itself, and on the other, the search for objective truth.  Oh wait, you can't, try again.

---

Gotta comment on that: 

Qubit said:

Quote:

If evolution were falsifiable then instead of looking for evidence which supports the theory people would look for evidence which denies it.

---

And thats exactly what evolutionary biologists do... 

Nobody gets prestige by finding yet another piece of evidence that substantiates the theory - prestige is gotten by overturning the existing theory.

---

Qubit said:

That has nothing to do with what I posted, everyone knows thats popper's definition of science, what is your point?

---

Qubit said:

Bottom line: If I got news today that there was a biosphere with species just as earth's out in the cosmos, with our geological record still intact, that would falsify natural selection as the mechanism for evolution.  There would have to be something else...

---

Qubit said:

But of course natural selection is the keystone of the theory of evolution by natural selection; despite what your carefully crafted, ad-hoc, personal definition of evolution stated at the beginning says.

I tire of this debate, I have seen you post it in various forms for a while now and from my vantage point you get owned every time (even with your home court advantage).  But Im sure you see the outcomes differently... anyway, keep it up man. 

---

*I* get owned?    That's rich.  You have evidence for that claim?  Of course not.  Which debate have you seen in various forms?

Everyone knows that natural selection is the cornerstone of evolution.  The key word is 'natural'.  Natural as opposed to intelligent agency.  The grand hypothesis of Darwin was that life could have evolved without the interference of a Creator.  If you'd like I can produce some handy quotes from Chuck myself.

So, after xfrockx's claim that if PSR (principle of sufficient reason), i.e. causation, which is the central tenet of science--in other words if PSR falls so does science--we are left with only two choices:

Nature did it or an intelligent agency did it.  Since science cannot entertain an intelligent agency,  evolution is not falsifiable, which means it isn't science.

I'm waiting for a reasoned counterclaim to that statement.  So far, nada.



Rebuttal anyone?

Quote:

Nature did it or an intelligent agency did it.  Since science cannot entertain an intelligent agency,  evolution is not falsifiable, which means it isn't science.

---

I don't think it's necessarily some dogmatic rule that science cannot entertain an intelligent agency - the point is that without visible (or detectable through any sense apart from metaphysical speculation) proof of a supernatural entity or program design outside of our experience, it does not entertain that agency.

The unfalsifiability of evolution in your sense is really only a product of this philosophical undetectable unnatural force you've posited. If it were detectable or natural, science could make theories about it, but here you've said that it's neither and that naturalistic observations are thus in a sense faith-based.

Of course any material theory can be falsified by examining new material or the same material in a different light. Evolution could thus be falsified upon discovering the intelligent designer, but of course since science is talking about what is observable the design would have to be observed. It's not quite fair to claim that an ultimate immaterial design will forever be out of our grasp, since you're theorizing based on the same reality science works with while limiting its scope to observable forces - demonstrable relationships - like Nature, which is a vague term that yet doesn't blast things out to speculative dimensions exploited by power-hungry religious institutions. Nature we can observe, though it is a powerful force that obviously holds sway over much of our lives, whose beautiful design may as well be called intelligent.

We can learn more about currently questionable specifics of natural selection and speciation from enhanced observation and better hypotheses, and find that by learning more some of our past conceptions will have been falsified. Why insist on a supernatural force that in its very "super-nature" precludes us from incorporating it into an understanding of life and the universe?

zannennagara said:

Quote:

Nature did it or an intelligent agency did it.  Since science cannot entertain an intelligent agency,  evolution is not falsifiable, which means it isn't science.

---

I don't think it's necessarily some dogmatic rule that science cannot entertain an intelligent agency - the point is that without visible (or detectable through any sense apart from metaphysical speculation) proof of a supernatural entity or program design outside of our experience, it does not entertain that agency.

---

This depends on which branch of science we are talking about.  Certainly forensics, archeology, SETI, etc all posit an intelligent agency.  Only biology precludes it.  We all know why.  Teleology, depending on how it is defined, is verboten in natural science:

Quote:

As a school of thought it can be contrasted with metaphysical naturalism, which views nature as having no design or purpose. Teleology would say that a person has eyes because he has the need of eyesight (form following function), while naturalism would say that a person has sight because he has eyes (function following form).

---

zannennagara said:

The unfalsifiability of evolution in your sense is really only a product of this philosophical undetectable unnatural force you've posited. If it were detectable or natural, science could make theories about it, but here you've said that it's neither and that naturalistic observations are thus in a sense faith-based.

---

Precisely.  Let no one say they can get one by you.   

zannennagara said:

Of course any material theory can be falsified by examining new material or the same material in a different light. Evolution could thus be falsified upon discovering the intelligent designer, but of course since science is talking about what is observable the design would have to be observed. It's not quite fair to claim that an ultimate immaterial design will forever be out of our grasp, since you're theorizing based on the same reality science works with while limiting its scope to observable forces - demonstrable relationships - like Nature, which is a vague term that yet doesn't blast things out to speculative dimensions exploited by power-hungry religious institutions. Nature we can observe, though it is a powerful force that obviously holds sway over much of our lives, whose beautiful design may as well be called intelligent.

---

We are told by the high priests of evolution - speaking of power-hungry religious institutions - that design is observed but merely apparent.  It isn't actual design.  Of course this is horseshit as evidenced by the bacterial flagellum.  The flagellum isn't an "apparent" motor, it is a motor.  A motor that can revolve up to 100,000 revolutions per minute and stop within a quarter turn.  A motor for which only 10 of its 40 parts can be found, anywhere.  It isn't like a machine, it is a machine.

zannennagara said:

We can learn more about currently questionable specifics of natural selection and speciation from enhanced observation and better hypotheses, and find that by learning more some of our past conceptions will have been falsified. Why insist on a supernatural force that in its very "super-nature" precludes us from incorporating it into an understanding of life and the universe?

---

ID theorists, including myself, are not insisting on supernatural forces.  We are insisting on intelligent agency.  There is a world of difference.  If biology would allow science the same freedom it has in, say, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

In sum, biological science has precluded intelligent agency by definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Quote:

3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Quote:

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Quote:

In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. ...  Scientific fields are commonly classified along two major lines: natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life)....

---

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html

Quote:

How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

---

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science

Quote:

1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

---

Since biology has restricted itself to natural causes for life, and cannot be falsified because of it, evolution fails to be science.

zouden said:

If aliens appeared tomorrow and said 'we designed you, and here's how' then evolution would be disproved. QED.

---

  Bingo!  Nicely done.

Of course some would bring up the matter of infinite regress, but since we aren't talking about that it would be imprudent to bring it up now.

Quote:

I think they'll nod politely, then ask you to leave as they have important work to do.

---

zouden said:

I don't see how this proves your point. Are you concerned that current biology doesn't accept the notion that perhaps aliens created all life on earth? Do you think that biologists should consider that scenario when dealing with evolution research? How about you suggest that to them. I think they'll nod politely, then ask you to leave as they have important work to do.

---

xFrockx said:

Science on the other hand, explains the connections between natural phenomenon, like evolution, and those explanations can be shown wrong.

---