Ben Stien's new movie EXSPELLED

Your idea about what science has to do before it can truthfully assert is totally bogus, because well before that point we can predict with great certainty the outcome, and also those people who accept YEC will outright reject any fact no matter how concrete.

T
K
O

Let's suppose for a moment that one day science is able to demonstrate the natural occurrence of some conponent of, or direct precursor to, DNA in a process that is known to occur in nature without direct human intervention.

At that moment one could truthfully assert that the theory of evolution, with all of the ample evidence that supports it, applies both to the creation of life on earth and to its evolution into the various species which we can observe.

...Science could "truthfully assert." I say it's bogus because we can make that assertion quite comfortably now. The evidence has an asymptotic behavior, and it's leading us to the universe and all life in it being of natural means, and we aren't finding any of God's fingerprints or any unicorn hoof-prints on the way.

Lastly, YEC stands for "Young Earth Creation(ists)." What your "moment" would provide would be truly profound however, I have no doubt that despite this, groups such as the YEC would reject outright these findings as being the nail in the coffin you know it to be.

I hope that clears it up.

T
K
O

Oh really ? There are lots of folks here arguing that science has indeed excluded any possibility of intelligent design in the creation of life on earth. Are you suggesting that they don't understand how science "works"? I suspect they would object.

I agree with all of that, and am a good deal more than merely fully aware of it. Sadly, I have found that these basic ideas all fall on deaf ears on this thread. Indeed a recitation of them often produces overwrought, intemperate condemnations, worthy of the most earnest Bible-thumpers they so eagerly condemn, and animated by emotions that leave one wondering .... why?

Well it does clear it up. However, there is no principle of science that I know of that treats conclusions suggested by the evidence, but not yet proven or even demonstrated by it, however much the evidence may be argued as "asymptotic" by some proponent, as anything but a speculation.

The fact is chemists are still a very long way from demonstrating the spontaneous or even natural evolutionary development of a DNA molecule. The logical basis for the theory of evolution, as it applies to self-replecating species or organisms, is both sound and complete. That is as yet far from the case for the chemistry of DNA. It may well one day be demonstrated, but the fact is we are far from it today.

More importantly, and closer to the central point of my earlier post, is the complete failure of physics to provide a scientifically meaningful description of our origins, or our fate. The scientific path from the singularity to the cold, dark extinction (or the Big Crunch, depending on which view is in fashion) is remarkably well defined, but the end points are a void -- more and more they appear to be intrinsically beyond science. That, of course is not a failure of science, merely one of its limits. That's where God lives.

Finally, you seem to think that for evolution to accurately describe the history of life (that happens after abiogenesis/whatever you think started life on earth), it must accurately explain how life started in the first place. However, this is a bit of a silly idea: we know that life exists, we know it's been around for a very long time (billions of years), and given our knowledge of its general history, make a good picture of it.

I believe this expresses the essence of your many and varied arguments on this point. Just a little contemplation or an application of the underlying principle to another situation reveals the emptiness of your claims of logical consistency. You appear remarkably eager to dismiss or denigrate ideas you don't agree with or hold - an appetite that I don't share. What motivates it?

georgeob1 wrote:

Well it does clear it up. However, there is no principle of science that I know of that treats conclusions suggested by the evidence, but not yet proven or even demonstrated by it, however much the evidence may be argued as "asymptotic" by some proponent, as anything but a speculation.

Your use of these terms ("proven") makes me wonder about your scientific background... engineering is, after all, applied science and recording results, is it not? There are indeed sometimes different considerations concerning conclusions supported more directly by the evidence than implicitly, although consistent support found indirectly for an idea is often better than a couple direct observations.

A speculation, though? No, that's not how it works: speculations are not confirmed by evidence. The idea of dark matter, for example, for which there is no direct observations, has been repeatedly supported by varied observations as being implied. When all observations make it look like there's Dark Matter out there, it tends to convince scientists, including astronomers.

Well here's an example for you to consider. 19th century physicists accepted the conventional notion of an ubiquitous "luminiferous aether", the medium through which light (then known to be a wave phenomenon, one supported by ample evidence) from the sun and stars passes in reaching observers on earth. No one had ever directly detected the aether or any other effect of its presence, apart from its necessary effect as the medium through which light waves pass. The existence of the aether was necessary to reconcile the ample known data confirming the wave nature of light and the simple fact of the observation that light from the sun and stars reaches the earth through the otherwise emptiness of space. There was no evidence whatever denying the possibility of the otherwise undetected aether, and, as indicated, it was necessary to fill a logical gap in extant theory and observation.

Diest would have surely affirmed that science was converging on the "asymptotic truth" of the aether. No evidence denied it; extant theory required it. Later, when the dual nature of light was established, the aether, now no longer needed and still undetected, passed quietly from the scene. Had it been a scientific "fact" or "finding" ? No, instead it was simply a speculation, masquerading as conventionally accepted theory -- theory that, despite numerous reasons for doubt, went unquestioned by most scientists for a long time. Indeed many vociferously denied the alternate theories when they first appeared.

With all this in mind, I find your dismissive attitude towards ideas that appear to contradict your prejudgements (whatever they may be in total) rather odd & inconsistent -- indeed, unscientific.

More remarkably you go on to question my scientific background, though, to my recollection, I haven't claimed any special expertise here. What might be yours??

Actually, I find much of it very satisfying: I am sort of a scientist by education (PhD Engineering - fluid mechanics) and have spent a good deal of time in its technical application in fields ranging from aviation, to nuclear engineering, and construction engineering applications.

My point was that I don't find the physics of our beginnings particularly satisfying, either intellectually or spiritually, relative to many other achievements of science.

The downfall of luminiferous aether actually came both from the fact that it was invented to save equations (and despite your claims that scientists simply accepted it, I understand that it was tentative and also had its critics), failed to make predictions and most importantly was replaced by special relativity, which did make confirmed predictions and did not require aether to explain light's propogation. By the early 1900s, the math had gotten quite complex (other aethers had been discarded by then, only the one dealing with light remained) and did indeed reek of a crutch which was implied but not observed.

However, that is not quite the case for Dark Matter. While it is indeed implied from observations, the calculations for gravity are quite elegant in this regard and do not reek of being a 'rescue' of classical theory due to the different observations which convinced astronomers of its existence. As with all science, this is tentative, and nothing is more tentative than Dark Matter, but it is accepted in that way by astronomers (as opposed to entertained as a fanciful idea). And that is precisely how I present it.

You may also want to be aware of the fact that many people opposed (and still oppose) the ideas of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, including those same astronomists who now think it's there, not because they'd like to rescue some theories but because the data warrants it. Those scientists were very skeptical for a long time and I assure you they are not unaware of their histories of physics . Perhaps I should put it this way: if there is no Dark Matter, it very much appears that it is there, as opposed to the luminiferous aether, which try as people might to substantiate its existence, only ended up becoming more and more complex, conflicting with more and more data, and never offering data for its existence.

Naturally, at the same time that it is becoming more accepted, naturally mathematically poetic physicists often don't like it, as something which has not been directly observed but would constitute so much of the universe does not make an explanation of observations as elegant as would seem ideal.

Here's a rather good, skeptical take on the issue: http://fractalog.squarespace.com/fractalog_blog/2007/2/8/luminiferously-aethereal-dark-matter-and-energy.html

Phil Plait has also written rather well on it: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/04/21/dark-matter-detected/

It appeared that in an earlier post you took a different view, and I get the impression from your words above that you take some exception still, but I'm not sure I know what it is. Perhaps you are just trying to find fault with my description.

Well I did read your second link ... some kind of latest news in science thing. I'll confess that I make no attempt to stay abreast of the latest findings in experimental astrophysics (or any other specialty either). I'm satisfied by more pedestrian attempts to understand the basic controversies surrounding the standard model and recent variations on it & the various membrane theories. If some experimentor is certain that he has detected measurable effects of dark particles and the study is peer-reviewed & published, I'm sure we would both have a hard time avoiding the information about the new finding. Until then it is enough for me to manage my engineering business, enjoy family and friends and pursue my other interests.

I'll stipulate that if measurable evidence of dark particles is found and accepted by scientists, I will readily withdraw my suggestion that it is analogous to the aether. Until then we are just throwing links at each other. Short of that direct evidence we have only a convenient surmise that avoids the necessity of tinkering with the basic forces to reconcile some observations with basic physical theory.

There has been a good deal of controversy over the past two decades concerning competing ideas for the evolution of the universe - big bang followed eventually by big crunch; now replaced by continued expansion and a cold, dark end ... what next?? I'm not expressing doubt about science, but rather noting that, in this area, we are in a time of changing understanding. Despite all the turmoil and the attendant new advances both in observation and in theory, we are still left with the same voids at the start and the end. You evidently find that outcome either meaningless or uninteresting, or simply beyond the bounds of science. I find the attendant questions both interesting and meaningful.

Admitting ignorance is not equivalent to embracing a void, it's being honest and going no further than is warranted. Postulating and believing in a creator in place of such a thing is a shallow belief (in my opinion), unwarranted (I've never seen any half-reasonable argument for His existence), and a fantasy.

There is no void, the word is "ignorance". The unknown is far more interesting than nothingness and can be explored rationally. The misguided attempts to fill the ignorance with wishful thinking can be pointed out, for instance :wink:.

You have interpreted wrong. I have explicitly stated that ignorance is not a void (or at least remember saying so...) as we can explore how warranted postulations are. Sticking a God in there as the answer is still unwarranted and is still something one can discuss concerning this ignorance, for example.

I've also been clear in various threads (not sure about this one) that I consider no sciences concerning ultimate origins or fates to ever escape philosophical questions dealing with them, as one can always ask another level of causality back or forward. I can't expect you to follow my other threads, though .

I find the questions less meaningful, I'd wager. I think it's a point of ignorance which is likely unresolvable and accept it as such, and will point out the ways in which assertions of filling that 'hole' are unwarranted. I still find cosmological science more interesting and meaningful because there's something real there to be explored and you actually can try to make some fairly grand causal links.

I think it's a point of ignorance which is likely unresolvable and accept it as such, and will point out the ways in which assertions of filling that 'hole' are unwarranted.

These words, and those of yours in the two quotes following, fairly well encapsulate some characteristics of your arguments that motivate me to avoid what appears to be merely a game of "gotcha" with someone who is, for other reasons, simply unwilling to even contemplate the meaning of anything I might write in response. I don't fault you for your views on these matters, nor am I trying particularly to persuade you of the truth of mine. I believe I made that general point very clear in the posts that opened this dialogue. However, I'm not particularly interested in the "gotcha" game. (I suppose here I could point out that your opening phrase was ungrammatical. "You have interpreted wrong" should have instead been written "Your interpretation is wrong", or "You have interpreted the thing incorrectly" -- but would that in any way have illuminated the point under discussion?? I believe you are doing more or less the same with some of your arguments from physics.)

I have suggested that, despite enormous strides in the development of comprehensive and self-consistent theories describing the evolution of observable events, strides taken particularly over the past century or so, science appears to have made no advances whatever in understanding or even describing the origins of the cosmos we inhabit (unless, of course, you consider a singularity or the metaphorical big bang a description - in truth, it isn't much better than Genesis).

I have referred to it as a persistent void in our scientific understanding: you refer to it simply as ignorance, a detail to be overcome later.

When pressed on the point, you make reference to unspecified philosophical questions, or dismissively refer to possible infinite regressions of cause and effect (and do so without even acknowledging its possible philosophical significance.

There is no reconciling these disparate views: no point in argumentation over them.

If your favorite Italian researcher were to conclusively detect evidence of the presence of a dark particle, and if after review and confirmation the scientific community was to endorse the finding as conclusive, what would we have?

Well my clever analogy with the aether would be gone; we would see yet another rearrangement in the menagerie of quantum particles; and yet another modification to the evolving standard model/superstring/membrane body of theories would likely result. However, that's about it. In any event, that hasn't happened yet.)

I too find cosmological science very interesting and acknowledge the reality of the thing being explored. However, unlike you, I find the "causal links" so far established rather puny compared to the scale of the thing being examined.

Finally, I don't understand your meaning when you write,

Quote:

I think it's a point of ignorance which is likely unresolvable and accept it as such, and will point out the ways in which assertions of filling that 'hole' are unwarranted.

Unwarranted in accordance with what (or whose) standard????

It appears to me that you are suggesting that there cannot be any truth on the matter other than that which is established by science.

In short that you don't acknowledge the existence of any truth or possibility outside of that which is discoverable by human science.