Reply to Ed

Here is my response to the evolutionist Ed Darrell, as a continuation of this comment thread. It may take awhile to complete this post because of the sheer quantity of material, but Ed is a very earnest and sincere guy, so I want to give him his due.

First off, I don’t see a logical connection between knowing philosophy of science and knowing biology. I am told that most scientists (like most people everywhere) don’t really care about philosophy. That is because they are mostly concerned with solving the puzzles presented by the dominant paradigm within their own narrow discipline. Likewise, I don’t have a philosophical axe to grind, because I don’t teach philosophy, I just do the grunt work to get philosophy books published.

1. Entelechy is definitely still a popular idea with Christians. My point was that Kuhn does not identify Darwin’s opposition as mainly consisting of “crackpots and a popular, though wrong, competition from faith.” There is no doubt that Kuhn loves science and regards Darwinian evolutionary theory as the model for scientific paradigm change. However, as a paradigm itself, it is still subject to Kuhn’s method of analysis. I don’t see anywhere that Kuhn evaluates scientific theories as “good” or “bad”; his methodology is applied without partiality, based on his understanding of the sociology of scientific inquiry.

I don’t think I explained entelechy very well, because your remark about school boards has absolutely nothing to do with it. Let me know if you need a detailed reference for entelechy. Perhaps I muddied the waters by making an analogy between the entelechy of organisms, which is a well-established naturalistic fact, and the entelechy of humanity as a whole. I jumped ahead of myself because I was thinking about Enlightenment rationalism and melioristic belief systems, and how common it was in the 19th century to see evolution as progress, an idea which has since been thoroughly discredited.

2. Yes, my sarcastic little item about “evolution groupies” was indulgent. Evolution groupies are those people who don’t do evolution theory, they just hang around the experts, gawking and cheering and hanging on every word. Even someone as ignorant as I am can identify these idiots; since they can’t actually think for themselves, they often contradict the less glamorous experts. Because their highest goal in life is political influence, they have to jump on the bandwagon for dear life.

One example is the amateur evolution advocates who still believe that evolution is progress. PZ Myers, Thomas Kuhn, Charles Sullivan, and many others have tried to stamp this out, without success.

To be perfectly fair, there are also creation science groupies. And, frankly, I put them in the same category with the evolution groupies.

3. You’re right, Ed, to state that all those processes have been observed. Actually, they had been observed in different ways for thousands of years; and, moreover, humans have taken advantage of that kind of knowledge for thousands of years in developing useful technology. Were they practicing science? Were they evolutionary biologists?

PZ Myers held a discussion about the meaning of science, and it was interesting how flexible the definitions became, in order to include every activity of mankind that involves direct observation of the natural world and leads to practical results. The problem is, whereas that describes a natural scientific tendency in humans, it is not science. You would never accept the results from such a methodology as real science today.

Also, can you call it evolutionary biology if some uneducated, superstitious farmer were able to deduce such principles through observation, or simply by applying traditional knowledge?

The product of science, as distinct from practical reason, is the inference of universal principles from recorded observations, generalizing in order to come up with a new hypothesis that contains some untested element. The product of evolutionary biology, as distinct from Mendelian genetics, is universal principles that tie together all the different strands of life over billions of years and across millions of local ecosystems.

Neither of those conceptual activities was necessary to develop the technologies of forestry, farming, animal husbandry, or wildlife management. Both are modern abstractions intended to explain after the fact why such technologies work.

Nevertheless, scientists can use their hypotheses to stimulate useful inquiry. Kuhn shows how scientific inquiry progresses for long periods of time, despite the fact that the prevailing assumptions may be later proven false.

I don’t really care about the public image or political standing of your enemies, Ed; I am not a teacher or a politician. My livelihood depends on actual facts, sitting in front of me, not simulations and not what someone “says” is real. Show me how something works in real life, right now; don’t rationalize about how it may have worked a million years ago or is supposed to work, if only we could observe every independent variable for 150,000 years. Just because you can rationalize it doesn’t make it true, or useful. And there is simply no reason for me to accept, or even care about, the idealistic generalizations of evolutionary theory.

4. Patterson, p. 147:

Modern evolutionary theory does not say that all evolutionary change is caused by natural selection: random effects, like genetic drift, have played a part. Natural selection is therefore protected from falsification by the alternative explanation, random effects.

I wrote that Patterson says that evolution allows for random mutation, meaning that the theory accepts it as consistent with natural selection. In the scientific sense, “random” does not mean “uncaused,” as you seem to imply that I think; it means that it cannot be predicted by the hypothesis, because one or more independent variables is not controlled for (”unexpected,” as you write). I would not use the term “undirected” in this context, because it is meaningless; the hypothesis of natural selection requires that the process is always undirected.

I think you have confused “falsifiable” with “false.” Therefore, I will try to avoid using that word in my explanation. (The meaning of “falsifiable” is precisely what I have been discussing with rawdc, so you should look at his comments to “The Honest Evolutionist.” It seems like I have been hashing it out with him forever, but maybe it’s just because he’s a math dude, and their proofs never seem to end.)
No one is claiming randomness does not occur; the problem is that if your hypothesis allows an unaccounted-for independent variable to serve as explanation, then it will never be disproven by evidence, because any evidence contradicting the rest of the hypothesis can always be attributed to the unaccounted-for independent variable.

This is usually given as the primary argument by scientific atheists against creationism: “If you claim that God is not constrained by natural laws, then your hypothesis includes a random effect, therefore it is unfalsifiable and unscientific.” If it is good enough to use against creationism, why not against evolutionism?

Perhaps I am being too picky about the meaning of an example of “intelligent design.” It is trivial to find examples of design in nature, in the sense of order. However, attributing it to intelligence requires identifying the designer, and the “Intelligent Design” paradigm really doesn’t account for that; it is stupid to expect proof of intelligence after the fact in an ordered system, if you can’t specify the meaning of it. That was a crack at ID, not evolution, in case you missed it.

You may call it “dogmatic” to demand actual evidence, but in the real world such dogma is useful. It’s called “honesty” in many circles. It’s telling that creationists complain that requiring honesty is unfair.

Did I say that? No. I don’t know why you attribute that to me. However, since we are on the subject of honesty, I refer you to my comments at Bob Dudesky:

Which do you value more: The results from a scientist who conducts a real-time, controlled experiment, using solid methodology and a good population sample, recording all the data using well-calibrated instruments; or the results from a scientist who does all the same things after the fact, looking only at forensic evidence.

I didn’t say that forensic evidence has no value; clearly, inferences are necessary in many parts of life. My claim is that forensic evidence in science is always inferior to actual observation. And rather than answer my question, you and the other commenters went on to make arguments about why forensic evidence is trustworthy. How pathetic and cowardly.

What is the problem with just admitting that you are making a highly probable inference? Then we could move on. But no; you have to make the claim that observing the forensic evidence of hominid evolution is of equal value with observing the actual process of hominid evolution. Really, it isn’t; so why not just say it is impossible to observe the actual process of hominid evolution, as laelaps accidentally did? What are you afraid of?

On the question of genetic engineering, it is indisputable that it happens. And I really have no doubt that environmental factors can be more favorable to the survival and reproduction of some individuals rather than others. I guess that means I’m an evolutionist. Hurray, you converted me! But wait . . . what about all those other conclusions, such as unobserved past events? Can you allow someone to disbelieve part of the system, or do they have to swallow it whole?

5. I’m talking about all the steps between the prehumans and modern humans. For example, the ability of an animal to acquire symbolic language. You aren’t one of those dolphin/whale/bonobo equality advocates, are you? Give me a break.

6. Kuhn’s point is that “normal science” solves puzzles within its paradigm. It doesn’t ask whether the paradigm is correct. Eventually, the paradigm changes. Let me be clear: Whatever the current paradigm is, eventually it will be proven wrong.

Here, we come back to the question of falsifiability and honesty. I am willing to admit that I have certain prior assumptions and prejudices. For example, I really don’t care about any claim made by anyone, whether evolutionist, Christian, creationist, or lawyer, for which they cannot demonstrate it physically or demonstrate why I should assume it to be true. In your case, I understand why I should assume that genetic engineering is true; I don’t understand why I should assume that humans are descended from animals, because it doesn’t matter. Rather than attempt to demonstrate it, you keep pounding on the rationality of your inferences. On the other hand, evolutionists cling to a phony objectivity and pretend that they have no prior assumptions or prejudices.

7. I think I have already made clear that I am not a scientist. However, I know two molecular geneticists; both work on modifying grains. Their work relies on actual experiments in the present, and makes no reference to what the ancestor of corn was a million years ago or what its environment may have been like. It just doesn’t have anything to do with real science.

I don’t know anything about diabetes research. Wasn’t compatibility determined by taking actual samples from live subjects and testing them, rather than assuming that only our “closest relatives” are the best sources?

Conclusion

In conclusion, Ed, I think you have made a powerful case for the importance of genetic science, but your overreliance on it looks like an evasion of the broader questions, such as whether it matters that everyone accept the proposition that humans are descended from animals. Even if it were useful for making scientific hypotheses, why should anyone else care?

I think you need to re-read Kuhn, Patterson, and Popper, because you made a lot of unqualified assumptions about what they wrote.

I think you have helped me clarify my own assumptions and prejudices, such as the fact that I really despise people who are motivated primarily by politics, so I get sarcastic about them. Also, I don’t have much confidence in ID and I am more pragmatic than I might like to admit. I wish you would drop the pretense that you have no prior assumptions.

Thanks for your patience.