Op-Ed: Scientific study requires sound methodology
Jason Spaceman
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Two weeks ago I read a bold, but inaccurate, statement in another
column that appears in The Sheboygan Press. On Feb. 12, Charyl Zehfus
wrote, "evolution depends on abiogenesis, which means 'life arising
from non-life,' to explain the origin of life. Since abiogenesis has
never been proven, it requires belief, just like a religion."
Evolution (or evolutionary biology or the theory of evolution) does
not "depend" on abiogenesis. The two are completely separate
processes, because evolution does not examine the origin of life, but
is about how life unfolds according to genetic mutation and natural
selection.
Good old Mr. Deutsch taught me all that in eighth-grade biology, and I
heard this in the halls of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science far more recently. But to make sure I hadn't
suddenly switched to some other dimension, I double-checked with
numerous biologists, scientists, and teachers at the high school,
university, and research levels, and all said the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.sheboygan-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060226/SHE07/602260380/1109/SHEopinion
or http://tinyurl.com/zruqr
J. Spaceman
Ron O
This is just something that is straight forward and any competent
person involved in the sciences would understand it. It isn't even
something new, you just have to read the last paragraph of the Origin
of Species to know that even Darwin knew the difference between
abiogenesis and biological evolution.
Incompetence, ignorance, or dishonesty are the only excuses for
creationist uses of these types of bogus arguments.
Ron Okimoto
jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us
So, since "evolution does not examine the origin of life" (as stated
above), it should be perfectly acceptable to all evolutionists that
that origin could be attributed to a Creator, Intelligent Design or,
even, Puff the Magic Dragon. That would mean that any evolutionist that
appears in a court of law and denies that that origin can be attributed
to a Creator, Intelligent Design or Puff the Magic Dragon, specifically
due to evolutionary theory would in fact of law have committed perjury.
That is what you're saying in this thread?
Your last statement is fascinating as doubletalk. You appear to be
saying that Creationists rightfully use the excuses of incompetence,
ignorance or dishonesty in the scientific community, when evolutionists
make bogus arguments concerning the origin of life. Such a statement
would be consistent with the full text of your post. Still you give the
illusion that Creationists are to blame for evolutionists delving
beyond the parameters of evolutionary theory, which in context of the
full post seems unjustified.
JTG 2/28/06
Robert J. Kolker
>
> So, since "evolution does not examine the origin of life" (as stated
> above), it should be perfectly acceptable to all evolutionists that
> that origin could be attributed to a Creator, Intelligent Design or,
> even, Puff the Magic Dragon.
Not so. These hypotheses are not falsifiable (even in principle) by
empirical means. For a hypothesis or theory to be scientific it must
make specific assertion about the world which are testable by empirical
means and possibly falsifiable. If -any and all- outputs are consistent
with a hypothesis/theory then that hypothesis/theory is not scientific.
The fact that the theory of evolution is silent on the matter of
abiogenisis does not impugn its soundness. If a theory of abiolgenesis
is proposed it must be operative within the natural order. A
supernatural process is by its nature not subject to an empirically
testable theory.
Science and diety are totally non-intersecting. Science has nothing to
say for or against dieties. The notion of a supernatural diety cannot be
the subject of any scientific theory.
Bob Kolker
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> So, since "evolution does not examine the origin of life" (as stated
> above), it should be perfectly acceptable to all evolutionists that
> that origin could be attributed to a Creator, Intelligent Design or,
> even, Puff the Magic Dragon. That would mean that any evolutionist that
> appears in a court of law and denies that that origin can be attributed
> to a Creator, Intelligent Design or Puff the Magic Dragon, specifically
> due to evolutionary theory would in fact of law have committed perjury.
> That is what you're saying in this thread?
Um. I'm pretty sure that no scientist is going to deny the origin
of life being attributed to any of those things specifically due to
evolutionary thoery.
Socks
CreateThis
You can say you pulled it out of your ass with all your other arguments
for all evolution cares. But don't get your hopes up - the fact that
evolution doesn't deny it doesn't make it science, so you still can't
teach it to my kids.
> ... That would mean that any evolutionist that
> appears in a court of law and denies that that origin can be attributed
> to a Creator, Intelligent Design or Puff the Magic Dragon, specifically
> due to evolutionary theory would in fact of law have committed perjury.
> That is what you're saying in this thread?
He said 'incompetence, ignorance or dishonesty'. How did perjury become
the only possibility? It seems to me that you're deliberately twisting
his words (speaking of dishonesty).
> Your last statement is fascinating as doubletalk. You appear to be
> saying that Creationists rightfully use the excuses of incompetence,
> ignorance or dishonesty in the scientific community, when evolutionists
> make bogus arguments concerning the origin of life. Such a statement
> would be consistent with the full text of your post. Still you give the
> illusion that Creationists are to blame for evolutionists delving
> beyond the parameters of evolutionary theory, which in context of the
> full post seems unjustified.
This statement is fascinating as gibberish. Is it tongues, or what?
CT
chris.li...@gmail.com
It would be more accurate to say they are all "equally unacceptable",
at least for a science classroom.
> That would mean that any evolutionist that
> appears in a court of law and denies that that origin can be attributed
> to a Creator, Intelligent Design or Puff the Magic Dragon, specifically
> due to evolutionary theory would in fact of law have committed perjury.
> That is what you're saying in this thread?
There is equal evidence for an Intelligent Designer, Puff the Magic
Dragon, Maeve the Cat, the Invisible Purple Unicorn, the Flying
Spaghetti Monster, and The World Is A Dingleberry On The Ass Of The
Cosmic Corpulent Cow. I think we should teach the last 3 to high school
students, except on Thursdays. What about you?
> Your last statement is fascinating as doubletalk. You appear to be
> saying that Creationists rightfully use the excuses of incompetence,
> ignorance or dishonesty in the scientific community, when evolutionists
> make bogus arguments concerning the origin of life. Such a statement
> would be consistent with the full text of your post. Still you give the
> illusion that Creationists are to blame for evolutionists delving
> beyond the parameters of evolutionary theory, which in context of the
> full post seems unjustified.
Ron's statement made perfect sense. Let me paraphrase it: The fact that
creationists use these bogus arguments indicates they are incompetent,
ignorant, or dishonest. There- that wasn't hard, was it?
Chris
> JTG 2/28/06
Timberwoof
"jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us" <jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote:
Have you ever watched This Old House or The New Yankee Workshop? These are
fascinating programs by which couch potatoes can vicariously become carpenters
without having to first clean out the garage. One thing is curious, however: as
much as they talk about dados, routers, and rabbets used in the construction of
houses and furniture, they rarely address the source of wood.
By your logic, the following sentence would make perfect sense:
Since This Old House and The New Yankee Workshop do not examine the origin of
wood, it should be perfectly acceptable to all carpenters that wood could be
attributed to a Creator, Intelligent Design or, even, Puff the Magic Dragon.
Well, you say, that's silly! Wood comes from trees, which grow in forests![1]
You're right. But carpentry doesn't concern itself with that. Similarly,
evolution describes how species transform over time into other species. It
doesn't have to know where life came from.
> Your last statement is fascinating as doubletalk. You appear to be
> saying that Creationists rightfully use the excuses of incompetence,
> ignorance or dishonesty in the scientific community, when evolutionists
> make bogus arguments concerning the origin of life.
Well, he's not saying that. He's saying that biologists do not claim that
evolution explains abiogenesis and that when creationists misrepresent evolution
as abiogenesis, they're being incompetent, ignorant, or dishonest.
>Such a statement
> would be consistent with the full text of your post. Still you give the
> illusion that Creationists are to blame for evolutionists delving
> beyond the parameters of evolutionary theory, which in context of the
> full post seems unjustified.
No, Creationists are to blame for misrepresenting evolution as abiogenesis.
Biochemists have been investigating abiogenesis for at least fifty years now and
nobody is mad at them for it. Not even Creationsists.
[1] Actually, you can't know that. Were you there? Okay, so you followed a
specific tree all the way from a forest through a sawmill to your house. But
what about all the other lumber? You don't know how it came about.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
mel turner
news:1141143538.8...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> Ron O wrote:
> > Jason Spaceman wrote:
> > > From the article:
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Two weeks ago I read a bold, but inaccurate, statement in another
> > > column that appears in The Sheboygan Press. On Feb. 12, Charyl Zehfus
> > > wrote, "evolution depends on abiogenesis, which means 'life arising
> > > from non-life,' to explain the origin of life. Since abiogenesis has
> > > never been proven, it requires belief, just like a religion."
> > >
> > > Evolution (or evolutionary biology or the theory of evolution) does
> > > not "depend" on abiogenesis. The two are completely separate
> > > processes, because evolution does not examine the origin of life, but
> > > is about how life unfolds according to genetic mutation and natural
> > > selection.
> > >
> > > Good old Mr. Deutsch taught me all that in eighth-grade biology, and I
> > > heard this in the halls of the American Association for the
> > > Advancement of Science far more recently. But to make sure I hadn't
> > > suddenly switched to some other dimension, I double-checked with
> > > numerous biologists, scientists, and teachers at the high school,
> > > university, and research levels, and all said the same thing.
[snip]
> > This is just something that is straight forward and any competent
> > person involved in the sciences would understand it. It isn't even
> > something new, you just have to read the last paragraph of the Origin
> > of Species to know that even Darwin knew the difference between
> > abiogenesis and biological evolution.
> >
> > Incompetence, ignorance, or dishonesty are the only excuses for
> > creationist uses of these types of bogus arguments.
> So, since "evolution does not examine the origin of life" (as stated
> above), it should be perfectly acceptable to all evolutionists that
> that origin could be attributed to a Creator, Intelligent Design or,
> even, Puff the Magic Dragon.
It doesn't follow that any or all of those claims should have to
be "perfectly acceptable" to anyone, but the point remains that
abiogenesis is a separate topic from biological evolution.
>That would mean that any evolutionist that
> appears in a court of law and denies that that origin can be attributed
> to a Creator, Intelligent Design or Puff the Magic Dragon, specifically
> due to evolutionary theory would in fact of law have committed perjury.
No, he may simply be mistaken in his opinion. But do you in fact know
of any evolutionist who ever made any such incorrect claim about
evolutionary theory under oath in any court of law? Got citations to
document such a remarkable event?
> That is what you're saying in this thread?
No, he's saying that evolutionary theory isn't dependent on any
particular model of abiogenesis. It's enough for evolution that life
did arise somehow. However it may have got here, it will have evolved
ever since.
> Your last statement is fascinating as doubletalk. You appear to be
> saying that Creationists rightfully use the excuses of incompetence,
> ignorance or dishonesty in the scientific community, when evolutionists
> make bogus arguments concerning the origin of life.
No, he didn't say any such thing. So, where exactly are these
evolutionists making bogus arguments concerning the origin of
life?
> Such a statement
> would be consistent with the full text of your post. Still you give the
> illusion that Creationists are to blame for evolutionists delving
> beyond the parameters of evolutionary theory,
What evolutionists are delving beyond the parameters of evolutionary
theory? Where? Anyway, just because "abiogenesis" is a separate issue
from "evolution", that doesn't mean evolutionists can't choose to
talk about abiogenesis if they want to. It's still a topic worthy of
scientific discussion and research.
>which in context of the full post seems unjustified.
Or misconstrued.
cheers
eyelessgame
> So, since "evolution does not examine the origin of life" (as stated
> above), it should be perfectly acceptable to all evolutionists that
> that origin could be attributed to a Creator, Intelligent Design or,
> even, Puff the Magic Dragon.
No.
It is true that the discipline of plumbing does not examine the shape
of the Earth. It does not follow that "it is perfectly acceptable to
all plumbers that the earth could be flat, hemispherical, or
lozenge-shaped", because all plumbers also know some number of facts
that are not strictly within the discipline of plumbing; many of them
are at least casually conversant with the body of evidence that
conclusively shows that the earth is round.
Most people who study evolution have *some* amount of knowledge or
opinion related to the various hypotheses of abiogenesis, and it is
perfectly fine that they do. They simply do not *necessarily* ascribe
to one or another of those hypotheses, and they are not necessarily
experts on the data supporting or challenging these hypotheses. Most
evolutionary biologists, though, would agree that the abiogenetic
process, whatever it was, is explainable in naturalistic terms.
eyelessgame
coaster
Omnipotent beings and magical creatures are not falsifialbe and
therefore not available to scientific scrutiny so I'm fairly certain
that's not what he's saying. Are you saying that's wrong? Would you
care to clairify on exactly how it is wrong?
> Your last statement is fascinating as doubletalk. You appear to be
> saying that Creationists rightfully use the excuses of incompetence,
> ignorance or dishonesty in the scientific community, when evolutionists
> make bogus arguments concerning the origin of life. Such a statement
> would be consistent with the full text of your post. Still you give the
> illusion that Creationists are to blame for evolutionists delving
> beyond the parameters of evolutionary theory, which in context of the
> full post seems unjustified.
>
> JTG 2/28/06
Scientists are welcome to delve into whatever topic they like provided
it is within the confines of falsifiability and ultimately subject to
emprical observation.. though sciencists certainly don't require
observation to enjoy speculating on things.
It is absolutely true that Creationists using "creation science" to
argue against evolution (and other scientific theories) infringe on the
integrety of Science by distorting the means by which we determine fact
from non-fact. Perhaps this is the "blame" you suggest but there's a
fitting proverb for situations like this.. "Reap what you sew." If you
plant misinformation then you can expect to reap the flower of
discontent that blossoms from that act.
Ron O
Science doesn't work that way. No matter what any creationist con
artists says to the contrary, science can't work that way even if it
wanted to. Science has to deal with what you can verify really exists.
You can make up all kinds of junk, but it doesn't help you a bit if
you have no means of verification. It is really that simple, but
ID/creationists don't get it. Just ask an engineer (they like to be
suckered by the ID claptrap) if they use things that they can't verify
to do their jobs. If they admit to that, you know that they aren't
doing a very good job. Science can no more ignore reality than
engineers can ignore reality. You don't see engineers claiming that
they can build a bridge at a lower cost with less building materials
even though it doesn't meet specifications because their designer is
going to make it all work. They have to deal with physical reality.
If they make a claim they have to be able to back it up.
People claim that you can't verify that evolution has happened on this
planet. The sad fact is that if this were true would some of the ID
scam artists be claiming that common descent is a fact of life? These
are guys that have absolutely no reason except the cold hard facts to
support common descent, so why do they do it if what the other
creationist scam artists claim is true? The fact is that biological
evolution is science and ID/creationism doesn't make the grade. Even
the ID scam artists know that or they wouldn't have dropped the teach
ID scam for the teach the controversy scam.
Beats me what your last paragraph is about. Why don't you do something
useful? Go to the Discovery Institute and ask them what the scientific
theory of intelligent design is and then ask them for the ID lesson
plan to teach the junk in schools. They might claim to have a
scientific theory, but all you are going to get is a bogus concept that
they can't verify and some double talk about them never wanting to
teach ID in the first place. Ask them what the controversy is and why
they can't tell anyone why they are running the creationist obfuscation
scam as a replacement for ID. After you get these excuses go to their
literature and read their junk before they dropped the teach ID scam,
find a copy of the Wedge document and read it. Ignorance,
incompetence, and dishonesty are the only options left to these guys.
You can prove it for yourself, just try and get them to explain their
actions. Don't you want to know why they had a change in direction
back in 1999, but they forgot to tell their supporters that they had
switch scams? Why did they wait until Ohio hit the fan to tell the
rubes that they didn't support teaching ID anymore? Why did Meyer tell
the rubes that they should make that decision at the local level, but
when Dover hit the fan they bailed on that one too? Was Meyer lying or
was he just incompetent?
Ron Okimoto
Dick C
> So, since "evolution does not examine the origin of life" (as stated
> above), it should be perfectly acceptable to all evolutionists that
> that origin could be attributed to a Creator, Intelligent Design or,
> even, Puff the Magic Dragon.
You know, people who study science do not turn the brains off when they
leave one field of science. At least, most people don't. Just because one
are of study does not include another is no reason to accept any bs claim
about the other area.
That would mean that any evolutionist that
> appears in a court of law and denies that that origin can be attributed
> to a Creator, Intelligent Design or Puff the Magic Dragon, specifically
> due to evolutionary theory would in fact of law have committed perjury.
> That is what you're saying in this thread?
Nope, all that has been said is that evolution does not study the origin of
life. A different field of study does.
>
> Your last statement is fascinating as doubletalk. You appear to be
> saying that Creationists rightfully use the excuses of incompetence,
> ignorance or dishonesty in the scientific community, when evolutionists
> make bogus arguments concerning the origin of life. Such a statement
> would be consistent with the full text of your post. Still you give the
> illusion that Creationists are to blame for evolutionists delving
> beyond the parameters of evolutionary theory, which in context of the
> full post seems unjustified.
What is really funny about this is your claims in the first sentence while
demonstrating all of those traits in this one post.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Ray
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us wrote:
>
>>
>> So, since "evolution does not examine the origin of life" (as stated
>> above), it should be perfectly acceptable to all evolutionists that
>> that origin could be attributed to a Creator, Intelligent Design or,
>> even, Puff the Magic Dragon.
>
>Not so. These hypotheses are not falsifiable (even in principle) by
>empirical means. For a hypothesis or theory to be scientific it must
>make specific assertion about the world which are testable by empirical
>means and possibly falsifiable. If -any and all- outputs are consistent
>with a hypothesis/theory then that hypothesis/theory is not scientific.
So if we theoretically imagine that ID was a fact, and ToE therefore
not, science would be unable to determine this?
Seems to me that science have a problem...
David Jensen
Ray <r...@addr.invalid> wrote in
<830d02lnh1kde2cjf...@4ax.com>:
That question made no sense.
>Seems to me that science have a problem...
No, you do.
neverbetter
Ray kirjoitti:
Is there a mechanism that would prevent ID from creating a world in
which evolution is a fact?
Ray
wrote:
Not at all. And if you call the current process in nature for
evolution, it alrready has. But this process is not at all identical
to what is stated by ToE. ToE is a gross misinterpretation of the
actual facts, and this misinterpretation is caused by ignorance of the
primary causes behind the process.
These primary causes exist in the COSMIC MIND, by some called God,
just as the causes behind our physical actions and creations exist in
our MINDs. All physical creation and activity is an effect of MIND
causes, on different levels of existence.
Ron O
Does anyone still wonder why this stuff shouldn't be taught in the
science class after reading exchanges like this? The sad fact is that
ID/creationism has nothing better to put forward. Just go to the
Discovery Institute or any other creationist organization and ask for
the evidence for their version of what happened and find out.
Ron Okimoto
AC
Uh, no, because these are supernatural claims. Imagine having a body with a
hole in its head. In the absense of the physical object that did the
damage, you can say "Angel's did it". Does that sound reasonable?
<snip JTG's usual stupidity>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Puppet_Sock
Um. Are you serious? Well, let's suppose you are. Consider the
following claims, which I prepend with the warning that I only
offer this as a toy not as a belief of mine. (You do project a
vibe that this warning is required.)
The reason the world is the way it is, is because the
invisible pink unicorns (IPU) have ripped a hole in subspace
allowing the Vorlons to contact the Foul Marmidons.
The reason you can't see the IPU is because they are
extremely clever and very powerful and don't want you to.
Also, the moon is actually made of cream cheese, but
the IPU are keeping us all from knowing that for reasons
of their own.
Now surmise that every time anybody says "well why don't we
see so-and-so then?" I were to answer by some such formula
as "because the IPU can do anti-so-and-so to keep you out."
That is, the IPU are so clever and smart and secretive that we
can't ever detect them.
Such a notion is not a scientific theory. The problem is, there
is no possible way it could be found to be contrary to observed
reality. It also makes no predictions about what we will see if
we examine our observations. It does not say "go to the moon
and you will find a pasty yellow material that many people will
enjoy on bread products." It says "you won't see anything
different from what you'd see if the moon were rocks and sand
and stuff, but it really is made of cream cheese." It does not
say "go over there and you will see the Vorlons chatting it up
with the Marmidons." It says "you won't ever see the V's and
the M's because the IPU are hiding them."
So, such a notion is not useful, at least not to science. It does
not tell us anything about what we should expect to see when
we stumble around in the woods, nor in our labs. So, no matter
how much mental comfort it may supply, it won't advance science.
The fact that we can, rather easily, make up such clearly silly
yet also clearly non-scientific notions, is not a problem with
science. It only indicates that many notions are not useful
in attempting to understand reality.
Socks