ID on a par with astrology - Behe

[Pro Plyd]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178-astrology-is-scientific-theory-courtroom-told/

Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same
criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify
his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not
be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external
community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory,
claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than
the NAS defined it,” he says.

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s
definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a
hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:00:21 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:

> T Pagano wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:40:25 -0500, RonO wrote:
>
>
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178-astrology-is-scientific-

theory-courtroom-told/
>
> Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same
> criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify
> his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.

Here Pro Plyd doesn't produce the criteria. What criteria was used by
Behe to establish the scientific nature of his theory? And how was that
criteria used to justify Astrology as scientific?

Accusations are easy to make, but less easy to sustain. Especially since
Pro Plyd might not be able to explain what makes a theory scientific
himself.

>
> Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
> organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
> journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be
> included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external community
> that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.

Here the definition of "science" is reduced to whatever is accepted by
consensus (that is, the mob). But this isn't a demarcation criteria of
what is and is not science either.

An example is in order of how consensus works in practice:
1. Einstein's phantasm that yardsticks shrink in the direction motion
doesn't have a shred of observable proof. The only thing causing
shrinkage is the Lorentz Transformation----a mathematical contrivance.
It rests purely on the support of the mob.

2. Einstein borrowed the claim of shrinkage from Lorentz who borrowed it
from Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald/Lorentz offered it as a means to answer the
Michelson-Morley experiment which indicated that the Earth wasn't moving.
Fitzgerald/Lorentz argued that the arm of the Michelson-Morley
interferometer moving in the direction of the Earth around the sun
shrank. Hence the experimental result should be adjusted exactly by
Lorentz's mathematical "fudge factor" to account for the discrepancy.
This isn't science. It was accepted by the mob as the only way out from
an experiment that showed that the Earth was NOT moving.

3. There is no physical explanation or even a theory of how or why the
atomic structure of an atom in motion contracts. Einstein offered no
physical explanation and merely turned the claim (length contraction due
to motion) into a law of nature. As currently framed the claim of
"length contraction" is not falsifiable. It is no better than astrology
in this regard. The only thing propping it up is consensus from the mob
with a metaphysical motivation to accept it.

4. Einstein's claim of time dilation and mass increases were (due to
motion) both forced by the phantasm of length contraction (otherwise the
equations don't balance) and so they are also unfalsifiable phantasms.
The whole of Relativity rises or falls on the truth/falsity of the
unscientific claim of "length contraction."

>
> Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory,
> claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
> actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than
> the NAS defined it,” he says.

1. Darwin offered a falsifier for his theory (from his, "Origin of
Species"):
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could
not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

2. Behe's Central Claim 1: First and foremost irreducibly complex bio-
molecular machines are physical evidence that Darwin's falsifiers exist.

3. Behe's Central Claim 2: Not only were IC structures out of Darwin's
reach but they were out of the reach of any naturalistic process.

4. Both of Behe's central claims ((2) and (3)) deal with physical,
observable structures. And (2) and (3) are susceptible to falsification
unlike Einstein's claim of length contraction. Atheists need only
produce a naturalistic process which has been observed to produce IC
systems OR even merely produce a biologically realistic process that
could, in principle, produce IC systems. After 22 years atheist haven't
been able to produce either.

> Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology
> would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that
> Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition
> of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

Notice that Behe's definition is not produced for inspection. We have no
way of judging whether it would characterize astrology as scientific or
not.

Furthermore I demonstrate above that his theory is falsifiable and
Einstein's length contraction is not. Consensus is not a demarcation
criterion between what is and is not "science."

>
> The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
> local members of the public and the school board.

So now the mob's laughter is a demarcation criterion of what is and is
not "science." The mob's consensus and laughter has been proved wrong so
often that one wonders how anyone would raise it up with a straight face.

If the Dover Trial is evidence of anything is evidence of atheist fear of
ID Theory. The Dover Curriculum never asserted that ID Theory was true
or evolutionism was false. They simply presented ID Theory as a
conception and what its tenets are.

Atheists fear its very mention to children because of the concern that it
might produce skeptics of evolutionism. Eugenie Scott of the NCSE admits
as much.

[zencycle]

On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:05:04 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:00:21 -0600, Pro Plyd wrote:
>
> 2. Behe's Central Claim 1: First and foremost irreducibly complex bio-
> molecular machines are physical evidence that Darwin's falsifiers exist.
>

Except that every single instance of an irreducible complexity claim has been proven false by volumes of research. When you start with a false first principle, your argument is invalid.

>
> Atheists fear its very mention to children because of the concern that it
> might produce skeptics of evolutionism. Eugenie Scott of the NCSE admits
> as much.

No, we don't fear the introduction of new ideas, as long as the ideas are supportable, and have not been completely disproven (like irreducible complexity, geocentrism). What we are worried about is creating more ignorant arrogant assholes like Pagano.

[ayn...@gmail.com]

There are two reasons ID and Astronomy are not equals.

1. Astrologers don't try to sneak their ideas into Astronomy classes.
2. Astrology actually makes predictions, even if they amount to nothing.

Ayn R. Key