That's the Darwinists' big problem, isn't it. They have no answer to the how or the why questions.

I don't know much about the subject, but I listened once to Stephen J Gould describle punctuated equilibrium. When asked about the enourmous amount of time that would be requried to produce transitional forms, more time than the scientific models could come up with, he posited that things changed with what he called "punctuated equilibrium." His explanation to the questioner - "we know that evolution is true, therefore "something" must have happened to short circuit the required time."

Some science! some logic!

I've read C.S. Lewis put it this way in his writing. He described an Irishman who, wanting to reduce his fuel bills, bought a wood burning stove. He did and discovered that his bills were reduced by fifty percent. He decided then to buy another stove, assuming that if he did so he would never again have to pay any fuel bills. He then further assumed that if he bought two more stoves he would profit handsomely.

To me, that's the core of the Darwinist's logic.
Phil Dillon | Homepage | 01.11.05 - 2:53 pm | #

"That's the Darwinists' big problem, isn't it. They have no answer to the how or the why questions. "

It would only be a problem if they in fact sought to answer why.

"I don't know much about the subject"

That's clear from your mischaracterisation of Gould.
Socialist Eurofag | Homepage | 01.11.05 - 8:43 pm | #

"Cosmological ID looks at more fundamental questions:
1. Why is there a universe at all? Why is there something rather than nothing?
2. Given that there is a universe, why are there galaxies, stars, and planets and not just hydrogen gas or a big clump?
3. Given the cosmos as we know it, how is it that a planet with the delicate balance needed to support life formed?"

1 is not a "legitimate question". Science does not do "why". I am presuming you are asking a strict why, rather than a why that is a how (how come there is something rather than nothing and not how did there come to be something rather than nothing, which science does have some answers for, although none is widely accepted).

2 is an interesting question in which ID exploits a gap in our knowledge. Science does have answers but, unlike those of religion, they are not definitive.

3 is just dull. Our planet is nothing special. "Given the cosmos as we know it" we would expect to find many similar planets were we able to survey the entire universe, which we are not. There are sufficient that even given the very small chance of life's arising, it's statistically certain to have arisen elsewhere. Would it have taken the form that it takes here? Maybe. Would there be the same lifeforms we see here? No. Most likely not. Actually, let's go for definitely not. If the Yucatan strike had not happened, we would not be here. There is nothing inevitable about the descent of man.
Socialist Eurofag | Homepage | 01.11.05 - 8:51 pm | #

SE,

1) Fair enough, question one should be "how" and that is certainly an active area of research, i.e., multiverses.

2) Actually cosmology does have a pretty good understanding of galaxy formation but that fact that it depends on such a constrained value of the expansion rate is what is fascinating. Similarly, we know weher the heavy elements come from--but should still stand amazed at the delicate nuclear chemistry that makes it all possible.

3) The fact that, statistically, there must be many earths, which is the point I think you are making, is not manifestly true. There are about 10^22 planets. If the probablility of an eathlike planet is significantly less that 10^-22 (roughly speaking) then we should be surprised to be here. So the ID debate for question 3 zeroes in on that problem. Also, the question of other kinds of lifeforms is not so trivial. Only Carbon, Silicon, and Boron can be the basis for sufficiently complex chemistry.
David Heddle | Homepage | 01.11.05 - 9:05 pm | #

So your point is that cosmological ID is valid science because it asks interesting questions? Sorry, but that's just wrong.

You write, "Even those who scoff at the ID conclusion recognize ... that the questions posed by IDers are legitimate....Contrary to what Derbyshire implied, a great deal of research is conducted to answer the questions uncovered by ID research. (emphasis added)

First of all, ID research did not "uncover" those questions. Mainstream cosmology is perfectly able to ask such questions without any reference to ID.

Second, the amount of research conducted to answer such questions says nothing about ID's value (or lack thereof). The value of a scientific theory lies in what answers it provides.

More specifically, a good scientific theory makes testable predictions. If those predictions are routinely borne out, that's evidence the theory is correct. It also means the theory is useful, since it allows us to anticipate outcomes and situations that we haven't yet encountered. On the other hand, if a theory's predictions are not borne out, the theory is wrong in some way. It either needs to be amended or completely rejected.

I have no problem with the idea that God (or a god, or an intelligence, whatever) set the initial conditios and stepped away. But that's just another way of saying "we don't really know what happened to establish these initial conditions, but we think we can explain what happened after that."

So if that's your version of ID, fine, but it's not science. It's not testable, so we can't determine if it's true or false. It makes no predictions, so it's not useful.

If you hold to a stronger version of ID, that's fine too. But in that case, what are the predictions your version of ID makes? How can we test it?

It's not enough to argue that a prevailing scientific theory is inadequate to explain something. You can argue that evolution fails to account for so-called irreducibly complex features (eyes, wings, etc.). You can argue that current cosmology is insufficient to explain the existing universe and its particular physical constants. But those are not arguments for ID. They're merely arguments against evolution and standard cosmology. They might even be correct arguments, but that would only prove that evolution and/or standard cosmology are wrong (or at least incomplete). That's not evidence for ID, unless ID is the only other possible alternative. And there's no basis for that.

That's the point I took from Derbyshire's post, and it's quite correct. It's the fundamental flaw of all the ID arguments I've seen. You can't prove ID by disproving the prevailing scientific theories. If you really want to treat ID scientifically, stop looking for evidence against evolution & cosmology, and focus on finding evidence for ID. Come up with a prediction that says, "If ID is right, such and such should be true; conversely, if such and such is not tr
qetzal | 01.12.05 - 12:44 am | #

Sorry for the truncation of my previous comment. The last sentence should continue as follows.

Come up with a prediction that says, "If ID is right, such and such should be true; conversely, if such and such is not true, then ID (or at least that specific version of it) must be wrong."
qetzal | 01.12.05 - 12:48 am | #

qetzal,

Don't put words in my mouth--I never said that ID was valid science. To paraphrase my post: Many scientists are influenced by ID ideas--even if it is to disprove them. Derbyshire's post implied that ID is a non-issue among "well-informed" scientists.

By the way, do you consider unfalsifiable multiverse theories (unfalsifiable because parallel universes cannot be detected) "legitimate science?" Or does the unfalsifiable test only apply to ID?
David Heddle | Homepage | 01.12.05 - 5:34 am | #

OK, if you weren't promoting ID as science, that's fair enough. Apologies for putting words in your mouth.

As I now understand it, you're arguing that ID is scientifically important because scientists are motivated to debunk it. By the same argument, attempts to square the circle and invent perpetual motion machines are also valuable when they elicit debunking efforts. That's a pretty meager claim to importance, but if that's where you want to set the bar, then I can certainly agree that ID meets that test.

I still don't see that ID poses interesting scientific questions that wouldn't otherwise come up, and I don't see that it makes useful predictions. That's where I set the bar, so to me, ID is scientifically uninteresting and unimportant. (Philosophical or religious importance is a different matter.)

As for the multiverse question, I'm not a cosmologist. If multiverse ideas truly make no useful testable predictions, then no, they're not legitimate science. Interesting philosophy or sci-fi topics, perhaps, but not science.

But is the "multiverse hypothesis" truly unfalsifiable? You seem to claim that it is "because parallel universes cannot be detected." That's not necessarily the same as saying that the hypothesis makes no testable predictions. At least conceptually, I can imagine a proponent of multiverses saying, "If multiverses exist, then we should be able to observe such and such in our own universe." A multiverse hypothesis like that would be falsifiable.

Again, I have no idea whether any multiverse arguments are testable. Your wording seems to claim that they are not, and it reminds me of several claims in your original post. You repeatedly set up false dichotomies, claiming (without basis) that things must be either one way or the other. Example: "if ID is not acceptable then alternative, multiverse theories must be developed in their place." (emphasis added)

Why? Are you seriously suggesting that there can be no other decent alternatives? Not just that we can't think of one, that there cannot be one?

That's exactly the sort of fallacious argument Derbyshire was objecting to, and all you've done in your rebuttal is reinforce his point.

Similarly, "I suggest it is not possible to believe in God and not believe that He intelligently designed the universe...." Why can't someone believe in a God that came from "somewhere else" and took up residence in this universe after it already existed? One could even believe that God created this universe by accident, and just stuck around to see what would happen.

Of course, such beliefs are incompatible with God as most Christians understand Him. But that's simply because Christianity defines God as having created the universe by design. If that's the basis for your claim, it's useless tautology. You're simply saying "It's not possible to believe in He Who Intelligently Designed The Universe, and not believe that He int
qetzal | 01.12.05 - 11:52 am | #

The debunking of perpetual motion and the attempted debunking of ID are two different things. Many serious scientists find the ID "evidence" extremely interesting and worthy of scientific persuit.

Yes, if you could detect the other universes then the theory would be falsifiable. But the standard multiverse theories dod not allow such communication because of relativity. About the best you can say is that aspects of a theory that predict multiple universes are testable, thereby giving crediblity to the theory, but no direct tests of the existence of another universe are possible.

It is always possible that there are alternatives that nobody has thought of.

About God -- that is why I had the caveat "at least in classic monotheism" Sure you can invent any god or gods you like--but Derbyshire claims to be a Christian. I stand by the statement that it is impossible to believe in the Christian God (or the Jewish god or the Moslem god) and not believe he designed the universe.
David Heddle | Homepage | 01.12.05 - 3:03 pm | #

David, you say "there are about 10^22 planets". What you mean is probably something like "in the observable universe, given plausible guesses about the incidence of planets, there are about 10^22 planets, give or take a factor of 10 or 100". However, we do not know, and may never know, the true extent of the universe. For all we know, the universe is infinite.
Nick Barnes | 01.12.05 - 5:45 pm | #

Nick,

In most cosmologies it is finite--with it being a point at the big bang and then expanding outward. Also (and fortutiusly) at this moment in cosmic history it appears that most of the universe is visible. The 10^22 is indeed a crude estimate, but I don't think that is relevant.

Crude calculation: 10^11 galaxies
10^11 stars per galaxy
10 planets per star ==> 10^23. Those are all reasonable estimates based on present knowledge (which is pretty good)
David Heddle | Homepage | 01.12.05 - 7:11 pm | #

"This is the same reasoning used by evolutionists: No serious scientist believes in ID. Therefore, if you believe in ID you are not a serious scientist."

No, I'm a molecular geneticist, and here's my reasoning. No one who believes in ID actually tests the predictions of ID. Therefore, ID is not serious science.

Where are the ID advocates in the field? Doing DNA and protein sequence homologies? Why do they want to battle in high schools instead of testing the predictions of ID?
Bubba | 01.13.05 - 3:08 pm | #

Bubba,

You're missing the boat, unless you can point out where I said ID is serious science.

What I said is that the questions posed by ID (at least in csomology) are interesting. In other words, lots of physicists find the constraints on the expansion rate of the universe interesting.

I have never said that ID can be called "serious science."
David Heddle | Homepage | 01.13.05 - 3:32 pm | #

Great blog! I just found you today. I will add you to my blogroll at Wittenberg Gate.

I had to laugh when you said, "He has, of course, relegated me to the category of uninformed scientist."

I once challenged someone's assertion that, "No competent scientist denies an evolutionary explanation for the origins of life," by offering my husband as a counter-example. I was promptly told, by this person who knew nothing of my husband or his resume, that he must not be a competent scientist.

When faced with logic like that, what's a girl to do? (grin)
Dory | Homepage | 01.14.05 - 11:16 am | #

I've become convinced that ID is philosophy of science and that it's the same sort of philosophy of science that scientists do all the time. I don't think scientists are as trained in it as philosophers are, though. The work I've read on this subject by people like Peter van Inwagen (in his Metaphysics book from Westview Press) and other philosophers really gets to the bottom of what the argument is, why it's so convincing to so many people, why most of the usual objections miss the point or are based on views philosophers generally regard as non-starters, etc.
Jeremy Pierce | Homepage | 01.19.05 - 11:29 pm | #

I agree that the biological question is boring, and I think it's a much more difficult argument to make. People like the contributors at Panda's Thumb don't seem to understand that their little biological world is only a part of the set of arguments offered for the ID thesis.
Jeremy Pierce | Homepage | 01.19.05 - 11:35 pm | #

I really think there are only four possibilities: an intelligent designer, the multiple-universes scenario, a universe that pretty much had to be the way it is, and a universe with absolutely no explanation for why it's the way it is.

The last possibility seems to go against what science is all about in seeking explanations for things, and the third option is contrary to philosophical orthodoxy on the nature of possibility. That leaves the many universes scenario and an intelligent designer. Each violates Occam's Razor with respect to the other but in different ways. One involves a type of entity that some might not otherwise believe in. The other involves many, many more entities much like one we already believe in.

Depending on whether you want simplicity of number of things or simplicity of types of things, and depending on whether you already believe one of the hypotheses for other reasons, you might choose one or the other or be agnostic. It leaves Peter van Inwagen declaring it a tie. I think concluding that there are many universes would be like surviving a point blank firing squad and then concluding that there are billions of other firing squads that all killed their victim.
Jeremy Pierce | Homepage | 01.19.05 - 11:36 pm | #

Many serious scientists find the ID "evidence" extremely interesting and worthy of scientific pursuit.