Is secular science different from science, period?
I completely agree with the sentiment, but there is still an immediate distrust of atheists within congregations. However, the distrust can be overcome, especially if it boils down to person to person interactions where tribalism and stereotyping can be pushed to the side.
2 Likes
That would be like a forensic scientist using “God planted the DNA at the crime scene” as the null hypothesis. It just doesn’t work.
2 Likes
Do you see why this is a poor analogy? You need to watch making arbitrary objections.
Such a statement is usually followed by an explanation of why it is a poor analogy.
2 Likes
Except you are tending to do this a lot so I hoping you will think about it. In the case of crime scenes we know the causes of DNA being there. In the case of a ball falling to the ground we know the cause. In the case of the first cell and other biological innovations we do not know the cause.
I think it’s good to challenge assumptions, but I continue to struggle to see the hypothesis in “Design”. I know we’ve been down this road many times, so I’m not going to repeat all the mechanism stuff.
Certainly from Behe’s presentation in the “debate” with @swamidass I didn’t see a design hypothesis, did you? I saw a Design assertion, I saw questions about the sufficiency of evolutionary mechanism, but I didn’t see an actual hypothesis. I think if ID could make some sort “from this model we would predict that X will happen under Y conditions”, it would help. Instead it truly seems like a Designer-of-the gaps argument that can only create doubt, not provide a competing hypothesis/model.
2 Likes
No Bill, “design” isn’t a competing hypothesis any more than “magic” is a competing hypothesis. Hypotheses need to be both testable and potentially falsifiable. Your disembodied mind going POOF to create life is neither.
3 Likes
I agree. I think of it as a spectrum and we each occupy a particular spot, but if we can facilitate conversation with the people on our left and on our right, we can produce an overall better conversation rather than trenches, polarization, fear, animosity. Maybe some people want that fear and entrenchment (on both sides) but I don’t.
1 Like
Can you show a supernatural entity didn’t plant the suspect’s DNA?
Can you show a supernatural entity didn’t push the ball to the ground?
Can you show a supernatural entity used magic to POOF life into existence?
We reject all three of the supernatural “explanations” because they have no positive evidence and they aren’t falsifiable. Hopefully someday that simple concept will finally penetrate your cranium.
3 Likes
Not so, unless you can come up with an experiment that would distinguish between the two.
2 Likes
I assume you are using the language precisely here, and so I agree. Science shouldn’t care about whether phantasmic imaginary beings push buttons or make undetectable plans. I certainly don’t care about that. But OTOH I don’t see many scientists arguing about that. The reason—and this should be spectacularly obvious—that scientists have to oppose ID is that the ID movement is an anti-scientific political movement that daily disgorges bullshit in service of poorly concealed religion. Maybe you will object that I’m conflating ID (as a set of ideas or metaphysical claims) with IDM (the corrupt movement), but if you make that distinction then you’ll have to (IMO) stop claiming that science is banging its head against ID.
6 Likes
ID has been around for a few decades now, do you think the opposition has worked? Do you feel like the movement is on the decline?
1 Like
That’s a weird question and it presupposes an “opposition” when I’m just talking about scientists who have a need and obligation to address falsehood and denigration of science. (You have this obligation too, as a scientist.) Right now it’s on display with struggles to get accurate information to people about Corvid-19. Do these efforts to correct falsehoods work? Hard to say since we don’t have a control group.
I sure do but it’s hard to measure such things.
But you have drifted from the topic IMO. I thought you were making a distinction between ID (ideas) and IDM (bogus movement empowered by religion). Were you?
2 Likes
I wasn’t thinking of it so much in that way. I was thinking more in terms of a organized and concerted way (debates, forums, entire blogs, etc.) as opposed to just normal personal communication.
That wasn’t how I was thinking about it. I’m coming at it from an “embedded” perspective is Evangelical circles. Here, where the history of Creationism and ID going back at least to Henry Morris is one that isn’t intended to be anti-science, but rather anti-atheistic worldviews. These folks would be thrilled to have science demonstrate God’s existence. They are looking for scientific evidence that bolsters the idea of a personal God who is involved with creation. They want science to provide a “defeater” for atheism. This is what I mean by weaponizing science. They also view evolution as the atheist version of weaponized science.
My point was that I think in this kind of scenario, too much focus on the weapon, and not the actual “struggle” puts science in the middle, which I think is unfortunate. I don’t think science actually provides the answers either “side” is looking for. I tend to want to say “go take your fight elsewhere and leave science alone”. Maybe that’s naive, but that’s what I was trying to get at with this thread.
2 Likes
Well it’s beyond naive IMO; it’s just false. When ID says “hey, design” then I agree science should stay out of it. (Besides, I think design is real.) When Christians say “yay God made all that stuff” then science should stay out of it. When some professional propagandist says “hey, darwinism says that introns have no function” then science has a stake in whether people believe that, because the effect (and intent) is to convince gullible believers that science is corrupt or clueless and that religious typists and preachers are holders of truth.
Anyway. I wanted to agree with you that science has no legitimate stake in conversations about design or even purpose. Scientists who are careful to make that distinction can (I hope) defang the propagandists who need war with reality. So IMO science should be both kind to and curious about design, even “intelligent” design. But the IDM is not about design, and science is obligated to oppose it just as sure as it is obligated to oppose climate change denial and anti-vaxx lies.
6 Likes
Definition from UC Berkeley:
What Is a Real Hypothesis?
A hypothesis is a tentative statement that proposes a possible explanation to some phenomenon or event. A useful hypothesis is a testable statement, which may include a prediction. A hypothesis should not be confused with a theory. Theories are general explanations based on a large amount of data. For example, the theory of evolution applies to all living things and is based on wide range of observations. However, there are many things about evolution that are not fully understood such as gaps in the fossil record. Many hypotheses have been proposed and tested.
Where exactly do you think Behe’s argument falls apart as either a theory and or a hypothesis?
Fair point. My experience (probably limited compared to many at PS) has been more like what we saw in Josh’s debate with Behe, where there isn’t much actual science.
I agree but I need to think more about IDM.
Just like with those other issues (climate change, anti-vaccination), I have found a more gentle and sensitive approach to be more effective for me and my population.
2 Likes
Here:
I don’t know how to test design in any sort of systematic/rigorous way and haven’t seen an example. I also am not aware of any real prediction coming out of ID. I would be interested if there were such examples.
1 Like