|
Author
|
Topic: AAAS rejects ID
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 07. November 2002 13:59
Josh,
Wells's "Icons of Evolution" has been thoroughly critiqued and found wanting. This is not the forum to discuss it, however.
If you would like to discuss the examples that Wells cites, please come to the talk.origins newsgroup.
AndyG
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 09. November 2002 14:32
Speaking of Miller, have you read the latest paper by Miller?Prebiotic synthesis from CO atmospheres: Implications for the origins of life
Shin Miyakawa *, Hiroto Yamanashi *, Kensei Kobayashi *, H. James Cleaves , and Stanley L. Miller
*Department of Chemistry and Biotechnology, Faculty of Engineering, Yokohama National University, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan; and Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0506
Contributed by Stanley L. Miller, September 19, 2002
quote:
Most models of the primitive atmosphere around the time life originated suggest that the atmosphere was dominated by carbon dioxide, largely based on the notion that the atmosphere was derived via volcanic outgassing, and that those gases were similar to those found in modern volcanic effluent. These models tend to downplay the possibility of a strongly reducing atmosphere, which had been thought to be important for prebiotic synthesis and thus the origin of life. However, there is no definitive geologic evidence for the oxidation state of the early atmosphere and bioorganic compounds are not efficiently synthesized from CO2 atmospheres. In the present study, it was shown that a CO-CO2-N2-H2O atmosphere can give a variety of bioorganic compounds with yields comparable to those obtained from a strongly reducing atmosphere. Atmospheres containing carbon monoxide might therefore have been conducive to prebiotic synthesis and perhaps the origin of life. CO-dominant atmospheres could have existed if the production rate of CO from impacts of extraterrestrial materials were high or if the upper mantle had been more reduced than today.
IP: Logged
|
|
rossum
Member
Member # 463
|
posted 22. November 2002 19:00
In the "Human Design Analogy Considered Dangerous" thread Frances said:
quote:
I have proposed in another thread a positive research approach for ID. I am somewhat saddened that my proposal does not seem to have generated much interest yet.
I have to agree with the sentiment. On the principle that if it looks like a chicken, walks like a chicken and clucks like a chicken then it is probably not a duck, ID as currently constituted is probably not a science. Currently it looks, walks and clucks like a philosophy. There seems to me to be a great amount of philosophical and logical argument and not a lot of practical experimental work.
Dembski agrees with the relative lack of experimental focus in his keynote address at the RAPID conference. Requests for any details, however slight, of the research presented at RAPID have so far appeared to produce nothing. A lot of talk and logic chopping is evident, but not a lot of experimental data.
We do not teach geography in maths lessons. Similarly we don't teach logical positivism in science lessons. If ID wants to be taught in science class then it has to look, walk, and quack like a science. Currently it seems to have a much better chance of being included in philosophy class.
Of course one strategy for ID would be to try to get included in the philosophy curriculum (if such a thing exists in the US school system). However I suspect that this would not be an acceptable route for most ID supporters. Science has far more influence with the public and the media than philosophy, and one of the aims of ID involves influence with the public and the media.
Alternatively it would be possible for ID to try to quack like science rather than to cluck like philosophy. The AAAS has criticised ID, saying:
quote:
Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
By doing the research to provide the "credible scientific evidence" ID can show that the AAAS is wrong. In the continuing absence of any scientific evidence then the AAAS will continue be correct.
ID can also propose "a scientific means of testing its claims". By doing this it will again show the AAAS to be wrong.
Does ID agree with the AAAS or will it make an effort to show that it is mistaken? Surely there is enough talent within the ID movement to make a start on this work.
In his keynote address to RAPID, Dembski says:
quote:
Two animating principles drive intelligent design. The more popular by far takes
intelligent design as a tool for liberation from ideologies that suffocate the human spirit,
such as reductionism and materialism. The other animating principle, less popular but
intellectually more compelling, takes intelligent design as the key to opening up fresh
insights into nature.
I suspect that responding to these two points from the AAAS creates some tensions between the two streams within ID. A scientific research programme to rebut the AAAS would cost a lot of time and money; possibly more than the "tool for liberation" stream within ID would like to see.
There is a danger in answering the second AAAS point: ID risks becoming yet another beautiful scientific theory that is destroyed by the brutal impact of ugly reality. Any theory has to take this risk if it is to be called scientific.
If at heart ID is a philosophy, then it is unlikely to risk its beautiful theory failing the test; the theory would be more important in itself than whether the it can survive the test of reality. However, if ID really is a science then it has to take a risk with its theory. The theory may fall under the weight of contrary evidence. The theory may change in unexpected ways, as dictated by the evidence. By putting its theory to the test ID risks losing control over its theory and having it change in directions that would not be helpful to the philosophical stream within ID; the "tool for liberation" would perhaps not be so useful a tool.
Which is stronger, ID as science or ID as philosophy? Currently the latter appears to be in the acsendant, which may well be why ID appears to be a philosophy. If the science stream can gain more influence within ID can its chances of being seen as a science be increased.
IP: Logged
|
|
richfaussette
unregistered
|
posted 27. November 2002 08:27
New to these boards, I found the following:
If at heart ID is a philosophy, then it is unlikely to risk its beautiful theory failing the test; the theory would be more important in itself than whether the it can survive the test of reality. However, if ID really is a science then it has to take a risk with its theory.
The theory may fall under the weight of contrary evidence. The theory may change in unexpected ways, as dictated by the evidence. By putting its theory to the test ID risks losing control over its theory and having it change in directions that would not be helpful to the philosophical stream within ID; the "tool for liberation" would perhaps not be so useful a tool.
=========
I study human evolutionary strategies which of course, requires an acceptance of evolutionary law. I have a systemic ecological view of human behavior and thought I might serve as a useful tool for ID proponents to test their hypotheses against, but I am perplexed by the above statement. If ID is science, it takes no risks regardless of what it does. If it is not science, and it is important to note above that ID may not be a 'tool of liberation' either are you making the assumption that the study of 'evolutionarily advantageous behavior' is NOT a 'tool for liberation' and are you looking for a political tool or looking for science?
rich
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic