Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] against ID

From: Robert Bradbury <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 06:59:47 -0500

On 12/8/05, Samantha Atkins <[email-masked]> wrote:

> That is not equivalent to saying that such speculations should be taught
> in high school biology classes or presented  as being on equal footing with
> well-established theory.
>

Hmmm...  Evolution is in my mind pretty well tested.  I can easily setup
experiments to vary the rate of evolution (changing background radiation
levels, chemical exposure, etc.) and demonstrate the change of
characteristics in microorganisms.  I can then track it back to what changed
in the genome and tie it to specific genes and then research the structure
of the proteins those genes produce and determine the chemistry and physics
involved in the alteration of the properties of those proteins.

The recent completetion of the dog genome and the many "strains" of dogs
gives us clear evidence of how "directed evolution" can change the
characteristics of macroscale organisms and allows us to tie those changes
back to specific changes in the genetic program which constructs those
organisms.

So I would tend to put evolution in the "demonstrable" class but I'm not
sure how I would go about "falsifying" it.  Astrophysics is even worse --
how does one go about "falsifying" theories such as nucleosynthesis (e.g.
the s-process and the r-process) in "evolving" the elements?  And I'd like
to see someone "test" the big bang (i.e. the 'first 3 minutes').

The center argument of ID is that what we see around us is "too complex" to
have evolved and therefore must have developed through other processes.
Now, IMO the complexity of organisms *is* something that reasonably belongs
in a biology class (all the way from the minimal complexity for
self-replicating organisms [which is required for evolution ] to the maximal
complexity [esp. since it looks like many plants may have  larger and
potentially more complex genomes (more genes) than many animals]).

However serious analysis of complexity tends to fall into either math or
computer science classes.  It ends up relating to everything from unsolved
math problems to whether problems are NP-complete to what are the limits to
intelligence.

Now, *if*, the ID people are sticking to the 'science' (which is what I
believe the Discovery Institute is trying to do) then it is certainly
reasonable to make note of the fact that we live in a complex world and ask
the question of "How much 'intelligence' is required to design (and build)
one?"

If the people on the list are immediately lumping together 'creationists'
with people who support a "nonpartisan public policy think tank conducting
research on technology, science and culture, economics and foreign affairs"
(from the Discovery Institute home page) then I think motivations for
spreading FUD need to be examined.  I would also note as an aside that the
stated activities of the Discovery Institute would seem to be something the
Extropy Instutute could support and it sounds like it involves many of the
discussions which take place on the Extropy Chat List.

Robert
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: gts <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 07:34:54 -0500

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 06:59:47 -0500, Robert Bradbury  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> with people who support a "nonpartisan public policy think tank  
> conducting research on technology, science and culture, economicsand  
> foreign  affairs" (from the Discovery Institute home page) then Ithink  
> motivations for spreading FUD need to be examined.  I would alsonote as  
> an aside that  the stated activities of the Discovery Institutewould  
> seem to be something the Extropy Instutute could support andit sounds  
> like it involves many of  the discussions which take placeon the Extropy  
> Chat List.

The Discovery Institute is and always has been an adversary of those who  
want to keep religion out of the science classroom.

It was the Discovery Institute that came up with the "wedge strategy".  
According to this doctrine (and you can be sure they are fond of their  
doctrines) they should seek to "wedge" Intelligent Design into the science  
classroom by arguing that science educators have some kind of ethical  
obligation to "teach the controversy".

Problem is, among most biologists there is no real controversy. Most  
biologists and other scientists consider ID to be pseudo-science or  
religion. So the Discovery Institute and other supporters of ID keeping  
stirring the pot as much as possible, in the media and with their  
conservative church affiliates and political representatives, apparently  
to create the *illusion* of real scientific controversy.

A valid scientific theory worthy of being taught to impressionable young  
minds goes through many years if not several decades of rigorous testing  
and peer-review before it makes into science textbooks. These people are  
trying to bypass that process.

-gts