The 1st definition is Science. The 2nd is science.

Which "supernatural cause" does this thing called 'Darwinism' supposedly invoke?

Without breaching my usual unwillingness to offer commentary on this subject, I'd just like to note that James Randi is offering $20,000 to the Smithsonian if they refund the Discovery Institute's $16,000 and decline to run their film on Intelligent Design theory.

If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em.

james randi has a tail

Randi claims to have been an atheist since the age of 10. I won't comment on whether that slants his judgment or not.

Speaking of atheist magicians, I saw Penn and Teller in Vegas recently and then checked out their website afterwards (amusingly, they are visiting scholars at MIT and winners of the Hugh M. Hefner free speech award). It contains this hysterical speech from Richard Dawkins, presented upon their acceptance of the Richard Dawkins Award at the L.A. Atheist Alliance Conference.

This speech is worth looking at just to read Dawkins -- a fanatical atheist speaking before a conference of like-minded confreres -- say "I think we have been running scared of giving offence for too long." This said just after he related his story of refusing to shake the hand of the Christian Coalition leader and called him an "irrational bigot" to his face. Nice guy.

Orrin would say Dawkins was wrong, that he was a rational bigot.

Nothing wrong with bigotry. Why should Dawkins shake hands with his enemy?

Was this man his enemy in an 'evolutionary' sense, or just a threat to his intellect?

Moral.

Which "supernatural cause" does this thing called 'Darwinism' supposedly invoke?

creeper

Scientism--the faith that everything was caused and can be explained by natural processes irrespective of what conclusions an application of the scientific method to the evidence would actually suggest or support.

creeper:

Natural Selection

OJ:

I think I was away the day they explained the supernatural aspects of natural selection; it all seemed terribly logical to me. Your explanation would be welcome.

It's a thing unseen, not subject to observation or experimentation, requiring blind faith, propounded by a bearded prophet...

Natural selection is not a 'thing', seen or unseen.

Peter B and Orrin,

Neither of those is a supernatural cause.

Orrin,

you seem to really have run into difficulties with this term 'supernatural' lately:

su�per�nat�u�ral, adj. 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

3. Of or relating to a deity.

4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.

5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

None of those applies to natural selection.

"Scientism--the faith that everything was caused and can be explained by natural processes irrespective of what conclusions an application of the scientific method to the evidence would actually suggest or support."

Which parts of the theory of evolution would an application of the scientific method not suggest or support?

Evolution isn't subjected to the scientific method because it can't withstand it. read your Mayr.

creeper:

Darwinism is supernatural under each of those definitions.

What you call 'Darwinism' is one of your little toys to which you assign definitions nilly-willy. Enjoy it.

The supernatural cause you referred to earlier was natural selection. None of the definitions for 'supernatural' that I posted above applies to natural selection.

Natural Selection

(1) incorporates forces from outside the natural world or biosphere which you can in no wise account for

(2) Being immeasurable, unobservable and unreproducable it goes well beyond the natural forces that the physical scioences deal with

(3) it has all the qualities of a God and Darwin of His prophet

(4) faith in this unseen force that shapes all life is a belief in the miraculous

(5) darwinism

This is natural selection:

1. IF there are organisms that reproduce, and

2. IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and

3. IF there is variability of traits, and

4. IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,

5. THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and

6. THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

You claim that:

"Natural Selection

(1) incorporates forces from outside the natural world or biosphere which you can in no wise account for

Natural selection does not incorporate any forces from outside the natural world. Restricting the natural world to our "biosphere" is a strawman which you can in no way support. Science does not draw a boundary around our planet or our solar system or our galaxy - it all falls under the definition of the natural world.

I don't know why you keep bringing this up - are you genuinely confused about this, or do you seriously expect anyone to buy this?

"(2) Being immeasurable, unobservable and unreproducable it goes well beyond the natural forces that the physical scioences deal with"

The fact that it is a hypothetico-deductive science doesn't drag anything supernatural into it.

"(3) it has all the qualities of a God and Darwin of His prophet"

Name one.

"(4) faith in this unseen force that shapes all life is a belief in the miraculous"

Look at the summary above. It is not a 'force', it is a theory.

"(5) darwinism"

Whatever 'Darwinism' means this minute.

"Evolution isn't subjected to the scientific method because it can't withstand it."

A historical science can not be tested in the present day at will. We can't say: here's a hypothesis, let's test it, test it in the lab the same day, and reach a conclusion.

What we can do in the context of a historical science is pose a hypothesis, test it against all known data, as well as make predictions of future findings, and reach a conclusion. That is why evolutionary biology is, for the most part, a hypothetico-deductive science.

The theory of evolution has done that in abundance, by the way, which is why in scientific terms it is a theory, not a hypothesis.

creeper:

Yes, it's not science, but "historical science" or myth.

As your idol Mayr has stated, it is very much a science. And as you well know (I hope), historical science and myth are hardly synonymous.

No, like you he uses qualifiers to make clear it's not a real science.

creeper:

Soi a massive exrtinction was caused by a large mass colliding with the Earth. Was it:

(1) A "natural" event?

(2) Intelligent extraterrestrials engineering the Earth?

(3) A supernatural actor?

Discuss in detail how you'd differentiate scientifically among the three.

Creeper:

The to-ing and fro-ing on this subject, and OJ's shameless abandonment of intellectual integrity (particularly noteworthy is his recent response to simple mathematics showing either that he is completely incapable of comprehending his own argument, or isn't willing to let mere math stand in the way of his dialectical ends--I'm betting the latter).

As I noted in The Argument Clinic (I'd embedded the URL, but the post got turned back due to Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: dailyd_ck.blogspot.com; replace underscore with "u"), OJ's argument is dialectic; yours rhetorical.

Yours is based on first order knowledge, his on third.

In his view, the correctness of Evolution is immaterial--it should be forbidden knowledge in any event. By extension, all rational inquiry should also be forbidden.

Sadly, particularly since I spent a fair amount of effort in trying to understand the approaches of both sides, and had OJ as an inspiration, he declined to offer any critique of my analysis.

jeff, it you were really honest with yourself, you would see that your attachment to darwin is part and parcel with your bias against religion. why not just say "i don't know why things are this way" and be done with it ?

jeff:

I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble grasping this, but I'll try an example and see if we can come to an agreement:

A child has lost 5 teeth, strangely enough on 5 consecutive mondays, and after placing them under his pillow five times found 5 quarters. At what rate is the tooth fairy coming to his house?

Given that there is a rational and quite likely explanation readily at hand (namely that the kid's parents put the quarter under the kid's pillow), the rate would be zero.

"No, like you he uses qualifiers to make clear it's not a real science."

You impose arbitrary standards on what constitutes "real science". How should one go about scientifically understanding events that lie millions of years in the past? Where is the flaw in Mayr's reasoning with regard to tackling this question?

Or should one simply refrain from trying to understand events that lie millions of years in the past?

"Soi a massive exrtinction was caused by a large mass colliding with the Earth. Was it:
(1) A "natural" event?
(2) Intelligent extraterrestrials engineering the Earth?
(3) A supernatural actor?
Discuss in detail how you'd differentiate scientifically among the three."

All three are speculation, and there is no need for the scare quotes.

This is a fairly pointless argument, since OJ seems to have a very different definition of 'natural selection' from the scientific world. By offical definition it cannot be a 'thing', and nor can it describe the supernatual.

Further, natural selection can be observed. One such example would be body-length amongst small island populations.

creeper:

Bingo

creeper:

Not, I. It is you and Mayr who qualify it by calling it a "historical science" not science.

Mr. Peaceful:

So the Dinka are a different species than the Inuit?

cjm:

I don't know how long you have hung around this evergreen topic; if I am repeating myself to you, I apologize.

Unlike religion, no scientific theory claims to be Truth; rather, Evolution claims nothing more than to be a provisionally internally coherent explanation of how life changed over time.

So, no I don't Know the Theory of Evolution is True. But, given the evidence on offer, I think it more likely than not that the theory, while undoubtedly incomplete, is largely correct.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with hostility towards religion--there are, after all, many religious Evolutionary scientists who would be surprised to have you tell them of your hostility.
As would, for that matter, the Catholic church.

One might better ask whether IDers, YEC, and OEC advocates have confounded religion with God.

OJ:

What I am having trouble with is your willingness to forsake intellectual integrity in pursuit of a rhetorical argument (your recent, flagrant, refusal to acknowledge simple mathematical proportion has to be the most glaring self-inflicted wound yet).

Your ends require dialectic argument--why not just 'fess up and do so?

(BTW--I'll say it just once more, I promise: I wrote The Argument Clinic in attempting to understand your approach; I'm disappointed you didn't subject it to critical analysis.)

Jeff:

Of course it's dialectic, we're discussing Darwinism which exists only in the realm of pure reason.

creeper grasped the problem rather easily, I bet you can too:

"A child has lost 5 teeth, strangely enough on 5 consecutive mondays, and after placing them under his pillow five times found 5 quarters. At what rate is the tooth fairy coming to his house?"

"Not, I. It is you and Mayr who qualify it by calling it a "historical science" not science."

How should one go about scientifically understanding events that lie millions of years in the past? Where is the flaw in Mayr's reasoning with regard to tackling this question?

It is a question you simply do not want to be considered.

A lesson you can draw from your tooth fairy scenario is that, in the presence of a plausible naturalistic explanation, it is not necessary to postulate a supernatural one. You are of course free to do so, if it makes you feel better.

"Darwinism exists only in the realm of pure reason".

Of all OJ's nonsensical proclamations on Darwinism, this one ranks...somewhere in the middle.

Darwinism consists of the study of the natural world. Of looking what is actually there, and coming up with the simplest possible explanation for how it works.

ID consists of sitting in your study, persusing National Geographic and waiting to see what these studies say, and then interjecting "Irreducible! God did that bit!" every now and again.

Sensible Creationists stick to saying "Interesting, but God started it all off." At least their version resembles the facts, and they don't have to backtrack every few weeks or so.

Brit:

They all proceed from going out and looking around and then cooking up a theory that is neither observable nor testable. They are each perfect.

creeper:

No, I agree with you and Mayr, we should invent historical/philosophical narratives (myths) that reflect what we wish to believe for aesthetic reasons.

OJ:

Except that if that were the case, the Theory of Evolution would have stood still, and there would be at least one ID paper in the scientific canon, instead of none.

Brit:

"canon" gives away the game, but is unusually honest on your part.

So are you saying I'm usually dishonest, wiseguy?

Brit:

You guys are dishonest with yourselves, so inevitably dishonest with us, though it's not your intent. You're amusing rather than malicious.

Positively Wildean, Orrin.

"They all proceed from going out and looking around and then cooking up a theory that is neither observable nor testable. They are each perfect."

What's this about "neither observable nor testable"? The theory of evolution has been and continues to be tested against the evidence.

[As Mayr said:
"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes."]

"I agree with you and Mayr, we should invent historical/philosophical narratives (myths) that reflect what we wish to believe for aesthetic reasons."

Neither Mayr nor me said that with regard to the theory of evolution. You do realize that historical and phylosophical are not the same, and that a historical narrative is not the same as a myth, don't you?

Okay, Orrin, while you're being all honest and stuff, how about an honest answer to this question:

How should one go about scientifically understanding events that lie millions of years in the past? Where is the flaw in Mayr's reasoning with regard to tackling this question?

creeper:

The reasoning is flawless, as in I.D. and Creationism. It just isn't scientific.

"So the Dinka are a different species than the Inuit?"

No, they are the same species but they express different phenotypes, and will have differing genotypes. Perhaps over another million years, if isolated, there would be separate species, if the conditions made certain genotypes less desirable than others. Unlikely with globalisation. We don't need to look at humans though, we can learn enough through observations of animals.

If we answered all the hows and whys the way you do, OJ, we'd be walking from our gas-lit homes to work and hoping the sky didn't fall on our heads.

Mr. Peaceful:

When has speciation of animals been observed?

Orrin,

How should one go about scientifically understanding events that lie millions of years in the past?

If it's science you propound a testable theory along with predictions that can subsequently be observed and experiments that can be performed.

But there's no reason that your philosophy of the past should be scientific.

"If it's science you propound a testable theory along with predictions that can subsequently be observed and experiments that can be performed."

And how would you do that with regard to events millions of years in the past? What kind of predictions and experiments would you propose?

"But there's no reason that your philosophy of the past should be scientific."

Still confused about that "philosophy of science" bit, I see.

creeper:

I don't propose any--I agree with you and Mayr that Darwinism makes no predictions, can not be observed and can not be confirmed by experiment. That's why it's a philosophy, not a science.

creeper:

Philosophical science isn't science. If it were it wouldn't need the qualifier.

Duncan Steel ('Rogue Asteroids and Doomsday Comets') has explained how to determine whether the impact of a large object with earth (killing lots of creatures) is natural -- let's define that, for Orrin's challenge to creeper, as repeatable and predictable according to everyday physical laws -- or not.

Turns out, it is natural. No supernational intervention required.

"I don't propose any--"

Exactly like I said earlier: scientifically understanding events that lie millions of years in the past is a question you simply do not want to be considered. Your claim that Mayr's thoughts on the subject are invalid is just a baseless knock.

"I agree with you and Mayr that Darwinism makes no predictions, can not be observed and can not be confirmed by experiment."

If you have to completely mischaracterize someone else's position just so you can say you agree with it, doesn't that mean that you don't agree with it?

Oh, wait, never mind. You said "Darwinism", not the theory of evolution, and "Darwinism" can mean just about anything in your book.

"That's why it's a philosophy, not a science."

No, that's why it's a hypothetico-deductive science.

Harry;

Let's hear it. How would you tell whether a prehistoric asteroid that collided with Earth was:

(a) "natural"

(b) steered into Earth by aliens

(c) steered into Earth by God

creeper:

I never said Mayr's ideas were invalid. I agree with him.

I note you don't propose any either, since there can be none. So we're agreed that your belief isn't scientific.

i believe there is science that can tell us the configuration of the continents, hundreds of millions of years ago. there is also science to tell us where the galaxies where billions of years ago. we can also use this science to predict where these same objects will be into the future.

jeff g: thank you for the good answer. i am not hostile to darwin -- if it is ever proven true i am happy to accept it. that's all i want, truth. i am even happy talking in hypotheticals, as long as the other person admits that is the case too.

"Philosophical science isn't science. If it were it wouldn't need the qualifier."

I was talking about the "philosophy of science", not "philosophical science". Cute little strawman, even if utterly transparent.

Nice try to change the subject, but it's pretty clear that this "philosophy of science" business really has you stumped. Either that or you're feigning ignorance because you're trying to conflate all this into some "Mayr said that evolutionary biology is just a philosophy" meme, which is clearly misrepresenting his statements.

So once again:

One of the surprising things that I discovered in my work on the philosophy of biology is that when it comes to the physical sciences, any new theory is based on a law, on a natural law. Yet as several leading philosophers have stated, and I agree with them, there are no laws in biology like those of physics. Biologists often use the word law, but for something to be a law, it has to have no exceptions. A law must be beyond space and time, and therefore it cannot be specific. Every general truth in biology though is specific. Biological "laws" are restricted to certain parts of the living world, or certain localized situations, and they are restricted in time. So we can say that their are no laws in biology, except in functional biology which, as I claim, is much closer to the physical sciences, than the historical science of evolution. [...]

Despite the passing of a century before this new branch of philosophy fully developed, its eventual form is based on Darwinian concepts. For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

"I note you don't propose any either, since there can be none. So we're agreed that your belief isn't scientific."

I don't propose any first of all because I wasn't asked, and second because I accept what Mayr proposed regarding how such a thing can be approached scientifically. You reject it, which is why I asked you how it should be done. You had no answer, from which I infer that you simply do not want the question pondered, period.

And again, if you have to completely mischaracterize someone else's position (as you do here) just so you can say you agree with it, doesn't that mean that you don't agree with it?

Mayr says it isn't science precisely because there is no proposition that fits.