Science of evolution

After the last couple of posts on proofs, I wanted to examine the science used in evolution a bit.

It could be argued that the science behind evolution is equally non-scientific as the science behind ID. If you think about it, replicating the primordial soup (and the pre-life world conditions), creating life from scratch, and waiting around for it to evolve in some way would take far too long to feasibly be possible. Does that make it not testable? Not falsifiable? If so, then it's not really science...

Fortunately, as discussed before, we can design experiments in a different way that test evolution without having to resort to recreating life from scratch. We can observe current organisms and past organisms and from these make falsifiable hypotheses. We can make models from our ideas and use them to make predictions about the future. If they don't correctly predict what happens, we can then look and see what's wrong to change the hypothesis.

This is what separates evolution science from ID science.

More on proofs

After the last post talking about proofs, I found something else I'd made a note of in my book to mention on the subject.

Another reason non-proofs may necessarily not be disproofs depends on the experimental design. An experimenter may be flawed in their thinking when creating the experimental parameters, or they may simply be testing the wrong thing without realising it. Or hey, I guess they could be realising it and doing some dodgy stuff to make it seem like their testing the right thing. Sometimes it really pays off to examine the experiment design closely and make sure scientists are really doing what they're saying, and that the results support their claims.

Especially when the science is coming from sources that are a bit questionable or lacking in credibility.

Non-proof != Disproof

In our last class we discussed a bit about proofs and the idea that a non-proof isn't the same as a disproof. Disproofs can be very difficult, because you have to show something will never happen under any conditions. A non-proof is just shows that it doesn't work/happen under the conditions you tested. It does not mean it never happens. It could just mean you failed at experimenting. Unfortunately a lot of science can be lost like this.

Once I thought about it a bit though, in relation to the evo-ID debate, I realised this same sort of idea can be applied. If there is proof a creator of some kind exists, then that still doesn't rule out evolution. As stated back in the first post, s/he may have created life, and then decided to let it evolve on it's own. Unless of course we can talk to it and are scolded for considering evolution...

 The reverse also applies. If every piece of evidence for evolution ever needed was found (fully complete fossil record, every genome in existence sequenced and compared, etc.), it still would not disprove a creator. That would need proof of the origins of life, because evolution is only the mechanism for change and speciation.

What is ID really looking for?

While reading some of the stuff on Talk Rational I had an idea... Or maybe I read it there... Can't quite remember. But basically my thoughts were something like this. 

All the ID experiments observe aspects of nature and life and suggest that the only way these could come about is by design: Such complex body parts, such diverse life, and even using 'junk' DNA as evidence for a creator. Now I thought 'Well if that's the evidence that indicates there's a creator, what would you be looking for if there wasn't one?' To me, most of the evidence they give is anti-creator. The receptors in our eyes are back to front and the image is received upside down (with only the brain to compensate). There's a lot of DNA that seems to be leftover from having a use in other (more ancient) species, but serves no function in humans. Why even create fossils if dinosaurs never existed? You really need to go to those kind of lengths to 'test faith'? (Although I think that's more creationist than ID, so that's cheating a little.)

My point is, if things were designed intelligently, there would be nothing redundant. You don't see human designing cars or electronics with cords or motors that don't connect to anything or serve a purpose. Our car seats don't face backwards and have mirrors there for us to see forwards.

I just feel that if things were indeed designed, they could have been designed better.

Amusement

I found a couple of pictures/comics on the Internet which sum up a couple of points quite nicely. Click for enlargement.

Firstly...

Quite self explanatory really...

And secondly...

It's funny how IDers ignore evolution/science in times as these.

Anyway, that's just a bit of a side note. More posting soon!

Intelligent Design in schools

There is a simple and good reason why Intelligent Design should not be taught in a science class in school. It's just not science. Even ignoring the obvious creation background and religious undertones, what they advocate isn't science. Their 'science' can't predict future events... it can't be falsified... you can't even tell if you are right or wrong for that fact. There's no way to prove it at all really (a post or two on proofs soon!). The only way this should be taught in a science class is to show an example of bad scientific methods.

Teaching ID in a science class would be like teaching caveman in an English class. To the ignorant/gullible person it may give the illusion of being appropriate, but in the end any real look at it will show how short it falls. It's only seen as science to those who want to see it as science and believe that it's a real argument.


Also, as all the bigwigs at the Discovery Institute are very Christian and believe it was their god that is the designer... I think it's safe to say that none of them would want On the Origin of Species to be taught as an alternate to The Bible (again, probably unfairly creationist... but it's true).

Why Intelligent Design is scary.

The discovery institute is the main driving force behind the intelligent design movement. One of their main goals has always been to get intelligent design taught in schools next to evolution. I'll talk about that a bit later, but in my researching about that, I came across document from their planning department. How wrong I was thinking simply that their only goal was to simply have design taught in schools... Have a look at the summary table below. Sorry about the poor quality (it makes my eyes bleed), apparently they don't have high res scanners. According to their goals, they don't want to just stop at getting design taught in school, they want a complete upheaval of modern science to redefine everything by creation. To me the document just reads like they want world domination. And of course, the discovery institute is run by self proclaimed Christians--they're trying to send us back to the middle ages! Back when the Catholic church ran society. At least that's how it reads to me.

Evolution could be a monopoly

Ok so I had my facts clarified by an economics-knowing friend and feel as if I can make this analogy now.

If we look at science and religion (for simplicity sake) selling the knowledge of evolution and creation respectively, then agreeing with one idea, is essentially buying it. Using that, we can say that it seems to me like evolution currently has the monopoly on modern society. As science and technology grow more and more, people are increasingly accepting evolution. It also receives high levels of acceptance in social circles and all forms of media (even if just passively).

If this is the case, that would make the creation movement the small advocacy group trying to stand up in the market. In monopoly situations, the smaller groups have to have loud voices, so it's known that they're in competition (or that there actually is competition) with the large monopoly. This is why they have to argue so much more furiously than evolution. This also explains in part the development of the intelligent design argument over the creation one, to make it sound more like science, and give the impression that they're in direct competition.

My friend summed it up well in saying: 'They're trying to remain relevant in an increasingly scientific world. As more people understand how the work works due to scientific innovations they struggle to remain relevant with their scientifically unfounded principles'

Youtube fails me

Ok so this morning I wanted to do a little test on youtube. It's the first time I've noticed a science and technology category. I thought 'Well news sites usually have no science in their sci and tech sections, so let's see how youtube goes...' I left on the basic filters, which I think are 'most viewed' and 'today'. On the first page, there were 2 things (out of 24) I would consider science videos. The second was a puzzle about a defective periodic table, sitting at number 22. This video was at number 11... I feel like my IQ dropped a little.

The risk information vacuum of evolution

In class, we discussed the concept of a 'risk information vacuum'. The idea came from the book Mad Cows and Mother's Milk. Basically, the vacuum is the space where information is not shared between experts and the public. Basically, the information from science isn't properly communicated to the public, and the fears and wants of the public aren't communicated back to the scientists.

I was thinking about the evolution creation debate and I found it somewhat hard to really identify properly. I'm not sure it even existed. At the very least, it doesn't seem to exist any more. Not in terms of what the public seems to want to know... Evolution is fairly widely accepted. It's penetrated into most aspects of culture now, and most people understand somewhat the ideas of it and natural selection (at least here in Australia that seems to be the case).

However, I do think that the creationist movement seems to be trying to pretend there is a vacuum to put their information into. It seems by telling people that evolution isn't widely accepted by science or that scientists don't really know anything about it yet, they feel they are filling this gap between science and people that doesn't really exist.

These tactics also reminded me a little of something in economics my old house mate had told me about once. So next post I'm going to cover evolution as a monopoly (I think I've got the behaviours of the groups right for a monopoly).

Who really is the expert?

In this debate, I think the question of expertise is an important one. It's obvious that on each side there are experts for that field. But really, those experts are most likely only knowledgeable in their field. How qualified would a proponent of intelligent design be to actually talk about evolution? Having a real degree or being well researched in all the ideas. Or the opposite--how many evolutionary geneticists would have read the bible or have a solid understanding of the entire theory and history of intelligent design ideas. Even then, I would suggest that of those who do cross over from their side of expertise, very few have studied the other side with and open mind and no jaded eyes. Just something to think about really.


On a side note, I've changed all of my fonts down a size because I think it looks nicer (=

The risk of evolution

When talking about controversies, risks can be looked at in two ways. First there are the risks that you normally think about - those involving some sort of danger or loss. These risks aren't overly relevant to the evolution-creation controversy, as there isn't really any danger or potential for harm that comes from taking once side or the other (except maybe from the point of view of a creationist looking at an evolutionary atheist - going to hell is bad for your health).

The second kind of risk, and the one that is probably more relevant to this controversy, is the uncertainty risk. These risks involve being uncertain about the outcome of the event. Uncertainty applies to this controversy in that we can't really prove either side wrong currently. There's no proof a God doesn't exist, and there's no proof evolution and natural selection don't occur (and there's more and more proof that natural selection makes new species). It's also uncertain in saying that we don't know what evidence will come up in the future to change how we understand these two lines of thought as they currently are.


Edited afterthought:


I suppose in this case there is another level of risk involved. The risk of the other side winning this debate. If science wins and creationism is completely ignored, then there is the chance other aspects of religion will fall within society too. The reverse is also true, if creation wins over evolution then we may find that other debates such as the origins of the universe/earth or GM foods (I use these examples because they are also being discussed by other class members) may become more controlled by religion, or that religion may once again dictate how society progresses as it did in centuries past.