Bill Nye, the Strawman Guy
I was in the bookstore recently and couldn’t resist browsing Bill Nye’s book Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation. (I note, mostly for laughs, that his title is itself incorrect: His whole book is about a bunch of people who deny evolution.)
Here’s a photo I took from the beginning. In just these two pages, it was astonishing how badly he mangled his opponents’ positions (click the photo to flip it, I don’t know why it’s upside down in the thumbnail):
Now before I mention some of the problems here, let me give a disclaimer: Guys, I used to be a hardcore atheist in college. I read a lot on evolutionary biology, and even read their critiques of creationism. I thought those critiques were awesome. Even after I had recovered my belief in God (in grad school), I still thought those arguments for the standard modern view of evolution were great. It was only after I re-read them, as a theist, that I saw all of the problems in them. If you are an atheist, it simply must be the case (in your mind) that intelligent life arose from inorganic molecules without any plan. And so, even if there are serious problems with any particular attempt to explain what happened in this way, you will not really feel the power of the critique, because you know the real story has to be something like that.
Another disclaimer: I am not a “young Earth creationist.” Two of the people I consider quite authoritative on the Bible–and who believe it literally–don’t think it establishes that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Another disclaimer: I am not threatened by the hypothesis that all life on Earth originated from a single cell. What I do claim is that if that did happen, then that original cell had a lot of very useful information tucked into it, that cannot be explained by standard “mindless” Darwinian mechanisms. This is what Michael Behe (one of the leaders in the Intelligent Design movement) thinks, I believe, and it also is a loose link to the stuff Gene Callahan has been writing regarding the Turing Test. (I don’t know if Gene would endorse my linking of these two topics.)
Annnnnyway, back to the Bill Nye excerpt above:
1) He is flatly wrong when he says that creationists say evolution isn’t happening today. That’s actually one of the first opening moves a creationist will make in these debates, is to admit that of course you can see populations adapting to environmental changes, but calling this microevolution and contrasting it with macroevolution. You can dismiss the distinction as spurious if you want, but it’s amazing that Nye misrepresents his opponents at Step #1.
2) It’s odd that Nye first says creationists don’t like curiosity or common sense, and then talks about a guy who built a whole museum catering to creationists. An odd way to stifle their curiosity, isn’t it? Why, it’s almost as if he’s trying to provide answers to their questions. Ham should create an organization along those lines…
3) Does Nye really not see the distinction between observations we can make today, versus speculations about things that happened in the past? Do you guys–even those of you who hate Bible-thumpers–believe me when I tell you that of course Ken Ham thinks astronomical observations are useful in science?
4) I realize agnostic believers in the standard, modern Darwinian synthesis might think it’s pointless for me to criticize a science popularizer. I grant that I’m not in this post doing anything about the deep questions in these fields. Rather, my modest purpose is to show just how AWFUL much of the “establishment” restatement of evolution is, when they try to reassure the masses that those wacky Christians have nothing useful to say. Nye can’t even state their position. I’m not upset with him; I think he is so sure these guys are blubbering morons/liars that it doesn’t occur to him to actually try to understand what they mean.
¡sʎɐp ǝsǝɥʇ buıop ǝɹɐ spıʞ 1ooɔ ǝɥʇ 11ɐ ʇɐɥʍ ǝq oʇ sɯǝǝs …uʍop ǝpısdn buıpɐǝɹ ǝ1qnoɹʇ ǝʌɐɥ ı ʇɐɥʇ ʇou .11ǝʍ sɐ ʞɔı1ɔ ı uǝɥʍ ǝɯ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ʇno sǝɯoɔ ʇı ‘ɥbnouǝ ʎ1ppO
Bi-, Bi-Bi-, Bi-, Bi-, Bi-, B i l l N y e, t h e S c i e n c e G u y.
BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL!
If you have a statement along the lines of “Survival of the fittest, and the fittest are the ones that survive.”
Then there’s no way you argue it is false. It’s as solidly true as saying “1 = 1” or any other tautology.
From Nye’s book:
Gosh, that’s so anti-freedom, stamping your foot and demanding other people think the same as you do. Being unwilling to acknowledge the potential validity of other points of view is just such a nasty, brutish way to go about your life.
And did I forget to mention that Nye is every bit as anti-freedom as the people he accuses?
Classic SJW tells: projection (accuse others of the thing that you do) and flat hypocrisy with no self awareness.
Uh. Demanding someone deny something is not the same as demanding he believe it false. Sometimes it’s about either power or the content of the social space.
“Children who accept this ludicrous perspective will find themselves opposed to progress.”
“Progress” in the collective sense, no doubt.
Except … only individuals progress, sooo …
Logic rules! BILL! BILL! BILL! …
Anti-freedom is disallowing fiction to be taught in science class?
So we all have to check with you about what is fiction and what is not? Hopefully you also provide the definitive list on that (including all future knowledge, so we can settle it).
I thought science provided a rigorous method of testing evey hypothesis (based on the ability to make predictions and that stuff) in which case freedom is only obtained once the students can make their own decisions… you know, like the way a scientist would do.
Oh wait! I forgot that government science has now evolved away from the scientific method, towards becoming the most efficient collector of grant funding. That’s the definition of “fitness” in the modern scientific context as far as I can tell. The scientist collecting the largest grants is the winner! Given that context just teach the students to rapidly fill in forms and mention all the important political buzzwords: global warming, mass extinction, equality, social justice, and the importance of central planning in achieving a better world. Just make sure they know the correct results they are supposed to come up with, could get messy if there’s any accidental discoveries or anything like that.
Creationism isn’t science, period.
So you can tell me what Evolution predicts about the events of next year then? Or next 100 years for that matter?
Will ebola suddenly flare up and become a world wide problem? Any idea when? This would be really useful, so surely Evolution has the answers… it’s science after all.
Evolution like gravity is a fact of life. Creationism is nothing and gets no voice outside religious fables.
Your assertion backed by more assertion means squat.
Creationism only exists because the “Bible so says so.” It’s as though any perceived flaw in evolution is a sudden all-in proof of Creationism.
Says who?
Posts like this do our work for us.
1. Tragic that an economist who insists the distinction between micro and macro economics was an abortive attempt to understand the world, embraces the distinction for evolution. Murphy, evolution is taking place in a line of organism’s genes. It is all micro and all macro. No distinction.
2. A museum dedicated to stifling curiosity and common sense, is not dedicated to curiosity and common sense just because it is a museum. Come in kids to Mr. Jonen’s garage of magical artifacts. He’s calling it a planetarium museum arthouse library.
3. To scientific researchers, there is no fundamental distinction between events observed over time today, and similar events being inferred to have happened in the past based on assuming constant laws. You do this with Krugman’s posts. I mean, you aren’t actually seeing Krugman type those words. They are historical posts and you speak of them as if you know he wrote them.
—————
If you’re not a young Earther, on the basis of science, then what about all the Bible thumpers who believe in 6000 years? There are many teaching their kids that! That is who Nye was speaking to. Actual Bible believers through and through, not the cherry pickers.
—————–
“What I do claim is that if that did happen, then that original cell had a lot of very useful information tucked into it, that cannot be explained by standard “mindless” Darwinian mechanisms.”
Of COURSE it can be explained by evolution through natural selection! How can you possibly claim it cannot?
That “original cell” is ITSELF an organism in a long evolutionary line of organic matter. The theory is that prior to cells, there were organic structures that later evolved into cells, in which the information contained therein was smaller. And again going back further, and further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBpW-m8soMY
With the cell thing Murphy sounds a lot like LK. Yet he, LK, and Callahan all howl when you call them anti-science.
Who has called me “anti-science” for me to “howl” about it? But, as someone who teaches computer science, is a trained engineer, and studied the philosophy and history of science in graduate school, I think it would be a little hard for some to make that case. Which is probably why I’ve never heard it!
None so deaf as those who will not hear. You reject evolution by natural selection.
No one is making you go to a museum.
Major, It is curious to me, given your
Nom de plume, that you choose to argue over the
correctness of evolution vs. creation as opposed to which side is on the side of freedom. My own bias is that evolutionists are not on the side of freedom because they seek to deny people accommodations for religious beliefs they disagree with.
If I believe the earth is 6000 years old and this belief is important to my worldview, why should I not be able to teach this to my kids and why should I not expect the state to accommodate my belief in the schools. After all, it’s not like I’m insisting that the schools teach the idea that a powerful central government with multifarious controls on commerce, high taxes and redistributionist social programs and a malleable view of constitutional protections of personal freedoms is the key reason for our prosperity and domestic tranquillity.
Neither theory is on the side of freedom, any more than particle physics is on the side of freedom. However, certain advocates of those theories might be bent on destroying the freedom of others. Clearly Nye believes it is perfectly reasonable for him to control the schools (because “progress!”) but very wicked for anyone else to exert the same control.
You’d rather live in a comfortable lie than an unpleasant truth?
You’re missing the point. I’m a scientist. I believe in evolution but I do not have the right to impose my view of what is true and what is false on others. Just ask yourself whether you would want the opposite of your beliefs imposed on you?
Also, there are many things taught in schools which can easily be proven false. Ex. it is often taught that officials in Columbus time thought the world was flat.
I find it interesting that there are so many people who know that evolution is true yet know almost nothing about evolution. All they know is the answer and then consider themselves somehow smarter than people who don’t agree with the answer. And yet they are passionate about force feeding that theory to others.
Why are people so passionate about a theory they’ve never bothered to learn? My guess is it’s because they want to take a jab at religious beliefs they disagree with and yet are ignorant of the fact “knowing the answer” more akin to religion than science.
Au contraire. Facts are not beliefs and no one is served by teaching beliefs as though they were facts. Certainly there’s no “equal time” between facts and beliefs.
A fact is an observation. A theory is an explanation of the facts. I won’t get into a big philosophical discussion about epistemology and the definition of belief, etc. Theories are prone to error due to the limits of knowledge at the time. They often stand for long periods of time but are eventually replaced.
There are very different beliefs (or should I say facts) among evolutionary theorists. Are they all right even though they disagree?
BTW, my son does research on new theories of gravity. I find it amusing when people make analogies using gravity.
I agree with you about a lot of people who use “science!” As a form of “oh snap!” and who are just playing one upmanship. Lots of that around. I complain about the amount of it over at Coyne’s blog. But I bet you rely on theories you don’t understand. Chances are you really don’t know how the Internet really works, or your car, or the Meds you are on. Does Gil need to prove the Internet exists before he can talk about the Internet? It really is clear that evolution is science and creationism isn’t.
Gravity exists – what gravity is exactly and how it works is still not fully known. By the same token, evolution simply exists, it’s the way organism slowly change and adapt over the aeons. How it fully works is not quite understood either.
“Tragic that an economist who insists the distinction between micro and macro economics was an abortive attempt to understand the world, embraces the distinction for evolution. Murphy, evolution is taking place in a line of organism’s genes. It is all micro and all macro. No distinction.”
Holy crap! IF the distinction between micro and macro in economics is invalid, per MF, and other use of those prefixes in any other field must be invalid too!
In that debate Nye had on TV, he continually harped on those whom hold the theory of creation as “settled” and denounce scientific observation. I got the sense not that he is attacking those whom have faith, but those whom refuse to acknowledge scientific observation and theory. The message I felt him delivering was that, while science has not unlocked all answers, the goal is simply using logic and experimentation to try to provide answers to unanswered questions. Religious indoctrination with absolute belief in creation simply impedes individuals from continuing the field. There are several items in the bible which have been proven wrong to such a high degree that they are ludicrous to support. However there are many (not you, since you still attempt to refute on observed fact as opposed to blind faith) refusing to allow their children to learn basic material which runs contrary to creation.
“Religious indoctrination with absolute belief in creation simply impedes individuals from continuing the field.”
Your personal belief is that the field should be continued. But that’s not everyone’s belief, and to the extent that they’re not violating another’s individual rights, they’re entitled to reject science (or religion).
And indoctrination is indoctrination. Scientific indoctrination with absolute belief in empiricism to the exclusion of all the implications of agency required to even do science is just another kind of indoctrination.
“However there are many … refusing to allow their children to learn basic material which runs contrary to creation.”
The public school system is not a substitute for parental rule. The public schools are supposed to do what parents say, not tell parents what they will teach their children.
Also, the public school system is not to be mandatory, so if you don’t want your kids being indoctrinated with evolution, or, when reason occasionally wins out, thereby allowing children to go to a creation museum, you can blame the government for forcing you to put your kids in public schools, in the first place.
(When I say “reason wins out”, I mean that to the extent that reason *can* win out in the context of mandatory public schooling.)
My personal belief is irrelevant. If Bob posted an article criticizing parents for indoctrinating their children with statist beliefs, I doubt you’d take offense to his attack on the freedom of individuals to educate their children (since it’s not an attack on freedom). He would simply be mounting an intellectual battle on a faulty reasoning. To the extent Bill Nye has attempted to enact coercive force on individuals, he’s in the wrong. However, to have a problem with his intellectual attack on what he perceives to be faulty reasoning is inconsistent.
When Neil DeGrasse Tyson says that evolution is a fact, he’s not stating a belief per se…he’s stating an observation based on empirical _and_ logical experimentation…the best guess we can make with the resources and knowledge we have. If you want to attack the scientific field because you don’t think their theories are correct, then attack the theory and show why it’s wrong. Otherwise don’t confound someone for trying to point to yet indisputable evidence as a foundation for an intellectual attack. Bob’s criticisms here are specific to the scientific field not understanding the true argument of creation, not that evolution has faulty information. If he does claim that, I would like to see it.
Your personal belief is quite relevant, since you consider “not continuing the field of science [with other people’s money]” to be the equivalent of “refusing to allow their children to learn”.
*It’s the parents’ money!* The Public School system doesn’t get a say.
Public School is even unconstitutional, so there’s that.
I’m sure if you polled these same dunder-head, backwater parents, they’d say it was OK for their children to study whatever they want when they make their own money.
And Bob was criticizing the state for indoctrinating others’ children, not criticizing the parents.
Parents who wish their children to avoid religious education so long as they’re the one’s paying for it have just as much right to withhold religious teaching as those who wish to withhold teaching about the Theory of Evolution.
Solution: Shut down the Public Schools.
I see your point, Bob. Both Nye and Ham are wrong: whether the world came about through evolutionary means is not the main issue. Rather it is whether there was intelligence behind whatever process (evolutionary or otherwise) brought about the world.
You are right that Nye fails to understand (and so grossly misrepresents) his opponents. Ham probably has the same failing–but less so.
so bob, what do you think of young earth creationists? do they use the same rhetorical devices as nye – straw men and the like? are they better?
I’m not sure if Nye understands economics, either.
“Does Nye really not see the distinction between observations we can make today, versus speculations about things that happened in the past? ”
I cannot see it too. Why make the distinction, if not to cast doubt on using theories that work “today” as working in the past?
Expecting good science out of Bill Nye is like expecting Keith Olbermann to give an accurate and coherent description of the austrian theory of the business cycle.
I think evolution is a correct description of the world, I am not an atheist, and: I know for a fact that Nye is an obnoxious left wing a-hole who’s not qualified to talk about the things on which he has the loudest, most self-righteous opinion.
Pope John Paull II proclaimed that both evolution and creationism can coexist: https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM
Furthermore, and something many atheists don’t realize is that their religion, science, is actually made up of “theories,” some of which were cobbled by Catholics, i.e. Big Bang Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
What would happen if atheists realized that their greatest argument against the Bible on how the earth was created, was actually derived from the mind of a man that has dedicated his life to God…? Not sure they know, but it did derive from the mind of man that believed in God.
You forgot attention whore.
Creationism is irrelevant to the competitive position of the United States in the sciences.
This is an astonishingly good comment. I don’t care if my surgeon or the engineer who works for apple believes the world is 6,000 years old. Nor do I care if my neighbors do.
(But, for instance, I DO care if these people believe in vaccinations.)
This has become Nye’s primary schtick about creationism.
He made a huge point about how creationism has inhibited scientific development in Kentucky and that they didn’t have a nuclear medicine center (or some such thing). It turned out, he had his facts wrong, but more importantly is how bad an argument it is.
This is probably true. The dangerous cranks are the anti-vaxxers. But they are predominantly left leaning so not a target Nye gets points for dissing.
Hey Bob,
Just a recommendation for your free time reading. “The Lost World Of Genesis One.” by John Walton. It’s a short, pop-level and more focused presentation of his work on comparative literature with respect to the Old Testament.
For some reason, once I finished that book, I came to the realization that you expressed so well in your post; that atheists really CAN’T have it any other way; that the neo-Darwinian view MUST be true because they have no other choice (right now, at least). Therefore it operates as a fideistic presuppositional commitment and so pointing out any weaknesses, even by those with shared views, incites visceral reactions.
It’s obvious from the close of Walton’s book that he believes the neo-Darwinian story, and at the same time is a (fairly) conservative scholar.
Jim
I should point out that the reason I recommended the book, and that the reason it elicited that common understanding is because it made it clear to me that you can be a Christian, believe the Bible, and accept a neo-Darwinian (though, as you point out, perhaps not purely materialistic) explanation like people I greatly respect including Walton, Collins, and Plantinga. But it means they/we have a better foundation from which to judge. An atheist HAS NO OTHER OPTION but to see it as the explanation.
Bottom line: Nye and the rest of the “new atheist” crowd are about as philosophically sophisticated as the average 16 year old youtube comment section rager. There is no nuance for these people. No admission that, perhaps, some religious people could be anything other than YECs. Hilarious.
All new atheists think that huh?
Talk about as sophisticated as a 16 year rager!
You know my opinion on this, but I want to reiterate my agreement. It sucks when you agree with someone’s conclusion but also have to facepalm at all their unforced errors in favor of that conclusion.
Like when Gene_Callahan tries to argue that black-box IO isn’t enough to detect intelligence.
That post is priceless. He wasn’t “making an analogy” in his earlier posts, he was simply confusing a Turing test with an ideological Turing test with Searle’s bad Chinese room. He got everything about the TT wrong. Then to pretend he knew it all long he trotted out this analogy post “analogy that’s the ticket yeah”. And made a mess of that too.
The reason why Callahan made and continues to make those errors you pointed out is that he isn’t deducing, rather, his worldview of theism is threatened by AI. Only God can create intelligence. The prospect of a human creating an AI would be the prospect of man becoming God. He has an incentive not to think clearly about it.
This is exactly right.
The reason why Callahan made and continues to make those errors you pointed out is that he isn’t deducing, rather, his worldview of theism is threatened by AI. Only God can create intelligence. The prospect of a human creating an AI would be the prospect of man becoming God. He has an incentive not to think clearly about it.
That’s interesting MF! I actually think it’s the other way around. I.e. back when I was an atheist, it *had* to be the case that Mr. Data could exist, because otherwise I had no explanation for how non-thinking organic cells could combine to form humans.
But now that I believe in God, I don’t have to “force” it, and so Gene’s perspective seems more compelling. (Though he is unnecessarily caustic, to be sure.)
So the convenient alignment of your beliefs on AI (in both directions) in exactly in the way M_F’s theory predicts counts against M_F’s theory?
“No Major, wrong again! You said as I got older I would drink less milk, but actually I drank more milk when I was younger!”
Eh? If it turns out sentience/intelligence actually does arise as an epiphenomenon of the organization of matter, it would simply NOT put a positive dent in theism – especially Christian theism.
However, if the reverse is the case then atheistic materialism is dead.
So I’m not sure HOW you could have missed Bob’s point so thoroughly. As an atheist it MUST be the case that sentience can arise from the organization of matter. As a theist there’s an alternative; but by no means a mutually exclusive alternative.
I certainly agree that no evidence or argument can make a dent in Bob’s beliefs.
It seems that you’re not actually in the same conversation.
Let’s see if we can follow your reasoning.
Given: 2 mutually exclusive hypotheses, H1 and H2.
Some condition C is a necessary but not sufficient condition of H1 but is neither a necessary nor sufficient for H2.
C obtains.
Therefore H2 is false?
The most you could say is that IF C was false, H1 is false. The fact of condition C has no bearing on H2.
H1 = atheism
H2 = theism
C = intelligence can arise as an epiphenomena of appropriately arranged matter.
Forget symbolics. Yes, if intelligent systems cannot be made out of matter then that’s a big big problem for atheism. I agree 100%. Absolutely.
That is why theism was not stupid before 1859. There was before that no really plausible way to get intelligent matter except by random chance, which was a poor theory. Now there is a good theory. And plenty of direct evidence too, as you can see when you watch a google car . Consciousness? No, not yet. Some form of intelligent information processing? Certainly.
Heh. I work professionally in machine learning. Yet I remain unconvinced. And if I were convinced I’d still be a theist. Because it’s not a rational argument against it.
You are unconvinced that a program that beats the best human player in the world at the hardest game in the world is doing intelligent symbolic processing? I bet you have a question begging definition lurking there somewhere. Like “only living creatures are intelligent.”
Yet again I wonder if we’re in the same conversation … or maybe I’m conversing with a computer programmed for trolling.
Obviously I question the “Strong AI” Hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence
What you described is perfectly reasonable under weak AI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence
Make sure you don’t stop after the intro. The “Consciousness” section is particularly pertinent.
Or you could read some John Searle.
Yet again I wonder if we’re in the same conversation … or maybe I’m conversing with a computer programmed for trolling.
Obviously I question the “Strong AI” Hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence
What you described is perfectly reasonable under weak AI.
Make sure you don’t stop after the intro. The “Consciousness” section is particularly pertinent.
Or you could read some John Searle.
Yeah, the room speaks Chinese. We had lots about that here recently. Searle confuses the notion of the man speaking Chinese with the system doing it. He has been comprehensively destroyed on this, and I am unwilling to debate people who do not know the rebuttals anymore.
I said intelligent symbolic processing and you said you were unconvinced. Odd you should say that about something I didn’t say but whatever.
Context is everything.
I mentioned Searle because he emphasizes the difference between Strong and Weak AI. I didn’t mention the Chinese Room example figuring it would open a can of worms.
You said ” Now there is a good theory. And plenty of direct evidence too, as you can see when you watch a google car . Consciousness? No, not yet. Some form of intelligent information processing? Certainly.”
By “remaining unconvinced” do you really think I was denying what Google cars are capable of? Do I REALLY need to clarify (now for a second time) that I was referring to the possibility of “Consciousness? [though], not yet?”
You need only look above. I couldn’t edit the conversation if I wanted to.
You realize that with your indefensible (sic) insistence that “undeniable” means “undenied” you are missing the joke in his title?
“If you are an atheist, it simply must be the case (in your mind) that intelligent life arose from inorganic molecules without any plan…What I do claim is that if that did happen, then that original cell had a lot of very useful information tucked into it, that cannot be explained by standard ‘mindless’ Darwinian mechanisms”.
Do you see any tension between these ideas that complex organisms are so complex that they must have arisen due to purposeful action and your view (and mine) of the market economy as an incredibly complex, but is unplanned?
If God could be gently guiding the progress of cellular development into complex life forms… then God could equally well be guiding the market economy which is pretty much an offshoot of the same process. Like some sort of “invisible hand”… hmmm, that’s a good metaphor I should patent that.
Not that I’m a great believer in God or anything, just pointing out that God is a perfect “catch all” explanation, and you cannot find a situation where you prove that God isn’t behind it. Mind you biologists use Evolution as a similar “catch all” explanation, which is why they love it so much.
“I cannot understand how things therefore – GOD!!”
Science is what meat slabs do when they get bored of Determinism.
“I cannot understand how things therefore – Evolution!!”
Have it your way if you like.
Yes a whole corpus is make believe just because you want a deity to exist.
You now say that truth comes out of a large volume of writing? Does it start off as false when the first book is written but then gradually get truthier as more books are added to the stack?
I once again draw your attention to this concept known as “the scientific method”: observation, theory, prediction, and testing.
No, because of the hard work of scientists who did the actual research and fact-finding. You’re the equivalent of a psychic who tells police who committed the crimes via your “powers” and assume this somehow of equal worth as those who actually are investigating the crime.
You are like the guy who keeps getting asked for actual evidence but can’t give any.
Every time I ask you are really really sure, it’s something about “science” and stuff… you just have no idea how any of those things work.
Finally you are down to argument by authority, because of all those hard working scientists, whose work you have never read, who you are unlikely to even know the name of, and anyway you don’t even understand that science is a methodology, not an authority.
Read Richard Feynman’s “Cargo Cult Science”. Take an honest look at yourself.
The problem is getting worse, not better. Our education system specializes in delivering people who not only lack the basic tools of learning and investigation, but who actively resist such things.
Are you saying Gil cannot provide proof of evolution? If he sends you a copy of Coyne’s book will that count? How about an Uber ride to the biology department of the universty nearest you?
I’ve been meaning to ask. You got any evidence of those “Maxwell’s Equations” on you?
I’m not able to say what Gil can and cannot provide. Checking the thread above and I see what he has provided thus far:
[1] Firm assertion:
[2] Assertion backed by more assertion.
[4] Argument by volume of material:
[5] Argument by authority:
[6] Argument apparently by epistemology and categorization?!?
One would hope that Gil can indeed to better, and possibly that might happen at some future stage. What annoys me is that none of the above arguments have the slightest thing to do with science. Schools apparently teach science supporters to bang on the table as hard as possible… and that’s about all they teach. People like Bill Nye don’t help IMHO.
At any case, I already provided a proof (third comment from the top) that the Theory of Evolution is tautologically true, but at least I actually used some logic there. It is kind of odd that people accuse me of claiming it is false, but I guess reading is another of those skills that has fallen out of service over the years.
Whether such tautological truth is useful is another question, and I guess some personal values could be involved in that. Science requires the ability to make predictions, then test your predictions with further experiment. Science is a methodology, not a conclusion.
“No, because of the hard work of scientists who did the actual research and fact-finding.”
You have to understand the problem before you can discover its solution.
That’s why philosophy is logically prior to science.
And, being logically prior, it is also beyond the scope of science to test.
For example, the Scientific Method, itself, is philosophy, not science.
You can’t prove that the Scientific Method is reliable by using it – that would be circular reasoning.
That’s correct, no experiment can prove the methodology which itself is used to run the experiment.
However, what we can say is that modern empirical science and technology form a self consistent world view. Experimental science has provided tools to solve real world problems, and because it seems to be working we plug on ahead with it.
Problem is, evolutionary biology does not take part in any real world problem solving. Worse, it generates Green Party fruit loops who probably mean well but they almost always create more problems for people than they fix. Strange beliefs like a “noble savage” or some sort of pristine nature despoiled by evil humans sprout out of the complete lack of discipline.
The Theory of Evolution will lead you to any conclusions you care to get to. It never makes tangible predictions so it never gets tested. Perfect fertile ground for endless government grants to study the importance of some component of the “ecosystem” when we all know the only answer they can possibly come to is “Oh this thing I’m studying is verrrryyy important”. Yeah sure, prove it.
There’s huge numbers of problems in the medical industry. Only the start of it is experiments that turn out many years later to be unrepeatable. It’s a fad industry… I lost count of how many times eggs have been good for you and bad for you. It’s a sloppy, and arrogant industry that needs one massive kick up the backside.
Just to be clear Tel. You are saying that in citing recognized authorities in biology Gil is committing the fallacy of argument by authority?
Well of course citing an authority would be argument by authority. It might be a convenient short cut at times, but it still isn’t science. If science comes down to authorities then we all just cite Aristotle… the end of history.
As for a “recognized” authority, Gil only cites some unknown, unnamed scientists so it would be hard to recognize such an anonymous shadowy figure.
I doubt Gil knows any authorities, all he knows is a general good feeling that “science” means something important. That’s the new normal buddy, a bunch of people repeating some dogma that might have once meant something but hopefully no one notices that the real idea has long ago been forgotten.
Good enough for a government grant though, just make sure you mention global warming and saving the Earth. Don’t worry too much, the guy giving out the grants doesn’t know anything either. Come up any story you like about fragile ecosystems or whatever waffly explanation for a fossil seems reasonable… others will argue but that’s OK, none of it has any consequences, and even if it does have consequences no one can prove anything.
Citing an authority on cellular biology on a matter of cellular biology is not “argument by authority”. It’s citing a reference. If we dispute the date of the battle of Shiloh then citing a book on Shiloh or its author is not a fallacy.
Why should I have to prove science exists? If you have never been to China then you expect me to provide you with proof that China exists? You can’t do a quick search to bring up Biology 101? You don’t like evolution because it doesn’t explain why good things happen to bad people and vice versa?
Gil, the existence of science (both as a methodology and as the outcome of that methodology) and the existence of China were never in doubt. Your strawman argument is no more effective than your argument by assertion.
I merely call into question your understanding of how the scientific method operates. Then again, at a guess you probably don’t know a whole lot about how China operates either, but that would be off topic.
If you care to both read and comprehend (admittedly a big ask), I have already pointed out (more than once) that the theory of evolution has excellent explanatory power (pretty much perfect explanatory power). That of course is not sufficient to make a scientific theory, but anyone with any clue about what science is, would already know that.
I should point out that “By the will of God” also has excellent explanatory power, especially when coupled with “God works in mysterious ways.”
Why did it happen? God wanted it to happen. Why did it happen, because evolution decided it was the fittest outcome. Logically there is no difference between these explanations, they both explain everything, always. Does the hand of God guide the process of evolution? Might as well do, in for a penny as they say.
Will the corral reef die in 100 years? We have absolutely no idea whatsoever; try talking to God, or Gaia, or your belly button. I’m not prejudiced, try all three.
Alternatively, I draw your attention (probably for the last time) to the scientific method and encourage your to study that: observation, theory, prediction, testing, and repeat. The biologists prefer to just do the first two steps.
As far as I’m concerned, yeah it is.
If you are able to achieve ultimate truth by citing an expert of your preference, then any Christian gets to cite the Bible, any Muslim gets to cite whatever they prefer… and so on.
What special power declares someone an expert? Another expert perhaps? We have a long line of experts stretching right back through history to Aristotle. Oh no, not that guy again… please, anyone but him!
But what I want to know is, when the only thing anyone can ever do is cite Aristotle, how do we take the next step? Where are we going anyway? Better go ask God… no wait, ask a biologist… no wait ask a Greek, ask Janet Yellen, or Paul Krugman… any expert will do, right?
Oh FFS.
Gil: Nematodes are microscopic worms.
Tel : Prove it.
Gil: Here is the author of a book on nematodes, Paul.
Paul: Nematodes are microscopic worms.
Gil: See?
Tel: Argument by authority! Doesn’t count!
“Paul: Nematodes are microscopic worms.”
Unacceptable.
Acceptable: “Paul: Nematodes are microscopic worms, not because I say so, but because such and such observations and logical deductions.”
Craw, just answer this simple question: if you need to use an authority to decide what is true and false, because you have no other way to figure that out for yourself, then on what basis do you judge which authority is any good ?
Do you trust the authority to declare themselves to be an authority?
BTW, physicists are not very happy with Bill Nye’s pop science, either:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/03/hey-bill-nye-please-stop-talking.html
Have you seen the Ken Ham v Bill Nye debate though? I think you are right that some creationists agree that evolution is happening but I don’t think Nye is really mischaracterizing his debate. From my memory of it, it seems that Nye is correctly characterizing the points that Ham made.
It’s possible Ham’s beliefs have more nuance, but his debate points didn’t really. I feel like Nye is saying “here is a debate a had” and you are saying “not all creationists were represented by Ham in the debate, some believe…” which is fine, but I don’t think it’s as big a gotcha as you say it is, or that he is presenting a straw man.
Christ visited approx. 2000 years ago, that’s the only date you need to know. We died in Him, we were buried in Him and we rise in Him. No we have Life.
Visited? He only hung around for a day.
Gil, not only do you need to prove evolution but you need to do it without any links, because some of us deny the Internet exists, and you must prove its existence first. And you still haven’t provided any proof for these so-called equations of Maxwell.
Bill Nye the Commissar Guy http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/15/bill-nye-science-guy-open-to-jail-time-f
Crap, you beat me to it.
All you need to know about Bill Nye is right here:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/15/bill-nye-science-guy-open-to-jail-time-f
* Anti-freedom.
* Not skeptical.
* Big government statist.
* Happy to initiate violence to serve his own ends.
* Uninterested in dissenting opinions.
Exactly the sort of person who will never advance the cause of real science.
Here’s an example of “Science” in the making:
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/04/nasa-done-moon-now-smacking-down-people-on-facebook-to-help-bill-nye-the-science-guy/
How about that for a smackdown? Now the scientific method has been amended to include an extra step of data tampering. We are in a new age of science my friends. Karl Popper eat your heart out.