How to Falsify ID

| 188 Comments

Note: Please see update at the end of this post.

I know, I know, it’s not really possible. But ID advocates keep claiming it’s possible, so it’s important to revisit the issue every now and then. The IDists claim that since the arguments for ID can be falsified, then ID itself is falsifiable. But of course this doesn’t follow. Having an argument proven wrong doesn’t disprove a hypothesis. And this is especially true when the arguments themselves (which are simply arguments against evolution) do not logically support the hypothesis to begin with. Judge Jones noted this in his ruling in the recent Kitzmiller case in regards to the Irreducible Complexity argument:

As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID.

[…]

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution. As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-one inside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted it.

Professor Behe conceded that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions and even if it could, Professor Minnich admitted that it would merely be a test of evolution, not design. We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design.

(Kitzmiller v. Dover, pp. 76-9, citations omitted)

Of course that didn’t stop the Discovery Institute from responding that Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions. If you read this article, you’ll learn that Judge Jones was horribly, horribly wrong, because irreducible complexity can be falsified, which therefore means that ID can be falsified! One wonders if they even bothered to read Jones’ decision.

But irreducible complexity isn’t the only argument that ID advocates employ. Another common argument concerns the Cambrian Explosion, which ID advocates claim shows that all “major types” of animals (by which they mean phyla, a very broad category) “appeared suddenly” without fossil precursors. Putting aside the other problems with this argument, a recent post by the esteemed Prof. Steve Steve, in which he accompanied Ian Musgrave to the South Australian Museum, shows us that chordates (the phylum to which humans and pandas belong) existed before the Cambrian, during the Ediacaran, well before the purported “explosion”. That spells doom for the ID advocates’ argument.

So does this falsify ID? Let’s see what a couple of ID advocates themselves have said, and let’s see whether or not they’re willing to exercise a bit of intellectual consistency.

Several months ago, an op-ed appeared in the Washington Post by one Jay Mathews, which I promptly put the smack-down on. Mathews informs us what would falsify ID according to the Discovery Institute’s Associate Director for the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, John West:

The intelligent-design folks say theirs is not a religious doctrine. They may be lying, and are just softening up the teaching of evolution for an eventual pro-Genesis assault. But they passed one of my tests. They answered Gould’s favorite question: If you are real scientists, then what evidence would disprove your hypothesis? [John] West indicated that any discovery of precursors of the animal body plans that appeared in the Cambrian period 500 million years ago would cast doubt on the thesis that those plans, in defiance of Darwin, evolved without a universal common ancestor.

As I pointed out back then, this wouldn’t falsify ID in the least. But John West apparently believes it does. So now that we have a pre-Cambrian chordate, is West going to admit that ID is falsified? Or is he going to say what we knew all along, which is that just because one of their anti-evolution arguments falls apart, this doesn’t mean that an unidentified magical designer didn’t intervene at some unspecified point in time?

Our second example comes from DI staff member Casey Luskin, in a piece titled “THE POSITIVE CASE FOR DESIGN”. Here is one of his predictions for design:

(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.

And the evidence?

Biological complexity (i.e. new phyla) appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors. The Cambrian explosion is the prime example.

The prediction is therefore said to be CONFIRMED. But if so, wouldn’t the existence of a pre-Cambrian chordate disconfirm the supposed prediction made by ID, and therefore disconfirm ID itself? Is Luskin going to update this page and explain to his readers that ID made a false prediction? I won’t hold my breath.

To be fair, most ID advocates are careful not to frame the Cambrian Explosion argument in these terms – they usually limit themselves to saying that evolution can’t explain the CE and ID can (as a supernatural cause can explain anything), and therefore ID is the better explanation. They typically don’t say that the CE is a test for ID itself. But that raises the question of just how one would go about testing ID. When cobbling together a list, Casey Luskin is forced to use the CE as an actual test of ID to keep the list from being too short. And when put on the spot by a clueless reporter, John West pulls the CE from where the sun don’t shine in order to satisfy the falsification criterion. The logic they employ is identical to that used for the irreducible complexity argument, which Judge Jones correctly noted is not a test for ID either.

So I am very curious to see how they’re going to spin this new evidence. My guess is that they’ll simply ignore it the way they have other pre-Cambrian fossils that are potential precursors to modern groups, such as the proto-mollusk Kimbrella, conodonts, and the various arthropod-like fossils. Even if we granted that evidence could possibly falsify ID, the ID advocates would first have to pay attention to it.

Update 1/23/06: Chris Nedin, whom professor Steve Steve met with at the South Australian Museum, has written to emphasize that this is unpublished research, and should be treated accordingly. The animal may turn out not to be a chordate at all, we will have to wait for the process of peer-review before we can say with a high degree of certainty that it is. I should have been more careful to note the tentative nature of the find, so please regard references to the pre-Cambrian chordate as conditional – “If this turns out to be a pre-Cambrian chordate…”, etc.

188 Comments

The IDists claim that since the arguments for ID can be falsified, then ID itself is falsifiable. But of course this doesn’t follow.

That’s a good point.

Don’t you get it? They don’t NEED to “win” the argument, they only have to have the argument take place. This is not a scientific institution that is producing these proposals of falsifiable arguments, etc, etc. This is a CHURCH GROUP. This is a POLITICAL MOVEMENT. START ACTING ACCORDINGLY.

Do the IDers have a definition for what lack-of-design is?

Because that is the crux of disproof.

If one thing in nature can be identified as lacking design, we can say that (a) there is either no intelligent designer; or (b) the intelligent designer is selective in being intelligent.

In the case of (b), how does believing in such a selective designer increase our body of USEFUL SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE? For that matter, how does (a) increase our knowledge?

“God did it” seems like more of a non-starter, or dead-end. It might make for a good sermon or religious soundbite. But, it hardly moves us forward as it pertains to humanity understanding and harnassing the mechanisms of nature.

Another favorite is ‘we can detect the design, but that tells us nothing about the designer” — then they bang on about SETI and Mt Rushmore.

(1) SETI.

Alrighty let’s see — a signal — in the signal, a message! (Perhaps that’ll tell us who the designer is) — I can triangulate the source of the message and I know the speed of the signal so I can work out when it was sent. I already know a lot a bout the designer. What base does the designer use to construct the message? Is that number culturally significant to them… etc etc etc.

(2) Mt Rushmore

Okay — close examination shows the work of tools. Analysis shows jackhammers, drills, hammers were used. There are still metal pins where swing-seats were installed — telling us about the weight of the designer. Examining the weathering and erosion of the ‘faces’ against the rest of the rock, we can estimate a time period.

Now let me add 2 more.

(3) Oklo nuclear reactor.

Hmm — lets see. Only recently has mankind been able do to this, using lots of science and math and other hard stuff. Brilliant men where involved for years. Designed — says I.

(4) Giants Causeway

So much symmetry — so many perfect angles. Coastal, so should have been weathered and eroded away. See how they make perfect steps into the sea?:

http://www.geographia.com/northern-[…]ukigia03.gif Definitely designed.

Alright I’ve hand-waved enough. And I am not showing my workings mathematically — If the IDers don’t have to, neither do I.

Id submit this for peer review, but the book I’m writing will be more profitable.

(4) Giants Causeway

So much symmetry — so many perfect angles. Coastal, so should have been weathered and eroded away. See how they make perfect steps into the sea?:

http://www.geographia.com/northern-ireland/ukigi… Definitely designed.

I happen to love that formation. Unfortunately, like anyone who’s taken an “Introduction to Geology” course in college, I know (like you) that it’s just one of hundreds of examples of columnar basalt… Pretty common in South America where there are many more younger basalt-emitting volcano’s than NA or Europe. My personal favorite being the Devil’s Post-Pile which I’ve visited many times. Walked all the way to the edge, even.

http://data2.itc.nps.gov/parkphotos/ACF27DA%2Ejpg

And the ever-beautiful Rainbow Falls downstream. Used to be great trout fishing with lots of native trout. Not so good now with over-fishing and too many factory fish.

Gorbe Wrote:

Do the IDers have a definition for what lack-of-design is?

Because that is the crux of disproof.

Good point. It’s like in the old watchmaker argument, where you stumbled upon a watch on the beach. If you’re going to say, “There is something special about this watch that makes me notice it as being designed.” then there must also be something special about the beach you found it on that makes that beach not designed. Therefore, the beach is not the product of design. Creationism would therefore be disproven. The alternative is to say that God can also make stuff that doesn’t appear to be designed, and then you’ve got a rather pathetic argument: “Anything that is designed proves God made it, but anything that is not designed does not disprove that God made it.”

After reading Like Casey Luskin I have decided I want to be a “leading intelligent design theorist”. Sure I have no formal biology education, nor do I have any training in biology, but I have published the same amount of peer reviewed intelligent design papers in scientific journals as Dembski, Behe and Luskin combined (zero).

Mt Rushmore and mouse traps are yesterday’s news, let’s deal with something not obviously designed by humans. Therefore allow me to introduce my scientific evidence of an intelligent designer: The snowflake!

Snow flakes did not evolve by random mutation, they appear out of nowhere! They are pretty to look at, they are symetrical in shape, therefore they are the handywork of the intelligent designer. And this is true because I say it is true.

So, how do you guys think I am doing in my new role as a “leading intelligent design theorist”?

The ID arguments are essentially no different from the misconceptions that Morris and Gish were spreading about thermodynamics. It seems to me better to let them keep their misconceptions because they serve as useful shibboleths. They may try to wipe the dogsh*t off themselves with their constant sophistry, but they don’t know how to get the stink out.

As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID.

But even this doesn’t render the negative argument of Irreducible Complexity testable or falsifiable. This is because the real “theory” is merely that IC exists (and therefore evolutionary theory is insufficient/incorrect). So destroying any particular claimed instance of IC does nothing to the overall claim, because IDiots can (and do) just move on to the next bogus instance of a supposedly IC system.

Giants Causeway. So much symmetry — so many perfect angles. Coastal, so should have been weathered and eroded away. See how they make perfect steps into the sea? Definitely designed.

This is actually a very good analogy. A few centuries ago, everyone would have assumed that the structure of the Giants Causeway would obviously indicate a ‘designer’. It’s just too perfect looking. And, at the time, they had exactly the same evidence for this claim as do ID advocates for saying the flagellum or the eye is somehow ‘too perfect’ to be evolved.

So, how do you guys think I am doing in my new role as a “leading intelligent design theorist”?

Spot on. Another flake joins the movement. ;)

I’m going to be a skeptic about those chordates from the Ediacaran until the descriptive publications are made and the scientific community gets to look at their data. A buddy of mine (an Ediacaran researcher) got to see one of the first hyped “chordates” and to him it looked like Kimberella.

I’d hate to see acceptance of this interpetation as fact come from posts within the blogosphere rather than from scientific publications.

But the second paragraph in the article begins with this astonding admission:

“It’s true that there’s no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists.”

If one cannot falsify the assertion that a designer exists, why is it then important to try to falsify “irriducible complexity”? The authors freely admit in this statement that it won’t change the case for a cosmic designer.

I also like the statement:

“They suggest that there is a correlation between the conditions needed for life and the conditions needed for diverse types of scientific discovery, and suggest that such a correlation, if true, points to intelligent design.”

First, they couch the statement as, “if true”. Well, we so far have a 100% correlation between life and the ability to make scientific discoveries. So, therefore, it is true so far, so it must point to intelligent design. Right? I didn’t do very well in statistics, but at least I learned that it is not logically possible (or at least morally defensible) to draw statistical correlations from a single data point.

Second, the authors identify that one way to falsify their claim for intelligent design is to find multiple instances of intelligent life on other planets which are inhospitable to life. But that doesn’t seem to follow. It seems to me that the discovery of native life on a planet where life could not exist would actually confirm that the life was “created” rather than the opposite. So, such a “test” does not seem to falsify their claim.

Finally, they make the amazing statement:

“The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to [XYZ]. The opposite of this would have the same effect [~XYZ].”

So, the claim appears to be that finding XYZ would decisively falsify their argument, yet finding ~XYZ would also falsify their argument. Now, I may have done poorly in statistics, but I did really well in logic. If one can show that “A” is true if XYZ is true or if XYZ is false, then XYZ is not predictive of A. Therefore, XYZ cannot falsify or confirm A.

Sigh…

But then, as Dan points out, it’s a political movement. The last known time a politician was swayed by logic was several hundred years ago.

Tiax & Gorbe: Very well-put. Those are my thoughts exactly. It’s such a simple paradox: what is your point of reference for zero indication of design? I’d love to hear what IDers have to say in response.

After reading Like Casey Luskin I have decided I want to be a “leading intelligent design theorist”. Sure I have no formal biology education, nor do I have any training in biology, but I have published the same amount of peer reviewed intelligent design papers in scientific journals as Dembski, Behe and Luskin combined (zero).

Your qualifications sound perfect.

Does the DI need experiments? They should follow their tradition and seek inspiration from the Bible.

Here is one citation with ID implications:

The Designer’s desire that women would bring children forth in pain (also following the apple debacle):

To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children (Genesis 3.16)

Bingo! We have a clear Biblical example of the Designer’s intelligence at work.

Presumably, before the apple, women’s pelvises were wide enough to bear children without pain, although perhaps with discomfort (the citation is ambiguous as to what level of pain would have been expected pre-design modification). After promising pain in childbirth, the Intelligent Designer likely tightened up the pelvic girdle so that squeezing children out caused plenty of pain.

(An aside: clearly then, anesthesiologists are subverting the Designer’s will, and may be taken to be in league with the Anti-Designer)

Unfortunatley, as Eve was the first woman, no evidence of designed pelvic adjustments can possibly exist in the fossil record. Consequently, ID proponents have again been let down through the unfortunate lack of the Designer’s foresight.

An alternative–and testable–explanation would be that the Designer set up a unique pain pathway for women which only kicks in during childbirth.

Two scientific tests which could provide evidence for Intelligent Design suggest themselves:

1. Competent anatomists should search for extra nerve bundles only possessed by women and which are linked exclusively to childbirth.

2. During birth, MRI images of volunteers’ brains, pelvic areas, and spinal columns could be captured. Examine the images for evidence of unique pain signals and pain pathways which only are active during birth.

No charge for the consultation, DI.

Snow flakes did not evolve by random mutation, they appear out of nowhere! They are pretty to look at, they are symetrical in shape, therefore they are the handywork of the intelligent designer. And this is true because I say it is true.

too late, somebody beat you to it. I just saw a “new age” book the other day where the authors theme on design was various aspects of water, including poorly photographed snowflakes.

The author felt that not only was there “meaning” in these watery designs, but supernatural influences that any human could “tap into”.

Who was it that said something to the effect of, “there is nothing new under the sun”

keep trying tho, i’m sure there is an unused ID niche you could exploit, like WD40 with his “math”

I’ll add that it remains to be shown that any intelligent being can produce the complexity that we observe (at least without copying life to do so). That’s where they fail so badly.

They rely on the old false SETI analogy, of course, to claim that CSI is by default the result of a designer. I defy the dolts to find a single well-regarded SETI researcher who would recognize the CSI in any known genome to have been produced by an intelligent being (though it might be reproduced by intelligent beings in a different form). Real scientists don’t mistake evolved CSI for design, both because we know of evidence that CSI evolved, and because organismic CSI is quite noticeably different from known specimens of “designed CSI”.

To put it another way: If intelligent aliens were to beam large amounts of genetic information (enough for context and comparison) from evolved organisms toward us, we would both note that the signal was “designed”, and that the information had likely evolved in some manner (possibly via computer, but we’d hope it was from organic evolution).

Likewise, who would be so stupid as to suppose that the Mt. Rushmore shapes are not evolved shapes, but transferred to stone “by design”? I guess we know who.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Should have written:

Likewise, who would be so stupid as to suppose that the Mt. Rushmore shapes are not evolved shapes, though transferred to stone “by design”? I guess we know who.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

This is a CHURCH GROUP. This is a POLITICAL MOVEMENT. START ACTING ACCORDINGLY.

I agree. But, I’m not sure what that means for bonafide scientists. Are they to hire PR firms and involve themselves in such a way that yet another institution becomes politicized through-and-through? It’s bad enough that so much is already politicized. Maybe that’s the nature of the beast since government touches virtually every aspect of our lives. But, I’m wondering if there is a better way than poisoning the efforts of science with political action.

Many thanks to you folks who offered some thoughts on my new intelligent design snow flake theory. And New Agers beat me to the snow flake theory? Who cares, Behe didn’t invent his irreducible complexity theory nor did he give credit to the originator of the idea, so why should I? :-)

I am enjoying my new role of an “intelligent design theorist” already. I am going to send an email with a copy of my theory to the Disco and apply to be a Disco “Fellow”.

By the way I am thinking of calling my new (planned) book

Intelligent Design: So Many Flakes, So Little Time

Catchy, huh? Yep this new intelligent design snow flake theory of mine is gonna make me rich!

After promising pain in childbirth, the Intelligent Designer likely tightened up the pelvic girdle so that squeezing children out caused plenty of pain… (An aside: clearly then, anesthesiologists are subverting the Designer’s will, and may be taken to be in league with the Anti-Designer)

I’m sure you are aware that when anesthesia was first introduced to relieve the pain of childbirth, fundamentalist Christians (“guided by the Holy Spirit in all understanding of God’s Word”) did their utmost to make sure women could not receive such pain relief precisely because it was not the Will of Allah Yahweh Jesus’ Dad.

you go girl!

er the above refered to Mr. C’s snowflake business venture…

It seems to me that ID functions as a meta-principal or overarching ontology. Thus it as testable(or untestable) as any other overarching ontology such as materialism.

Of course, modern evolutionary biology doesn’t seek to test materialism or pose materialism as the overarching explanation, even though it uses materialism as a method.

In a sense then, ID at the most general level is consistent with modern evolutionary biology and consistent with creationism. And that of course is the real problem.

At the more specific level, ID is really an argument that there must somewhere along the line be a specific, identifiable, extra or supernatural intervention. So ID is consistent with multiple positions:

1. Young Earth Creationism 2. Old Earth Creationism 3. Progressive Creationism 4. Teleological and saltationist theories of evolution

The most ID could accomplish therefore is some means of testiong saltationist or teleological theories. Of course, in some ways these concepts have been tested and rejected. And also, it is not even clear that they would of necessity be inconsistent with materialism.

Ahhhhhh, the snow flake. Don’t let evilutionists and materialistic humanists fool you with the silly idea of fractals, GOD did it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just in case I am been sarcastic.

It seems to me that ID functions as a meta-principal or overarching ontology. Thus it as testable(or untestable) as any other overarching ontology such as materialism.

I think the point of “materialism” is that it would in fact not be testable. That’s why IDists claim that we’re “materialists”.

Paley’s formulation of ID was testable, and it failed. The current bunch do their best to avoid testable predictions, or they’d have nothing to add to Paley’s failure.

Of course, modern evolutionary biology doesn’t seek to test materialism or pose materialism as the overarching explanation, even though it uses materialism as a method.

How is it even possible to use “materialism” as a method? What is materialism, btw, and what would it add to scientific methods if it were used? Is it impossible to do science phenomenologically, or using Kantian philosophy?

The last question is a trick, since it is the Kantian view of the world that has mostly informed science philosophically, and it is decidedly not committed to “materialism”.

In a sense then, ID at the most general level is consistent with modern evolutionary biology and consistent with creationism. And that of course is the real problem.

It is far from consistent with modern evolutionary biology, because the latter requires positive evidence for a claim to have any legitimacy.

At the more specific level, ID is really an argument that there must somewhere along the line be a specific, identifiable, extra or supernatural intervention. So ID is consistent with multiple positions:

1. Young Earth Creationism 2. Old Earth Creationism 3. Progressive Creationism 4. Teleological and saltationist theories of evolution

Yes, anything that doesn’t require evidence to make its claims.

The most ID could accomplish therefore is some means of testiong saltationist or teleological theories. Of course, in some ways these concepts have been tested and rejected. And also, it is not even clear that they would of necessity be inconsistent with materialism.

Indeed, they are not inconsistent with materialism, because they are precisely the sorts of believers in metaphysics who would believe that “materialism” is a likely philosophical position for scientists to take (some biologists make the same mistake, however, though few physicists do). In a sense they are the most materialistic, for they lack even the imagination that can move beyond the analogy of humans tinkering with “matter”.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Re “Posted by Mr Christopher on January 19, 2006 02:23 PM (e)

Many thanks to you folks who offered some thoughts on my new intelligent design snow flake theory.”

So, now I have somebody to blame for the 4 to 6 inches of snow that the weather channel predicts for today and tonight? ;)

Henry

Gorbe, What would stop a “bona-fide” scientist from acting politically? Really, I think that we non-scientists (We outnumber you, remember) need you to keep on doing the work that you are best qualified to do; adding to the base of human knowledge. My point is that we should recognize that engaging in a debate with the IDiots is completely pointless - like trying to drive an ounce of logic into Larry’s brain. The pretense by the DI to be engaging in a scientific debate is a ruse. They are succeeding in framing the debate on thier terms. They need to be addressed in a political fashion, which means using political tools to castrate them and stop them from spreading their poison throughout our society by confusing our children about what is science.

Comment #73567

Posted by Tiax on January 19, 2006 12:42 PM (e)

Gorbe wrote:

Do the IDers have a definition for what lack-of-design is?

Because that is the crux of disproof.

Good point. It’s like in the old watchmaker argument, where you stumbled upon a watch on the beach. If you’re going to say, “There is something special about this watch that makes me notice it as being designed.” then there must also be something special about the beach you found it on that makes that beach not designed. Therefore, the beach is not the product of design. Creationism would therefore be disproven. The alternative is to say that God can also make stuff that doesn’t appear to be designed, and then you’ve got a rather pathetic argument: “Anything that is designed proves God made it, but anything that is not designed does not disprove that God made it.”

This is a fatal problem for ID. Another thing you can ask is, how much CSI is in the watch, how much is in the beach, and then how did ID distinguish the two things?

In any event there is no law or theory or hypothesis of science that states “miracles cannot or do not occur”. The data reveals no such pattern, so science cannot comment upon the matter.

So Carol’s whole raison d’etre here is to tell us that we should buy in to her interpretation of the bible, where we apparently find some combination of 1) miracles (defined and identified by her as needed) that science cannot comment upon, 2) non-miraculous events that do not conflict with science. A tidy little tautology–whatever conflicts with science is a miracle, miracles do not have to do with science, therefore everything in the bible is in harmony with science.

The real question is, who cares?

The data reveals no such pattern

Really? I’ve noticed that now that humanity has access to modern scientific ways of observing the data around us, that there haven’t been any miracles. I personally consider “data” concerning miracles that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago to be more than just a little sketchy. It all comes from the same source.

The data reveals no such pattern

Here is some data:

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Maybe you don’t see a pattern. I do.

Carol Science is history explained with objective facts that have been found, to be useful science HAS to predict future events.That is: it is a ‘true’ history story.

The old testament is the subjective IMAGINED history of the Jewish people and is the same sort of ‘true’ as those “True Detective Stories” you find on the cheaper news stands.

It is useful for all sorts of things but one thing it will never do is tell you what will happen in a flu virus (the bible may explain why governments hoard vaccine), the rate of hydrogen use in a sun (The bible may explain why the sun was god at one time), or when the price of oil will go over $100 a barrel (but (mis)reading the bible may explain why it will go over $100).

Miracles? have you heard of psychedelic drugs and other natural causes for subjective literary hyperbole?

k.e. Wrote:

Miracles? have you heard of psychedelic drugs and other natural causes for subjective literary hyperbole?

Don’t forget some other options:

    * Plain old being mistaken about what you saw/heard/etc.

    * Plain old lying to aggrandize your self/tribe/god/etc.

indeed AC, they are natural causes ;)

this whole thread really brings home the point that it has become a waste of time to continue to argue what science is with people that don’t actually DO science.

I think I’m gonna take a vacation from PT until the regulars get tired of feeding the trolls and at least some of them die of starvation.

I’ve managed to save up roughly $60170 in my bank account, but I’m not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Steve Reuland published on January 19, 2006 11:01 AM.

Go read was the previous entry in this blog.

That big tent is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter