Clearing away the strawmen and misconceptions

OllieFranz · #1 25th August 2007, 08:47 AM

This post is intended to brush away the foundational strawmen in the EvC debate and explain exactly what Science is and what it is not; what a theory is and what it is not; what the theory of evolution claims and what it does not. Hopefully, after reading this post, it will be clear that some creationist arguments are against strawman claims, and others are irrelevant as a challenge either to science in general or evolution in particular.

Science is an attempt to understand the universe. We do this by constructing intellectual models of the universe. We call these intellectual models "theories." Theories are not the universe, nor do scientists believe that they are.

The universe is made up of things (particles, waves, forces, objects, etc.) with properties (mass, frequency, force, etc.) which interact with one another. Call the information about these things, properties and interactions "facts." A series of facts connected in time is an "event."

We look at things in the universe and define these facts and events. We notice that certain events occur over and over fairly regularly. Sometimes exactly the same, sometimes with occassional variations. We notice which facts seem to control these events. We define a rule that says that whenever certain (initial) facts occur, certain events occur. This rule is a theory.

So, the universe is made up of things, and science is made up of rules. They are connected only by the idea of facts and events.

Science is the collection of all accepted theories. The practice of Science is the elimination of bad theories. What makes a bad theory? A rule that does not work is a bad theory: "I can fly if I tie a towel around my neck" is a bad theory. An unprovable rule is a bad theory (not because it is necessarily false, but because it is useless in terms of the principles of science): theories about paranormal phenomenon are bad theories as long as they are untestable under scientific conditions.

An overly complicated theory is bad if there is another simpler theory which explains the same events. Scientists call this KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle Occam's Razor. This is not because it is less likely to be true, but because the purpose of a theory is to model the universe -- to set down rules to allow us to understand what to expect. The simpler the rules (provided they work) the easier it is to understand.

Because of the preference for simpler rules, and also because of the fact that Science is built up imperically from observations rather than being handed down from on high as a completed reference tool, Science is incomplete. Not every "thing" in the universe is explained by an accepted theory. There are anomalies.

There are two kinds of anomalies. The first kind is a "thing" whose facts are not impossible, but for which there is no "likely" explanation. An example is a snowball in an active volcano. There is no scientific reason why a snowball cannot exist in a volcano, but there is no reasonable explanation how it could have gotten there. If it has been there, why hasn't it melted? If it has been melting, how large was it to begin with that there is still a remnant. If it just got there, how? Did someone toss it in? where did he keep it until then? Did it just "magically" or "miraculously" appear? The fact that we can't "scientifically" explain its presence does not negate its existence. Neither does its existence negate the general usefulness of the theory it appears to defy.

The second kind of anomaly is an "event" which violates the rule or theory. The "failure" of the Michelson–Morley experiment is this type of anomaly. This kind of anomaly actually leads to an advance in Science. First, there is an understanding that the current theory has limitations, and that outside those limitations it may not be valid. Second, there are advanced new theories to explain the anomaly. The new theory must not only explain the anomaly, it must explain why the results given by the old theory are correct within its limitations and incorrect outside them, and ideally it should describe other situations outside the limitations of the old theory and predict events that would be anomolous to the old theory. In the case of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the new theory propounded by Einstein is the one we call "Special Relativity."

So pointing out anomalies of the first type is totally irrelevant to the validity of the theory, and pointing out anomalies of the second type only defines the limits of the theory; it does not invalidate it.

Remember, an accepted theory is the simplest theory that works. It does not claim to be the complete set of rules. When you are teaching someone chess, you explain the normal movement of each piece. The more unusual moves, such as castling or en passante capture of pawns is left until after they have learned the basics. These rules correspond to "event" anamolies. Likewise, chess puzzles usually start in mid-game. But it might be difficult or even nearly impossible to re-construct the earlier moves that lead up to the position. These correspond to "thing" anamolies. Neither of these anomolies invalidate the basic rules of chess.

So Science leaves out God and miracles not because it is an "atheistic religion," but because even if it is conceded that they exist and that they affect the "things" in the universe, to try to include them in the rules is to introduce a complication that is not necessary in understanding the vast majority of events.

OllieFranz · #2 25th August 2007, 08:50 AM

Moving from Science in general to evolution in particular: what, exactly, is the theory of evolution? It is a lot simpler and a lot more obvious than the strawman "Evolution" which is the bane of Creationists. Let’s start with facts and events and derive the theory (the rules) from scratch.

Step 1: We notice that if a shepherd controls the breeding of his flock so that only black rams sire the next years lambs, there will be more black lambs born than if he allowed all of the rams to breed. Likewise, if he only allowed the white rams to breed, he would have more white lambs. If he kept it up for a number of years, his flock would be almost entirely black, or almost entirely white. If he had initially divided his flock in half, and bred one half-flock with black rams and the other with white rams, he will wind up with two half-flocks, one almost entirely black, and the other almost entirely black.

Seeing the same sort of thing happen over and over, with other animals and with plants leads to the first rules of our theory: Rule 1: If a certain trait is favored over another when breeding, later generations will show more of the favored trait than the disfavored trait. Rule 2: If two populations are bred with different favored traits, they will diverge based on those traits

Step 2: We notice that even when we allow a population to breed naturally, there are factors that can favor one trait over another. Color, size, speed etc. can allow one member of a population to survive longer (more breeding years), attract a mate, bully a rival (more breeding opportunities) etc. Rule 3: A trait that “fits” the environment is favored.

Conclusion 1: A population will, over time, develop traits favored by the environment. Conclusion 2: Populations under different environmental conditions will diverge.

Step 3: We notice that there are animals which are of different species, but which not only appear to be distantly related but which can breed and produce viable, if sterile, offspring (horses/donkeys, lions/tigers, etc.)

We also notice the existence of “ring species.” A ring speciesWP is a collection of overlapping populations. They are usually found around the edges of an obstruction such as a lake, mountain, etc. All around the ring, two adjacent populations show all the signs of being two varieties of the same species, especially free interbreeding. But the two populations at the ends of the ring (if it is not closed) or at the point where the ends met in the spread around the obstruction are different species and cannot interbreed.

Inference 1: Two populations can diverge so much as to form separate species.

Step 4: One assumption of Science is that, while “things,” “facts,” and “events” change over time, “rules” do not.

Inference 2: Populations have been diverging and creating new species throughout the existence of life.

Even though the fossil record is not complete, even though there are anomalies (of the “thing” type), the record is basically consistent with this inference.

That then is the substance of the theory of evolution: Three “established” rules, two conclusions, and two inferences. The established rules and the conclusions are usually not disputed by creationists. They call this subset of evolutionary theory “micro-evolution.” The two inferences are referred to as “macro-evolution” and are sometimes debated, but are more often challenged with anomalies, some of which are not anomalous at all when properly understood. Debate is usually reserved for issues that do not belong to evolutionary theory, but are part of the strawman I am hoping to discredit