Would you like to see Nick back up his allegations?

[Jerry Smith]

Since the time Nick (npetreley) started posting to this board, he has made a substantial number of accusations along this line:

1) Evolutionists rely on unjustified assumptions to draw their important conclusions.
2) Evidence for evolution is imaginary or relies on the imagination.
3) Evolutionists engage in special pleading, by starting with a conclusion and interpreting all evidence in light of it.

Nick has thrown out a couple of "quotes" from evolutionists that appear to show agreement with his position, but he did not show the examples that brought him to his position (or, assuming that is their real position, what examples brought them to it.)

Nick has made a lot of challenges that several of us have gone out of our way to answer. Yet he seems reluctant to answer my challenge.

I have repeatedly asked Nick to give us real-world examples of the bias, misinterpretation, "fantasy" (his word), and special pleading in the annals of published evolution research. I set up a special thread for the purpose.

To date, Nick has steadfastly refused to back up his accusations, yet he continues to make him.

Maybe I am all wet... should Nick back up his accusations?

 

[Jerry Smith]

An update, since this poll was posted:

Nick claims that he has substantiated his accusations on page 5 of the Flood Geology thread .

His so-called substantiation is the very frank admission of science's commitment to naturalistic methodology and results on the part of Richard Lewontin, in his review of Carl Sagan's book, Demon Haunted World. The part of the review that Nick quotes is a statement on how we do not accept the methodological naturalism of science because IT is forced on us by the evidence, but that we accept it as an a priori commitment. Apparently, Lewontin is fairly adamant, and might even be a proponent of philosophical materialism, as he states that we cannot "allow a divine foot in the door."

As a criticism of common misconceptions about science (i.e., that it is self-justifying), Lewontin's remarks hit the mark fairly well. His remarks do not even address the research and evidence in the biological sciences, probably because they are directed toward the philosophy of science, and possibly because he has himself been instrumental in doing the research and gathering the evidence for the biological sciences.

Since about the time Nick first posted this non-contextual quote, I have been asking him for real world examples (maybe he could e-mail Lewontin, if he believes Lewontin's position is that they are common) of bad interpetation, fantasy, imagination, etc....

What do you think? Is this quote from Richard Lewontin all of the backing Nick needs to make the accusations he has been making all along? Can we take Lewontin's word for it that science has an a priori commitment to naturalism, and proceed to Nick's conclusions that scientific evidence is systematically fabricated, fantasized, imagined, non-existent, or mis-interpreted?

If not, wouldn't some real life examples be in order before Nick continues to spew his venomous insults on the people who actually do the work in science, their hard-working research, and their independently verified results?

Why can Nick not provide some real-life examples that show the problem not only exists, but is systematic, and is not corrected by peer review? Why must we settle for snippets of book reviews taken out of context and representing an argument unrelated to the one at hand?

 

[Starscream]

I think Nick is one of the worst witnesses I've seen on this site in a long time. He's a functional atheist.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The idea is that we should accept Nick's allegations on faith, evidence notwithstanding

 

[Starscream]

The idea is that we should accept Nick's allegations on faith, evidence notwithstanding.

Fat chance of that.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Update:

On page 6 of the Flood Geology thread , Nick explains how his remarks are justified all by this quote from Lewontin. I believe he severely misunderstands the implications of that quote, but I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt: I think that he has drawn some fabulous conclusions from this and a basic misunderstanding of how science is done in the lab and in the field.

Primarily, he seems to think that Lewontin's words mean that any data that contradicts evolution or supports creationism must be reinterpreted a supportive of evolution because of the anti-supernatural bias. Nick, if you are reading, this is not the case: evidence that contradicts evolution must be reported and if it accumulates must falsify the theory, regardless of supernatural alternatives. If evidence turns up FOR creationism, then Lewontin and his school are out in the cold, because they are committed to ignorance of the supernatural. I think that this is fair enough - if the evidence for creationism is strong, then Lewontin and those who agree with him will soon find themselves on the fringe, producing nothing, while scientists who accept the possibility of creationism are doing all of the productive research.

I think, however, that Lewontin has overstated his own position. I think he cannot imagine evidence for creationism that is accessible to rigorous examination, and therefore dismisses evidence of the supernatural categorically without giving due consideration to the remote possibility that evidence for the supernatural may be found that IS accessible to rigorous examination, confirmation and falsification. Should that chance to happen, Lewontin might well re-think his position.

Next, I think that Nick conflates the methodological bias of Lewontin's (that verges on philosophical bias) with the statistical techniques of identifying and elimenating anamolous data. If anyone here can help clear the mud from this concept, please do!

I think looking at it with Nick's misunderstandings of the words of Lewontin and the techniques and methods of interpretation used in the lab, the field, and in peer review, it is understandable that Nick holds science in such low esteem (and evolutionary science especially). I don't know that he is justified in making categorical, generalized statements of scientific incompetence, dishonesty, and fantasy based on his viewpoint, but it is understandable that he feels the way he does.

Now that I am at least able to understand where Nick gets the ideas that he has, I feel better about his sincerity. I think he still owes it to himself and the group to take a good hard look at the realities of scientific investigation and to not draw his opinion of it from just a few words, taken out of their philosophical context. And I do think he should be respectful enough of those who do the research and accumulate and analyze the evidence to restrain his urges to criticize until he has looked to at the evidence, where it comes from, and how it is accumulated and analyzed.

Anyone else have thoughts?

 

[DonaldW112]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Update:


Anyone else have thoughts?

Let me preface my remarks with the comment that I am a practicing scientist (at least I try to). I have responded to Nick on his board and after he shut down the evolution topic on this one. He rarely responds to my posts in any meaningful way. I think Nick has learned a lot in the last month or so (like the definition of evolution), but I believe he has a drastically distorted view of how science works. This seems to fit his worldview well since it seems someone convinced him that you can't be a christian if you believe in evolution.

As to the Lewontin quote: There is the concept that science can only deal with the natural, not the supernatural. So in a sense those who hold this view accept naturalism as a starting point for science. The reason that scientists use this as a starting point is that the explanation "god did it" is untestable and even if true not useful. By definition god could do anything.

That being said though if the evidence from geology, biology, and cosmology fell in line with the tale from the bible we would have to conclude that either the people who wrote the bible knew a lot more than they let on about geology, biology and chemistry or that someone told them (e.g. god?). So you see in some sense even if the evidence support the creation story as told in the bible scientists would have to look for natural explanation but that is the only explanation that science can find. Now I know a lot of creationists are going to jump up and down and say -- "you see no matter what evidence we give for creationism, evolutionists would not change their minds". This is not true since there would be no (or not many) evolutionists since the facts would not support evolution they would support a young earth, a global flood, etc. I bring this up to point out that scientists have no vested interest in which way the evidence points. If it points to creation then we will find the evidence, to date that evidence is not there but many people keep looking.

The flip side to this is if god (or some supernatural being) were interfering often with our world, science would be useless. You would try to repeat an observation and the 3rd time it would not work because some supernatural force had broken the laws of physics. Or more importantly if you believed a god could and would interfere you could always claim your experiment failed because god wanted it to or my results don’t agree with yours because god helped my experiment (please publish my results not the other guys). This is chaos.

Just my thoughts – any others?


I ask all creationists to remember who figured out and refined evolution for the first 50 years -- creationists!

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Starscream
I think Nick is one of the worst witnesses I've seen on this site in a long time. He's a functional atheist.

HEY! Watch it! Is this some kind of slur on atheists??

I have some good friends who are atheist.