Of Baramins and Baloney 4

November 23, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

[I continue an email conversation begun with a blog comment to my Oct 19, 2008 post. Each time I will allow my guest to have the last word. My
beginning each time will therefore be my response to the previously dated post.]

Well said, Mark,
I see your position: Yes, if I substitute in phlogiston or astrology, the debate
does seems fruitless and even tiresome. And you are right about the
whining: If the other guys are wrong, get out there and prove it.

May I make a comparison with Eastern medicine? There are
spiritual theories underlying most of these traditional herbal treatments, but
the herbs themselves or their techniques of application may in fact have
beneficial affects on the body or psychological state of the person. It is
logical that if a treatment has been used for thousands of years, it would have
survived only because there is something to it, even if the ascribed reason is
wrong. Some of these treatments are only just now being allowed credence in
"modern" medicine. Even if the theoretical base is rejected for religious
differences, couldn’t the establishment allow competition of ideas based on the
establishment’s rules?

This is really a poor analogy, but I couldn’t think of a
better one. It’s poor because there is little hostility toward eastern
medicine. The main delay there is simply that drug companies will not sponsor
research on something they cannot patent. In the case of any setback to the
theory of evolution the response is hostile. By hostile, I mean regardless of
the nature of the evidence, the effort is squelched and the reputation of an
otherwise well-published scientist is ruined.
I’m not talking about articles that quote verses or even elude to an
Intelligence. For instance, slow build-up of peat bogs fully supports the
assumption that coal formed over a period of millions of years. Still, a person
should be allowed to submit and have published a well-written article that
argues from the data that the layers seem to be quickly deposited. What’s wrong
with coal fodder being laid down quickly and then millions of years passing
before the next layers are deposited? That article will not see publication,
because it will immediately be assumed (and perhaps rightly so, because no one
else would dare suggest the idea) that the author’s unspoken position is
creationism. What has that got to do with the scientific quality of the
submission? Or the contribution to science, for that matter? But what if some
creationist should find support for their position from the publication? Yes,
scientists are pragmatic, but not "nothing else." I’m not arguing here that
creationism or intelligent design either one are right; only
that such implications should be irrelevant to science.

Continue they will, and even though their credentials and
scientific method are ignored (trashed?) once their underlying assumptions are
known, perhaps science will eventually be allowed to advance in new directions.

Don Mc

Don

Thanks for the reply, and the insights. I do note, however, that you are still
ignoring the substance of my original comment, re the reasons that taxonomy is
imperfect. You are also ignoring the questions I posted there, regarding the
evidence behind the opinions that you expressed.  Can I assume that you have no
evidence for clear and unchanging boundaries between the taxa that we call
species?  Can I assume that you understand that there is substantial observed
variation within species, and that this variation is relevant?  Please advise.

Re the rest of your message, yes, it is a poor analogy to compare eastern
medicine with ID/creationism. It fails on two counts. 1) It does not require a
supernatural explanation. 2) It is testable by modern scientific methods. You
can take a plant extract and study it to see if it has pharmaceutical properties
of interest. You can’t test ID or creationism.

I also don’t believe, without evidence, that scientific evidence is being
squelched, or that reputations of scientists are being "ruined" because they
buck the system and try to publish scientific papers in support of ID. Where’s
the evidence?  If you are talking about R. von Sternberg, I’d be happy to tell
you why this description is at odds with the facts. If you are talking about G.
Gonzalez, ditto. If you are talking about someone else, please provide me with
the evidence. As a practicing scientist, I can tell you that lots of scientists
would be very happy to overturn a paradigm as well-established as evolutionary
theory. That pretty much would guarantee you scientific immortality as well as a
trip to Stockholm. But it takes EVIDENCE to overturn an established theory. That
EVIDENCE has to be solid, repeatable, and unexplainable by the current theory.
That’s how science works. Publish the evidence, and folks will consider it, test
it, and eventually move to your position if it works out. No evidence, no
paradigm shift.

Mark

Academic Freedom wrote:

Mark,
I appreciate our interactions. They are stimulating, even if each of us falls
short of convincing the other. With your permission, I would like to put our
conversation so far into the AcademicFreedomBlog. Are you OK with that? I will
not assume your permission on any further dialog without asking again.
Don Mc

Don

That would be OK with me. Hopefully it will encourage civil dialogue, rather
than the invective that seems to dominate these discussions at other blogs.

Mark

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »