Of Baramins and Baloney 12

January 9, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Don,
Re: “God of the Gaps” [paragraph]
There are many parts of this paragraph that are just plain wrong.

1) Evolution provides a mechanism based on the observed properties of matter and life – mutation + natural selection. That’s a *mechanism*, a way of getting from point A to point B. So it is just a falsehood to say, as you do above, that “evolution provides no mechanism”. Do we need to define mechanism? Do you understand that design is not a mechanism? Do you understand that a designer is not a mechanism? Is a blueprint for a house (design) the same thing as a toolbox (used in the mechanism of building the house) or the architect (designer) or the carpenter (the mechanic)? NO. You have NO mechanism, and you don’t even seem to understand the definition.

2) Random mutation + natural selection has been demonstrated both in life and in laboratory to generate novel and useful modifications (“upgrades”, in your vernacular). Nylonase in bacteria is a good example. The PCP degradation pathway is another. There are new protein-coding genes recently identified in yeast. See http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/06/better-living-t.html

and

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

and

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/more-on-the-ori.html

for details. And please quit using arguments that have been rebutted so many times that they have their own website – The index to creationist claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/). So no, we are not both empty-handed. Evolutionary theory cannot give you a detailed blow-by-blow account of how things actually happened, but it can give you plausible scenarios based on known processes, precisely because it has a mechanism. You can’t approach that. Sorry.

Re: “Quick dismissal of forensic science”
Forensic science works because we know a lot about the mechanisms that work in the natural world, and because we know a lot about possible perpetrators (humans). Forensic science seeks to determine who, when, where, and how. Since we know nothing about how supernatural mechanisms work, and know nothing about the possible perpetrators, it is a false analogy to compare forensic science to ID or creationism. That is not a religious argument, it is a scientific one, at least until the IDists or creationists give us a way to study who, when, where, and how. Whaddya got that fits that description?

Re: “The book you mention”
You claim to be interested in dialog, yet you won’t be bothered to read a book based on the implications of its cover…. I read lots of literature from the ID and creationist sides. To me, that’s a better path to dialog; you have to understand the arguments at multiple levels, and you don’t get there by ignoring the arguments because you don’t like the cover of a book or its implications.

And, BTW, you still haven’t bothered to address my original question, based on your original post about baraminology. So here they are again, just as a friendly reminder. Is natural variation nonexistent in your opinion? Do you have evidence for “clear and defined” boundaries between taxonomic units at the species level?

Re: “I do not feel compelled to reply to statements of others”
I wish that people would focus on the message rather that try to ignore it based on the characteristics of the message. This is, in my opinion, a disingenuous ploy to ignore the CONTENT of the message by focusing on the tone. I find it to be fairly typical of creationists/IDists. In fact, your anecdotes about “mistreatment” are exactly in character here. In science, tone is not as important as content. Apparently that is yet another thing that scientists do differently than sociologists and others.

Here it is again - I find that I cannot say it better myself, and my friend Bill says it pretty well. I have emphasized the bits that I think are most germane. Please focus on the content rather than your perceptions of the tone. Thanks
—
*Methodological naturalism is the only game in town when it comes to scientifically investigating the history of life on earth*. Not because we worship “materialism” and “randomness,” but rather because frames of reference that permit supernatural action result in inherently non-testable hypotheses. Simply put, /any/ observation may be construed as consistent with the action of a supernatural agent who is “all powerful” and capable of manipulating matter and energy through acts of will.

This doesn’t render belief in God invalid - but it does render such belief *useless *in a scientific context. You’re welcome to look on and conclude from genuine empirical research that it supports the existence of the supernatural, but that stance is inherently incapable of contributing to further research.

Given that, regardless of how many articles you read and how many questions and challenges you are able to frame thereby, your argument is and will remain *negative only*, and one of personal incredulity. That is worth exactly nothing in this context.

So the point I am asserting is central. *You have no positive, testable assertions to offer. You have no new evidence to offer.* Nor is it possible to construct such assertions from your foundational assumption. You and yours offer no researchable alternative. That renders your critique of evolutionary theory inherently /scientifically/ empty.
—-

cheers
[Mark]

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »