Chance v. Design (Evolution)

by Matt S. , Saturday, June 06, 2009, 19:36 (5447 days ago) @ dhw

This will be a gigantic response, in 2 parts. - Wow, I do have a tendency to gloss over stuff. Okay, "math guys" (and therefore computer guys) think differently because we're trained to make an idea and then prove it. The process of solving a programming problem is completely different (perspective-wise) than solving a natural-science problem. - Contrast this with natural science, you observe and measure, and then come up with an explanation to describe the data. I'm lucky here because I started out in this category of science--meaning that I understand BOTH processes. In natural science you continuously alter the explanation as you better modify your experiments to test the new questions. Natural science looks at nature and tries to find an explanation using math to back up its claims. Math builds tools that (sometimes) help natural scientists. So, the general paradigms of the two types of science naturally lend themselves to confusion when ignorant about their processes. - In my new area, you already "know" the solution to the problem. Say, you want a piece of software that will simply multiply any number given as input by 2. - You know what it is that you need it to do. You just need to 'prove' it by building something to make it happen. This is simply not how the natural sciences work at all. In math, it is a similar idea, you want to 'prove' that two odd numbers always make an even when added, so you 'build' a solution, in this case the simplest being that you create two generic odd numbers, assert they won't make an even when added, and then 'prove yourself wrong.' You don't get to get away with that kind of "chicanery" in the natural sciences. Math is a much more abstract kind of game... - So when I look at the problem of abiogenesis, I see this: There is a finite number of particles in the universe. There is a finite number of particles on earth. There is a finite number of elements that creates life, and they combine in finite possible ways to perform chemical reactions, in a finite range of temperatures, in a finite range of time. Now, assigning a probability to this is specious--and it is in fact here where I "shoot myself in the foot," because we don't have enough information to gain a probability... but when you begin looking at the constraints on the problem, as a math/computer guy, my heuristic sense is telling me that a solution exists. - 
> You write: "I've been well trained enough in science to say I don't believe...but at the same time I know what it is I want to be correct." Are you saying that scientists don't have beliefs? How aware are you that if you know what it is you want to be correct, this is liable to affect your judgement? Should not the essence of science be objectivity? Perhaps this approach explains your readiness to go along with Rosenhouse, even if his argument defies logic.
> - Scientists have beliefs (of course) but by and large they are checked at the door when addressing whatever their problem is. Though, Nietzsche makes a relevant point here when discussing Kant's drive to be "completely objective." If you are driven to study something, you have passion for it and therefore cannot be "completely objective." No one can live up to an ideal. But to get around this, we have peer-review. This weeds out the bad science. In my own case, I know what I want to be right--but the very fact that I even make that statement should tell you that I scrutinize my own views (as much as can be possible.) Peer-review takes care of the rest. - From his evolutionary arguments, Jason makes no claim about abiogenesis. Evolution can only describe life after it happened, not before it, so you have no valid opposition to his argument here. In fact, in the circle of scientists, you would be hard pressed to find a credible consensus to disagree with him, as this is the argument accepted by science at large. (I say credible because to date only the ID political movement disagrees.) - As for defies logic, evolution works by using old genes for new purposes. This has been demonstrated time and time again. The claim that this requires intelligence to work is absurd. Bacteria are not intelligent. Biomolecules are not intelligent, though they may have an intelligent origin. Evolution describes life after life got here, Jason's page was about evolution, not about abiogenesis. Evolution--in order to work--does not need to deal with 'how life got here' in order to be a valid theory. It just needs to describe how life operates, which it does with amazing predictive power. An argument for design is not scientific, because it has no predictive power. If true, it only boils down to "it was designed" but changes nothing at all about evolution.