Is this "our view of science"?

[Martin]

I'm interested in what you think this means in a straight evolutionary biology context, and if it could be in some sense "our" view----either the official SFN position or a consensus view of the scientic community.

 

I found it in Woelen's post called

A letter to SFN members: Creation, evolution, and our view on science

 

since Woelen enjoys Super Moderator privileges and since he defines a group "SFN members" and then says "our" it sounds as if he is offering his own formulation as an official SFN position.

 

here is the passage:

 

From a scientific point of view, one can say that some biological structures are so complex, that they cannot be the result of an evolutionary process. This is a scientific hypothesis (onset to a theory), which in principle can be tested (and with that can be supported, or falsified, but never proven).

 

Do you think this statement is clear? Would you want it treated as an official SFN line? Does what it SOUNDS like it says correspond to what it actually says? What does it actually say?

 

does it mean that there is an experimental test which could falsify the statement "some biological structures are so complex, that they cannot be the result of an evolutionary process."?

 

But that is clearly wrong because the statement in quotes is not experimentally falsifiable! The experiment would have to consider ALL BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURES one by one. Testing would never end because one would have to examine every single biological structure and prove that it could have been the result of an evolutionary process.

 

Maybe it means "I Woelan can tell you some biological structure about which a falsifiable statement can be made: namely that it could not have evolved." I don't know if that would satisfy a Design buff, but it is TRUE. Woelan could point to my ear----and then it would be up to a biologist to falsify his statement by proving that my ear could have evolved. Or he could say "mitochondrion" and the biologist would have to prove that mitochondria could have evolved. provide some reasonable scenario to show possibility.

 

Quite a lot of that went on last year. It was interesting to read how some of these complicated organs could have evolved.

 

I am skeptical that Woelan could actually name an organ or biological structure that has not already been proposed by some Designist and has not already received expert consideration and rebuttal from an evolutionary biologist, but perhaps he has thought of a new one!

 

My problems with the statement are several.

 

1. It appears to be about science, a scientific question.

I don't think it accurately reflects "our" view of science. Not mine anyway.

 

2. It is not clear. what seems to me to be the most natural interpretation is an inaccurate statement.

 

3. It seems to array itself in the mantle of authority because of SuperMod authorship. it appears, whether legitimately or not, in the guise of a kind of official policy statement. The author does not say explicitly "this is just my personal opinion", or if he does that message gets lost by the time we reach this pronouncement that begins

"FROM A SCIENTIFIC VIEW, ONE CAN SAY..."

 

That is what I think. How does it strike you? Should we take a poll?

My feeling is that Woelan's "Letter" should be rewritten to be clearly a personal statement, or simply retracted (that would be the easiest).

But mine may be a small minority view, perhaps a minority of one! You may feel that it DOES reflect "our view of science".

 

Any comment?

[bascule]

Martin, I raised some similar objections to that same statement. I'm still yet to hear how irreducible complexity is a testable hypothesis.

[FreeThinker]

From a scientific point of view, one can say that some biological structures are so complex, that they cannot be the result of an evolutionary process. This is a scientific hypothesis (onset to a theory), which in principle can be tested (and with that can be supported, or falsified, but never proven).

 

It is confusing. The first sentence seems to be directly attacking evolution and confirming that some structures are irreductibly complex. The second sentence confirms that it, irreductble complexity, follows a scientific method. I do not agree that it is testable for the reasons mentioned in the original post. There is no way we could come up with all the possible ways a particular organ , or system, could have evolved. This paragraph, the way I intepret it, in no way reflects how I feel on the issue.

[YT2095]

this part:

"From a scientific point of view, one can say that some biological structures are so complex, that they cannot be the result of an evolutionary process. This is a scientific hypothesis (onset to a theory), which in principle can be tested (and with that can be supported, or falsified, but never proven)."

 

reads perfectly well to me, one can indeed say this, operative word "CAN".

it would also be a valid hypothesis (you can`t really have an INvalid hypothesis by definition).

it can also be tested falsified.

as for Proven or not, Science isn`t in the business "Proving" anything, so that also is true.

 

that`s how it reads to me anyway

[CharonY]

I agree with the first three posts. And furthermore quite a number of "irreducible" complexity examples have been in fact been debunked. As such the first sentence already is a very weak statement to begin with.

Edit: wrote whlily YT2095 posted

 

Actually while reflecting about it I think I have more quarrels with the vagueness of that sentence. The "can" for instance. The hypothesis should be something in the line of which structures are too complex to be derived from evolution. But as I said, some complex structures have already been resolved. As such I'd object to such a general statement.

[woelen]

To all people, respronding here, please continue in the original thread. Here, just one sentence is taken out of context of a long letter, and if you read that long letter, then you'll certainly see what my intent is. I do not want to present any statement like this as an official SFN-statement, and if someone has the feeling that this is the case, then that should be corrected. Maybe the word "our" in the letter's title then should be changed, or something like that, but what Martin is accusing me of simply is not fair. With the word "our" I meant "we scientists" and it was meant in a very general way, nothing to do with specific persons or groups.

 

Here follows the link to the original thread and I would like to invite all of you to continue in that thread, instead of here. Then you have the whole letter, and not only this single sentence.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20844

 

Martin, I raised some similar objections to that same statement. I'm still yet to hear how irreducible complexity is a testable hypothesis.

Bascule, I was planning to dedicate a long post to all of your responses and your's I also want to take into account.

 

I'm not offended by your responses, but Martin's is of a totally different order. Your question is fully legitimate, because it is about the post itself, Martin's is less fair, because he mixes up a lot of other things, like mod privileges, SFN policy, official statements and so on. That simply is not fair...

[YT2095]

The author does not say explicitly "this is just my personal opinion"' date=' or if he does that message gets lost by the time we reach this pronouncement that begins

"FROM A SCIENTIFIC VIEW, ONE CAN SAY..."

[/quote']

 

that clearly is NOT true!

 

I have followed a lot of discussions on creation/evolution over here on SFN' date=' and also at other places, and in some of them I participated, and what I observe is that these discussions always tend to be very cumbersome. I have been thinking about the why of this, and I have studied some dutch texts about philosophy of science. To my opinion, there are different levels of discussion, and they are mixed up in a wrong way.

[/quote']

I can see the words "To My opinion" in there.

the ONLY claim you actualy MAY have martin is the "Our" part, and Only in that the Collective reference isn`t clear.

simply asking him to clarify this point may have been Nicer approach rather than going to all this trouble to effectively Create an issue out of a simple matter.

[Severian]

From a scientific point of view' date=' one can say that some biological structures are so complex, that they cannot be the result of an evolutionary process. This is a scientific hypothesis (onset to a theory), which in principle can be tested (and with that can be supported, or falsified, but never proven).[/size']

 

This statement in the original thread was in a context where it was presented as a possible opinion. In other words, it is legitimate for someone to make the proposition that complex structures cannot be generated by evolution. Woelen never said that this statement was a mainstream view of this site or science in general (or even his own!). He only pointed out that this hypothesis is a fair enough question to ask because it can in principle be tested. It is therefore a scientific question. (One would of course need a sandbox planet to play with and a few billion years of free time, but hey we spent $100 billion on something as useless as going to the moon...)

 

If we are not allowed to make statements like this while being moderators or 'experts', then I will relinquish my star without hesitation.

[CharonY]

After reading the original thread from which this statement came from I have to retract my above post. My bad.

I might disagree with the statement per se, but if stated as his own (or a general) opinion it is of course perfectly acceptable.

[ashennell]

From a scientific point of view, one can say that some biological structures are so complex, that they cannot be the result of an evolutionary process. This is a scientific hypothesis (onset to a theory), which in principle can be tested (and with that can be supported, or falsified, but never proven).

 

This seems akward to me. The hypothesis presented seems to be that evolution could be wrong if we found evidence that didnt agree with the theory. Is that a hypoethesis in it's own right or just part and parcel of what a theory is in general? Any theory could be shown to be incomplete given new evidence.

 

However, is would be a mistake to imply that in disproving one theory you somehow have evidence to support another 'specific' one (I realise that woelen doesn't specifically go this far). If we find a new example of irreducible complexity, which somehow resists attempts to explain it, given evolutionary theory - why would this alone support any one other theory?

[Martin]

Martin, I raised some similar objections to that same statement. I'm still yet to hear how irreducible complexity is a testable hypothesis.

 

I know you did and thought at the time it was an astute question to ask. Nor did I see any response to your question when I last looked at the thread. Perhaps there has been some since then but you know how things are.

 

IMHO biologists have done a topnotch public job in responding to the "irreducible" issue and irreducible complexity now looks pretty silly. But that was months ago and I didnt expect to see it brought up again by anyone conversant with the issues.

 

We will just have to see.

 

Your question, which I in effect reiterated, is a technical one about whether the statement "There exists irreducible complexity" is empirically falsifiable, and thus whether it falls within the domain of scientific discussion. I suspect it is NOT falsifiable by any finite do-able experiment and therefore does NOT qualify as science.

 

Even if it were a scientifically testable assertion, I think it has pretty well discredited among good-faith scientists by addressing particular cases which Designists have proposed. But that still leaves the technical question you raised about the general statement "There exists complexity which could not by any reasonable scenario have evolved." I doubt the negative of that can be shown by an experiment. (maybe that was your point )

[Martin]

After reading the original thread from which this statement came from I have to retract my above post. My bad.

I might disagree with the statement per se' date=' but if stated as his own (or a general) opinion it is of course perfectly acceptable.[/quote']

 

My primary concern in this thread is with how "Letter" SOUNDS. Not just in this one passage actually, but througout.

 

It may have been intended as purely personal private opinion, not pretending to authority, or asking for adoption by the group as a collective statement of "our" official views. But if so, it certainly gave me (and possibly others as well) a different impression.

 

I am glad that you went and read the entire post and that you found that it did not have the tone of an official pronouncement. I hope it did really sound to you and others like an individual viewpoint statement. Didn't to me, but that's the kind of thing I'd like to find out.

[Martin]

From a scientific point of view' date=' one can say that some biological structures are so complex, that they cannot be the result of an evolutionary process. This is a scientific hypothesis (onset to a theory), which in principle can be tested (and with that can be supported, or falsified, but never proven).[/i']

 

It is confusing. The first sentence seems to be directly attacking evolution and confirming that some structures are irreductibly complex. The second sentence confirms that it, irreductble complexity, follows a scientific method. I do not agree that it is testable for the reasons mentioned in the original post. There is no way we could come up with all the possible ways a particular organ , or system, could have evolved. This paragraph, the way I intepret it, in no way reflects how I feel on the issue.

 

Thanks FreeThinker.

 

CharonY I think you wish to retract some of what you said in this post. But some of the factual background is still worth recalling, I think. Indeed the vagueness is bothersome. And a number of "irreducible" complexity examples have been in fact been debunked, and that was not pointed out in the original (although objectivity and balance might have called for it.)

 

I agree with the first three posts. And furthermore quite a number of "irreducible" complexity examples have been in fact been debunked. As such the first sentence already is a very weak statement to begin with.

Edit: wrote while YT2095 posted

 

Actually while reflecting about it I think I have more quarrels with the vagueness of that sentence. The "can" for instance. The hypothesis should be something in the line of which structures are too complex to be derived from evolution. But as I said' date=' some complex structures have already been resolved. As such I'd object to such a general statement.

[/quote']

 

However CharonY now does not object since the "Letter" is perceived as a personal statement not implicating the group.

 

=====================

 

Severian!

Would you be so kind as to sum up your reactions (and those of YT and woelen)

 

My feeling is that we have aired these issues enough and I would like to move on. This thread has done its job and elicited a sampling of views---various opinions---I see no purpose to debate or further discussion.

 

Woelen, or anybody who wishes, can bring up some undebunked cases of "irreducible complexity" or some argument that the original statement WAS empirically testable as claimed (something I am skeptical about)

 

or else NOT bring in some examples of "irreducible complexity" or further arguments. I don't think it matters and nobody should feel obliged to do more intellectual labor about this.

 

I will take leave of this thread now. thanks to all for the various responses (more and more different even than I hoped!)

See y'all in other threads!

 

===========

EDIT: DARN! I forgot Ashenell. Your point raised an interesting point nobody else did about how does one test evolution, what sorts of empirical observations would falsify it. (like finding a set of blueprints for my liver, a tiny patent number on my eardrum, or some other smoking gun evidence ) IMO it is a really good question, maybe someone will start a thread about it. Anyway thanks to you too.