Yup, our definitions of materialism match! Most scientists don't qualify, and neither do I. :-) So it's not necessary to be a materialist to accept the evidence for evolution. (Perhaps ID proponents are attacking the wrong target.)
Let me address the idea that what happened in the past can only be guessed at. - "Were you there?" as one Creationist puts it. :-) Past events leave evidence which can support or disprove a hypothesis*. A simple example Jon and I have been throwing around is a car crash. My hypothesis: the driver, sadly deceased, was drunk. "Were you there?" No, but my hypothesis can be *tested* by the coroner. Examples of evidence about past life include fossils, "homologies" (similarities in structures), vestigial organs (eg whales' tiny internal leg bones, which I'll bet a buck serve no function!), genetic family trees, and living "missing links" such as monotremes.
I agree, absolutely, that scientists can be pigheads. In fact, the development of science in the former USSR was held back for decades because on powerful state geneticist was an adamant Lamarckian (cut off a mouse's tail, and its offspring will be tailless). However, there's a great quote from Carl Sagan: "They laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." All "fringe" proponents claim they're being marginalised by the establishment. Ultimately only the evidence can help us sort out the innovators from the nutters.
To the best of my knowledge, no ID proponent has carried out a scientific experiment on ID and published the results, even though some are professional scientists. To show that ID qualifies as science, Michael Behe need only design an experiment to test it - ie, come up with a hypothesis which could be proved wrong. (He need not even run the experiment!) He hasn't, because he can't - it's a philosophical idea, not subject to empirical enquiry.
I am for bed!
__
* Technical stuff for those who are interested. Theory = Theorem; the Theory of Evolution is not a single hypothesis (eg "That driver was drunk"), but a huge collection of interlocking evidence and ideas (eg Road Safety). Hypothesis = a guess you can prove is wrong. In science, technically you can never prove anything; your experiment or research can support your hypothesis, or disprove it. When enough evidence supports a hypothesis, it's broadly accepted as a fact - but a single experiment could still disprove it. A sixty-million year old human skull would do nicely!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 01:33 pm (UTC)Let me address the idea that what happened in the past can only be guessed at. - "Were you there?" as one Creationist puts it. :-) Past events leave evidence which can support or disprove a hypothesis*. A simple example Jon and I have been throwing around is a car crash. My hypothesis: the driver, sadly deceased, was drunk. "Were you there?" No, but my hypothesis can be *tested* by the coroner. Examples of evidence about past life include fossils, "homologies" (similarities in structures), vestigial organs (eg whales' tiny internal leg bones, which I'll bet a buck serve no function!), genetic family trees, and living "missing links" such as monotremes.
I agree, absolutely, that scientists can be pigheads. In fact, the development of science in the former USSR was held back for decades because on powerful state geneticist was an adamant Lamarckian (cut off a mouse's tail, and its offspring will be tailless). However, there's a great quote from Carl Sagan: "They laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." All "fringe" proponents claim they're being marginalised by the establishment. Ultimately only the evidence can help us sort out the innovators from the nutters.
To the best of my knowledge, no ID proponent has carried out a scientific experiment on ID and published the results, even though some are professional scientists. To show that ID qualifies as science, Michael Behe need only design an experiment to test it - ie, come up with a hypothesis which could be proved wrong. (He need not even run the experiment!) He hasn't, because he can't - it's a philosophical idea, not subject to empirical enquiry.
I am for bed!
__
* Technical stuff for those who are interested. Theory = Theorem; the Theory of Evolution is not a single hypothesis (eg "That driver was drunk"), but a huge collection of interlocking evidence and ideas (eg Road Safety). Hypothesis = a guess you can prove is wrong. In science, technically you can never prove anything; your experiment or research can support your hypothesis, or disprove it. When enough evidence supports a hypothesis, it's broadly accepted as a fact - but a single experiment could still disprove it. A sixty-million year old human skull would do nicely!