Science Forums 2

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Rule 1: Denigrate existing accepted scientific theories by saying that they are not "proven." This sets up the argument that any theory is open to question...

This is how science works.

... and thus any other opinion is equally valid.

It IS equally valid if it is consistent with the observed, reproducible facts as demonstrated via the scientific method.

..This particular argument (no proof that mutation causes speciation) I've come to discover in my recent research is a statement that is used exclusively by proponents of ID.

That certainly refutes the fact, doesn't it? Who cares who believes it? It is interesting to note that this is categorically untrue (since I am not an ID proponent) and is only a specious approach to denigrate an argument by false association. This approach is CERTAINLY not science.

By simply saying its not proven conclusively, it makes it easier to argue that opinions with convincing but not conclusive evidence are no better than opinions with no evidence whatsoever

That is ludicrous. Weight of evidence is everything.

Rule 2: Propose a theory and say that its not contradicted by any data.

If you include parsimony in this, it is prefectly reasonable. You are certainly straying a long way from science yourself.

ID certainly is not inconsistent with observed facts, but that's somewhat irrelevant, since there's no testable way to validate any of the proposed conclusions.

I guess I can't answer this because I really don't know what you are refferring to as ID. There are many valid and/or falsifiable experiments that could be used to tease apart the ID view from the conventional view. Let 'em have at it.

.. Saying that an alternate theory of flight is that angels fly behind birds and planes and hold them up invisibly and that planes crash when evil people fly in them. This theory is completely consistent with observed facts.

And it is not parsimonius.

Rule 3: Since pseudo-science usually ends up getting hit with data that often disproves it, pick arguments that can be endlessly regenerated.

Careful. You are about to describe the techniques that are used to support the ever-evolving view of gradualism via mutaition.

...The scientific method *always* allows future discoveries to replace currently accepted theories, but does not the allow the notion that the *absence* of data or theories *justifies* another theory without any backing evidence...

Sort of. But the absence of data is always a concern if data is expected. Read C1ay's article about the new chimp genome. It actually says that 50 human genes were "deleted" to get the chimp genome. Certainly a poor choice of words. But are we going to suggest that we got 50 functional genes developed by random processes in 6 million years??????? This strains credulity. Anyone with a calculator should automatically suggest that there would have to be a defined mechanism to generate 50 new genes that quickly, and set up a research plan to find the mechanism. But no, the article is rife with discussion of the "advantageous" mutation. This is assumption, not science. In fact, it is pseudo-science. Weak thinking is everywhere. So what?

Rule 4: Make the issue political, or accuse the opposition of politics...

Isn't this what you are doing to defend your position? So far, you have attacked my misgivings about speciation by mutation by saying 1) ID folks believe that (false association) 2) It is like angels holding up airplanes (non parsimonius) 3) ID folks are political (like the opponents aren't). This is raw politics.

The most vocal ID is political..

A syllogism

Its political proponents do see it as a zero-sum game, with the current "tactics" to "use ID as a stepping stone to Creationism"

So what? Political discussion is seldom based on facts. What does this have to do with the science of it?

One thing that comes out of all this that *is* in line with your argument is that the worst thing for science to do is dismiss pseudo-science out of hand.

Science dismisses pseudo-science by referencing data retrieved via the scientific method.

The only issue I see here is that there is a danger in "making all opinions equally valid theories"

Parsimonius explanation of data. Parsimonious explanation of data. Equal weight in data consistency and parsimony results in equally "valid" theories.