Sunday, October 3, 2010

Compare and contrast: Global Warming, Intelligent Design

What does it mean to be scientific?  Why do we say that some things are scientific, and others are not?  The traditional definition is that a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that it must be testable, subject to disproof via investigation.

The scientist proposes, and nature disposes.  Oft is a beautiful theory (*cough* Luminiferous Aether *cough*) consigned to the ash heap of history because experiment cannot validate it - or even produces the opposite data as what was expected.

While it's always disappointing when this happens to you, science demands that the hypothesis be modified to suit the data, not the other way around.  If you can't - if the modification causes the theory to come apart at the seams - then science demands that you abandon the hypothesis.  Some people don't like that.

Now it's worth stating at this point that there are lots of worthwhile things in this world that are not scientifically testable.  Your Volgi summed this up in a neat little package, while discussing Rousseau huffing intellectuals:
Plus, the kids who come in are often times high on themselves and their SAT scores and have increasingly not been exposed to alternative moral systems, like traditional religion, in which they'd hear, "Yeah, you're smart, but so what? Are you good?" Or have pointed out to them that not a few brilliant men have gone on to do profound evil.
Ethics, the Considered Life, our place in the Great Sweep of Time - all of these are worthy, demanding subjects.  Yet none are scientific, because no falsifiability test can be devised for them.

And so with Intelligent Design.  The idea that the Universe was created - designed - by a Creator may indeed be correct.  As they say, a watch needs a Watchmaker.  However, there is no conceivable experiment that could prove or disprove this hypothesis.  The Intelligent Design folks have performed heroically in creating a scientific framework that in many ways explains the workings of the Universe.  In many ways.  But the gaps in the hypothesis loom large, not least of which being that Darwin and his contemporaries had to address very similar objections in the nineteenth century.  A study of history will show debates about Watchmakers, and the equivalent of Irreducible complexity, and arguments like "of what use is half an eye?"

Objections are forgotten, or glossed over, or the subject is changed to a different one.  The name of the hypothesis is changed as public opinion polls swing to and fro (from "Creationism" to "Intelligent Design"). This isn't exactly a sign of scientific strength or confidence in its adherents.

And so with Global Warming.  Its proponents seem profoundly ignorant of history - of the recorded fact that Greenland was warm, or that England was warm enough to be covered by wine vineyards.  And so their statements that 1998 was the "warmest year in a Millennium" are almost certainly wrong.

Objections to their hypothesis are glossed over.  The Urban Heat Island effect - where weather stations that had originally been in cool meadow are now in the middle of hot asphalt parking lots because cities have grown during the last 60 years - this is dismissed as irrelevant even when its trivially easy for a child to show that the effect is real and significant.

Heroic efforts are made to fit the data to theory.  A single tree "proves" the Hockey Stick.  Data is fabricated.  Existing data is subjected to all sorts of interesting statistical analyses, in an attempt to fit it to the "hottest year in a Millennium" conclusion.  Computer models are the core of the theory, but their minders don't even understand how they work.  Or the inherent problems with computer modeling.

The response of the "scientific consensus" to these objections is to change the subject ("Hey, look at the IPCC Report!  Nuthin' but science!"), or to attack the messenger ("Denier!"), or to change the name of the hypothesis (Global Warming! Climate Change! Climate Disruption!).  And anyway, who really cares about data accuracy ...

As with Intelligent Design, none of this inspires confidence.  Key portions of the Global Warming hypothesis are experimentally tested, and many are falsified, like the test showing that positive CO2 forcings are actually negative.  The "scientific consensus" community lurches on, as if ignoring the evidence will win the argument.

And so we're forced to conclude that - as with Intelligent Design - Global Warming is not at its heart scientific.  While the Scientific Gravy Train is cause enough to explain the scientist's behavior, it isn't plausible as a motivation for non-scientists.  Say, the ones making Eco-porn snuff films.  What's with them?

Faith.

Some people - the lefties inhabiting the Media, for example - believe a priori that Mankind is destroying the planet with our pollution.  The Global Warming theory - with its emphasis on CO2 to the exclusion of other, more important Greenhouse gases - is congenial to their pre-existing belief that society must fundamentally de-industrialize.  The theory gives them a scientific veneer to pretty-up their beliefs.  The actual details of the science are quite beside the point.

And so we get the delicious irony of the Intellectual Left, who pride themselves on their rationalism and support for Science (in great contrast to the ignorant Red State knuckle draggers) acting in every way like back woods cracker Revival Tent snake handlers.  The Bible IPCC says it, I believe it, that settles it.

These people, who know nothing of the science, are content to label as "Anti-Science" anyone who attempts to peel the veneer off their Faith.  To watch them in action is to laugh.

Bootnote: My own view on Intelligent Design - other than that it is not scientific - is that it is borderline heretical.  Sola Fide (ex: Romans 3:23-25) tells us that faith alone is needed for salvation.  If it were possible to scientifically prove the existence of a Creator, then of what use is faith?  Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited, do not remove tag under penalty of law.

5 comments:

Broken Andy said...

Yes, Intelligent Design is not falsifiable. However, how is the theory of man evolving from apes testable? It is impossible to create all the conditions necessary to evolve a human from lesser species, much less amino acids. Perhaps given enough technology and time, it could be done... but it hasn't been nor is it foreseeable that mankind will have such an opportunity. While natural selection can be proved, the evolution of man cannot be.

I'm not making an argument for creationism, but I'm generally amused by the believe of the evolution of man as backed by the scientific method. It seems to me that such a believe requires a lot of pure faith.

Borepatch said...

Andy, the standard response is that we observe the process of Natural Selection (or Artificial Selection, as with dog/horse breeding) in action. Even ID theory doesn't try to argue that species do not evolve.

Once you have this, the fossil record - while filled with gaps - is easily explained as the evolution of one species into another.

Is it "proven"? Well, not in the sense that we ask a jury to rule in a courtroom. Does it explain the data on hand pretty well? It seems to.

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with your contention that it requires a lot of pure faith, but it absolutely does require inductive, not deductive logic. In other words, and informed leap of faith.

;-)

Broken Andy said...

My understanding is that the fossil record shows species evolving in spurts, which indicates that there is something more at play than just natural selection.

I'd put biologists and the well-informed into the "informed leap of faith" camp, though I contend that it is a fairly big chasm to be crossed. But for the rest, it is about as pure faith as it is for creationists.

Paladin said...

Has anyone seen my can of worms?...

I could swear I left it right here a minute ago :)

love1scent said...

“WHO IS THIS ALIEN?” This Higher Power In The Universe.


“It seems like many individuals in the world want nothing to do with the Creator of the Universe as if He is some sort of kill-joy, some sort of Tyrant, some sort of myth, or some sort of Alien..........This Higher Power in the Universe.”

There is a book about this Supreme intelligent being titled,
Who Is This Alien ? This Higher Power in the Universe...This Supreme Intelligence.

The book's about Intelligent Design concepts that are based on scientific discoveries. Hence, it is science and logic blending together forever to support the existence of a Supreme intelligent being, somewhere in the heavens. It’s great reading. It's very informative, very enlightening, including the author's personal experiences and visitations with this Supreme Intelligent Being.

The book’s author brings up the subject of evolution. “Concerning evolution, scientists at the Genome project and other scientists have concluded that there is an element of design built into creation that cannot be explained by evolution. No life form, be it a single cell, multiple cells or even evolutionary cells can exist without DNA. Genome scientist and other scientists have concluded that every life form is a product of DNA and the DNA molecule is a product of an intelligent source, a Supreme intelligence.”

Genome scientist, Professor Francis Crick, and other scientists have come to a conclusion that the DNA molecule originated from some alien source in the heavens, some extra-terrestrial source, not from evolution, according to History channel documentary, “The Universe.”

Yes, there is an intelligent life form beyond our galaxy, the 3rd Heaven...Many scientists and individuals are searching the heavens for extra-terrestrial beings; believing by faith that something is out there in the heavens. They will be surprised when this Supreme intelligent being reveals its identity to every scientist at the same time from east to west, north to south ...including every human being on this planet-yes at the same time……….It will not be a secret.

Check out this new book, written in layman’s term, titled, "Who is this Alien? It’s all about this Intelligent being, this supreme intelligent being, creator of the DNA Molecule with all of its genetic instructions and intelligence “ to build you- a product of DNA, a product of the Creator.”

Check it out on Ingram, Amazon, Barnes or

http://www.kingdomcomeforever.ecrater.com

Pass this link to your friends….Let them be enlighten…..Let them be informed….