Pursuing praxis

A compilation for future use, and public reference

Transcript of the ID trial Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
     - Of particular interest, and public value, here is the examination of Kevin Padian on day 9. It’s long, and there are typos, and he was using a slide presentation, but for a mostly plain-speaking presentation of what modern evolutionary biology has to say on a lot of "hot" topics is presented. Transitional forms abound, even when the fossil record sucks.

     - I should also say that I think KP misstated a couple things, in terms of the science content, but that they are not essential for the concepts presented. I also diverge from KP, the NCSE, and many/most other scientists in thinking that consensus of a group (of experts, in this case) does not by itself validate an idea (though it can be a gambler’s rule of thumb), I think that truth and certainty are contextual and therefore possible to science (and elsewhere in life), and other important points. The value of his testimony (which I view as considerable) is as a resource of facts, which is the place to start in all this. That "Tasmanian  Wolf" marsupials share more physical similarities (by the dozens) with other marsupials than with regular dogs and wolves is a numerical fact. That the main textbook of ID has morphed, by known and observable steps, from a special creation textbook to an intelligent design textbook is a fact.  And on and on. If you seek to begin at the beginning in the matter, this is a good place to start.
     
     -The public’s (even the educated public’s) understanding of what is meant, understood, entailed by, and in support of evolution as a phenomenon and process is … beyond paltry. This is for several reasons, I think. First, and most importantly, schools and teachers have been either prohibited from teaching evolution, told what limited portions they may teach (many of which are inaccurate and/or outdated by at least half a century), intimidated into discussing evolution as little as possible, and/or forced to include ‘alternative viewpoints’ that unnecessarily confuse students about the nature of the questions, the methods of investigation, and the state of knowledge. There is so, so much more to it than "random mutation" (a terrible term, by the way, and hugely misunderstood) and natural selection. More later on this.

     - Secondly, evolution as a concept, and as a science, is far removed from the perceptual level. It subsumes spans of time, and stretches of space, and numbers of organisms that far exceed what your eyes or your mind can hold at any instant. We organize all this raw data by forming concepts, by carefully building a chain of progressively more abstract concepts in your mind, that subsume more and more. That doesn’t mean the more abstract concepts are less right, it just means it’s more difficult to form them quickly and accurately (thus: take your time), and it’s farther removed from immediate observation.

     - In this sense evolution is closer conceptually with particle physics and astronomy, in terms of the amount of mental effort required to hold all the relevant concepts in your mind, understand their relationships, and how those concepts trace back to reality. Jumping straight to the concepts, without building the chain, practically guarantees a broken chain (which may or may not concern someone). This is largely how modern education proceeds, unfortunately. You’re told about subatomic particles, or processes best characterized in terms of millions of years (in the case of evolution) or even billions of years (in the cases of astronomy, I presume). Then you memorize information about them, crunch through the formulas and work the practice problems. But where those concepts came from, and how they trace to reality in person, personally, by your own observation is usually left aside, or only given short treatment. Then you stare at reality and try to see how it all hangs together. Most people try to  stitch stuff together in their minds, as best they can, if they’re interested in how whole fields relate. (A lot of people don’t really care, which is of less concern to me.) This is what educators should be helping students do, not what they leave them to do solo. The guideposts for stitching ideas together are not something you’re born with. The odds of doing it correctly, off the cuff, picking up tips and ideas here and there from whatever cultural or intellectual soup you live in, are quite low, if you look at it probabilistically. Again, this is the role for educators, and exceedingly good ones at that. I don’t know anyone at my school who teaches in this manner. That’s the kind of bar, standard, I’m talking about.

I’m soap-boxing again. Back to the task.

Here’s a good article, though with a very delimited focus (unlike my endless tangents and addendums and clarifications).

The Bait and Switch of Intelligent Design. - why ID is irreducibly about supernaturalism and faith.

Arguing for an accurate understanding of ID. A pro-ID article. Interestingly, Dembski is quoted as saying that ID isn’t an anti-evolution statement/position/method/whatever. Bet you didn’t know that. Which begs the question - what is it? Ah, it’s a method - an epistemology, as I said before. There’s a whole post coming on that one. 

     - Check out the irregularities in argumentation - in both the article itself, and in the authors the article quotes. The primary point of argumentation is never stated, and it’s this: can science ever scientifically identify the existence of something not amenable to science? That is, the article vehemently points out that ID has nothing to say about the nature or identity of the designer (apart from the fact that it is supernatural, it is undesigned itself, and it is not amenable to scientific study - that sounds like a ‘nature’ and an ‘identity’ to me; a proper name is not the be-all and end-all of identity).

     - Even given this self-contradictory point, the argument fails - because the question of ID’s scientific status does not center on the alleged identity of the designer, but the existence of the designer at all. Not what it is, but that it is. That point alone is not a possible conclusion of science. Science, honestly conceived, cannot conclude that something is beyond science, that is, beyond nature. It’s a contradiction and violation of the rules (epistemology and metaphysics) of a scientific worldview. (Another post on that later). A phenomenon may be beyond our technological or instrumental capabilities - temporarily or permanently - but that doesn’t render it unnatural or supernatural, much less intelligent (and intelligence requires consciousness, so the designer must also be conscious). The phenomenon itself would just be naturally intractable given our capabilities. (And the odds of this ever happening are remote, in my view, and certainly don’t crop up surrounding the concept of evolution. The odds are better for sub-particle matter, if such thing exists, in the far-distant future.)