Which is more wrong?

[micatala]

It has been my experience in debates on issues of evolution that those who oppose evolution frequently point to aspects of the theory of evolution that are wrong, or at least unsupported. This is often followed by a statement that, since evolution is not trustworthy, other explanations are just as valid. This brings to mind a quote by Isaac Asimov that I ran across recently.

"The young specialist in English Lit ... lectured me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the Universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern 'knowledge' is that it is wrong. ... My answer to him was, '... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.'"

So, the questions for debate are:

1. Which is 'wronger'? Evolution, ID, or the various forms of creationism?

2. Are those who think any of these are 'equally' wrong wronger than the rest of us put together?

3. How does the dynamic of various participants in the ongoing debate not being able to determine which theory is 'more wrong' or 'more right' effect the dynamic of the evolution versus anti-evolution controversy?

[Goat]

It has been my experience in debates on issues of evolution that those who oppose evolution frequently point to aspects of the theory of evolution that are wrong, or at least unsupported. This is often followed by a statement that, since evolution is not trustworthy, other explanations are just as valid. This brings to mind a quote by Isaac Asimov that I ran across recently.

"The young specialist in English Lit ... lectured me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the Universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern 'knowledge' is that it is wrong. ... My answer to him was, '... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.'"

So, the questions for debate are:

1. Which is 'wronger'? Evolution, ID, or the various forms of creationism?

Evolution has been investigated for over 150 years, and has not been able to be falsified. It has withstood many tests to it's theory.

Creationism (the YEC at least), has been falsified, since it has been shown the earth is older than 12000 years old.

ID has no way to test it. It is more a philosophical point rather than science, since there is no way to disprove it, or provide any evidence FOR it. It makes no predictions, and has no real explanatory powers.

2. Are those who think any of these are 'equally' wrong wronger than the rest of us put together?

Don't understand the question.

3. How does the dynamic of various participants in the ongoing debate not being able to determine which theory is 'more wrong' or 'more right' effect the dynamic of the evolution versus anti-evolution controversy?

There are those that do not understand what they are saying. Those people who push 'creationism' in it's various forms just don't wish to look at the evidence,since their mind is made up.

The ones that push I.D. don't understand how science works.

[Confused]

So, the questions for debate are:

1. Which is 'wronger'? Evolution, ID, or the various forms of creationism?

I think the worst would likely be creationism since there really isn't any science to support it. ID is a close second because it seems to change on such a frequent basis that at any given time, one may not even know what it stands for anymore. ID seems to try to keep pace with new findings but in doing so, it changes drastically.

2. Are those who think any of these are 'equally' wrong wronger than the rest of us put together?

Double take, huh? Do I think that if anyone thinks all the above are equally wrong are...... ok, lost again.

3. How does the dynamic of various participants in the ongoing debate not being able to determine which theory is 'more wrong' or 'more right' effect the dynamic of the evolution versus anti-evolution controversy?

I don't think those not being able to discern more wrong vs more right really affect it that much. It seems to me that the ones who really make the impacts are the ones who do make the judgement calls. The ones who assert one is greater or more valid than the other, then back their assertions with evidence to support it. It is these individuals/groups/organizations that keep challenging the controversy and add more strength to one side or the other. The more assertions that are made, the more challenges are brought to the table to add strength or weakness to one side or the other.

[JoelWildtree]

1. Which is 'wronger'? Evolution, ID, or the various forms of creationism?

goat covered this question quite nicely, at least to my personal satisfaction.

2. Are those who think any of these are 'equally' wrong wronger than the rest of us put together?

I think Creationism and ID are both equally wrong in that neither is right. The reason is that I believe that the completely natural and well evidenced theory of Evolution does quite well in explaining life's origin, and allows for naturalistic explanations for all human phenomena, thus reducing Creationism to a scientifically ignorant myth, and ID to scientifically unsupported wishful-thinking.

3. How does the dynamic of various participants in the ongoing debate not being able to determine which theory is 'more wrong' or 'more right' effect the dynamic of the evolution versus anti-evolution controversy?

None of the theories are "more wrong" or "more right". At least, I wouldn't word it in such a way. They could more appropriately be described as "closer to the truth" or "further from the truth", in which case it then comes down to recognizing what constitutes good evidence for the truth. If the opponents in the debate miraculously came to an agreement on what is considered "proper" or "sufficient" evidence, then I'm sure the debate would no longer exist. The problem is that each person judges the evidence for him/herself based on so many indeterminable factors. These factors often descend from previously known *truths*, thus creating a bias for how one sees truth. So, the dynamic of such debates is determined by each persons differing abilities at determining what is true. The Evolutionist sees truth in the mounds of evidence provided in support of the theory, but allows for new evidence to alter what may have previously been determined to be truth. The Creationist sees unalterable truth in a book. If we can't get beyond that point, the debate is really useless.

[Jose]

2. Are those who think any of these are 'equally' wrong wronger than the rest of us put together?

It would be wrong to say they're wronger, because they could be wrong for the wrong reasons. Your trichotomy gives us only 3 choices, as is the way of trichotomies. It omits the other possibilities for wrongness--from alternate, ancient scientific conceptions to the bazillion other origin stories. A Hindu creationist might consider all three of your choices, but not be wronger than any other flavor of creationist.

Speaking of which, if a tree falls in a forest, where no woman can hear, is he still wrong?

None of the theories are "more wrong" or "more right". At least, I wouldn't word it in such a way. They could more appropriately be described as "closer to the truth" or "further from the truth", in which case it then comes down to recognizing what constitutes good evidence for the truth.

Well said. I've thought of it this way:

The fundamental, core of scientific thought is explaining the data. We observe something; what can account for that observation? Until quite recently, the available observations were those that could be made with the 5 human senses. At the time the bible was written, the data were further limited to observation of only a small portion of the world--a different portion for each culture, to be sure, but nonetheless everyone was working with a limited subset of the data. If you know about bowls and domes, then your logical explanation for the sky is that it's some kind of dome or inverted bowl. Or maybe it's being held up by two very large people very far away, who are holding sticks to keep it up there. There were many fanciful explanations, but all were based on "what was known at the time." I'd say they're first-generation scientific explanations.

It took a long time to get enough data to begin to see that the first-generation explanation didn't fit.

In this regard, I think I'll come down on the side of ID being the wrongest. In its current incarnation, it has been put forward wrapped in the trappings of science. Yet, it intentionally misrepresents much of the science. Straightforward creation didn't do this In the Beginning (so to speak). It's one thing to hold on to an ancient idea that is quite comforting, and quite another thing to invent a new idea that's flat-out wrong. This is what Scientology did, after all. It was invented in the days of good scientific understanding, but intentionally misrepresents much of the science.

[micatala]

Thank all of you who have contributed to date.

My apologies for the ill-worded and obviously confusing second question. I was carried away by my enamoration of Asimov's quote.

None of the theories are "more wrong" or "more right". At least, I wouldn't word it in such a way. They could more appropriately be described as "closer to the truth" or "further from the truth", in which case it then comes down to recognizing what constitutes good evidence for the truth.

Well put. I guess Asimov's "wronger" could be equated with "further from the truth."

Those who try to equate the problems or uncertainties or gaps in our knowledge regarding evolution with the problems with creationism and ID seem to be unable or unwilling to discern what is "closer to" or "further from" the truth, or to deal in terms of likelihood of truth. I think this was the problem Asimov was getting at, and what I was trying to bring up for debate, rather unartfully.

[Jose]

Perhaps the crux of the matter is that it's hard to define how close we might be to the truth if we don't already know what the truth is.

The Creation/Absolute Truth camp argues that Truth is handed down from on high, and anything different must simply be wrong. For some, it's even wrong to ask questions about things that might be different from this presumed Absolute Truth.

Science acknowledges that we are looking for truth, but that our first interpretations of the evidence will almost certainly be imperfect. The more evidence we obtain, the closer we may come to figuring it out, but there's always the niggling doubt that there may be evidence we haven't uncovered that may change out understanding. So, scientific possible-truth presumably approaches real truth asymptotically. The Absolute Truth folks see all of this as "not Truth," while the Asimovs would see it as becoming "less wrong."

[Beto]

1. If only one theory evolves, perfecting itself, the others become increasingly 'wronger'.

2. I completely agree with Mr. Asimov.

3. I think creationists become increasingly dishonest with themselves, as the TOE evolves, requiring an ever growing suppression of Man's critical nature.

[QED]

It has been my experience in debates on issues of evolution that those who oppose evolution frequently point to aspects of the theory of evolution that are wrong, or at least unsupported. This is often followed by a statement that, since evolution is not trustworthy, other explanations are just as valid.

I think the best way of exposing the weakness of this argument is through the following parody described on wikipedia:

Intelligent falling (IF) is a parody of the "intelligent design" (ID) movement. IF is a pseudo-scientific supernatural explanation of the effects of gravity that has become a minor Internet phenomenon. It says free fall is being caused by "the hand of God", as depicted in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling painting. While the current incarnation of IF has its roots in a satirical 2002 Usenet posting, religious explanations of gravity invoking the direct intervention of God span several hundred years, including some of Isaac Newton's own writings.

IF proposes that the scientific explanation of gravitational force cannot explain all aspects of the phenomenon, so credence should be given to the idea that things fall because a higher intelligence is moving them. Furthermore, IF asserts that theories explaining gravity are not internally consistent nor mathematically reconcilable with quantum mechanics, making gravity a "theory in crisis". IF also makes the claim that gravity is "only a theory", parodying the claims made by creationists regarding the theoretical status of evolution. Pretended IF apologists advocate that IF should be taught in school along with the theory of gravity so that students can make "an informed decision" on the subject in accordance with demands to "teach the controversy".

So, the questions for debate are:

1. Which is 'wronger'? Evolution, ID, or the various forms of creationism?

I think some more wiki-wisdom is called for here:

An apparently scientific argument is said to be not even wrong if it is based on assumptions that are known to be incorrect, or alternatively theories which cannot possibly be falsified or used to predict anything. The phrase was coined by the early quantum physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colourful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking.[1] Peierls (1960) writes of Pauli, "... a friend showed him the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly 'That's not right. It's not even wrong'".[2]

Statements that are not even wrong may be well-formed but not refer to anything physical (as in "Souls are immortal", because the noun "soul" is not well-defined in terms of experimental results), or may be mere word salad that appears to be devoid of meaning (as in some of the Time Cube writings).

The phrase "not even wrong" is often used to describe pseudoscience or bad science. It is considered mildly derogatory.[3]

The phrase has also come to mean science that is well-meaning and based on the current scientific knowledge, but that cannot be used for prediction and cannot be falsified. Such theories are useless, since they cannot advance the current state of knowledge. It is therefore sometimes used about scientific theories by its critics.

I've got quite a lot of sympathy with this novel classification "not even wrong" as I think it brings out an important (and otherwise missing) distinction. Many scientific commentators are freely using it towards string theory right now as it seems to have led us into an intellectual cul-de-sac.

2. Are those who think any of these are 'equally' wrong wronger than the rest of us put together?

ID might be a worthy candidate for being "not even wrong" on account of its uselessness in advancing our current state of knowledge -- even if it was well-meaning and based on current scientific knowledge. But more to the point, I would argue that it deserve the distinction of being considered "not even wrong" because it ultimately may even be right, but we would have no way of knowing.

3. How does the dynamic of various participants in the ongoing debate not being able to determine which theory is 'more wrong' or 'more right' effect the dynamic of the evolution versus anti-evolution controversy?

For those who view ID as "not even wrong" there would be no controversy as the only "flashpoint" would be when reasons are supplied for the rejection of the concept. Beyond internet debating forums and a relatively small number of dedicated popular science/philosophy publications (compared to the numbers of those dealing with ongoing research topics) the only significant occasion when the controversy becomes apparent is before a civil court. This may change of course if elected members of government base significant policy on unfalsifiable theory.