Explanation or Description?

[Jose]

There is a curious phenomenon in the Evolution controversy. We've seen it many times in these threads, but I'll illustrate it with some quotes from other sites:

Science has no explanation for the evolution of bird and animal navigation capabilities. The more reasonable and satisfying explanation is that these creatures were designed by the Creator. [http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_e ... n/cx1c.htm]

Evolution has no explanation for the way that information arises within a biological system.[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/2/18/154040/245 ]

science has no explanation for how life evolved [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... ces48.html]

Science has no explanation for abiogenesis (life coming from nothing), of course there are theories, but that is all they are.[http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-63244.html]

This means that science has no explanation for the origin of living things except that they must have been created. Then Mendelism and a sensible view of the species question now tell us that we have no explanation of how any one of the fundamental kinds of living things, either plant or animal, could possibly become changed over into any other of the fundamental units.[http://gospel-herald.com/price_gm/toe_ch9.htm]

One expert on enzymes has stated that science has no explanation for how such sophistication could have evolved.[http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/tr ... .php?t=274]

.. the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality...[http://www.brojed.org/newboard/Posts/2098H.html]

Because science actually has offered explanations for all of these things, it seems that there are only a few possible inferences to be drawn from the above quotes. Perhaps the authors of such statements just don't know science...but some people who say things like this have been told the scientific explanations often enough, but persist in making these kinds of statements. Therefore, this inference seems unlikely. Perhaps the authors of such statements really don't care what the truth is, or believe they are performing such an important service for their god that it's OK to engage in a bit of prevarication. This is possible, but since this would be bearing false witness, and since true Christians don't do this, we should rule it out, shouldn't we? It seems, therefore, that the most likely inference is that the authors of such statements confuse "explanation" with "description."

Must a scientific explanation be a complete description to be valid?

I'll tell a little story to illustrate the difference, and to highlight the problem:

Bloomington Resident: "Hi, Bob! Gosh, you live in Indianapolis. How did you get here?"
Indianapolis Resident: "It was easy, George. I drove."

[Is "driving" an adequate explanation?]

"That's not an adequate explanation, Bob. You'll have to do better than that to convince me you're really here."
"I drove down route 67 to Martinsville, then switched to route 37.

[Is this an adequate explanation?]

"So you don't really know how you got here?"
"Well, I had to stop at the light in Mooresville. Then I had to stop in Martinsville for gas."
"You really have no explanation of how you got here?"
"I backed out of my driveway at 7:12 this morning, then drove east until I got to MLK. Then I drove south to the White River Parkway, turned right, and went until I got to Harding. I went south a block, jogged to the right, and then kept going south until I got to Kentucky, and turned right. Then I followed Kentucky southwest, crossed I465, at which point Kentucky became route 67. Then I did what I said before."
"Hey Ann! Bob, here, can't explain how he got here."
"Then when I got to Bloomington, I got off of 37 at the 46-bypass, and drove east to College, and then turned south on College. Then I just drove down College until I got here. What's so complicated about that?"
"Gosh, Bob, if you can't give an explanation, it looks like the evidence shows you teleported."
"I've explained it, George. What more do you need?"
"All the rest of it, Bob. For instance, what lane were you in on route 37?"
"Sometimes I was in the right lane, sometimes the left lane, depending on the traffic. Good heavens, George. I didn't write it down!"
"So, you really don't know, and, in fact, will never know. I don't think anyone can believe you until you can tell us what actually happened."

Bob has increased the level of detail of his explanation substantially. But, George wants a complete description of everything, and refuses to consider any of Bob's statements. Will Bob ever be able to satisfy George? Will he be able to give his tire pressure? Or the windspeed? Or how much rubber he left on the road? At some point, Bob's explanation is valid, even if he never produces a complete, perfect description of everything that happened.

Evolution is analogous. Is the scientific explanation valid? Or is it necessary to have a complete description of everything that happened? Creationists say the latter is required, or "science cannot explain" how evolution works. Yet, many are quite happy to take aspirin, even though "science cannot explain" how it works, either.

By what criteria can we judge a scientific explanation to be valid?
For you to accept a scientific explanation, must it be a complete description?
Should evolution be held to a different standard than other sciences?

[Jose]

We're back to the question we posed earlier: what is your evidence that there was a time that organisms did not reproduce according to their kind? That's the crux of this matter. Have parent critters had offspring critters, as long as there have been critters? Or is there a reasonable argument that the answer is "no"?

There is a reasonable argument that extrapolating a current process indefinitely is statistically untenable.

We aren't doing that. We're extrapolating as far as the data allow. Where there are data that contradict the predictions of the theory, then the theory fails. Until such data are found, the theory stands.

You seem strangely unwilling to answer this question. Perhaps this is because you know that you can only answer it by stating that critters reproduce according to their kind, and have as long as there have been critters. To say otherwise contradicts all knowledge and all Faith. Yet, to maintain your objection to evolution, you must do so.

Yes, this may well be the crux of the matter: the "best available theory". What specific alternatives to evolution have been seriously explored? (Answer: none) What openness to challenge is there? (Answer: none)

You reveal a certain lack of historical scientific knowledge. All specific alternatives that have been raised have been seriously explored. All have fallen by the wayside as inadequate. There is vast openness to challenge, since that is what science is about. We await a valid challenge.

If you define science as mechanistic explanations of everything, there is no alternative. If you prevent alternatives from getting published or funding, there is no alternative. If you're closed-minded, there is no alternative.

But now there are scientists exploring alternatives. Now there are new means of communication and publication. Now there are scientists who aren't dependent on the academic establishment.

Y'know, I read an interesting thing in this morning's paper. Two surveys reached the same conclusion: 50% of the US population is unable to evaluate information and reach conclusions. This undoubtedly accounts for the silly notion that the fancified blogs of non-scientists count as "scientists exploring alternatives." Of course this requires publication that is outside the scope of science. Scientific publication requires making a valid case for conclusions, based on real data. As we've said numerous times in these forums, the "scientific alternatives" that are being explored are based on false premises. That's the only way they can reach their conclusions--by ruling out things we already know are wrong.

For your semantic quibbling benefit, I'll rephrase what I said: "These different lineages are a representation of different things that happened, given the same starting point." Is that better?

What starting point? No starting point has been observed. So what's to explain?

You're so cute. I didn't observe your starting point, so therefore, you cannot exist.

Ah well--it's not me who's claiming it's a perfect design.

Nor me. What scientific journal has published a theory which specifically states that all living organizms are perfectly designed in all respects? (Answer: none) So this is a strawman.

No scientific journal would present such a thing, because scientists know otherwise. I'm puzzled that you attempt to support your odd claims by offering data to the contrary. I'm not puzzled any more that you change the subject.

If it can't predict, it can't be falsified.

You are using a different definition of "predict." Your definition is "predict the future," while the scientific definition, used in falsifying hypotheses, is "if XXX is true, then YYY should happen." The hypothesis here is that mutation is random (actually, it's a known, verified, observed phenomenon). Thus, the "prediction" based on this hypothesis is "if random mutation is true, then humans cannot direct or pre-identify where they will occur, or how they will affect organisms over thousands of generations."

So we have Jose's version of Creation Theory.

No, we merely have Jose taking the Theory of Creation, as invented by others, and treating it as a valid scientific theory.

"as invented by others" -- who? What specific theory is this? Again, a strawman.

I don't know who the guys were who first started telling the story, and then wrote it down. I didn't see it. I'm sure you've heard the story, though. It's in some book or other that lots of people think is Absolute Truth. As I understand it, they hold this book to be so True that they fight against evolutionary theory because of it. Weird, isn't it?

I merely considered their story seriously, as a first Scientific Theory of how life got here. That is, after all, what it was (though they didn't know about science at the time). If you go back and read that book, you'll see that it makes no mention of the details, and says nothing about genetic relationships among critters. The story seems, even, to imply that plants aren't alive, since they continued to survive even after all living things were destroyed. Again, weird.

There is no such mindset. Rather, there is a human tendency to look for patterns in things. With the similarities that are indisputibly there, it is natural to sort them into some kind of pattern. That's all.

Your "human tendency" is a mindset. I'm all for patterns but a pattern is not a history. Logically, patterns are about universals, histories are about particulars.

OK, the human mindset, found in nearly everyone, is to look for patterns and try to understand their surroundings. I bet even you do this. You probably look for traffic patterns before you cross the street. If so, you have this mindset, too.

Did anyone say the pattern was a history? The pattern of relationships is a pattern of relationships. Again, we come back to the basic problem here. There are facts. Among them is the pattern of relationships among living things. What is the best explanation for these facts? And, do you insist upon a full description of everything in the history of the facts before you consider an explanation to be plausible?

[rigadoon]

Jose, this is getting rather tiresome but I'll try it one more time.

...Where there are data that contradict the predictions of the theory, then the theory fails. Until such data are found, the theory stands.

You seem strangely unwilling to answer this question. Perhaps this is because you know that you can only answer it by stating that critters reproduce according to their kind, and have as long as there have been critters. To say otherwise contradicts all knowledge and all Faith. Yet, to maintain your objection to evolution, you must do so.

I suppose one could make any statement about that past and say, "Until you come up with evidence that this is false, it stands." The more empirical approach is to say, "No statement stands until it has been verified by observation." The default should be "we don't know" or "theory under development", not "I'm right until you prove me wrong."

Yes, this may well be the crux of the matter: the "best available theory". What specific alternatives to evolution have been seriously explored? (Answer: none) What openness to challenge is there? (Answer: none)

You reveal a certain lack of historical scientific knowledge. All specific alternatives that have been raised have been seriously explored. All have fallen by the wayside as inadequate. There is vast openness to challenge, since that is what science is about. We await a valid challenge.

There is plenty of evidence that the evolution establishment hasn't been awaiting any challenge but is actively denying the possibility of a valid challenge. And defining science so there can be no valid challenge.

As others have pointed out, natural history covers a complex of theories in biology, geology, astronomy, etc. so that criticism of one part does not affect the whole much (this is related to the "Quine-Duhem thesis"). A genuine alternative would have to address several areas at once. Such research takes a significant effort and has not attracted many resources in the last 100+ years. Now there seems to be enough scientists with serious criticisms of evolution that a full-blown alternative may arise soon. Until then, it is premature to say evolution is the "best explanation".

If you define science as mechanistic explanations of everything, there is no alternative. If you prevent alternatives from getting published or funding, there is no alternative. If you're closed-minded, there is no alternative.

But now there are scientists exploring alternatives. Now there are new means of communication and publication. Now there are scientists who aren't dependent on the academic establishment.

...As we've said numerous times in these forums, the "scientific alternatives" that are being explored are based on false premises. That's the only way they can reach their conclusions--by ruling out things we already know are wrong.

Apparently "we" doesn't include all those scientists who disagree with you.

For your semantic quibbling benefit, I'll rephrase what I said: "These different lineages are a representation of different things that happened, given the same starting point." Is that better?

What starting point? No starting point has been observed. So what's to explain?

You're so cute. I didn't observe your starting point, so therefore, you cannot exist.

Jose, you're losing your civil debater touch. I don't claim my birth took place a zillion years ago.

I'm surprised you don't agree with my point. You've essentially been saying life forms have no origin -- it's endless reproduction. I'm arguing that such a train of events (and lack of other events) is also not observed. A more empirical approach is to focus on observed events and leave unobserved events to philosophers and theologians.

Ah well--it's not me who's claiming it's a perfect design.

Nor me. What scientific journal has published a theory which specifically states that all living organizms are perfectly designed in all respects? (Answer: none) So this is a strawman.

No scientific journal would present such a thing, because scientists know otherwise. I'm puzzled that you attempt to support your odd claims by offering data to the contrary. I'm not puzzled any more that you change the subject.

You haven't presented evidence of considering any significant alternatives. You keep trying to dodge this point.

If it can't predict, it can't be falsified.

You are using a different definition of "predict." Your definition is "predict the future," while the scientific definition, used in falsifying hypotheses, is "if XXX is true, then YYY should happen." The hypothesis here is that mutation is random (actually, it's a known, verified, observed phenomenon). Thus, the "prediction" based on this hypothesis is "if random mutation is true, then humans cannot direct or pre-identify where they will occur, or how they will affect organisms over thousands of generations."

That's a mediocre prediction. If something is true, then humans cannot do something. What can humans do? Where's the positive knowledge here?

So we have Jose's version of Creation Theory.

No, we merely have Jose taking the Theory of Creation, as invented by others, and treating it as a valid scientific theory.

"as invented by others" -- who? What specific theory is this? Again, a strawman.

I don't know who the guys were who first started telling the story, and then wrote it down. I didn't see it. I'm sure you've heard the story, though. It's in some book or other that lots of people think is Absolute Truth. As I understand it, they hold this book to be so True that they fight against evolutionary theory because of it. Weird, isn't it?

I merely considered their story seriously, as a first Scientific Theory of how life got here. That is, after all, what it was (though they didn't know about science at the time). If you go back and read that book, you'll see that it makes no mention of the details, and says nothing about genetic relationships among critters. The story seems, even, to imply that plants aren't alive, since they continued to survive even after all living things were destroyed. Again, weird.

Jose, you're making references to "some book" -- well, what is it? What is your strawman? Or will you dodge this again?

There is no such mindset. Rather, there is a human tendency to look for patterns in things. With the similarities that are indisputibly there, it is natural to sort them into some kind of pattern. That's all.

Your "human tendency" is a mindset. I'm all for patterns but a pattern is not a history. Logically, patterns are about universals, histories are about particulars.

OK, the human mindset, found in nearly everyone, is to look for patterns and try to understand their surroundings. I bet even you do this. You probably look for traffic patterns before you cross the street. If so, you have this mindset, too.

Did anyone say the pattern was a history? The pattern of relationships is a pattern of relationships. Again, we come back to the basic problem here. There are facts. Among them is the pattern of relationships among living things. What is the best explanation for these facts? And, do you insist upon a full description of everything in the history of the facts before you consider an explanation to be plausible?

Full descriptions of facts are necessary before plausible theories can be developed. Sufficient facts are necessary before plausibly "connecting the dots." Some will connect things after a few dots, some will insist on lots of dots. But assering that a theory is "the best" requires more than connecting the dots -- serious alternatives must be considered and countered.

Jose, this has been a stimulating debate but we're getting diminishing returns now. I suggest we let it go. After all, there's much more to life than posting messages on the internet.

[Jose]

Full descriptions of facts are necessary before plausible theories can be developed. Sufficient facts are necessary before plausibly "connecting the dots." Some will connect things after a few dots, some will insist on lots of dots. But assering that a theory is "the best" requires more than connecting the dots -- serious alternatives must be considered and countered.

It seems that the bottom line is that, in science, we do what we can to connect the dots as they become available. This provides explanations.

To others, it would seem that the requirement is, indeed, the complete description--the "full description of facts."

What I don't yet understand is why a current-best explanation, a current connection of dots, is automatically unacceptable as a tentative, working theory. Why must we hold off trying to understand until we have a "full description of facts"?

There is plenty of evidence that the evolution establishment hasn't been awaiting any challenge but is actively denying the possibility of a valid challenge. And defining science so there can be no valid challenge.
...
Now there seems to be enough scientists with serious criticisms of evolution...
...
...serious alternatives must be considered and countered...
...
You haven't presented evidence of considering any significant alternatives. You keep trying to dodge this point.

Give me an alternative to consider, and then I can consider it.

You imply that no scientist has ever considered an alternative to evolution, and that no challenges have been addessed. You do more than imply that science is suppressing alternative ideas. I've heard this notion before. The fact is, there are no new challenges that have not been addressed either recently, or longer ago. I'd be happy to discuss some of the challenges/alternatives if you'd consider offering them.

I think, summing our discussions, your general sentiment is (1) no one saw it and (2) extrapolation is imperfect. Both of those concerns have, indeed, been addressed in evolutionary biology. But, alas, we haven't been able to discuss them because to do so requires moving from generalizations to specifics. I have tried to lead the discussion there, but with no success.

You've essentially been saying life forms have no origin-- it's endless reproduction....

I've been addressing the theory of evolution, which specifically refers to the change of life through time. Obviously, life must have come into existence before life can change through time. I guess this is one of those confusing bits, since the anti-evolution lobby lump together the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the evolution of life into the term, "evolution." If we focus on the evolution of life, which is what I have done, then yes--it is endless reproduction, from the first living thing until the present. This would also be true, it seems, if we were to consider the biblical account of creation. Once life started, the path to the present was "endless reproduction." There, too, just as with evolutionary theory, no one saw it. Nor did anyone see the hyperevolution that I have been told by YECs occurred after everyone got off the ark, creating the current 1.5 million species out of the few thousand that Noah took with him. Why should one unseen explanation be considered valid, and another not?

Might we not think of attempting to distinguish between the two unseen explanations by enumerating the likely results of each scenario, and then checking the real world to see whether any of those results seem to have occurred?

I'm arguing that such a train of events (and lack of other events) is also not observed. A more empirical approach is to focus on observed events and leave unobserved events to philosophers and theologians.

This argument, essentially, says that there can never be a way to figure out anything that happened without one's personal observation. We know that eyewitness accounts are unreliable; indeed, even a single person's accounts of personally-observed events have been recorded at various retellings, and discovered to change with time. For these reasons, prosecutors no longer rely on eyewitnesses, but require forensic evidence. Your argument would make forensic evidence unacceptable, even though it is the most reliable (according to the head of our state police lab).

It is the same with evolutionary science. There's a lot of what can be called forensic evidence, which, when put together, yields a consistent picture.

The hypothesis here is that mutation is random (actually, it's a known, verified, observed phenomenon). Thus, the "prediction" based on this hypothesis is "if random mutation is true, then humans cannot direct or pre-identify where they will occur, or how they will affect organisms over thousands of generations."

That's a mediocre prediction. If something is true, then humans cannot do something. What can humans do? Where's the positive knowledge here?

Mediocre or not, it's the prediction. There's a curious thing about science. It leads where it leads, not where we want it to go. It would have been nice, in a way, if the evidence had pointed to some kind of ability of plants and animals to "mutate in order to evolve" or to "evolve in order to survive," but alas, that's not what the evidence indicates.