A splendid video about evolution

I'm not sure why you're suddenly dragging cosmology off the shelf in a discussion about intelligent design and empirical verification. If your point is 'look, there are scientific subjects with weak empirical backing,' I've already acknowledged that science operates with degrees of confidence rather than absolute certainty.
But here's what's telling about this move: you're setting up a false dichotomy where either we accept everything as proven or we must reject empirical standards entirely and embrace unfalsifiable metaphysical claims about designers and spiritual dimensions.

My position is that science should be extremely careful before building on one set of ideas with another and another. The crucial problem is that too many people (scientists) are going to be burned if something at the bottom of such a pyramid is proven wrong.

The net result of that is that scientists simply devise things (such as inflation) to stave off the day when they have to accept that a whole chunk of science has to be discarded.

I am not saying what exactly should be done to fix this problem, but I think this crisis in science is dangerous for the entire scientific endeavour.

There's a rather obvious middle ground you're conveniently ignoring - we can acknowledge unresolved questions in cosmology and evolution while still demanding that extraordinary claims meet their burden of proof.

The problem is that someone has to decide what constitutes an extraordinary claim. We both had a training in science, and yet even we would n't agree about that.

The fact that science has ongoing puzzles doesn't suddenly make 'intelligent designer did it' a credible explanation for biological complexity.

If you have been following my discussion of intelligent design, you would know that this absurd argument is not one that I make. The problem is that Darwin made his original hypothesis without knowing anything about the chemical basis of life. Since the middle of the last century, we have learned that the information to construct proteins is intricately encoded in DNA/RNA. Strangely, a whole suite of proteins are required to enable DNA/RNA to work - each encoded in the same way. We are all so steeped in those facts that we don't see how unlikely a random chemical explanation really is.

The fundamental proof that this intricate mechanism had to have a designer, doesn't depend on the implausibility of a non-natural explanation, but you need to think is science has built a similar pyramid of ideas to the cosmological pyramid that I started out discussing.

The real question remains: What testable predictions has your worldview generated? What empirical program has it advanced? Because these scientific fields, for all their unresolved questions, are still making predictions and gathering data.

No, I think the real question is just how much of modern science must be disregarded to get it back to a stable base.

David

The net result of that is that scientists simply devise things (such as inflation) to stave off the day when they have to accept that a whole chunk of science has to be discarded.

That's how we can know we're dealing with ideology ~ philosophical, religious, cultish or otherwise ~ because the scientists in question don't want to question their pet theories. Science, at its root, is about questioning, and refining, and making better hypotheses and theories, and if the "scientists" don't want to do that, but just patch up holes in their theories to make them appear to work, then they're not doing science at all, just the appearance of it, using its authority fraudulently.

If you have been following my discussion of intelligent design, you would know that this absurd argument is not one that I make. The problem is that Darwin made his original hypothesis without knowing anything about the chemical basis of life. Since the middle of the last century, we have learned that the information to construct proteins is intricately encoded in DNA/RNA. Strangely, a whole suite of proteins are required to enable DNA/RNA to work - each encoded in the same way. We are all so steeped in those facts that we don't see how unlikely a random chemical explanation really is.

Furthermore, we know that there is nothing in DNA/RNA on how to build the protein ~ there's no layout encoded nor an instruction set. Nor has it been explained how we get from DNA/RNA to the protein itself. Stuff just... appears to happen. It's certainly much more than mere chemistry and physics ~ else we would not have a field, biology, which specializes in the uniqueness of life.

[Laird]

I've split the posts about veridical NDEs out into a new, separate thread:

Debate: That veridical NDEs are a myth [split: A splendid video about evolution]

[Laird]

I've also now split the posts about logical positivism out into a new, separate thread:

Logical positivism [split: A splendid video about evolution]

My position is that science should be extremely careful before building on one set of ideas with another and another. The crucial problem is that too many people (scientists) are going to be burned if something at the bottom of such a pyramid is proven wrong.

The net result of that is that scientists simply devise things (such as inflation) to stave off the day when they have to accept that a whole chunk of science has to be discarded.

I am not saying what exactly should be done to fix this problem, but I think this crisis in science is dangerous for the entire scientific endeavour.

The problem is that someone has to decide what constitutes an extraordinary claim. We both had a training in science, and yet even we would n't agree about that.
If you have been following my discussion of intelligent design, you would know that this absurd argument is not one that I make. The problem is that Darwin made his original hypothesis without knowing anything about the chemical basis of life. Since the middle of the last century, we have learned that the information to construct proteins is intricately encoded in DNA/RNA. Strangely, a whole suite of proteins are required to enable DNA/RNA to work - each encoded in the same way. We are all so steeped in those facts that we don't see how unlikely a random chemical explanation really is.

The fundamental proof that this intricate mechanism had to have a designer, doesn't depend on the implausibility of a non-natural explanation, but you need to think is science has built a similar pyramid of ideas to the cosmological pyramid that I started out discussing.


No, I think the real question is just how much of modern science must be disregarded to get it back to a stable base.

David

You're absolutely right that cosmology faces genuine challenges - dark matter, dark energy, fine-tuning problems, inflation theory's unfalsifiability issues. These are real problems that deserve serious attention. But here's the crucial point: acknowledging these problems doesn't suddenly make supernatural explanations credible.
The fact that we don't fully understand cosmic dynamics doesn't mean we should abandon well-defined physical laws in favor of design hypotheses. It's far more likely that we're missing variables or that our current models need refinement - just as Newton's mechanics needed Einstein's corrections, not replacement by divine intervention.

On biochemical complexity: You claim DNA-protein interdependence is so unlikely it 'had to have a designer,' Yes, Darwin didn't know about molecular biology - so what? We've since discovered that his predictions about hereditary mechanisms were spectacularly vindicated at the molecular level.
Complex systems emerging from simpler processes through natural selection is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts and observes.
Your real question about 'how much modern science must be disregarded' reveals the stakes: you're arguing for dismantling modern biology and physics. That's not reforming science - that's abandoning the entire framework that's produced our technological civilization.

You're absolutely right that cosmology faces genuine challenges - dark matter, dark energy, fine-tuning problems, inflation theory's unfalsifiability issues. These are real problems that deserve serious attention. But here's the crucial point: acknowledging these problems doesn't suddenly make supernatural explanations credible.

No..... but consider this. Different people here on this forum, and more generally, don't all see reality exactly the same way. There are people who regularly sense spirits (or whatever you like to call them). Others like you and I do not. I am not talking about people who are schizophrenic in any meaningful sense - just more sensitive to certain things.

It is easy to think such people are devious or somewhat mad, but you end up in a circular argument if you claim that all sane people (by your definition) would think as you do!

Early scientists such as Newton regularly brought God into their discussions.

Given all this, it is hard to see how you can cleanly separate supernatural arguments, and decide to remove them or treat them in a particularly sceptical way.

The fact that we don't fully understand cosmic dynamics doesn't mean we should abandon well-defined physical laws in favor of design hypotheses. It's far more likely that we're missing variables or that our current models need refinement - just as Newton's mechanics needed Einstein's corrections, not replacement by divine intervention.

It is awfully difficult to see how some 'missing variables' could explain how long strings of DNA should spontaneously acquire structure which only makes sense in terms of a different set of macromolecules (proteins).

On biochemical complexity: You claim DNA-protein interdependence is so unlikely it 'had to have a designer,'

I don't think I did say that exactly. I would say that RM+NS or a designer probably exhaust the range of possible explanations.

The problem is that RM+NS damages a species as well as providing a route by which it can evolve. I would recommend that you read Behe's "Dawin Devolved" to understand this better.

That is before you even consider the actual atronomically tiny probabilities.

Yes, Darwin didn't know about molecular biology - so what? We've since discovered that his predictions about hereditary mechanisms were spectacularly vindicated at the molecular level.
Complex systems emerging from simpler processes through natural selection is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts and observes.
Your real question about 'how much modern science must be disregarded' reveals the stakes: you're arguing for dismantling modern biology and physics. That's not reforming science - that's abandoning the entire framework that's produced our technological civilization.

A lot of physics isn't in doubt, but certainly cosmological models are in doubt - and you seem to agree. Unfortunately, the fact that such models are still studied enthusiastically indicates to me, at least, that the scientists involved are more interested in developing their careers than in getting at the truth.

Technology is probably the best indicator that a particular area of science is sound. However, even there you have to be careful. it is often said that GPS depends of GR corrections, but others say that this is not correct.

I mean, I believe that the early pioneers in science were motivated overwhelmingly to discover the truth, but gradually as people compete for grants, citations, etc, science as a whole is degrading.

Finaly, here are three quotes grouped together in Cyrus Kirkpatrick's book "Understanding Life after Death" (well worth reading if you can summon up the courage to explore):

“I regard consciousness as fundamental, I regard matter as derivative of consciousness” – Max Planck

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms” – Erwin Schrodinger

“The statistical evidence, at least for telepathy, is overwhelming. It is very difficult to rearrange one’s ideas so as to fit these new facts in. Once one has accepted them it does not seem a very big step to believe in ghosts and bogies.” – Alan Turing


David