The meaning of evidence

[Sherlock Holmes]

This thread is to discuss the meaning of the term "evidence" particularly with respect to claims made by evolution advocates.

The reason I started this thread is that I often see - what I regard as - a conflation of consistent with and evidence for. If we are to make reasonable inferences and maintain objectivity and avoid making assumption unwittingly then the more precisely we define "evidence" the better I think.

The biggest risk here is to imply that some observation P is evidence for X and only X, rather than evidence for X and Y or Z. Unless we are on our guard we can informally exclude reasonable possibilities Y and Z and so on. Now the observation P might well be evidence for X and only X, but unless that is soundly established we simply can't assume that.

If we mistakenly regard P as evidence for X and only X then we fall into the trap of believing that P can only be observed if X was the cause.

This is exemplified by an analogy I recently put together that I think warrants its own thread, so here it is:

Consider this jigsaw

None of the circles overlap, we can see this when we can see the totality of the jigsaw. But if we already believed for some reason or other, that they must overlap and we only had twenty random pieces and never see the rest, we could make up a jigsaw (theory) where we "fill in the blanks" so to speak and "show" that we sometimes have overlapping circles.

We'd be absolutely right too in saying the twenty pieces were consistent with an image that has overlapping circles, but we'd be dead wrong to say the twenty pieces are evidence of overlapping circles, because as we know, none of the circles actually do overlap.

So do you agree or not, there's a difference between observations that are evidence for some hypothesis vs consistent with some hypothesis and we should always be careful and make this distinction clear in our arguments?

[The Barbarian]

The point is that there's no inconsistency in accepting uniformitarianism yet rejecting evolution, the laws of physics are what they are and can explain the age of the earth and other planets and their surface features. None of this implies that complex animals can arise over billions of years from bacteria.

The question I posed to you about that, is still open. What specifically about eukaryotes do you think could not have evolved from prokaryotes? Be specific.

[Sherlock Holmes]

But since you never even read the book you'd know nothing of this and anyway you'll likely dismiss all these scientists for one reason or another, you always do, they're probably not real scientists anyway!

One paleontologist supports your philosopher's take on paleontology? No, actually, he doesn't.

Mark McMenamin has repeatedly criticized conventional Neodarwinian theory as inadequate to the task of explaining the evolutionary process. Joining with Lynn Margulis and the Russian symbiogeneticists, McMenamin has argued that symbiogenesis theory is important as one means of addressing the gap in our understanding of macroevolutionary change in conventional Neodarwinian terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_McMenamin

Margulis puts symbiosis forward as being much more important in evolution than most biologists would accept. Clearly, she's right about a lot of things. And McMenamin seems to agree with her. But he obviously rejects Meyer's interpretations. So do most Christians in science:

Darrel Falk, former president of the BioLogos Foundation and a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University, reviewed the book, saying it illustrates why he does not support the intelligent design movement.[64] Falk is critical of Meyer's declaration of scientists being wrong, such as Michael Lynch about genetic drift, without Meyer having done any experiment or calculation to disprove Lynch's assertion. Falk writes, "the book is supposed to be a science book and the ID movement is purported to be primarily a scientific movement – not primarily a philosophical, religious, or even popular movement", but concludes "If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public.

Falk is precisely right. Meyer, like most of the other Fellows of the Discovery Institute are primarily making religious/philosophical positions, to be disguised as science. The inadvertent leaking of the Wedge Document makes this clear:

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
https://ncse.ngo/wedge-document

In spite of this, ID founder Phillip Johnson publicly says that the "designer" might be a "space alien."

Meyer argues throughout the book that his theory about the origin of information is scientific, not religious. He makes it clear that he wants it to be considered on its scientific merits alone. I am comfortable with this. Let it be evaluated on the basis of its science. Like him, I believe in intelligent design. However, I am also a scientist. So I need to evaluate this book in the way that he calls all of us to do, as a work of science. I must consider whether this philosopher, this Christian brother, this best-selling author, and this leading debater has been successful at analyzing the data of the world’s leading scientists—people who have given their careers full time for many years to asking (and answering) very sophisticated questions about whether material causes have created information.

There is no question that large amounts information have been created by materialistic forces over the past several hundred million years. Meyer dismisses this without discussing it. What about at the very beginning, 3.5 billion years ago? Everyone doing the science, Meyer notwithstanding, would say the jury is still out. There are some very elegant feasibility experiments going on at the present time. However, it is far too early for a philosopher to jump into the fray and declare no further progress will be made and that this science is now dead. If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public. With all due respect for the very fine people associated with the ID movement, many of whom I have met personally and whose sincerity I greatly appreciate, our hopes and dreams need to be much bigger than this. The science of origins is not the failure it is purported to be. It is just science moving along as science does—one step at a time. Let it be.
https://biologos.org/articles/signature-in-the-cell

Meyer's views are generally rejected even by biologists in the Discovery Institute:

"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

If this sounds like deism to you, no surprise. It seems like that to a lot of people.

Well I for one see no merit in playing tennis with quotes, I showed JoeyKnothead that Meyer's book was well received by numerous accredited scientists and that's pretty much the case.

Falk's opinion is simply that - an opinion - as you can see numerous others praise the book, so what can we conclude?

I think the rational thing to conclude here is that we obviously have a true controversy, not the picture perfect fairy tale tree of life that some teachers and authors would like to palm off on the gullible, the uncritical.

We should relish, indeed encourage controversy not put up the defenses and throw missiles at each other, some of the most profound knowledge and discoveries arose from controversy, disturbing the status quo, todays foolishness' might be tomorrow's wisdom.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The point is that there's no inconsistency in accepting uniformitarianism yet rejecting evolution, the laws of physics are what they are and can explain the age of the earth and other planets and their surface features. None of this implies that complex animals can arise over billions of years from bacteria.

The question I posed to you about that, is still open. What specifically about eukaryotes do you think could not have evolved from prokaryotes? Be specific.

What has that to do with the question/problem posed in the OP?

[The Barbarian]

The point is that there's no inconsistency in accepting uniformitarianism yet rejecting evolution, the laws of physics are what they are and can explain the age of the earth and other planets and their surface features. None of this implies that complex animals can arise over billions of years from bacteria.

The question I posed to you about that, is still open. What specifically about eukaryotes do you think could not have evolved from prokaryotes? Be specific.

What has that to do with the question/problem posed in the OP?

If you didn't want to talk about it, you shouldn't have brought it up here. I gather you still don't want to answer the question. There's an easy way to avoid being asked again. Don't bring it up again.

[The Barbarian]

Well I for one see no merit in playing tennis with quotes,

Probably a bad idea for you to have served first, then.

I showed JoeyKnothead that Meyer's book was well received by numerous accredited scientists and that's pretty much the case.

I notice only one paleontologist, and he actually disagrees with Meyer. That matters.

Falk's opinion is simply that - an opinion

An informed opinion by someone who actually has credentials. Meyer, as you know, is a philosopher. His opinion is simply that. A layman's opinion.

- as you can see numerous others praise the book, so what can we conclude?

Meyer's layman opinion on paleontology is much more popular with non-paleontologists than with paleontologists. Which shouldn't be a surprise to you.

I think the rational thing to conclude here is that we obviously have a true controversy

Not surprising. If you picked almost any technical field, you'd find more dissenting opinions from people who weren't actually in the field than from those who actually know what they're talking about.

not the picture perfect fairy tale tree of life

If you actually believe that, you know far less about evolutionary theory than I thought. There are lively discussions and controversies about all sorts of things in evolution.

that some teachers and authors would like to palm off on the gullible, the uncritical.

Judging by your contribution and cites, it is more likely a problem of the uninformed.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The point is that there's no inconsistency in accepting uniformitarianism yet rejecting evolution, the laws of physics are what they are and can explain the age of the earth and other planets and their surface features. None of this implies that complex animals can arise over billions of years from bacteria.

The question I posed to you about that, is still open. What specifically about eukaryotes do you think could not have evolved from prokaryotes? Be specific.

What has that to do with the question/problem posed in the OP?

If you didn't want to talk about it, you shouldn't have brought it up here. I gather you still don't want to answer the question. There's an easy way to avoid being asked again. Don't bring it up again.

I see, so you want to interpret my statement "None of this implies that complex animals can arise over billions of years from bacteria" with "eukaryotes did not evolve from prokaryotes".

Of course eukaryotes would need to evolve from prokaryotes in order for bacteria to evolve into worms, but there's rather more information in a worm that the term "prokaryote" conveys, you and I are prokaryotes yet rather more than a worm.

The fact is the claim "bacteria evolved into worms" is untestable.

[JoeyKnothead]

Well I for one see no merit in playing tennis with quotes, I showed JoeyKnothead that Meyer's book was well received by numerous accredited scientists and that's pretty much the case.

That a book is well received doesn't tell us how accurate are its claims and conclusions.

As I said, Meyers has PhDs in fields not directly pertinent to the stuff he seeks to fuss about.

As a member of the Discovery Institute, Meyers has accepted a priori such notions as intelligent design. It should be no surprise his conclusions'll fit that mission.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well I for one see no merit in playing tennis with quotes,

Probably a bad idea for you to have served first, then.

I showed JoeyKnothead that Meyer's book was well received by numerous accredited scientists and that's pretty much the case.

I notice only one paleontologist, and he actually disagrees with Meyer. That matters.

Yet this what that paleontologist wrote about Meyer's book:

It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of animals.

Falk's opinion is simply that - an opinion

An informed opinion by someone who actually has credentials. Meyer, as you know, is a philosopher. His opinion is simply that. A layman's opinion.

Why on earth would you think one cannot have an informed opinion on a subject without holding credentials in that subject?

Here's what Noam Chomsky has to say about that belief:

In my own professional work I have touched on a variety of different fields. I’ve done work in mathematical linguistics, for example, without any professional credentials in mathematics; in this subject I am completely self-taught, and not very well taught. But I’ve often been invited by universities to speak on mathematical linguistics at mathematics seminars and colloquia. No one has ever asked me whether I have the appropriate credentials to speak on these subjects; the mathematicians couldn’t care less. What they want to know is what I have to say. No one has ever objected to my right to speak, asking whether I have a doctor’s degree in mathematics, or whether I have taken advanced courses in the subject. That would never have entered their minds. They want to know whether I am right or wrong, whether the subject is interesting or not, whether better approaches are possible… the discussion dealt with the subject, not with my right to discuss it.

I agree with Chomsky.

- as you can see numerous others praise the book, so what can we conclude?

Meyer's layman opinion on paleontology is much more popular with non-paleontologists than with paleontologists. Which shouldn't be a surprise to you.

I've not seen the statistics, but since most readers are likely not paleontologists of course it wouldn't surprise me.

I think the rational thing to conclude here is that we obviously have a true controversy

Not surprising. If you picked almost any technical field, you'd find more dissenting opinions from people who weren't actually in the field than from those who actually know what they're talking about.

Again you insinuate one cannot know what one is talking about unless they hold some qualifuication, see the comments from Chomsky above, this may help clear up that misunderstanding.

not the picture perfect fairy tale tree of life

If you actually believe that, you know far less about evolutionary theory than I thought. There are lively discussions and controversies about all sorts of things in evolution.

I'm proud that I haven't invested decades of my life in a make believe theory.

that some teachers and authors would like to palm off on the gullible, the uncritical.

Judging by your contribution and cites, it is more likely a problem of the uninformed.

I think you've misjudged me then.

[The Barbarian]

Well I for one see no merit in playing tennis with quotes,

Probably a bad idea for you to have served first, then.

Falk's opinion is simply that - an opinion

An informed opinion by someone who actually has credentials. Meyer, as you know, is a philosopher. His opinion is simply that. A layman's opinion.

Why on earth would you think one cannot have an informed opinion on a subject without holding credentials in that subject?

I tend to rely on my doctor for health advice over that of my accountant. Go figure.

- as you can see numerous others praise the book, so what can we conclude?

Meyer's layman opinion on paleontology is much more popular with non-paleontologists than with paleontologists. Which shouldn't be a surprise to you.

I've not seen the statistics, but since most readers are likely not paleontologists of course it wouldn't surprise me.

It's that doctor/accountant issue, again. Sorryu.

I think the rational thing to conclude here is that we obviously have a true controversy

Not surprising. If you picked almost any technical field, you'd find more dissenting opinions from people who weren't actually in the field than from those who actually know what they're talking about.

Again you insinuate one cannot know what one is talking about unless they hold some qualifuication,

Maybe your accountant is a better physician than your doctor. But I'm guessing she isn't.

not the picture perfect fairy tale tree of life

If you actually believe that, you know far less about evolutionary theory than I thought. There are lively discussions and controversies about all sorts of things in evolution.

I'm proud that I haven't invested decades of my life in a make believe theory.

You're not a creationist? Why all the creationist stuff from you, then?

that some teachers and authors would like to palm off on the gullible, the uncritical.

Judging by your contribution and cites, it is more likely a problem of the uninformed.

I think you've misjudged me then.

You've asserted a lot of errors here. So the evidence suggests not.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well I for one see no merit in playing tennis with quotes, I showed JoeyKnothead that Meyer's book was well received by numerous accredited scientists and that's pretty much the case.

That a book is well received doesn't tell us how accurate are its claims and conclusions.

As I said, Meyers has PhDs in fields not directly pertinent to the stuff he seeks to fuss about.

As a member of the Discovery Institute, Meyers has accepted a priori such notions as intelligent design. It should be no surprise his conclusions'll fit that mission.

Sure, like I said you'll dismiss the book, I understand.