Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Evolutionists Anonymous: A 12 Step Program for Those who Suffer from Methodological Naturalism

Posted in: Humor

The following 12 steps have worked for those of us who were previously suffering from the bondage of evolutionary theory. If you happen to be suffering as we once were, we suggest that you give them a try.

1. We admitted we were powerless over Evolutionary Theory and that our research in the various fields of science had become horrendously unfruitful as a result.

2. Came to the valid inference that an Intelligent Cause much greater than time, chance, and natural processes was responsible for the fine-tuning of the universe and complexity in biology. And we understood that such a postulate could restore us to scientific integrity.

3. Made a decision to turn our efforts and research over to the duty of detecting specified complexity in nature as it was placed by an Intelligent Cause and committed ourselves to leaving specific questions about said Cause open for later philosophical discussion.

4. Made a searching and fearless inventory of our scientific methods and our previous dogmatic, antisupernatural biases.

5. Admitted to an unspecified designer, to ourselves, and to another scientist the exact nature of our errors.

6. Were entirely ready commit to a robust ID research program in an effort to make amends for years of methodological naturalism.

7. Humbly asked the unspecified designer to remove our naturalistic presuppositions.

8. Made a list of all ID theorists we had publically slandered, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made public amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would jeopardize their tenure, research grants, or hopes for a fair dissertation examination.

10. Continued to take inventory of our scientific methodology and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through hypotheses, testing, and experimentation to improve our ability to detect design in nature, hoping only for a better understanding of irreducibly complex biological systems and for research grants to further such investigation.

12. Having been set free from dogmatic methodological naturalism as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other suffering evolutionists whenever possible, and to practice these basic ID postulates in all of our scientific affairs to the best of our ability.

Although these previous 12 steps are only a suggestion, they have been incredibly successful in helping many a confused, depressed, and hopeless scientist break free from the bondage of macro-evolution and subsequently live a life of complete scientific satisfaction and integrity . . . one day at a time.


Blogger Doctor Logic said...

Quite disgusting.

Antisupernatural biases?!! Go ahead and tell me how we could ever scientifically demonstrate supernatural effects. "Go find the supernatural!" isn't a command you give to scientists. It's a command you give to superstitious fools.

I can't believe we've regressed to the stage where people will create 12-step programs to eliminate science. I thought that religious tendency had been in retreat since Galileo.

Science isn't about making people feel good. It is the only rational method for using logic and experience to identify the laws of the universe. I feel sorry for those for whom finding those laws of nature isn't satisfying enough.

5:43 AM  
Blogger davis said...

Dr. Logic,

Mullet's post was a joke

8:01 AM  
Anonymous arensb said...

Mullet's post was a joke

William Dembski doesn't seem to think so. Not that I blame him for being confused: it's nearly impossible to effectively parody creationists.

5:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, it seems from the paragraph that William Dembski also got the joke. Apparently these ID critics really are bad interpreters of the data.

By the way, this 10 step program is not only one of the great moments for Tu Quoque, but may also be one of the great moments in the history of humans.

10:07 PM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:34 AM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...

I would say that the joke-to-seriousness ratio of this blog of mine is about 60/40 (I will leave it open to guess which proportion apples to which).

I sent it out to some ID guys and they were encouraged. This meant alot to me because it was the least I coud do for a band of scholars who are laying it all on the line.


8:35 AM  
Blogger papa said...

Very nicely done. Funny.

2:10 AM  
Blogger Sal Monella said...

Dr. Logic,

You seem pretty convinced that you know precisely what science is and what it is not. I am curious to know what you would say is the exact definition of science.


3:16 PM  
Blogger Doctor Logic said...


In rather abbreviated form...

If the universe is consistent, then it must conform to one of the logical structures enumerated by mathematics. Some of those structures are not trivial restatements of empirical fact.

A scientific theory is a mathematical model of empirical phenomena. A theory is consistent with existing observations, and predicts new observations. Since there are an infinite number of theories consistent with a finite set of data, it may not be possible to uniquely identify the exact mathematical structure of the universe.

As an analogy, imagine fitting a curve to a series of points on a graph. No matter how many points you have (as long as it is a finite number of points), you cannot determine with certainty what the curve looks like. You cannot have a scientific theory that is consistent with any new point you might discover.

Theories are falsifiable in certain domains. For example, Newtonian mechanics has been falsified for speeds close to the speed of light. This does not invalidate the theory in non-relativistic applications. That why we use it to design cars and bridges. This is analogous to saying that "this section of my graph fits a straight line", even if you have good reason to believe that the entire graph will not fit the straight line.

All scientific theories make falsifiable predictions. The best theories make predictions that can be tested in the near term, and make predictions over a large domain.

10:28 PM  
Anonymous Martin Woodhouse said...

Excuse me, but who are you lot and what do you do?

And so forth?


12:43 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home