"It all seems confused and contradictory to me, but I can't really think of any other good way to paraphrase your argument. Perhaps you could make it a little clearer."
Well, perhaps it wasn't helped by my cheap shot at atheists for insisting that they can tell Christians about Christianity. Recall your statement that you think a Christian can believe that Jesus is not God.
I was thinking of Arianism, which is now considered heresy by most christians, since it denied that Christ's divinity was the same as God's. The loosest definition of a christian is just one who considers oneself a follower of Christ, not necessarily someone who believes that Christ was divine. Most people tend to hold a narrower definition, and Christians quite often debate whether some self-styled christians really are christians. For example, there is some confusion over whether Moromons should be considered christians. Nobody and no group really has the authority to dictate what constitutes bona fide christianity, so I, a person who has no doctrinal axes to grind, tend to have a much broader definition than most christians.
Emphatically, my own position is that I am an experimentalist. If science is not constrained to experimentation, that is not my problem. That is not to say it does not make wide use of experimentation, but it certainly is not constrained to it by any measure.
I understand your position, but I consider it somewhat arbitrary. All you have appeared to mean by it is that you wish to drive a wedge between scientists that use controlled lab experiments to validate theories and those that rely on verifiable observations of natural phenomena. That is, your use of this term 'experimentalist' has shown up in the past mainly in connection with denying that evolution has scientific validity. Outside of that context, your usage seems to have no significance.
Thus, you can continue to churn out scientific 'facts' all day long, but if these 'facts' primarily derive from an a priori preclusion of supernatural explanations, and not necessarily from direct experimenation to boot, I do not feel compelled in the slightest to think these facts are TRUE.
That's your prerogative. A scientific 'fact' is merely a theoretical consensus--one that scientists consider unlikely ever to be disconfirmed by observational data. Evolution, in that sense, is a scientific fact. If you choose to dismiss the scientific consensus, that's of little consequence to the rest of us. If you want to promote your dismissal as reasonable, then you'll need to support it with something more than shoulder-shrugging dismissals of the findings of science.
"OK, as long as you don't give the false impression that scientists have ever construed their own endeavor in the same narrow terms that you do."
Pasteur did. Newton did. Mendel did. Sure- Dawkins doesn't. Gould didn't. Sagan didn't. Right.
Really? What makes you think that Pasteur, Newton, and Mendel discounted scientific observations that were not the result of laboratory observations? Newton used experiments where he could to validate his theories, but he also relied on verifiable observations of nature. Similarly, evolutionists have proposed experiments to validate natural selection, but they also rely on information from natural observation as well. Your use of experimentalism requires that you treat natural observation as somehow less important to science than lab experiments. That's absurd, since many scientific theories do not lend themselves easily to controlled lab experiments--e.g. theories of astronomy and geology.
"Science attempts to understand observations about nature, and not all scientific theories are equally amenable to laboratory experiments."
Well, that is certainly true, isn't it? lol That's pretty much the point. Do you deny that there is not an epistemological difference between something that is directly observed as opposed to something that is inferred, instead? The inference may be reasonabe: assume it is for the purposes of this question. Is it really your position that the two are of the same epistemological value?
That depends on what you instantiate for "something". Scientific observations are those that are dependable or repeatable. Nowadays, scientists also model or simulate theoretical properties in computers in order to generate predictions that can be confirmed through observation. Newton and his contemporaries pioneered the methodology by the use of mathematical models. Today, we use computers to prove theories that were beyond proof before the computer era.
"Calling yourself an "experimentalist" strikes me as a bit strange, because you have never really conducted scientific experiments yourself, have you?"
I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Haven't we all conducted SOME scientific experiments, even if they were only in high school physics class? I know I did. I presume instead you mean that I haven't conducted the empirical (I'd rather not use the word 'science' because that is question-smuggling) experiments for a great many things considered to be reliable facts of nature. Obviously I haven't. But neither have you...
Actually, I have both conducted my own experiments and participated teams that were conducting experiments. For example, I once participated with a neurologist and another linguist in an experiment to determine which muscles were being enervated during the production of nasal vowels. There was a rigorous methodology that had to be followed. (Although I was the grad student at the time, I convinced the lead professor to have the wires injected in to his own soft palate. He was British, so he was a sucker for doing painful experiments on himself.
) It's true that you should have been exposed to some scientific methodology in high school, but it still seems strange to use that as a basis for calling yourself an "experimentalist". As I said before, I think that you are just staking out an artificial epistemological position that you think will help you dismiss the scientific underpinnings of evolution theory. It may work for you and other folks looking to dismiss evolution, but I expect you to make little headway in convincing others.
Similarly, scientists today don't get a pass, either. If I cannot re-create their experiments, what am I to do? I am not powerless. Do they have an agenda? Do they have a bias? Do they have philosophical pre-suppositions? How much of their experimental conclusions interacted with this philosophical material? Did they take steps to winnow out such things? It is helpful if other scientists corroborate the experiment- but if they share the same dispositions I may have reason to remain skeptical.
It is just a little bit hokey to dismiss a scientific consensus on allegations of bias. Science is based on a wide range of published data, including both natural and laboratory observations. There are always scientists willing to pursue observations that disconfirm theory, because that is a wonderful way to get publications. If the observations can be made to conform to theory, then that's a winner. If they can be shown not to conform, then that's also a winner. Indeed, science is all about testing doubts. Religion is all about suppressing doubts.
The primary assumption sitting underneath science today- especially present in evolutionary science- is that the data absolutely must be interpreted in a naturalistic framework. It does not surprise me, therefore, when scientists are able to interpret their data in a naturalistic framework! But what if the whole question was whether or not this assumption is really reasonable and rational? You cannot prove it is reasonable and rational while simultaneously assuming it.
I thought you said that you weren't interested in changing the definition of science. Scientific empiricism is all about physical observation. You want to go beyond that. Nobody's stopping you. Let your speculations take you where they will. Just don't blame scientists if they refuse to get dragged off their feet by your hot air balloon.
The theory of evolution forbids itself from considering non-agency interpretations of the data. To the extent that scientists think they are doing a great job of continuing to interpret the data in light of that preclusion, I commend them. Human imagination knows no limits. Is it 'scientific'? I hardly care. Is it true? THAT I care about. And I don't happen to give much weight to claims that rule out certain interpretations out of hand, regardless of whether or not some think that is essential to their methodology.
Science does not "forbid itself from considering non-agency interpretations of data". It forbids itself from considering explanations that are unconfirmable. If you "agency interpretation" can't be confirmed by observation, then science cannot endorse it. Sorry, but there are plenty of scientists who manage to separate science from religion on that basis. You seem unable or unwilling to do that. Hence, you campaign vigorously to have religious opinions addressed in science classes.
"I believe that we've both established that evolutionary theory has been used to explain the origin of the Golgi complex, and the web sites you found seem to support that claim."
lol, the 3 web sites? On the one hand, no, I do not agree that the GA has been explained by the TOE. Clearly scientists think that it can be. But there is a chasm between 'can be' and 'is.'
I think that scientists would be happy to substitute "can be" with "is". There is nothing about the Golgi complex that suggests a non-evolutionary origin, is there? Are we talking "Intelligent Design" here? Are you picking this one out from the ID literature? (You claimed not to read the "creationist literature", but you clearly do not consider ID a creationist movement.)
"Maybe you can help the process by explaining what you are hoping to show by this line of argument."
Quite simply: Genetics forms the basis for understanding biology, not evolution.
Genetics is all about experimentation, baby.
What if one were to maintain that "Evolution forms the basis of understanding genetics"? Since "forms the basis of" is a transitive predicate, we have a logical proof that "Evolution forms the basis of biology", and your "not evolution" tag can only be justified if you can refute the claim that genetics is based on evolution theory. Biologists seem to think that it is. See, for example, the web page
Evolutionary Genetics.
Not only that, but I can go about my life.. if I were a doctor, a biochemist, a pharmacist, whatever... completely competent on the understanding based on the actual observations without even a glance at any alleged 'explanations.'
Not true. You would not get a higher degree without demonstrating competence in basic biology. Once you have your license to practice applied science, you might not need to consult theoretical models, but you may need the background knowledge at times in order to understand the medical literature and participate in professional discussions with colleagues.
That is why I mentioned the people that I did. Apparently quite a few actual biologists find it unhelpful, too. Did you fail to note my reference to the biochemist who worked at a major drug company? Evolutionary theory was completely irrelevant.
My father, mother, and brother were pharmaceutical chemists who worked for drug companies. My sister is a tenured professor of clinical chemistry. I have never heard such a claim from them. They have never expressed any doubts about evolution theory, but I'm sure you consider yourself better informed. I'm not sure that they have needed to appeal directly to evolution theory in any of their professional work, but that would hardly surprise me.
"It all depends on what you think needs explaining."
Bingo. But experimentally speaking, not everything can be explained. That doesn't mean you get to make up explanations based on your presuppositions. If the experimental data is limited- that's life. Deal with it.
I've got no problem with that, but you evidently do. If scientists rely on non-experimental observations to confirm theory, that too is life. Deal with it.
I was speaking of the category of 'evolution' that the ecologists I've read will cite. Microevolution may be the mechanism that ya'll think justify macroevolution, but it nonetheless remains that you can dismiss macroevolutionary 'explanations' altogether and still function just fine.
Again, that depends on what you need to explain. There are many people in the world who do not need knowledge of biology in their daily lives. That is irrelevant to the claim that biologists need evolution to explain their science.
