If you believe God had anything to do with man’s origins.
In his column last month on Humanevents.com, Mac Johnson, a man whose writing I’ve always admired, claimed that the concept of Intelligent Design is a “really, really bad idea — scientifically, politically, and theologically.” He attacked ID using the usual list of specious arguments, distortions, and straw-man fallacies commonly used by the minions of scientism. Since I wrote rather extensively on the subject in a previous article, I won’t rehash it all here in detail. However, I felt the need to respond to at least some of the theological garbage spewed by Johnson in this piece.
The appellation ‘Darwin’s Lapdog’ is a tribute to Johnson’s predecessor (as a Darwin apologist) Thomas Huxley. Popularly known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog,’ Huxley, a contemporary of the British naturalist, had two mitigating factors in his favor which Johnson cannot claim: First, he was an avowed agnostic (in fact he coined the term), while Johnson claims to believe in God; and second, Huxley, unlike Mac Johnson and his modern-Darwinist cohorts, didn’t have the advantage of 150 years of scientific research which utterly failed to prove Darwin’s theory.
Johnson claims that “ten years ago, ID had enough confidence and honesty to go by its birth name, creationism. Whereas today, it has been dressed up in a lab coat and a mail-order PhD . . .” This petty attack on the credentials of the scientists studying ID and the thousands of doctors and scientists who are on public record doubting Darwinism (in spite of the risk of just this sort of ungracious public ridicule) is another favored tactic of the Left. This over-simplified and inaccurate description of ID has already been addressed by the Discovery Institute, the world’s preeminent ID think-tank: “the charge that ID is ‘creationism’ is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize ID without actually addressing the merits of its case.” They continue, “Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. ID starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what scientific inferences can be drawn from that evidence.” This is the first of many straw-man logical fallacies with which Johnson clumsily tries to prove his point.
Johnson claims that ID is not scientific because “it predicts nothing, since it essentially states that everything is the way it is because God wanted it that way.” In fact, ID begins, according to the Discovery Institute, with the hypothesis that “if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of complex and specified information. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.” They cite the concept of irreducible complexity as one example. This conforms to the scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation, and observation, leading to a conclusion. Darwinists, on the other hand, quite unreasonably blanch at the prospect that there may have been a Guiding Hand behind man’s origin.
Johnson, who claims to believe in God and may or may not be Catholic, mocks the idea of a Creator – the most fundamental of the underlying pillars of Judeo-Christian doctrine; one simply cannot be a Christian if he rejects the concept of a Creator. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order.” It further states, “The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all of human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time began.”
The only scriptural reference he uses in defense of Darwin is a rather opaque quote attributed to Jesus from the extra-Biblical apocryphal Gospel of Thomas: “If the flesh came into being because of the spirit, that is a marvel; but if the spirit came into being because of the body, that is a marvel of marvels. Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in this poverty.” While it is more likely this quote refers to the mystery of the Incarnation of God as man in the Person of Christ Jesus than an endorsement of Darwinian evolutionary theory, its very use proves Johnson found little validation for Darwinism in the actual Bible.
Bizarrely, he also uses an out of context quote from St. Thomas Aquinas (“In the end, we know God as unknown”) to bolster his claims. I wonder why he didn’t pick the following quote from Aquinas’ Shorter Summa: “multiplicity and distinction occur in things not by chance or fortune but for an end . . . multiplicity in things is not explained by the order obtaining from intermediate agents, as though from one simple first being there could proceed directly only one thing that would be far removed from the first being in simplicity, so that multitude could issue from it, and thus, as the distance from the first simple being increased, the more numerous a multitude would be discerned. Some have suggested this explanation. But we have shown that there are many things that could not have come into being except by creation, which is exclusively the work of God, as has been proved.” He goes on to write, “the multiplicity and distinction existing among things were devised by the divine intellect.” Sounds a bit like intelligent design, huh Mac?
In lieu of any actual argument, Johnson, like all Darwin sycophants, continually uses the straw-man tactic of culling the evolutionary examples he cites from the domain of micro-evolution – the universally accepted (and scientifically observable) concept that small changes occur within a given species such as when a bacterium develops a resistance to antibiotics – rather than citing an example of macro-evolution, or how one species transmogrifies over time into an entirely new species. There is a very simple reason for this sleight-of-hand: there is virtually no compelling evidence to support this, the cornerstone of Darwin’s theory – even after 150 years of looking.
In the 17th century, scientist/philosopher Pascal posited his famous wager: It is better to wager that God is because if you win, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. If you wager God is not, you gain nothing if you win; if you lose, you lose all. An obvious concomitant to this would be the following: If He is, then we should honor Him and His works, not mock them. Otherwise the wager is a mere intellectual exercise and really quite useless. For his part, Johnson, with customary humility, and heedless of the implications of Pascal’s famous wager, repeatedly mocks the God of creation: “I spend most of my time as a pharmaceutical researcher thinking about how to correct the commonly occurring mistakes of our allegedly intelligent body design.” And this: “wouldn’t an omniscient designer have come up with a countermeasure to malaria that, say, wouldn’t kill so many innocent children.” And how about this for a stunning example of theological ignorance: “. . . have you ever thought about what sort of God it implies we have?” (It being the idea that God made the AIDS virus, smallpox, and polio.)
Disease and death, in Christian belief, are the wages of original sin – man’s fall from grace through Adam’s transgression – and are the very reason God sent a Redeemer through Whom death may be defeated and eternal life obtained. Maybe a little less time in the laboratory and a bit more in Sunday school might have paid dividends.
Since he mocks and ridicules the concept of a Just God Who created man in His image, and asserts God had nothing to do with the diversity of life we see all around us, it begs a simple question: just what kind of God does he believe in? What role does he assign God in this new religion he has created outside of scripture and revelation?
If Mac Johnson feels he must defend Darwinism (and he is certainly more qualified than I am in this area), that is his right; but his argument would be more effective if he refrained from the usual straw-man tactic of pretending the ID community rejects micro-evolution and instead produce some evidence to support his position on the real point of contention in this debate: that man was not created by a loving God in His image, but rather developed by mere happenstance along with every other form of life on the planet, over millions of years from a single common ancestor. And since he clearly has no idea what Intelligent Design theory really is, and is even more ignorant of basic theological concepts, perhaps Mac Johnson (and his readers) would have been well-served by listening to the advice of one of his apparent ancestors, the Geico caveman, before writing this article: “How about a little research first?”
josonitsch@yahoo.com
Read more articles by Jeff Osonitsch
It's not unreasonable to point out that a very large number of the people who now advocate 'intelligent design' were advocating 'creationism' by name until fairly recently. It was also pretty clear in the Dover case that the book designed to illustrate the 'intelligent design' case was simply a (slightly) reworked creationist book. But, as Sydney Hook said, "Before impugning an opponent's motives, even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments."
So far, the arguments I've seen advanced for 'intelligent design' have been answered; the two key biological concepts, 'specified complexity' and 'irreducible complexity', have not fared well. Dembski's 'complex, specified information' model has not produced new results anywhere outside the intelligent design area (unlike evolution, which has spawned genetic algorithms in computer science, enhanced epidemiology and immunization techniques, and improved breeding practices in animal husbandry and agriculture, etc.) and has itself been widely questioned regarding its fundamental definitions and mathematical rigor. Various biological systems proposed as 'irreducibly complex' have been shown to be evolvable, and indeed some of the precursor steps have come to light.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 19, 2007
Leave it to Raymond Ingles to leap in whenever evolution is discussed. Like a protective mother hen, he simply must defend evolution whenever someone on this website has the audacity to question it.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 19, 2007
I'm here, too, Mountain Man. I'll generally chime in when creationists have something to say against evolution. (Not to change the subject any, but are you following the Texas flap (Google/News "Chris Comer") or the South Carolina flap (Google/News "Kristin Maguire")?
And do you have a problem with Ray's response, other than just saying he is a defender of rationality? Do you deny any part of his comment? No. (Does that mean you agree with his criticism?)
Let's look at a quote from another Johnson - Phillip Johnson, the erstwhile father of intelligent design creationism:
"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."
There is no prophet higher on intelligent design creationism's mountaintop than Phillip Johnson. Sounds like Mac Johnson would agree with Phillip Johnson.
Osonitsch says "…thousands of doctors and scientists who are on public record doubting Darwinism…" - pity more of them aren't actual biologists, who might actually understand evolution well enough to competently claim a creditable reason to doubt evolution. (There's an even larger list of engineers who "doubt Darwin" - for some reason, mechanistically-oriented engineers really don't understand biology…must have something to do with career choices in college.)
No matter how much the Dishonesty Institute, the world’s preeminent ID apologist and drum-beater denies it, ID (which actually stands for "Intellectual Dishonesty") is nothing more than a heretical form of creationism with all references to the Creator removed. If anybody doubts this, please read Barbara Forrest's paper, "Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement," available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
Osonitsch (with a law enforcement (?) background - i.e., not a biologist by any stretch) says "And since Mac Johnson) clearly has no idea what Intelligent Design theory really is…" Guess what? Neither does anybody else, because there isn't one! The father of Intelligent Design, Phillip Johnson, says so!
Comment by PaulBurnett | December 19, 2007
Mountain Man: you may wish to reread the Sydney Hook quote.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 19, 2007
I did answer your arguments in other threads, and I answered them thoroughly and well. You avoided my points and started obfuscating.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 19, 2007
Um, Mountain Man, you actually haven't addressed evolution per se in your comments. See, e.g., comment #18 here: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/11/21/what%e2%80%99s-not-great-about-christianity/
That's the closest we've ever come to actually talking about evolution (as opposed to evolution's relation to morality) that I can see. Feel free to point out another case.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 19, 2007
Like most ID’ers Mr. Osonitsch shows a lack of understanding of the scientific process. But try’s to fit ID into a scientific framework to give it credibility.
First – People who challenge Darwin are not necessarily embracing ID. Any good scientist should challenge conventional understanding. It can make the theory stronger. One can challenge Darwin and not embrace ID. Rejection of or disproving Evolution does not prove ID.
Second – He needs to define how something comes into existence through ID. In other words, how does theory of ID work? How does it explain the origin of the different species? If ID is not creationism and it is not evolution, then what is it? A good scientific theory tells a story and answers questions. All the pieces seem to fit. This is what gives scientific theory credibility. What is the ID story of life?
Third – the Discovery Institute’s hypothesis that “if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of complex and specified information. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.” - As stated, this is a hypothesis not a proven scientific theory. ID scientists need to prove this. First what kind of experiments will do this? Are they falsifiable? Explain the logic behind the hypothesis, why does high levels of levels of complex and specified information point to design? Could it point to a third alternative theory?
Also to propose a grant to conduct a study, one must first be current on all published literature, identify the gaps and/or questions/problems that are unanswered, propose a hypothesis and lastly propose how to test it. Then this goes through peer review for scrutiny. The first problem that this hypothesis has is that there is a lot of literature written on specified complexity and specified information. You need to first prove the bulk of biological scientific literature on this subject is flawed.
So called ID Scientists have a lot of scientific work to do. If ID is really science, then do the science. But since there is no real science, they depend on pseudo science and the Discovery Institute to launch a PR campaign. Good science does not need a PR campaign
Comment by stedes | December 19, 2007
Both ID and Darwinian evolution are unproven scientific hypotheses. However, while ID allows for the possibility of a Creator, Darwinism does not. How is arbitrarily eliminating one possible explanation for origins scientific, while retaining that possibility un-scientific?
Moreover, as far as evolution generally speaking is concerned, (that is, evolution allowing for Guidance rather than randomness) ID supporters (as well as the Catholic Church) are open to the possibility that evolution did in fact take place. We simply demand proof before it is declared a fact. Creationists or Biblical literalists do not allow for the possibility of any sort of evolution, ergo ID does not equal Creationism.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 19, 2007
Mr. Jeff Osonitsch states: "Both ID and Darwinian evolution are unproven scientific hypotheses" your statement is incorrect. ID is at best a hypothesis. Evolution is a proven scientific theory. A big difference. The proof for evolution and the volume of research far outweighs what ID has.
Evolution has 150 years of science. How many years of science does ID have? They not equal competing theories. This is also another ploy by IDer's, to degrade evolution so it could be put on equal terms with ID.
ID needs to do science and develop a volume of good work.
Comment by stedes | December 19, 2007
To Paul Burnett:
In case my credentials matter, I am a professor of mathematics at a community college, and I have a BS degree in physics from UCLA.
First, I would ask you to engage in the basic honesty of calling things by their proper names. I'll make you a deal: if you will refer to ID, the Discovery Institute and the other anti-Darwinist entities by their correct names, then I will refrain from referring to the "Center for Imbecility," and other such juvenile tactics.
If one is an atheist, then one is obligated to support Darwinian evolution, because if there is no supernatural creator to do the work of creation, then natural forces must do it all, and that is the essential premise of Darwinism. If there is no God, then the development of life must have been essentially as Darwinism says: by a vast number of tiny unplanned changes. On the other hand, if one is an anti-Darwinist, then one has to be a theist, or else who is someone content to say "we have no idea how it happened." Most scientists hate to say that, so since the only choices are Darwinism and "I don't know," they choose Darwinism.
Furthermore, this dispute is philosophical, not scientific. Contemporary science takes it as a presupposition that all their theories must be materialistic, but this presupposition is just that: it is not proved. I defy you to describe how science, using the methods and concepts of science, can prove that materialism is true. Since materialism is neither a physical object nor a theory of how physical objects behave, it can be neither proved nor disproved by science.
And therefore non-biologists are allowed to disagree with Darwinism, if they can recognize its philosophical errors. Philosophy concerns itself with the fundamental facts about thought and reality, and as such, it is open to anyone, even non-biologists. Materialism, and the larger naturalistic worldview in which it is embedded, is not the domain of the biologists, so we are not required to agree with Darwinism just because the biologists tell us we must. If we have valid, non-scientific evidence against naturalism, we are allowed to doubt Darwinism.
And note that if science must presuppose materialism, and if materialism is false, then science will contain at least some falsehoods, unless it is corrected so as to allow valid non-naturalistic evidence and thought. You cannot just say "that would violate the definition of science;" reality is not determined by definitions. There is only one valid way to conclusively prove Darwinism: prove that naturalism is true. Since you are one who is making the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. Until you do so, your criticisms of ID and the other anti-Darwinists fail.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | December 19, 2007
I have addressed evolution. I said it was a religion more than a manifestation of science, and I said that devotees of evolution are irrationally predisposed to put down anyone who disagrees with them in the name of science.
With evolutionists, the gloves are always off. Anyone who even so much as questions any minor tenet is berated, browbeaten, and marginalized. I just get tired of the condescension and smugness.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 19, 2007
Mr. Ostinich - "Darwinism" is somewhat of a misnomer. Evolution's progressed quite a bit since Darwin's time; as a major example, DNA and molecular biology was unknown in his time. But that's a side point.
In any case, you're incorrect - evolution does allow for a 'Creator'. For example, evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the Earth and its overall geology. (Well, life did affect the atmosphere pretty radically in terms of oxygen content a while back, but that's after the formation and/or Creation of the Earth. Evolution also has nothing to do with the wider universe - the formation of stars, any 'big bang' or so forth.
Evolution also has nothing to say at this point about the origin of the first life on Earth. Abiogenesis is a field of active research, but there's no good, solid, testable and tested theory yet that accounts for all that we know about the early stages of life on Earth. As I've said before, it's not possible (at this point) to disprove the idea that life was planted here by gods or aliens.
What evolution does say about life on Earth is that: (a) All life on Earth examined so far appears to have developed by 'descent with modification'; the common ancestry of all life on Earth has been very firmly established by multiple lines of evidence. (b) No biological structures or species have been identified that could not have arisen by a relatively gradual series of individually-advantageous steps. (In many cases, the individual steps have been illustrated by fossils, molecular evidence, etc.)
I'll agree that certain kinds of Creation aren't consistent with this (well-supported) framework. But as you note, there are many types of Creator that are perfectly consistent with this model, from Deist 'watchmaker gods' to activist gods that individually chose what mutations would arise when and where.
You characterize ID as asking for proof that something has evolved; otherwise you'd presumably take the idea that 'someone designed it' as the default position. It's not clear to me why this would be the 'null hypothesis'. In science, one would generally look at a system and ask 'what might have given rise to it', and try out varying hypotheses. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer in science; jumping to fill that in with a God is a philosophical or religious position, not a scientific one.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 19, 2007
Mountain Man - I'm sure you've been met with smugness and condescension. That's a given on the Internet for anyone on any side of any issue. But I have specifically denied doing so with you (or anyone) and I pointed out specifically why in that comment #18 I indicated above.
But, even if you were right on all counts ("devotees of evolution are irrationally predisposed to put down anyone who disagrees with them", they are all smug and condescending) what would that have to do with whether or not evolution is true? Many Christians are not particularly likeable, and many Muslims are quite peaceful and friendly… but that has nothing to do with whether or not Christianity or Islam are true.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 19, 2007
Osonitsch may be an "intellectual conservative" but he is not a very honest one. Otherwise, he might have mentioned the Wedge Strategy or the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute which all but admits there is no science behind ID. They want to teach the "controversy" rather than the science of ID. That's not surprising since ID science has been shown by evolutionary biologists to be fatally flawed.
Comment by infidel57 | December 19, 2007
Why is the idea that God exists so threatening to certain people? I can understand why people who believe in Jesus, Allah, etc. may feel threatened by people who believe in a different God, and vice versa. But ID does not talk about Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, or any other specific deity. God is that which created the universe. Why is this more incredible than believing that the universe had no creator?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 19, 2007
Phil said: "But ID does not talk about Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, or any other specific deity."
…at least in public. Intelligent design creationism has been carefully crafted to remove all references to God and Genesis and Noah and such. But in private - usually in churches - it's a "wink wink - nudge - nudge - everybody please try to remember not to mention God and Genesis and Noah when discussing ID."
But then you find out that most "cdesign proponentsists" are not just religious, not just Christian, not just Protestant, but belong to a narrow band of fundamentalists who want to return to the Dark Ages of ignorance - but evolution / biology / science keeps getting in the way.
If you are comfortable with "God is whatever created the universe," that's okay with me. That makes you a Deist - as was Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine and a few other Americans of which you may have heard. Not bad company.
Comment by PaulBurnett | December 19, 2007
Philip, the answer to your question is obvious. If people admit there is a God then it is also possible to believe that God acted with purpose in creating the universe and eventually man in it. And if man admits that God exists then it's also possible to believe that God can act in a way that isn't always understandable to man. This threatens people who believe that only man is capable of purposeful action.
Comment by JerryG | December 19, 2007
"Phil said: 'But ID does not talk about Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, or any other specific deity.' …at least in public."
*** Not everyone who believes in ID believes in the same manifestation of God. And even those who believe in God and subscribe to a certain religion aren't monolithic. I'm a perfect example of a non-practicing Catholic who writes Catholic fiction, but also writes about non-religious ways to access a God-given universal moral code.
The manifest fear here seems to be on the part of people who believe that to acknowledge the obvious — that the Universe didn't create itself — is to plunge the world into a fundamentalist dark ages of ignorance. They then make completely ignorant statements like "But then you find out that most 'cdesign proponentsists' are not just religious, not just Christian, not just Protestant, but belong to a narrow band of fundamentalists who want to return to the Dark Ages of ignorance - but evolution / biology / science keeps getting in the way."
Exactly how, as a rational scientist, did you quantify the fact that "most" people who believe in ID are fundamentalists who reject biology? Do you attend multiple churches to count the wink winks, or are you just pulling "facts" out of thin air to support your scientifically-arrived at beliefs? You are doing exactly what you have accused your opponents of doing: making up facts, reacting hysterically, and painting everything with a broad brush. You support your personal beliefs with your personal beliefs, and then tout the magnificence of science which provides you with life's answers.
I dealt with this hyperbolic bilge in http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/06/08/the-politics-of-science-and-religion/
There is a place for science, religion, and God in our lives. It isn’t an either-or choice. Interesting how the crazed fundamentalist ID’rs seem to understand this, but the self-appointed representatives of science can’t.
And by the way, thank you for personally approving of my belief in God. I, on the other hand, do not feel compelled to pass judgment on which scientific theories you embrace.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 19, 2007
"Why is the idea that God exists so threatening to certain people?"
Interesting way to deflect the subject, but I'll bite. I don't think the idea of ID or even Creationism is threatening to anyone on a personal level, per se, except to marvel at the gullibility of people to slick marketing campaigns. It's fine for you, Phil, to meditate on the existence of God and to incorporate that knowledge of His existence into your daily life or moral decisions. If you are inclined to take a crack at integrating the facts of evolution with your concept of a Creator, that's all well and dandy. And if you want to share with your kids your views on the Creator, in hopes that they will find the same solace you do, more power to you.
The problem is when you use privately funded foundations to peddle blatantly and legally false ideas to children in science class at publicly funded schools that my kids go to.
It's not like the DI came to the table with a theologically coherent idea that managed to reconcile 21rst century science with 12th century metaphysics. They came with the same tired "debate the gaps" BS that got shut down in 1927 and proceeded to educate every bodies children as if the last 150 years of biology, molecular biology, DNA research, quantum physics, geology, archeology and astronomy had never existed!
Take Mr Osonitsch as exhibit 'A'. If he had to take a test that asked him only to describe the scientific method, he would fail. And he writes, supposedly, in defense of a 'new' scientific paradigm. One which apparently dispenses with such quaint concepts as 'predicting' and 'testing' or even 'formulating a coherent path towards discovery.'
There is an entire generation (at least!) of Americans now who believe - and will argue to your face - that "Darwinism is not a fact, it's just a theory." The fact that such totally corrupt and absurd statements are actually learned in school, should tell you why some of us are so threatened - not by God - but by those who parrot anything dreamed up at DI.
Comment by Chasm | December 19, 2007
Why is the idea that humanity was created gradually (instead of instantaneously and miraculously) so threatening to certain people? Why is the idea that the Earth isn't the center of the universe so threatening to certain people?
If the argument is invalid in one direction, Dr. Jackson, why is it valid in the other? Is it possible to disagree with ID, in the sense that it has been formulated and promulgated, while also accepting the existence of a God? Mac Johnson (the subject of the article we're commenting on) would claim so…
The motives of the people involved are interesting, true, but they don't have any deciding value on which view (if any) is actually correct. I'm minded of another quote (sorry, I like pithy quotes) by David Gerrold: "You are not entitled to an opinion. An opinion is what you have when you don't have the facts. When you have the facts, you don't need an opinion."
What if we actually discuss the facts, and see what actually fits with them? As I noted originally, ID does not appear to have weathered criticism well.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 19, 2007
What I have always found most interesting about evolutionists is their focus on results as evidences of processes. Said processes are always deduced from results. Truthfully, the process must make sense before it is linked to a result. Evolution is described as resulting from the process of biological change driven by environmental forces. No one can describe the link between environmental forces and the reprogramming of the blueprints of biology, DNA. In order for the process to be valid, an intellectually plausible link between environmental pressures and the organization of amino acids in the DNA complex must first be developed. What external event may be rationally considered as entering the germ cells of an organism and altering its programming in a constructive manner to produce progeny better suited to the environment?
This question is considerably more difficult than the random mutation proposition, which assumes that enough such will eventually result in improvement. Discarding the evidence that mutations are not an improvement in information, and result in degradation in all observed cases, one still is left with a simple question that science has not answered, nor will it ever. The question is this: What is better?
The solution to an environmental problem has not been described, nor has the solution been known, until that solution arrives. How does DNA, or any organism, predict needs and “engineer” a solution? As an example, the swifter a rabbit runs, the more likely it will survive. Conversely, the more swiftly a coyote runs, the more rabbits it will consume. At what point did the DNA of these organisms recognize this? At what point did the programming within the DNA begin to anticipate the “run or die” postulate? At what point did the DNA recognize the appropriate changes necessary to increase muscle tension, lighten bone, improve visual and auditory comprehension, hasten nerve impulses, etc.? The need must have been anticipated, it must have been designed for, and it must have been implemented, BEFORE the surviving organism survived.
Indeed, the need must have been met at the molecular level. All of the above mentioned improvements were necessary, but their actual implementation required a pathway to realization. That pathway could not have been described by a room full of college educated engineers or biologists. That pathway had to be found by a molecule, DNA. The changes could not simply be described as “lightened bone” (and all other changes), but needed the programming for lighter, yet stronger tissue, built right into the DNA of the gamete. Only the quickest and most adapted molecules survive. Said programming must operate at the cellular (thus, molecular, and, ultimately, atomic) level and control the balance and direction of the molecular reality within. Very complex stuff. To say that the molecules behaved differently is inadequate without identifying how this is possible or showing the learning path.
Every improvement involves an optimization of a delicate chemical balance that is orchestrated by DNA. How does DNA learn to change and reprogram? What is the mechanism of reprogramming? How does all of this occur prior to the need?
Where did all this come from? It is not adequate to describe observable changes and ascribe presumed sources without prior comprehension of the mechanism and source of those changes. “HOW” this all happened is critical. “WHY” is easy.
And, when one feels that sufficient grasp of this problem lies within their consciousness, one must not pronounce "Done!" until one can explain the intricacies and improbabilities of the underlying physics. These make microbiology look like tinker toys. [Microbiology is, in fact, tinker toys. Find the source of the parts. Then say you know what's going on.]
Of course, those questions will need no answering until the prior question is dealt with. Do not state that mutation and environmental influences caused change until you can link these with molecular programming. Show the link, not the result. Describe how the dwindling survivors of a challenged population could motivate highly sophisticated and remarkably improbable programming changes in their DNA and rise above the circumstances to dominate an environment. Don’t point at the “failures” as obvious evidence that this “process” often fails. The “failures” in the fossil record succeeded well enough to propagate. Point instead to the flyers that previously crawled. Then explain this leap.
I have debated the I D question in several forums and presented this question repeatedly. No response beyond insult have I so far seen.
Find the link. Describe the attachment of reality with the subtle programming of DNA, append that to a myriad of responses to environmental changes. Don't tell me that I am ignorant and stupid. Demonstrate your comprehension. Do it. Then come back and argue.
Additionally, I find the discovery that there are only about twenty K human genomes, and about ninety five percent of those are shared with apes, fascinating. Within the realm of probability and mathematical engineering, how does such a small number of variable component descriptions result in such a dramatic difference and provide for so much diversity?
Finally, I am not surprised that all such debate seems to focus on the pedigree of the debater (as, he is in law enforcement), rather than on the topic at hand. Those unable to meet debate often choose to meet the debater, preferring to denigrate the pedigree. Logically, if the debater had a matching pedigree, he could be expected to have a matching viewpoint. So, let’s stick to the argument, shall we?
Comment by zealot144 | December 19, 2007
“The problem is when you use privately funded foundations to peddle blatantly and legally false ideas to children in science class at publicly funded schools that my kids go to.”
*** I’m already on record saying that if IDer’s want this taught as a “science”, it ought to be evaluated by the scientific method. (See the link in comment 18). And, ID will fail on this account, because it isn’t “science”. However, science does not answer all the questions of life, and ID can legitimately address some of these issues. It is not unreasonable to ask what created the universe; if the universe was in fact created was it done so with purpose; can we see some of that Creator-given “purpose” in the non-random laws of nature (including evolution); and is there an even greater purpose to life than that which man is able to perceive through his scientific methodologies? ID should compliment the questions science asks, but as Paul Burnett more than exemplifies, ID is just a “Dark Ages” threat by a bunch of toothless redneck fundamentalists. It will be interesting to see if you repudiate this garbage.
“It’s not like the DI came to the table with a theologically coherent idea that managed to reconcile 21rst century science with 12th century metaphysics. They came with the same tired “debate the gaps” BS that got shut down in 1927 and proceeded to educate every bodies children as if the last 150 years of biology, molecular biology, DNA research, quantum physics, geology, archeology and astronomy had never existed!”
*** You should really read Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” to see how “science” evolved. It’s full of centuries of petty prejudices, vested interests, and near-religious dogmas. Just look at the ”consensus science” of man-made global warming today. Just what does “consensus” have to do with “science”! (Should we just vote at the UN about what we feel instead of what we can prove?) Beware of condemning the supposed origins of ID when modern-day science lives in a glass house. You might want to revise your comments about Mr. Osonitsch’s disdain for the modern scientific method that predicted increased global warming hurricane activity in 2006 and 2007 following the 2005 season. There is more politics today in consensus science than ever before.
And by the way, the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is still called a Theory for good reason. Steven J. Gould and others have challenged some of his base assertions. I happen to believe that it’s essentially accurate — as far as it goes. But it has undergone significant adjustments over the years, and is continuing to be changed to explain exactly how life evolved. And even if it eventually answers all the relevant questions it asks, it still can’t tell us whether God set it all in motion, and why? There is a role for God-based inquiry just as there is a role for man-based conclusions.
“Why is the idea that humanity was created gradually (instead of instantaneously and miraculously) so threatening to certain people? Why is the idea that the Earth isn’t the center of the universe so threatening to certain people?”
*** For the same reason atheists and others who refuse to acknowledge God as a factor in creation believe what they do. They are wedded to a particular view of the world that allows for no other competing theories.
The difference here, though, is that deeply religious people who believe their assessment is correct do not insist that science give up the scientific method. They simply ask that their beliefs be allowed the same opportunity for expression. They make a mistake when they ask for ID to be taught in the science classroom. But it is a legitimate issue to be explored elsewhere in the education system. And it would be, if the atheists and others who refuse to acknowledge God weren’t so fearful of allowing the idea to be expressed that God had something to do with the creation of the universe; and having created it, He might have done it for a reason.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 19, 2007
"Why is the idea that humanity was created gradually (instead of instantaneously and miraculously) so threatening to certain people? Why is the idea that the Earth isn’t the center of the universe so threatening to certain people?"
You miss the point. "Gradually" and "instantaneously" both rely on "time" and "priority". Do you not ever wonder about the source of time? Do you not ever wonder about the source of the very nature you find to be axiomatic? Perhaps humans came to be gradually. What is the source of that gradient?
Once you limit the possibilities of truth to those matters that you can observe and quantify, you limit your possibilities for reason and truth. You set the barriers of truth within your mind. Yet, your mind does not set the barriers of truth.
Group think (science) does not delineate reality. Group think delineates agreement.
Comment by zealot144 | December 19, 2007
" I, on the other hand, do not feel compelled to pass judgment on which scientific theories you embrace."
The problem, Dr Jackson, is that you're buying into the equivalency argument. As the bumper sticker says, "Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church," should evolutionary biologists and geologists be given equal time to rebut Genesis in Church?
Catholic theologian John Haught was interviewed in Salon recently, and while I disagreed with much of what he said, at least he is striving to intellectually reconcile the facts of materialistic geologic time and the implications of evolution with the nature of a Deity. And he had no delusions that he is in fact a philosopher and theologian, and not a scientist. Perhaps this is why he testified against the Discovery Institute in the Smackdown at Dover.
That is the kind of discussion adults, with the information available to us in the modern world, that should be having in the public sphere, if you wish. Not teaching kids 19th century drivel dressed up in cheap, 21rst propaganda.
Comment by Chasm | December 19, 2007
….I have a question… Why are we forced to learn either in school? Both are just theories; you cant back up time and watch evolution happen (save for microevolution which both sides admit happen), and you cant back up time and check to see if it was God or Allah or Xenu or Zytar the magnificent who weaved the universe from nothingness. Both have holes and both are heavy laden with agenda; why cant we just teach what is here and what is now, and allow students to decide for themselves which theory they want to acknowledge, since we can't prove it either way?
Comment by Jekken | December 20, 2007
"There is an entire generation (at least!) of Americans now who believe - and will argue to your face - that “Darwinism is not a fact, it’s just a theory.” "
OH MY GOD! Are you serious! There are actually people out there so mired in ignorance that they have the bald-faced audacity to question the observed and proven fact that Darwinian evolution (that is, the transitioning of one species into an entirely different species through a series of random, gradual, adaptive, acquired changes) takes place, and that the Darwinian explanation of its methodology is fully understood, observed, and proven beyond any doubt?! THE HELL YOU SAY! How could these backwards, plebeian, uneducated, mentally deficient, brain damaged, stupid, fanatical rubes muster the unmitigated gall?!
"ID does not appear to have weathered criticism well."
Darwinian evolution weathers criticism so well because it is defended so religiously by its adherents, and criticism or questioning of any kind are completely suspended. The Catholic Church holds up extremely well to religious criticism - because it excommunicates anyone who disagrees with its doctrines and proclamations. Communism as an economic theory (err, proven fact) generally held up extremely well in Soviet Russian scientific and academic circles. When "truths" are controlled by a cartel who can shut down any argument simply by saying the argument is over, criticism generally doesn't "hold up" all that well. That's why species-to-species macro-evolution is an indisputably proven fact that is described wholly and perfectly by Darwin's theory, and why anthropogenic global warming caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide is an indisputably proven fact that is described wholly and perfectly by whatever the current consensus theory of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is. This issue (the sanctity of Darwinian evolutionary theory) has been discussed and debated at length over several postings spanning several years just on this website, so to rehash it again would be fairly pointless, especially in light of the fact that I just summed up the "scientific" argument for the positive.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | December 20, 2007
Alan Roebuck said: "If one is an atheist, then one is obligated to support Darwinian evolution, because if there is no supernatural creator to do the work of creation, then natural forces must do it all, and that is the essential premise of Darwinism."
You've got it all backwards. Scientists don't "support" evolution because it jives with their life philosophy. The accept it based on mountains and mountains of evidence. Personal beliefs are irrrelevant. Whether or not the case for God is strengthened or weakened by scientific discovery is purely incidental.
I think this whole religion/evolution mess has happened because of different ways of thinking. People's opinions depend on what they put first; scientific knowledge or strongly held beliefs. People support ID because it would validate the beliefs they hold that are so offended by evolution. People don't accept evolution because it validates their beliefs nor do they oppose ID because it offends their beliefs. Beliefs are irrelevant. Only science matters, and ID is not science. It just isn't.
Comment by Wiggy | December 20, 2007
To Jeff Osonitsch concerning the literal interpretation of Genesis, Jeff I read your article you referred to here. I enjoyed it very much. I know you said you aren't a scientist or theologian but your understanding of the broad picture is amazing.
About Genesis, we have come to better knowledge and understanding since St. Augustine even though his works are extremely valuable. He was right saying it is a matter of treating about the faith. But St. Augustine, only being human thought that the interpretation of the creation story was difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up. Well, respectfully he was wrong, new information has come up since Darwin et al and it has been confirmed that the FACTS of science have no issue with God's true creation story. Just as God has told us how we came to being that is what He meant.
Jeff, I seldom respond to articles and such, but I feel I was led to respond to yours. Please read the link below. Thank you.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp
And…
Raymond says, "Why is the idea that humanity was created gradually (instead of instantaneously and miraculously) so threatening to certain people?"
One of the many reasons… it was Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution that fueled Hitler’s ovens. Ideas DO have consequences!
Comment by jeffaopa | December 20, 2007
Darwinian Evolution is no more a proven scientific fact than is man-made global warming; they are both theories based on conjecture and agreed upon by consensus in lieu of proof.
They both have a host of fraudulent gimmicks created in their support meant to confuse and obfuscate: think of the global warming hockey stick and the Human Evolution Sequence chart showing a monkey becoming a man.
Darwin sychophants like to mock the so-called ID 'god of the gaps,' however the True Believers in Darwinism have their own deus ex machina: its called time. How exactly did a fish grow arms and lungs, you ask? It took a reaaaaaaaaalllllly loooooooong tiiiiiiime! All we sceptics ask for is for Darwin supporters to step out of their stupor of suspended disbelief long enough to produce some proof of Darwin's claims. After all, we are still waiting after 150 years.
Darwinism is not science, it is dogma.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 20, 2007
Jekken - evolution is, indeed, a theory. Just like the Theory of Gravity and the Germ Theory of Disease, and so forth. "Theory" is the highest grade an idea can receive in science. That means that it's a hypothesis that has had its predictions rigorously tested, and that ties together a large body of data into a coherent whole. (I'm just a quote machine on this thread… "Science is built up of facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare. A theory is the mortar that ties the facts together.)
ID at present is, at best, a hypothesis. As I pointed out, it hasn't really tied many facts together, its prediction of 'irreducible complexity' have not panned out, and it hasn't led to any new insights. (Our own NSA would probably love to have methods to help detect if a given signal is random noise or purposeful, but Dembski's 'specified complexity' hasn't helped there.)
As to the 'holes' in evolution… all that I've heard of have been, at best, greatly exaggerated. As an analogy, we can't solve all the equations describing the motion of the solar system - even if we simplify them and use purely Newtonian mechanics and ignore Relativity. We can't even prove that the solar system is dynamically stable. But this doesn't mean we should teach both heliocentric and geocentric models in class… nor does it mean we shouldn't teach either. That's approximately like teaching tables of ephemerides without any notion of why the planets appear in the places they do each night.
This covers some of the data that is tied together and made comprehensible by evolution: http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 20, 2007
Mr. Osonitsch: Evolution - in the sense of the fact that life has changed drastically over billions of years - is about as well established as anything in science. If you accept anything even close to standard geology, you have to accept an Earth billions of years old (or created to look that way), and then when you start looking at the fossils at various dates, you see the rise and extinction of a multitude of species over that time. (Asked for something that would disprove evolution, J.B.S. Haldane snapped, "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.")
Then you look at the fact that life fits into a nested hierarchy (no lizards with nipples, no mammals with feathers, etc.) and that DNA sequences also form a nested hierarchy - and these trees agree with each other… Common descent of these organisms is essentially undeniable. It's not at all controversial when tracing the descent-with-modification of various editions of books copied by scribes over centuries, and the same principle applies to life.
So, life has changed over time, and new species have formed by descent-with-modification. This was becoming clear around Darwin's time, when even staunch Christians who were convinced of the truth of the "Noachian Deluge" were discovering evidence that didn't fit with anything but an ancient Earth with multiple biological epochs. (Look up the case of Reverend Adam Sedgwick sometime.) Darwin (and others) proposed natural selection to explain this.
We now have millions more fossils in the 150 years since then, and yes, transitional fossils are plentiful. (Look up the synapsids, Dimetrodon, Tehrocephalian, the cynodonts, Morganucodon, and the early mammals for an interesting transition; or take a look at whale evolution.) One interesting point is the transitional fossils we don't see - no one's produced an intermediate between mammals and birds, which if found would invalidate a whole lot of evolutionary theory. So far no biological system has been found that could not have arisen in a gradual, step-by-step fashion. No proposed 'irreducibly complex' system has actually turned out to be, so far.
It's true that evolution is, in some senses, counterintuitive. But so is quantum mechanics, and there isn't an organized movement to oppose its teaching. (Some don't like it, though - e.g. Einstein's "God doesn't play dice" comment.) Both are counterintuitive, but both make predictions that are borne out by testing, over and over again. People don't like evolution because it conflicts with their idea of God. People didn't like heliocentrism (another counterintuitive idea) for the same reason. But I'm minded of the retort Neils Bohr is alleged to have made to Einstein's pronouncement above: "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 20, 2007
"People’s opinions depend on what they put first; scientific knowledge or strongly held beliefs."
*** As far as my two-cents is concerned, I agree that ID isn't "science". But then again, science today isn't "science" either. It's political consensus — as the man made global warming myth more than aptly demonstrates.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
Mr Osonitsch writes: "Darwin supporters to step out of their stupor of suspended disbelief long enough to produce some proof of Darwin’s claims. After all, we are still waiting after 150 years".
What do you mean by proof? Are you expecting iron clad facts that makes evolution a hard fact? That will never happen. That is why it is a Scientific Theory.
But a scientific theory is back by hard proof and evidence. Scientific theories are never really iron clad closed facts. It is like a detective solving a murder mystery. The more hard evidence you have the stronger the case. Evolution has hard evidence. ID does not.
The theory of evolution and the evidence is open to public review and scrutiny. ID has nothing for public review and scrutiny. The only argument is to discredit evolution. As if by default ID is the winner.
But why do ID folks keep asking evolution scientists to prove their theory. It is the ID folks you claim the theory is flawed and that ID is a sound alternative. You make the claim, you produce the proof.
Just do the science…
Comment by stedes | December 20, 2007
jeffaopa: You allege that "it was Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution that fueled Hitler’s ovens," but actually, Hitler specifically repudiated evolution. A (translated) quote from Hitler's Tabletalk: "'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today? A glance in Nature shows us that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)."
Mein Kampf, Vol. 2, Ch. 10: "For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties."
Mein Kampf Vol. 1 Ch. 11: "The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice."
I'm afraid Hitler's success in perpetrating the Holocaust owes much more to the heritage of Martin Luther's virulent anti-Semitism than to evolution…
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 20, 2007
"We can’t even prove that the solar system is dynamically stable. But this doesn’t mean we should teach both heliocentric and geocentric models in class…"
*** Raymond, you continue to raise false options. Yes, Gravity is a “Theory”, and Evolution is a “Theory”, and Man-Made global warming is a “Theory”. But not every theory is equally supportable — and some theories are in fact wrong. You don’t seriously contend that because we understand some things about the theory of Gravity that this means any scientific hypothesis is automatically valid?
I’ll readily concede that ID is not “Scientific Theory” on par with the Theory of Gravity. However, this does not require me to choose between Darwin and the Hopi Indian Creation Myth. The point you and others continue to dismiss is that just because there are aspects of Darwin that seem reasonable and explainable in some life forms, (a) this doesn’t mean that Darwin is 100% correct about everything, and (b) even if he was, it doesn’t refute a belief that natural evolution is a God-created process. Just because man can’t always see its purposefulness and believes it’s random doesn’t make it random. I don’t understand how a car is made. That doesn’t mean that the car wasn’t built with purpose.
Scientists who reject ID because it isn’t “science” don’t routinely condemn others who say their beliefs are “scientific” when they are not true science. I’m a social scientist, and I can tell you from personal observation that there is just as much mysticism in political science, history, sociology, and psychology as anything you attribute to ID. Yet you’re perfectly fine having competing psychological hypotheses taught in school — none of which have anywhere near the level of “proof” associated with the Theory of Gravity — but you fight any effort to suggest that the Universe didn’t create itself, and that God having created the universe, may have set natural laws in motion with a purpose in mind that He understands and we can only deduce aspects of, even if we cannot fully fathom.
Your objections to ID, while supposedly based on “science”, are in fact political and agenda-driven.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
God created evolution.
"Johnson claims that ID is not scientific because 'it predicts nothing, since it essentially states that everything is the way it is because God wanted it that way.' In fact, ID begins, according to the Discovery Institute, with the hypothesis that 'if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of complex and specified information. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.' They cite the concept of irreducible complexity as one example. This conforms to the scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation, and observation, leading to a conclusion.
stedes nailed it when he argued that ID's putative "scientific hypothesis" is no such thing. Please reread his post.
However, his arguments are not simple enough. Simplicity, after all, is the essence of God's creation. Quite simply, the author doesn't understand the Scientific Method. He characterizes it as "hypothesis, experimentation, and observation" when, in fact, it's "Observe, quantify, hypothesize, and test".
Please note this ruthlessly fundamental reversal. To the author, you first hypothesize, and then observe. To a dogmatist, this is natural since belief precedes everything. Since belief and not external reality is the universal, dogmatists contort reality to fit their universal. No conflicting fact or datum need apply.
Science does the reverse. Scientists observe reality, quantify it, and then and only then formulate a hypothesis to explain how reality actualizes itself. Scientists have no preconceived notions. To the ID dogmatist, however, their preconception is totality.
The above argument is largely metaphysical. Let's do common sense.
Again, simplicity is the essence of God's creation. Since so, let me formulate my anti-ID hypothesis: "if a natural object was designed, science can demonstrate its simplicity."
At the micro level, there are only 6 quarks and only 3 forces. From these, the universe ensues. Don't know about you, but this seems pretty simple to me.
There are millions of separate species. The basic biological mechanism for all these species is DNA. Don't know about you, but this seems pretty simple to me.
Game theory demonstrates that complex structures can be built using a few, simple rules. Anyone with a 1980s-level computer can demonstrate this complexity can arise from simplicity. Don't know about you, but this seems pretty simple to me.
The advancement of science is the banishment of complexity and the discovery of simplicity.
“…rather than citing an example of macro-evolution, or how one species transmogrifies over time into an entirely new species. There is a very simple reason for this sleight-of-hand: there is virtually no compelling evidence to support this, the cornerstone of Darwin’s theory – even after 150 years of looking.
This is dogma. Of course, there are examples of macro evolution. One need look no further than Darwin and the Galapagos, and the finches and tortoises that had evolved to adapt to the geography, flora, and fauna of each individual island. Search the scientific literature for yourself by Googling “science speciation”. There are examples aplenty of macro evolution.
Ultimately, evolution (both inorganic and organic) is an ultimate simplicity. All of reality is intertwined. All actions cause reactions. This interplay drives change. This change is evolution.
Does science have all the answers? No, but each scientific discovery uncovers more of God’s mystery. For example, we can’t create (more properly, procreate) a living organism from inorganic material in the lab — yet. Eventually, we will.
Iders posit that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but science evolves. In 1952, we did not know what biological mechanism underpinned all life, and then Watson and Crick came along in 1953. In 1953, unknown complexity became known simplicity.
God created evolution.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 20, 2007
Dr. Jackson, you write: "They simply ask that their beliefs be allowed the same opportunity for expression. They make a mistake when they ask for ID to be taught in the science classroom. But it is a legitimate issue to be explored elsewhere in the education system. And it would be, if the atheists and others who refuse to acknowledge God weren’t so fearful of allowing the idea to be expressed that God had something to do with the creation of the universe; and having created it, He might have done it for a reason."
Can you point to someone who claims that ID should not be discussed at all, ever? As you say, it's a mistake to "ask for ID to be taught in the science classroom". But I'm not aware of any evolution proponent or ID detractor (and those are not identical sets) that argues that the "idea" should not "be expressed". I just got almost 10,000 hits searching Google for '"intelligent design" "but not in science class"'. It's practically a cliche.
Now, there will be people who will argue that ID is misguided or wrong, of course. However, I haven't seen even one person on this forum argue that Mr. Osonitsch should not have posted his article here or anything like that. There's been (ahem) vigorous discussion about whether or not his points are correct, but that's not at all the same thing as not "allowing the idea to be expressed".
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 20, 2007
"At the micro level, there are only 6 quarks and only 3 forces. From these, the universe ensues. Don’t know about you, but this seems pretty simple to me."
*** If we find out there are 7 quarks and 4 forces, or that 2 of the quarks are actually subsets of a larger master-quark, or that quarks are really something different than what we thought quarks were in 2007, will this mean that science is unreliable? Or will it mean that God created the universe?
It will mean neither. Science continues to study the physical world/universe in which we live, and try to make some sense of it. Sometimes we get it right enough to make predictions (Newtonian physics). But when we dig deeper we find that Newton really didn't explain the process fundamentally; we need another theory to fill in those holes. And one day another theory will replace that.
And so we continue to figure things out in greater detail, (unless of course it's consensus science that guides us, then all we need to do is vote on what we want reality to be). But having figured out how a car works no more determines that General Motors doesn't actually exist than figuring out how the universe works means God didn't create it and give it purpose (including creating man with purpose).
ID is a threat to science because science is threatened by things that man, and man alone, cannot explain. Where ID should compliment the parts of scientific inquiry that man cannot comprehend because man is fallible, science wants to stop any and all reference to God.
Believing that God created evolution does not require one to believe that Allah is God, Jesus is God, etc. Start with the common ground and work from there instead of seeing ID as a fundamentalist conspiracy to return the world to the Dark Ages, when coincidentally "science" told us through observation and testing that insects spontaneously arose from mud.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
"Can you point to someone who claims that ID should not be discussed at all, ever?"
*** The point I raised is whether ID should be taught in schools in a non-science classroom. Unless I'm grossly in error, the scientific community that opposes the belief that God matters in discussing the universe has not supported the teaching of ID in schools in non-science classrooms. They oppose any effort to insert anything to do with God at all into the public education system. If you have some evidence that shows me in error, I'd like to see it. Maybe some official statements from national scientific organizations?
And please don't fall back on the old canard of "separation of Church and State", which is not in the Constitution, but is Jeffersonian phraseology adopted by the 20th century Supreme Court, fundamentally prohibits this. That interpretation (not Amendment) can be overturned just as Brown v. Board of Ed was, so there is nothing expressly Constitutional that would mandate scientists to never consider this option because it goes against a Constitutional clause or amendment.
I have seen nothing in the public record from the scientific community that acknowledges any legitimate teaching of ID in a non-science classroom the way psychology is taught. I have seen only the opposite. And as far as this post goes, please have a look at Mr. Burnett's comments here and his diatribe-laden website, and tell me again that no one wants to silence ID.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
Dr. Jackson, let me quote from my comment 12 above: "I’ll agree that certain kinds of Creation aren’t consistent with this (well-supported) framework. But as you note, there are many types of Creator that are perfectly consistent with this model, from Deist ‘watchmaker gods’ to activist gods that individually chose what mutations would arise when and where." This is - quite explicitly - acknowledging that it's perfectly consistent to believe that "natural evolution is a God-created process". Why do you claim that I "dismiss" this notion? Where, exactly, have I done so? Quotes, please.
Nor have I ever claimed that "Darwin is 100% correct about everything" - in that very same comment I stated - and I quote - "Evolution’s progressed quite a bit since Darwin’s time; as a major example, DNA and molecular biology was unknown in his time." I'm not sure who it is you're arguing with, but it isn't me.
But anyway, okay. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that you're completely right, and "[my] objections to ID, while supposedly based on 'science', are in fact political and agenda-driven." My agenda drives my objections to ID, fine.
Now… does that automatically make my objections invalid? You seem to be descending to relativism here; everyone has an agenda, so there's no way to figure out if anyone's actually correct, etc. It's all a matter of preconceptions, yadda yadda.
Now, that I object to, and strongly. Apparently I have to quote myself again: "The motives of the people involved are interesting, true, but they don’t have any deciding value on which view (if any) is actually correct… What if we actually discuss the facts, and see what actually fits with them?"
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 20, 2007
My whole point in this debate is that, while I do not necessarily believe or disbelieve in evolution (it has not been proven or disproven), the contention made by Darwinists that it did not involve God, but was rather a completely random accident of nature IS NOT SCIENTIFIC. This contention cannot possibly be proven or disproven: this is a question of theology and philosophy and should be left as such. These questions cannot be explained through mere reductionism. The ID movement is wholly a response to this unscientific claim by Darwinists.
LiveFree,
When I described the scientific method I left out the observation before hypothesis because it is self-evident. However, during and after an experiment you observe and note results leading to a conclusion. But thanks for the science lesson.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 20, 2007
Raymond: You really believe that "science" is pursued without regard to "motives"? There are no personal agendas in the consensus-science of Man Made Global Warming? Thomas Kuhn got it wrong when he documented how paradign-protection was the motivating factor through history when competing scientific theories arose? You really believe that the scientific community fully supports ID being taught in the schools as long as it isn't in a science classroom?
Apparently so. So I'll amend my previous comment to say that "Raymond Ingles thinks that ID should be taught in schools, but the overwhelming majority of the scientific community objections to ID, while supposedly based on “science”, are in fact political and agenda-driven."
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
The author reports that Mac Johnson (whoever he is) claims intelligent design is not science because it predicts nothing. In contrast, evolution must be science because it predicts everything – although the predictions are normally made retroactively. But, it’s accepted “science” to make retroactive predictions in the case of evolution. For example, evolutionary biologists didn’t technically predict the discovery of DNA, although their particular version of the story is that they always knew there was an internal “change” mechanism (so did animal breeders for that matter), they just weren’t sure what it was exactly. So, after Crick and Watson became famous, evolutionists claimed they had always predicted the existence of DNA.
Evolution is a “fact” meaning that it is the only possible explanation for historic biological change. That’s a self-serving and highly gymnastic form of conceptualization, but, assuming for a moment that’s true, then why don’t we have one consistent and non-contradictory explanation of how evolution works?
Intellectual Conservative kindly published an interesting essay on a Roe vs. Wade IQ test which generated many reader comments. But, the general public would also benefit, along the same lines, from an evolution IQ test illustrating our “real” understanding of evolution.
The general public’s understanding of how evolution operates varies widely and can be a source of much misunderstanding. For example, there are those among the general public who believe in God, but also believe that Genesis is a metaphor: Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, etc. aren’t literally true but need to be understood as colorful stories illustrating mankind’s relationship with God, and not as a science textbook.
These individuals take great pains to point out they are not biblical literalists or young earth creationists, rather they are scientific-creationists. In their minds, God set physical law mechanisms in place to generate and regulate historic biological change. What mechanisms were those? Well, for example, natural selection as a concept is highly regarded and many religious believers, as well as atheists, are convinced that natural selection is an accepted, functioning and ongoing process.
Natural selection is also a delightfully mysterious process combining the authority of science with the mysticism of religion. For example, it’s tempting to ask scientific-creationists: What specific role did natural selection play in the evolution of man from ape? Which environmental factors were at work in the process; was it climatic factors, population densities and scarcity of food supplies, predator/prey ratios, geographic dispersion, disease and resistance factors, cataclysmic events, and so on and so forth?
The official scientific answer is that all or most of these various natural selection factors played a greater or lesser role in that evolutionary process – a concise but extremely vague answer. Given an evolutionary timeline, which varies considerably depending on which scientist you consult, what were the specific factors of natural selection, occurring in what order, at what historic times and acting on what mutational changes in ape/human morphology?
With this question, scientists can become highly indignant – you don’t actually expect us to layout a year-by-year, change by change, explanation describing the interaction of environmental factors with physiology – do you? Is that an unreasonable request – perhaps it is. Well then, if you can’t answer that question now, when will we know exactly what changes occurred? Another unreasonable request – the date when that answer will be available can’t be predicted and, in fact, we may never know the answer.
So, we have natural selection as an accepted but mysterious process that can’t be precisely defined in the case of homo sapiens, but must have played some undetermined role since we can supposedly see the results of natural selection among our present species members. Therefore, natural selection as a process has a rich intellectual history of scientific speculation, employing circular logic, supported by very few empirical facts and which is widely accepted within both the scientific and religious communities.
The proverbial visiting man from Mars might conclude we have a strange basis for determining what is “fact” and what is superstition based on how the general public views natural selection. But, who really cares what some clown from Mars thinks – natural selection works fine for most of us as long as we don’t get too picky about the details.
Comment by Pat Skurka | December 20, 2007
Dr. Jackson: How about official statements from people vocally opposed to teaching ID in science class?
A large collection of statements from multiple organizations: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9311_statements_from_civil_liberti_12_19_2002.asp - search for "comparative religion", "social studies".
Also, http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1677_statement_to_the_us_commissi_8_21_1998.asp - search for "social studies".
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/172/story_17244.html - "comparative religion"
http://www.physorg.com/news5618.html (and http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/81_1.cfm)
And, http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/intelligentdesign - see section "Teaching Recommendations".
Google for '"intelligent design" "comparative religion"' yourself… over 26,000 hits.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 20, 2007
Philip Ellis Jackson: "ID is a threat to science because science is threatened by things that man, and man alone, cannot explain. Where ID should compliment the parts of scientific inquiry that man cannot comprehend because man is fallible, science wants to stop any and all reference to God."
ID is not a threat to science. ID is religion, and religion doesn't "threaten" science except in the sense that IDers need to almost entirely redefine the Scientific Method to have ID accepted as science.
Science is not "threatened" by the unknown. In fact, science can be defined as the process of transforming the unknown into the known. The unknown is the grist of science, and fuels scientists' passion.
Scientists acknowledge that their discipline excludes the metaphysical, but would be ecstatic if they could test God in the laboratory. Barring that, they're happy to render unto God the things that art God's, but would be even happier if IDers rendered unto Caesar the things that art Caesar's.
Jeff Osonitsch: "… the contention made by Darwinists that it did not involve God, but was rather a completely random accident of nature IS NOT SCIENTIFIC."
Of course, randomness is scientific. Quantum mechanics is a universally-accepted scientific theory that posts that probability and randomness and not cause-and-effect underpin the micro world of atomic particles. Choas theory is also an integral part of modern science. Of course, God indirectly created Quantum Mechnanics and Chaos Theory by creating a universe where inorganic and organic evolution rule, but you knew that.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 20, 2007
Pat Skurka: "Therefore, natural selection as a process has a rich intellectual history of scientific speculation, employing circular logic, supported by very few empirical facts and which is widely accepted within both the scientific and religious communities."
Yes, induction, the logic of science (what, I think, you call "circular logic"), has problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction), but the Scientific Method is inductive. If you reject induction, you reject science.
Few empirical facts? Are tens or hundreds of millions of facts "few" to you?
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 20, 2007
Live Free — you and I are actually in agreement on a lot of issues. I view most of your comments as highly reasonable. But I don't think the scientific community is as God-friendly as some of your observations suggest, and feel the need to demonize (now there's an unintended pun) that which cannot be perceived and tested scientifically.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
I would like to propose a test between the two camps on the evolution issue.
On the side of Creationist I think that they should show God creating life so we can put this issue to rest. But since God is not under the control of the creationist they will fail to prove their side of the argument.
Now the Darwinist have all of the tools they need to prove their case. To prove their case they need to take a lower species like a single cell and show the molecular steps (in Darwinian terms, simple yet beneficial) to produce another species. To date this has not been done even though they control all of the parts of the test. So the Darwinist fail as well.
Now one could say that with time and effort the Darwinist could sequence the steps and show how one species could become another. But the creationist could also make a case for God, if He choses, to come and create life for us to see.
The creationist case is built on the failure of science to prove their point. The Darwinist case is made by the assumed success of the future. The creationist have hard data of failure. The Darwinist have a wish for the future.
It is all pretty silly if you ask me.
Comment by fbaginski | December 20, 2007
Dr. Jackson, you write: "Raymond: You really believe that “science” is pursued without regard to “motives”?"
Um… no. Where did I write that? (I'm starting to wonder if I'm arguing with a parallel-universe version of you…) I am asserting that, despite motives, facts actually do have a bearing on what paradigms actually are accepted. (Whatever motives Velikovsky might have had, his paradigm just didn't match up with the facts and was rejected.) I have asked… repeatedly… for facts that support ID. The only ones I've seen on this thread so far have been the ones that I've brought up, to explain why they don't seem to hold up. Oddly enough, the people allegedly promoting ID here have focused (so far as I can see, exclusively) on attempting to deride or discredit evolution.
Seriously, what facts support ID? What evidence is there to convince me that my (putative) anti-ID bias is unjustified?
Oh, and while we're at it: "You really believe that the scientific community fully supports ID being taught in the schools as long as it isn’t in a science classroom?"
Nope, you're right, I don't believe that's generally supported by the scientific community. The general consensus of the 'scientific community' seems to be that ID is misguided at best, and bunk at worse. But I didn't say that they 'fully support' teaching ID outside the classroom - nor did the statements I linked to (which may not show up for a while until the post is approved) say that. What I (and they) have said is that, if it is to be taught, it should be not be taught in science class. It's not that I (or they) 'support' teaching ID elsewhere, it's that we don't object to teaching it elsewhere. (Doesn't mean we like it, of course, but how many ideas do you not like that you still think should be allowed to be taught? Just a rough guess would be fine. In the dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?)
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 20, 2007
Raymond — the links you provided support the statement I made. "Unless I’m grossly in error, the scientific community that opposes the belief that God matters in discussing the universe has not supported the teaching of ID in schools in non-science classrooms. They oppose any effort to insert anything to do with God at all into the public education system. If you have some evidence that shows me in error, I’d like to see it. Maybe some official statements from national scientific organizations?"
The links talk about how ID is just a disguised form of creationism, and refer to "so-called ID", etc. Where they give ‘support” is it only after saying that ID is just a backdoor way of teaching creationism, and should only be taught in a comparative religion class along with other creation myths. And all these statements come from social studies organizations and their representatives.
The actual scientific community (not social scientists) is not supportive of having ID taught in schools, as I originally stated. A typical statement from the “scientific community” is found in Natural History Magazine, which equated ID with promoting “ignorance” or outright duplicity (“Most biologists have concluded that the proponents of intelligent design display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science.”) http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
This is not an issue in dispute. I don't understand why you are trying to claim otherwise
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
Mr. Osonitsch ; Why is God an issue? Why is it relevant that God be considered in evolution? Science is not atheistic. It is agnostic. Science does not officially claim God does not exist. Based on evidence, they do not see it. The question is really moot.
Based on current scientific methods of inquiry and learning, there is no proof/evidence in the physical world that points to a God or Creator. This does not mean God does not exist. It means science does not see it. Nor has it proved to be relevant. Maybe some future discovery will do that.
As a result, ID gives the appearance that since science does not support a belief in God, Science therefore must be flawed. But science has done very well with its current methods. It has given us much improvement in quality of life and knowledge, all without a God. There is no reason to change.
Also – the evolution theory only explains the origins of different species, not how life or the Universe began (what caused the big bang?). Science does not know. Maybe God did it?
You keep saying evolution is not proven or only a hypothesis. This is an incorrect understanding. Evolution has been proven scientifically. This is problem in the debate. There is ignorance of scientific methods and in the understanding of how the theory of evolution works. Evolution is not random and unguided and it does not claim how life began.
The Scientific community is publishing thousands of papers each year on this topic. In order to do good science (either evolution or ID) or criticize evolution, one must be current on all scientific publications. The criticism of ID is being made by people who are obviously not current on publications. The are citing old arguments recycling the Reducible complex theory. Have you read all the publications that address this? If not, how do you know if it is still a valid ID Theory?
ID has attempted to change the definition of science and refuses to accept what is standard science. If you refer to Behe’s testimony at Dover, he agreed the new scientific definition as proposed by ID would include magic and Astrology.
We also cannot agree on the definition of terms. Terms like; Theory, hypothesis, and Scientific Theory take on different meanings. We are not talking the same language.
The fundamental problem is people are generally ignorant of science and evolution and want their belief in God reinforced. Science gives belief credibility.
Comment by stedes | December 20, 2007
Stedes,
You can repeat until we're both blue in the face that Darwinism is a proven fact, but it is not - it remains an unproven theory.
To your question, "why is God an issue?" I respond He is an issue because from the time of Thomas Huxley to that of Richard Dawkins (and until recently Anthony Flew), prominent Darwinists have made Him an issue by denying either His existence or His role in evolution. Specifically, in the article to which I was responding, Mac Johnson, a biologist, claimed to believe in God, but denied He had any role in evolution. Not only is this a heresy, it is utterly un-provable. It is not science, but philosophical dogma.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 20, 2007
Wiggy said:
"Scientists don’t 'support' evolution because it jives with their life philosophy. They accept it based on mountains and mountains of evidence."
And he (she?) also said:
"Beliefs are irrelevant. Only science matters, and ID is not science."
These comments betray a naivety about the basic issue of epistemology, that is, how we decide what qualifies as truth. Those who have paid any attention to the evolution/creation debate know that the position Darwinists take toward anti-Darwinists is: "Your evidence is either irrelevant or being misinterpreted, because science must interpret things naturalistically." (i.e., by assuming no God exists.)
But how do Darwinists know naturalism is the only correct way to interpret the evidence? Either by a purely arbitrary act, in which case we are not required to agree with the Darwinists, or else by using non-scientific arguments. And if those arguments are non-scientific, then the rule "only naturalism is allowed" is null and void.
In any case, Darwinists do not hold the beliefs they do by neutrally and in an unbiased way examining the evidence, and then going wherever it points. How one interprets the evidence depends on whether or not one is a naturalist. If I have good reasons for rejecting naturalism, then I have good reasons for rejecting Darwinism, because Darwinism is premised on naturalism. If you don't know that it is, then you don't know the evolutionary doctrine you are defending.
Got a question for you, Wiggy: How do you know naturalism is true? Do you decide this issue by only using science, as per your assertion "only science matters?" If so, please describe for me how science can validate the abstract philosophical doctrine of naturalism. And if it can't, then you will have to retract your assertion that "only science matters," and you will have to admit that non-scientific (i.e., non-naturalistic) knowledge is possible.
Comment by Alan Roebuck | December 20, 2007
Dr Jackson, I still disagree with your equivalence argument. Neither I, nor it appears any of the other science advocates here are intimidated or afraid a discussion of where God fits into cosmology - nor, may I advance, would any of this be at nearly the same pitch of controversy had DI written a couple of articles that had gotten published in a comparative religion or philosophy anthology.
But they didn't. They tried to get this non-science written into science textbooks. Had they not done that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The Discovery Institute would be nothing anyone had ever heard of and they could do their 'science' in peace.
Think about it this way, suppose you're teaching a writing seminar and you give creative writing assignment. One student turns in 10 pages of literal gibberish. Not even random words, but random letters in grouped together for 10 solid, single spaced pages. You confront this student and he tells you that he's invented a new paradigm of writing. His new style is to copy and paste a random page of text off the web, and then he runs a character-randomization script on the text, prints the mess out and, viola, he's done. You explain that that sounds all well and good - for an art class - but that unfortunately in your writing class, you're going to have to fail him.
So he sues you and your school, demanding that you allow him to turn in all his papers this way, and that you "teach the gibberish." Would you respect his point of view and agree that teachers throughout the land should accept students who only 'write' this way?
Comment by Chasm | December 20, 2007
Philip Ellis Jackson: Yes, testing God's existence in a scientific laboratory is a preposterous idea. Since so, ID is not science. That was my point. ID postulates the existence of a Creator. Since they specifically intend to subsume the existence of a Creator in their "scientific theory", they must encompass God within the confines of a scientific laboratory. Ergo, don't blame me for this blasphemy. Blame IDers, instead.
Note their "scientific hypothesis": If a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of complex and specified information. I countered with an anti-hypothesis: if a natural object was designed, it will be simple. Physicists who strive for a Theory of Everything have a goal of silk-screening equations that will define the way the universe works on the front of a T-shirt. They won't even need the back side.
The complexity of the universe is a chimera. Sure, we don't yet totally understand its underlying simplicity, but it's safe to assume that science will continue to simplify the universe as it has done since the Greeks realized that we can know the universe.
The great thing about evolution is that it is an integral scientific theory whether or not you believe that God created the universe. This implies that the scope of science is limited to the phenomenological rather than the metaphysical or transubstantial. Again, if you interject the existence of God into science, then you posit God as mere phenomenon. Sorry, but my God is more than mere data.
The question that IDers dare not answer is this: Could God have created a universe that operates as the evolutionists describe it as operating? Of course, the answer is "Yes".
The most important metaphysical questions seem intractable. For example, (1) the mind-body duality, & (2) the question of free will. Science resolves these 2 conundrums very easily: (1) There is no mind-body duality. Mind arises from a complex brain; & (2) Since quantum mechanics describe the atomic realm as operating on randomness and by chance, even God can't foretell the future of the universe. Ergo, we have free will.
To IDers, religion and science are at odds. To infuse God into science, they either need to deny the Scientific Method or treat God as mere phenomenon. Both options suck.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 20, 2007
Jeff - geezz don't you comprehend what you read? For the last time and for those in the back, the reason I highlighted the absurdest statement "Darwinism is a theory, not a fact" is three-fold:
1) "Darwinism" is a misnomer. There is no such thing. It's the Theory of Evolution, and it was first proposed by Darwin in his book, "The Origin of the Species." Using the term is a sure sign that the rest of your argument will be based on talking points and misinformation that was de-bunked 100 years ago.
2) A "Fact" is a data point. Nothing more. The 'fact' that you just wrote the sentence "You can repeat… that Darwinism is a proven fact, but it is not - it remains an unproven theory" reinforces my theory that you are a paid shill that has no real interest in actually learning anything.
3) A "Scientific Theory" is the most complete expression of an idea in science. As EVERYONE above has pointed out already, but you still don't seem to understand, facts are the bricks, and a theory is the house. Facts are boring, theory's are exciting.
As the above posted mentioned, until you people stop making up definitions to well-established words, we can't really have a conversation.
Comment by Chasm | December 20, 2007
Jeff Osonitsch: You misunderstand the Scientific Method. All scientific theories are provisional. No scientific theory is ever proven. Scientists will glady admit it, too.
However, evolution itself is a fact. You need to read Stephen Jay Gould's brilliant and iconic "Evolution as Fact and Theory" essay: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html. To repeat, evolution itself is a fact. To deny this fact is to deny science. Of course, you're welcome to deny this fact and science itself but, if you do, stop preaching your non-science to scientists.
Darwin proposed a theory of evolution. Note the "a". There are other theories of evolution, like Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium theory. Which one is the 'correct' theory? Well, they both are. Evolution proceeds glacially except during times of sudden and dramatic change like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs. Then, evolution proceeds rapidly.
If you're searching for an absolute, forget science. Science doesn't deal in absolutes, something that scientists will readily admit. If morality is based solely in the material universe, then morality is as provisional as everything else in the universe is. An absolute morality requires a Creator. But, again, morality lies outside the sphere of science. When IDers try to infuse God into science, then they must posit that this universe is not temporal and finite, and that the transubstantial realm does not exist. They're the ones who deny God, not we scientists.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 20, 2007
Mr. Osonitsch - This is the fundamental issue in this debate, we cannot agree on terms and definitions. This is a main reason for a gap in discussion on this topic. Why the two sides are so far apart.
Read my words carefully. I said it was a proven “scientific theory”. I never said it was a proven fact. If you truly understand the definition of a scientific theory, as defined by the National Academy of Sciences, you cannot deny this. It seems you are using the words theory and fact as interchangeable terms. They are two very different concepts.
On what basis can you claim evolution is not a “Scientific Theory” – as defined by the National Academy of Science? If you cannot accept the basic definition of scientific terms, as defined by the National Academy of Science, then we do not have a common ground for discussion. We are not speaking the same language.
The problem for ID’er’s is, if they accept the National Academy’s definitions, then Evolution is a scientific theory and ID is not. So ID scientists want to devalue evolution and change the definition of science to accommodate their “hypothesis”.
The view of Prominent “Darwinists” is irrelevant. It does not belong in a scientific discussion. Many are not even scientists. You are correct individual discussions and views on God will inevitably be a discussion on dogma, theology or philosophical grounds. Regardless of one’s personal belief, the scientific method is all that matters.
To use words like heresy and God in a discussion of ID is to invoke religion. It seems that the line between science and dogma becomes blurred when you enter into a discussion of ID.
Comment by stedes | December 20, 2007
So … we don't need to accept as a fact that an apple falling from a tree on Earth will always hit the ground? It's just a data point based on the expression of an exciting idea that remains theoretical? It also means that we don't have to accept human evolution as anything more than an exciting theory with some data points sprinkled along the way. Is the knowledge that all human beings die a data point or just a theoretically exciting expression? How does any of this clarification of fact vs. theory advance the conversation here?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
"Specifically, in the article to which I was responding, Mac Johnson, a biologist, claimed to believe in God, but denied He had any role in evolution. Not only is this a heresy, it is utterly un-provable. It is not science, but philosophical dogma."
I guess my question is, was what Mac Johnson said his opinion, or his scientific theory? Cus you're right, I don't think the question of God's role in evolution is actually testable. So, no, it's not science. But then, that pretty much invalidates DI's entire raison d'etre, doesn't it? Isn't their goal to find a way to 'test' God's role in the development of life on Earth?
As for hearsay, unless you're advocating a young earth a la Genesis, even discussing the origins of life out of that context is 'hearsay,' no?
Comment by Chasm | December 20, 2007
stede: Sorry for correcting you, but no scientific theory is ever proven. However, evolution is the only theory that explains the facts, and does so quite nicely.
The National Association of Science Teachers has a great Web page describing evolution: http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx. Some excerpts:
"There is no longer a debate among scientists about whether evolution has taken place. There is considerable debate about how evolution has taken place: What are the processes and mechanisms producing change, and what has happened specifically during the history of the universe? Scientists often disagree about their explanations. In any science, disagreements are subject to rules of evaluation. Scientific conclusions are tested by experiment and observation, and evolution, as with any aspect of theoretical science, is continually open to and subject to experimental and observational testing… The National Science Education Standards note that, ‘[e]xplanations of how the natural world changes based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific’ . Because science limits itself to natural explanations and not religious or ultimate ones, science teachers should neither advocate any religious interpretation of nature nor assert that religious interpretations of nature are not possible."
ID is not an alternative scientific theory to evolution because ID is not a scientific theory. Pretty simple.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 20, 2007
Dr J, as you might have become aware while typing, the crucial fallacy of your first inquiry are the words "from a tree, here on Earth." Were you or I in space, or on the moon, someplace we are not experienced with dropping things and watching them fall, there would be no 'fact' of anything hitting anything - until we release the apple and see what happens. Then it's trajectory and impact become facts. The apple hitting the ground after falling from the tree was simply a data point that led Newton down his path to immortality. The theories he devised stood for several hundred years… but as every scientist knows, they remained neither complete, nor unchanged.
And, no, you don't have to accept evolution as anything, unless you're actually interested in how so many different plants, animals and other life came to enjoy time on this rock. Then the scientists are the one's to listen to. And that's not political 'dogma,' it's a fact.
Comment by Chasm | December 20, 2007
Here are further attempts to clarify the language of this debate.
1. Chasm: There is “no such thing” as “Darwinism”.
*** Wikipedia therefore needs to be corrected immediately: “Darwinism is a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection. Discussions of Darwinism usually focus on evolution by natural selection, but sometimes Darwinism is taken to mean evolution more broadly, or other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin.”
2. Chasm “A ‘Fact’ is a data point. Nothing more.”
*** Therefore, it’s just a theory that you’ll die one day, not a scientific fact … I mean data point.
3. Live Free: “All scientific theories are provisional. No scientific theory is ever proven. Scientists will glady admit it, too. However, evolution itself is a fact.”
*** Just to be clear, we know as a data point that things changed. We theorize that this was the result of random selection. But scientists gladly admit that’s just a theory, not a fact. If this in fact (no pun intended) was the case, there would be room for competing theories. But only one theory is permitted (random mutations that are not in any way associated with a God-given purpose and direction). This is because God is not scientifically testable, the way we can directly access, feel, and touch (not infer) subatomic particles, black holes, and other aspects of the natural world. But science infers a lot of things it can't directly prove, like "dark matter". Why is the existence of dark matter — which has never been observed — more believable than the existence of God?
4. Live Free: “If you’re searching for an absolute, forget science. Science doesn’t deal in absolutes, something that scientists will readily admit.”
*** Would that this be true. Evolution by random mutation independent of any other factors, in a universe that created itself, are some of the absolute scientific facts that we’ve been treated to for several months. Just to be clear, I personally believe that you (Live Free) believe what you said and act this way when investigating a phenomenon. However, I don’t believe that this accurately describes present-day consensus science.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
Chasm: "They tried to get this non-science written into science textbooks."
** I've opposed this mixing of science and non-science vigorously. Have you also opposed injecting consensus science (like man made global warming) into the making of public policy?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
You three claim to champion science, yet speak in relativistic mumbo-jumbo.
Either A: All life on earth, including human beings evolved over time from a single common ancestor without a Guiding Hand; or B: they did not. You can call it a theory, or you can call it fact, or you can invent an entirely new word to label it. But either A: it has been proven; or B: it has not.
Chasm,
It is not heresy to discuss, research, study, or attempt to explain how God created the universe and everything in it. In fact, this is the very reason Christianity begat science in the first place. It is a heresy to deny God had any involvement whatsoever.
A literal interpretation of Genesis is not the only one. St Augustine himself cautioned against it.
I remain open-minded to the possibility that evolution was the manner in which God chose to create man. I would not be so bold as to mock evolution (or even YEC) based on my appreciation for the implications of Pascal's wager as I described in my article. I simply reject the Darwinists unreasonable (and unneccessary) rejection of God.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 20, 2007
For the record, I have no problem with religions trying to re-assert their relevancy as a moral underpinning in modern society - provided they show some sense in doing so.
What would have been far more helpful than all these private, politically driven PR machines peddling bunk science, would have been if Christianity had decided to take stock of itself wholesale - perhaps doing something like convening a "Modern Council of Nicea" where leading theologians, Biblical scholars and Church leaders speant a decade or so re-editing the Bible and re-thinking the role of God in light of all we, men, have learned over the last 1700 years. I'm pretty sure that if all of Christianity were to unite behind a coherent cosmology that incorporated science and all it has learned, people would listen, not dismiss it. Perhaps if religion showed a little respect for the achievements of science, and it's true value in understanding the materialistic realm in which we at least partially inhabit together, they would get a little respect in return. Instead of demanding a seat at the science table, why not make your meal better, using the ingredients science has to offer?
It's not a war. Science does not, has never and never will try to explain or dismiss God. It's not their turf. It may turn out that God isn't where you expected Him to be, all these years, or expressing Himself in exactly the way you though He was, but as you are so fond of pointing out, that doesn't prove anything.
Comment by Chasm | December 20, 2007
Live Free
You have a refreshingly honest and I believe quite good grasp of this issue. You and I are disagreeing around the edges I think, not so much on fundamental issues.
While some IDer’s want to mix science and religion, I believe that most do not. On the other hand, I can make an equally strong case that those who oppose ID tend to conflate it with creationism (follow Raymond Ingles links and Paul Burnett’s website). This is an unfair to honestly evaluating ID as it was to say that Darwin claimed we’re all descended from monkeys.
I know Roy Varghese (“The Wonder of the World”). [Full disclosure — we wrote a book of fiction together that has nothing to do with science]. He is quite religious in his personal life, but makes none of the fantastic claims hysterically attributed to ID. His point is simple. What humans want to see as randomness contains elements of purposefulness which can be logically and scientifically perceived.
It can never be proven that God created the universe and gave it purpose, but ID is a legitimate counter-balance to the equally unprovable claim that all change is random because humans can’t understand or perceive the pattern and its source.
Morality and religion are different topics all together, and using the Bible to “prove” that God exists is as foolish to me as using Darwin to “prove” that there is no God and/or God acts without purpose. Religion has its place, but not in science. And science can tell us a lot, but it can’t answer all