View Comments |
Print This Post
| 
by Jeff Osonitsch | December 19th, 2007
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?”
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 of the questions about life. And acknowledging God is not the same thing as supporting everything one religion says about God.
The universe is infinitely more complicated than any of us understand. To draw lines so stringently that God cannot be part of any explanation for what happens and why seems rather short sighted, just as it is to maintain as some do that science is the only legitimate tool for explaining the mysteries of life.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
*** Wikipedia therefore needs to be corrected immediately:
Then go correct it. Or perhaps ask an Evolutionary Biologist to help you. Please explain who these "Darwinists" are. Can I meet one at the Darwin Department at my State University?
** 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?
Not gonna go there. No thread-jacking.
*** Therefore, it’s just a theory that you’ll die one day, not a scientific fact … I mean data point.
My death is not a fact. I live with Schrodinger's Cat and I am not dead until you open the box.
Comment by Chasm | December 20, 2007
Dr. Jackson: As I noted (but the comment was hung up): "Not supporting" the teaching of ID is not the same thing as opposing the teaching of ID in schools. The groups I pointed out, and the group you pointed out, oppose teaching ID in science classes, and are not at all shy about saying so. That's true. But I pointed out at least half a dozen of them that specifically and directly stated that they don't oppose discussing it in other, non-science classes. That's directly the opposite of "They oppose any effort to insert anything to do with God at all into the public education system."
Indeed, there are plenty of people who oppose ID in classes, but who want more discussion of God in school. They want a 'comparative religion' class that covers the beliefs of as many religions as possible. See, e.g., here: http://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/an-atheist-argument-for-teaching-religion-in-school/
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 20, 2007
"Then go correct it."
*** I didn't make the original claim. You did.
"My death is not a fact. I live with Schrodinger’s Cat and I am not dead until you open the box."
*** Oh no! The world cannot survive more than one Chasm! :)
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
Chasm,
I appreciate your comments above (66) however such a council is entirely unnecessary. The Catholic Church does not take a position on the manner in which creation took place. The Church requires only that believers acknowledge God as the Eternal Being Who created the universe from nothing and created man in His image. It is entirely appropriate for Catholics to study and even advocate evolution and/or the Big Bang theory as long as they don't veer off into atheism.
In fact Galileo was given leave to advocate heliocentrism by the Pope; The Church's only requirement was that he not declare it a 'fact' until he had proven it scientifically. His defiance of this edict was what landed him in house arrest, not his positing the theory in the first place.
None of these theories are necessarily in conflict with faith or scripture if the concept of God is not rejected.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 20, 2007
Dr. Jackson, you don't like the idea of "Evolution by random mutation independent of any other factors". Fine. What evidence do you have that other factors did come to bear on the mutations? I'm not familiar with anything that has indicated that mutations happen anything but randomly. A few years ago, there was some evidence at one point that stressed populations of bacteria produced 'helpful' mutations at a rate greater than expected by chance (Google 'directed mutation') but that hasn't been able to be replicated and doesn't appear to have panned out.
Philosophically, there's no way to disprove that a God specifically chose each and every mutation that's ever happened in the history of the Earth. But what evidence does anyone have that this is true? The dearth of actual facts on this thread is starting to concern me.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 20, 2007
Dr. Jackson: you ask, "we don’t need to accept as a fact that an apple falling from a tree on Earth will always hit the ground?" That's a prediction made by the current theory of gravity, and it's been extremely well tested. You'd need some very good evidence to indicate an apple that hovered, or fell upward. But if such were observed, we'd need to modify our formulation of the 'law of gravity'. Scientific theories are descriptions of how things behave, and they make predictions about how things will behave. Predictions that can be tested; predictions that suggest experiments to perform.
And scientists do in fact test our theory of gravity, constantly. For example, General Relativity predicts the existence of gravity waves. They are very weak, but an event like two colliding neutron stars should generate a detectable signal. Scientists have built detectors to look for them, but no clear evidence of them has turned up yet. This doesn't mean GR is wrong, gravity waves are expected to be rare. But statistically we'd expect to see some at some point in the next century. Other points – the two Pioneer space probes seem to be decelerating faster than theory predicts, on their way out of the solar system. The divergence is small but measurable. There have been attempts to confirm this with the Voyager and Galileo probes but complicating factors make for inconclusive results. Similarly, there may be some systemic anomalies with the GPS system (which depends critically on Relativity to function) that are being examined.
So, not everything is currently explained with our theory of gravity. But, in the areas we can currently test, the divergences are pretty far to the right of the decimal point. It'd be pretty perverse not to accept and bet on the predictions made by our current theory of gravity in general. Yeah, I'd bet my life on an apple falling to the ground instead of hovering.
Similarly, the evidence for randomness in mutations is pretty strong. Take a look at this link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html), and search for the phrase "unequal in most cases". There's a graph that shows the distribution of genetic divergence between various human and mouse genes. As we'd expect if the mutations were random, the graph fits a Gaussian curve very well. Any "intelligent" skewing that's happening would have to be, again, at a few points to the right of the decimal. It wouldn't take a strong effect to show up in this kind of statistical test, and yet we don't see such an effect.
Sure, in principle, there might be a pattern we don't have the right statistical tools to perceive. Fine, that can't be disproven. But what should we say in science class? Should teachers make a disclaimer like "We can't rule out an undetectable bias in mutations that no one's been able to find yet"?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 20, 2007
Jeff, I agree with you about the Catholic Church – they indeed seemed to have learned something from that episode with Galileo. But they are one Church that openly acknowledges the theory of evolution, and indeed spends money on science research and theological integration, where are the others? Why do we have a Baptist presidential candidate affirming that "every word of Genesis is true and unerrent" etc? Why do we have a privately funded 'research' institute spending all of it's time and energy trying to tear down evolutionary science if Christianity is behind the Catholic science line? You can't have it both ways… you cant assert the Church's role in establishing science, rely on the the Catholic's admission that science is on the correct path in explaining material reality, and then go to work writing PR for a group of people that wants none of that. The Discovery Institutes's founding premise was to tear down "Darwinism" specifically to counteract what those people saw as a corrupting social influence. In other words, it's completely political – not science, not even serious theology.
Instead of attacking evolution piecemeal, trying to 'wedge' your way into a debate on convoluted terms, why didn't worldwide Christianity – indeed all religions – hold a joint press conference and announce that they supported science, the scientific method and appreciated all the ways in which science had enriched our lives and brought us knowledge, and all attacks against science and the findings of science would cease.
If Huckabee, or any of the candidates, had said, "Of course I, nor any other thinking Christian believes that God created the world and man in seven literal days. Gen 1 is a metaphor for the power and glory of God. I do believe that God was responsible for all of Creation, but we know much more about how He did it now than when the Bible was edited, 1700 years ago," then very few people would have had a problem with it. I wouldn't.
If Christianity supported science, tried to understand it, and then got back to it's real business of providing moral guidance, I don't see how any scientist, liberal or Democrat could have a problem.
Comment by Chasm | December 20, 2007
Raymond,
One of the things for which ID is searching is evidence of other factors on mutations beyond randomness. On one hand you demand evidence of "other factors," then attack, mock, and denigrate the search for them. What sense does that make?
Darwinism posits that natural selection/random mutation accounts for the multiplicity of life on earth, then searches for proof of this hypothesis. This is called science.
ID posits that design accounts for the multiplicity of life on earth, then searches for proof of this hypothesis. This is not science?
Darwinists have an unreasonable, unnecessary, and unhealthy aversion to God that concerns me.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 20, 2007
Raymond. See Jeff's comments.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
"The dearth of actual facts on this thread is starting to concern me."
*** There are no facts. Just data points related to theories.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
“My death is not a fact. I live with Schrodinger’s Cat and I am not dead until you open the box.”
For those of you who do not know, "Schrodinger's Cat" is a thought experiment designed to demonstrate the paradoxical nature of Quantum Theory as expressed through the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The "Cat" represents the idea of a quantum probability function – in this case the probability that at any particular moment that the cat in the box is either a) dead or b) alive. The uncertainty part comes in that you can't know which of the probabilities are the outcome of the function until you open the box, at which point the function "collapses" to it's either/or state.
So, Like the apple falling, you 'know' I will die, but also like the apple – unless you have ALL the facts (which you can't) – you neither know exactly where it will finally land nor when or how I will die, or what I will do before I get to that point.
Thus, Life can be seen as a quantum function, a series of probabilities whose outcome and purpose only become clear as we leave our marks, like the traces made by particles split in an accelerator and recorded on glass. Death is simply the final collapse of that function – the act of opening the box to check the cat – defining for all eternity the exact points of data that define us and our purpose here.
And God? Perhaps He is the "quantum field" upon which our functions play. The source and definition of consciousness, the thing against which our life, our function, stands relative too.
(It's at least as coherent as anything to come out of DI, can I get a check from Ahmanson now?)
Comment by Chasm | December 20, 2007
fbaginski:
Ann Coulter’s recent column is a humorous dig at Mike Huckabee’s statement on evolution (he doesn’t believe in it) – her point is the media love to query evangelicals on evolution as long as they come off like the dumb hicks the media assume they really are. But even I could get interested in our interminable presidential campaigns if one of the candidates declared: “If I’m elected president, I’ll support federal funding to conclusively detect ongoing human evolution.” Interesting to see the media’s reaction to that statement.
With all due respect to Niles Eldridge, nobody gives a pig’s patoot about trilobites, their evolution and the Gondwana fossil beds – when it comes to evolution, we want to hear about the species nearest and dearest to our hearts – namely ourselves.
The government helped fund a massive and expensive effort to map the human genome – American presidents lauded that effort and praised the scientists involved. So, why not a Human Evolution Project – why aren’t scientists publicly and loudly pressing politicians to support such an effort? Some might answer that question by pointing out we are really having a “philosophical and political worldview” debate with evolution and not a scientific discussion. But, scientists love public praise and are hot to make startling discoveries – so, why the reticence to move forward with detectable and provable ongoing human evolution? Certainly there’s good money in claiming every chimpanzee fossil is the missing link, but nothing like the fame and fortune in finding a living, breathing human mutant representing the next evolutionary step.
If we think about it, there are 6.5 billion species members and our species is the most intensively monitored species on the planet. Charles, the original Darwinist, himself indicated that natural selection is scrutinizing every change in every minute of every hour constantly evaluating biological fitness – or something to that effect. In less poetic rhetoric, Thomas Morgan of Columbia estimated the mutation rate in fruit flies and applying his computations to human beings results in 65,000 living human mutants running around the planet.
Even the leading scientists commenting on this thread would have to admit that not every one of these potential X-men have neutral or detrimental to survival type mutations – surely there are 15 to 20,000 human mutants running around that Larry King hasn’t had, but should have, on his show – sort of “I’m the next missing link” kind of theme.
For scientists, the probable outcome of such an effort is 90% weighted toward being unable to detect ongoing human evolution. Saying “the data is inconclusive” when it comes to present human evolution is almost as bad politically as saying “darn, we couldn’t detect any ongoing evolution”.
For optimists, the 10% chance that ongoing evolution is actually detected is one of those “be careful what you wish for” propositions. Claiming that Chiu Ling of Tianjin, China or Sally Rutherford of Kalamazoo, Michigan is evidence of ongoing human evolution would create a media firestorm of epic proportions. The data supporting such a contention would be the most intensively scrutinized data in the history of science. The public would witness a glorious cat fight amongst scientists throwing charges of “fraud” or “the data is irrefutable” back and forth for weeks, then months, within the worldwide media.
Nor would the standard “we’re in a period of evolutionary stasis” argument work to mollify critics. Wags and wits would gleefully point out that human evolution is only going on 500,000 years ago or 500,000 years in the future, but not now – how very convenient.
So, nobody will accept your challenge to prove evolution by evolving something in the lab, or finding actual evidence among existing humans – why rock the boat. If the federal funds keep flowing to modest evolutionary research – and if the scientific community can keep these funds from being diverted to intelligent design research by some over-eager baby-kissing politician – science will be content with a bird in the hand versus two mutant partridges in a pear tree.
Comment by Pat Skurka | December 20, 2007
I'm sure lots of minds were changed with this nonsensical banter.
I'll sum up the truth of the matter in one sentence. Everybody ready? Okay. Here we go.
Any person who is convinced that God created the universe, life, etc. or that God did not create the universe, life etc. is professing to know something that can't be known.
There… see…it isn't that complicated to understand. I could have saved many of you countless hours of wasted life had I been home to respond to this earlier in the day. Of course, then you'd need something else to do with all your excess time. Hmmm…maybe that's the real issue…
GreginNY
Comment by GreginNY | December 20, 2007
"Darwinists have an unreasonable, unnecessary, and unhealthy aversion to God that concerns me."
If you are specifically referring to the anti-religion pundits like Hitchens, et al, their's is more of a social critique and political pushback against what they see as religion in general having too much of a negative influence in all affairs, not just the scientific aspect we are disscussing here.
If you mean scientists not willing to give ID'ers a seat at the table, well, the IDers should have gotten a decent and substantial body of research, with at the bare minimum a coherent foundation for demonstrating repeatable results which would validate their reasoning BEFORE they demanded outright that their confusing and contradictory rhetoric be taught as science. To kids.
Comment by Chasm | December 20, 2007
"Any person who is convinced that God created the universe, life, etc. or that God did not create the universe, life etc. is professing to know something that can’t be known."
*** Hmmm. Please explain to me how scientists, following the scientific method, can believe that Dark Matter — which cannot be seen, and has never been directly observed or proven to exist — can be said to influence the workings of the universe, but God — who cannot be seen, and has never been directly observed — cannot be said exist or influence the workings of the universe.
What makes a belief in Dark Matter inherently more “real” than a belief in God?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
Jeff Osonitsch stated: "One of the things for which ID is searching is evidence of other factors on mutations beyond randomness."
How have they been "searching"? (Other than by quote-mining actual scientists' work, looking for loopholes?)
Have they found anything yet? And if they have, have they published their results in any peer-reviewed actual science journal?
Comment by PaulBurnett | December 20, 2007
Mr. Osonitsch, in what way have I attacked, mocked, or degraded the ID movement or its goals? Indeed, I honestly believe I've been more polite than many of those who've been commenting on evolution…
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 20, 2007
Another question for Paul Burnett, regarding post # 79:
The fundamental nature of Intelligent Design is to try to develop accurate criteria for determining when a process (such as the transition from non-life to life, or the development of wings in organisms which at one time did not possess them) is impossible to account for by purely naturalistic forces, i.e., processes not guided by an intelligent agent. There are clear-cut cases, such as Mount Rushmore, but this is an uncontroversial case because nobody doubts the existence of agents capable of creating the sculptures on Mt. Rushmore.
So here's the question: Within your naturalistic worldview, how do you know when a process is impossible to account for by natural forces? And how do you know ahead of time that whatever Intelligent Design comes up with has to be nonsense, which seems to be your position and is certainly the position of Darwinism?
If your answer is "because I know naturalism is true," then you have to justify this belief. You cannot just take it as a self-evident truth. Until you prove atheism, ID is viable
And you are engaging in circular reasoning when you dismiss ID by calling it "non-science" and by saying that it has no results published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The reason science journals won't touch ID is because they regard it as non-scientific by definition, so ID's lack of publication in certain journals proves nothing. By making this argument, you are saying "ID is unscientific because it is unscientific."
By the way, "Darwinism" is the correct term. "Evolution" simply means "change over time," which nobody disputes. This is a dispute about the latest update of Darwin's theory, not a dispute about "change over time."
Comment by Alan Roebuck | December 20, 2007
Jeff — at the risk of butting into something that isn't directly my business (but when has that ever stopped me before), I can say that despite some at times heated disagreements with Raymond Ingles, I've never found him to be deliberately insulting. Challenging yes, and attacking perhaps in the same way I attack to defend my points, I would accept him at his word that any perceived mocking or degradation of IC was not intentional if it occurred. And as long as I'm at it, I'd also put Chasm in this same category, even though his barbs are more pointed at times. I think he's genuine in his comments, though I do snipe at the way he presents his case at times. Both of these guys are sincere … though misguided in their beliefs. :)
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
I have no idea if I owe anybody a response to a question. Half the time my comments get hung up in the filter. Others go through without delay. The same thing happens to other people. It makes it extremely difficult to keep a sustained conversation going.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 20, 2007
Alan asked "…how do you know when a process is impossible to account for by natural forces?"
I don't. Any actual scientist will tell you that. But that will not stop a scientist from trying to figure it out. (Some researchers spend their whole careers trying to figure out how something works.) An actual scientist will say "At my level of ignorance, with my level of technology / instrumentation, I cannot figure out how this works. So I will have to learn more and experiment more and refine my technology / instrumentation more, so I can figure it out."
An intelligent design creationist, on the other hand, will look at something that appears impossible to account for by natural forces and say "At my level of ignorance, with my level of technology / instrumentation, I cannot figure out how this works. Therefore Goddidit." and give up and rejoice in his ignorance, having proved the existence of God.
A few decades or centuries or millenia ago, this was easy: A hypothetical scintist would say "People get sick and I don't have a microscope, so germs don't exist – therefore God makes people sick. Amen!" or "I can't imagine how clouds rubbing together can make lightning, so the gods must be angry."
Alan continued "And how do you know ahead of time that whatever Intelligent Design comes up with has to be nonsense?"
Phillip Johnson said "I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time…" There's no there there, as the poet said. Intelligent design creationism is nonsense, and can only produce nonsense. Or as the computer folks say, "Garbage in, garbage out."
Comment by PaulBurnett | December 20, 2007
Pat said "we want to hear about the species nearest and dearest to our hearts – namely ourselves."
You must not be paying much attention to the news, Pat:
"A SECOND publication this week by Australian National University scientists on the evolution of the eye has rebuffed intelligent design proponents who argue that such a complex organ could not have been arrived at gradually." – http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22918796-12332,00.html
"Load-bearing adaptation of women's spines" –
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/loadbearing_adaptation_of_wome.php
Intelligent Design, Science Literacy and the Case of Antibotics – http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/intelligent-des-41.html
Go to Google News and and enter "human evolution" – just in the recent news there's 2,681 hits. Read some of them – you might even learn something interesting.
Comment by PaulBurnett | December 20, 2007
Phillip Ellis Jackson: "But scientists gladly admit that’s just a theory, not a fact."
Read Gould's essay re evolution being both a fact and theory.
"But only one theory is permitted (random mutations that are not in any way associated with a God-given purpose and direction)."
God is trans-temporal and trans-finite, while Science (and the universe) is ruthlessly temporal and finite. We cannot describe or circumscribe the infinite and eternal using constructs of a finite and termporal universe.
"Why is the existence of dark matter — which has never been observed — more believable than the existence of God?"
Dark matter is of this universe. God is transubstantial.
"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".
You're using the term "random mutation" as if it fully describes the various theories of evolution. It does not. Better terms would be "chaos" and "randomness" since the evolution of inorganic and organic matter is both chaotic and random. Plus, Darwin called his theory of evolution "Natural Selection", and Gould called his theory "Punctuated Equilibrium".
There are only 2 logical choices: Either the universe has existed forever, or God created it. I opt for the latter but it makes no difference which is true. In either case, evolution is the only integral scientific theory which explains how stars, planets, earthworms, and Homo Sapiens arose.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 20, 2007
Philip Alan Jackson: Sorry, but we are not arguing around the edges. Our disagreements are profound and fundamental.
"His (Roy Varghese's) point is simple. What humans want to see as randomness contains elements of purposefulness which can be logically and scientifically perceived."
In the macro realm, the universe is ordered. Just this month, scientists verified Einstein's theory of General Relativity to 6 decimal places by measuring the actual distance between the earth and the moon versus Einstein's predicted distance. In the micro realm of Quantum Mechanics, however, the universe is chaotic and random, based upon probability and not cause and effect. Formulating a theory that merges the macro and the micro (ie, the ordered and the chaotic) is the current primary quest of both applied and theoretical physicists.
Einstein's General Relativity equations work, as do the equations of Quantum Mechanics, but only a small percentage of scientists really understand the world of General Relatively, while no physicists understand the world of Quantum Mechanics. A Theory of Everything that combines both will probably be even more opaque to human understanding.
In the materialistic and naturalistic framework of science, physicists do not seek final answers. They're happy enough that their equations work even though the world described by their equations defies any and all attempts at human understanding.
Don't you see? Looking for purposefulness in the universe is even harder than trying to understand a universe that defies understanding — or, at least, according to the twin pillars of Physics: General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
“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.”
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. ID is not a competing scientific theory to evolution since ID is not a scientific theory.
The rational human brain is incapable of understanding eternity and infinity. It understands only the realm of science, the temporal and the finite. Don’t you see?
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 20, 2007
One last point, Philipe.
“The universe is infinitely more complicated than any of us understand. To draw lines so stringently that God cannot be part of any explanation for what happens and why seems rather short sighted, just as it is to maintain as some do that science is the only legitimate tool for explaining the mysteries of life.”
Here’s my take. Remember the first computer autonoma, the Game of Life? It was fascinating to watch the creatures evolve. Well, I think God created infinite Games of Life, & infinite associated universes. In ours, He imbued just the right mix of scientific laws which, through their actualization, mandated that not even He could predict this Universe’s future. Why would He want to do that? Well, think about it. If you knew everything, wouldn’t it be pretty boring? So, He created this universe with Quantum Mechanical randomness, unpredictability, chance, and chaos. He was pleasantly surprised. This universe spawned us, and we discovered Him. How happy He must have been. Talk about the parable of the Lost Sheep. Well, it should be more appropriately be called the parable of the Lost Universe. Finally, He had entities independent of Himself who could interact with Him. And, He’s pulling for us to increase our understanding of his universe so that we can known Him more intimately.
The vehicle for our increased understanding of God? Science. We’re asking the same metaphysical-nee-religious questions that we’ve been asking since the get-go, and getting no closer to The Answer. But, with every new discovery, science gets ever closer to The Final Answer, and to God.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 20, 2007
Raymond,
You have alwys been very cordial in your arguments. I apologize for lumping you together with others with whom I have discussed this issue.
How is the belief in God unscientific? Darwinists claim ID is not science yet as I explained above it has the same goals and methods as Darwinism – if it doesn't have the body of research behind it that Darwinism does, it's only because it's in its infancy and is only being pursued by a handful of very brave scientists who risk their very careers and reputations at the hands of intolerant Darwnists (You excluded).
Most of the greatest scientists in history (Copernicus, Keplar, Galileo, Einstein, etc.) believed in God as Creator of both the universe and man. Prior to Darwin, this was the default position of all scientists. Nothing Darwin or his followers discovered disproves or even sheds doubt on this Christian proposition (God as Creator). It is and was Darwinists who turned their back on the church, not the other way around.
Now after 150 years of being told (without proof) by Darwinist scientists that God had no role in evolution, a few brave scientists decide to finally put their money where their mouth is by starting the ID movement, and it is attacked (not by you, Raymond) as non-science and banned from classrooms.
This is rational, open inquiry?
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 21, 2007
63 posts ago I gave a perfectly accurate synopsis of this conversation before it happened. Couldn't we just have copied and pasted the responses of the very same discussion that was had just a few months ago? Or gone back even further to a couple years ago? Here, I'll sum up the next 63 posts as well, as long as we're all here:
"You're an anti-religious bigot"
"You're an ignorant, brainless, troglodyte that doesn't understand the scientific method, scientific terminology, the meaning of "Darwinism", the meaning of "evolution", or any of the science used to explain it because you are too simple and undereducated."
"Why does there have to be a division between God and science"
"Because there is no God in science. Science is purely rational and uncorrupted by its practitioners, because its practitioners are purely rational and uncorrupted by anything. Unlike you religious nutcases who insist on foisting your ignorant, undereducated, troglodytic opinions on rational, civilized people, you stupid, ignorant, undereducated, troglodytic rube."
"But evolution has not been observed, and cannot be observed. Therefore it cannot be a fact that has been proven by theory."
"You don't understand what "facts" and "theories" are. Evolution is an indisputable fact because it is true. If you don't believe me, ask someone who can properly explain it to your ignorant, backward, child-like mind. Evolution is also a theory, and the theory is also true, because it describes the facts. This is how the scientific method works for those of us who understand what science is. The reason you can't understand this is because you are a hopelessly ignorant religious ideologue who wants to destroy the foundation of science by poisoning the minds of children with your ignorant, backwards, Dark Ages religious fundamentalism."
"But what if Intelligent Design posits a theory to explain the facts?"
"Inadequate Deception is nothing more than a vehicle for you ignorant, backwards, religious fundamentalist nutcase flat-earth creationist simpletons to try to inject your stupidity into science where it doesn't belong. Ignorant Duplicity cannot describe the facts, because the facts are that evolution is true, and Intellectual Destcructionism is capable only of seeking to disprove evolution. Therefore, Illogical Despotism by its nature cannot describe facts, so it cannot be scientific, which makes it un-scientific. Don't try to shove your philosophically-driven, ignorant, radical religious agenda down the throats of thinking human beings and the children they are trying to educate so that they don't turn into mindless, religious zealot plebeians like yourself. If you want to practice your illogical, irrational, inconsequential, backward, Dark Ages, Neanderthal faith, go do it quietly in your home and don't try to drag people with fully developed brains down with you."
"You're an anti-religious bigot."
"Science doesn't deal with religion or bigotry, therefore science cannot be anti-religious or bigoted. Science is the perfectly rational application of perfect rationality by perfectly rational individuals to describe the rational world. If you want your intellectually bankrupt, irrational pseudo-scientific philosophical ramblings taught to innocent, impressionable children, just don't try to do it in school where they are learning perfect rationality from perfectly rational teachers who teach them perfectly rational science."
"But science isn't perfectly rational. It has to be applied by human beings who may or may not always act rationally."
"You do not understand science because you are irrational and ignorant. You really should stick to subjects you can understand, like fire-making and stoning sinners."
…and on and on and on and on. That should take us through at least the second week of January. Stimulating enough for you all?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | December 21, 2007
If you want to believe that God is the Creator, the only defensible creation belief is theistic evolution. All of the other beliefs, the ones that reject evolution, have been shown to be contrary to the evidence. ID is one such false belief.
The vast majority of Christians belong to religious bodies that have no problem with evolution, either straight or as theistic evolution. The people who insist on claiming that the discovery of evolution has something to do with atheism are mistaken at best. This is not a theological question. It is a scientific one.
Science has nothing to say about any gods. No evidence exists about gods, so scientists say nothing. Science has a lot to say about evolution because the evidence tells us that evolution happened. Science managed to gather all the evidence it needed to show that evolution happened. It didn't need to talk about gods.
As with all scientific theories, the theory of evolution relies on a huge body of evidence. It has been tested and improved over time, but Darwin's central discovery remains: populations change over time through variation and natural selection.
Those who try to claim that somehow creationism or ID are no worse than evolution because evolution hasn't been 'proven' are either completely unfamiliar with basic scientific concepts or willing to engage in intellectual dishonesty. Science never proves anything, so pointing that fact out concerning evolution is a meaningless criticism. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence to support ID creationism does not exist. The theory of evolution has been tested and improved. The theory of ID creationism does not exist.
Comment by freelunch | December 21, 2007
Phillip Ellis Jackson: “But scientists gladly admit that’s just a theory, not a fact.” [Live Free] “Read Gould’s essay re evolution being both a fact and theory.”
*** I was quoting Chasm’s distinctions
“Dark matter is of this universe. God is transubstantial.”
*** God is also “of this universe”. He created it.
Dark matter is a hypothetical construct invented by science to explain that something must exist because they have no other explanation for it. It has no definable properties (other than it’s everything that remains after what we can actually describe). It’s assumed to be the cause of certain natural processes without a shred of proof that it actually exists.
Dark Matter is a term invented to explain why the universe does things that certain observable phenomenon cannot explain. Ergo, something must account for it. Ergo, it’s “Dark Matter”. This is science.
God is a term invented to explain why the universe does things that certain observable phenomenon cannot explain (such as, be created in the first place). Ergo, something must account for it. Ergo, it’s “God”. And yet this is presumed by many scientists to be pure superstition.
“You’re using the term “random mutation” as if it fully describes the various theories of evolution. It does not. Better terms would be “chaos” and “randomness” since the evolution of inorganic and organic matter is both chaotic and random. Plus, Darwin called his theory of evolution “Natural Selection”, and Gould called his theory “Punctuated Equilibrium”.
*** I’m using the language of the evolution-proponents in this debate, partially to illustrate that the concept of human evolution (which I happen to believe exists) cannot really be “proven” scientifically. It’s a theory that has changed rather dramatically in certain key aspects over the years that purport to explain how human evolution occurred, and relies a lot on two factors. (a) We exist, and we change, therefore we “evolve”. And (b) Since we evolve, we evolve according to natural selection, random mutations, punctuated equilibrium, etc. (pick one or a couple, depending upon your personal preferences) that we can’t fully explain, but know it must be true because our theories (which we can’t fully support) demand that it be true — until someone comes along with a new theory to explain the actual mechanism. But even though we think we understand how evolution works, and can substantiate only some of our theories, we KNOW FOR A FACT that God didn’t act purposefully because man can’t understand His purpose.
This is the same logic that “knows” global warming is man-made, that knew before 1969 that the moon was created at the same time the Earth was, that knew that Jupiter-sized planets couldn’t exist close to the sun until one was discovered, etc.
My objection to this, and your “2 logical choices: Either the universe has existed forever, or God created it,” is that even though you and I opt for the latter, there is absolutely no scientific reason to believe that the Universe created itself. One may dispute whether Jesus is God, and whether X is a “sin” that offends God according to Religion X, but science cannot say that it deals with “material” matters and then punt on the fundamental material issue of all: the fact that the universe exists.
If science can invent Dark Matter to fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle it can’t explain about how the universe operates, then why is acknowledging that God created the universe so anathema for many scientists?
It’s anathema for a reason that was posted by someone early on in this debate. If science acknowledges God as a legitimate explanation, they then need to deal with the next logical issue: Is it unreasonable to assume that God acted with purpose in doing what he did. Man may be able to fully figure out the mechanics of human evolution some day, but by keeping God out of the discussion they dodge the greater issue of why we are here (instead of how we are here).
It’s my belief that most scientists does not want to acknowledge God because this would lead to discussions of morality (not religious teachings, but God-given moral codes). And doing this might affect some “scientific inquiries” such as embryonic stem cell research.
“Don’t you see? Looking for purposefulness in the universe is even harder than trying to understand a universe that defies understanding — or, at least, according to the twin pillars of Physics: General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.”
*** I agree. Man will never be able to fully comprehend this purposefulness. But the fact that man can’t doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. My wife has no concept of science. She can’t understand Newtonian physics let alone Quantum Mechanics. Her inability to comprehend these matters has nothing to do with whether or not they accurately explain parts of the universe we live in.
“No, no, no, no, no, no, no. ID is not a competing scientific theory to evolution since ID is not a scientific theory.”
*** My point is, science doesn’t “explain” everything. It helps explain some things. ID fills in other issues (the “why”, not the “how”). Not every question about life or the Universe is answered by science. But science maintains that it, and it alone, can only provide these answers, so science also gives us the “why”? This is why, according to science, life exists without direction other than the forces of nature impacting on it. This is why Dark Matter can “scientifically” explain the unexplainable, but God is (to quote someone from an earlier discussion) “just a superstition”.
“He’s (God) pulling for us to increase our understanding of his universe so that we can known Him more intimately. The vehicle for our increased understanding of God? Science.”
*** Yes — but only to a point. This is why I say we’re not that far apart. I resent religion trying to dictate to science. But not morality, which I believe comes directly from God. See
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/
Science that tries to deny God, or say that God has nothing to do with understanding the Universe, is just man playing god. God giving purpose and direction to life can be nothing more than setting things in motion with certain non-random workings of the laws of nature and/or events that human minds cannot comprehend. Man uses his abilities to understand, as best he can, how nature works. This is the acquisition of knowledge – the “how”.
But all too often scientists stop at this and say that the how also explains the “why”: Humans evolved, we see it as random, therefore it is random, therefore God is irrelevant.
God will never be proven scientifically, since belief in God is a matter of faith. But the faith that God exists, acted purposefully, and through this gives us moral guideposts for our lives is no less insane than believing that the universe just exists, and all that really matters is to deal with how it works. In doing this there’s no need to factor God/morality into any decisions man makes scientific or otherwise.
“We’re asking the same metaphysical-nee-religious questions that we’ve been asking since the get-go, and getting no closer to The Answer. But, with every new discovery, science gets ever closer to The Final Answer, and to God.“
*** I think this discussion helps. You may not fully realize how rare it’s been, at least in the IC discussions, to have a scientist speak about God as anything other than a myth.
Take care,
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 21, 2007
Alan:
Save your breath. Burnett is not a serious person. His website is a series of political diatribes, not scientific evidence to support his claims 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."
You're better off debating Raymond Ingles and Chasm who are passionate about their beliefs, and at times provacative, but not unhinged.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 21, 2007
Mr. Osonitsch, there are several different topics embedded in your questions, so I'm going to try to break some points out and address them individually.
First, you ask, "How is the belief in God unscientific?" In principle, it's not. There are forms of belief in God(s) that are unscientific, indeed anti-scientific, though. E.g. "Christian Science", and the… excesses of young-Earth Creationism. But others forms aren't – e.g. those that hold that God is undetectable by scientific means (because God doesn't interfere or specifically interferes in undetectable ways), or that define God as something scientifically demonstrable like "the universe". But I will note in passing that – allegedly – the question is unrelated to ID per se, according to the main proponents of ID… since they don't specifically claim that the design is by God, it might be aliens or whatever. (I personally argue that to the extent that God is conceived of as "unknowable" it is by that very token unscientific, but I made that case elsewhere on this site – see my discussion of 'unknowable' and science here: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/12/universal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe/ )
You further write that "Darwinists claim ID is not science yet as I explained above it has the same goals and methods as Darwinism…" As I've noted, when ID has made scientific predictions, they haven't really fared well. So far, the tests that have been proposed for ID (by ID proponents) have not been passed. "Specified complexity" has had difficulty making testable propositions (and thus may well not be science), and the proposed examples of "irreducible complexity" that I've heard of (bacterial flagellum, vertebrate immune system, clotting cascade, etc.) have not proven to be quite so ironclad as ID proponents have initially thought. To the extent that ID is science, it's failed science. That doesn't prove that it might not one day come up with something scientifically important, but it's certainly not ready for inclusion in science classes today, which is the controversy of the hour.
I've stated that motives aren't relevant to determining the actual truth of scientific propositions (though they can certainly muddy the waters and make that truth harder to make out) but I also noted that they were interesting. In this case, they are interesting because of the history of teaching evolution in this country – it's a fact that there has been, and still is, an active young-Earth constituency trying to get its version of events taught in science class. It's also clear that a lot of people who were active in promoting creationism have switched to promoting intelligent design. I know that "there is no cause so noble that it will not attract some kooks", but I think scientists and science educators – who are human, after all – can be expected to regard ID with a bit more skepticism for that reason. Also note that evolution is repeatedly attacked by proponents of both creationism and ID, and not exactly in temperate language. Take a look at the comments in this very thread for some examples – accusing them of believing in evolution despite "virtually no compelling evidence", they are "fraudulent", in a "stupor", that
"it was… evolution that fueled Hitler’s ovens", and so forth. Even if the case for ID had solid merit (and so far I haven't seen it) that's not exactly rhetoric designed to win friends and influence people.
You go on to state that "Prior to Darwin [God as Creator of both the universe and man] was the default position of all scientists." As I've noted, repeatedly now, evolution does not rule out all conceptions of "God as Creator". (I'll also note that Einstein's beliefs on God, so far as we can determine them, would have been regarded as heretical by most any church I know of.) The only effect it has regarding God is that, with respect to the origin of the diversity and complexity of life, it makes a God so far as we've been able to determine unnecessary. When Napoleon asked Laplace where God fit into his model of celestial mechanics, he is said to have replied, "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis." In a similar way, we have not been able to find biological data (in the fossil record, in genetics, in extant species) that could not be explained as a result of random mutation plus natural selection. In comment #73 above I pointed out that we have good statistical tests that have been unable to detect any nonrandom bias in overall mutation – by location or frequency.
There are still open questions – how life first arose being a major one. God is not ruled out. Evolution "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist," in Dawkin's words, but it didn't eliminate the possibility of being an intellectually fulfilled theist. It not that "Darwinists" have said that "God had no role in evolution" – it's that so far, there have been no definitive signs that God had a role in evolution. That is a critical distinction. ID is looking for such signs; if and when they find them, they'll be worth teaching in science class. Until then, I'm afraid I have to object (in public schools – in private schools I'm much more tolerant of teaching almost anything people want that doesn't pose an immediate threat to themselves or others; freedom is the right to be wrong).
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 21, 2007
Live Free — my comments are hung up in the filter. Look for them somewhere in the low 90's when they finally pop up. Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 21, 2007
PaulBurnett: "An intelligent design creationist, on the other hand, will look at something that appears impossible to account for by natural forces and say 'At my level of ignorance, with my level of technology / instrumentation, I cannot figure out how this works. Therefore Goddidit.' and give up and rejoice in his ignorance, having proved the existence of God.
Kudos, Paul. You said it better than anyone. You nailed it.
ID cannot be formulated as a scientific theory using the Scientific Method. Jeff tries (…if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of complex and specified information), but fails. Below are a few reasons why.
(1) Scientific theories are not formulated using "if…then".
(2) It does not logically ensue that the "then" follows from the "if". In fact, the "then" clause could be "it will be simple".
(3) Any scientific theory must be testable in a lab. Since ID posits a Creator, the Creator must be testable in a lab.
(4) Integral scientific theories predict phenomena not yet observed. For example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity predicted that the gravity of the sun would bend starlight. Scientists had never observed this phenomenon until they discovered that, during a total eclipse of the sun, starlight passing close to the sun was bent exactly as Einstein had predicted. ID makes no predictions. It describes no new phenomena. Ergo, it fails this basic test.
(5) Scientific theories must posit affirmatives. They are not zero sum games where one theory's loss is another theory's gain. IDers try to prove their theory by disproving evolution, but that's not the way science works. To posit their affirmative and prove their theory, they must confine God within the Scientific Method. If they do, then God becomes temporal and finite; ie, not God. In so doing, they rebuke God. Talk about hubrism and a Tower of Babel. They reduce God to our level, the ultimate blasphemy.
10,000 years ago, the world was a mystery to humans. They imputed everything to the whims of gods. Now we know that we can know the universe. ID embodies this ancient mentality, & posits a reverse correlation between ignorance and the actions of gods. Well, why not simply accept our ignorance? The fact that we're ignorant does not necessarily prove the existence of God. As you said, Paul, that's what IDers believe: We're ignorant; therefore, God exists.
We'll eventually discover how life arose from inorganic matter: In the laboratory, or on other planets where life is barely incipient, or via a message from an alien civilization 3 billion years more advanced than we are that details the blueprint for manufacturing life.
We may even learn how to manufacture an entire universe; eg, one similar to ours. It's within the realm of intellectual possibility.
Even if we do learn how to manufacture life or even universes, we will not be detracting from God but honoring Him. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. God makes a dynamite role model.
Of course, any sensible, rational person realizes that, despite our achievements, we'll never become gods because God is infinite and eternal, and no amount of finitude and temporality can yield infinity and eternity.
It's amazing, isn't it? Science honors God, while ID rebukes Him.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 21, 2007
Reading the various full and partial definitions of evolution, it’s apparent that evolution’s definitions, like its various theories, are also evolving over time – it’s always nice to see a scientific “fact” emulate its subject matter and evolve right along with it. “Change over time”, “descent with modification”, “evolution is not random and unguided and it does not claim how life began” and “the opposite of what that last idiot said” are just a few of the various definitions of evolution on this comment thread.
To my mind, intelligent design theory is just the latest species in a long line of Theory of Evolution taxonomic classifications. There is even scientific proof that evolution theory evolves, although there is some dispute over whether this evolution of evolution theory is strictly random and governed only by physical laws, or directed by some higher power.
The evolution of evolution was witnessed in 1997 at a convention of the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) – and for those evolution deniers out there – many witnesses (mostly competent biology teachers, although some were fatheads) came forward to confirm the event.
Previous to this evolutionary event, the NABT had proudly published the following definition of evolution: “Evolution is an unsupervised, impersonal natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments” – whew, quite a mouthful even for high school teachers – they didn’t leave any possibilities unmentioned as far as I can see.
Now there are different accounts of exactly what happened to evolution theory during that fateful week when the NABT was holding its annual convention – but there is no scientific doubt that the evolution of evolution occurred. Getting back to the actual event, the words “unsupervised” and “impersonal” mysteriously disappeared from the definition. Yes, it’s true! At the end of that historic week, a new definition of evolution emerged identical to the prior definition except it lacked those two important, but apparently unnecessary physiological appendages; specifically the words “impersonal” and “unsupervised”.
So, what actually happened? Being biological science, there are, of course, several theories of how the definition lost its “impersonal” and “unsupervised”. The short temporal gradient of the evolutionary event led some scientists to conclude this was a verifiable example of punctuated equilibrium. The change occurred behind the closed doors of the executive committee meeting room, which is exactly as “punk eek” predicts evolutionary change does occur – rapidly, in small groups and separate from the greater parent herd. Naturally, the gradualists objected to this explanation pointing out that the theory had also evolved in prior years during other conventions and this was just another example of the slow, gradual descent with modification of the theory of evolution.
A few biology teachers, mostly from the San Francisco area, pointed to the work of Professor Schindewolf and the “hopeful monster” theory – in other words, a completely new theory of evolution emerged directly from the older, parent theory without exhibiting any of the normal transitional intermediate changes – a freak but functional mutation. These same teachers also pointed out that the orthodox evolutionary model would have required the slow but steady loss of letters in the words: for example, “impersonal” would have become “imersonal” and then maybe “meronal” and so forth until eventually the words completely disappeared. But, that’s not what happened.
No, No, No and Saltation!, Saltation! cried the majority of the biology teachers when hopeful monster explanations were introduced. For the scientifically illiterate evangelicals reading this, saltation is a sudden, abrupt and massive change in a species, like a fully formed, taxonomically correct mammal emerging from a reptile egg. Saltation is too close intellectually to “and then a miracle occurred” to suit most scientists.
A small group of biology teachers from various private schools tentatively suggested the evolutionary change in the definition could be attributed to intelligent design. Members of the NABT executive committee were overheard arguing behind closed doors shouting phrases like: “let’s not anger the taxpayers” and “actually, we don’t have any proof that the process is impersonal or unsupervised” and “well, so what if we don’t have proof, we can’t just give in to those religious nuts” and so forth.
The ID proponents further noted that the loss of the words “impersonal” and “unsupervised” completely changed the meaning of the definition, which created an irreducibly complex theory of evolution definition bearing no explainable relation to the prior definition. “Nonsense”, “unscientific wishful thinking” and “what time is lunch” the other biologists shouted back.
We may never know exactly what happened during that eventful week, but the evidence is overwhelming that evolution theory can and does evolve. Was there intelligent design going on within that executive committee meeting and behind those closed doors – highly unlikely in my opinion.
Comment by Pat Skurka | December 21, 2007
Phil:
Sorry that your comments disappeared. I was looking forward to your responses. I'd sure appreciate it if you could repost them. We'd both benefit from our continued interchanges.
Evolution is an issue chock-full of false dichotomies. Discussing it, people talk at each other. Naive me, I still believe there are ultimate consensus truths re God & evolution that we can discover together, 'we' including only those who preach and practice intellectual honesty.
My only non-negotiable: ID is not science. What are yours?
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 21, 2007
The definition of evolution is change in allele frequencies in a population over time. It is technical but also demonstrably true. The theory of evolution is that populations change over time through variation and natural selection. This, too, is arrived at through the mechanism of research which gathers evidence. ID.creationism does not do research. It does not have a theory. It does not even define what it is.
Comment by freelunch | December 21, 2007
Paul Skurka:
"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."
Congrats. You understand science. Science proceeds from effect to cause via inductive logic. Scientists first shoot the arrow (Observe, measure, and quantify) and then paint the bulls-eye (Theorize).
"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."
Congrats. You really do understand science. The theory of Evolution would make no sense unless the basic of all life was a common, unifying mechanism.
"Evolution is a 'fact' meaning that it is the only possible explanation for historic biological change."
Oops. I may have been too hasty. It is a fact that evolution occurred. As one proceeds from the earliest geological strata to the latest, simple life forms become more complex. You're confusing the absolute fact that evolution occurred with the various theories that try to explain why evolution occurred.
"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."
Damn. I had such high hopes, but you're putting the horse before the cart. Remember, science is inductive. Theories are templates that overlay the facts which explain why the facts are. Evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the facts.
One high kudo, though. You obfuscate your basic argument (We're ignorant; therefore, God exists) very well, but, remember, "disproving" evolution does not prove whatever the hell your argument is. You must posit an affirmative, and confine it within the Scientific Method.
"For scientists, the probable outcome of such an effort is 90% weighted toward being unable to detect ongoing human evolution."
Speciation is 100% probable. Google "evolution speciation".
"The evolution of evolution was witnessed in 1997 at a convention of the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) – and for those evolution deniers out there – many witnesses (mostly competent biology teachers, although some were fatheads) came forward to confirm the event.
"Previous to this evolutionary event, the NABT had proudly published the following definition of evolution: 'Evolution is an unsupervised, impersonal natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments'.
"Getting back to the actual event, the words 'unsupervised' and ‘impersonal’ mysteriously disappeared from the definition."
You failed to address why the definition was changed.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n32_v114/ai_20016438
Somebody made a cogent argument: The words “unsupervised” and “impersonal” could be construed to imply that God doesn’t exist. Still, the final statement from the conference is pretty definitive:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/voices/EDUCATIO/NABT_TEA.htm
“Whether called ‘creation science, scientific creationism, intelligent-design theory, young-earth theory’ or some other synonym, creation beliefs have no place in the science classroom… The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments… Natural selection, the primary mechanism for evolutionary changes, can be demonstrated with numerous, convincing examples, both extant and extinct.”
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 21, 2007
LiveFree,
Show me how the scientific theory that man's most ancient ancestor (ten's of thousands of generations ago) was a single celled organism is 'testable in a lab.' It is not, ergo it is not, by your own definition, a scientific theory.
The only real difference between ID and Darwinism is the replacement of random with not random (and the fact that, since ID is in its infancy, it lacks 150 years of failure to prove itself).
A Darwinist's idea of scienctific explanation goes something like this:
Atheist scientist #1: "Since we cannot really explain specifically how a fish grew arms and legs, let alone lungs, why don't we just call it a 'random mutation', Bob. Of course randomness cannot be replicated and is anti-scientific, but the boobs out there won't know the difference anyway."
Atheist scientist #2: "Yeah, I see where you are going with that Frank, but I don't think that's gonna convince enough people that God doesn't exist. We need more.
Atheist scientist #1; "How about this: we tell 'em the (make air quotes here) 'random mutations' take a reeeeeeeaaly looooong tiiiiiiime to happen; this way we can't possibly be asked to prove it in a lab.
Atheist scientist #2: "Hmmmmmm. You may be on to something here, Frank. Let's go with it."
Thus was born, in the smoke-filled back room of a laboratory, the modern, Godless, scientism-drenched, unscientific, Darwinist movement.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 21, 2007
Jeff, genetics is one of the methods by which scientists have shown commonality of ancestry of life on earth. I don't see how it doesn't count as a discipline that is tested in the lab.
Comment by freelunch | December 21, 2007
“Sorry that your comments disappeared. I was looking forward to your responses. I’d sure appreciate it if you could repost them. We’d both benefit from our continued interchanges.”
*** They’ve now shown up as #96
“Naive me, I still believe there are ultimate consensus truths re God & evolution that we can discover together, ‘we’ including only those who preach and practice intellectual honesty.”
*** This is the very point I made in my essay “The Politics of Science and religion”. We are in agreement.
“My only non-negotiable: ID is not science. What are yours?”
*** ID is not science. We are in agreement again. ID addresses the “why” questions about the universe and human life within it. Science addresses the “how”. They are different parts of the same whole: the search for Truth.
My "non-negotiable" is that the Universe doesn’t simply exist. It was created. That which created the universe is by definition God. [And “God” is not the same thing as one religion’s manifestation or representation of God].
Take care, Phil
By the way, I've said everything I think I can say on this subject without simply repeating myself again, so unless there's a particular question about a term or phrase I've used, I'll absent myself from further comment — unless a new sub-topic arises that I feel compelled to address.
Everyone have a Merry Christmas.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 21, 2007
Jeff Osonitsch.
"Show me how the scientific theory that man’s most ancient ancestor (ten’s of thousands of generations ago) was a single celled organism is ‘testable in a lab.’ It is not, ergo it is not, by your own definition, a scientific theory."
Let's paraphrase your argument. You contend that evolution scientists must be able to create a fully-functioning human being in a lab from inorganic material; else, evolution fails as a scientific theory. "We're ignorant; therefore, God exists".
Essentially, you’re basing your argument on a false dichotomy: Either evolution is true, or ID is true. More specifically, you contend that any disproof of evolution or any inability of evolutionalists to fully prove their theory mandates that ID is true.
Well, Jeff, science doesn’t work that way. ID must stand on its own as an integral scientific theory. Please peruse my past posts for ample reasons why ID isn’t.
Now, the crux of your argument. We don’t know how life arose, or what the specific stages that life went through to evolve from the most rudimentary life forms to us.
What we do know, however, is that life evolved. That fact is indisputable. If you doubt that fact, then you doubt science.
We also have extant examples of new species arising from old ones. Google “evolution speciation”. We also know that our brains continue to evolve. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/309/5741/1662. We can also inject genes from one species into another and have those genes became an integral part of the genome of the transferred-to species. Etc. Please peruse millions of science articles for addt’l examples.
Remember what Darwin’s book was entitled: The Origin of Species. All we need is scientific verification of one new species arising without the hand of the Creator being involved to make Darwin’s theory credible.
Do the 3 specific examples I give above require a Creator to effect these changes and this evolution? No. The first 2 occurred naturally, and the 3rd involved direct human intervention.
“The only real difference between ID and Darwinism is the replacement of random with not random.”
No. ID must demonstrate in the lab that the various species of Galapagos turtles were created by God and not in response to the geography, flora, and fauna of the individual Galapagos islands. Else, ID is not science.
If you respect science and lust to have ID as a competing scientific theory to evolution, then you must respect Quantum Mechanics and the scientifically-proven randomness of the atomic and sub-atomic world. You therefore must explain why God would imbue the universe with randomness.
Did God create this universe? Yes. Did he imbue it with a specific set of scientific laws? Yes. Does it require His constant intervention? No.
Get into your car. Turn the engine on. Drive it anywhere. Do autoworkers have to manufacture your car each time before you drive it?
God and evolution can cohabitate quite nicely. To your way of thinking, it’s either God (exclusive) or evolution, a false dichotomy.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 21, 2007
Dr. Jackson – one difference between "dark matter" and "God" is the fact that scientists work to craft testable theories about it… and then test them. Google "wimps and machos" for some variations on the idea which attempt to make testable predictions. Indeed, the MACHO (MAssive Compact Halo Object) hypothesis has failed that testing, seeing as it predicts that we should see 'eclipses' of visible objects at a rate much higher than we actually measure. You can also look up MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) which predicts that there is no dark matter, but instead the laws of motion and/or gravity are different at large scales – though again some of its predictions don't seem to hold up. Then there are those who propose that electromagnetic effects account for the difficult-to-explain motion of galaxies.
What testable theories do you propose about the origins – if any – of the universe? (As you know, I've not seen a solid case made that we can just automatically reject the notion of mass/energy existing eternally.)
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 21, 2007
Phil:
Well, we needn't look any further than the filter of this forum for inductive proof that randomness underpins evolution because this forum's filter sure works randomly.
Re post #107 (unless the filter randomly changes its number): We’re in agreement.
Re post #96: Food for thought. Time for a power walk. Later.
“The Politics of Science & Religion”: Dessert and apertif.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 21, 2007
LiveFree,
You are making things up as you go along. I have said here repeatedly that I am open minded as far as evolution is concerned and that evolution is not antithetical to belief in God. Catholics (like me) are open to theistic evolution.
If evolution (from a single common ancestor all the current multiplicity of life arose) did in fact happen, my only point is, and always has been, that it was not random, accidental, and puroseless. Any demand that it was, such as is made by Darwinists is itself non-scientific. Likewise ID scientists are open to the possibility that macro-evolution took place; unlike Darwinists, however, they will not state unequivically that it did happen without proof.
You are completely mis-stating what ID is all about; this is typical of Darwinists seeking to discredit ID without debate; this is exactly the straw-man garbage Mac Johnson engaged in and is a useless and dishonest exercise. ID does not state that turtles, or any other form of life were necessarily created as is. That would be creationism, a presumption, and not scientific; ID does exactly what evolution theorists do, only without resorting to the dual deus ex machina's of randomness and time.
By the definition of the Darwinists on this thread, the scientific standard is lab-testability. By this standard Darwinism fails miserably: random mutations over millions of years cannot be lab-tested or replicated.
If Darwinism = science, then ID = science. Period.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 21, 2007
Perhaps "Darwinists" do insist that evolution was "random, accidental, and pur[p]oseless." As I said before, that term is not really current and doesn't apply to most proponents of evolution. You are free to insist that evolution was 'not random, accidental, and purposeless'; however, until you can provide some evidence for this, it's not a scientific position. I've pointed out evidence for the random nature of mutation, the evidence for sufficiency of natural selection to explain the data we have so far. What data is there that is not accounted for by this model?
Again, Einstein insisted that "God does not play dice". The notion of random effects in Quantum Mechanics disturbed him, and he never stopped looking for scientific alternatives to QM. But he also recognized that he didn't have an alternative theory yet, or even a good hypothesis, and didn't object to the teaching of QM. The notion that mutations appear to be random and undirected is disturbing to many people as well… but from what I've seen they don't recognize the need to propose an alternative scientific theory (or at least a hypothesis) before jumping into the classroom.
It's possible that both groups are correct to be disturbed, and there is a better model to be discovered. Indeed, there probably is – QM and Relativity are very difficult to reconcile; at least one or probably both are wrong in some respects. But I haven't seen any signs that a better model's been discovered yet.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 21, 2007
Raymond: Dress the pig up anyway you want, when scientists did their calculations about the universe they found they were missing something that couldn't be seen or detected, other than they "knew" it was there. So they gave it a name (Dark Matter), and made it "real". What that missing something actually is is anybody's guess. Dark Matter is just a convenient placeholder to assign it a reality.
If this is the scientific method, then I have every right to assert that "something" equally unseen or directly detected created the universe, and that something is God.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 21, 2007
Ray,
Thanks for pointing out my typo. That was quite gracious of you. I'm done.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 21, 2007
Jeff:
Making it up as I go along? No. Simply explicating arguments so novel you're never encountered them before. I do that, you know. Repeating the same-old, hackneyed, intransigent arguments is not my cup of tea.
“Catholics (like me) are open to theistic evolution.”
As far as our dialogue is concerned, you need to be opened to science, its laws, and its practices. If you are, then you’ll understand as I do that science is neither theistic nor atheistic.
“If evolution (from a single common ancestor all the current multiplicity of life arose) did in fact happen, my only point is, and always has been, that it was not random, accidental, and purposeless.”
You’ve already disqualified yourself as being open to science, its laws, and its practices. Please review my past posts re randomness and Quantum Mechanics.
“Any demand that it was, such as is made by Darwinists, is itself non-scientific.”
I’m not a Darwinist. I perceive the universe as God created it. His universe is suffused with randomness, accidentalness, chance, and probability.
“ID does exactly what evolution theorists do, only without resorting to the dual deus ex machina’s of randomness and time.”
Again, God incorporated randomness in the fabric of the universe insofar as the laws of science has uncovered it.
“By the definition of the Darwinists on this thread, the scientific standard is lab-testability. By this standard Darwinism fails miserably: random mutations over millions of years cannot be lab-tested or replicated.”
Do you realize that the universe is the scientist’s laboratory? I don’t think you do. Well, it is.
Even if we limit the laboratory to a room with bunsen burners, etc, random mutations can be studied in a lab, and replicated in a lab.
Still, you don’t understand scientific induction, how it operates, and what the Scientific Method is. Scientists like Darwin observe and quantify facts. Based on those observations, they infer and extrapolate, and posit a scientific theory. That scientific theory must explain the facts they’ve already observed, and facts they haven’t yet observed. Evolution passes this test.
Yes, scientists can’t replicate the universe in the lab, but what they can replicate reaffirms that evolution is an integral scientific theory.
Here’s the kicker: The reverse is true, too. If you want to disprove evolution, you must conduct replicatable experiments in a lab which falsify the theory of evolution. Under controlled conditions, you must demonstrate that evolution does not operate the way the adherents of evolution posit that it operates. Furthermore, you must orchestrate these controlled conditions using only the laws of science.
Yes, you must affirmatively demonstrate in a lab that evolution is false. Until you do, you’re not being open to science, its laws, and its practices.
“If Darwinism = science, then ID = science. Period.”
Again, no. ID is science if and only if ID is science. Any scientific theory must be affirmatively posited.
Is it such a big deal that God imbued randomness, chance, and chaos in His universe? I think not. So, God plays dice with the universe. Does it matter?
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 21, 2007
If Darwinism = science, then ID = science. Period.
No. I'm not certain what you mean by 'Darwinism', but evolution is known to happen. The evidence for it is overwhelming. The theory that was derived from the facts of evolution is not only valid, but strongly supported by evidence that has been gathered over the past century and a half.
ID does no science. No one has made any effort to try to develop proper hypotheses that explain the evidence. No one has made any effort to test the ideas offered by ID proponents. Until the ID folks are willing to put their doctrines up to the test of science, they are teaching religion, nothing else.
By the way, how much do you think that Professor Johnson would have been offended 20 years ago if a few folks with no background in the law had written books that asserted without a shred of evidence that his understanding of the law was wrong and then ignored everyone who pointed out that Professor Johnson not only understood the law, but that the critics were being intentionally dishonest?
Comment by freelunch | December 21, 2007
Mr. Osonitsch: I didn't do that to 'point out your typo'; I am always careful to quote the words of others exactly, as it irritates me probably more than it should to be misquoted. I indeed intended to be gracious – if it helps, let me point out that I missed a closing parenthesis in comment 12, I didn't pluralize 'prediction' in comment 30, and I obviously messed up my emphasis tags twice in comment 98.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 21, 2007
Phil:
I didn't need Pepto-Bismol. Your ratiocinations were eminently digestible.
First, some niggles.
You're using dark matter as a simile for God. Desist. At best, it's a superficial argument that can't withstand rational scrutiny.
You say that there is not "a shred of proof that it (ie, dark matter) actually exists". But, there is. Scientists can infer the existence of dark matter due to its gravitational effect on galaxies. Those effects are real. In fact, scientists have quantified the amount of dark matter in the universe.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071127142128.htm
“The other constituents of the universe are dark matter, which composes about 22 percent of the universe, and ordinary matter, which is about 4 percent.”
What about the other 74%? Well, that 74% is dark energy, but that’s another story.
Dark matter is quantifiable while God is not. Thus, desist in using dark matter as a simile for God.
“But even though we think we understand how evolution works, and can substantiate only some of our theories, we KNOW FOR A FACT that God didn’t act purposefully because man can’t understand His purpose.”
Before I’ll respond, please formulate your scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Base it upon all available scientific evidence. Discuss how your theory is superior to the theory of evolution. Detail the lab tests you’ve conducted which affirm your theory. Propose how your theory is falsifiable. Describe new phenomena not yet observed, but which your theory predicts. iow, do the science.
Sure, God had a purpose when He created this universe. For me, that purpose is triumphally and joyfully expressed in the New Testament, but the New Testament can’t be translated into a scientific theory.
“If science can invent Dark Matter to fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle it can’t explain about how the universe operates, then why is acknowledging that God created the universe so anathema for many scientists?”
Damn it! Stop with the dark matter, already.
Look. The purview of science doesn’t encompass the universe’s creation. If the universe was created the way the Big Bang theory posits it was, science starts at 10 to the minus forty-third second after ‘time’ zero (.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 second); ie, the Big Bang itself.
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Big_Bang.html
otoh, If the universe was created the way M-Theory posits it was, then science might be able to encompass a ‘time’ before the Big Bang occurred. Still, M-Theory specifically and science in general will never address the exact ‘instant’ the universe was created, or any ‘time’ before that ‘instant’.
Science decouples the exact ‘moment’ the universe was created from science. If this helps, consider this decoupling Axiom #1 of Science. By definition, science absolutely eschews ultimate causes.
To do science, you must accept Axiom #1. Therefore, ID is not science. This absolute truth literally screams its absolute certitude.
How do I reconcile my faith that Jesus is my Savior with my belief that evolution occurred and that IDers suck? Pretty simple.
God created the Universe and imbued it with a few, simple scientific laws. We’ve learned some of them, but have a long way to go before we understand them all (By ‘long’, I could mean ‘eternity’, whatever that means). After He created the universe, God let the universe do its own thing. He could easily do that, you know. After all, He is omnipotent. Among the laws he imbued are what scientists call the Theory of Quantum Mechanics. Among other things, QM posits that the micro world does not obey cause and effect. Events are random. Chaos reigns. Yet, order somehow proceeds out of this ultimate chaos. How can this be? Well, God is omnipotent. He can do what he damned well pleases.
The nice thing about QM is that is solves the metaphysical conundrum of free will. Of course, free will exists since not even God can predict the future of the universe He created.
Oh, the sublimeness of science. Every time I think about QM, my heart nearly bursts when I contemplate the majesty and transcendence of God. Thank you, God. You gave me free will. You gave me this magnificent universe. Everything in it resounds with Your glory.
Just a few niggles, Phil.
I’ve read a few of your other essays, and know pretty much from whence you come. You’re asking and trying to answer unanswerable questions. Consider this: Maybe science has more answers than you’re willing to admit. Maybe science can help answer the unanswerable questions. Maybe, just maybe, God decided before He created this universe to reveal Himself most fully to scientists via science. Wouldn’t that be a kicker?
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 22, 2007
Freelunch:
Many years back I sat about 10 feet from Phillip Johnson listening to a lecture on evolution sponsored by my wife’s church, a Presbyterian church in a well-to-do San Francisco suburb. I was there out of boredom with other entertainments, but didn’t expect to hear anything startling – turned out I was right about not hearing anything earth shattering but also very wrong, in an interesting way. Johnson, as he came to the lectern, was a plump, not very tall, older man who obviously had some slight physical impairment – I was told it was from a recent illness.
His voice was mild and his lecture style was a combination of a laid back, matter of fact delivery and wry amusement with both himself and his subject matter. He didn’t speak about intelligent design that evening – rather he spoke about the evolution issues discussed in his book, Darwin On Trial. My impression was he made his points well but didn’t try to shove them down anyone’s throat and, all in all, he seemed a very reasonable man about everything, including his lecture topic that evening – evolution.
At the completion of his prepared comments, he opened the floor to questions. Almost immediately, a man in the audience started hammering Johnson with question after question, but in the overly self-righteous, emotional style of a far-left, adult juvenile delinquent attacking Ann Coulter during a speech to the local college Republican Club. He wasn’t really asking questions, he was angry, obviously incensed with Johnson and trying to make the point that Johnson’s mild mannered, Clark Kent discussion of the problems with evolution theory was beyond the bounds of common decency, a serious affront to human reason and a topic that Johnson knew nothing about because he wasn’t an “official” scientist. Johnson answered back patiently and without rancor until the questioner looked around and realized he was the center of amazed and shocked church-goers, their mouths hanging open and looking at him like he was insane. At that point, his questions abruptly ended and the lecture was over. Johnson briefly shook hands and left, so I never formally met him beyond a brief handshake.
What I remember most from that night was the questioner, his loss of cool and the reaction of the other churchgoers. You must understand that my wife’s denomination is Presbyterian, Johnson is also Presbyterian and he’d agreed to speak simply as a favor to co-religionists and not as a fee paid lecturer. These Presbyterians are all about loving each other, endlessly organizing potlucks and charitable activities to help the local poor and sending church members on missions to Mexico and Albania to help children learn to read, building decent homes for them and engaging in every form of good deed imaginable – they’re such nice people it’s almost sickening. They frequently disagree with each other but always with respect and love for the other person. Seeing a church member verbally attack an invited guest shocked them and brought on that queasy feeling in their guts they try hard to avoid – that feeling that comes when you witness deliberate and unexplainable rudeness and discourtesy to a guest.
I was also shocked that some mental midget tried to verbally capture the lectern and lost control of his emotions over, what was to me, an unimportant topic like evolution – but I was most shocked that it was a church member. I’d seen these clowns at anti-war rallies in the early 70’s, but he was the last thing I expected to encounter within this congregation. I delicately asked my wife’s church friends about this guy, but they considered him a normal, average guy – not a religious fanatic or, in this case, a science fanatic. I knew he must be some kind of fanatic; his face as he fired questions at Johnson was the face you’d expect to see in the front row of a witch burning sometime during the 16th century, wildly waving his torch and shouting for the death of an evil one – a cursed, Satan worshipping witch. Later, I found out he was a techie – something to do with computers.
I didn’t learn very much about evolution that particular evening, but I did learn a great deal about techie religion and the cult of science worship – and that just from watching one of their fanatics denounce a heretic who dared to speak against science. When you think about it, we live in a technological age and so it shouldn’t really surprise us that many people worship science without realizing it – I just happened to witness a true believer that evening with his mask off and his emotions out of their cage.
My social-psychological theory, developed partly from this interesting field observation, is that many people, particularly people engaged in technical pursuits like science, computers, engineering, etc. find important emotional comfort, almost a refuge, in viewing their world as a closed loop system – a completely rational cause and effect continuum where every rational question has an equally rational answer. They conceptualize their world as a giant Microsoft operating system – sort of Windows Everything 2000X.
When Windows Everything 2000X occasionally crashes, there’s always a rational explanation; a bug in the code, a physical problem in the hardware, a false alarm due to some ignorant operator. In these situations, you turn first to the Windows’ manual for the answer. If you can’t find the solution, you can always do a memory dump and forward it to the nice folks at Microsoft for further analysis – but the emotionally important point is there is always a rational, perfectly logical explanation for the problem. If Microsoft finds a bug in the code, a solution is developed and it’s included in the next release. There are no ghosts in the machine, no unsolvable problems, no irrational actions and no questions that can’t be answered by following linear logic to the inevitable solution.
And, really, why shouldn’t we view our world as Windows Everything 2000X? Cell phones, Boeing 747’s, heart transplants and a host of other technological marvels speak much louder and in a more authoritative voice than ancient Greek philosophy with its silly metaphysical questions about “why was it created” and “for what purpose”? Science with a capital S cannot be wrong, although science can be wrong about a specific issue, but only until the bug is found and the patch is written. The parishioners of these techie cults have no patience with the philosophical abstractions of metaphysics – it’s a complete waste of their time and unsolvable questions hold no attraction for them – yet, at the same time it’s an outlet for their emotions and devilishly compelling to discuss.
Interestingly, they unconsciously plagiarize religious concepts, altering them as needed to support the beliefs of their cult. They believe they must defend Science, with sincerity and passion, from perceived unbelievers and spend much of their energy explaining why everyone else doesn’t understand how science works or why these ignorant others fail to grasp the fundamentals of the scientific method. People like Johnson are repulsive because they cleverly use their own beliefs and standards of proof against them. And, they hate having their motives questioned – don’t try to psychoanalyze me is their frequent cry. They want no part of the irrational human psyche, no pseudo-Freudian insights – some day science will fully explain the mechanics of why we act the way we do and that’s good enough for now.
Since Johnson’s lecture I’ve viewed the techies and their religion in a new light, it’s equally fascinating and pathetic. And, we need a better word than religion to describe their particular worldview; their theology is lacking in sophistication and really doesn’t qualify as a religion – I think it compares more closely to the defunct Cargo Cults of the South Pacific in many ways.
So, denouncing Johnson, someone I suspect you’ve never engaged in conversation, may represent a lost opportunity on your part to entertain a different point of view gained from discussion with an intelligent, sophisticated intellect.
Comment by Pat Skurka | December 22, 2007
Life Free: A few niggles back at ya. We really don’t disagree about the main points.
“You’re using dark matter as a simile for God. Desist. At best, it’s a superficial argument that can’t withstand rational scrutiny.”
*** I’m being provocative to make a larger point. I was using the rationale to believe in dark matter as an allegory for the invention of dark matter to fill in the unknown that “science” can’t explain. Both a belief in Dark Matter and a belief in God appear to me to require a common element: faith. By describing Jesus/Allah, etc as “God”, man may have gotten it wrong. But it doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. By describing that-which-cannot-be-understood-any-other-way as dark matter, science is just doing what Einstein did with his original cosmological constant. We know the universe is real, and what we cannot explain we simply assign a value.
“You say that there is not “a shred of proof that it (ie, dark matter) actually exists”. But, there is. Scientists can infer the existence of dark matter due to its gravitational effect on galaxies. Those effects are real. In fact, scientists have quantified the amount of dark matter in the universe.”
*** Not to belabor the point unnecessarily, but to continue on with the comment I made above, “actually exists” is not the same thing as seeing an “effect”, and assigning the cause of that effect to “dark matter”.
I admit something is indeed out there. But so far the scientific method has not “proven” it to be “dark matter”. It could be fairy dust for all we know. [Again, don’t read too much into this point. I’m just questioning why those in this comment section who are wedded to the scientific method which demands tangible (not intangible) evidence before reaching a conclusion are so quick to believe in fairy dust and not accept that the universe didn’t “just appear”.
I’d be much less critical if they simply said something like: using the scientific method we can understand some things about the universe, but our theory about most of what is in the universe and makes it run is just a couple steps shy of outright conjecture, rather than “informed science”.] Dark Matter is a placeholder name for “we don’t know what it is, but we’ll give it a name anyway so our other calculations can still work out.”
“Dark matter is quantifiable while God is not.”
*** Yes, as long as the dark matter being quantified doesn’t turn out to be something other than “dark matter”, which means that via science we know scientifically that something is there, but we’re not sure what it really is. Dark matter is just a convenient name to describe the unknown.
As for quantifying God scientifically, God isn’t a corporal body. Science (man’s tools) cannot touch God directly. But God, imbuing man with logic and reason, can help man understand who and what God is. In a related way, science cannot measure “love”, but we know it is real. [Lust is not love; erections that can be measured is not love; etc.] There are some real things that exist, but are not revealed through science.
“Before I’ll respond, please formulate your scientific theory of Intelligent Design.”
*** That’s easy. As I’ve said countless times before, ID is not science.
“Sure, God had a purpose when He created this universe.”
*** You know that God had “purpose” (which means you “know” there is a God.) This is obviously something as real to you as, say gravity. Yet, your knowledge of God’s reality, existence and/or purpose is not discernable via science.
This is true for me as well. I also know that God exists, and acts with purpose. My rationale for understanding this is laid out in excruciating detail in “What kind of Car would Jesus Drive to take his Girlfriend to an Abortion Clinic?”, and “The True Nature of Human Morality.” And just to tie it all together, I think that science and man’s appreciation of and relationship to God together provide life’s answers, as I posited in “The Politics of Science and Religion”.
Science without a recognition of God produces an incomplete understanding of Truth, just as a focus on God to the exclusion of science produces an incomplete understanding of Truth.
“Science decouples the exact ‘moment’ the universe was created from science.”
*** Yes! Science explains “how”. Acknowledging and accessing God explains “why”.
“God created the Universe and imbued it with a few, simple scientific laws. We’ve learned some of them, but have a long way to go before we understand them all (By ‘long’, I could mean ‘eternity’, whatever that means). After He created the universe, God let the universe do its own thing. He could easily do that, you know. After all, He is omnipotent.”
*** Very well said, and I agree entirely. But in creating the universe and letting it “do it’s own thing”, this doesn’t mean that evolution, proceeding along the natural scientific laws that God created, couldn’t have a bias toward creating human life the way it has presently evolved. The bias is so fundamental and, to the human mind incomprehensible, that we can only see randomness. I guess what I’m objecting to is the scientifically arrived at “random/natural selection” explanation period, with no other non-scientific method of informed judgments to be taken seriously. Science provides a lot of answers, but not every answer.
What ID has done for me, particularly reading “The Wonder of the World”, is to show that there seems to be an innate logic to thing that I formerly saw as completely random. ID has led me to an even greater appreciation for science, since as I believe you said before, through science we see God’s hand at work.
The one thing I object to that others (not you) consistently say is that God has no place in understanding the universe and life within it. Only science provides those answers. God does — not as religion, but as the creator of the Universe and the author of a common human moral code.
It’s not enough to say that we can personally believe in the “myth of God”, as some have; but this “myth” has no role in human interactions that might impact “science”. Science that will not allow for God because God is not scientifically knowable is an incomplete guide for our lives. Like I said, science doesn’t prove to me that I love my wife and child, but that love is just as real as the computer I’m typing on.
The reason we (everyone — not you and I) are having this whole discussion about God and science boils down to this.
I believe that atheist scientists will not allow for God to exist, let alone to admit that He created the universe, because they view God only through what particular religions have said God is. If religion X seems unbelievable, then God doesn’t exist. They won’t consider the option that God exists even though religion X got some/all of the details wrong.
Moreover, even if we get past religion, and how religious motivations have at times improperly been at the foundation of public policy, these same atheist scientists won’t accept God in theory because as you suggested above, God may have in fact acted with purpose. We may not understand the “purpose” of QM, but that doesn’t mean we can’t use our minds to see other guideposts that relate to things like a God-given moral code (“it is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human life”.)
Accepting even this moral code would circumscribe some science (such as embryonic stem cell research). So, rather than use science to help settle the question “is that thing inside a woman really human; and if so when?”, this brand of science wants to punt the question all together. It will accept a political compromise to determine when human life begins, but will resist any attempt to state that there is a God, and believing in God has consequences for man’s actions.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 22, 2007
Pat:
Professor Johnson is not just a professor, but also a lawyer. As you saw, he was extremely skilled in getting people who were unfamiliar with science to be persuaded to support him, even though he was wrong. Darwin on Trial is presumptuous and ignorant. It is not a valid scientific critique. It is a political and doctrinal document, but, as you saw, Professor Johnson presents his misleading arguments in such a clever manner that only those who actually are actually familiar with the material will see the deceit.
We must always make certain that people like Professor Johnson do not get a pass because they are nice, mild-mannered Presbyterians. I agree with you that his critic failed to take the circumstances into account when he confronted Johnson. As you point out, this backfired and Johnson managed to get a few more people to believe his false claims. His ability to sway people is only in the political or religious spectrum. Scientists are singularly unimpressed with his supposed critique of science in general and evolution in particular.
Of course, the critics of evolution all do so from the safety of popular books and magazine articles. They don't offer any scientific criticisms in scientific journals. They know that their supposed criticisms cannot be supported in the scientific arena. They know that they are not doing science, that this is about politics and religion. Their ability to mislead through smooth talk and hidden dishonesty works well for them, but it does not absolve them of their dishonesty. Johnson and Dembski lie. They know that. They rely on the ignorance of their audience, just as past masters of deception about science like Duane Gish, did. The whole point is to lie smoothly, with grace and style, to have an audience that is predisposed to believe these lies, and to get the science proponent to lose his cool. "Winning" is about the audience, not about facts, not about logic, not about honesty, not about reality. It's just about the audience.
Sinclair Lewis thought he was writing an expose, three-quarters of a century ago, in Elmer Gantry. I doubt that he would have expected today's Elmer Gantries to be using it as a model for their approach to fleecing the flock. I'm certain he would be disappointed to find that it seems to have become a model for them.
Comment by freelunch | December 22, 2007
It's amazing to keep seeing this type of argument show up:
"It is not science because it can't be proved scientifically" – ie. only things provable scientifically are true.
This is EXACTLY like the statement
"The bible is true because the the bible says so"
or
"The scientific method is true because the scientific method says so".
…. and this is argued by people who don't realize that their arguments nullify not only the themselves but the arguer as well.
Science, as defined by many here, is NOT the sum of knowledge available to humans… or else every argument here is meaningless noise by chattering animals.
Comment by amccann | December 22, 2007
Have any scientists ever claimed that science is the sum total of knowledge? Since I have never seen such an argument, I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Certainly assertions about science, like the ones that the Discovery Institute and other creationists make are properly tested through science.
Comment by freelunch | December 22, 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.”
Clever, obtuse, simultaneously. Gather the most sophisticated intellectuals you can find, provide them all the resources of facility and information imaginable, and charge them with a simple task: Invent a cosmos, using only these few parts.
Should they succeed, and their universe is amenable to life {unlikely], the result would undoubtedly be the result of “intelligent design”.
In a somewhat more challenging scenario, task them with the invention of these fundamental particles, with no starting point. Theorize the particles and the forces, define how they interact, project them in whatever numbers are required for balance and order. Find a way to make these few into the marvel of a cosmos. Find a way to make them homogeneous, permanent, invariant. The simple act of such conception is beyond human cognizance.
Then comes the real challenge, that being the realization of these fundamentals. Create them, somehow.
We humans, use the word “create” too easily. We create nothing. At best, we assemble and organize. We create no thing. Nor, will we ever.
The evidence of purpose and intelligence is everywhere abundant, yet those closest to the evidence are those most reluctant to endorse it.
Comment by zealot144 | December 22, 2007
“Any person who is convinced that God created the universe, life, etc. or that God did not create the universe, life etc. is professing to know something that can’t be known.”
False.
Knowledge is not the result of adherence to standards of proof. Knowledge, at its best, is no more than conviction. To use the word “known” assumes that knowledge is possible. (Unless the choice is made to conclude that nothing is known, in which case the above statement is superfluous.)
IF one assumes that knowledge is possible and real, and has some correlation to a reality beyond the mind of the one possessing the knowledge, then the proposition takes on meaning.
In that case, the proposition is still false.
There are only two positions.
God created.
No god created (or, god did not create, or, there is no god, or, there was no creation, etc.)
As they are contradictory, both cannot be true. Only one position is valid.
Ergo, those who accept one or the other must be knowledgeable, while those who accept the opposing proposition are ignorant. Some know. Some do not.
If your assertion intended to be that neither is amenable to an acceptable standard of proof, then I must also disagree. The proof is acceptable to a good many folk, on both sides of the question. Or, is it?
On the one side, folk are convinced that their standards of proof have been met. On the other, the standards are not able to be met on either side of the question. In other words, only those who do NOT believe in a creative intelligence are convinced that proof (thus, knowledge) is impossible.
This debate is, therefore, not about truth or knowledge, but about standards of proof. While one side asserts that proof (thus knowledge) is impossible, the other side claims proof exists and is convincing.
There is no evidence that God does not exist. Zero.
There is SOME evidence that He does (a lot, according to many folk).
Some evidence usually trumps no evidence.
If you want PROOF, I suggest you visit Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem. He makes a pretty interesting argument that even so basic a “truth” as mathematics is not able to prove itself. Proof, therefore, is elusive.
I repeat, knowledge is a matter of conviction. Some convictions conform to reality, some do not. If the real question is what is “real” and what is NOT “real”, then some DO have knowledge, while others have no more than standards of proof, which are always questionable.
Your assertion is, therefore, invalid. Some know. Some do not.
Standards of proof is the question, not knowledge.
Comment by zealot144 | December 22, 2007
Freelunch: You asked "Have any scientists ever claimed that science is the sum total of knowledge?"
I think the problem is this. Please know that in offering this summary I’m not questioning the motives or sincerity of anyone.
1. Some people in this and previous posts have claimed that what is "real" can only be known through testable observations (i.e. the scientific method). Since God can’t be deduced by tests and direct observations, God is therefore just a superstition, myth, or opinion.
2. However, others who are strong proponents of science have acknowledged that God is real, that He created the universe, and that He can act with purpose. They have come to this position not through the scientific method, but through logic and reason.
3. Some individuals who approach this subject from a non-science perspective have spoken about God in terms of biblical and religious teachings. These religious teachings are the prism through which some of these folks view science.
4. Others, like myself, speak about God without any direct reference to what a particular religion teaches.
Positions 2-4 all acknowledge the existence of God; though they don’t use the same reasoning to reach their conclusions.
Each of these positions is a threat to position #1. If God can be said to be real without science giving us this conclusion, then it’s reasonable to conclude that God can also influence and impact reality in ways that are not directly measurable by the scientific method. This doesn’t mean that God actively injects himself into our daily events. I think Live Free got it right when he said “God created the Universe and imbued it with a few, simple scientific laws. We’ve learned some of them, but have a long way to go before we understand them all … After He created the universe, God let the universe do its own thing. He could easily do that, you know. After all, He is omnipotent.”
Acknowledging that God exists, that God created the universe, and that through science we can comprehend aspects of how the universe functions (including the possibility of human evolution), makes perfect sense. Where science answers the “how” questions, this line of inquiry addresses the “why” questions (“Why did God create the universe and us in it;” “why is X moral and Y immoral,” etc.).
I don’t think that a belief in God — and a purposeful God at that — has to conflict with science. I also don’t believe that science requires us to dismiss God as a factor in creation because God cannot be directly measured and tested. There’s still a lot of room for informed debate about what these two conclusions imply (i.e. how much does God impact our daily lives, if at all?). But accepting that God can be “real” without a scientific proof of His existence is the first step to the common ground that will enhance our search for knowledge and Truth.
My quarrel is with position #1; there is no common ground with positions 2-4. I think a better debate to advance knowledge is to reflect on a universe that was created by God with the implications this carries, than to portray science as inherently godless — which it doesn’t need to be.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 22, 2007
“As you know, I’ve not seen a solid case made that we can just automatically reject the notion of mass/energy existing eternally.”
I LOVE this!
Looking for proof, again. Misuse of the word “eternal”.
There is only one way to avoid the first principle of “Cause”. That is, dump science. ALL of science is predicated on causes. Except, of course, for the above pronouncement.
Are you looking for a solid case?
ETERNAL is where there is no time, no beginning or ending, no cause and effect, a place where science has no provenance. INFINITY is where science ventures, without considering the origins of infinity, that being the human imagination. Infinity exists within the construct of mathematics. There is NO evidence of infinity within the cosmos we inhabit. Our universe is closed. Science does not venture into “eternity”. It can not, as the standards of the scientific method require cause and effect.
First principle: All effects have causes. Thus begins science and organized discussion of real reality, adrift from imagination and fantasy.
Yet, when the question of the cause of the big bang comes up, cause becomes crippled. The cause must have a cause, ad infinitum. The creator must have been created. That is logic. Thus begins an infinite regression.
No sidestep. No possibility that “cause” was created when time and dimension and physics and energy were created. Such is a HUGE mental leap. Yet, such appears to be the case.
Nothing. Then something. The big bang. Or, something similar. A beginning.
Such required a cause. The cause required a cause. Intelligence is not intrinsic in this regression, but it is infinite. Yet, infinity has no proof. None. Except in the mind of man.
Infinity terminates at eternity, where cause and effect fail. Time stops. Neither exist. Omniscience is possible where there are no limits. No beginning or ending. Wherever starts and stops exist, all, including knowledge and intelligence, are limited by starting and stopping.
“Automatically reject”? Of course not. You must seek conviction in the group mind of conformity and standards. You must have accord.
Infinity terminates at eternity. Both dramatically exceed human consciousness. Strive though you might, neither shall you touch nor ever apprehend.
“mass/energy existing eternally” indeed. Provide evidence of credulity, if you will. Such a concept is even more extravagant than the concept of creation, and less demonstrable.
If such is able to avoid the “solid case” for “automatic rejection”, why does God do so?
Comment by zealot144 | December 22, 2007
Freelunch wote: "Sinclair Lewis thought he was writing an expose, three-quarters of a century ago, in Elmer Gantry."
Sinclair Lewis also wrote, in 1935, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Comment by PaulBurnett | December 23, 2007
Phil:
“Science without a recognition of God produces an incomplete understanding of Truth, just as a focus on God to the exclusion of science produces an incomplete understanding of Truth.”
The essence of our agreement.
“But in creating the universe and letting it ‘do it’s own thing’, this doesn’t mean that evolution, proceeding along the natural scientific laws that God created, couldn’t have a bias toward creating human life the way it has presently evolved. The bias is so fundamental and, to the human mind incomprehensible, that we can only see randomness.”
The current theory of evolution unsatisfies. Like you, I believe there is “a bias towards creating human life” in the universe, and that this ‘bias’ is a scientific law not yet discovered. At our current level of intelligence and consciousness, we can’t apprehend this law. However, as we evolve (either nature-directed or man-directed) towards higher levels of consciousness, we very well might begin to understand the underlying — and simple — order in the universe.
“What ID has done for me…”
Since I attended a Jesuit university, I have a minor in Theology. For me, ID is warmed-over crap that impugns both science and religion.
“So, rather than use science to help settle the question ‘is that thing inside a woman really human; and if so when?” this brand of science (ie, atheistic science) wants to punt the question altogether. It will accept a political compromise to determine when human life begins, but will resist any attempt to state that there is a God, and believing in God has consequences for man’s actions.”
You and other essayists on this site have compellingly argued that morality is provisional — even ruthlessly postmodern — unless an eternal and infinite God begat morality. This is a truth that can be accepted by both theists and atheists since the former believe that an absolute morality comes from God while the latter functionally believe in a postmodern universe where everything is relative.
Therefore, out goes the Declaration of Independence, out goes the Bill of Rights, and out goes any and all laws. Out go individual liberties and civil rights. Out goes the sanctity of life. Out goes everything.
OK, I going to wear atheistic shoes. My first pronouncement is that Hitler’s Holocaust was an expression of the highest morality. Since there is no absolute moral code, I could be right.
Atheists can’t argue that the Holocaust was absolutely immoral. They can’t by definition.
Is morality, then, simply the majority consensus in the eternal present? Yes, that’s all it is.
If atheists are intellectually honest re their belief that morality is not absolute, then they must admit that, sometimes, serial murderers have done no wrong; else, they are professing that, sometimes, morality is absolute.
Of course, atheists shun metaphysical thinking of this genre. After all, since science is the ultimate pragmatism (ie, science is true only if it works), they dismiss pretty much all modes of rationality except common sense.
But science is not the ultimate pragmatism. As you pointed out, Phil, politics is. Therefore, they must agree that the best arena to decide issues of morality is the political arena.
With the decoupling of constitutional law from original principles and the infusion of postmodernistic thought into the law, atheists would also embrace deciding issues of morality in the courts. They’ve debased the courts and converted them into political arenas, anyway. Functionally, there are zero degrees of separation, anymore, between the courts and the Iowa caucuses. Aaah. The atheist’s heaven.
If all this is true, then the Declaration of Independence is untrue. I think that the Declaration of Independence is still the most radical political document ever written. Without a God as absolute lawgiver, however, it’s null and void.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 23, 2007
zealot144.
Intelligent Design works as religion, but not as science.
Of course, God created the universe. Of course, by definition, science doesn't even try to answer metaphysical or religions questions.
No, we can't recreate this universe. Duh. We're not God.
As I asked Phil, please formulate your scientific theory of Intelligent Design. Base it upon all available scientific evidence. Discuss how your theory is superior to the theory of evolution. Detail the lab tests you’ve conducted which affirm your theory. Propose how your theory is falsifiable. Describe new phenomena not yet observed, but which your theory predicts. iow, do the science.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 23, 2007
zealot144:
"There are only two positions… God created… No god created (or, god did not create, or, there is no god, or, there was no creation, etc.)"
But, you presume that the Law of the Excluded Middle (ie, in one form, "A thing must either be or not be") is true. For "presume", substitute "leap of faith".
As a thought experiment, let's deny the truth of the Law of the Excluded Middle. If it's untrue, there could be a third possibility (or a fourth, fifth, …) to the 2 you stated above.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 23, 2007
zealot144:
"First principle: All effects have causes."
No, not in the Quantum Dynamic realm. There, probability, chance, and randomness rule.
Einstein understood the implications of QM ("God does not play dice with the universe"), and tried to prove that its abnegation of cause-and-effect was false. Einstein failed. So has science. Since Einstein's death, every experiment conducted to test Einstein's order vs QM's chaos has affirmed the truth of QM.
Now that you understand that there is no cause and effect, perhaps you'd like to rewrite your post.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 23, 2007
Phil:
My Christmas present to you (a response post) is hung up in the filter. I'll keep trying.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 23, 2007
zealot144 – LiveFreeDieFree has pointed out a few issues with your post, but I'd like to ask a couple more questions:
1. You state: "There is NO evidence of infinity within the cosmos we inhabit" and then go on to state that "when the question of the cause of the big bang comes up… [t]he cause must have a cause, ad infinitum… Thus begins an infinite regression." Are you saying that we do have evidence of infinity in that sense? Or are you assuming that an infinite regression is impossible? If so, what justifies that assumption? Most people don't seem to have problems with infinite progressions…
2. I guess you do reject an infinite regression (again, why?) because you assert "Nothing. Then something. The big bang." As LiveFreeDieFree noted, science has only pushed back understanding close to, but not actually at, the big bang. What do you use to justify the principle that there was 'nothing' before the big bang? I don't see how you established that.
3. You state that "Infinity terminates at eternity, where cause and effect fail." I think you're going to have to define your terms here. Infinity doesn't terminate, at least by the definitions I'm familiar with. I don't recall you actually establishing that cause and effect fail anywhere, so I'm not sure how you justify that leap.
4. You ask, "'mass/energy existing eternally' indeed. Provide evidence of credulity, if you will." Well, it's passed every practical test we can come up with. We have never seen net creation or destruction of mass/energy. What 'evidence of credulity' do you have that mass/energy can be created? (I also don't see what standards you're using to judge the notion "more extravagant" than God…)
5. If I may speculate a bit, you appear (and please correct me if I'm wrong) to be using standard, 'common sense' notions of causality, time, and so forth. That's entirely understandable, but I've made the point over and over again that those intuitions are not reliable outside of the environment humans arose in. The heliocentric solar system, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics – heck, even the round Earth – were all genuine, counterintuitive surprises. We haven't seen any other universes being created, so we haven't tested any common-sense notions of universe creation yet. I'd be cautious (as, indeed, scientists are) about extrapolating beyond what we can test.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 24, 2007
LiveFreeDieFree – You declare that "Atheists can’t argue that the Holocaust was absolutely immoral. They can’t by definition."
Apparently your definitions don't match mine:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/12/universal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe/
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 24, 2007
The most fundamental, bedrock principle in science, without which it would have no reason to exist, is that for every effect, their is a cause. Nature conforms to laws that are immutable; there are causes and effects, actions and reactions. The observation of effects and the explanation of cause is the job of science. Arbitrariness or randomness negates science and confounds reason. This, incidentally, was the gist of Pope Benedicts Regensberg address, which I recoimmend everyone read. (I left the typo in there so Ray has something to pick on) :)
Einstein understood this and was correct. Eventually, if they do not resort to the randomness cop-out, physicists will find these answers as well.
Anyone who maintains that Darwinism is a scientific theory, while Intelligent Design is not must consider the fundamental difference between the two:
Darwinism observed what it saw as the evolution of species, but since it has thus far been unable to explain its cause (the how of it, not just the why), Darwinists resorted to calling it "random mutation." The fact remains that randomness is not a scientific explanation; it is a cop-out. It is an admission of defeat. Just because science has thus far been unable to pinpoint specific causation for certain physical phenomena does not mean those explanations do not exist; we just haven't found them yet. Randomness is not the final answer: it is a substitute for the final answer.
Likewise Intelligent Design observes the same phenomena and suggests or hypothesizes that their was design rather than randomness. This is the only difference between the two: randomness vs. design. Thus, either they are both legitimate scientific theories, or neither one is legitimate science. You cannot have it both ways.
Randomness is not science, but its negation.
Darwinists are unwilling to concede design not because it is unscientific, but because they have an aversion to God and religion.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 24, 2007
Let me put this another way:
Suppose mankind wipes itself out in some cataclysm and, a million years later, some advanced race lands on earth and discovers the PC on which I am typing. Would it be more scientific for them to theorize that some intelligent agent designed and built this highly complex machine for a purpose or that the machine, completely at random and for no apparent reason, designed and assembled itself? Which of these two hypothoses is more or less scientific?
Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting the purpose (the why) is scientifically knowable or testable, that is a question answerable only by philosophy and theology, not science. But the how is a question of science.
To suggest randomness is not only unscientific, it is anti-scientific.
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | December 24, 2007
“But science is not the ultimate pragmatism. As you pointed out, Phil, politics is. Therefore, they must agree that the best arena to decide issues of morality is the political arena.”
*** Life Free — you captured the atheist mind set very well. One slight addition to your comments, though.
Politics is indeed where we decide issues, even moral ones. But that outcome/decision is not inherently “moral”. Politics decided that certain people were not fully human (slavery). That was a political compromise that was, at best, wrapped in a morally-relative rationalization.
Morality — that which is inherently “right” vs “wrong” — cannot be the product of human consensus. Otherwise, the UN would be the fountainhead of human morality.
Enjoyed the exchange. Have a great Christmas. Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 24, 2007
Mr. Osonitsch: First, I hope the smiley indicates you saw comment #117. Second, I think you are, like Einstein, telling God what to do. I strongly suggest you read up on Bell's Theorem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem – in a nutshell, QM really is highly counterintutive, and it seems very unlikely that the randomness and weirdness in it will be resolved in a way you seem to expect.
Your other comments regarding evolution are related – you essentially use Paley's "watchmaker" argument. The problem with that is that watches and computers are highly unlike living things in a critical aspect – watches and computers do not reproduce, with occasional errors. (For an interesting thought-experiment along these lines, you might look at the science-fiction book "Code of the Life-Maker" by James Hogan.)
Highly complex non-reproducing items do not self-assemble spontaneously – that's true and no one disputes that. But reproducing items, with small errors, can and do generate more and more complexity – in small jumps. We know this in lots of different way from lots of different lines of evidence, but I personally have played with this process and seen it in action: http://ingles.homeunix.net/software/minev/intro.html
(A book-length treatment of this principle is "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Dawkins.)
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 24, 2007
Raymond:
Just a short take. I need to digest the discussion between you and Phil to respond more substantively.
Sure, we can derive (extrapolate, induct) a moral code using the way evolution operates as a basis, but said moral code will have the same limitation that all other rationally-based systems do: It is not absolute. Why not? Well, it can't be.
My field is math and computers. In a nutshell, mathematicians have 'proven' that mathematics does not address absolute truth, although many mathematicians are loathe to admit so. That's their problem. Science, too, has severe limitations, and basically addresses pragmatic rather than absolute truths.
If math and science are provisional, postmodern, and contigent, how can any moral code derived from evolution be an absolute? The answer: It can't.
You seem to use the word 'universal' rather than 'absolute'. But, universal for whom? Evolution may operate quite differently on alien worlds. There, Hitler may be the paragon of good, and Mother Theresa the paragon of evil.
In any case, I think and believe Phil is right: An absolute moral code requires a God as law-giver.
I'll grant you that we can induct a pretty damned good moral code without interjecting a God into our analysis. Sociobiology is one such dynamite tool. However, this moral code by definition must be provisional, postmodern, and contingent; else, you end up with the infinite regression fallacy you attribute to zealot144.
Hopefully, more later.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 24, 2007
“The problem with that is that watches and computers are highly unlike living things in a critical aspect – watches and computers do not reproduce, with occasional errors”
[This post suggests that ERRORS lead to improvement and an increase of information content. Is this what you truly propose? Is this the consensus of the evolutionist community? I think it is. The absurdity of it must be obvious. ]
Paley’s argument does appear to suffer from the mistake you note, as does yours. Yours fails to question the beginning of life, the programming of DNA, and the origins of the fundamental order and harmony that permit these. In other words, where from is reproduction? What is the origin of origin? Watches do not mate. Molecules do not mate. Life does. Where from, and how and why?
The dice were rolled at some point. Life emerged, carrying what is rapidly being recognized as a very complicated and remarkably simple (would that equal subtle?) blueprinting process. Indeed, it appears that atomic physics cooperates with the plans.
You begin your search and explanation long after the architect has left the room. Paley’s comparison fails not because watches do not replicate. Instead, it fails because a watch is simpler than many of the individual molecules that constitute a living organism. To compare a watch to an entire living creature on the order of a bird or an ape is akin to comparing a cave illustration to a modern CGI intensive film. Indeed, the leap is far greater than that.
The modern naturalist views the bricks of the universe as pieces of a puzzle, while never questioning the origins of those pieces or the fortuitous balances they represent. They just “are”. A naturalist will even consider that there could only be one way for them to be, while never wondering the why of that. Why could they not be different? Why could they not be imbalanced? They would not have persevered if they were different, but, what is the why of that?
To assert that such questions go beyond the purview of science does no more than communicate the limitations of scientific inquiry and scientific method. To never wonder at the very fundaments of reality is to build an intellectual boundary. To deny this wonder in the name of science is unconscionable.
Scientific perspective is the limit.
Religion may not provide the answer, but it offers no such limits.
To conceive the human mind and the hive awareness of science as the limits of reality is the worst of hubris. Reality exceeds both. Some of us acknowledge this. Some of us do not.
Comment by zealot144 | December 24, 2007
livefreediefree:
“Intelligent Design works as religion, but not as science.”
I concur. I dispute the limitations of science. Science works for science, but is does not work for reality. You ask me to join you in your limited pursuits. I refuse. I respect science. I respect my computer and the medicine that gives me longevity. I have no beef with science.
But, no scientist created me. No scientist initiated the cosmos. Do you not see this? You observe what has happened. You view history. You quantify it and characterize it. Yet, you seem to never question how that history exists, much less how it began. You ask me to join your limited view. I refuse.
“But, you presume that the Law of the Excluded Middle (ie, in one form, “A thing must either be or not be”) is true. For “presume”, substitute “leap of faith”.”
Sophistry? Your scientific perspective fails if the middle is not excluded. “It is, or it is not” form the basis of the scientific mind and scientific method. Your data shows agreement, or it does not. Your theory has support, or it does not.
The middle ground is inhabited by “both”. To hit you in the kneecap with a base ball bat is either “kind” or it is not. Per some eastern mysticisms, a thing can be both of contradicting ideas simultaneously. To hit you in the kneecap with the ball bat might be both kind and cruel. If you learned a lesson from this act that saved you future harm of far greater consequence, the act might be considered kind. To most, it would seem cruel.
Is this the middle ground you refer to? Is this germane?
Piff!
Either an intelligent designer did so, or one does not exist.
I throw your challenge back at you: If one does not exist, AND one does not “not exist”, please describe the middle ground. OR, if one DOES exist, while also NOT existing. The nonexistent nonintelligence that does not create that does exist while being simultaneously nonexistent. I think I have lost count of my “nons”.
Are you daft? Do you hope to catch me in stupidity? Or, do you acknowledge the frailty of your position and choose silliness as argument? Which?
“Einstein understood the implications of QM (”God does not play dice with the universe”)”
Interesting that you would choose a quote that includes the concept of God. Einstein, BTW, disputed QM, initially, because it retreated from his calm understanding of reality. I think that he suddenly realized what I am trying to communicate, and you are rejecting: The cosmos is anti-logical. But, it is here. And, it works.
The comfortable stuff you find as the basis of your logic is somewhat insubstantial. Unless, of course, you dump the cause thing and buy the “I saw it thing”. Then, you lose. You do not see all. No one does. You adhere to the “I saw it” thing. “I saw electrons go backwards in time!”. Good for you!
QM does not alter the basis of logic and formative realization. If it did, science would collapse. QM describes the verities of time and direction, something I have been arguing for some (time? Distance? location? VeCtOr?). Primacy is not challenged by QM. QM is the RESULT.
Find what started QM. I wish you luck. Sincerely.
Comment by zealot144 | December 24, 2007
"Darwinists are unwilling to concede design not because it is unscientific, but because they have an aversion to God and religion. " – Jeff Osonitsch
Theists argue, “The cosmos is far too complex to have arisen by pure chance, thus it must have been intelligently designed. We call this designer God.” The problem with this design inference is obvious: Any designer capable of crafting something as complex as the cosmos surely also is complex enough to require its own designer. Indeed any designer, by definition, would have to be complex; the very act of “designing” requires the presence of a mind. This is because design, by definition, is planning/executing something with a specific goal with respect to the end result. Mind, the only entity capable of design work, simply is too complex to arise by pure chance [Remember, this is the dichotomy with which creationists present us, pure chance versus design. Working from their own (I would argue false) dichotomy, mind requires design, and thus designers require design.] Note: Natural Selection does not constitute design because Natural Selection never works toward a specified end goal. It takes what it can get at stage one, without regard to what might happen at stage nine.
So now we conclude that our complex – by virtue of its mind – intelligent designer also must have been designed (since it is too statistically improbable that mind would arise by pure chance). In reaching this conclusion, all I am doing is applying the design inference uniformly and accepting the creationists’ own dichotomy of pure chance versus design. Continuing logically then, the Super designer of the original intelligent designer also must have been designed. That work must have been done by a Supreme intelligent designer, who again, by virtue of the presence of its mind, must too be the product of design [Remember, design work only can be done by a mind, and a mind - given our accepted creationist dichotomy - must be the product of design, since it statistically could not arise by pure chance.] This reasoning dooms us to an infinite regress wherein every designer, each of whom possesses a mind, would need its own designer in turn.
Comment by Sam | December 25, 2007
zealot144:
My 3 response posts to you were neither logically cohesive nor bullet-proof. They did elicit a response from you, though. Thus, mission accomplished.
Your posts (#’s 124, 125, 127, & 142) merit serious attention. Let’s start at the beginning.
In #125, you said: “In other words, only those who do NOT believe in a creative intelligence are convinced that proof (thus, knowledge) is impossible.”
In my response, I alluded to the Law of the Excluded Middle but suggested that it may not posit an absolute truth; specifically, that there may be a ‘middle’ alternative to such rudimentary formulations of the law as “A thing must either be or not be.” My proof? That “Cogito ergo sum” is the one & only absolute truth we know. Thus, we must question all other supposed absolute truths, including the Law of the Excluded Middle.
However, this essay is not the best venue to discuss the limits of rationality. Alan Roebuck’s The Scientific Leftists of the Center For Inquiry essay is. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/12/21/the-scientific-leftists-of-the-center-for-inquiry/. So, dismiss any comments I posted here specifically re the Law of the Excluded Middle.
Back to what you said. You posited a false dichotomy. It is possible to both believe in God and be convinced that proof (thus, knowledge) is impossible.
Not to belabor a point, but I have a hunch that all dichotomies are false, including ultimate ones like existence vs non-existence, but, as I said, that’s another story.
You continued #125’s theme in #142: “I dispute the limitations of science… I respect science.”
Voila. You thus confirmed my suspicion or intuition; specifically, that your arguments need proofs and knowledge to be absolute. Actually, kudos. A very intriguing though flawed contention.
Continuing with #142: “Sophistry? Your scientific perspective fails if the middle is not excluded.”
True, but I accept the severe limitations of a science that requires the excluded middle. You don’t.
Continuing: “Either an intelligent designer did so, or one does not exist. I throw your challenge back at you: If one does not exist, AND one does not ‘not exist’, please describe the middle ground.”
Damn it. You won’t let go, will you? NP. This ain’t the proper venue, but what the hell.
How does God apprehend the universe? Using dichotomies that rely upon the Law of the Excluded Middle? I think not.
Let’s start with the basics. Does God apprehend non-existence? Are you kidding? How could He? After all, God is eternal and infinite. How could there be anything ‘beyond’ eternity and infinity? Thus, God does not apprehend non-existence. Ergo, the most rudimentary form of the Law of the Excluded Middle (ie, a thing either is or is not) is untrue for God.
How do we resolve this conundrum? To posit that nothingness is a state of being. Thus, if & when God imagines any impossibility ‘beyond’ eternity and infinity, His conceiving of it creates it. It subsequently becomes encapsulated by and in eternity and infinity. In essence, non-being becomes being. Non-existence exists, but only for a timeless period; ie, never.
No more musings on this subject, OK? This is not the proper venue.
“QM does not alter the basis of logic and formative realization. If it did, science would collapse.”
Strictly, you’re right. QM did not spell the formal death knell of the rationally-knowable absolute. Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum” in metaphysics and Cantor’s Incompleteness Theorem in mathematics did. However, QM was the pastor at the grave site, intoning the rites before absolute truth finally died.
Of course, science had already admitted its provisionality. The Scientific Method is inductive. At best, it posits that a scientific theory ‘explains’ only observed phenomena. It makes no claim about phenomena not yet observed except to categorically state that new phenomena might invalidate the theory.
“QM describes the verities of time and direction, something I have been arguing for some (time? Distance? location? VeCtOr?). Primacy is not challenged by QM.”
I empathize. Words fail.
I agree, as long as we mutually define ‘primacy’ to be “the absence of cause-and-effect”.
Do the nearly-absolute limitations of rationality imply that God exists? No. How can perfection arise from imperfection? To reiterate: In mathematical terms, the imperfect set cannot contain the imperfect set. Whether or not the perfect set can contain the imperfect set is a question best left for another discussion.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 25, 2007
Oops. Typo. In last paragraph, "The imperfect set cannot contain the perfect set."
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 25, 2007
zealot144 – Yes, indeed, errors occasionally "lead to improvement and an increase of information content". Can you state categorically that you have never, ever gotten the right answer on a test for the wrong reason? Did you examine the second link in the comment you were responding to? Beneficial mutations in biological systems are indeed rare; but they do happen (there are documented cases).
As to the origin of life – read the third paragraph of comment #12 above. Oh, and the last paragraph, too.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 26, 2007
LiveFreeDieFree – You ask, "If math and science are provisional, postmodern, and conti[n]gent, how can any moral code derived from evolution be an absolute? The answer: It can’t."
That's true… and, in fine 'postmodern' tradition, it's false, too. My analysis was restricted to humans, and I explicitly acknowledged that in the article (just count how many times the word 'human' appears). But the core of my thesis was that "Given what humans are, and what kind of universe they inhabit, some types of behavior and some courses of action are wiser choices than others."
Other living things, aliens on other worlds, may have different morals. Perhaps in some sense a flu virus is behaving 'morally' by its lights as it infects people (though morals would imply a level of choice not likely to be present in a virus). But so long as humans are humans, and inhabit this universe, there will be human morals.
Now, 'what kind of universe humans inhabit' is not a completely settled issue yet, that's true. It may never be completely settled. But to try to say that implies there are no absolutes strikes me as almost disingenuous. Despite Einstein and Newton making radically different predictions in many areas, the vast majority of human engineering is still thoroughly Newtonian. Even NASA still uses Newton's laws (with a few fudge factors) to pilot its space probes through the solar system. On a human scale, the differences between Relativistic and Newtonian dynamics are almost immeasurable.
Our technology changes the environment humans live in, but hasn't yet fundamentally changed what it means to be human. Individual technological changes affect morality somewhat (earlier prohibitions on mutilating the dead don't bother most people now with respect to organ donation, and the Jehovah's Witnesses are nearly alone in refusing blood transfusions) but I can't think of an example offhand that isn't a 'corner case'.
Sure, math and science aren't 'absolute'. But what odds do you want that the sun won't come up tomorrow? C'mon, you put up $20 on the sun not rising in the East tomorrow (we can agree on a suitable definition of 'sunrise', I'm sure)… how much do you want me to put up to make the bet worthwhile? (Am I likely to have that much money?)
There's a difference between what you might call 'formal' absolutes and 'practical absolutes. I at least attempted to ground my case in 'practical' absolutes. I must acknowledge that if our understanding of the universe (or of human nature) drastically changed, then I'd be forced to change my conclusions. However, I'm… doubtful of that actually happening in a morally-significant way.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 26, 2007
Raymond Ingles commented: "On a human scale, the differences between Relativistic and Newtonian dynamics are almost immeasurable."
Almost…but there are everyday examples. For instance, the element mercury is a liquid rather than a solid because of relativistic dynamics – see http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/inorganic/faq/why-is-mercury-liquid.shtml (among others).
Similarly, the element gold is its unique color because of relativistic dynamics – see http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/gold_color.html (among others).
(There are even two different books titled Relativistic Effects in Chemistry.)
Comment by PaulBurnett | December 26, 2007
I am inclined to downplay the frustration I feel when reading the majority of the posts in this discussion so far due to the well reasoned and completely unanswered objections of Mr. Alan Roebuck.
True, Mr. Burnett attempts a response (#88); however in the end he does nothing more than begs the very important question that Mr. Roebuck posed.
Another individual, Mr(Ms.?) Wiggy articulates what may be a knee jerk response to the arguments raised, and I feel certain that had others in this thread bothered with reading Alan's posts, they would probably respond in similar fashion (which would subject their replies to the same savage criticism of Wiggy's position that Alan demonstrated in post #53.)
Indeed the only way for the supporters of a naturalistic metaphysical view of reality (and any theories derived from that foundation, including evolution) to avoid these self refuting contradictions, is by giving up their naturalism.
Such is the true metaphysical nature of this debate, and seeing Alan's post which recognized this, was like a fresh gust of wind in a chicken house. For those opposing the Evolutionary theory, (in any of its forms) to accept at the outset of the discussion the philosophical premises of your opponent is not only inconsistent philosophy, it is potentially dishonorable before God almighty whom you (presumably) are attempting to defend, (even if such a nasty little secret has yet to be acknowledged.)
Given the truth of naturalism, I would be inclined to agree with the arguments against ID so far presented, and in that case, I say that positing a "God of the Gaps" argument, would indeed be fallacious and unnecessary. However, we have yet to see any arguments in favor of the truth of any form of naturalistic worldview; it has so far just been arbitrarily assumed.
I as a Christian would propose that any naturalistic metaphysical theory ultimately invalidates itself, and therefore, any conclusions based on such a theory (like the popular form of evolution being discussed) would also ultimately be invalid. If I am right in that proposition, then evolution is only valid as far as it accepts the non contradictory philosophical premises posited in the Christian worldview. (Not that I am claiming any form of theistic evolution is compatible with Biblical text, as many books can show to be impossible, merely that whatever degree of philosophical "soundness" evolution does hold, depends on the degree of conformity with the Christian worldview.)
Would anyone like to respond to my proposition, or the far better articulated posts of Mr. Roebuck?
Comment by shotgun | December 26, 2007
Mr. Burnett – Even magnetism itself is a relativistic effect. (That's one good measure of a scientific theory – relativity, like evolution, explains a lot of things outside its original domain.) But the special properties of lodestones have been known for thousands of years, and relativity simply offered up a deeper understanding of the phenomena, it didn't invent entirely new phenomena of itself. The kind of universe humans inhabit, particularly in a day-to-day sense, has changed drastically over the last hundred thousand years. And yet, in fundamental ways, it hasn't – people still form an essential part of our environment; the seven deadly sins may have changed some of the ways they are expressed but they are still bad ideas.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 26, 2007
Raymond:
Everything I think and know is based upon 2 premises:
(1) Ratiocination and knowledge are almost absolutely limited; and
(2) Dialogue is impossible unless the dialoguers understand (thought + knowledge) the other’s axiomatic assumption.
Re #1: We know nothing as absolutely true except “Cogito ergo sum”.
Re #2: To understand my axiomatic assumptions, please refer to #1.
Ruthlessly simple.
“But to try to say that implies there are no absolutes strikes me as almost disingenuous.”
We can ‘resolve’ the paradox in the self-contradictory statement: “There are no absolutes” in 2 ways:
(1) Abandon resolution. Accept the paradox as a given.
(2) Posit that there are some absolutes. The paradox disappears.
OK, so there are some absolutes. What are they? Well, my answer is that we can never be sure what those absolutes are (except, of course, for “Je doute que je suis”). We cannot ‘know’ them. We must accept our own set of absolutes on faith.
Furthermore, your absolutes are almost certainly not my absolutes. Therefore, unless we understand each other’s absolutes, our dialogue is nihilistic.
What are my absolutes? Good question. I’m not sure. However, I’m pretty sure that my absolutes need to be based upon understanding perfection, infinity, and eternity. Thus, my first absolute is that this universe is imperfect, finite, and temporal, and that there is a realm outside it that is perfect, infinite, and eternal.
Based upon this axiom (I’m a math guy; ‘axioms’ is a good word), I argued in post #144 that the Law of the Excluded Middle doesn’t apply to God. Paraphrased: God exists; God is not non-existant. By definition, the most rudimentary formulation of the Law of the Excluded Middle (A thing either is or is not) doesn’t apply to God.
Yea, the above ‘logic’ is pure nonsense since we can also paraphrase the argument this way: God exists if He exists. Not good.
Furthermore, can the human mind ‘understand’ perfection, infinity, and eternity? Perfection, maybe. Infinity and eternity are probably unknowable by definition.
The 3 ‘highest’ forms of human knowledge are metaphysics, mathematics, and physics. However, we realized sometime in the middle of the 20th century that all 3 intellectual disciplines do not speak of absolute truth.
Modern mathematicians tacitly admit that math is as inductive as science is; specifically, that the ‘truth’ of the axioms postulated for any mathematical system is based upon the consistency of the theorems proved within the mathematical system. Like science, math proceeds from effect to cause. Paraphrased, math is ruthlessly pragmatic.
“There’s a difference between what you might call ‘formal’ absolutes and ‘practical absolutes. I at least attempted to ground my case in ‘practical’ absolutes.”
‘Practical’ absolutes is a good term.
We agree. I think we humans can formulate a morality based upon the way evolution operates. This morality would be almost coincident with a theistically-based morality. I personally don’t know of anyone who has tried, but my guess is that we could demonstrate that each of the 10 Commandments can be grounded in sociobiological principles — or, at least those commandments (ie, 4 thru 10 in Catholic doctrine) that don’t specifically mention God.
But, Phil is right, too. The heart yearns for certainty, Certainty requires God.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 26, 2007
shotgun:
"If I am right in that proposition, then evolution is only valid as far as it accepts the non contradictory philosophical premises posited in the Christian worldview."
You’re wrong. Evolution is a perfectly valid scientific theory, while ID is not.
You theists can try to discredit science and naturalism all you want. Be warned, though. All your arguments apply equally to any rational discussion of the deity. In the end, you must assume at the very beginning that God created the universe. However, this is a fact not in evidence. All rational arguments that supposedly ‘prove’ that God exists do not. Yes, rationality has severe limits. We evolutionists accept those limits. Why can’t you?
Well, we evolutionists know why. If you accepted those limits, then your beliefs are as unsupportable as the beliefs of us evolutionists.
You can’t have it both ways, shotgun.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 26, 2007
shotgun – yours and Mr. Roebuck's posts seem, to me, to make a fairly fundamental category error. What's the essential difference between the 'natural' and the 'supernatural', anyway? I've argued elsewhere (again, the link in comment #98) that people effectively define the 'supernatural' as the 'unknowable' – something forever beyond human understanding.
The worry over 'naturalism' leads to people getting irritated with, say, Carl Sagan's definition of the "Cosmos" as "all that was, is, or ever will be". They think that this excludes God, but that's a misinterpretation. Sagan was defining the Cosmos (in slightly poetic language) as "the set of all existing things". If God exists (or existed at some point, or will exist), then it would by definition be a member of the set, it would be part of the "Cosmos". This is not an insult to God, it's just set theory.
If there were something outside the universe that occasionally 'poked in' and stirred things, then that would be an observable item, something that could be theorized about, or tested. Something 'weakly supernatural' in that sense could even be worked with, scientifically evaluated. (For an amusing rendition of what that might look like, see here: http://www.goldengryphon.com/Stross-Concrete.html )
If, on the other hand, one were insisting that there were things that were 'supernatural' in the strong sense, that were truly and forever beyond human understanding… well, I'd have to ask how one could know that. Lots of things have been declared to be 'supernatural' in exactly that sense in the past, and have turned out to be comprehensible. How do we tell if something is comprehensible or not? More to your and Mr. Roebuck's point – how would you prove that something isn't comprehensible?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 26, 2007
Freelunch:
You said: “Johnson and Dembski lie”. What are they lying about specifically? I’ve sometimes found that “lie” can mean that the accuser doesn’t agree with the philosophical or political position held by the accused – sort of “we really are facing a man-made disaster from global warming and if you say we’re not, then you’re a liar!” Is that the kind of lying you mean?
Or, did you mean Johnson deliberately altered facts to support his position? That’s somewhat common in science – altering facts and conclusions to support a political position so as to gain fame and wealth – and, although Johnson isn’t a scientist, why shouldn’t he borrow from their tactics? Man-made global warming disasters or the miracle cures emanating from embryonic stem cell research (Dr. Hwang Woo-Suk for instance) are good examples of altering facts to support a political position – did you mean that kind of “lying”? If you do, what specific facts and conclusions did he alter?
You’re quite correct that Johnson’s opinions haven’t appeared in respected science journals. From what I can see, respected science journals don’t publish opinions that undermine the financial support and prestige of the scientific community – I mean, why would they? Some less than naïve folks take the position that organizations representing scientists refuse to publish such opinions because it would be contrary to their self-interest, would damage the prestigious position held by scientists within the public eye, would affect the monetary wealth and future financial prospects of scientists and because there is no legal requirement they do so.
Perhaps you’ve noticed there is no central authority with legal or otherwise dictatorial power over science or scientists within this country. Scientists are free, within the same laws that apply to all of us, to pursue their interests without government interference. So, why would organizations representing scientists want to publish opinions contrary to their self-interests? And, who could make them publish such contrary opinions if they refused to do so?
But science doesn’t wish to appear arbitrary in pursuit of its self-interest; Americans are suspicious of and resent such arrogance within powerful organizations – so, it is better to invent a rule and then claim the “invented rule” actively prevents you from doing what anyone else would normally do out of a personal sense of fairness and integrity. Perhaps you’ve noticed that particular tactic employed within other organizations – for example, our criminal justice system is rife with “invented rules” that constantly override common sense and fairness – such as “he raped and then murdered that 11 year old girl, but his confession was obtained illegally”.
In Johnson’s case, there is an invented rule within science against “negative argumentation”. Negative argumentation means that you can’t publish a paper attacking an established theory (hint: theory of evolution) without publishing an alternate theory of your own. If your goal is simply to attack an established theory for personal motives, then the negative argumentation rule applies. Seems logical and well it should, except there is apparently no invented rule against “positive argumentation” – you can easily publish an opinion within peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed journals, books, scientific publications, etc. supporting an established theory all the while basing your opinion purely on speculation without any empirical evidence to offer (hint: theory of evolution). In fact, it happens all the time (and why shouldn’t it happen all the time – because the “ethics” of science would absolutely prevent such a practice?)
Perhaps you’ve also noticed that respected journals such as Science and Nature engage in editorializing and active suppression of opinions they don’t support or which contradict their editorial positions. And, if they did – so what? Who would stop them exactly? Or, would you argue these journals are self-governing icons of scientific integrity and never require outside regulation of their ethics?
You may also have observed from time to time that peer-reviewed journals don’t always ensure what they publish is true, or even accurate. For example, our friend Hwang Woo-Suk published his falsified stem cell research in the June 17th, 2005 edition of Science. The peers did what peers normally do and reviewed the Hwang article prior to publication and agreed that his conclusions were reasonable and his laboratory methods likely to produce the results he described. Before you gallantly rush to the defense of outraged science, let me hasten to add that I know peer-reviewed journals don’t certify the material they publish is either true or accurate. Why would they – no one requires them to do so and it would be stupid on their part.
In fact, peer review is somewhat overrated as Dr. Hwang would exemplify – he got through the peer review filter in “Science” twice – they also published a peer reviewed article of his in their March 12th 2004 edition. However, the public believes in peer review as a measure of integrity and truth – why shouldn’t they – science constantly informs the public it works exactly toward those ends. And, specifically, what alternative does the public have to peer-reviewed journals in any case?
But, peer review does serve an undetermined role as scientific quality control. Would a scientist put his or her reputation on the line and favorably review an article knowing the science was bogus or the research results falsified? Of course not. However, what dire consequences accrued to those scientists who peer reviewed Hwang’s work? Well, no dire consequences actually. In fact, this whole “putting your reputation on the line” stuff is vastly overrated as a deterrent to sloppy or fraudulent work.
For example, you, the bamboozled peer reviewer, could point out to the media that the rest of the scientific community was also taken in by Hwang initially – but eventually the truth won out – although the journal Science became strangely reticent in acknowledging the failure of peer review to prevent frauds within the world of scientific publications. Stuff happens, right – peer review works well most of the time – or so we’re told. The Old Media relied on journals like Science to validate Hwang’s work and as a “ha-ha gotcha, you idiot” toward President Bush’s stem cell politics. Even today, articles in widely disseminated outlets like Wikipedia understate and omit the details of what Hwang falsified – the focus is on his violation of bio-ethics rather than his falsified research results – but that works to mitigate the failure of peer review and salvage the public’s confidence in the process.
So, is your definition of lying somewhat like an honest peer review of dishonest research? Does Phillip Johnson report and endorse the opinion of scientists that contradict opinions appearing in peer reviewed scientific journals and, in doing so, he commits to a lie? If he could obtain peer review of scientists for one of his articles, would that qualify as truth, as opposed to lying? Or would the refusal to publish his opinions, in journals like Science or Nature, mean he can’t meet their standards of peer reviewed truth, but Hwang Woo-Suk could?
Comment by Pat Skurka | December 27, 2007
Raymond Ingles asked: "How do we tell if something is comprehensible or not? More to your and Mr. Roebuck’s point – how would you prove that something isn’t comprehensible?"
I think I covered this in my response #88.
Here's my UFO example on this topic: Look up in the sky on a clear day and you may see a white line being drawn across the sky, with a metallic point just ahead of it. "That's a UFO!" "No – it's an airplane." "But you can't tell if it's a 747 or a DC-8 or whatever – you can't identify it, so it's a UFO." "But I can get my telescope…" "It'll be gone by then." "I can call the FAA." "You won't bother – relax, it's just a UFO."
Does that conversation make sense? Of course not, but that's the level of discourse you see sometimes on whether or not something is "comprehensible" or "incomprehensble." Some people are perfectly happy saying "I'm ignorant and can't comprehend it. End of story." That's how intelligent design creationists do "research" – it's incomprehensible when you give up and say "Goddidit."
Actual scientists don't give up – they say "It's incomprehensible so far – write another research grant application." (grin)
Comment by PaulBurnett | December 27, 2007
Pat Skurka-
As you know, Dr. Hwang's fraud was quickly discovered when people tried to follow the line of study that he claimed to have followed. The fact that peers did not catch that he actually lied about what had happened is somewhat troubling, but as you keep pointing out, scientists managed to catch him in his lies.
No, Johnson and Dembski are not such fools. They will never be caught lying about their scientific results because both of them assiduously refuse to do any science. What they do lie about is the actual state of the evidence that scientists have gathered. Of course, any scientists in the field are livid that Johnson and Dembski are so cavalier about telling such whoppers, but, as we see with you, those who are ignorant of the science seem quite willing to let Johnson and Dembski misrepresent the evidence because they are philosophically willing to deny evolution.
The facts of evolution are clear. The facts show us that Johnson and Dembski lie. They misrepresent anything they can get away with, not to actual scientists, but to their religious followers. Remember, these false claims have been found to be lies in court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) by a judge who was appointed by GW Bush. His opinion practically begged the US Attorney to prosecute some of the folks involved in the ID charade for lying to him. Unfortunately, the US Attorney hasn't bothered.
Comment by freelunch | December 27, 2007
Freelunch commented: "The facts of evolution are clear. The facts show us that Johnson and Dembski lie. They misrepresent anything they can get away with, not to actual scientists, but to their religious followers. Remember, these false claims have been found to be lies in court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) by a judge who was appointed by GW Bush. His opinion practically begged the US Attorney to prosecute some of the folks involved in the ID charade for lying to him."
This is somethng I happen to be quite familiar with. This is why I use the terms "DI stands for Dishonesty Institute" and "ID stands for Intellectual Dishonesty" every so often. To paraphrase the Danny DeVito character Leo Getz in the "Lethal Weapon" movies, they lie to you and then they lie to you and then they lie to you again.
Judge Jones ruled in the 2005 Dover decision "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." Judge Jones also stated: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." Let's look at how these good Christians abuse the Ninth Commandment.
Jon Buell, President of the so-called "Foundation for Truth and Ethics," appeared in Judge Jones' courtroom and denied his "Foundation" was a Christian publishing house, even after being shown his IRS exemption statement (with his initials on it!) and his state charter as a religious publisher. He denied getting support from churches, even after being shown letters he had signed begging for and thanking churches for their contributions. He lied his @$$ off.
Alan Bonsell and Bill Buckingham lied repeatedly about the religious background of the Dover School Board's decision to support creationism, and the source of the money for the creationist textbook.
Michael Behe helped Judge Jones understand the lies of intelligent desgn creationists when Behe stated (under oath) "the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection" only to be presented with a stack of 58 documents refuting his lie and then arrogantly stating "I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful." That was one of the high points of the trial.
(The "cdesign proponentsists" (Google the term if you're not familiar with it – it's the missing link lie that blew the Dover case wide open) not only lie, they commit fraud. See http://www.talkreason.org/articles/shenanigans.cfm for a description of how one of intelligent design creationism's leading lights, William Dembski, and his friends fraudulently inflated the reviews of his new book on Amazon.)
Not only are the facts of evolution and biology and science clear, but the facts are that the Christian Reconstructionists and the Theocratic Dominionists will go to any lengths to destroy evolution and biology and all of science, because the facts disagree with their Bronze Age creation mythology. If you doubt this, as I said in comment #3 above, please read Barbara Forrest’s paper, “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement,” available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf
And to Jeff Osonitsch and others who oppose evolution and support intelligent design creationism: You have been systematically lied to, by experienced propaganda experts. Please read Dr. Forrest's paper.
Comment by PaulBurnett | December 27, 2007
Well, another 63 posts have confirmed that I have yet again managed to predict, with astonishing accuracy, the main points and substance of this continued conversation (though, admittedly, I underestimated the amount of time it would take to say the exact same thing another 63 times). I think by any standard put forth here, that makes me a scientist and progenitor of a genuine scientific theory, confirmed by a tested hypothesis. That means that any statements I make henceforth are absolute and unquestionable. And I hereby decree that the best available scientific evidence that I have seen indicates that evolution does indeed take place, and has taken place. It seems that human beings, through the gradual descending of their intellect, facilitated by changes in their environment, slowly mutated into the various lower animal species we presently see on the planet, and then into non-thinking plant matter lacking any self-awareness, eventually degenerating into a single-celled organism without even the ability to replicate itself. As to how the original human beings with their higher intellect originally evolved or were "created" is, of course, the subject for a philosophical debate, and not addressed by this, a purely scientific, theory.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | December 28, 2007
Freelunch:
You clarified your position very well and I understand. The “If you don’t agree with my political and philosophical beliefs, then you’re a liar” is also a very popular intellectual theme here in the Golden State. “Bush lied – kids died” groupies are as common as sunshine around here; my local New York Times wannabe newspaper had to actively curtail all the “Bush lied” primal scream letters-to-the-editor or that’s all they would ever print – there wouldn’t be any room left for the garage sale announcements. Same thing goes for the “mankind is primarily responsible for global warming, there are horrific disasters coming and it’s all our fault” folks. Try disagreeing with these global warming fanatics and you’re immediately branded a “liar” (you saw that coming, right?). The embryonic stem cells will cure cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, acne, early death, late death, etc. intellectual position was also liar bait – if you disagreed miracle cures were on their way, you’re definitely a (well, you know the rest).
I wouldn’t think of labeling you and all the other evolution supporters “drama queens” but have you considered the fact that intelligent design is no immediate threat to evolution? There is still good money to be made from squinting at chimpanzee fossils and finding “missing link” similarities to humans – it’s an old trick, but much loved by the public, even with endless repetition. As an origin myth, evolution is king of the hill for science cultists, nothing will change that. There is even a rival “God-didn’t-do-it” biological change theory that is seldom, if ever, mentioned in public debate; which just goes to show you how dominant evolution theory really is – evolution is the New England Patriots, Tiger Woods, the New York Yankees, Oprah Winfrey of scientific theories – evolution rocks.
So, you folks claim we’re all on an express train to the living hell of the Dark Ages, wallowing in superstition, human sacrifices, public nose picking, uncontrolled flatulence and even worse if we don’t abandon intelligent design and return to an unwavering belief in evolution? I just don’t think intelligent design is that much of a threat to you. And, I believe the chance that we’ll see intelligent design ever taught in the classroom is exactly the same probability as seeing 3 hours a day of mandatory chapel attendance in public schools any time soon. As the animated character Shrek would say: “Yeah, like that’s gonna happen”.
Have you ever considered that the biggest problem with evolution is the evolutionists themselves? That’s right – open mouth, insert foot. The rulers of Big Science didn’t handle intelligent design very well when it first hit the streets. Americans like a choice in consumer products – origin myths are no exception. We insist on choices – but Big Science couldn’t grasp that simple concept. For example, in California we don’t all drive Toyotas, some people prefer Hondas and no one can convince the Honda owners to just drive Toyotas like everyone else. Even though it would take electron microscope analysis in a well equipped science lab to detect any difference between a Toyota and a Honda, Californians still demand a choice. Ask Senator Barbara Boxer if you don’t believe me – Californians overwhelmingly support choice – you know – throw what’s left of the baby in the dumpster vs. take the baby home as a keeper kind of choice.
Americans also resent unfairness by big, powerful organizations toward the little guy, so naturally the Big Science honchos scored a perfect 10 in the “Grossly Unfair, Playground Bully” Olympic event. The negative argumentation rule says you can’t just deliberately attack an established, much loved, high return on investment, scientific theory like evolution. You must present an alternate theory. Lynn Margulis did exactly that with her symbiogenetics theory; in promoting her theory she laid considerable verbal hurt upside the heads of orthodox Darwinists, she spit on their fossils, she farted in the general direction of their transitional intermediates and, in the end, she was right and her theory was accepted.
So, intelligent design supporters offered their theory as an alternate when they criticized evolution. But, was Big Science content merely to nitpick their data or sneer at their lack of explanatory details; as they had done with Margulis’ theory? No, these Big Science idiots had to go after their enemies’ livelihoods, they tried to get intelligent design supporters fired and permanently blacklisted, they wanted to lay a major whammy-jammy upside their collective heads and the public caught on to their nastiness and turned on these 900 pound evolution gorillas with a vengeance. With friends like evolution’s Big Science defenders, you’re much better off with a few Southern Baptist preachers and a couple of complexity theory cultists.
Lately however, the Big Science doofusses have caught on, maybe they’re evolving or, in their case, there really is intelligent design at work. In any event, their story changed to “we can’t allow intelligent design to be taught in science class, but we have no objection if intelligent design is taught in social studies”. Two points about that position. First, it’s a position much more photogenic with the general public than “I”ll get you fired, I’ll get your spouse fired, I’ll get your parents fired, I’ll get your children kicked out of school, I’ll get your dog neutered” position. A very palatable compromise – Big Science is actually trying to be fair and reasonable for a change, instead of acting like a pre-tantrum 2 year old.
The second point: Big Science spokesmen want intelligent design taught anywhere in public school about as much as they want a 2 hour rectal exam by a 300 pound NFL lineman who wears XXXL gloves. But, they’re finally growing some ganglia about the issue. They know they don’t have to appear arbitrary and walk all over Americans’ 1st Amendment rights, they have allies in this battle. They can appear fair and reasonable, knowing others will carry on with their agenda.
Let me make a prediction – and like the evolutionists – my theory also leans toward scientific predictions about events that have already happened. Ready? Intelligent Design will never be taught in public schools – a combination of irate parents and self appointed defenders of the constitution will prevent intelligent design from ever seeing one eager, student face in any public school classroom anywhere in America. It won’t matter if intelligent design is taught in social studies, history class, self-esteem studies, English lit, even gym class – intelligent design won’t be allowed in public schools.
Like evolutionists and their predictions, my prediction is quite accurate because it’s already happened. In Lebec California, the school tried to offer intelligent design as an elective philosophy class and Americans United for Separation of Church and State sued the school district – so it was decided not to offer it. It’s axiomatic that the ACLU, “Americans United for blah-blah”, the “something-something against” etc. organizations are always ready, like the post-Civil War Klu Klux Klan members, to don their hoods and ride anywhere at any time whenever some uppity black guy checks out the backside of an attractive white woman.
But, parents are actually the best allies of Big Science. Ever attend a school board public meeting? There are present the usual collection of nutcases with an ax to grind or a personal agenda to promote. But, the so-called reasonable and normal parents attending have no love for each other either. The Jewish parents suspect the Christian parents of secretly trying to convert their kids, get them to eat little paper wafers, handle snakes, etc. The country club Christian parents look askance at the Fundy parents – their motto: “keep your ignorant, bible thumping ideas away from my kid”.
The ACLU will carefully monitor schools in the Deep South in case some school district has parents all of a like mind who want intelligent design taught. The rest of the country has American parents keeping watch – people who thoroughly hate each other and will never agree on teaching intelligent design, even in an elective gym class.
So, we are safe from intelligent design for now. We can experience our own mutations and evolve each in our own way for the time being. But, I don’t think it will last.
Comment by Pat Skurka | December 29, 2007
I loved Patrick Mulligan's post! It is creative and imaginative! Of all the nonsense I have so far encountered in the ID debate I have never previously seen such wonderful humor.
The presentation is absurd, the tone apparently sincere, and the verbiage piquant!
Well, not the last. I may be overly generous in that regard.
Mister Mulligan, I think you miss how closely you graze the real question in this dispute, that being TIME. You allude to a regression of causes, which is absurd, while never questioning why such would be absurd. Look for the cause of the absurdity, that being the origin of TIME, and you may begin to recognize the limitations of your own cognizance.
There is, in fact, no logical mandate that prevents the regression you refer to. But, time appears to exist, in most cases. An electron may move backwards (from a macro cosmic perspective) in time. But, time does not exist. It is not a “thing”. It has no fabric. It has no boundary. It has no substance. It has no nothing. It is not, while it is.
To ascribe direction to time is amusing, so your description of it moving backwards is also amusing.
Your perspective is of one describing results, while never asking why. More importantly, you never ask the how of your perspective nor the facility of your perspective.
All is. That is simple for you. View it and describe it, and you feel satisfied in your certainty.
Ask instead how it is that there is an all, that is even is. Ask about the waterfall of time. Try to touch time. Try to truly absorb time. You look at a huge plummet of entropy and never question where it was dropped from. “It drops” satisfies you.
Reverse entropy, in your mind, as you have done in your post. Diminish waste and wear. Increase order, in your mind. Move backwards, in your mind, with your understanding of science and logic and math and information and find in your mind the possibility that today is more advanced and complex that that time before. Are you reading this? Time moves downhill. Information dissipates. Entropy increases. Or, none of the above.
I accept the entropy proposition. The sum of complexity diminishes. The sum of order diminishes. Time delineates an increase is disorder. Such is the nature of nature. Yet, you accept the opposite. Order increases. Complexity increases. Entropy reverses.
This parallels your humorous comment. Yet, somehow, in your mind, the backward wash of time reduces order. Natural law precludes this.
Funny. Very funny.
Comment by zealot144 | December 29, 2007
LiveFreeDieFree
You are timid. You are convicted in your uncertainty. You are uncomfortable with your timidity while being certain of your convictions.
To say that you are conflicted in your intellectualisms is an understatement.
“Law of the Excluded Middle doesn’t apply to God”
Your entire argument(s) allude to relevance and logic and tenure and worth and assumption and conclusion and awareness and cognizance and every concept except (FACT/TRUTH/REALITY). I do not believe our language contains a word that adequately allows for any “is” that cannot be disputed. “Is” may not “be” can be the only conclusion from the postulate that there may be no excluded middle.
God is. God is not. Only two choices. Regardless of how intelligent you are, or stupid, is is, or is is not. Obvious. Indisputable.
There is no middle ground, unless it is one created by your mind. Like infinity, “neither is nor is not” can exist only within imagination.
Simple thing: declare that you are convinced that He is, and He declares that you are. Choose to declare that He is not, and He will declare that you are not. A simple choice, really. All one needs to contemplate in the outcome of either declaration.
If He does not exist, then neither declaration is harmful. If he does, neither declaration does any good. The declaration is not the issue. The choice is.
Choose. If you choose, then declare. Stop beating around the bush.
I suggest we create a new word. One that can have no dispute. The wizards that concocted the “First Principles” proposition thought they had addressed this, but we now consider the in between of the excluded middle. I can not find it in my mind. Is is Is. Not is not not not. This is how my mind works. Other minds may work other ways. So, we need a convention of minds to find a word with no excluded middle.
I suggest the word “iz”. Sounds the same, but the spelling change would denote certainty. The word would be used very carefully. It would be employed only when the topic contained no chance of error or dispute. Is would not ever be iz. Only iz would be is. Or, we could find another word.
We would, of course, need to make improvements in the language, since the is/be/it etc. tenses would need polishing.
I look for help here. Any offered may be appreciated.
Comment by zealot144 | December 29, 2007
Raymond Ingles |
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.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm! Very interesting! In other threads where I have argued this point I have been told the there ARE good theories regarding biogenesis.
ALL such theories depend on the nature of nature. No question of why quarks quark. No mention of how math works, or why it so easily transponds to nature. It may seem obvious that gravity diminishes with the square of distance, but the need for it is elusive. The force is demonstrable with math, and it conforms to neat numbers, but no explanation exists for why this is so. The very nature of nature is a puzzle.
Biogenesis is a small part of the puzzle. The real question is “Why do the puzzle pieces fit together?” In a conventional jigsaw puzzle, the pieces are carefully crafted so that no two are identical (remarkable!). But, the final picture is complete before the jigsaw is begun.
In the cosmological puzzle, the final picture is the result of the jigsaw. The jig sawed the picture. The process inverted. OR, what we see as a jigsaw puzzle is actually what it is, a sawed picture. The puzzle did not create the picture.
Find the picture. The sawing has been done. Science puts the pieces of the puzzle together. It never contemplates the origins of the puzzle.
I do.
Comment by zealot144 | December 30, 2007
freelunch:
Criticism humbly and graciously accepted. No more timidity.
Neither of us can ‘prove’ our case. You and I have belief systems predicated upon unquestioned precepts. Faith underpins everything except I doubt my existence; therefore, I exist.
Alan Roebuck’s The Scientific Leftists of the Center For Inquiry article http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/12/21/the-scientific-leftists-of-the-center-for-inquiry/ has a link to another fascinating article: The Existence of God Logically Proven http://www.realtruth.org/articles/070601-006-teog.html?cid=g1193&s_kwcid=ContentNetwork|1167384521&gclid=CI2L0bu70JACFSBeagodnDl4Vw. Of course, the article does no such thing. It was written by a true theist. My definition of a “true theist” is someone who doesn’t understand rationality, and who thinks that disproving evolution proves the existence of God, a wonderfully inapt use of the Law of the Excluded Middle if ever there was one.
Whatever. A tangent, but perhaps an illuminating one.
My axiom #1 is that everything except Cogito ergo sum is contingent. My axiom #2 is that there may be other absolute truths, but that we can never be certain what they are. Paraphrased, we each accept our own set of absolute truths on faith alone.
You essentially argued that the Law of the Excluded Middle is an absolute truth. I disagree. It may be true, but it may not be.
Sophistry? Maybe. I do have Thomistic tendencies. My really bad.
Since modern metaphysics, mathematics, and science have abandoned the search for the Holy Grail of absolute truth, we need to look elsewhere for it. So, I toy with alternative intellectual universes where the Law of the Excluded Middle is contingent, or where infinity and eternity (perfection) are compared against their ‘antithesis’ (finitude and temporality, nee imperfection), although I sometimes wonder whether or not there is a middle state of existence between infinity and non-infinity.
Although science itself is contingent, evolution is the only scientific theory which explain life’s origins. ID need not apply. Furthermore, the question of God’s existence has no bearing on the theory of evolution. Even if God exists, evolution is the only scientific theory which explains life’s origins.
But these are articles of faith, impossible to prove. Both sides of the evolution debate make the fatal mistake of assuming that only they can prove their case. Neither side can. It’s pretty simple to characterize the arguments of both sides: “My case is true; therefore, my case is true.”
We Kant know noumena. If only we could.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | December 30, 2007
Freelunch:
The world constantly changes and it’s interesting to speculate on whether a major change will occur in the relation between intelligent design theory and evolution. In a previous comment, I gave reasons why I don’t believe intelligent design will ever be taught in public schools – but, does that mean kids won’t seek out information about intelligent design?
Possibly the best strategy for intelligent design, it’s continuing existence and spread throughout the general population, is for it to remain solidly outside the educational pale, to be branded unholy knowledge and as the poisonous fruit of the forbidden tree. Kids are invariably attracted to forbidden things – kids naturally rebel against authority, kids assert their intellectual independence, kids love learning about and discussing intelligent design because it’s exciting and sexy to defy the establishment. The fact that it can’t legally be taught in school makes it all the more attractive.
There are presently intelligent design clubs on various college campuses throughout our nation dedicated to “unofficially” educating fellow students about intelligent design and evolution. Additional chapters are starting monthly – the college administrators haven’t figured out how to stop the spread of or fascination with intelligent design theory and aren’t sure if they should attempt to try.
Kids also believe they have a spiritual nature – they haven’t yet reached the age where cynicism turns innocence into a hard-edged acceptance of Carl Sagan’s famous nonsense phrase: “the Cosmos is all there is and ever will be”. Kids believe in unseen forces and mystical powers and they have the delightful capacity to compartmentalize – they can quite knowledgably discuss the materialism of evolution one minute and then switch effortlessly to contemplating the more sublime aspects of their inner spirituality the next minute. Intelligent design theory was custom made to delight and intrigue kids.
Parents will help spread intelligent design by ensuring kids can’t learn about it in public schools, which makes the subject all the more fascinating. The parents’ individual contempt and hatred for the other parents within their school districts will drive the crusade to keep intelligent design out of schools. Actually, it’s not even about intelligent design vs. evolution, it’s about power politics at the local level – intelligent design is just another convenient rallying point in an unending war over who controls public schools and taxpayer funds.
The courts will help spread intelligent design by finding constitutional rights and prohibitions regarding the need to teach only evolution within schools in line with our 1st Amendment rights, but will also find a prohibition against teaching intelligent design in line with those same 1st Amendment rights. In our Living Constitution it doesn’t matter if the words “evolution” or “intelligent design” can’t be found in the original document resting in the National Archives. You can’t find the words “abortion” and “right to privacy” within that document either. Judges will follow the general will of society in this matter and legally suppress whatever the public wants forbidden – and, at the present moment, the general will says evolution is the real science, intelligent design is too new to replace evolution and the public can’t decide how much of intelligent design is science and how much is religion.
Politicians will help spread intelligent design by declaring their loyalty to evolution, voting to fund only evolution research, publicly believing in evolution and the scientists who promote it, protecting evolution’s status as the only theory that explains the history of biological development and in many other ways that promote their interests and those of their campaign donors.
The media is already conducting a litmus test of presidential candidates to determine who is or is not loyal to evolution; much the same way the media conducts a litmus test of potential Supreme Court justices to determine their loyalty to unlimited abortion rights. For the science cultists and evolution purists, the problem is politicians can never be trusted to remain loyal. The politicians don’t understand and deeply appreciate how science works and aren’t indelibly committed to upholding the integrity of science by never abandoning evolution in favor of intelligent design.
If intelligent design gains widespread acceptance among the voters, the day may come when politicians turn away from evolution, actually give taxpayer funds to intelligent design research, endorse the underlying truths of intelligent design, encourage its dissemination within public schools and perform other obscene actions in support of intelligent design theory. For those noble souls who defend science without thought of monetary gain or media recognition, the only solution is harsh laws controlling free speech. You can’t control what a person thinks of course, but you can legally control what a person can speak of, can read about or discuss over a latte at Starbucks. At this moment in time, folks like Hillary or Obama will gladly support strict laws designed to curtail the spread of intelligent design heresy in books or open discussion in public places.
The Republican candidates, however, are weak in this regard and prefer not to talk about evolution, but aren’t personally opposed to legally curtailing free speech when it comes to intelligent design. Which candidate should one support to protect the integrity of science, to protect children from the poisonous effect of liars like Phillip Johnson – which candidate will take the harsh but necessary steps to defend true science from ignorance – it will be interesting to watch the battles unfold. Freelunch, are you committed to doing whatever it takes in defense of evolution and science?
Comment by Pat Skurka | December 30, 2007