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?”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
*** 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.
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/
“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
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.
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.
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”?
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.
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.
Raymond. See Jeff’s comments.
“The dearth of actual facts on this thread is starting to concern me.”
*** There are no facts. Just data points related to theories.
“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?)
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.
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
“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.
“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?
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?
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…
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.”
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. :)
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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).
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
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.