![](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x97oorE2c9c/S6ahTZCOu6I/AAAAAAAAA6Q/WhO_nWZHN4k/S220/ArizonaMiracle.jpg")
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?”
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.
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.
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?
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?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?