Darwin Ist Tot: Intelligent Design is Not Creationism
by Mike LaSalle | View comments |
Print This Post
As good vassals to the establishment, the mainstream media has accepted the responsibility to take science and magic and sunder them separate for the benefit of the laity. But as Arthur C. Clark noted many years ago in his Three Laws, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
One man's magic is another man's science.
Religious essayist Rev. Eric Strachan of the New Life Community Church in Ontario, Canada has published a short essay in The Daily Observer called "The Wonders of Intelligent Design."
Strachan writes: "There's a difference in the things that God creates, and the stuff that men and women design, a world of difference, you simply cannot compare the two, it's like comparing the artistry of Van Gogh with a pre-Kindergarten kid picking up a paintbrush for the first time. "
It's a pity this folksie contrast between the relative engineering skills of man v. God does nothing to advance my own knowledge of Intelligent Design or the controversy surrounding it.
If Strachan had taken the time during his travels to consider the relative impact of the Anthropic Principle on the Final Theory of Everything, I might better have enjoyed the time I spent reading his article.
Of course heady stuff like the Anthropic Principle or the framework for an organized Theory of Everything are not fit topics for Pastors, Priests, Rabbis, or Imams, or any other such defender of an Ordered Universe.
Science is practiced by scientists, not by priests. But recently science and religion appear to have become indistinguishable, as for example in their respective institutional intolerance of competing ideas.
The nominal bishops of the U.S. Scientific Establishment, for instance, have declared in a virtual edict that Intelligent Design is the stuff of "magic" — not science.
As good vassals to the establishment, the mainstream media has accepted the responsibility to take science and magic and sunder them separate for the benefit of the laity.
But as Arthur C. Clark noted many years ago in his Three Laws, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
One man's magic, it seems, is another man's science.
"Intelligent Design Creationism"
Strachan's article appeared in my daily Google News Alert on the key words "Intelligent Design."
My daily crop of the term "Intelligent Design" on Google News usually brings a plurality of articles that have in common a missionary intent to define Intelligent Design as a hands-down flavor of biblical creationism.
It's almost as though everyone in the Science-as-Public-Opinion business got a YouTube saying something to the effect, "Attention all Science Opinion contributors in the Main Stream Media: The following is an instruction from the Supreme Politburo at Central Command. You are hereby advised that whenever you are forced to use the two words 'Intelligent' and 'Design' together in the same sentence, you must ALWAYS include 'Creationism' as a qualifier. If you have questions about this, please submit them in writing to your supervisor. That is all."
Here's a sampling from a recent google news search of the term "Intelligent Design"…
- "…despite the fact that creationism, along with its uptown cousin "intelligent design," keeps getting expelled…" - Tornoto Star
- "Polls have shown some Americans don't even know the Earth orbits the sun. These same Americans believe in intelligent design creationism which is nothing more than a childish belief in magic. Teaching intelligent design magic is child abuse. This nonsense doesn't belong anywhere, not even in Sunday School."- South Coast Today
- "Young earth creation science and its fraternal twin, Intelligent Design profess that a great supernatural entity (God) created the world and all life on it." - IndeNews
- "The National Academy of Science, America's most prestigious group of scientists, has recently published an update of Science, Evolution, and Creationism that states: "the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproved by the findings of modern biology." Democrat and Chronicle.
This list goes on and on.
Conflating Intelligent Design with biblical creationism is a facile attempt to mold the minds of people who might otherwise be interested in the topic of Intelligent Design as a stand-alone course of study.
As Institutions, Media and Academia have taken on Intelligent Design with a palpable and sustained ferocity. The results of the Kitzmiller fiasco has also lent a fig leaf of legal legitimacy to the anti-ID movement.
The Prevailing Wind
Based on these current scientific and media biases, it would seem that Richard Dawkins has been appointed our veritable Minister of Science and Chief Defender of the Faith.
And despite the existence of a few intellectual rebels in the media, it should be noted that a majority of academic scientists are known to prefer the simple comforts of Dumb Mechanics over the ugly prospects of Intelligent Intention. Unlikely as it may be, the Orthodox Majority believes Blind Chance to be the Ultimate Cause of the Big Bang and the DNA molecule.
Remarkably, these writers and scientists seem to religiously avoid any discussion of a well-documented Anthropic phenomenon called the Observation Selection Effect (perhaps preferring instead the much easier task of denouncing the ignorance of Young Earth Creationists, or YECs).
But as we may note from the Double Slit Experiment, the simple act of observation may turn out to be a Cause in Itself.
In other words, at some level, observation may be a self-creating process.
If this is true, it follows that collective observation may be required in order for history to have occurred at all!
If the Observation Selection Effect is required for the Universe to exist, could we also infer that a real-time Observer of the Big Bang was required in order for it to have occurred in the first instance?
The Shifting Paradigm: Science as a Text of Human History
If the dissenters eventually have their way — and Intelligent Design becomes an accepted model for the origin of the universe — the current era of Scientific Positivism will itself become history.
In response to this threat, a Popperian Orthodoxy has emerged in the media and across the academic world. Science writers who want the biscuit must always declare a strict separation between science and magic in their public writings on ID. Likewise, Intelligent Design must never be acknowledged as being connected with the former, but always the latter.
And after all - Intelligent Design has no pedigree, as Positivism does. No new paradigm of science could possibly overtake the sainted Karl Popper - at least among the orthodox establishment.
The fabric of reality is the privileged province of a different kind of priest — a highly trained and vetted Priest of Science.
Popper is Challenged
No one doubts that there exists a plethora of Popperian loyalists in the Biological Sciences. But in the fields of Physics and Quantum Mechanics, the
Read more articles by Mike LaSalle
"The four points of the compass be logic, knowledge, wisdom and the unknown. Some do bow in that final direction. Others advance upon it. To bow before the one is to lose sight of the three. I may submit to the unknown, but never to the unknowable." - Roger Zelazny, in Lord of Light
The difference between magic and technology is that one is (in principle at least) comprehensible by humans, and magic is forever removed from human ken. Assuming that something is incomprehensible is a good way of avoiding comprehension, but not everyone makes that assumption, and history is filled with examples of 'magical' things that turned out to be mere 'technology'. As I've noted elsewhere on this site, science can't deal with 'unknowable' things, but it's done quite well in turning the formerly 'unknown' into 'known' - including things once thought to be 'unknowable'.
Further, there doesn't need to be a 'centralized effort' to link ID with Creationism, when Creationists are all-too-happy to do it whenever possible. (e.g. http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/cordova-rewrite.html#more)
As to the Quantum Mechanics stuff - it sounds rather like the author has absorbed some New Age misunderstandings of what (one interpretation of) QM says. Unfortunately, whatever the rest of the author's point might be is unclear due to the apparent truncation of the article. I'm dubious, considering he's apparently claiming that evolution is a model for the "origin of the universe" when it deals instead with the origin of species (and not even, as of yet, the origin of life).
Comment by Raymond Ingles | March 5, 2008
In order to get a feel for the current knowledge of science and how it deals with evolution you must widen your research to include particle physics and astrophysics. If you want to know if an accident caused the species you must first find out about the environment the species live in and the parts that make the species. Taken as a whole it gives one a better prespective to make an informed decision.
Since we have two sides forming the battle and mostly uniformed citizens asking the questions we are ripe for the rule of experts. In this case we have more experts on the side of Darwin, but a majority of hands has historically not mattered much in science. Although more time is needed for any new idea in science than an idea which goes with the flow. Knowing that we are likely to expand our knowledge of life and in all likelyhood uncover that it is even more complex than we once thought, it will make the accident model even more unlikely. But time will tell.
Comment by fbaginski | March 5, 2008
Mike,
Impressive. Let me summarize the science-related terms you used: Anthropic Principle; Big Bang; Chaos; Double-slit experiment; Fabric of reality; Panspermia (aka, DNA); Popperian; Scientific Positivism; & Theory of Everything.
Good move. By using these terms, you’ve created the impression — a superficial, dull patina, really — that ID is science.
Of course, ID isn’t science but either religion or a religion. I logically demonstrate the certitude of this declaration in my comments #51 - #54 appended to the ”Understanding Intelligent Design” article.
Your article makes 2 main points: (1) Non-IDers conflate ID & Creationism; & (2) Science sucks. Let’s deal with these separately.
(1) Is ID Creationism in disguise?
Both Creationism and ID are religious beliefs. Both maintain that a supernatural entity directly created all individual species of life. Neither is science; specifically, neither can translate their core belief (ie, that God or a Designer created the universe) into an integral scientific theory using the universally-accepted-by-scientists Scientific Method. At least insofar as this formulation is concerned, Creationism and ID are coincident.
I will grant you that ID is certainly an attempt to create a more nuanced and obfuscatory form of Creationism. For those of us who respect the rationality God’s given us, however, your nuance is ham-handed and your obfuscation is puerile.
(2) Does science suck?
To you IDers, it obviously does. Why? Well, in your heart of hearts, you IDers realize that ID is not science but religion. Therefore, to make your case that ID is a proper scientific theory, you must do as a Marine DI does with recruits: Break science down and discredit it, and then rebuild science so that ID can be formulated as a proper scientific theory.
Ain’t gonna work. Science posits affirmatives, while ID vis-à-vis science is pure negation. This negation applies not only to science generally but also to your bastardization of the Scientific Method when you try to ‘prove’ that ID is a scientific theory. Babu’s ”Understanding Intelligent Design” article is a prototypical case. His essential argument can be condensed: Evolution is wrong; therefore, God created the Universe. He believes as all IDers do that a negation of evolution posits the affirmative case for ID. No. The Scientific Method demands otherwise.
imo, ID is an affront to both science and religion. I really don’t care that you IDers impugn science. After all, it’s trivial for scientists to demonstrate that ID is not science. What I do personally resent, though, is your unwillingness to accept one of God’s most majestic creations: Evolution.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | March 5, 2008
Fbaginski - It's quite true that science gets things wrong. Indeed, science progresses by rejecting error - testing, by experiment, the predictions that theories make and finding out that they don't work. Indeed, two of the best theories around - Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, two theories that have been confirmed to many decimal places - make radically different predictions around black holes. At least one and more likely both are wrong in some way.
But, before you make more of that than it is, read this: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
"[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was [perfectly] spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Evolution in general is very well established. Common descent is just inarguable. Natural selection works, too. Maybe one day someone will prove it's not the whole story, but whatever theory replaces evolution will still include common descent and natural selection - both of them quite prominently.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | March 5, 2008
Fbaginski and Raymond:
Rather than endlessly repeat every point of disagreement everyone has made during the previous parallel conversations on this subject, as representatives of the two opposite sides, I'd be curious to know on what points the two of you actually agree.
Who wants to go first?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 6, 2008
I'll state that (a) we don't have a solid theory of abiogenesis yet (though there are some interesting hypotheses that have produced some suggestive results) and (b) we don't have any solid theories about what happened before (or at) the Big Bang. From what I've read, I'm pretty sure fbaginski will agree with that much.
From what I've gathered, though, fbaginski's of the opinion that modern cosmology is fundamentally flawed, and appears to think it's got the age of the universe (and thus the Earth) off by a factor of a million or so. If that's correct, then I'm not sure we have a lot more we can agree on respecting origins.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | March 6, 2008
livefreediefree says, "Of course, ID isn’t science but either religion or a religion. I logically demonstrate the certitude of this declaration in my comments #51 - #54 appended to the ”Understanding Intelligent Design” article."
Sir, you did no such thing. In fact, you demonstrated the certitude that evolutionism is a religion itself by your own criteria.
Comment by Mountain Man | March 6, 2008
Hello - thanks everyone for your comments to my article above, which was actually entitled "Darwin Ist Tot: Intelligent Design is Not Creationism".
I am unable to edit the article as it published here, for the record the article was in fact truncated at the end. You can find the full article here.
The part that was truncated is reproduced below:
Comment by Mike LaSalle | March 6, 2008
The topic of my article is the meaning of the term "Intelligent Design."
I observed that "Intelligent Design" is being purposely conflated with biblical creationism. I also produced a peer reviewed scientist with a nice pedigree who has offered a mathematical proof for the existence of God.
That proof has been acknowledged and credited by a name-brand physicist in the person of David Deutsch.
And professor Tipler, it should be noted, has signed the Dissent from Darwinism.
Comment by Mike LaSalle | March 6, 2008
I'd suggest reading up on OPT - the key problem being that currently, it appears that the universe is expanding too fast to reverse and achieve a 'Big Crunch'… which is critical to OPT happening. Indeed, in order to save the theory, Tipler proposes that we undertake a massive program of matter annihilation in order to eventually reverse the expansion and cause the Big Crunch.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | March 6, 2008
This condition is satisfied within Many Worlds. If you have enough universes (and we certainly do under the Multiverse Hypothesis), then, at least in some of them, intelligent life will emerge and will dedicate its resources to the purpose of collapsing the naturally expanding universe, and thereby invoke the Omega Point. Once the Omega Point occurs, It will become Conscious of (and therefore Causally Responsible for) all other possible universes in the Multiverse.
If the Multiverse Hypothesis is true, then God is a foregone conclusion.
Comment by Mike LaSalle | March 6, 2008
Mr. LaSalle - that would imply that things done in other universes could directly affect this one - indeed, that they would have to affect this entire universe. If so, why haven't they done so already?
Hey, the Omega Point might be true, but until it makes some testable predictions, and validates them - spontaneous reversal of the universal expansion would be an awfully convincing test - I can't really see it as science. If it's the "right answer", but there's no way to tell that it's the "right answer", is it really "right" in any practical sense?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | March 6, 2008
I think you are rather confusing things in this article: you are conflating the idea of deism or theistic evolution in general with the Intelligent Design movement in specific. One might, if words had no further connotations, call a Catholic biologist like Ken Miller someone who believes in "intelligent design." He does, after all, believe that an intelligent being created everything. But he is also a staunch opponent of Intelligent Design, the PR campaign and movement.
Other than that, your article is pretty ambiguous and confusingly written, containing lots of accusations of conspiracy and the supposed dogmatic attitude of your targets, but very little in the way of actual argument or evidence for whatever your position is (which itself isn't very clear).
If proponents of ID have something to put forwards other than recycled creationist arguments against evolution, then perhaps you might have a stronger case. But ID as a movement has been fraught with dishonesty, fraud, and misrepresentation at every turn. Proponents have failed over and over to even explain how their ideas are testable, much less demonstrably true.
The origin of the universe is not logically relevant to the question of evolution, nor abiogenesis to evolution, nor any of the three to each other.
But in the case of your cosmological/QM arguments, they are, frankly, groundless. The DS experiment does not demonstrate that observers cause or self-create reality, and certainly not in the way you seem to mean "observation." This is a psuedo-scientific babble, not QM, and the leaps of logic you take from trying to get from wave-particle duality to the need for someone to observe the universe are simply bizarre.
And scientists are perfectly aware of and willing to discuss the Observation Selection Effect: it was, after all, scientists that pointed it out, scientists that use it in critiques of various ideas, and so on. The idea that they are afraid of such principles is fantasy. The problem is simply that most do not agree that such principles actually lead to the conclusions you want them to.
Comment by Bad | March 6, 2008
The only direct evidence we have of multiple universes is the Double Slit Experiment. There is no direct evidence that causality crosses the threshold between universes.
But, as I understand Tipler's theory, a causal interface between two or more universes can and does exist at either end of the model — that is, the Big Bang at one end and the Big Crunch (or Heat Death) at the other.
The Omega Point only emerges within a universe that is collapsing on itself - and it emerges at the point at which the individual universes that make up the multiverse become susceptible to each other's causal influences.
Comment by Mike LaSalle | March 6, 2008
"I observed that “Intelligent Design” is being purposely conflated with biblical creationism."
And then failed to demonstrate that the connection is a false one. It's so laughably true that ID proponents literally did a search and replace on a creationist textbook to turn it into an ID textbook. There is not a single ID argument that does not have a long pedigree in creationist literature: not Irreducible Complexity, not Specified Complexity, and so on.
"I also produced a peer reviewed scientist with a nice pedigree who has offered a mathematical proof for the existence of God."
You seem unaware of how science works: it is not simply a matter of authority: having some published articles on some subjects does not magically grant you authority over all subjects. Tipler's work in this area is regarded as fanciful, unsubstantiated, and, frankly, sloppy. Countless scientists have all sorts of different ideas about all sorts of things: the competition between these ideas is precisely what science is all about. But merely having an idea is not the same thing as winning out in that competition, and the fact that a few think something is neat is not enough to make it a compelling argument, or well supported by evidence.
Like many, you seem to cherry pick tidbits of scientific discussion and cobble together strange ideas about them without having any real grasp on the fields as a whole.
Comment by Bad | March 6, 2008
"the fact that a few think something is neat is not enough to make it a compelling argument, or well supported by evidence."
At last a rejection of "consensus science"!
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 6, 2008
It's certainly false in my case. I have never in my life believed in "biblical creationism".
At this moment in the history of science, "falsifiability" is the cornerstone of what is or is not science. By definition, human beings (or at least those vetted by human institutions), must design the scope of any test, and thereupon judge its level of falsifiability.
But science is a human institution through and through. Your claim seems to be that reality does not exist on its own, but can only be made true via majority rule.
Comment by Mike LaSalle | March 6, 2008
Mountain Man,
Sir, you did no such thing; ie, prove that "ID isn’t science but either religion or a religion."
Yes, I did. ID fails the most fundamental test: It can’t be translated into an integral scientific theory. Since it must allude to the supernatural, it’s religion.
Of course, you reject my slam-dunk, trivial-to-construct proofs because said proofs offend your belief system. To you, your belief system is everything. Rationality need not apply. You out yourself with your own words:
In fact, you demonstrated the certitude that evolutionism is a religion itself by your own criteria.
No, what you demonstrate is that you can’t even conceive of anything beyond a belief system. You can’t even conceive that I do not view evolutionalism as a religion but merely as rational science.
You affirm one of my prime arguments: For ID to be accepted as an alternative scientific theory to evolution, you IDers realize that you must discredit science and stretch its purview to encompass the illogical and the supernatural. Stated simply, you must declare that science is religion, and religion is science.
Sorry, Mountain Man, but science and religion have separate spheres, the natural and the supernatural, respectively.
But, it’s OK that you reject the natural sphere. After all, that is one of the prime credos of your ID religion. However, don’t expect scientists to accept ID as science when you reject science itself.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | March 6, 2008
Mike,
You are the Mike LaSalle of the The Bicameral Universe: A Theory of Everything in One Blog Post article, right? I’ll assume so.
Your theory is a very impressive intellectual achievement, probably well beyond my limited abilities to understand. Still, it helps define you. However, let’s focus only on your article.
You commit a number of grievous errors re fundamentals.
(1) The Multiverse demands an Intelligent Designer.
You said: And if the Multiverse is the True Condition of our universe, then Intelligent Design automatically becomes a viable explanation for its origin and existence.
No.
There are only 2 logical possibilities: (a) Either the universe has existed forever; or (b) A Designer created it.
Let’s paraphrase possibility (a) a little. Let’s assume that the quantum vacuum has existed forever. According to QM, fluctuations in the quantum vacuum create virtual particle/antiparticle pairs that appear and disappear, in and out of existence. In this article, it states:
It is sometimes suggested that pair production can be used to explain the origin of matter in the universe. In models of the Big Bang, it is suggested that vacuum fluctuations, or virtual particles, briefly appear. Then, due to effects such as CP-violation, an imbalance between the number of virtual particles and antiparticles is created, leaving a surfeit of particles, thus accounting for the visible matter in the universe.
Thus, out of nothingness (ie, the quantum vacuum), real particles can be created. When these particles aggregate, they form a universe. Call it universe A
Based upon the quantum mechanical interpretation of the Multiverse, other universes can be spawned from universe A: A-1, A-2, A-3, …
Other universes can also be spawned from the same quantum vacuum that spawned universe A: B, C, D, … .
Thus, we have Multiverses within Multiverses. Since we posited that an Intelligent Designer did not create the quantum vacuum (ie, our initial condition), the existence of Multiverses do not require the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
(2) The existence of God can be proven mathematically.
You said: Tipler has, in his Omega Point Theory (OPT), developed what is in effect a mathematical proof for the existence of God.
No.
All mathematical proofs rest upon axioms. These axioms are accepted as true based upon faith alone; ie, we unquestioningly accept them as true. As such, all mathematical axioms are arbitrary. Thus, all mathematical proofs are arbitrary.
Furthermore, we can have as many axiom sets as we want. While we may exercise judgment here and deem some axiom sets to be superior in some ways to others, we must accept all axiom sets as equally valid. Ultimately, mathematics cannot ‘prove’ that there is a single, absolute, master set of axioms. Any axiom set is as mathematically acceptable as any other axiom set.
When we ‘prove’ something mathematically, all we can say is that our proof is consistent with the axioms, and with the other theorems already proven based either upon the axioms themselves or upon other theorems.
In the final analysis, mathematical proofs are not absolute.
Can we ‘prove’ anything mathematically? Probably. Based upon the axiom set Tipler chose, he ‘proved’ the existence of God. If we invalidate or modify one or more of his axioms, however, we could easily end up ‘disproving’ the existence of God.
In the end, though, it matters not. Ultimately, Tipler’s entire intellectual construct is based upon faith in the truth of his axioms. More simply, Tipler believes that God exists. He hasn’t proven anything.
(3) OPT rejects Darwinian evolution.
No direct quote here. However, there’s an intriguing quote from the Wikipedia article on the Omega Point
In this theory, the universe is constantly developing towards higher levels of physical and mental complexity.
It appears OPT embraces rather than rejects Darwinian evolution.
Frankly, Mike, I don’t see what ID brings to the table. It sullies everything it touches. As science, it fails. As a religion, it’s inferior even to Creationism. As a rational edifice, it impugns rationality itself. ID is just a damned nuisance.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | March 6, 2008
I wrote The Bicameral Universe: A Theory of Everything in One Blog Post about two years ago or so. It represents a solution to the problem mention by Raymond above, wherein the evidence would suggest that our universe will expand to a "Heat Death" rather than a big crunch.
As a background, I first became exposed to Tipler's OPT when I read his book, The Physics of Immortality, back in 1994. I puzzled over his idea for over 10 years. The Bicameral Universe is a model that in my view conforms nicely within Tipler's OPT.
LiveFreeDieFree said,
In my view, the Intelligent Designer created the condition for the vacuum in the first instance.
LiveFreeDieFree said,
I did not say otherwise. In fact, Tipler has indicated clearly that evolution is the mechanism through which living systems become more complex.
What I did say was that Tipler is a signatory to the Dissent from Darwinism.
Your confusion over "evolution" vs. "Darwinism" is telling. I do not object to evolution — in fact I find it a fascinating and compelling field of study.
"Darwinism" is distinct from the process of evolution in that Darwinists insist on Randomness as the first Cause — just as you have by insisting that the universe was "caused" through Vacuum Genesis.
A vacuum is not a Cause for the creation of the universe, any more than "random mutation" of non-living chemicals can eventuate in DNA.
Ask any civil engineer just how "absolute" mathematical proofs can be when building roads, bridges, or skyscrapers. And at the risk of Appealing to Authority, your claim that Tipler's math is somehow fanciful does not have much value in light of the fact that one of the world's most brilliant and recognized theoretical physicists, David Deutsch, devoted a chapter in his first book to crediting Tipler's theory as a genuine contribution to cosmology.
BTW - your mentioned particle/anti particle pairs. I would also have mentioned Hawking Radiation, where, at the event horizon of a black hole, particle/anti-particle pairs are separated at birth. One of the Genesis particle pairs falls into the black hole, and the other escapes into our own universe. Over time, our universe increases in mass, and the black hole appears to 'evaporate'. But of course the black hole is itself increasing in mass with the addition of new particles. The black hole's increase in mass causes it to become even more dense, and eventually the black hole appears to have 'disappeared' from our universe.
(For a full rundown on my theory, see bicameraluniverse.com )
Comment by Mike LaSalle | March 6, 2008
LiveFreeDieFree,
"Of course, you reject my slam-dunk, trivial-to-construct proofs because said proofs offend your belief system. To you, your belief system is everything. Rationality need not apply."
An anti-intellectual assertion, vapid and without merit. Simply saying something does not make it so. Your juvenile "proof" isn't worth the time to refute. A slam dunk? You have way too high an opinion of yourself and your own belief system to comment, let alone know anything about my belief system.
By YOUR criteria, evolutionism is a religion. Both sides have the same data, therefore the interpretations and conclusions are inferred, i.e., what is believed to have happened.
Your arrogance does not lend itself well to reasoned dialogue. But that's the way it is with many evolutionists. Arrogant, condescending, accusing anyone who disagrees as anti-science.
So long as you frame the debate as science vs. the stupid, smug pomposity is a sufficient defense, isn't it?
Comment by Mountain Man | March 6, 2008
Mike's article's original name was "Darwin Ist Tot: Intelligent Design is Not Creationism" ( http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/03/02/darwin-ist-tot-intelligent-design-is-not-creationism )
"Darwin Ist Tot" is just Mike being cute, paraphrasing German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's statement "Gott ist tot" which is German for "God is dead."
But the so-called "editor" of this website missed the whole point, and thinking Mike was a complete illiterate, helpfully translated "Darwin Ist Tot" as "Darwin First Taught."
This is really too funny for words. Not at all intellectual, but definitely conservative.
Comment by PaulBurnett | March 6, 2008
Mike has the audacity to write: "Conflating Intelligent Design with biblical creationism is a facile attempt to mold the minds of people…" I challenge anybody who reads this blatant lie to Google the term "cdesign proponentsists" to see who originally incompetently conflated intelligent design with biblical creationism. Wait until you realize what they were trying to do - and got caught and busted in public in a Federal court with the scam they were trying to pull.
Comment by PaulBurnett | March 6, 2008
Given a choice betwen Mike's opinion and the opinion of a Federal judge, I am constrained to side with the judge who ruled: "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 John Jones, Harrisburg, PA, December 20, 2005. Contrary to the title of the article, Intelligent Design IS Creationism.
(Judge Jones' ruling was not appealed.)
Judge Jones also stated in his ruling: "It is ironic that several of these individuals (sworn witnesses), 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." It is a historical fact that the Discovery Institute (called by some the "Dishonesty Institute") and its Fellows and its fellow travelers lie. They lie about evolution and they lie about biology and they lie about science. And their Big Lie - that Mike and some others here have bought hook, line and sinker - is "Intelligent Design is Not Creationism."
(In an article a few days ago, the Panda's Thumb blogsite discusses how Dishonesty Institute Fellow Jonathan Wells spouts misinformation and disinformation - and lies - about a report in Science Daily. Among the commentors is the lead investigator of the article (who has a PhD in molecular microbiology), who says "I'd like to strongly support the view advocated this page." - see http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/how-stupid-do-t.html )
Comment by PaulBurnett | March 6, 2008
Paul… you're following me!
Well, in respect to your citation of the panda's thumb blog post, I will reiterate here what I wrote on my own blog, to whit: pz meyers does a creditable job of deconstructing Wells' piece…. here's the money line:
On the other hand… I can hardly be SHOCKED to find either Wells or PZ Meyers stooping to the PR zone in order to persuade instead of inform.
My response overall is…. so what? Personally, I have no problem at all accepting the mechanical nature of evolution — however it occurred. For me, I am less interested in how the pins fall than how the Bowling Alley got there in the first place.
Comment by Mike LaSalle | March 6, 2008
Mr. LaSalle - you might want to be a little clearer in your use of terms to help avoid confusion. There's a big difference between biological evolution - the origin of species that Darwin wrote about - and cosmology and the origin of the universe. I know of no sense in which the term "Darwinism" could be applied to cosmology except in the most fanciful, allegorical sense. (One response to the 'cosmic fine-tuning issue', which posits multiple universes with different physical laws - which is not a scientific cosmological argument.) "Intelligent Design", as a movement, is mostly concerned, too, with biological evolution. If that's not the area you're talking about, saying you're not fond of "Darwinism" can only confuse the issue.
Your focus seems to be on the cosmological level ("I am less interested in how the pins fall than how the Bowling Alley got there in the first place.") so talking about Darwinism there seems, well, rather beside the point. Saying things like "Darwinists insist on Randomness as the first Cause" is at best inaccurate (biological evolution doesn't even really talk about the origin of life, let alone the universe) and at worst tautological (you're proposing some idosyncratic personal definition of the term "Darwinist" that doesn't even match the use of the term by conventional ID types).
In any case, let's restrict things to the cosmological level. The multiverse hypothesis is interesting, but not a testable scientific theory. The Everett interpretation of QM is not the only possible model - the Copenhagen interpretation accounts for all the same observations with equal facility, for example. The fact that tests can't be constructed to distinguish between them appears to forever doom them to be hypotheses, barring a major change in our theories, though.
Further, "falsifiability" is not equivalent to "majority rule", and it's been present in science for a long time under various guises, e.g. Occam's Razor. I'll repeat the question I posed before: If it’s the “right answer”, but there’s no way to tell that it’s the “right answer”, is it really “right” in any practical sense? If it's not falsifiable, as Wolfgang Pauli famously quipped, "It's not even wrong."
(BTW, you might ask the engineers of the Tacoma Narrows bridge how 'absolute' their mathematical analyses were. Applying math to the real world is fraught with peril, as any engineer will tell you. I programmed industrial robots earlier in my career and I can tell you that even when you've got full control of the hardware and software, modelling the motion of a robot in the real world is a tricky proposition.)
Comment by Raymond Ingles | March 7, 2008
"If it’s the 'right answer', but there’s no way to tell that it’s the 'right answer' …"
Raymond: Burnett has already answered this question in comment 24. You just need a federal court to decide the issue. If they say something is "science", it's science. If they say something is "religion", it's religion. If they say something is "right", it's right. Nothing more complicated is involved than this. And, it has the added advantage of not requiring you to understanding anything about the narrow constitutional grounds upon which SCOTUS adjudicates an issue, and thus grasp the practical implications (and limitations) of their decisions.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 7, 2008
Mountain Man,
Not to worry, MM. Christ is my Savior. He taught everyone is redeemable. Employing that ethos, I still have faith that you’ll eventually accept the rigorous dictates of logic and reason. When you do, you’ll agree with me.
In a previous post, you said:
I’m not a ‘sir’. I’m just some guy.
Within the purview of logic and reason, you can’t refute my 2 proofs.
(1) ID is a religion.
In the comments to Babu’s ”Understanding Intelligent Design” article, I offered 2 logical arguments.
(a) I gave the definition of ‘religion’ and then cited various excerpts from Babu’s article. Comparing the definition to the excerpts, it’s obvious that Babu considers ID to be a religion.
(b) The definition of ‘supernatural’ from OneLook.com is:
adjective: not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material
The Intelligent Designer exists in the supernatural and not the natural realm. Since the realm of science is the natural and the realm of religion is the supernatural, ID is a religion.
(2) ID is not science.
Science is the Scientific Method. Any proposed scientific hypothesis like ID must be formulated as a proper scientific theory abiding by the Scientific Method.
Since the Discovery Institute is the major proponent of ID, I searched their web site to discover what their scientific theory of ID is. I then found another ID-proponent site where this scientific theory was discussed in detail.
Upon analysis, I discovered that the scientific theory of ID uses the logical fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance. This fault alone disqualifies ID as a proper scientific theory abiding by the Scientific Method.
So, there you go.
Are my arguments subjective? No. They honor the realm of logic and rationality, and thus objectivity. Anybody who so honors logic and rationality would agree that my arguments are cogent and convincing.
It’s trivial, MM, to discredit ID as science. To date, no IDer has formulated ID as a proper scientific theory. It’s also trivial to call ID a religion. Any musing that invokes the supernatural is religion.
Of course, none of the above ‘proves’ that a supernatural entity did not design the universe. In fact, I believe that God created this universe according to some grand design that we don’t yet understand. However and again of course, the fact that He did does not imply that ID is science because it isn’t, and that ID isn’t religion because it is.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | March 7, 2008
Gee, Dr. Jackson, speaking of "parallel conversations"…
Comment by Raymond Ingles | March 7, 2008
These topics always amuse me. LiveFree wallows in the glory of his own circular logic, Raymond Ingles cites a hundred different blog posts, a handful of people simply stand around spitting upon one another until one tires of calling the other "ignorant" or "hypocrite", and in the end, hairs are split over what the true meaning of "is" is until everybody wears themselves out with repetition, and we regroup for the next article. While you've all settled into your parts very nicely over the years, I think the script could be improved with some new dialog. Maybe a tap medley in the second act?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 7, 2008
Raymond, I know! We can always count on Burnett to chime in with his standard observation that the Supreme Court somehow decided this whole matter. Of course, when SCOTUS rules against his political interests, he won't come to the same conclusion for that issue.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 8, 2008
Patrick:
No one listens to anything anyone says in these "debates". With maybe one or two exceptions, no one addresses the points the other people make; they simply re-state their positions, or make silly-ass observations. A lot of people never seem to read the original article. They just use the title or tag-line to launch into their own version of reality.
Actually, what we need to do is what a member of the city council in my town did a few years back. The same endless arguments/points were made by his opponents regardless of anything he said to refute them. Becoming frustrated with the whole thing, he distributed a circular with his points numbered 1-10. Then everytime his opponent spoke he simply raised a hand-held flag with the appropriate number on it.
It didn't change any minds, but it saved a lot of time.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 8, 2008
Science and Religion have more in common with each other than either does with reality.
Like Religion, Science is a self-defined human institution. Just like Engineering, Psychology, Politics, or any other course of human endeavor managed by an academic guild.
It's also a legal term. That which is legally identified as "Science" is entitled to public funding and civil respect.
Like any institution, Science does not like abrupt paradigmatic change because this tends to undercut its overall public legitimacy.
Intelligent Design — at least in my own interpretation — does represent a new paradigm to replace the overreaching Darwinian explanation for our origins.
And yes, I do distinguish between "Evolution" and "Darwinism". Evolution is a mechanical process that takes place within more or less standard physical laws. Darwinism is a philosophical system that requires a default assumption of a mechanical solution for every Big Question in nature.
I think Darwinism in this definition makes it a pernicious and potentially evil philosophy.
Comment by Mike LaSalle | March 8, 2008
Mike wrote: "Intelligent Design — at least in my own interpretation — does represent a new paradigm to replace the overreaching Darwinian explanation for our origins."
The problem is that the paradigm of intelligent design creationism is so new that it has no actual theory yet:
"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world." - Phillip Johnson, father of intelligent design creationism - http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles.php?issue=10&article=evolution
Or as Gertrude Stein said, "There is no there there." Intelligent design creationism remains scientifically vacuous, in spite of over twenty years of trying. Perhaps that is why the creationists have continued to resort to subterfuge, disinformation and lies.
As an example, Pharyngula reports today ( http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/its_a_propaganda_film.php ) the creationists behind the movie Expelled are having a private showing for Florida legislators, carefully screening out anyone who actually knows anything about actual science. There's a reason for that - because creationism (as currently being practiced in Florida and other places) is "a pernicious and potentially evil philosophy."
Comment by PaulBurnett | March 8, 2008
Phillip Ellis Jackson commented: "We can always count on Burnett to chime in with his standard observation that the Supreme Court somehow decided this whole matter."
I'm quite certain I have consistently observed that the US Supreme Court decided against "creation science" in 1987 and that a Federal court in Pennsylvania decided against intelligent design creationism in 2005.
So, no, the US Supreme Court didn't decide against intelligent design creationism and I've never said so.
Comment by PaulBurnett | March 8, 2008
"So, no, the US Supreme Court didn’t decide against intelligent design creationism and I’ve never said so."
*** Okay, I'll amend my comment to reflect the even more ridiculous assertion that a single Federal Court judge can decide what is science, and what is religion, and according to Burnett no other thought is involved in the process.
The fact that we’re even treated to an argument that courts at any level decide what is or isn’t science, ID, creationism, etc. becomes even more absurd. These judgments are legal issues reflecting a court’s interpretation of the US Constitution, and only a fool would cite them as any evidence to support a claim that “I am constrained to side with the judge who ruled: ‘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 John Jones, Harrisburg, PA, December 20, 2005. Contrary to the title of the article, Intelligent Design IS Creationism’.”
Next up, let’s hear what city councils and neighborhood associations think!
In the future, we'll just refer to this as "flag number 1".
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 8, 2008
I'm with Mulligan
And speaking of mulligans, I found a golf ball in my back yard yesterday. I wondered how it got there.
Did some reading and it seems it can be traced back to four-billion year-old bacteria? That was good to learn, because anyone who has ever played the infernal game needs to know who (what) to blame for it.
Comment by nick adams | March 8, 2008
Mike,
Thanks for your response in post #20.
OK, so well how did you do in countering my counter-arguments to your arguments? Not very well, Mike. In fact, my counter-arguments prevail.
In the following, I’ll summarize my counter-arguments and your counters to them.
(1) The existence of the Multiverse does not ‘demand’ the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
To be fair, you stated your case in less absolute terms:
My counter-argument: If the quantum vacuum has existed forever and no Intelligent Designer created it, this quantum vacuum would spawn the Multiverse.
You basically accepted my reasoning since you realized said reasoning was based on standard QM theory. Your only retort:
I agree. I believe but cannot prove the second of the only 2 logical (and equally incomprehensible) possibilities: (A) An Intelligent Designer did not create the universe; ie, the universe has existed forever; or (B) An Intelligent Designer created the universe. However, your “If the Multiverse, then an Intelligent Designer” argument is without rational merit. The Multiverse can exist under (A).
(2) Mathematical proofs are not ontological certainty
To reiterate, you said:
I argued that any mathematical system is based upon axioms which are accepted as true based upon faith alone; ie, these axioms are not ‘provable’. Thus, mathematical proofs are ultimately based upon faith, too. This conclusion is inescapable.
Mathematics can never derive all possible truths, either, since no master set of axioms exists. Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems proved that no possible set of axioms can yield all definitive answers.
You retorted:
Utilitarian functionality does not yield ontological certainty.
Sorry, Mike, but not even God can ‘prove’ that He exists within any formalized system of mathematics. Why? All mathematical proofs are tautologies in that the axioms imply the theorems, which in turn affirm the axioms. All we achieve when we mathematically ‘prove’ God’s existence is that we’ve proven that the arbitrary and unprovable axioms we picked yield a proof for God’s existence.
Rationality has radically severe limits. The only thing we can know for certain is Cogito ergo sum. Everything else is conjecture. We can neither prove nor disprove God’s existence.
In this sense, the question of God’s existence can be translated into axioms. Axiom #1 for the theist would be: God exists. Axiom #1 for the atheist would be: God does not exist.
No wonder these discussions go nowhere. Neither side accepts the other side’s most basic axiom.
Of course, there is a compromise position: Mine. I believe in both an Intelligent Designer and Darwinian evolution, but that’s another story.
OK. We’re done with the past. Let’s do some new stuff.
You said:
I assume that by “randomness” you include “chaos”.
What you’re basically saying is that the random interactions of a chaotic system cannot produce order. You’re hep on this stuff, so I’ll simply state my POV and allow you to fill in the blanks. In the billionths of billionths of billionths… of a second after the Big Bang, chaos reigned. Now, 13.7 years later, we have ordered physical systems like the sun.
So, what we have vis-a-vis the inorganic evolution of the universe is the simplest of particles and forces becoming a super-ordered system like the sun.
You misinterpret. All I did was examine the logical possibility that the quantum vacuum existed forever and henceforth demonstrated that it could create the Multiverse. iow, the existence of the Multiverse no way, no how implies the existence of an Intelligent Designed.
For “DNA”, substitute “the sun”. If the inorganic evolution of the universe can result in a super-ordered system like the sun, why can’t the evolution of the universe result in DNA?
Besides, you simply assert the above without grounding and antecedent. You base the ontological certainty of your assertion on the Argument from Ignorance: Since Darwinists cannot create a more complex organism from a simpler one (“more complex” being defined as an organism with a more complex DNA), God created the universe.
Science is all about inference since the Scientific Method is based upon inductive logic. By examining the fossil and genetic record, scientists infer that more complex life forms evolved from simpler ones. There is ample proof for this inference in the genetic record. After completing the Human Genome Project, scientists can pinpoint stretches of human DNA which are nothing more than the DNA of various viruses and bacteria that have partially or wholly inserted themselves into the human genome.
For example:
The article also mentions even simpler precursors to living DNA-based organisms such as viroids which are nothing but ‘naked’ RNA, and prions which are merely proteins.
It is not an intellectual leap to conclude that, yes, more complex organisms can be created from simpler organisms, said process not requiring an Intelligent Designer.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | March 8, 2008
Patrick,
Thank God you at least agree with me.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | March 8, 2008
Mike:
btw, thanks for your catalytic impetus behind my reviewing which HTML tags this forum allows.
I’m confused by your definitions. You said:
From your perspective, is Darwinism atheism? If so, your POV mainly makes sense.
However, evolutionists agree that evolution is driven by both scientific laws and randomness, whereas you seem to discount randomness as a possible cause. As a corollary, both you and evolutionists believe in scientific laws. Thus, I don’t understand what you mean by “evolution”.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | March 8, 2008
Yes, I think Darwinism assumes Blind Chance is responsible for virtually every cause.
I do not agree with this perspective, and I also think that the psychology of Darwinism is a threat to the collective moral health of our society.
This is because Darwinism discounts teleology out of the gate. With no guiding principle beyond survival, Darwinism as a world-view is inherently solipsistic.
Science as an institution is obviously of concern to the public, since science research and educational policy is grave concern to the future of our society at large.
Therefore the "politics" of science are of supreme importance to anyone interested in social policy and public spending.
Notice how Democrats have politicized this debate:
Is funding of science research programs not self-evidently political?
This professor Hutchinson spoke at a regional Democratic Party meeting in Oklahoma, and told them that ID was part of the "ongoing culture war" in America.
"Evolution is not a faith and intelligent design is not a scientific theory," Hutchinson told the audience at the weekly Democratic Party luncheon. "Science can only ask 'how,' science cannot ask 'why?'
But of course, in truth, science — and Darwinism in particular — *loves* to tell us why: From vacuum genesis to punctuated equilibrium, Darwinism always assumes a root MECHANICAL CAUSE for all events (no matter how unlikely any event may be).
Many orthodox scientists will, when cornered, insist that the universe and everything in it exists not from any conscious or intelligent decision, but because Chaos Causes Everything.
Comment by Mike LaSalle | March 8, 2008
Phil complains: "The fact that we’re even treated to an argument that courts at any level decide what is or isn’t science, ID, creationism, etc. becomes even more absurd."
Phil, I just use the 1987 US Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard decision and the 2005 Federal Court Dover decision as a form of
shorthand to impress those to whom the rule of law still means something.
But for those who have no respect for US Supreme Court and Federal court decisions, there are other legitimate decision-making bodies involved in "decid(ing) what is or isn’t science" in the context of intelligent design creationism.
This question has been addressed by essentialy every actual science organization in this country. For example, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has recently issued "AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory" ( http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml ) which (among other things) says "… that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education…"
Similarly, the National Academy of Sciences issued "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences,
Second Edition" which says "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life are not science." - http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/25.html - (The third edition didn't like intelligent design, either.)
The National Science Teachers Association issued a press release on August 3, 2005, saying "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. …It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom."
The American Astronomical Society has issued a press release ( http://www.aas.org/policy/PR/2005/teachevolution.html ) saying "Intelligent Design is non-Scientific and should not be Taught to the Nation's Children."
There's lots more, but do you get the picture? I have pointed out this coincidence before, that essentially every actual science organization in the country says intelligent design is not science, while essentially the only organizations that say intelligent design is science are overtly or covertly religious organizations. There's a clue there.
Are you seriously proposing that we should ignore all the science organizations' condemnation of intelligent design and accept the definition of non-scientific and even anti-scientific (Answers In Genesis and Coral Ridge Ministries, for example) as to what is and is not "science"? Remember Dishonesty Institute Fellow Michael Behe, in his sworn testimony in the Dover trial, proposed a definition of science so sloppy that it would include astrology as "science."
Is that what you want? Pseudoscience instead of science?
Comment by PaulBurnett | March 8, 2008
Mike wrote: "Many orthodox scientists will, when cornered, insist that the universe and everything in it exists not from any conscious or intelligent decision, but because Chaos Causes Everything."
Come now. "Many orthodox scientists…" Would you care to document that assertion? Do you have a number or a percentage? Do you have any literature citations, or is that just wishful thinking on your part? Is this related to the Dishonesty Institute's miserable "704 scientists dissent from Darwinism" that turns out to represent 0.07% of all scientists, the majority of whom are not even biologists?
Comment by PaulBurnett | March 8, 2008
"Phil, I just use the 1987 US Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard decision and the 2005 Federal Court Dover decision as a form of shorthand to impress those to whom the rule of law still means something."
*** No. You're a clown who thinks that a ruling by a court on a matter of Constitutional law means something substantive in a debate about the true nature of science, religion, creationism, ID, or any other non-legal matter.
Any court — SCOTUS, a federal court, a state court; any court — that makes a ruling addresses specific points of law. The courts allow elective abortion as a matter of Constitutional law. They have not ruled that a 19 month old fetus isn't biologically human. They've simply ruled that the Constitution, in their view, permits a woman to kill it without legal penalty. The cases you referenced on ID ruled that ID was in conflict with the Constitution's provisions on state-sanctioned religion. It no more addresses the core issue of whether ID is in fact creationism, as you maintain it does, than Dred Scott “settled” the issue of whether slaves were biologically human.
This is the problem with relying on the courts to support your point of view. I again invite anyone to follow the link back to your website, where you base your entire rant on confusing the decision of a court with an answer to the actual questions posed in this article and the discussion that follows. There’s nothing “shorthand” about your reliance on the courts to give substance to your position. It IS your position in its entirety. You cannot distinguish between what a court does, and what an issue “is.” This is the problem with most hacks who enter a discussion not to debate a point, but to rant about their personal agendas.
I can prove your shallowness and hypocrisy with a simple illustration. If another Federal court rules that ID is “not creationism”, as may happen when more conservative justices are appointed to the bench, you will not point to this as evidence to overturn your thesis. Instead, you will continue to assert the same position as before, and rail against the right wing religious fanatics who have somehow perverted the courts. A court decision means nothing to you unless it supports your preconceived position.
I’m strongly anti-abortion. And yet, this deeply held conviction doesn’t prevent me from placing blame on elements of the religious community for making it acceptable in the US. My belief that abortion is immoral has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is “legal”, which is the substance of your claim about ID and creationism. Legality refers to a set of man-made standards and codes. It does not settle the issue of the true nature of the subject under discussion.
Court rulings on religion today are part of a milieu that began with the prayer in school controversy that redefined what was constitutionally permissible and what was not. As I’ve written before, those who took the “moral high ground” in sparking this debate had their own set of vested interests and hidden agendas. Beginning with prayer in public schools and other public institutions, they took key provisions of the Declaration of Independence and substituted their own religious preferences for “God” so that paying homage to “Jesus,” not following a God-given moral code, became the focus of their efforts. Since Religion A claims to speak for God, and the Constitution forbids the state to establish an official religion, then both Religion A and the God it speaks for must be completely removed from the secular world. This logic prevailed because the Constitution is not the Declaration of Independence, and drawing inspiration and support from God is not the same thing as making laws that reflect God’s rules as expressed by a particular religion. It didn’t matter if what Christians believed perfectly matched 95% of the beliefs of every other religion. The Constitution, though inspired by God-given rights, was still man’s law. And man’s law did not permit the establishment of an official state religion.
By hijacking God and linking Him to a battle to promote their values, not only did the Christian community lose their fight, it allowed the notion of “God” — the basis for their claim — to be wiped out with it. This then led to an even more determined fight to infuse “politics with religion.” Relativists became even more relative to prevent their opponent’s success, and as the Relativists carried the fight to its relativistic extreme, atrocities like abortion on demand became the law of the land. This, ultimately, explains why a concept like abortion could take hold and flourish in a society that condemns human right abuses, and even passes laws against cruelty to animals, but it will allow a healthy 20-month old developing child to be killed without the same level of due process it demands for suspected mass murders and captured terrorists.
This is the background in which courts decide issues today. Only a fool would point to a court ruling as evidence that “ID is Creationism”, as you asserted. Court decisions change over time, and as the separate but equal provisions of the Constitution show, the same provisions of the law can — and will — be interpreted differently over time. So all you’ve done is point to a legal curiosity that adds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of substance to this debate, other than to reveal you for the narrow minded fool you are who can’t understand what he’s actually talking about.
I recognize that virtually none of what I’ve said will have any impact on you, because ideologues rarely demonstrate the capacity to grasp complex issues. But for those looking in on this discussion who actually want to debate whether ID is science or religion, they understand why citing court cases means absolutely nothing. In fact, this is why you are the only one who does it.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 8, 2008
Paul, number 43, wrote "Come now. “Many orthodox scientists…” Would you care to document that assertion?"
Answer: http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
"God" has been on the run in Western society for two hundred years. "Gott ist dott" was just the culmination of a slow brew that begin when the Christianity took root in Hellenistic Anatolia.
Nineteenth century writers like Dostoevsky witnessed the intellectual fads coming from western Europe in the wake of so many great scientific discoveries. Dostoevsky began writing Crime and Punishment in 1865 — 6 years after Darwin published Origin of Species.
Crime and Punishment was a response to the existential challenge of Darwin's materialism. Over 100 years later, in 1989, film director Woody Allen released his modernized version of Dostoevsky's masterpiece: Crimes and Misdemeanors.
By the late 20th century, the existential assumptions of Darwinism had become the default position of our most important institutions. Thus, in the world of Crimes and Misdemeanors — our own world — it is "adult" to assume that individual behaviors have no purpose or consequences beyond that which can be materially calculated.
In this world, if reality is not determined by an entrenched academic establishment, it is determined by judicial fiat.
This reminds me a little bit of the Protestant Revolution, wherein Martin Luther asserted man's one-to-one relationship with God, and disputed the Church's claim of jurisdiction. In our case, it is the scientific establishment itself that is claiming jurisdiction over how we should think about our ultimate origins.
May it's time for a new Protestant Revolution.
Comment by Mike LaSalle | March 8, 2008
Mike,
Come on, Mike. You’re light-years better than your last post indicates.
Let’s forget the politics and concentrate on the science. Others here can do the politics.
Your most grevious error is your misuse of words. Let’s concentrate on 3 terms you use imprecisely: Blind chance, chaos, and Darwinist.
Let’s do ‘chaos’ first. Let’s also not get too finicky and use the ‘quick’ definitions that OneLook.com provides. There are 4. The first 2 refer to the classic Greek definitions:
Beguilingly Carl Sagan-y, isn’t it? The third definition is:
Let’s call these 3 definitions “Greek chaos”. Your use of ‘chaos’ seems to encompass these definitions; specifically, in ID, an Intelligent Designer is needed to create order (cosmos) out of disorder (chaos).
Here is where I think you miss the boat. Science views ‘chaos’ as the fourth Onelook.com entry defines it:
We needn’t delve too deeply into the intricacies of Chaos and Chaos Theory because I don’t think you use ‘chaos’ in this sense. For those who care, however, the Chaos Theory: A Brief Introduction article outlines the basics in layman’s terms. One sentence from the article is noteworthy:
However, one point needs be made: Scientific chaos is not Greek chaos because chaotic systems evidence order at higher levels.
For example, the fusion of 4 hydrogen atoms into one helium atom in the core of the sun produces surplus photons. The path of these photons is completely unpredictable and hence chaotic. It takes perhaps millions of years for these photons to escape from the sun. During their confinement, they hit and bounce off trillions, quadrillions, or quintillions of other particles, all at the speed of light. Yet, at the highest level, the total number of photons exiting the sun each second is fairly constant, varying by only a few percent. Chaotic systems also exhibit other high-level orders. The article above describes some of these orders.
Let’s now allude to your “blind chance” term. Here again, randomness at a low level can produce order at a high level.
Let’s take the behavior of an electron. QM defines the electron as a probability wave. Where its position is at any ‘instant’ is not deterministic but based upon probabilities. Thus, the exact spatial position of any electron is due to blind chance. Yet, the behavior of electrons in macro systems like computer chips can be precisely determined via QM equations.
Besides, once the Big Bang occurred, the universe was not chaotic in the Greek sense. It was chaotic in the scientific sense but, more importantly, it was also ordered. Although physicists are still far from a Theory of Everything, the Standard Model of physics encompasses only a few forces and particles. The interactions of these forces and particles are precisely defined in a few equations-aka-Scientific Laws.
Perhaps counterintuitively, the universe may need chaos in order to evolve. For example, some theorists posit that our level of intelligence would not be possible unless the brain is partially a chaotic system. In fact, the universe itself can be viewed as partially ordered and partially chaotic. It may be the case that the evolution of simpler systems into more complex systems requires chaos. In effect, chaos may be absolutely necessary for evolution to occur.
Now to the third and last term you misuse: Darwinism. You said:
No, atheism discounts teleology out of the gate, not Darwinism. Your misuse of ‘Darwinism’ sets up a straw man. Scientists who believe in Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection can also believe in God.
Besides, the province of science is not the teleological. In effect, you’re condemning science for not being a religion. This is consummate inanity. Science starts after the Big Bang occurred. It has nothing to say about the pre-Big Bang universe, or even about the exact ‘instant’ the Big Bang occurred. Scientists willingly cede the teleological to religion and metaphysics.
Some of your other quotes about Darwinism:
Atheists might, but scientists don’t. Remember, the universe of which science speaks is only partially chaotic. It’s also partially ordered.
No. Science addresses the ‘how’ and not the ‘why’.
No. When scientists talk science, they do not speak of the universe’s ultimate origin. They merely presuppose or accept the existence of the universe and try to figure out how it works. Any discussion of ultimate causes is beyond the purview of science.
All this stuff is trivial, Mike. If I were the son of Cyrano de Bergerac and Pinocchio (Yea, I know, it’s a stretch) telling the biggest whopper I’ve ever told, it’s as plain to me as the nose on my face.
We don’t disagree on everything, Mike. Atheism is a scourge. It relativizes everything including morality, even as it essentially elevates man to the status of a god.
That being said, however, ID is not science but religion.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | March 8, 2008
Phil said: "But for those looking in on this discussion who actually want to debate whether ID is science or religion, they understand why citing court cases means absolutely nothing."
You ranted on and on about court decisions…and you're right. They're not my primary tool - just a quick one. So that one doesn't work here - fine.
So let's set that aside and talk about all the various scientific organizations (Comment #42) that have unanimously condemned intelligent design. I notice you didn't issue one word of denial about that. Does that mean you accept their decision?
Comment by PaulBurnett | March 8, 2008
This is getting tedious. Let’s just take the first "scientific" example Burnett used in Comment 42.
Membership in the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) http://www.aaas.org/membership/benefits/index.shtml “is open to all individuals [regardless of their expertise or background] who support the goals and objectives of the Association and are willing to contribute to the achievement of those goals and objectives.” Translation: once policy is set, no dissenting opinions are allowed.
Those goals and objectives are the result of board resolutions. As one who actually worked in a non-profit organization and created board resolutions, let me explain how this process works. The board elects a chairman, who selects an executive committee. The chairman and committee select policy based on the old Soviet politburo paradigm. They decide among themselves what they want to do, then instruct staff to create a board resolution reflecting those views, which they then pass on behalf of the organization.
This is the exact “proof” Burnett looks to by his own link in Comment 42. It’s the political “opinion” of the AAAS executive committee!
And who, by the way, was the chairman of the board when the resolution was passed? None other than Peter Raven “possibly best known for his important work Coevolution of Insects and Plants published in the journal Evolution in 1964 which he coauthored with Paul R. Ehrlich.” Ehrlich, as we all know, has no political agenda at all in his scientific “analysis”.
AAAS did not conduct a “study” of Intelligent Design. They didn’t bring in parties from all sides of the issue, debate it, and come to a conclusion. In their own press release they justified their actions this way: “The AAAS Board resolved to oppose claims that intelligent design theory is scientifically based, in response to a number of recent ID-related threats to public science education. In Georgia, for example, the Cobb County District School Board decided in March this year to affix stickers to science textbooks, telling students that ‘evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things’."
The horror! Someone wants to say that evolution is a scientific theory! By god, this needs to be stopped! So, let’s pass a resolution to address this “threat”.
Let me expand on what I said about using court decisions to settle whether X is science or religion: Board Resolutions are even more silly!
There has been a legitimate, if at times heated debate by certain participants in this discussion to actually wrestle with the substantive issue of the matter. These people neither invoke court cases nor board resolutions to “prove” their points. They actually think about the issue and debate it intelligently.
Personally, I believe that ID explains the “why” about the universe, while science does not. But I’ve also conceded that ID is not science in the strict sense of the term. And if it wants to compete with science, it should be measured by the strict scientific method, which means it will fail on this ground. But the corollary to this is that science also fails when it overreaches and attempts to extrapolate the “why” from the “how”. (See “The Politics of Science and Religion”). There is thus a place for both science and ID in the classroom, as long as each side recognizes its own limitations.
Like Einstein, Hawking and others, I see no conflict between believing that God created the universe and man understanding aspects of how it actually functions. Only those who assume that discussions of ID automatically mean discussions of a particular religious notion of God, and who further can’t understand that even “scientific” organizations operate in a political environment (the AAAS actually has a Social, Economic, and Political Sciences division currently chaired by Russell Hardin!), rely on court cases and board resolutions to support their point of view. To them, actually reading a book like “The Wonder of the World” is not necessary to “know” that “ID (which actually stands for “Intellectual Dishonesty”) is nothing more than a heretical form of creationism with all references to the Creator removed.”
I have great respect for a well argued point, even when it differs from mine. But I have little patience with a fool who rants and raves only to promote his personal agenda.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 9, 2008
Okay, Phil, in your universe the courts can't "settle whether X is science or religion," and the evil Boards of Directors of scientific organizations can't "settle whether X is science or religion." So who can?
Comment by PaulBurnett | March 9, 2008
Burnett: In the real world — not just my universe — issues are debated by evaluating the strength of one's intellectually-based arguments (not board resolutions). We do this by examining the assumptions upon which these arguments are based, and then weighing the evidence assembled in support of those assertions. If the assumptions are flawed, or the evidence is incomplete or in any way deficient, we add this factor to the mix and come to a reasonable understandings of the matter as best we can, as I've attempted to do in my own treatment of science and religion. Sometimes the assumptions are so flawed or evidence is so incomplete that the only conclusion possible is that there is no “settled” fact. Only third graders and ideologues would look to look for “settled” arguments without taking any of this into account.
You don’t understand this because you are a hack who takes what I’ve said about the normal, recognizable, understandable dynamics of a large non-profit institution and characterized it as “evil”. I never said these people were evil. I said that they had POLITICAL AGENDAS like you that distort and color the way they view the world.
Only those who see the world through their own ideology would describe opponents as “evil”. This is the kind of comment only an ideologically-driven hack would make; or a total fool who understands nothing. And you’ll note that in offering this political analysis (that’s what it means to be judged a “hack”), or holding out the possibility that you are just a simpleton, I’ve not seen any need to morally or religiously condemn you as “evil”. You, on the other hand, who rant against ID as “nothing more than a heretical form of creationism with all references to the Creator removed”, tend to speak in religious terms about heretics and “evil”. The irony is not lost on us. You are exactly the kind of person you supposedly condemn. You are not interested in debating an issue. Your only interest lies in condemning all those who oppose you because they oppose you.
Once again you seem to be the only person confused about this matter.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 9, 2008
LFDF - I will try to answer your concerns….
Re: Chaos - I am quite happy with the Greek definitions as I find them a cogent interpretation of the actual state of things prior to the Big Bang.
In respect to the scientific definition of Chaos: (physics) A dynamical system that is extremely sensitive to its initial conditions
… Herein is the key to the whole matter: what were the initial conditions? How do we define those conditions? Are these conditions susceptible to the Observation Selection Effect?
This is exactly my point: apparently chaotic systems in fact always have higher level order. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that Order Exists whether humans can observe it or not.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says that Chaotic Systems have solutions that human beings will never know.
That blows Darwinism out of the water as a philosophical underpinning for atheism.
It turns out that Darwin doesn't offer intellectual fulfillment to an atheist after all! LOL!
From this, I can argue that human observers are part of an underlying Order that cannot be construed by those very observers.
This higher level Order can be theoretically observed, but the observer must have at His disposal higher level cognitive structures than than are currently available to us humans.
Comment by Mike LaSalle | March 9, 2008
Phil,
The AAAS is not the only science-based organization that opposes ID. Others are the National Association of Science Teachers, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Physical Society, and the National Academy of Sciences. But, from your POV, they’re probably as politically corrupt as the AAAS, and thus similarly peremptorily dismissible, right?
You can’t have it both ways, Phil. On the one hand, you excoriate the AAAS for their involvement in the politics of evolution, but on the other hand, you need your false caricature of the AAAS to argue:
Let’s analyze your contorted logic.
So, you bash the AAAS for entering the political realm. You then falsely characterize the AAAS’ position:
Please examine the AAAS Board Resolution and cite where the AAAS addresses the “why” of evolution.
Of course, the AAAS resolution didn’t address it. However, you need this straw man (ie, scientists embracing the “why” of evolution); else, your use of ‘thus’ is invalid:
You logic gets worse. Let’s say your condemnation of both sides is dead on, and that both sides engage in the most intellectually dishonest and scurrilous of tactics. Your solution? Let both sides duke it out in the classroom.
What? Are you serious? Boiled down to its essence, you’re urging a debate that has more to do with politics than with religion and science — and a debate that you consider almost totally fallow — to be conducted in the classroom, too.
Sorry, Phil. Try again. This time be rational and logical.
One last point re the “why”. Who are these evil scientists or group of scientists who expand the science of evolution to include the “why” and not just the “how”. Can you name them? Can you identify where these evil scientists have intruded their evolution-as-religion in the science classroom? Yea, I know what’ll you say. “Read my article”. Well, Phil, if you’re going to reference one of your articles, the least you could do is supply a link to it.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | March 9, 2008
Phil,
In response to #6 and more.
Biology has come a long way to show that the species have a remarkable system to handle change. In many ways the field of biology is passing up the field of astrophysics. Our ability to unravel the genetic code has progressed well over the years. But until evolution can be broken down into the simple steps that are required from the theory then the jury will remain out. It is my guess that we will uncover additional levels of complexity along the way which will make the job near impossible.
Ray and I don't have a problem with raw data in science, we just don't see eye to eye in the application of the data to theory. Once you get past the data then worldviews come into play and we argue beliefs. This happens inside and outside of science. I do believe that both of us are willing to change our position when any new data comes along. I do not think either of us would change our beliefs.
Since data is king in science then Ray and I must accept that. I believe we do.
I think the ID people should have thought about what they were doing a little more before they jumped in. They should have come up with some catchy term meaning "I don't know" instead of saying "Intelligent Design". Like edge of understanding (EOU). Then tried to make some level of classifications of theories based on that edge. It would have saved all of us a lot of time. But if they wanted to start a war between the two camps they got what they were looking for.
Comment by fbaginski | March 9, 2008
fbaginski: What? You don't look to court cases and board proclamations to "settle" an issue? :)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I actually think there is more common ground here than is apparent on first blush, once we consign the bomb throwers to their proper place and let the adults continue the discussion.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 9, 2008
The National Association of Science Teachers, the National Association of Biology Teachers, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American Physical Society, and the National Academy of Sciences.
***Certainly no vested interests here! And all most certainly arrived at their determination after an open, careful, thoughtful examination of the issue where all sides of the issue were debated and explored in a neutral, search-for-the-truth manner. I’m sure the AAAS is just an aberration in the way it approaches the issue. Oh, and the NDRC too!
You then falsely characterize the AAAS’ position:
*** I quoted them directly.
Your solution? Let both sides duke it out in the classroom. What? Are you serious? Boiled down to its essence, you’re urging a debate that has more to do with politics than with religion and science — and a debate that you consider almost totally fallow — to be conducted in the classroom, too.
*** Heaven forbid we should use the educational process to debate an issue when we can rely on others to simply tell us what to believe.
Who are these evil scientists or group of scientists …
*** I dealt with one idiot who assigns “evil” motives to people who I describe as promoting political agendas. Now you want to talk about “evil people too? This is the best you can do to argue a point?
Well, Phil, if you’re going to reference one of your articles, the least you could do is supply a link to it.
*** It’s in the IC archives.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | March 9, 2008
Hell hath no fury like a Phillip Ellis Jackson scorned?
To begin, sorry. I posted a couple of comments to your How to Increase Your Carbon Footprint article (the oldest of your articles still allowing comments) merely to test how the IC filter translated various HTML tags and other attempts at formatting (ie, unordered and ordered lists). Thus, you can disregard the comments posted to that article.
Now that I know how the filter works, I can teach you how to associate a link with one of your articles via use of the HTML “a href” tag. For example:
Yea, HTML sucks, but reality is.
Anyway, before you get pissed at me, you might enjoy an image of John McCain I lovingly crafted. Click here.
Sadly, I’ve concluded that you don’t understand the issues posed by ID. Your errors of fact and logic are many and fatal.
There are 2 key paragraphs in your The Politics of Science and Religion that underscore your ignorance of basic facts, and your illogic.
You begin the first paragraph:
Good. You’re trying to be fair. You criticize both sides. However, right out of the chute, you commit a fatal error. Why? Because the “kind of science” that does not consider God’s role in the creation of the universe is … science itself.
There are not 2 kinds of science: One that considers ultimate origins and one that does not. There is only one kind of science: The kind that does not consider ultimate origins.
Therefore, you buy the core ID argument: Any scientific discussion of origins should include a discussion of God’s role in the creation of the universe. In effect, you are an ideologue regarding this issue.
The fact that you are a closet IDer is affirmed by what you subsequently write:
Again, you buy the core ID argument: ID is not a religion since it is not a specific religion. Instead, ID considers god in the most universal manner possible.
But, the ID god is supernatural. Any credo that embraces the supernatural is religious. If a credo is religious, it’s also a religion.
If you disagree, please provide links (say, Discovery Institute links) where all organized religions formally endorse ID to be 100% compatible with their credos. If you can’t provide said links and said endorsements, then ID must be considered a religion discrete from other religions.
So far, you’ve committed 2 fatal errors: You don’t understand what science is, and you don’t understand what religion is. You compound these errors when you say:
You misuse ‘theory’. I suppose you’re trying to use it in the sense of a scientific theory, but ID is not a scientific theory. It’s merely religious dogma, whereas evolution is a proper and integral scientific theory.
You’ve got a hard-on for science. You said near the beginning of your 2 paragraphs:
The “the kind of” phrase is superfluous. Face it, Phil. You dislike science itself. NP, however. You can believe whatever you want to believe. Just don’t try to portray yourself as any kind of an advocate for science because you’re not.
We’ve established that you are a closet IDer. The above quote also identifies you as a closet Creationist.
You continue:
‘Knowledge’? Creationism is religious dogma, based strictly upon faith. Knowledge is the product of rational inquiry. Creationism rejects rational inquiry entirely.
You continue:
Again, you buy the Creationist argument: Creationism is science. Creationism is not science. It fails the test of the Scientific Method. Neither Creationists nor IDers can construct an integral scientific theory.
You continue:
Again, you buy the Creationist argument lock, stock, and barrel. However, to use your word, that ‘competition’ is over. Creationism lost.
I started this analysis in order to understand what you said in posts #48 and #50, and what you said in post #55 in response to my post #52. I now understand from whence you come and can therefore respond to what you said in posts #48, #50, and #55. But, not right now. Tomorrow, maybe.
One good thing came out of my analysis, though. I can now treat you as derisively as you treat Paul Burnett because, like him, you’re an ideologue.
Comment by LiveFreeDieFree | March 9, 2008
"I recognize that virtually none of what I’ve said will have any impact on you, because ideologues rarely demonstrate the capacity to grasp complex issues."
Precisely why I have taken to abstaining from discussion when these topics arise. It's an exercise in futility. Once you remove yourself from the discussion, it actually becomes quite interesting and amusing to observe. When engaged in the "discussion", it is much like smashing one's head repeatedly into the wall.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 9, 2008
Hell hath no fury like a Phillip Ellis Jackson scorned?
** No. I just have no patience for self-important fools. Particularly those who need to assign value laden terms like “evil” to supposedly counter an argument that shows how the AAAS, as a typical example, issues “scientific” proclamations that have little to do with science, and a lot to do with promoting a political philosophy.
And it’s equally difficult to carry on an intelligent conversation with someone who describes me as a “closet IDer”, when in fact I’ve stated openly and repeatedly that I believe in Intelligent Design. I just don’t contend that it is “science” the same as biology, physics, etc. is science. So why assign this “closet” status other than to set up anot