If you are sure there is no miracle-working God, then something like Darwinian evolution must be correct. But if there is even a chance that such a God exists, then basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against Darwinism.
Ben Stein's movie Expelled shines the spotlight on the dispute between Darwinian evolution and its opponents. Although both sides marshal a large array of technical facts, this dispute is really a clash between two fundamentally differing worldviews, that is, basic philosophical systems that people use to interpret all of reality. In fact, the dispute can most accurately be summed up by saying: It's all about God.
That is, if you can be sure there is no miracle-working God, then something like Darwinian evolution must be correct. But if there is even a chance that such a God exists, then basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against Darwinism. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that natural forces are incapable of either originating life or changing it from single-celled organisms to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of divine action as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility.
Definitions Are Everything
In this dispute, proper definitions are everything. For example, the most common defense given for Darwinian evolution is some variation of the following: "Evolution means change over time. We observe that life is changing over time. Therefore evolution is a fact, even if we don't know all the details."
And the Darwinists' second most common line is: "Science is naturalistic by definition. Therefore your alleged evidence that God did it, or that natural forces are incapable of doing it, is invalid. Appealing to God, either overtly or covertly, is not allowed. Case closed."
("Naturalism" is the doctrine that only matter exists, and that all knowledge must originate from data provided by the five senses.)
In both cases, Darwinists are appealing to a definition in order to win the argument. In one case, it is the definition of "Darwinian evolution;" in the second, the definition of "science."
But reality is not determined by definitions. In fact, the reverse is true: we only must use definitions that accord with what we know about reality. And if evidence starts to come in that the definitions we have used are faulty, we must honestly face this evidence.
So before we judge the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution, we must ask: What are the proper definitions of "Darwinian evolution" and of "science?" And how do we decide what the proper definitions would have to be? The answers we give to these questions will largely determine whether we support or oppose Darwinian evolutionary theory.
And please note: These questions are philosophical, not scientific. They concern the most basic issues of human life: What is real? What is true? How does one determine truth? For such questions, scientific data can be useful but will never be decisive. This dispute concerns the basic philosophical assumptions that undergird, and precede, science. Therefore scientific methods cannot answer the above questions.
In other words, the scientist does not have any special authority here. He cannot say, "I am a trained professional, you are not, and therefore you are required to agree with me." When we discuss questions about basic reality, the scientist and the non-scientist are on equal terms. Each must make a philosophical, non-technical case to support his view, and he must also evaluate the merits of his opponent's case, rather than just standing on authority or tradition.
Professional philosophers also have no special authority here. The basic natures of thought and of reality are not highly specialized fields of professional inquiry where laymen have no right to take a stand. Thought and reality are everyone's business, and the philosopher must make his case in non-technical language.
The first of the questions, "What exactly do we mean by 'Darwinian evolution?'" is comparatively easy to answer. Only members in good standing of the scientific community (especially its leadership) have the authority to answer this question. Scientists use the term "Darwinian evolution" in a special way, as is appropriate to a technically-advanced academic and intellectual discipline, and so laymen do not have the authority to redefine it.
This must be said because private definitions of "evolution" abound. It is common, for example, for believers in God to define evolution as a process of change that appears to the scientist to be random and uncaused, but is in reality guided by God. Call it "theistic evolution." And it is also common for less religiously-orthodox dissenters from standard Darwinian theory to redefine evolution so that, although there is no guiding hand, it is still somehow "predetermined" by the properties of reality itself.
So we need to be clear: the Darwinism that the scientists (and their admirers) demand that we believe means something very specific. This definition is often written down for all to see, and it can also be inferred from what the Darwinists say about their theory.
The scientist's definition of evolution (expressed in non-technical terms and emphasizing the points which are key for this essay) is as follows: "The development of life by random genetic mutations coupled with natural selection, in such a way that this development was neither guided by any intelligent agent, nor predetermined in any other way." If you believe in some other sort of evolution, you are not a Darwinist!1
And therefore, in particular, Darwinian evolution does not mean just "change in life over time." Nobody disputes that life has changed over time, and this fact does not prove that the changes were Darwinian, that is, not caused by an intelligent agent.
Revealingly, scientists rarely state the definition as clearly as I have above, at least when they are addressing the general public. One reason is undoubtedly that many scientists are honestly unaware that anyone would regard an intelligently-designed or predetermined evolution as a possibility. Most scientists have a worldview that is naturalistic, meaning they believe that only matter exists (and therefore there is no God), and that all knowledge must originate with the five senses. And if naturalism is true, any sort of evolution obviously would have to be Darwinian, even if all of the details have not yet been discovered: Under naturalism, no God is available to do the intelligent designing, and no "predestination" of material processes can be known. This being the case, natural selection would be the only remotely plausible explanation of life.
But the main reason scientists and their textbooks often downplay (or ignore) the atheistic nature of Darwinism (the "no God did it" part) is because of public opposition. Although roughly 40% of Americans say to pollsters that they basically go along with Darwinism, that leaves a large and often vocal majority who do not. In the last thirty years or so, anti-Darwinism has become a major force. And as I am attempting to demonstrate in this essay, this is as it should be.
What is Science?
This brings us to the second question: What is the correct definition of science? Should science be naturalistic (i.e., assuming only matter and sense perception) by definition?
This question is key. If science really should be naturalistic, then some sort of Darwinism is correct. Period. Even if life on earth were designed by a superior race of extraterrestrial beings (which would be a form of "Intelligent Design"), this could be assimilated to Darwinism, if the ultimate origin of all life in the universe were naturalistic.
Should science be naturalistic? There is only one possible answer: Only if naturalism is true, at least to the best of our knowledge.
Imagine a scientist who has what he believes to be good evidence that an event occurred that cannot be accounted for except through the purposeful action of an intelligent being. But this event occurred long before any human beings, or any other beings capable of intelligent and purposeful action existed. What should he conclude?
If naturalism is known to be true, he should conclude that some unknown natural process caused the event. But if naturalism is not known to be true, he should consider the possibility that a supernatural being did it. To entertain this possibility is not to "destroy science." It is to draw the most likely conclusion.
Consider an analogy: A detective is investigating a murder, and he is beginning to suspect that the butler did it. But the rules of the Gotham City police department emphatically do not allow police to implicate butlers. When the detective mentions his reasons for thinking the butler did it, he is told, "That's against our rules." So he decides that he will only believe the butler did it when he's off duty.
That would be absurd. If there really is good evidence that the butler did it, we should entertain this possibility. There can be only one valid reason to have a general rule that butlers are never to be implicated: if we have good reason to believe that butlers never commit crimes. Otherwise, it would be absurd to say, "The butler may have done it, but if you consider that possibility then it won't be detecting, it'll be something else entirely, because, for example, people are so fond of their butlers that they cannot give a truthful testimony about them."
If you are a scientist, there is only one valid reason to demand naturalism in your investigations: if you have good reason to believe that naturalism is true.
In response to this point, some scientists will declare that "truth" is not the goal of science. Science, they say, is like a game, in which the rules are essentially arbitrary, and are chosen for esthetic and utilitarian reasons.2 But this assertion is clearly nonsense. The vast majority of scientists believe that their goal is truth (as much truth as human enterprise is capable of attaining), not just adherence to an arbitrary code. Besides, if the goal of science is not truth, then non-scientists are not required to agree with scientists. If you are not claiming that your scientific conclusions are really true, we can ignore you.
Some scientists distinguish between methodological naturalism ("Science must only investigate natural things, even though it cannot know whether naturalism is true") and ontological naturalism ("Naturalism is true"). They will demand only methodological naturalism in science, and claim that they are not saying naturalism is true.
But this is to dodge the issue. If naturalism is false, then evidence pointing to the supernatural will eventually be found. And at that point, continuing to insist on methodological naturalism really will be just a disguised ontological naturalism, i.e., a disguised atheism.
So is naturalism true? A full discussion of this point would make this essay much too long, so I shall provide the following link to a more detailed refutation of naturalism, and only summarize the argument here:
Naturalism fails for two fundamental reasons: It is logically inconsistent (and therefore necessarily false) and it cannot plausibly account for many of the facts we know to be true.
Here is a brief indication of naturalism's inconsistency: Naturalism declares that all knowledge ultimately must be based on sense perception. But no sense perception, or an inference from such a perception, can possibly prove that all knowledge must be based on sense perception. So according to naturalism, the doctrine of "naturalism" would have to be false. Therefore, if naturalism is true, then it is false. And if it is false, then it is false. In any case, it is false.
As for a fact that naturalism cannot plausibly account for, consider the Big Bang. Scientists tell us that the universe began with a primordial explosion which created all matter and energy, and also all space and time. In other words, "before" the Big Bang, there was no matter, energy, space or time. But if naturalism is true, matter, energy (in the sense of physics), space and time are the only things that can exist. And so according to naturalism, there was absolute nothingness before the Big Bang, a nothingness that somehow "caused" the universe. Since nothingness cannot cause anything, naturalism radically fails to account for the origin of the universe.
Brief Summary of the Evidence
Once we understand that naturalism is false, and that the supernatural accordingly does exist, we can interpret the evidence both for and against Darwinian evolutionary theory much more accurately. It would make this essay far too long if it were carefully to consider all of this evidence, but here is a summary. The interested reader can readily find more details in the voluminous anti-Darwinian literature, which makes a powerful persuasive case if you are not burdened by the false worldview of naturalism:
A) The Evidence for Darwinism
- Remember, Darwinian evolution means, not just change, but unguided change. The chief evidence for this is that we do see unguided change in life happening right now: viruses becoming immune to medicines, finch beaks varying in average size, species becoming extinct and new "species" (isolated breeding populations) coming into existence. We do observe natural selection.
- Deliberate breeding of animals and plants by humans (which admittedly is not "unguided") shows that some species have a considerable capacity for variation. Perhaps these limits can be stretched very far over millions of years, so that we get full-blown Darwinian evolution.
B) But there is no good reason to believe that Darwinian evolutionary theory is true
- We never observe natural forces even coming close to producing life out of non-life. And it is known to be wildly improbable that nonliving elements could randomly combine themselves into life. Therefore there is no reason, other than a presupposition of naturalism, to believe that this occurred in the past.
- All examples of currently-occurring evolution involve "micro-evolution," that is, minor variations. We never observe radically new organs or species coming into existence through unintelligent natural means. Therefore there is no reason, other than a presupposition of naturalism, to believe that this occurred in the past.
- We never observe consciousness spontaneously evolving out of non-conscious entities. Therefore there is no reason, other than a presupposition of naturalism, to believe that this occurred in the past.
- After more than 150 years of intensive scientific scrutiny, the fossil record shows only a tiny fraction of the vast number of transitional forms that would have to have existed according to Darwinism. The most reasonable inference is that they did not exist.
C) And there is good reason to believe that Darwinian evolutionary theory is false
- The Bible, which is a trustworthy source, says that Darwinian evolution did not occur.
- Darwinism, like all contemporary mainstream science, assumes naturalism, which is false.
- The fossil record often shows the opposite of evolution (Darwinian or otherwise): In the "Cambrian Explosion" of six hundred million years ago, all of the currently-existing phyla (basic body designs) came into existence, along with many phyla which no longer exist. No new phyla have evolved, and many have "de-evolved."
Why do They Stick to Their Guns?
Aside from the fact that they believe miracles don't occur, naturalistic scientists apparently are afraid that they will be unable to formulate laws if God constantly interferes with the world. But this is not true, for several reasons:
First, science can certainly describe what happens most of the time, and even according to the most miracle-crazed Pentecostal, natural explanations (i.e., well-established scientific laws) are obeyed at least, oh, 99.99999% of the time. And if, as atheists like to claim, there is no solid scientific evidence validating even one miracle (other than the Big Bang!), then science has nothing to lose from admitting that miracles are possible. Furthermore, any physical miracle will leave behind a physical residue that can, at least in principle, be studied by science.
The operation of God is like the operation of human minds: just because an action caused by a mind cannot fully be accounted for in a scientific law, this does not mean that we must never dare to consider the possibility. It would be absurd to say, for example, "Even though there is overwhelming evidence that the faces on Mt. Rushmore were produced by the deliberate action of an intelligent agent rather than by natural processes, it would destroy science if we were to admit this possibility." If the evidence points to action by non-natural entities, that's what we should conclude.
Partisans of naturalistic science also frequently claim that admitting God is scientifically improper because religious belief is allegedly held with 100% certainty, whereas scientific beliefs are allegedly supposed to be tentative. But the real issue here is not the certainty of the belief, which is just a psychological state. The real issue is the evidence, and the proper conclusion to draw from it. It is always improper, in religion or science, to hold a belief with more certainty than the facts warrant, and there is nothing about religious beliefs that require 100% certainty. If we believe God did it, there is no law of epistemology or of religion that requires us always to have 100% confidence of any belief involving God. This is a straw-man argument.
Finally, naturalistic scientists confronted with an argument against naturalism often will say, "It's not enough simply to find fault with our way of doing science. You need to supply a new model for doing science. Otherwise, you are not doing anything useful."
Certainly, a non-naturalistic science will have to be developed. (Or redeveloped. Science was not officially naturalistic until the Twentieth Century.) But if I am not a scientist (and I am not, although I have a Bachelor's Degree in physics from UCLA), then I am not required to develop such a science. That's the job of scientists, because it is their field. There is nothing improper with a layman pointing out a mistake being made by professionals in another field.
One concrete suggestion for changing how we do science is obvious, though. If no naturalistic mechanism is known that can account for an observed phenomenon, science should say, "God may have been involved," rather than dogmatically declaring, "A naturalistic explanation will eventually be found."
What's at Stake?
It is only to be expected that professionals will resent outsiders telling them that they are making a major error in their professional work. "Mind your own business, man!" is the instinctive response. But we non-scientists must not remain silent. Much more than science is at stake.
As I have argued elsewhere, Western Civilization is under the effective control of the worldview of the Left, commonly called "liberalism." I describe liberalism as our "unofficial state religion." And the philosophical basis of liberalism is atheism: either explicit atheism, or the de facto variety that only denies that anything can be known about God. It is this freedom from God and His authority that makes liberalism the radically destructive force that it is.
And Darwinian evolutionary theory, at least in the mind of John Q. Public, is the number one argument for atheism: According to a popular extension of Darwinism, evolution in the broad sense can account for almost everything in the universe, and in human society, without having to resort to God. Or, as Richard Dawkins famously quipped: "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." With Darwinism, God appears to be out of a job.
Think about it: According to Darwinism, one of the most important beliefs of theists, that God deliberately created everything, is false. And if this belief is false, all of the other transcendental religious beliefs become suspect. Darwinism leads naturally to atheism.
Furthermore, Darwinism has become an organized force, opposing dissenters and pushing itself on the general public. Think of Eugenie Scott's National Center for Science Education, dedicated to suppressing dissent from Darwinism in the schools, or evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who has become possibly the world's leading apologist for atheism. If Darwinism is more than dispassionate academic contemplation, its opponents can be also.
Bottom line: When the Darwinists say their theory is true, they are, for all intents and purposes, telling us that atheism is true. It may be only the de facto atheism that simply ignores God, but the net result is the same: a society whose public policy is based on the denial of God, in which case it is man who is the supreme being. And if this is so, then nothing is certain, and everything must change.
If you are an atheist, then you should agree with Darwinism. And if you approve of the way American society is going, then you will have little incentive to oppose Darwinism, other than the disinterested pursuit of truth. But if you understand that America is endangered by the Left, and you do not have a naturalistic worldview, then you must oppose Darwinism.
Endnotes
1. For a more technical definition of evolution, see the Wikipedia entry for "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis," especially the section titled "Tenets of the modern synthesis." And observe that naturalism is never mentioned, but is taken to be an obvious given. The closest that the article comes to explicitly ruling out the supernatural is when it says, "Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation)."
"Saltation" means "sudden large change," such as, e.g., miraculous creation ex nihilo.
2. See. E.g., Mano Singham, "Philosophy Is Essential to the Intelligent Design Debate Physics Today," June 2002. Note especially his concluding sentence: "To be valid, science does not have to be true." Singham also asserts that science must be naturalistic, but only hints at his reason for believing this, which seems to be the success of science. If truth is not paramount, utility is enough.
A well written article!
I have probably posted some of these references before, but they are worth repeating; and repeating ….
“The unlearned man who, at the sight of a tree in flower, is over-powered by the mystery of the will-to-live which is stirring all round him, knows more than the scientist who studies under a microscope or in physical and chemical activity a thousand forms of the will-to-live, but, with all his knowledge of the life-course of these manifestations of the will-to-live, is unmoved by the mystery that everything which exists is will-to-live, while he is puffed up with vanity at being able to describe exactly a fragment of the course of life.” [Albert Schweitzer - Civilization and Ethics]
“The spirit of the age drives us into action without allowing us to attain any clear view of the objective world and of life. It claims our toil inexorably in the service of this or that end, this or that achievement. It keeps us in a sort of intoxication of activity so that we may never have time to ask ourselves what this restless sacrifice of ourselves to ends and achievements really has to do with the meaning of the world and of our lives.” [Schweitzer - The Decay and Restoration of Civilization]
Thus, for those who deny even the possibility of a God, their continued existence can rest only on their “will-to-vanity.” [Freedom v A Tyranny of Rights]
They live to toil; they don’t toil to live. The only thing that can sustain such fruitless toil on this vermin-infested piece of rock hurtling through space at high speed, destined for the self-same monumental accident they claim brought them into existence in the first place, is utter and unadulterated vanity.
What an indictment of the condition of the human species; a condition that has descended into the depths of depravity, in the pursuit of pleasure, as the salvation and end of the species.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Alan
I’m disappointed that you have not provided a bridge between science and religion, but only given us another “either/or” choice. Having read both the Bible and Dawkins, I can see the limits of each and believe in God as well as Darwin. Karl Popper defined the rule of falsifiability to exclude any explanation that does not allow for disproof. Therefore, Dawkins assertion that God does not exist is false, in a scientific sense. Darwin, on the other hand, made no such assertion. Since the Bible makes no claim to be scientific it has no obligation to meet the standards of falsifiability therefore it may be taken literally or metaphorically as the reader chooses. In Genesis we learn that God created the world in 7 days. Science tells us that the Big Bang occurred 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years ago. Most earthlings think a day is 24 hours and 1/7 of a week, but these are only human measures. We know that a year on Mars is equal to 1.8809 Earth years, so what problem is it to say that God’s “Day” is 1.961 billion human years? Such an assertion complies with the Bible as well as science.
And Joe
We are all “unlearned men”. It’s just that some have not learned that yet.
Ivan, I couldn’t agree more that we are all “unlearned” men – and women, and its just that some haven’t realized that yet!
On Genesis I agree. A day, as we define it in accordance with our planetary cycles, is the time from the rising or setting of the sun, until it happens again. Since Genesis tells us that the sun and the moon were only created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:16), then clearly the days referred to in the rest of Genesis 1 were according to some other measure, not the sun and the moon.
Yet, what I find fascinating is that the sequence of creation set out in Genesis is much the same as the sequence science believes occurred – just in a different timescale (although even that is not much of an issue – as I have pointed out).
But that is only the beginning of the mystery of the first chapter of the Scriptures!
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Ivan, one further observation on the 7 days, if I may! Genesis 2:4: “These are the GENERATIONS [my emphasis] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the DAY [my emphasis] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.”
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Enter Raymond Ingles, stage left, with voluminous proof from the “Center For The Advancement of Evolutionary Science” blog that Darwinian theory is, was, and always has been, wholly and perfectly correct and complete. Raymond Ingles exits. Enter LiveFreeDieFree, stage left, relying on himself as his only necessary resource, explaining why God has no place in the consideration of science, and informing anyone and everyone who deviates from his dictates in any way, shape, or form, that they are stupid, ill-informed troglodytes incapable of serious thought. Suddenly, PaulBurnett enters, stage right, interrupting LiveFreeDieFree in order to assert that Darwinian evolutionary theory is a closed chapter of scientific discovery, but stops short of actually making an argument in the intellectual sense, and instead simply calls people names and asserts his superiority of understanding. Both exit together, stage right. An ensemble cast enters, stage left and right, and begins spitting, yelling, and screaming in an indiscernible orgy of confrontation until all parties involved have either gone hoarse, exhausted themselves with aggravation, or lost interest due to repetition, and the cast slowly wanders off, stage left and right.
If this article goes anything at all like others with the same subject matter have, you may rest assured that the plot outlined above will play itself out almost perfectly over the course of at least one week, but probably not more than two.
Patrick
Is this an attempt at prior restraint?
Ivan: I think it’s merely a projection of future events based on past performance.
Phil’s got it. As a veteran of this ancient tradition, he knows of which I speak.
Well, at least you didn’t mention my name:>)
However, I am still a proponent of Jefferson’s free speech policy, no matter how ignorant or stupid the speech is. Not even Alan Dershowitz can convince me otherwise. So, I’ll just watch the stage from here.
Hey, you forgot me! (flying in from the wings, stage left, obviously).
Though I am clearly not a scientist, and not really able to refute this junk as well as actual biologists, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I have just as much knowledge in this area as a mathematician.
First, the obvious ones I don’t even have to use the Google to point out: 1) Evolutionary theory as the mechanism for the development of life on this planet is based on much much much more that just the writings of Darwin – geology, genetics, chemistry and a whole host of other disciplines have added significantly to our knowledge in this area. 2) Science does not know, and does not pretend to know, what caused or preceded the “Big Bang.” Evolutionary theory certainly has nothing to say about it (since there was no Earth, and no observable life around at the time). You can posit a God, or a Giant Spaghetti Monster, as having been the cause of all matter, and you would be as ‘correct’ as any scientist on that subject.
Ok, nothing controversial there. Let’s pick out a couple of random logical fallacies and misrepresentations and call it day.
“Remember, Darwinian evolution means, not just change, but unguided change. The chief evidence for this is that we do see unguided change in life happening right now: viruses becoming immune to medicines, finch beaks varying in average size, species becoming extinct and new “species” (isolated breeding populations) coming into existence. We do observe natural selection.”
Wrong. Adaptation (change) over time is not unguided. Viruses that become immune to medicines are ‘guided’ by, duh, the need to survive in a environment so saturated with said medicines (leaving aside the fact that it’s bacteria, not viruses, that are causing the problems with antibiotics).
“After more than 150 years of intensive scientific scrutiny, the fossil record shows only a tiny fraction of the vast number of transitional forms that would have to have existed according to Darwinism. The most reasonable inference is that they did not exist.”
Not to a logical person. To a logical person, the most reasonable inference is that we haven’t found all the fossils (or they don’t exist, because not every living thing has an exoskeleton to fossilize, or died in a way in which it’s form was preserved.) If there were even ONE example of a fossil found in the wrong geological place, you might have something, but there isn’t, so BZZZZZZT!
“The Bible, which is a trustworthy source, says that Darwinian evolution did not occur.”
Hahahahahahaa, ohohhhohhohhhohhh, hahhahhhahhahahhhahhahahah, no, really, I can’t stop laughing, hahhahhahhahhhahhahh. Chapter and verse, please, chapter and verse. Oh, and I’m sure the mathematics department at your little collage will be happy to know your source for Pi is so trustworthy. Oh, please, dazzle me with your incomparable powers of logic some more.
“If no naturalistic mechanism is known that can account for an observed phenomenon, science should say, “God may have been involved,” rather than dogmatically declaring, “A naturalistic explanation will eventually be found.”
For this even to make sense, first you have to demonstrate an observed phenomenon that has no naturalistic mechanism. Not a phenomenon that has a mechanism that we haven’t formed a theory about, but one that actually has NO naturalistic mechanism. Give an example. The Big Band, perhaps, but then, we’re not really observing that, merely inferring it from the data, and BB has nothing to do with evolution, so it doesn’t help your argument. Any others? (crickets). ID proponents have been trying for years, but they haven’t come up with one yet. There are literally thousands of examples of phenomena that were once accorded to non-naturalistic mechanisms, but whose proponents were forced to eat crow when the scientists finally figured it out . Tell me, which branch of science should have stopped looking for answers when the going got tough? Should mathematics accepted the Bibles rounded off Pi as absolute truth? Should Galalleo have just STFU? Newton? Eientstien? Crick? In light of that fact, that real science has not yet had to resort to “God did it” as an answer for anything, what event or phenomena makes you think they ‘should’ start now?
“Bottom line: When the Darwinists say their theory is true, they are, for all intents and purposes, telling us that atheism is true.”
That’s an inference, not a deduction. There are plenty of God fearing evolutionary scientists. You may not like Dawkins (I, myself find him a bit grating, but he’s only giving y’all a taste of your own medicine), but don’t ascribe his philosophy to all of science, because while he personally has things to say about God, science itself, does not.
Chasm: how do you reconcile these two quotes in view of the statement that “science itself [does not have things to say about God]“?
“Real science has not yet had to resort to ‘God did it’ as an answer for anything …” (Chasm)
“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”
Albert Einstein)
Aren’t you conflating a discussion of “religion” (which speaks about God, and may be correct or incorrect in its beliefs/teachings) with the “existence of God” (i.e. that which created the universe and gave rise to the laws/phenomenon which scientists observe and measure)?
No, Patrick Mulligan didn’t forget Chasm. He’s probably trying to avoid him. It’s a natural response, evolved over time, for thinking people to recoil from vapidness.
Dr J, first off, I don’t see why I have to resolve anything, seeing as how I didn’t make the second statement (and would never hold myself up to Eienstien).
But also, Albert’s quote isn’t really scientific, is it? It’s just a nice quote that says, pretty much, “hey, if you want to ascribe the Big Bang and the mechanical beauty of the Universe to God, go ahead. Just don’t try and tell me he personally smites enemies here on earth.”
And I seriously doubt that, were every scientist in the world to sign a pledge stating that Spinoza’s God (who doesn’t meddle in materialistic affairs) was the One True God, that would satisfy ID’ers for the simple reason that such an admission still doesn’t help their cause.
Chasm: You offered the judgment that science has nothing to say about God, and you further went on to state emphatically that “real science” does not have to “resort to ‘God did it’” as an answer for “anything”.
This judgment is contrary to what many of the foremost scientific minds have said about the issue. You don’t need to go back to Newton to see an acknowledgment of the existence of God and the purposefulness of His work. Einstein held the same view, as does Steven Hawking.
It’s somewhat facile to dismiss Einstein’s statement as not “really scientific”, since it formed part of the intellectual basis for his scientific pursuits. I don’t see how you divorce the intellectual foundations of Einstein’s thoughts from the outcome of those thoughts. Einstein discoveries were led by, informed by, and came about as the byproduct of his underlying understanding of the functioning of the universe — a universe that was created, in his opinion, by a purposeful God.
Your attempt to deflect this point by referring to scientists signing religious pledges proves my main point. Once you get away from commenting on a specific religion’s specific beliefs about God and creation, which may or may not reflect scientific reality, you’re unwilling (or unable) to tackle the larger issue of a God-created purposeful universe.
I may think that Chasm is a 25 year old white male from Podunk Iowa who is left handed and reads poetry in his spare time. I may be correct about his age, and even his sex. The fact that I got the rest of it wrong doesn’t mean that Chasm is a myth. Chasm is what Chasm is, whether I “guessed” or divined the details correctly or not.
And so it is with God and religion. I find equal fault with proofs of things that rely on religious texts, which may or may not be correct, or may or may not be speaking metaphorically instead of literally about an issue. But I’m equally unwilling to allow someone’s disdain for religion to substitute for statements and judgments about God.
I gave you an opportunity to clarify your comments about God (not religion), and you elected to first dismiss the distinction/relevance, and then concocted a religious purity test to attack Intelligent Design. Once you disparage religion as a general principle, you really have nothing else substantively to offer.
Sorry I’m late, I’ve had real work to do. But instead of talking about evidence, which we’ve done before, let’s tackle the ‘definitional’ tack the author starts with. I’d argue that it’s true that, by definition, the supernatural can’t be scientific. I would further argue, however, that it’s entirely practical to ignore the supernatural when looking for explanations of things.
Here’s my own definition of ‘supernatural’: the ‘unknowable’ – something that is forever beyond human conception or comprehension. It’s trivial to point out that this alone puts it outside the purview of science, which deals with knowledge. But more, there’s no reason to ever worry about ‘unknowable’ causes. Here’s the key issue: how can you tell if something is ‘unknowable’ or not?
From a practical perspective, the only way to tell if you can understand something is to try to understand it; if you succeed, then it was knowable. The problem is, if you fail, you can’t conclude that it’s unknowable. It might be… but it also might be the case that you just didn’t happen to figure out something knowable, and you or someone else might have better luck on a subsequent attempt.
So, I have no use for assuming something’s ‘supernatural’. To me, that’s logically equivalent to “we just don’t understand that… yet.” Is anyone willing to discuss this based on that framework? That you can’t appeal to ‘unknowable’ events or causes, but – if you want – you can make a case that something’s currently ‘unknown’?
Mr. Ingles,
You note we can’t appeal to unknowable events or causes, but what if unknowable events or causes appeal to us? If we assume everything odd is the result of a bit of undigested beef, we’d be going back to sleep instead of sticking around for the show.
A scientist aware he is dreaming and realizing dreams are not real, might eject them from his sleeping mind, the revelations and spontaneous creativity that could have resulted headed off at the pass, if you will.
It is fortunate that we most often are not aware we are dreaming, as many scientific discoveries that sprang from dreams might never have been realized.
It is ironic that a man may have a dream that God gave him the answer to a great problem, and that upon waking the answer applied did indeed solve the great problem, validating the truth and accuracy of the dream – that is except for the part about God.
Mr. Adams, I think you missed my point. Nothing I said would require that “everything odd is the result of a bit of undigested beef”. Many things can be detected only by their influence on things we can see.
Once upon a time, scientists were looking at fission events in cloud chambers and saw that occasionally, the particles would go off in strange directions, as if the laws of conservation of momentum and energy weren’t working right. It was as if an invisible particle had been emitted, and the reaction pushed the visible ones. They theorized that there was a particle being emitted, but it barely interacted with anything else. Thus, the idea of the neutrino was born. Work was done to figure out what properties this particle would have, and eventually a means of detecting them was developed. We still miss all but an infinitesimally tiny fraction of them, but we’ve got sufficiently precise estimates of how many the sun’s emitting that it was actually a problem for a while that we didn’t find all we expected. (It turns out neutrinos have different “flavors”, and a tiny amount of (unexpected) mass, so they can “oscillate flavors”.)
If there were something interacting with dreams, it should be possible to detect that. It’s true that people occasionally dream that God hands them the solution to a problem, but they also dream about Larry King reciting a chant that impregnates any woman who hears it. (There’s a link there to click on, though the site’s current color scheme doesn’t show it until you put the mouse over it.) Since people dream multiple times every night, it would be truly hard to explain if people didn’t occasionally dream up solutions to problems. (A million-to-one shot happens eight times a day in New York…)
We don’t have a comprehensive theory of dreams yet, but we do know that they are critical to forming long-term memories. It appears to be, among other things, a time where the brain is correlating and integrating new data with old. It’s actually not too surprising that people would occasionally make surprising or useful connections during that process. One doesn’t have to believe that there’s a real, magical “dream world” to still appreciate the “spontaneous creativity” dreams sometimes display.
You don’t have to believe that something’s incomprehensible to find wonder, joy, and even awe in contemplating it. As Heinlein put it, “To be matter-of-fact about the world is to blunder into fantasy – and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful.”
Expelled Exposed
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
A detailed analysis of the fallacies and distortions of truth in the pseudo-documentary movie Expelled! A must read for everybody interested in finding out the facts and how they are twisted in Ben Stein’s claims.
Ironically, among the “anti-Darwinists” featured in some way in Ben Stein’s pseudo-documentary “Expelled!” there is a rabid anti-Darwinian anti-Semite from Poland. Ben Stein does not seem to mind. What a sight: Ben Stein embracing an anti-Semite because the latter also happens to be anti-evolutionist.
“You don’t have to believe that something’s incomprehensible to find wonder, joy, and even awe in contemplating it.”
I would suggest that many find God quite comprehensible.
As for dreams, I used it as an example of letting one’s self go. It is a key component of faith, and like it our not, our sleeping bodies let go each night. What you do with it, how you interpret it, and how you distinguish what is internal and what is external is not so difficult, providing of course, you do not take too much of a scientific approach.
In your case, you might equate Larry King to God. But as I pointed out, the proof is in the pudding and that is what inspires faith. Only if Larry King actually began impregnating women by chanting would it be a significant dream.
It is well documented that the unknowable (to the dreamer) has become known in dreams. This suggests an external influence.
Wow, Sam really drops the ball on this if he believes that the link he provides is indisputable proof.
All the link really says is that most scientists believe in evolution. Ah, yes, the old “consensus makes science” thing. Let’s take a vote. Who believes in “X?” Okay, who believes in “Y?” “X” wins the vote, so that means “X” is SCIENCE.
They go on to say that Ben Stein is wrong because he disagrees with them. In typically arrogant fashion, they simply restate their assertions and ignore any evidence to the contrary. But of course, its SCIENCE.
The smug condescension prevelant amongst so many in the evolutionist camp is simply a way to suppress honest inquiry and dissent. That, of course, is SCIENCE.
Mr. Adams – I wasn’t equating Larry King to God, of course – not even a demigod. I was pointing out that dreams contain a huge amount of random fluff, and people are very good at finding apparent patterns – even in entirely random input. At this point, you could flip a coin – Heads the Democratic nominee will be Obama, tails it’ll be Hillary – and there’s a 50% chance it’ll be right.
The question is whether or not dreams, or coins, or bird entrails, are right more often than chance would indicate. We have developed some pretty good tools for weeding out ‘signal’ from ‘noise’ – double-blind studies to eliminate the placebo effect, for example. I’m only aware of anecdotal claims for dreams revealing verifiable knowledge (say, of someone’s death), and the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’. Indeed, it’s amazing how many psychic powers fail to work once the circumstances are controlled.
People very easily are persuaded of connections that aren’t there in reality. The “close door” button in most elevators doesn’t work unless you’re a fireman with a special key. It’s just there to give people the illusion of control. Superstitions form when people make such connections.
As to finding God comprehensible – you mean there are people who think they know all there is to know about God, or at least believe that it’s possible to do so? A question to help clarify the situation – what is the essential difference between God and a superintelligent, powerful space alien?
Mountain Man – there are a few other things on that site. For example, pointing out that the scientists profiled were not, in fact, “expelled”. Or pointing out how mendacious the purported link between evolution and the Holocaust is. It appears to me that it “really says” little things like that.
Mr. Ingles,
“Expelled” is a rhetorical device used to make a point, that is, there is a demonstrable hostility in the “scientific” community to anyone who disagrees with evolutionary dogma. The term is also quote descriptive of the actions of the courts and evolutionary apologists regarding any deviation from orthodoxy when presenting evolution in public schools. Ben Stein is quite right in pointing out these things by using a term like “expelled.”
Regarding the mendacity of a purported link between evolutionary theory and the holocaust, I don’t think anyone has suggested that evolutionists “caused” the holocaust. Rather, the philosophy that undergirds evolutionary thought provides a natural procession of logic to eugenics. That is, if indeed evolution is evidenced by survival of the fittest, why not apply that to the human race and eliminate the unfit? This, after all, was Margaret Sanger’s philoshophy.
Mountain Man – one can deviate from “evolutionary dogma” and still retain a vibrant scientific career – if you can actually show that your ideas work. Look up Lynn Margulis. She proposed the endosymbiotic theory of the origins of mitochondria and chloroplasts, and despite a lot of initial doubt, she was able to persuade people based on actual research and evidence. Lately, she’s gone even further, asserting that such symbiosis is the major driver of evolution. Nevertheless, the foreword of her latest book was written by Ernst Mayr (one of the founders of the neo-Darwinian synthesis).
The “orthodoxy” doesn’t suppress dissent. What it does do is insist that people back up their claims with research and evidence. So far, not a lot of that from the ID types.
The “procession” from evolution to eugenics is no more “natural” than that from Christianity to anti-Semitism. Considering that Hitler himself explicitly rejected evolution and asserted that the races had been created separately, it just seems strange to link evolution to the Holocaust while not mentioning, say, Martin Luther’s “On The Jews and Their Lies.”
Many have wondered why Christ would come to the earth when He did. To come today He could have broadcast His message across the world live. His miracles could be examined by scientist. But just who today would believe? Many would say it is just computer generated images. Many faced with a miracle would deny it anyway. Many people of faith would seek His death. Science would deny Him just as they deny Him already. Nothing would change. We are the same now as we were 2000 years ago. Some seek the invisable and others seek the visable. What I find most curious is that some believe in evolution which they can’t see because it is too slow but cast off other unseen ideas. So it is not the seen that guides them but some other belief system. So we have two ideas, one from Darwin which cast off the Creator and embraces naturalistic processes, the other idea of faith that the universe was created by an unseen supernatural force. Both sides believe in the unseen. I go outside and see created beauty, others go outside and see accidental beauty. I have no fear of death. This comes with my belief. I have to wonder what is the side benefit to limiting ones thoughts to nature? I call my unseen the truth, others call their unseen the truth. I am happy with my truth, it never changes. I am not sure how someone could believe in a truth that changes all of the time. I could not be happy living in today’s truth knowing I could wake up tomorrow and all my truth could change. Makes me wonder why these same people are so forceful about defending today’s truth. It seems we all need to hold on to something.
Actually, fbaginski, in science it basically never happens that “all” truth changes. Science generally just refines and expands its understanding. Old theories are usually not wrong per se, just incomplete. As Isaac Asimov put it, “[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.”
The notion that miracles are necessarily untestable is common, but not accurate, I’m afraid. I’ve mentioned here before that someone being able to factor a given 4096-bit number would be prima facie evidence that something really unusual was going on. Doing it repeatably would be even better. Documented cases of people regrowing limbs would make a lot of people sit up and take notice. Somehow all claimed miracles are dramatically more ambiguous than that, though.
Mr. Ingles,
Well how about that, I didn’t know that Lynn Margulis was a ID’r. Or perhaps you bring up Margulis as a bait-and-switch in order to refute a point that I did not make. My point was not that evolutionists cannot change in the light of new evidence. My point, as well as Ben Stein’s, is that questioning evolution dogma is a career-ender, a non-starter in the scientific and educational circles.
Come now, Mr. Ingles. You know better than to offer an unsupported denial that the orthodoxy doesn’t suppress dissent. I am now only required to offer the rejoinder, “does too.” Ben Stein offers a number of examples of just this thing happening, so the burden is on you to refute them.
Whether Hitler rejected or accepted evolution is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the point I made: There is no causation, and no one has suggested there is. But if humans are only the product of undirected forces, then they are nothing more than animals, and there is no logical reason why dispensing with the “unworthy” isn’t an acceptable practice.
Unless you can argue logically, without appealing to religion or morality, that humans are somehow above animals, and there is therefore some reason for the “unworthy” to be spared, my point remains unmolested.
Mountain Man – I didn’t say Margulis was an ID proponent. She’s not. But she does question “evolution dogma”, specifically claiming that mutation is a minor force in evolution and symbiosis and horizontal gene transfer are the major agents of evolutionary change. And, gee, she publishes books and papers and has an ongoing scientific career. Because, as I said, she actually does science.
I don’t bring this up as a ‘bait and switch’, I bring this up as support for my “denial that the orthodoxy” “suppress[es] dissent”. And my first response to you on this thread pointed out that the Expelled website documents that Ben Stein’s “examples” were, well, not examples. Honestly, it seems like the unsupported assertions are coming from only one direction.
Oh, and yeah, from a human perspective – which is the relevant perspective here – humans are indeed ‘above’ animals. Humans are much more intelligent, adaptable, and cooperative creatures than anything else on this planet, to take three obvious examples. Some animals have things like language, but none of them have anything resembling the instinctive grasp of grammar or syntax that characterizes human languages, even sign language. That’s an example of a qualitative difference between humans and animals. We’re also vastly more peaceable than animals. the murder rate in the most violent city in the world pales in comparison to any forest or jungle on Earth.
And, as you know, I’ve already argued that what humans are has very practical and logical implications for how they should behave.
Context, Mr. Ingles. We are talking about ID’rs being ostracized, not the fate of random people contributing to evolutionary theory. That is accurately termed “bait and switch.”
Again, a simple denial of Ben Stein’s examples, or any other instances (which are incredibly easy for any honest person to find, by the way) requires only a brief counter, which I shall do again: Nope, you’re wrong.
And yet another diversion… according to most evolutionists, man is simply a somewhat more sophisticated animal, not a special creation of deity. Therefore I ask again, if humans are the result of undirected forces, there is no logical reason to prevent the dispensing of “unworthy” specimens, is there?
Please, do not obfuscate again.
Lions and tigers and murder? Oh, my!
Mr. Ingles, please, please help me understand “chance,” to which we owe everything.
Mathmatically speaking, what are the odds that something like chance (as a force) came to be at all? And then I would like to know what are the odds that chance, having beaten those odds, produced human beings willing and able to accept the kind of odds you are likely to come up with?
Mountain Man: you said – here, let me quote you exactly:
‘there is a demonstrable hostility in the “scientific” community to anyone who disagrees with evolutionary dogma.’ No mention of ID specifically there. I offered evidence – support – for my contention that that’s not the case.
Now, you can shift the goalposts at this point, and say that the hostility is limited to ID proponents. It’s true that there is hostility there. But I’ve already pointed out that there’s a difference not only in the specific claims that ‘disagree with evolutionary dogma’, but also a difference in the way they make their claims. Science “does… insist that people back up their claims with research and evidence”; Lynn Margulis “actually does science”.
Since I’ve demonstrated that people who “question evolutionary dogma”, but actually back up their claims, are not “ostracized” – what can we conclude about the ID proponents?
Apparently just citing actual data isn’t enough – at least, not enough to avoid two-year-old level “nuh uh!” rejoinders. So, here, let’s quote from the link in question, one of Expelled’s examples:
“Expelled claims that Sternberg was “terrorized” and that “his life was nearly ruined” when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate – not an employee – at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life “was nearly ruined” when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.”
There’s quite a bit more there, just on him. The other ‘examples’ have similar treatements. (That’s a specific claim anyone can check by, y’know, actually going to the site.)
Mr. Adams – I’ve discussed the origins of the universe before, including pointing out that “chance” isn’t the only feature to take into account.
But we’re not talking about that. As the author of the article above claims, “Definitions Are Everything”. I’m asking if anyone thinks the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of species (three distinct subjects) can – in principle, at least – be understood by humans. There’s no point in arguing about what we know and how we know it if some of the participants don’t think it’s knowable at all…
“simplicity points to design while complexity as such points to chance.” – Mark Perakh
Mr. Adams, here is an article by Mark Perakh that explains why irreducible complexity does not imply intelligent design. It will help you understand ‘chance’.
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Suboptimal.cfm
Ray,
You made my point for me. Science drifts from one truth to another. You may say, almost right, close to being right, really close to being right, but science does not deal with truth. Many say that they do but the evidence shows the complete opposite. When evolution is taught in school it is not taught as an almost truth, it is taught as fact. And with a straight face all of science could change their mind tomorrow with new information.
Reading post 33 made my head hurt. I think the logic actually killed off a number of my brain cells. I think I will chance – it and not read the link.
fbaginski – The fact that you don’t like uncertainty does not mean that therefore certainty must exist. That being said, there are degrees of uncertainty. Some things can be effectively or practically certain – a “fact” – even if the uncertainty of it is not exactly zero.
Sam,
You have got to be kidding, right? I checked out the link to Perakh’s answer to irreducible complexity and ID.
Sorry, but had to stop reading when he “proved” that complexity does not indicate design by pointing out that in a pile of stones, the natural ones with many irregular facets are more complex than the single rectangular (man made) stone among them.
This is supposed to bust the complexity compnent of irreducible complexity?
I wonder what would happen if while examining one of the “natural,” infinitely more complext rocks, Perakh were to drop it and upon cracking open a computer circuit board fell out?
Well, if as he states, simplicity points to intelligence and complexity to chance, then it’s a done deal. The rock with a computer inside is even more likely to be the result of chance, as its complexity is even greater than the initial examination revealed.
Give me a feakin’ break!
Mr. Ingles, your attempt to explain your views are admirable. It’s a shame that those here who believe in God are hell-bent on misunderstanding you. I have a question for you: do you honestly accept the idea that there is an origin of the Universe and if so, why? I do not mean an origin of our solar system, galaxy or planet, but of E.V.E.R.Y.T.H.I.N.G. Why does there have to be a beginning at all? Isn’t the search for such a point of commencement actually just a means to insert “god” into the equation? Why not accept the idea that there is no beginning?
“If you are sure there is no miracle-working God, then something like Darwinian evolution must be correct. But if there is even a chance that such a God exists, then basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against Darwinism.”
Yes, I’m sure there is no miracle-working god. The belief in such a thing is like a belief in the Tooth Fairy: it’s a bit of fantasy, but not real.