My column in this week's The Stranger is up!
The controversy over "Intelligent Design" was guaranteed a marquee role in the 2008 presidential race last week when Senator Majority Leader and White House aspirant Bill Frist endorsed President Bush's proposal to teach I.D. in public schools.Read the whole thing.I view Intelligent Design, which touts the untestable hypothesis of divine intervention as the answer to some of biology's open questions, as a lazy substitute for genuine research, diminishing both science and religion.
So it's disappointing to see science education being exploited as a cynical wedge issue to excite portions of the Republican base. But this could also be an opportunity to advance long-needed education reforms. Traditionally, it's been us conservatives who've cried foul as liberals in power politicized the public school curriculum. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, perhaps more liberals will join the fight for what conservatives have promoted for years—publicly funded vouchers that allow all parents to opt out of unsatisfactory government schools.
The column is really about school choice, but I'll make some additional points here --
On the subject of "Intelligent Design" itself, I stress my view that it diminishes both science and religion. We can give God credit for creating the wonders of the universe without attributing to Him specific roles in scientific processes that are not yet fully understood. Insisting that an "intelligent designer" must be responsible for the bits of science that are beyond the frontier of current knowledge puts religion on the side of ignorance, not wisdom. If mankind had always stopped at similarly facile answers to unsolved problems we'd still be praising Apollo and his fiery chariot for making the sun go around the earth.
Having said all that, I'm still proud of keeping the Discovery Institute on our list of "Sound Institutions" even if I think it's very misguided on Intelligent Design. It does a lot of other projects, such as on regional transportation, that are quite worthwhile. Unlike the totalitarian thought-police of the lunatic left, I'm open-minded and can support a person or organization for their good works even while simultaneously disagreeing with them on other things. Which is why the list of "Sound Institutions" can include both the Discovery Institute and The Stranger, neither of which I agree with on everything.
On your topic of school choice, perhaps this is a clever (read Rovian) plot to get liberal inner-city support for vouchers. That would be a wonderful outcome that can only help our dismal Seattle public schools.
Posted by: Regret on August 25, 2005 12:20 PMID does not reject evolution. It rejects the notion, which is itself quasi-religious in nature, that everything is explainable through Darwinism (note: not evolution but Darwinism), i.e. nature is all there is. If the materialst evolutionists would simply pull back from their unprovable assertion that the material world is all there is and explains itself, even if they can't demonstrate or remotely prove how, then much of the contentiousness on the subject of evolution would disappear overnight. I guess you could say the neo-Darwinists (materialsts)themselves are the proponents of "lazy" science since their all-encompassing explanation is an assertion without the evidence to support it. And if you contradict them, they often become viscious and persecutorial.
Posted by: Arnold on August 25, 2005 12:38 PMSo are I.D. supporters willing to accept that the design was done by something other than God?
Posted by: Colin on August 25, 2005 12:57 PMThe issue about teaching "ID" really has two aspects.
The first is ID's challenge to Darwinian certainty. The second is the ID alternative explanation.
From my reading, most high school science texts do not present the evidence that suggests that Darwinism is a troubled theory; that the evidence which has accumulated since 1859 places some of its tenets in doubt. (The Cambrian explostion, for one.)
Science progresses when existing theories (remember Ptolemaic Astronomy) are overcome by new data which forces a rethinking, and sometimes a new theory emerges that better explains the data.
"Teaching the controversy" means at least in part, acknwoeledging that the facts have moved beyond "simple Darwinism."
The second stage is to develop an alternative theory. One can question whether "ID" has made enough link between the existing evidence and its interpretation, while still being convinced that Darwinian certainty is no longer reliable.
And that should lead to an open inquiry through which science can move forward.
Posted by: Dick on August 25, 2005 01:19 PMThe issue about teaching "ID" really has two aspects.
The first is ID's challenge to Darwinian certainty. The second is the ID alternative explanation.
From my reading, most high school science texts do not present the evidence that suggests that Darwinism is a troubled theory; that the evidence which has accumulated since 1859 places some of its tenets in doubt. (The Cambrian explostion, for one.)
Science progresses when existing theories (remember Ptolemaic Astronomy) are overcome by new data which forces a rethinking, and sometimes a new theory emerges that better explains the data.
"Teaching the controversy" means at least in part, acknwoeledging that the facts have moved beyond "simple Darwinism."
The second stage is to develop an alternative theory. One can question whether "ID" has made enough link between the existing evidence and its interpretation, while still being convinced that Darwinian certainty is no longer reliable.
And that should lead to an open inquiry through which science can move forward.
Posted by: Dick on August 25, 2005 01:20 PMlazy link posting.
but still humorous.
Posted by: Morisseau on August 25, 2005 01:20 PMplease confine your comments to statements that make sense.
Posted by: llibertarianobserver on August 25, 2005 01:20 PMEven if the theory of evolution were totally blown out of the water tomorrow, the libs would have to find another way to steer clear of the reality and judgment of God.
I suppose their next plan is to try to water down I.D. by pushing to have it taught that little green men came up with the idea of creating us stupid beings.
Posted by: Mr. Grabbit on August 25, 2005 01:52 PMYou do seem to miss the point on the I.D. issue. I.D. is a proposed theory that primarily addresses the origin of life and the vastness of biodiversity based on the research that has been done and is currently being done on genetics. To scientists in Darwin's day, the cell was a little carbon-based "black-box" that was assumed to be simple in nature. Now that we have learned so much about the inner workings of a living cell and found that there indeed is really nothing simple about it at all, we can recognize that the complexity of organized information has only ever been observed when produced by outside intelligence. I don't believe that I.D. supporters necessarily insist that desing was done by "God", but that it must have been through some intelligent being, whom most would call "God".
Equally diminishing (maybe even more-so) is the idea that the theory of evolution is taught as a inescapable, indisputable fact in science classrooms when it is soundly based on a naturalist, humanistic belief system that first we assume that there is NO God, then try and explain how we got here through an interpretation of the evidence. The problem with evolution is that it, too is an untestable hypothesis that is promoted as a given fact in science classrooms. The evidence against it or that are not in support of it are quietly and largely ignored.
Posted by: Sopater on August 25, 2005 02:03 PMThere is the base problem of how the complexity of the simplest life form suddenly just appears? That life form requires a DNA code to start. That “simple” level has mechanisms we cannot begin to understand and believing that just happened from primordial mud is absurd - humanists like to claim we started from a primordial soup, ooze, or slime. However, all those terms indicate preexisting organic material.
There are no undisputed fossils of the alleged Darwinian evolution when there should be billions of them. The “geologic column” does not exist anywhere. Many times the age of rocks are claimed to be younger than the ages of the layers above and extend for hundreds of miles that way.
These are just a few of the many serious problems of Darwinian evolution.
ID itself actually allows for the possibility that Darwinism -- apart from the view that it all happened by mere chance -- is true and accurate. ID only asserts that if it is true, then it's because it was designed that way.
ID is really a "nothing to see here" idea. It is just people asserting the perfectly reasonable and widely held notion that our universe, and us in particular, is designed at some level, that we didn't "just happen."
The political reality of the ID movement is another story, of course: most of them actively argue against the theory of evolution of species, that we all descended from the same microbes that eventually became incredibly distinct species. But ID itself does not say this did not happen. Take care to not take ID and the political movement to be precisely the same.
One "non-invasive" ID view might say, for example, that God created a world in which He knew that we would come to exist. That doesn't imply that God performed a bunch of mini-miracles along the way, but that God simply set up a bunch of dominoes beforehand, and then set them in motion. This view could never possibly be disproven by any scientific discovery, since it assumes all of God's intentions are accomplished through natural processes God designed, and is also entirely in line with Intelligent Design.
To answer your question: I suppose it depends on the ID supporter. Most would say the designer is divine. A few may even say it could be an alien race or some such. I believe that one eminent scientist postulated a couple of years ago that aliens may have been responsible for the Cambrian Explosion. The Darwinists have no other explanation for why the overwhelming majority of phyla (at least 19 of the existing 25 or so) suddenly appeared on the scene during the Cambrian era. "Suddenly" in geological terms. It's like they just came from nowhere, to use layman's terminology.
Posted by: Arnold on August 25, 2005 02:35 PMThe current scientific establishment has a particular set of blinders on. We have two choices. Either the existensce of the universe and all that is in it came about totally from random chance and naturalistic means, or it did not. The scientific establishment has decided that the only valid method of inquiry is to assume a priori that the universe is totally mechanistic. In effect, they are saying "assuming no external influences, (whether it be aliens, God, or some other entity) what model can we devise that explains what we have today."
The problem here is that the very first assumption in the grand scientific hypothesis is a philosophical one. ANY attempt to suggest that the scientifc assuption itself is faulty results in the charge of scientific heresy, namely the accusation that one is attempting to "teach religion rather than sceince." Howver, the position that there can be no science without the presupposition that EVERYTHING came about in a purely undirected and naturalistic means is inherently a theological position. "assuming no god..." You CANNOT make that assumption and still assert a purely scientific basis for your theories.
Thig key problem with the current line of thinking in the neo-darwinian scientific community is that in many respects it is closed to any inquiries that suggest that the forces we currently understand may NOT be the only forces that are in play and that there may be things undetectible that have affected our current existence. Those undetected thigs can be divine (or intelligent in form) or purely naturalistic. But the fear of exploring that potential reality actually inhibits scientific discovery.
ID challenged neo-dawrinism in some key areas by showing how big a failure it has been in explaining the mechanisms for biological existence and supposed evolution. If one reads Darwin's onw thoughts on the issue of proof for his theory (which he did not have at the time he propsed it, though he should be applauded for recognizing that fact), one will discover that Darwin himslef laid out the requirements for validating his theory. So, for nearly 150 years we have searched to validate these requirements only to discover that we are actually FURTHER AWAY from that validation than what was understood before. However, one would not know that from our current state of education which continues to assert that we not only are closer to proving the validity of macro evolutiuon and the origins of life, but that we have solved all there is to solve, and neo-dawrinism is as much a fact as the speed of light being constrained to 186,000 MPS. (oops, did I really say that?)
The only thing certain about evolutionary science is that science itself is evolving with its own Cambrian explosions every so often. Stand by...
And while I am on the subject:
Why is it that SETI people scan the universe for repeating patterns as proof of inteligent life while insisting that all the infinitely more complex patterns they see on earth are obvioulsy the result of natual phenomena.
Additonally, how can any scientist look at stonehenge, for instance and INSIST it is man made. The simplest known biological life form is statisitcally infinitely less likely to have occured than to have the Stonehenge arrrangement occur as a random arrangement of stones.
Science consistenly uses pattern recognition as a means to determine what is "naturally occuring" and what is the result of intelligent intervention. Basically if the level of pattern is high enough, it is assumed to be man-made (or intelligently desinged.) If it is random, it is considered natural. Well, that is the case for everything BUT life.
Posted by: Eyago on August 25, 2005 02:41 PMColin: ID itself does allow for a designer other than God. It is not specific. However, most ID proponents believe that designer is God. There is no correct answer to your question, because 'supporters of "intelligent design"' are varied and some will accept it, and some won't. But the philosophy itself does accept it.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002450329_danny24.html
Posted by: Steven on August 25, 2005 03:37 PMSqueaky wheels on all fronts seem to have lots of legistlative pull. For example, homosexuals represent about 2% of the population, but seem to generate excessive amounts of leglislative attention in proportion to their population.
I think what really saddens you is that people who believe differently than you do dare to desire represtantion at all. Why don't we just declare YOU God so that you can exert your own philospohical view on everyone else and decare God is dead so that everyone will be duly enlightened. Of course, you would be in the ironic position of declaring YOURSELF null and void.
The unfortunate (for you) truth is that a vast, vast majority of people in this country actually believe in God, many of them are liberals, and your declaration matters not one whit to them.
Posted by: Eyago on August 25, 2005 03:44 PMMost of the ID political movement is a reaction to that.
Oh, and there's nothing in ID that says the designer inserted himself into the process. You, like Stefan, are missing the point of ID. I explained more about it further above.
Try this thought experement: how would you disprove or falsify the fact that life spontaneously developed from a primoridial soup? How would you disprove or falsify that life forms evolved successively from one to another in increasing complexity?
The argument that something must be falsifiable to be scientific is a false requirement, but the main point is, under your criteria, the theory of evolution as taught in schools today should not be taught as science.
I'm ok with that. I think we can talk about what makes up life, and how procreation works and how DNA works and all that stuff while NOT talking about macro evolution and spontanous generation.
Want to discuss where life came from? Leave it to a philosphy class.
Most people forget that Copernicus could not prove his theory of planetary motions at the time he made them. Lack of proof does not make something useless as a scientific endeavor. Science MUST have philosophical and "logic leaps" to advance. When one exands ones thinkig beyond the normal, they begin to approach difficult issues from innovative means. Lots of scietifc "truth" we know today was the result of innovative thought that bucked the system.
ID may or may not prove useful in time, but dismissing it out of hand due to a philosophical bias limits you.
Posted by: Eyago on August 25, 2005 03:59 PMWho am I to argue with such an expert in ID. Although one of the leading proponents of ID theory does seem to disagree with you in certain specifics.
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.08.Commending_President_Bush.pdf
Posted by: Steven on August 25, 2005 04:03 PMNot having your kids listen to an 84 Volvo driving sodomite with a Darwin pin and Kerry/Edwards sticker on the rear of he car…..Priceless
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/dembski.html
And Brad, you really shouldn't talk about the parish priest that way. God will get you.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/dembski.html
And Brad, you really shouldn't talk about the parish priest that way. God will get you.
This falls far short of being a proposal, with plans and policies and buerocrats.
Posted by: Measure on August 25, 2005 04:17 PMAnd Steven, re: Although one of the leading proponents of ID theory does seem to disagree with you in certain specifics.
Really? Which ones?
Thank God I didn't have a monkey for an uncle.
However, that statement may or may not apply to some of you liberal types. Believe what you will, but please don't teach children that the Theory of Evolution is scientific fact, because it is not. Teach all theories, and let everyone decide for themselves. Teaching is not synonymous with brainwashing.
And the Darwin Award goes to...the public school system.
Posted by: a primordial cry in the wilderness on August 25, 2005 04:29 PMI've been to Infedels.org plenty of times. It's like going to moveon.org to get my news about George Bush. infidels.org is the moveon.org of pro neo-darwinism.
ANYONE can wirte a critique about ANY scientifc work. Einstein, Copernicus, Bohr, and all kinds of people had lots of critics. If you only read the ciritcs, you'll only learn what thier biases are. I have also read lots or critics who critique the citiques at infidels. All that proves is that there is heated debate about the topic.
Being critiqued is not tatamount to being debunked. I've even read critiques on that board that were clearly wirtten by people who never read the work of the person they were critiquing. You'll have to do better than cite move...er...infidels.org as your unipeachable source of all that is science.
Posted by: Eyago on August 25, 2005 04:31 PMThanks to the research done in an attempt to prove Darwinian Evolution, we are provided with evidence that does a better job of supporting ID - sorry humanists.
Other posters have much more intelligently and eloquently supported the ID theory (Dick, Sopater, pudge, Arnold, Eyago - thank you). What I find interesting is that the designer (I call God) may not want us to solve this mystery.
Dembski says, "Intelligent design, unlike creationism, is a science in its own right..."
From the Discovery Institute website discussing the NY Times series:
The Monday edition has a story focusing on the science of intelligent design and highlighting the debate between scientists about whether scientific evidence points to purely material causes for the diversity of life or whether the evidence is the hallmark of an intelligent agency.
And Pudge, can we agree that if there is design, it must be the result of one of two things: either the result of a natural process, or the result of a designer's work. If a designer is involved, then at some point that designer must have inserted itself into the process in order to effect the design. That point could be the beginning or any point in time after that.
Your turn.
Sorry about that. I only meant to push your button once.
Posted by: Steven on August 25, 2005 04:49 PMYes, and he's wrong.
The Monday edition has a story focusing on the science of intelligent design
There's nothing wrong with that. ID has a lot to do with science.
and highlighting the debate between scientists about whether scientific evidence points to purely material causes for the diversity of life or whether the evidence is the hallmark of an intelligent agency.
That's the problem right there: scientists are not generally equipped to have such a philosophical argument.
And Pudge, can we agree that if there is design, it must be the result of one of two things: either the result of a natural process, or the result of a designer's work.
As I noted further up, that is a false dichotomy.
If a designer is involved, then at some point that designer must have inserted itself into the process in order to effect the design. That point could be the beginning or any point in time after that.
If the extent of the participation by the designer is in setting up all the natural processes beforehand and then setting them into motion, it seems odd to say the designer is "inserting" itself into the process: the designer created the process. The process owes everything to the designer, and would not exist without the designer.
A serious question for you. Let's assume ID is valid. What are the implications for science? What cutting edge research would be forwarded by ID?
Posted by: Steven on August 25, 2005 05:02 PMSince Dembski and Behe are the most prominent proponents of ID, to say that he is wrong is quite a mouthful.
If the designer created the process, then the process could be evolution as it is currently scientifically understood. Some refer to that as deistic evolution. That is not what Dembski, Behe or the Discovery Institute mean by intelligent design. I'm perfectly comfortable with deistic evolution. I just don't think that's what the argument is about.
Posted by: Steven on August 25, 2005 05:10 PMWell, I have a rather large oracular cavity.
If the designer created the process, then the process could be evolution as it is currently scientifically understood.
Yes, absolutely correct. That is why I said up above, in my first post, "ID itself actually allows for the possibility that Darwinism -- apart from the view that it all happened by mere chance -- is true and accurate. ID only asserts that if it is true, then it's because it was designed that way."
That is not what Dembski, Behe or the Discovery Institute mean by intelligent design.
But that is not Intelligent Design. It is one type of Intelligent Design.
There are two distinct things here. One if the debate about the scientific virtues and flaws of the theory of evolution of species. Some notes by others were made above on that subject, and I have my own doubts; however, it's a good and useful theory, and I have no real problem with it, so long as it's known that it is incomplete and might very well be wrong in some key areas.
The other thing is whether or not a higher being designed whatever actually happened.
Now, most people who disbelieve in the theory of evolution also believe in intelligent design. And in my limited experience (as it is new to most people), people who believe in intelligent design either disbelieve in the theory of evolution, or are at least (like me) highly skeptical of it.
But the two don't have to go together.
I'm perfectly comfortable with deistic evolution. I just don't think that's what the argument is about.
If you are talking about "Intelligent Design," then yes, it is. If you are talking about the political movement pushing it, then no, it's not: that is far more about complentary reactionary ideologies.
Chocolate pie can embolden them to do the same thing.
Also, Hitler had facial hair. Remember that next time you are tempted to not shave!
How do you know God is pretend? We are still finding species on earth. You cannot possible know that "God" does not exist somewhere in the universe. If God created the universe then he exists outside of the universe and unknowable using temporal, material tools.
To be atheist is to be irrational, blindly arrogant, and closed minded. Intelligence demands you leave open the possibility of a higher being. Science is about being open to the possibilities, until something is proven not true. Science can neither prove nor disprove God. To claim that you can is idiotic.
Dammit man, you're on a roll. Great posts. Since others are more well versed than I on ID versus Darwinism, I'll just leave a heartfelt ditto to pudge, eyago, et al.
Posted by: Danny on August 25, 2005 06:54 PMFirst let me state that I appreciate your rational approach to this subject and you willingness to remain above the name calling. I very much enjoy debates with conscientious people. I often learn something.
As for your question:
A serious question for you. Let's assume ID is valid. What are the implications for science? What cutting edge research would be forwarded by ID?
Any philosophical approach or logical model or construct that forces science to confront its own set of assuptions and presuppositions has value. The thing about science, or maybe the more genreal "search for knowledge, or dare I say understanding", is that new ideas have a way of shaking loose the entrenched and causing some people to think along lines heretofore not considered. Even if all it accomplishes is to force the establishment to sharpen its own position and facts.
ID, in making the claim that order suggests design challenges science to sharpen its definitions on what constitutes natural order verses "designed" order. As I alluded earlier, many sciences rely on the distiction between randomness and order to support it's claims. In a court of law, this distiction can be sufficient to condemn a man to die. If you can accept that distiction in a life or death situation, why can you not accept it in a LESS life threatening situation like philosphy or scientific inquiry?
However, I think that the challenge of ID is more than simply forcing evolutionists to be less sloppy. ID also challenged science to demonstrate its claims. ID has traction because science has failed to make any progress in explaiing how even the the basic building blocks of life could have randomly been created (and don't start with Urey-Miller.) even if they could not do that, they have no mechanism for showing how a skin cell becomes a photo-sensitive receptor becomes a cluster of cells working together to form even a rudimentary eye. The whole point behind Behe's work is that you can't get there from here USING the mechanisms relied upon by evolution. Therefore, evolution, to REFUTE ID, must answer those queations or face the prospect of admitting the inherent weakness their theory. Up until now, they have been able to get away with hand-waving and vague "suggestions" that are nothing more than "and magic happens". That was sufficient when the basic understanding of cells made people think of them more like tinker toys with interchageable parts that could be swapped around to make new and different configurations. Scientists once thought that they would soon unlock those keys and be able to prove the concept. Microbiology has shown that the cell is infinitely more complex than they thought, and thus the concpet, rather than being proven, is shown to be without merit. Unfortunatley, the belief in evolution is so strong that people are unwilling to let go of this affectation.
ID, whether it is valid as a discipline or not is useful in that it demonstrates a different response to the "evidence" than what classical neo-darwinism held. That is eaxactly what scientists DO when they look at eveidence. They take what is known and determine the implications.
ID theorises that the complexities of life could not have arisen undirected, or at least not in the way current theories imply. Whether ID itself survives is immaterial to me. What IS material is that it will force science to answer its challenge by either proving it unnecessary through examples that demonstrate life evolvolving without direction, or by finding a new model that more closely explains the data as we now understand it. Either way, ID should not be dismissed just because it fails to ANSWER questions currently. Maybe it should only be dismissed if it also fails to present valid QUESTIONS. And currently, it succeeds quite well in presenting very valid questions.
Posted by: Eyago on August 25, 2005 07:14 PMAnd btw, where's your rational libertarian backup cavalry unit?
pudge - "It is not science, but philosophy, just like the counterclaim: that we exist by the "mere chance" of random mutations."
First, that's exactly why ID shouldn't be taught in science classes.
Second, science doesn't say that we exist by mere chance or that mutations are random. What science says is that we don't know how the first microbes got here, still searching for that information, but once they were here everything else descended from them.
The beginning of life required particular, optimal conditions which are fairly rare in the universe, but it's a big place so we don't know just how rare they are. Once self-replicating molecules got started, they would of course have had a lot of random mutations, just as organisms do now. But not all of those mutations would survive.
Darwin's basic premise was simple: In every generation of new organisms, more are born than go on to reproduce. Those traits that enhance the likelihood of reproduction will get passed on to more of the next generation than traits that decrease the likelihood of survival to maturity and reproduction. This is not random at all, it's a highly specific and observable rule with very predictable results. Because conditions on earth have changed over time and because competing groups of organisms affected each other's survival, the definition of fitness would change with those conditions, but could remain relatively stable for long periods of time while environmental conditions were stable.
When environmental conditions change rapidly, traits that might have been marginal in a population, or even have had a negative effect on survival, can suddenly become useful. This can lead over time to a population that looks very unlike its parent population and may eventually form another species.
Darwin was correct in admitting that he didn't have evidence for his hypothesis at the time. No one knew about DNA back then, just that 'something' seemed to pass traits from one generation to the next. Mendel's work wasn't even widely known at the time. Darwin can't be faulted for having been born before the discovery of genetics, but this is why modern evolutionary science doesn't base its claims on Darwin. He pointed the way and made some predictions that turned out to be accurate, though now science bases claims of descent on DNA evidence and has modified some of his ideas to fit new facts that have come to light.
"At its root, Intelligent Design says only one thing: that some higher being is the designer of our universe. It really makes no significant claims beyond that.
... That's the problem right there: scientists are not generally equipped to have such a philosophical argument."
Many scientists rather enjoy a good philosophical argument, but always with the understanding that it isn't science.
Whether there's a god or not is immaterial to science, and science is imo immaterial to a belief in god. I don't see any problem with my believing in the divine, though it has no bearing on understanding science.
Posted by: natasha on August 25, 2005 07:17 PMFirst, that's exactly why ID shouldn't be taught in science classes.
Well, I am in marginal agreement. If you are to exclude all philosophy from science classes -- which is a bad idea -- then yes, ID should not be in science classes, and neither should be the common alternative ID politics is a response to, and neither should be any deep understanding of the scientific method, which is a purely philosophical idea.
Second, science doesn't say that we exist by mere chance or that mutations are random.
Science cannot possibly know this. And yet, this is often taught in science classes.
Darwin's basic premise was simple: In every generation of new organisms, more are born than go on to reproduce. Those traits that enhance the likelihood of reproduction will get passed on to more of the next generation than traits that decrease the likelihood of survival to maturity and reproduction. This is not random at all, it's a highly specific and observable rule with very predictable results.
It seems to me that you're conflating natural selection with the mutations that drive it. Darwin's premise is that the natural selection is not random, of course. Else it could not reasonably be called selection. But the mutations themselves are -- as far as science is concerned -- random. Science can't tell why one mutation happens and another does not, or why they happen at certain times, to certain species, in certain environments. As far as science is concerned, they just happen.
And that's fine: science cannot come up with the big "why," because that's philosophy. The problem comes when people assert there is no "why," and pass that off as science. That is what ID politics is a response to.
Many scientists rather enjoy a good philosophical argument, but always with the understanding that it isn't science.
If you mean that merely many scientists understand philosophy is not science, I agree. If you mean most or all scientists understand this, then no, I respectfully disagree. That's why Dembski quoted Dawkins saying, "the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design." What he said, what many people believe, is that the scientific record shows a disordered universe that -- in regard to the mutations -- happened by mere chance. They were not designed, they just happened.
If out of this whole debate we end up with far fewer scientists and teachers asserting that evolution proves there is no God who determined our existence, then it's a win (as long, I suppose, as we don't get correspondingly more of the same teaching that science proves there is a God, because, while that is more possible than the opposite, it is not significantly more likely).
I don't care if somebody believes that everything was created by God. But anybody that believes that we should teach that concept to our children as science is a crackpot and should be addressed as such. No more names...just Mr. or Mrs. Crackpot.
Posted by: Trick Nasty on August 25, 2005 08:14 PMI don't care if somebody believes that everything was created by God. But anybody that believes that we should teach that concept to our children as science is a crackpot and should be addressed as such. No more names...just Mr. or Mrs. Crackpot.
Just how much research have you made into this susbject? Have you contented yourself to stick with the MSM and NEA party lines on this subject or have you actually READ Behe or Dembski's works? Have you ever looked behind the curtain or are you heading the booming voice that says "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain?"
The real crackpots are the ones teaching as fact that life spontaneously generated from primordial goo and that one animal can, through mutation, turn into another. Both of the "Facts" have zero evidence to back them up and no scietific experimentatoin to support the claims.
No, ID is NOT a sublte substitute for for Creationism. Many "creationists" detest the ID movement as much as the "evolutionists." The only real common cround between creationists and ID proponents is that evolution is full of junk.
Your response suggests that you are as "reactionary" and ignorant on this subject as you accuse us cracks pots of being.
Just so you know, I spent 37 years as an ardent believer in evolution until I actually studied it and found it to be mostly scietifically bankrupt. I have my college degree in Physiscs and spent most of my career in software. I am NOT a creationist, I don't advocate teaching creation in schools as science, and I think ID is a perfectly sensible approach to addressing the evidence we have. I do say that if we are going to teach the theory of evolution AS A THEORY, we are being irresponsible if we fail to present counter arguments. I will gladly raise my "crack pot" banner if it makes you happy, but I've done years of research and am quite secure in my understanding of the topics.
Mr. Sharkansky... no comment from you??
Posted by: Julie on August 25, 2005 09:43 PMWell ... um, it isn't. (Stupid facts!)
The only real common cround between creationists and ID proponents is that evolution is full of junk.
I'm an ID proponent, and I don't think evolution is full of junk.
BTW, my brother has a Ph.D. in physics, and he's also an ID proponent. Me, I just have a useless degree in journalism. :-)
What common alternative are you talking about? Evolution isn't philosophy, and it won't magically become so just because you keep repeating it. The scientific method is also not philosophical, though there are philosophy of science classes taught (which are also philosophy and not science), but an algorithm for answering questions that in some cases can be performed by machines incapable of philosophizing. Usually the experimenter or observer is asking how something works or if a particular thing could work, with the stipulation that the question must be testable and any theories falsifiable.
Coming up with these ideas or questions may involve a great deal of imagination on the part of the scientist, but they don't become science until you have data and a result.
"It seems to me that you're conflating natural selection with the mutations that drive it. Darwin's premise is that the natural selection is not random, of course. Else it could not reasonably be called selection. But the mutations themselves are -- as far as science is concerned -- random. Science can't tell why one mutation happens and another does not, or why they happen at certain times, to certain species, in certain environments. As far as science is concerned, they just happen."
Mutations happen at what's been observed to be a fairly steady rate of change, in all species, all the time. They happen because DNA doesn't always make perfect copies of itself, sometimes mis-transcribing genes or even copying them. Most of them are very small and relatively unnoticeable, maybe something as small as a change in a digestive enzyme. As I noted above, the differences can be magnified when the environment changes to favor what might have been a fringe trait in a population.
The DNA patterns that have survived this long since their origin have evolved methods for reducing harm from mutation. For example, our DNA codes for far fewer proteins than it would be possible to code for, with many duplicate codes that produce the same protein. It having been observed that usually one three amino acid code for a protein is most likely to break at the third amino, it then made sense that most duplicate codes were identical except for the third amino. Also, during cellular meiosis preceding reproduction, you don't get gene soup in a cell but find that certain genes are highly conserved and have been since before there were land animals. This isn't evidence of an invisible hand, it's evidence that the survivability rate between a successful mutation and an unsuccessful one can be dramatic.
When you say random chance, you make it sound like some sort of fantasy usage where absolutely anything at all can happen, anywhere, anytime. Given a set of conditions, you have some finite (even if very large) number of results possible. You can't randomly generate life on the surface of our moon, for example.
"If you mean that merely many scientists understand philosophy is not science, I agree. If you mean most or all scientists understand this, then no, I respectfully disagree. That's why Dembski quoted Dawkins saying, "the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design." "
It certainly reveals a universe which could have emerged without a design, all the mechanisms appear to be capable of working without interference, but this is an opinion. Many scientists don't believe in a god, but it isn't taught in science classrooms as part of biology training.
Thing is, there's no point teaching intelligent design if you wish the end result to simply be that scientists don't assert that science precludes the existence of god. You don't really find that question on biology tests, and I've never heard it discussed by a teacher in class as something we had to form an opinion on as part of the curriculum. If you try to do a master's thesis about why god doesn't exist, your advisor will redirect you to another department. It represents a philosophical discussion which many scientists hold opinions on, but which is understood not to be a question science can answer definitively.
In some ways, I see evolution and astronomy as a very pure test of faith. Will a person choose to believe in the divine without any physical evidence that outside intervention is necessary to keep the universe running? I see ID as an attempt by people whose faith is shaky to prove that their religious sentiments have some sort of forensic trail, which seems very silly.
Eyago - "The real crackpots are the ones teaching as fact that life spontaneously generated from primordial goo and that one animal can, through mutation, turn into another. Both of the "Facts" have zero evidence to back them up and no scietific experimentatoin to support the claims.
... Just so you know, I spent 37 years as an ardent believer in evolution until I actually studied it and found it to be mostly scietifically bankrupt. I have my college degree in Physiscs and spent most of my career in software. ..."
You appear to be the one that hasn't studied your biology or genetics. How does being a physicist and a programmer qualify you to disagree with millions of biologists? Are you qualified to hold forth on meteorology or geology, as well? It isn't anyone else's fault that you were an "ardent believer" in something you hadn't studied because no one is asking for your belief in evolution anymore than they're asking for your belief that rocks exist.
FTR, science posits that life *may* have arisen spontaneously from the seas of primordial earth, which would have been a very different environment than what we have today. It may also have originated from meteor contamination. These are both scientific possibilities and we may never know the answer, but then again maybe we will someday. You can believe that a designer set it in motion, but there isn't remotely any way to prove or disprove that claim.
The claim that one species can give rise to another is well documented, and living examples of speciation among quick-lived insects have been recently observed in the field. However, a butterfly is not likely, under present conditions, to give rise to a whale. Yet in the absence of competition, if by some cataclysm all the larger lifeforms were killed off, over some very long span of years it's likely that somewhat similar replacements would arise to fill their niches and take advantage of the resources they consumed.
It's misleading though, when you say that one animal can turn into another. None of us can turn into a tree or a cat, which is obvious and silly. Evolution happens at the species level, with any given individual retaining a set base of characteristics and potential throughout their lifespan. There was a time when all the human beings that existed in the world were black skinned, and probably pretty short and slight, like the !Kung people of Africa. We've developed an amazing range of variations since that time so long ago. While we're all still the same species, you can see differing enzymes and disease susceptibilities having emerged at varied rates in certain populations, though our intelligence gives us a lot of leeway to adapt to new environments without much physical change.
You say that the real ignorance is in not studying Dembski or Behe, but when they're speaking as ID advocates, they're advocating a philosophy and not a scientific point of view. The main point I hear most often is that you've got certain systems that are irreducibly complex, that couldn't have been functional without one part so they must have been deliberately designed that way.
This is ridiculous. If you bothered reading the scientific literature on evolutionary research, you'd know that. You would also know that none of the scientists involved in the ID movement have contributed to that scientific literature by performing original research that supports their speculation. I'm not your personal librarian, but it's easy enough to debunk at least one IC claim via this simplified explanation:
... For example, while Dr. Behe and other leading design proponents see the blood clotting system as a product of design, mainstream scientists see it as a result of a coherent sequence of evolutionary events.
Early vertebrates like jawless fish had a simple clotting system, scientists believe, involving a few proteins that made blood stick together, said Russell F. Doolittle, a professor of molecular biology at the University of California, San Diego.
Scientists hypothesize that at some point, a mistake during the copying of DNA resulted in the duplication of a gene, increasing the amount of protein produced by cells.
Most often, such a change would be useless. But in this case the extra protein helped blood clot, and animals with the extra protein were more likely to survive and reproduce. Over time, as higher-order species evolved, other proteins joined the clotting system. For instance, several proteins involved in the clotting of blood appear to have started as digestive enzymes.
By studying the evolutionary tree and the genetics and biochemistry of living organisms, Dr. Doolittle said, scientists have largely been able to determine the order in which different proteins became involved in helping blood clot, eventually producing the sophisticated clotting mechanisms of humans and other higher animals. The sequencing of animal genomes has provided evidence to support this view.
For example, scientists had predicted that more primitive animals such as fish would be missing certain blood-clotting proteins. In fact, the recent sequencing of the fish genome has shown just this. ...
Many other IC claims have been debunked just as thoroughly, but apparently it's just so much easier to keep claiming the same thing to new audiences and hoping that your unsupported argument sticks in enough people's heads. Then you can claim that it's 'widely believed,' which means jack-all. A hundred years ago, it was widely believed that bad smells would make you sick, but it still didn't make it true.
It's all about the genetics, man, all about the genetics. If you remember much about your scientific training, you would also remember that undocumented claims aren't on the same playing field as peer-reviewed research and don't deserve the same consideration.
"Babies come from storks is not a competing school of thought in medical school." - Bill Maher
Posted by: natasha on August 25, 2005 11:52 PMThere are no undisputed fossils of the alleged Darwinian evolution when there should be billions of them. The “geologic column” does not exist anywhere. Many times the age of rocks are claimed to be younger than the ages of the layers above and extend for hundreds of miles that way. ..."
First, RNA preceeded DNA and there are primitive microorganisms whose only genetic code is a single loop of RNA.
There's also a difference between organic compounds and living organims. Organic chemistry, for example, is mainly the study of compounds containing carbon. Basic organic compounds like methane and carbon dioxide can exist without any type of life being present. In the conditions of extreme pressure and heat that existed billions of years ago, the sorts of compounds that could have been present would be different than what you'd expect to find floating free today.
There are many fossils that support evolution, but fossil formation is very rare. Even bone, the most solid part of most animals' bodies, usually decomposes. To get a fossil, you need rapid burial in an oxygen poor environment that won't be disturbed and those just aren't the circumstances under which the majority of animals die. During some periods of time and in certain environments it's more likely than others so you get areas which are rich pockets of fossils and other areas which are fossil poor.
However, fairly recently genetic evidence had suggested that whales were most closely related to hippos, which had been a subject of much debate. Then fossil evidence was found indicating a transitional species similar to what had been predicted by those who postulated the relationship. While this is a recent example, there's been a lot of evidence gathered over some time that birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs and you might have fun looking it up.
Finally, while I suspect it's rather rare to have older rock on top of younger rock, it could happen without violating any observed science. Layers of rock can fold almost like taffy when subjected to certain pressures over long periods on time, even volcanic upheaval could potentially create such a circumstance.
Stefan - Why on earth is the BBC news website in your spam filter?
Posted by: natasha on August 26, 2005 12:25 AMWhat must it be like to be so enlightened where the potential for teaching the God created the heavens and the earth is equal to regressing to the 18th century. Let me know how that particular "philosophy" works out for you in the future.
Posted by: Danny on August 26, 2005 08:12 AMThe one I've mentioned several times, and went on to talk about in the same post you are replying to.
Evolution isn't philosophy
And it also is not an alternative to Intelligent Design, as they are not mutually exclusive, so obviously I wasn't talking about that. The alternative to ID which I have mentioned many times now is the idea that we are -- drum roll -- NOT designed.
The scientific method is also not philosophical ... but an algorithm for answering questions that in some cases can be performed by machines incapable of philosophizing.
Fine, then prove -- using only science (i.e., the scientific method) -- that the scientific method is the best way to determine scientific truth.
Of course, that's not possible, because the scientific method is not derived scientifically, but philosophically.
Mutations happen at what's been observed to be a fairly steady rate of change, in all species, all the time.
You say that as though you think it argues against anything I said. It doesn't.
When you say random chance, you make it sound like some sort of fantasy usage where absolutely anything at all can happen, anywhere, anytime.
I wouldn't expect someone who has obviously studied evolutionary theory, such as yourself, to think so. "Random" means no such thing. It simply means that the mutations are essentially indeterminable, in how and when they occur. "Random mutations" is a very common phrase in the literature. (Note that I am not saying directed mutation is the right answer, either.)
It certainly reveals a universe which could have emerged without a design, all the mechanisms appear to be capable of working without interference, but this is an opinion.
Yes, of course.
Many scientists don't believe in a god, but it isn't taught in science classrooms as part of biology training.
And I've repeatedly noted the fact that it often is specifically implied, if not expressed, in biology classes. Yes, it absolutely is. Teachers often say the universe, or even at least our existence in it, is not designed, that it is the result of nondetermined random mutations, which directly implies not the nonexistence of God, but the lack of God's hand in our existence. This happens all the time, whether or not you choose to put your head in the sand and ignore it.
In some ways, I see evolution and astronomy as a very pure test of faith. Will a person choose to believe in the divine without any physical evidence that outside intervention is necessary to keep the universe running?
That's a nonsensical statement, on many levels. First, and most obviously, you've set up an entirely false dichotomy. As I've already expressed several times, a very common belief in the divine -- even a belief in divine design -- carries with it no belief in divine intervention: the divine creates the universe, designs it, and then sends it on its way with no intervention, like setting off a complex pattern of dominoes. This is a perfectly plausible belief, which by definition has no quarrel with any scientific discovery.
Second, there is plenty of physical evidence of outside intervention. Not proof, of course, but plenty of evidence.
Third -- slight digression here -- you can't choose to believe something, you can only choose to try to convince yourself to believe in something. I cannot right now choose to believe that God doesn't exist. I am convinced God does exist, and I would have to be convinced God does not exist before I could believe it. Similarly, you could not choose to change your beliefs; at best, you could attempt to try to convince yourself of different beliefs. It may or may not work.
I see ID as an attempt by people whose faith is shaky to prove that their religious sentiments have some sort of forensic trail, which seems very silly.
You see incorrectly. ID is an attempt by people who have very strong faith to attempt to show people how scientific fact and their faith can be reconciled, as many people incorrectly believe that they cannot be.
So much material, so little time.
1. but after I finish reading so many posts insisting that perfectly good science has no evidence, as explained by people who don't read much about the subject besides creationist propaganda, it creates a powerful urge to provide an explanation.
Have you studied anything but evolutionary propoganda? I made it clear that I read alternatives. I was a PROPONENT of evolution for 37 years. I read lots of PRO evolutionary material including Dawkins, Futyama and other leading apologists of our times. I have read Darwin's original material. The difference is, I studied with an open mind CRITICS of evolution. I have also read across many disciplines, dismissing some as crackpots and finding others who have legitimate points of view.
2.Unfortunately, science is harder than saying that god did everything, which seems to make it easy to misrepresent.,/i>
This statement betrays your very biased approach to the subject. you are a firm BELIEVER in evolution, and your dismissal of anything that critiques it suggests that you are not interested in truth but in defending what you already accept as true regardless of te facts.
3.Evolution isn't philosophy, and it won't magically become so just because you keep repeating it. The scientific method is also not philosophical, though there are philosophy of science classes taught...
The over-arching premise behind neo-darwinism IS philosphical and probably theological. It does not matter if science is done at the same time. It still bases its entire premise on the fundamental root of "assuming a purely natrualistic explanation..." Studying the concept of the "philosphy of science" would really help out here. Creation science has lots of science behind it, but that does not make it correct either. NO discipline in the world is without the need for understanind the philosophy behind it. The idea of what consitutes the scientific method is, in fact, a phiosphical question. Scientists argue all the time about matters of philosphy and what constitues evidence, method, proof and other such things, and all of those are philosphical questions. If you haven't studied the philosphy of scinece (I have), I recommend it to you.
4.Coming up with these ideas or questions may involve a great deal of imagination on the part of the scientist, but they don't become science until you have data and a result.
Exactly. However, you have to fist imagine it before you can start that line of inquiry. Dismissing the dreamers out of hand because of of your institutional bias is counter-productive.
5.You appear to be the one that hasn't studied your biology or genetics. How does being a physicist and a programmer qualify you to disagree with millions of biologists? Are you qualified to hold forth on meteorology or geology, as well? It isn't anyone else's fault that you were an "ardent believer" in something you hadn't studied because no one is asking for your belief in evolution anymore than they're asking for your belief that rocks exist.
The concept of evolution spans a large number of scientific disciplines, so, certainly one with a physics backgound might be less autoritative in biology, one in biology less so in geology, etc. I do not have a degree in biology, (wife has that one), but I am not unread in that subject as you seem to suggest. I only list my degree as proof that I am at least trained scientifically, and my length of time as a proponent of evolution to show that I am not "indoctrinated in creationism" as most people want to beleive as soon as I mention any criticism for evolution. My employment experiences requires a discplined and logical approach to things I am quite well read on many disciplines and, as said before, read all sides of a position before forming my own rather than just the one side and their "opinions" of the other side.
What are YOUR "qualifications" for debating the philosphical, biological, physical, etc. aspects of this argument? I certainly don't know, but I am not suggesting that you are unqualified to debate the topic.
6. It's misleading though, when you say that one animal can turn into another. None of us can turn into a tree or a cat, which is obvious and silly. Evolution happens at the species level, with any given individual retaining a set base of characteristics and potential throughout their lifespan. There was a time when all the human beings that existed in the world were black skinned, and probably pretty short and slight, like the !Kung people of Africa. We've developed an amazing range of variations since that time so long ago. While we're all still the same species, you can see differing enzymes and disease susceptibilities having emerged at varied rates in certain populations, though our intelligence gives us a lot of leeway to adapt to new environments without much physical change.
Its not at all misleading since it is absolutely imperitive that one species evolve into another. It is important that it not only happen but that it happen at such a rate as to go from primodial goo to you and me in 4.5 billion years or so (or whatever the age of the earth is.) Or, if you like, from single celled organisms seeded by a comet during the past. The proof of micro evolution is insufficient to explain macro evolution. No one I know disputes micro evolution, the dispute is in its usefullness in supporting macro evolution. The thing is, the rate of change necessary to acheive our current state from our understood starting point isn't explainable under current evoutionary science.
Now read this next part very carefully. I do not think evolotionary theory is worthless. It is a very good theory. IT is a very nice model given its premise, and it manages to neatly account for almost all the known facts. but it is a THEORY! It is taught as a fact in schools. Schools do not need to teach the idea of life coming form primordail goo, or the idea that live forms evolve into other life forms. Those are not scientifically proven facs and have no basis for high school biology courses. However, if you DO insist on teaching theory, you need to each other theories as well. I prefer dropping the origin of life theories altogehter. They are merely specualtion.
7. You say that the real ignorance is in not studying Dembski or Behe, but when they're speaking as ID advocates, they're advocating a philosophy and not a scientific point of view. The main point I hear most often is that you've got certain systems that are irreducibly complex, that couldn't have been functional without one part so they must have been deliberately designed that way.
This is ridiculous. If you bothered reading the scientific literature on evolutionary research, you'd know that.
Again assuming I've read nothing BUT Behe and Dembski. I've read them. Have you? I've read their critics. I've read the critics of the critics. I've read whole debates on the issues. I've read the philosphical arguments involved which ARE the underlying foundation of it all. Yes they are advocating a philosophy, a philosphy BASED on the scinetific data presented. A philosphy BASED on the evidence at hand is a valid place to start any endeavor. It is that very shift in paradigm that opens new thought and exploration. If you CHANGE the UNDERLYING foundatinal PREMISE, you change the sciences that are used to study them. The thing is, science is not the pure, unadultrated, be-all of knowledge gathering. It is constrained precicely by the philospical premise from which it is applied. It does not exist in a vacuum but instead proceeds forth from the frame of reference that is inherent in the scientists' understaning of the world, including their theological, philosphical and rational starting points. Men are not machines. They WILL have a "perspective" which colors any line of thought or inquiry.
The history of science is repleate with praradigm shifts. Before the shift, the scientific community was convinced it had a lock on truth and knowledge. Then something changed and so did science and knowledge, and lots of other things. Looking back from OUR perspective, it is obvious how wrong they were, but at the time they could not see it. I wonder 200 years from now how "wrong" our current thinking might seem.
8....Early vertebrates like jawless fish had a simple clotting system, scientists believe, involving a few proteins that made blood stick together, said Russell F. Doolittle, a professor of molecular biology at the University of California, San Diego.
Scientists hypothesize that at some point, a mistake during the copying of DNA resulted in the duplication of a gene, increasing the amount of protein produced by cells....
I won't quote the whole peice. What struck me most was the use of words like believe and hypothesize. If you read this citation again very carefully, it says NOTHING about what is known but rather offers an alternative belief about the existence of our current state of blood clotting. It relies on hand-waving, suggestions, philosphical bias, and unsupported hypothesis. It is a theory based on a belief that evolution exists. It is a circular argument trying to prove what it already assumes.
Additionally, if one had read Behe's book, you would find this argument to be very weak and much of what he states has been addresed by Behe in his book. I wonder if this Dr. Doolittle actually read the book or is he basing his arguments on critiques made by people who may also not have read the book.
9. Many other IC claims have been debunked just as thoroughly, but apparently it's just so much easier to keep claiming the same thing to new audiences and hoping that your unsupported argument sticks in enough people's heads. Then you can claim that it's 'widely believed,' which means jack-all. A hundred years ago, it was widely believed that bad smells would make you sick, but it still didn't make it true.
First, as stated before, this aregument does nothing to "debunk" ID, it simply is proof that someone has an alternative theory.
Howver, I like the other half of this pragraph better. Evolution is widely believed today. About a 100 years ago people made a concerted effort to isure that it "sticks in people's heads". Even today, biology books use as evidence thoroughly debunked and made up proofs just so they can perpetuate that belief (e.g. Embrionic simularity and peppered moths)
You even used that argument against me to say I am going against lots of biologists. I think 87% of Americans believe in God, therefore you should too. In fact, 98% of theologians beleive in God, and they are the experts in that field, so you definately would be a fool to go agianst TAHT authority. Sorry, scientists are not gods either, and just because they all believe someting they can't prove does nothing for me.
Posted by: Eyago on August 26, 2005 09:22 AMAppreciate the response. However, if IDs primary contribution is to force science to examine its assumptions, then I don't think it has much usefulness. Real science (not the politicized version that gets bandied about in the press or on blogs) is constantly examining its assumptions, is constantly questioning its result. That's how progress is made. It's fine for Behe to point out that there are many steps in the development of various anatomical structures that cannot be readily explained given the current state of science. My problem with Behe and his ilk is that they then say, "It's very complex, we don't understand how it could be so complex given what we know about biological systems, and therefore it must be designed because we think that somebody really smart or powerful could have designed something like that." Great. He thinks it's designed. On that basis should science discontinue its research to discover whether a mechanism based around mutation and natural selection can be found? I don't think so. And as our knowledge of biological systems increases, doesn't ID become increasingly irrelevant? As I've said earlier in these comments, ID may be right, but until the designer makes an appearance and reveals all to us, it doesn't seem to provide any insight or mechanism that is helpful to scientific progress.
Posted by: Steven on August 26, 2005 09:38 AMTurn your concluding statement around:
As I've said earlier in these comments, ID may be right, but until the designer makes an appearance and reveals all to us, it doesn't seem to provide any insight or mechanism that is helpful to scientific progress.
If ID is right, then any methodolgy based on the assumption of purely mechanistic means will fail "to provide any insight or mechanism that is helpful to scientific progress."
It absolutely essential to question the underlying assumption from which all scientific inquiry is based. If we are chasing the phantom of pure "naturalism" when naturalism is, in fact, wrong, then we will have spun our wheels trying to find a solution that does not exist. However, if we step back a moment and use existing theories about design inferrence, we may instead discover that something other than the current laws of physics as we understand them are in play and we can attempt to postulate how such mechanisms might work. Of course, if there is a divine hand popping into our space/time continuum to tweak the system every few hundren million years, then we'll have a tough time putting that to the test unless we happen to be "looking" when it next happens.
The key thing about challenging any existing paradigm, even if the challenge itself is faulty, is that it may cause others to say, "hey you are wrong, but you give me an idea..."
The real problem with people's faith in science as they see it is that they think it is a pure form of knowledge discovery when it actually is simply a way to measure what we can measure. Knowing WHAT to measure and HOW to measure is the real beauty of discovery, and that usually comes from people taking "unusual" approaches to the information gathered.
I wonder how many brilliant thinkers have had their ideas ground under the heel of the scientific establishemnt that has always beleived itself to be without fault or error dispite its history. We olny see the successes of those who withstood the community, not the faliures of those who were silenced in the classroom, or the faculty meeting or anywhere else where they said "Hey what about..."
And as our knowledge of biological systems increases, doesn't ID become increasingly irrelevant?
Actually, ID was generated by the fact that our knowledge of biological systems has made the idea of evolution less likely, necessitating a different approach to the data.
However, if you are correct and biolicial evidence will eventually refute ID claims, then why the big hullabaloo? Someone put the theroy out there. Let's let's see what the dawrinian processes have on it. Will it mutate in a positive way and evolve into a valid theory or will it be trampled by a higher order of theory and be lost forever. ;)
And if you really think teaching unfounded theories will stunt the growth of scientific knowledge in this country you don't know your history. The only thing that stunts scientific theory is when SCIENTISTS disallow certain ideas to be debated and pursued. We survied just fine prior to Dawrin, and it was not darwinian science being taught in the classroom that brought about all the scientific explosions that came with the late 19th and early 20th centuries, so you can't tell me we are going to be scientifically repressed because of ID.
Posted by: Eyago on August 26, 2005 10:34 AMOn that basis should science discontinue its research to discover whether a mechanism based around mutation and natural selection can be found?
Certainly not. That is not what Behe or Dembski are saying at all. Science shouldn't discontinue its research, but it should discontinue its dogmatic support of a phylisophical belief system and get back to what science is really about... discovering the truth. True science will meet its challenges head-on in its quest for truth. True science will not automatically dismiss nor promote theories solely on a phylisophical or theological basis. All of the remarks that I hear from evolutionists that are trying to discredit creation science or I.D. could be reflected right back in their smug little faces. As Steven has pointed out, the harder science has tried to prove out Darwin's predictions as to how evolution may have occurred, rather than getting the answers that they had expected, there have only been more questions. The Discovery Institute who has put forth this I.D. theory have not even pushed for it to be taught in public schools as a theory, they only wish to point out the challenges to evolution, which are undeniable and observable in modern science, and have those challenges be taught along side of any theory being put forth in schools.
Posted by: Sopater on August 26, 2005 11:00 AMBecause that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Rom 1:19-20)
Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
(Isa 42:5)
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.
(Psa 19:1)
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(Heb 11:3)
For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
(Isa 45:18)
Evolution happens at the species level, with any given individual retaining a set base of characteristics and potential throughout their lifespan. There was a time when all the human beings that existed in the world were black skinned, and probably pretty short and slight, like the !Kung people of Africa. We've developed an amazing range of variations since that time so long ago. While we're all still the same species, you can see differing enzymes and disease susceptibilities having emerged at varied rates in certain populations, though our intelligence gives us a lot of leeway to adapt to new environments without much physical change.
Evolution happens at the species level, with any given individual retaining a set base of characteristics and potential throughout their lifespan. There was a time when all the human beings that existed in the world were black skinned, and probably pretty short and slight, like the !Kung people of Africa. We've developed an amazing range of variations since that time so long ago. While we're all still the same species, you can see differing enzymes and disease susceptibilities having emerged at varied rates in certain populations, though our intelligence gives us a lot of leeway to adapt to new environments without much physical change.
What you are describing with this is microevolution, for which evidence exists in abundance. However, there simply isn't a single trace of evidence that shows macroevolution which means either a split of a species into two completely incompatible species or a change into another completely incompatible one. Numerous attempts to manually create such an evolutionary form all resulted in complete failure - either fatal outcome or an outcome that is not capable of reproducing at all even with human intervention. Liger (a cross between a lion and a tiger) and mule are classic examples. I am sure you will cite again on certain fossil records such as the whale example, but they are at best sparse and speculative.
Posted by: C. Oh on August 26, 2005 12:18 PMPlease don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that scientists are not getting the answers they expected. In fact, I think that to date scientists are getting exactly the answers they expected when it comes to evolution. But as with all endeavors, gaining more knowledge generally leads to being able to ask more and better questions. So far as I can tell, ID leads to two questions: who is the designer and how did she do it?
Posted by: Steven on August 26, 2005 01:08 PMI generally agree, although this is not true of all scientists, which is the problem. I am not concerned about the state of science: it will figure itself out in the end, it always does. I am concerned, however, with the state of schools and the public debate, which is far more dogmatic, on all sides.
My problem with Behe and his ilk is that they then say, "It's very complex, we don't understand how it could be so complex given what we know about biological systems, and therefore it must be designed because we think that somebody really smart or powerful could have designed something like that."
But that is not ID. That is *some* proponents of ID. You're making the same mistake Stefan did by attacking ID by what some of its proponents think.
It's similar -- not in a matter of degree, let alone intention, but broadly speaking -- attacking capitalism because of the Enron scandal.
That's possibly true, but it can't be proved. Further, that isn't what an idea like irreducible complexity argues, it isn't what Eyago is suggesting, and it doesn't forward the need to teach religious belief in science classes.
Certain scientists may believe and say publicly, as they have every right to, that science proves there's no need for a creator. Other scientists look at the evidence and say it's definitely proof of a creator, and so long as their published work is sound this belief doesn't preclude them from being widely respected. Neither of these beliefs are on the same level as a supported scientific theory, and neither is included as a prescriptive recommendation of any evidence to hand, neither has anything more to do with the learning objectives of a scientific education than whether a scientist is a Republican, Democrat, Tory, socialist, fascist, Green, or any other political persuasion.
Eyago - "Have you studied anything but evolutionary propoganda? I made it clear that I read alternatives. I was a PROPONENT of evolution for 37 years. I read lots of PRO evolutionary material including Dawkins, Futyama and other leading apologists of our times."
It doesn't matter how long you believed something sensible, if you ever really did. Point is, you're off the wagon.
What's propaganda is for someone claiming to have a scientific background to pretend that the scientific use of the words theory and believe are the same as the common use of those terms. You should know very well that isn't the case, though it's a common ID strawman. The community of biological scientists 'believe' in evolution because they've seen the evidence up close and personal. No scientific papers have been produced to challenge their findings, and they should no more be required to take an unsupported assumption into consideration in their work than astronomers should be required to consider that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around it.
You say the explanation provided above about blood-clotting isn't sufficiently detailed, but that's just bull. When you're being asked to summarize something for an interview with the press, you simplify the explanation and phrase it in layman's terms. The rules of how the scientific community operates, for those scientists who care about their professional reputation, is that when you say you believe something in a scientific context that you base that on some serious science with evidence behind it. That condensed explanation was probably a synopsis of at least three or four research papers which I think you know aren't going to get dredged up and posted in a chat forum on a blog like this. If they were posted, I think you'd also know that they'd be so full of technical terms and numerical data that they'd be nigh unreadable to most people, which wouldn't make them much of an effective explanation.
Believing in microevolution and ignoring its larger implications is ridiculous. It's a way to make yourself sound like you're putting forth a scientific explanation, when what you're arguing is a case of special creation for each species, which would suggest (at the very least) millions of divine interventions over the last 3 billion years. There have been so many species that died out because they couldn't compete in the evolutionary arms race, what sense does it make for a deity to have specially created them? Did god just not love the neanderthal? It's illogical to suggest all this tedious tweaking of the knobs.
If there is someone at the switchboard at every jump forward, why create a world where it looks exactly like the evolution of more complicated organisms was held up before cyanobacteria started pumping oxygen into the atmosphere, and held off from making use of the upper ocean and then the land until an ozone layer developed? Why make it look exactly as if insects and flowers have been engaging in a complicated dance of co-evolution for millions of years?
Why leave such a bizarre thing as a cryptomonad lying around, with exactly the sort of extra internal membranes and atrophying second nucleus that you'd expect to find if a heterotrophic, single-celled organism had engulfed a single-celled red algae a long time ago and instead of digesting it, incorporated it to benefit from its chloroplasts? I mean, have you seen pictures of these things? They're pretty amazing, and they're precisely the type of clunky halfway stage you might expect to find if endosymbiosis were true. Which is to say, if eukaryotic cells (algae, plants, fungi and animal cells) with fixed membranes developed from a successful fusion of two or more prokaryotic cells (bacteria). The evidence indicates that this happened many times, but that just a very few cell lines gave us the diversity of the three major kingdoms people usually think of: plants, animals & fungi. Looking at the algae, or protists, there may well be over a dozen separate endosymbiotic lines which didn't give rise to such large families.
And you don't seem to understand that even a case of what you'd consider microevolution can create a big change. The vertebrate evolutionary path seems to have started because a developmental switch wasn't turned on, and a free-swimming larval stage of a sessile bottom feeder grew to maturity and reproduced with the traits of a child of its parent species. Our own branch of hominids resembles the infant forms of ancestor and related species in the proportion of the skull, and the likely culprit is the degeneration of our jaws muscles and jaws (a simple, single protein mutation could have triggered this) that allowed for a larger cranium.
Whatever you may have read, you fundamentally don't get that the right tiny change can have an enormous effect. All of what you would term to be macro-evolution is a lot of little changes that added up to something very different from the original, which isn't a radical notion in the slightest.
Posted by: natasha on August 26, 2005 02:09 PMMutation is going on all the time, that was the point. I was responding to the insistence that changes don't happen that often, or that they seem to happen for no reason. They always happen. Most of the time, a change is either undesirable or neutral. Sometimes however, that one tiny change comes at the right time and does do something big.
In general, when there exists a large and stable population in a stable environment, any significant alteration would require a significant advantage and a bottlenecking (or near extinction) event to establish itself in the genome. As an example, several hundred years worth of plague in Europe increased the incidence of a gene that confers immunity from HIV from one in 10,000 to one in 10.
Also, I'm unsure what you think the existence of mules proves. It shows that two species that share a common ancestor are still closely enough related to produce offspring, though this doesn't generally happen in the wild. Their offspring are sterile because their parents have different numbers of chromosomes, which leaves mules with an odd number of chromosomes. When it comes to meiotic cell division preceding reproduction, the odd number of chromosomes don't split properly. I know what that tells me, but what does it tell you?
There is more flexibility to the concept of a species than was originally believed, more complexity than can be adequtely addressed by the simple standard definition. However, scientists are aware of this and have been for a while. You do know that such a process takes a very long time, right? There's a lot of evidence, but if you're interested, you should investigate instead of insisting that it's sparse with no evidence.
Posted by: natasha on August 26, 2005 02:47 PMThat's possibly true, but it can't be proved.
Of course it can't. Which is what I have already stated, several times.
Further, that isn't what an idea like irreducible complexity argues
I know, but ID is not all about irreducible complexity. Again, that is only one way to use the principle of ID, as the U.S.A. is only one way to apply the principles of federalism.
it isn't what Eyago is suggesting
I don't care; I wasn't talking about him, or what he was saying.
and it doesn't forward the need to teach religious belief in science classes.
I never said they should be taught in science classes.
It's like you don't even understand what I have been saying.
Certain scientists may believe and say publicly, as they have every right to, that science proves there's no need for a creator. Other scientists look at the evidence and say it's definitely proof of a creator ... Neither of these beliefs are on the same level as a supported scientific theory, ... neither has anything more to do with the learning objectives of a scientific education ..."
Yes, which is what I have been saying all along. And yet, both sides want those beliefs taught in science classrooms. The only real difference is that one group -- those that believe science proves there is no Creator who takes an active role in creation -- is far more active and prominent in our public schools, pushing their beliefs both explicitly and implicitly, and yet gets far less notice and criticism from the scientific community.
I will second Pudge on one front. I don't think you are "listening" to our arguments but are rather building your own strawman to knock over.
It doesn't matter how long you believed something sensible, if you ever really did. Point is, you're off the wagon.
It seems by implication that you cannot accept that someone would examine the evidence and come to a different conclusion than the one you believe. You should be happy for those who fall off wagons, Copernicus, Galileo, etc. Your unwillingness to accept that intelligent dissent can exist shows your own lack of ability to investigate and evaluate evidence. To dismiss me as you do reflects on you more than me.
What's propaganda is for someone claiming to have a scientific background to pretend that the scientific use of the words theory and believe are the same as the common use of those terms. You should know very well that isn't the case, though it's a common ID strawman. The community of biological scientists 'believe' in evolution because they've seen the evidence up close and personal. No scientific papers have been produced to challenge their findings, and they should no more be required to take an unsupported assumption into consideration in their work than astronomers should be required to consider that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around it.
There are three miscomceptions in ths one paragraph.
One, wihtout an understanding of the philosphical arguments regarding what science is, your point about the difference between a scientific definition of "theory" and "believe" to be any different than commonly understood are simply incorrect. Again, you elevate the scientist above human status. Besides, I am scientifically trained, so it would seem that I would understand them in their context.
Two, the vast majority of scientists whom you seem to revere without question have NOT encountered evolution up close and personal. Most never even confront evolution in their perticular disciplines much less across all the disciplines. They beleive because they are philosphically predisposed to believe. THAT is the common thread, not the proof.
Third, you make the common mistake of assuming that any paper written by a scientist gets peer reviewed. In fact, all papers, before being published have to be approved by the periodical's board of scientists. This means that the evolutionists are the gate-keepers to the papers. It's like having democrats the only ones allowed to allow bills to be voted on in congress. If they have the only say so as to what gets voted on, none of the republican bills would ever see the light of day, and you would be here today thinking that the democrats are gods and repbublicans unable to write a single useful bill.
You say the explanation provided above about blood-clotting isn't sufficiently detailed, but that's just bull. When you're being asked to summarize something for an interview with the press, you simplify the explanation and phrase it in layman's terms.
You can't argue both sides of the problem. Either this scientis uderstood what hypothesis and belief meant or he didn't. If he did, he would not use those terms to explain them to laymen when he knew they would not have understood them in the context he gave. So, he is either an idiot for saying one thing but meaning another, or he said exactly what he meant. He distilled it down to laymans terms and managed to say nothing of concrete value. He is still saying in effect that "we think it would work this way but we don't know."
Believing in microevolution and ignoring its larger implications is ridiculous.
No, you have it wrong. Believing in micro evolution and taking on faith that macro evoltion is a proven fact is ridiculous. I demand proof. You seem to be happy with vague conjecture and want all children tought that conjecture AS truth.
Why leave such a bizarre thing as a cryptomonad lying around, with exactly the sort of extra internal membranes and atrophying second nucleus that you'd expect to find if a heterotrophic, single-celled organism had engulfed a single-celled red algae a long time ago and instead of digesting it, incorporated it to benefit from its chloroplasts?
Do you realize that you are engaging in philosphical arguments here to support your "science?" We have the fact of a certain organism. To you the logical explanaition is that it is the bastard child of some evolutionary dead end. You have no proof, but under your belief, that is the logical solution. Facts aren't necessary for you, just the fact that you don't like the alternative is enough to state categorically that it is proof that evolution is true. Wonderfully scietific. And you want that taught in our public schools?
Whatever you may have read, you fundamentally don't get that the right tiny change can have an enormous effect. All of what you would term to be macro-evolution is a lot of little changes that added up to something very different from the original, which isn't a radical notion in the slightest.
What I get is that the thiny change you think is occuring is not the real change necessary to take a complex machine like a single cell and turn it into a totally different machine comeplte with different DNA, differnt protiens, different protien builders, etc. I have studied the biology and fully accept the changes that mght reshape a cranuim. What I don't accept is the change from a skin cell to an eyeball in incremental steps. You still argue from the black box theory that as long as you don't sweat the details, you can "imagine" a cell becoming a different cell thorugh some unexpliend incremental steps. Until someone can actually SHOW those incremental steps, it is all hogwash and hypothesis. The thing is, I don't think YOU have studied micro-biology at any level and thus you believe the general hand-waving and "magic happens" that constitutes modern day macro evolutionary theory. I ahve asked point balnk what backrough you ahve to offer, and all you can do is excuse away mine rather than defend your won expertise. I read the biological arguments for macro-evolution Didn't buy it. They may prove it correct some day, but they shouldn't be teaching it as truth in our schools.
Posted by: Eyago on August 26, 2005 03:40 PMSpot on Pudge.
Posted by: Eyago on August 26, 2005 03:41 PMI did not say that scientists are not getting the answers they expected. In fact, I think that to date scientists are getting exactly the answers they expected when it comes to evolution
C Oh - It never happens in the wild because animals become separated by geography, by niche, by mating rituals and even by appearance. There are species of frog whose songs vary from area to area, and the more different the song the less likely they are to mate. It produces the result that two from the same ostensible species won't show the slightest interest in each other if the songs aren't right. The behavior is seen in butterflies who mate based on their markings. The fact is, horses and donkeys just aren't normally attracted to each other. Surprising as it may be, even animals have their innate forms of being picky about whom they'll sleep with.
Eyago - I'm still working towards my degree in life sciences, but I doubt anyone's argument would sway you. When I speak about scientists in this particular case, I refer to people whose work is the study of biology, who would have firsthand experience. Sorry to have been imprecise.
A scientific theory is different from the general usage, wherein a theory is commonly any explanation someone comes up with that seems possible. If you don't know that for something to be a theory in the scientific sense means something more concrete than the way it's thrown around in casual conversation means to me that either you're not as familiar as you claim with science, or that you're being purposely disingenuous. The suggestion that there's no difference between the scientific concept of a theory and the usual concept of a theory is all by itself an enormous red flag, an absurd statement that puts the theory of gravity in the same boat with OJ's theory about the real killers.
And yes, papers on biological science are reviewed by people who accept evolution because scientific papers get reviewed by people who accept scientific facts. They don't get reviewed by people who think that the foundation stone of the science they're reviewing is bunk.
Frankly, if people like you got your way and anti-evolutionists wound up on American peer review boards, the damage to the credibility of our entire scientific establishment would take an unrecoverable hit. If the politicization of science continues here, the eventual damage to the US economy will be severe as we lose our technical edge to countries where they let serious scientists determine what gets taught as science.
Further, I never said that the scientist quoted in that article was being inaccurate, just that he didn't go into a lot of detail. Do you think that the NYTimes would have published the supporting research had he provided it? Just as it would be true in the study of economics that at a basic level, increased supply tends to depress prices. That there are qualifiers on that general observation that would be added if you go into it more deeply or if you're speaking in more depth about a particular situation doesn't make it deceptive.
And you say that I'm being philosophical when talking about cryptomonads, but I'm not. When a scientific theory works, one of the standards for evaluation is that you can make accurate predictions, within reason, based on its premises. Darwin found a flower in his travels with a nectar well that was several inches long, and he hypothesized that if his theory were correct, there was an insect with a tongue as long as the nectar well. Such an insect was found many years after his death that ate from that particular flower.
Similarly, scientists looking at the genetic evidence within the nuclei and structure of cells suggested that the genesis of complex eukaryotic cells was when in the act of one single-celled organism eating another, the engulfed cell wasn't digested but was harnessed to produce food for its attacker. This has apparently happened many times, with most of the resultant forms being classed among the algae (protists.) I can add fancy words like phagocytosis to the explanation, or do the Google search you won't bother with, or go pick up a textbook and type up a more technical and complex explanation straight from the horse's mouth. But it wouldn't change that a real world example was found of an organism that survives to this day in the form that evidence suggested our ancestral cells once took. The people who did that research didn't base their claims just on how the cells look though, again, it's all about the genes. What looks like an engulfed cell still retains the degenerated, partial nucleus of a red alga, now largely non-functional, indicating that it is exactly what it looks like. No imagination required.
There are objects in astronomy and particle physics that were similarly predicted before they were discovered. This also wasn't a purely philosophical exercise, it was an examination of the best state of our knowledge that was evaluated for its implications. Sometimes they get it wrong, sometimes they get it right. When that happens, when they get it right, they teach that part to students.
But the funny thing is that your argument is essentially that I must accept the idea that only an instance of special creation for each of the myriad species on earth can possibly be correct, because that's what a refusal to believe in macroevolution necessitates. Your argument, stripped of all its fancy words is that god has stepped in millions of times or more to pinch a new species off the family tree and you would like that taught in school. Even funnier, you think I'm just not being nice, not "listening" to you. You must be really hurt, and I feel for you.
Still, that's not remotely a scientific argument. It's an insistence on what can only be described as a religious interpretation and a touchy-feely demand for me to consider your religious explanation with the same seriousness as my textbooks and research papers that I read. That's not going to happen. The ID people haven't put in the work to earn comparable credibility, though they certainly get an 'A' in media manipulation. I read many of the claims you're making in my church books as a small fundy child and you're just never going to be able to make me feel guilty for calling them religious arguments that shouldn't be taught as science.
Pudge, at least, just wants for proponents of evolution to quit saying there isn't a god. He doesn't believe that they don't do that as part of the curriculum, though they don't, but I can respect that sentiment. You would like for teachers to say that there must be a god and you dress your argument in scientific terms that definitely don't mean what you say they do. You'd like a level of detail in a casual conversation that's ridiculous, while the only rejoinder you'd have if it were provided would be, 'but that's just impossible,' or 'that doesn't mean what you say it means,' or 'that's only an isolated example, give me more.' I could tell you very cool things about exons and introns, for example, but I just doubt very much that it would satisfy you. You're going to keep saying the same thing and my only reward for acceding to your demands would be to become the jerk who'd posted 20 screens worth of impenetrable jargon onto the comments section. How does that help me?
You want it both ways in this discussion. You want more details, but having looked at whatever level of detail you've happened across, describe it as hand-waving. It's the same science that evaluates evidence in rape trials and paternity suits, gives us (yeesh) GMO food, new antibiotics, cloning, the microbial manufacture of laundry detergent and all manner of fascinating discoveries.
Also, I don't believe in a god who's a jerk. If god created life on earth by fiat, but made it look exactly as if all life were descended from 3 billion year old microbes, that would make god as big a jerk as if the universe were only 6,000 years old but had been purposefully made to look much older. That would mean that god, while intelligent, was somewhat of an evil-minded liar who'd left us with no option for determining the truth besides guessing. It's only my religious and philosophical opinion, but that just sounds like an enormous load of theological bull. What kind of god would give us brains and then ask us to deny the evidence gathered thereby?
This website provides a good breakdown of the evidence for macroevolution in much more detail, along with a description of hypotheses and theories in a scientific sense and why evolution is a fact and a theory
Posted by: natasha on August 27, 2005 02:07 AMpudge - You know, the only time god comes up in biology classes is when people who don't believe in evolution raise the subject. It isn't a subject for discussion, so your assertion that some belief that there is no god is taught along with evolution is simply wrong.
First, you keep putting words in my mouth. I tried to rectify this the last post without directly pointing it out, but what I've consistently noted is that what is taught is that there is no God *who takes an active role in our existence,* not that there is no God (i.e., a God could exist who simply doesn't care whether we exist or not, and therefore did nothing that would lead to our existence).
And yes, the lack of this God who takes an active role in our existence is taught. Sometimes explicitly, but far more often implicitly. The notion that we all came to exist because of mere chance, because of essentially undirected random mutations, is something that is quite commonly taught. But it is unprovable, it is not science ... and it is taught, regardless of your protestations to the contrary.
If god created life on earth by fiat, but made it look exactly as if all life were descended from 3 billion year old microbes, that would make god as big a jerk as if the universe were only 6,000 years old but had been purposefully made to look much older. That would mean that god, while intelligent, was somewhat of an evil-minded liar who'd left us with no option for determining the truth besides guessing.
Maybe you are something of a biologist, but you are no theologian. ;-) I won't sit here and argue the point in detail, but this really is poor logic, something akin to what Douglas Adams said:
"I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But", says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? it could not have evolved by chance. it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
The problem being, of course, that God cannot be bound by our own definitions of Him that are based on the physical universe He created.
That said, I don't buy the Young Earth theory anyway, but I don't agree with your conclusions about what a Young Earth would say about the character of God.
He notes, "According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact."
Yes, but the problem is that evolution is not remotely close to a 99 percent probability, but he tries to make it sound like it is. I'd give it maybe an 80 percent probability. Maybe less, but not much more. There are too many unanswered questions, too many gaps in the historical record.
Yes, many (most?) scientists consider the probability higher, or they are simply willing to call something with that low a probability "fact." As there is no way to prove the probability (duh), and as there is no set definition for where the line crosses over to "fact," we therefore have our conundrum.
But any honest scientist who understands these issues cannot reasonably quibble with someone who, like me, thinks the probability -- while high -- is simply too low to call it scientific fact, as there are honest unanswered questions, and there's no set definition for what is a "fact."
I was relatively so, and now am absolutely certain that you have been debating, not me, but some boogey man that you have devised in your mind. You have not dealt with the specifics of my argument but rather consistently attempted to smear me by making me out to be some kind of religious nut who is trying to get a backdoor way for God to be taught in the classroom.
It is very clear to me that you are religiously devoted to the concept that god does not exist, and you have invested your faith in the body of science, and you defend it with a zealousness that are the trademarks of the faithful. You appear to BELIEVE in evolution to such an extent that anyone who diasgrees with it must be ignorant, devious, or has some sort of religiously based agenda.
Pay very close attention. I have not once resorted to a religious argument. I have never once advocated for God to be taught in schools. I have not once implied that God designed anything. I have not stated any belief in the concept that life could not exist unless a supreme being was responsible every step of the way.
I would say that you need to have your critical reading skills sharpened, but it is more likely that you need to realize that you are really just afraid that any weakening of evolutionary theory would be tatamount to a chink in the armor of your faith and therefore you feel compelled to destroy it with everything in your rhetorical arsenal.
The thing is, you have constantly inferred that I am unwilling to learn and that I will not do my "research".
or do the Google search you won't bother with, or go pick up a textbook and type up a more technical and complex explanation straight from the horse's mouth.
' I could tell you very cool things about exons and introns, for example, but I just doubt very much that it would satisfy you.
The truth is, as I have stated before, I DO READ BOTH SIDES of the argument while you read only the one, yet you calim I am closed minded and am colored by an ideological bias. Rather hypocritcal of you.
Some point by point crtitique of your last post:
A scientific theory is different from the general usage, wherein a theory is commonly any explanation someone comes up with that seems possible. If you don't know that for something to be a theory in the scientific sense means something more concrete than the way it's thrown around in casual conversation means to me that either you're not as familiar as you claim with science, or that you're being purposely disingenuous. The suggestion that there's no difference between the scientific concept of a theory and the usual concept of a theory is all by itself an enormous red flag, an absurd statement that puts the theory of gravity in the same boat with OJ's theory about the real killers.
Sharpen you critical reading skills. My first point was that Dr. Doolittle used "believe" and "hypothesis". If you don't know the difference between them and "theory" don't be trying to lecture me. Second, I critiqued your point that Dr. Doolittle was just putting things in laymans terms. My point was not that theory was different for scientists but that if he meant it differently, he was at fault for using a scientifically precise term that would have a less precise meaning to the audience he was talking to. I am not being disingenuous.
And yes, papers on biological science are reviewed by people who accept evolution because scientific papers get reviewed by people who accept scientific facts. They don't get reviewed by people who think that the foundation stone of the science they're reviewing is bunk.
I have said it before, Copernicus and Galileo effectively failed to get proper peer review for their work becuase the established scientists thought their work was bunk. A philosphical bias is a philosphical bias reagrdless of whether you agree with the bias or not. Science is not bunk just because the establishment does not recognise its value at the time.
Frankly, if people like you got your way and anti-evolutionists wound up on American peer review boards, the damage to the credibility of our entire scientific establishment would take an unrecoverable hit. If the politicization of science continues here, the eventual damage to the US economy will be severe as we lose our technical edge to countries where they let serious scientists determine what gets taught as science.
Peopel like me? You know nothing about what I argue. I argue that unfounded theories should not be taught in public schools. I would think "people like you", would agree to that. But you would rather maintian an ideological bias in schools by insuring everyone believes god does not exist so you will perpetuate unfounded theories as truth to indoctrinate the students.
And you say that I'm being philosophical when talking about cryptomonads, but I'm not. When a scientific theory works, one of the standards for evaluation is that you can make accurate predictions, within reason, based on its premises. Darwin found a flower in his travels with a nectar well that was several inches long, and he hypothesized that if his theory were correct, there was an insect with a tongue as long as the nectar well. Such an insect was found many years after his death that ate from that particular flower.
Again you missed the point. I said you were relying on a philosphical form of argument to support your point and not a scientifc set of facts. I don't have a problem with that per se. My objection is your hypocrisy in using it and then telling me that philosophy has no place in the argument. If you can't tell the difference, then heed my advice and study the philosophy of science before you try and correct me.
There are objects in astronomy and particle physics that were similarly predicted before they were discovered. This also wasn't a purely philosophical exercise, it was an examination of the best state of our knowledge that was evaluated for its implications. Sometimes they get it wrong, sometimes they get it right. When that happens, when they get it right, they teach that part to students.
So tell me, what part of "life spontanouesly developed from pre-biotic goo" has science "got right" that they should be teaching to students?
But the funny thing is that your argument is essentially that I must accept the idea that only an instance of special creation for each of the myriad species on earth can possibly be correct, because that's what a refusal to believe in macroevolution necessitates. Your argument, stripped of all its fancy words is that god has stepped in millions of times or more to pinch a new species off the family tree and you would like that taught in school.
Please cite in my messages where I have asserted this position? This is your boogey man that you fear will destroy the scientifc foundation of our country. The only thing that will destroy the scientific foundation of our country is for students to be "protected" and discouraged from questioning the evidence itself. Present the facts and let the theories be considered on their own merits.
Even funnier, you think I'm just not being nice, not "listening" to you. You must be really hurt, and I feel for you.
Don't patronize me. You only demean yourself.
You would like for teachers to say that there must be a god and you dress your argument in scientific terms that definitely don't mean what you say they do.
Proof, please?
Also, I don't believe in a god who's a jerk. If god created life on earth by fiat, but made it look exactly as if all life were descended from 3 billion year old microbes, that would make god as big a jerk as if the universe were only 6,000 years old but had been purposefully made to look much older. That would mean that god, while intelligent, was somewhat of an evil-minded liar who'd left us with no option for determining the truth besides guessing. It's only my religious and philosophical opinion, but that just sounds like an enormous load of theological bull. What kind of god would give us brains and then ask us to deny the evidence gathered thereby?
Hence your extreme zealotry against anything against evoltion. You have a problem with the concept of god, not my arguemnts against philosphical biases in the scientific community. You want to argue against god? Go ahead, but don't confuse it with a discussion on what constitutes science and what it proven or not proven with redards to the origins of life.
This website provides a good breakdown of the evidence for macroevolution in much more detail, along with a description of hypotheses and theories in a scientific sense and why evolution is a fact and a theory
I have done extensive reading in talkorigins. It is a cheering section for all things neo-darwinian. I have used it extensively to build cases for one side of the debate when teaching the question of where science is today on questions of the origins of life. I don't accept with starry-eyed reverence anything I get from the internet, from the NYTimes, from Fox news, CNN, any text book, or even the preacher at my local congregation. There are always different points of view to be considered. Do you consider them fairly or do you run around with your fingers in your ears saying "nanannanana I can't hear you nananananana."?
You can have the last word, I am finished with this conversation.
Posted by: Eyago on August 27, 2005 11:45 AMIf you don't believe in macroevolution and common descent, that one species can eventually turn into another, there's no way other than special creation that the millions of species existing now and in the past came about. Horses can't spring fully formed from the plains of Asia by themselves, so if they didn't evolve from an Eohippus that evolved from some earlier animal, where did they come from? Either they once had parents who weren't horses, or like the figurative Adam and Eve they came directly into being in their present form, which isn't physically possible without some sort of magical hand-waving of your own. You can pretend that isn't what you're saying, but it is what you're saying. It's a lie to represent it as something besides a theological argument, so maybe try honesty next time.
Second, I don't have a problem with god. God is fine by me and if I'm lucky and not too much of a schmuck, hopefully god won't have much of a problem with me either. What I have a problem with is people proposing bs arguments that make god sound like some kind of jerk that likes to play head games with its poor, feeble-minded creations. That's just petty, and somehow I don't think the universe is run by Loki.
But hey, why run off so fast? I'm sure the Discovery Institute's perfectly happy for you to spend as much time arguing your silly talking points in front of an audience as you can.
pudge - "And yes, the lack of this God who takes an active role in our existence is taught. Sometimes explicitly, but far more often implicitly. The notion that we all came to exist because of mere chance, because of essentially undirected random mutations, is something that is quite commonly taught."
Well, as I said before, the only time I've heard god discussed in biology is when students bring it up because they don't believe in evolution. The only way, to me, that this position makes sense is if you make the same argument about the way astronomy and astrophysics are taught. It's all the same science.
To say that evolution isn't the way life naturally comes about, you may as well argue that god had to have specifically picked and placed this planet in this system in a particular way. As scientists look out into the galaxy, most of the planets they've found so far are gas giants in tight, fast orbits around their stars. Because gas giants form so far out, this means that their orbits have decayed and that if there were other planets in the system, they would have long ago been destroyed. Our type of system doesn't seem very common, so your argument should extend to those astronomers who teach that this planet just happened.
Have you ever considered the possibility that god did the equivalent of setting up the rules and getting the ball rolling way back, knowing that as the universe grew it would produce life where conditions were suitable for it? You're suggesting to me that my concepts of how god would behave are limiting, but you're kind of ruling out the possibility that letting gas and dust coalesce into suns and planets followed by life coming into being wherever it could was just the divine plan. I don't see anything in that preventing spiritual involvement, but the physical mechanisms for what we see around us are becoming better known all the time and to date they're very consistent and don't show evidence of micromanagement.
As far as my being a bad theologian, well, it certainly isn't my major. However, what I expressed above is the view of my faith. I did notice you'd already said that you don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth and I wasn't referring to you when I said that, though I consider that belief as being on equal footing with a disregard for macroevolution, which I was discussing at the time.
Posted by: natasha on August 27, 2005 06:39 PMScience and religion shouldn't mix? Take it up with God - He created science.
Posted by: Jericho on August 27, 2005 07:29 PMWell, as I said before, the only time I've heard god discussed in biology is when students bring it up because they don't believe in evolution.
And for the umpteenth time, the exclusion of God by many is *implicit*. That means -- I don't mean to be condescending here, but maybe you really don't understand? -- that God doesn't actually have to be mentioned. Merely by asserting the philosophical belief that mutations are undetermined, you are saying something about a great many other religious beliefs.
The only way, to me, that this position makes sense is if you make the same argument about the way astronomy and astrophysics are taught. It's all the same science.
We already went over this. And yes, if a teacher of such a class were implying that common religious beliefs were false by saying something like, "nothing existed before the Big Bang," then you can be sure I would complain.
To say that evolution isn't the way life naturally comes about ...
I never did. I never even said anything close to that. I really think you're not paying attention here.
What I did say is that I am not convinced that Darwinism is true. But that's because I make it a point to remain unconvinced when the evidence before me does not entirely convince me. I know that seems like a tautology -- and to me, it is -- but for many people, it seems not to be.
Have you ever considered the possibility that god did the equivalent of setting up the rules and getting the ball rolling way back, knowing that as the universe grew it would produce life where conditions were suitable for it?
Um ... I stated that as a possibility. More than once. Directly. To you.
you're kind of ruling out the possibility that letting gas and dust coalesce into suns and planets followed by life coming into being wherever it could was just the divine plan
As I stated this was a possibility, I don't see why you would think I was ruling it out, unless -- as stated just above -- you're simply not paying attention.
As far as my being a bad theologian, well, it certainly isn't my major.
It was my minor. I briefly considered a Master's degree in it. Not that I think it grants me any special insight.
However, what I expressed above is the view of my faith.
That doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't criticize it. It's inherently flawed.
Of course, I don't expect you to disbelieve it just because I say so, just like no one should expect anyone to believe in Darwinism just because someone says to.
I did notice you'd already said that you don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth and I wasn't referring to you when I said that
That's beside the point. Just because I don't believe in a young Earth doesn't mean I can't point out when you make a poor point when arguing against it. There are many good reasons to argue against a young Earth, but "God wouldn't do that" is simply not among them. That's on par with "God wouldn't let bad things happen to good people," and other such imputing nonsense.