With the news today that President Bush supports teaching Intelligent Design along side Evolution, the origin of life wars will be stoked even hotter.
One of the more recent things I have heard was that scientists were “close” to creating a living organism from basic chemicals in a laboratory. This, we are told, would be proof that God (or any super-intelligence) is not needed for life to begin. One question – did they tell the scientist working on experiment that “intelligence” was not needed?
I tend to doubt that actual life will ever be created in a lab, but it strikes me as extremely ironic that an experiment where an intelligent being establishes conditions that are favorable for life, introduces chemicals that are neccessary for life and prods them in the direction of life is somehow proof of evolution. Would that not be proof of, dare I say it, intelligent design?
If it takes scores of highly intelligent scientists years of experimentation, working to figure out the “just-right” combination of conditions and chemicals to get even the first building blocks of life, does it not make sense that it took intelligence to create an environment here on Earth that is capable of sustaining life?
The anthropic principle (more here and here) shows how finely tuned our world is to sustain life. If anyone of those countless constants were shifted only slightly, then life would be impossible. It just seems like Someone worked it out just so.
But you won’t hear those ideas being investigated or discussed today. You will hear liberal after liberal bemoan the ignorance of our President because he dare challenge the Darwinism.
The worst part of this debate is the lack of knowledge that exists on both sides, but is more prevelant on the evolutionary side. Anyone who goes through high school science must learn the basic idea, thought process and evidence for evolution. Therefore most scientists that support Intelligent Design do so with an understanding of evolution, many (if not all) started their scientific careers as evolutionists. (I will grant that many arguing for Intelligent Design are ignorant and misrepresent evolution, but most of those are not scientist but rather preachers who talk beyond their knowledge of a subject.)
This New Jersey editorial displays the outrageous ignorance of many evolution advocates about the science behind Intelligent Design.
There are so many mistakes and misunderstanding (maybe even downright lies) that this whole thing deserves to be fisked, but I will challenge the most egerious points.
The writer’s main disagreement with the science of Intelligent Design, seems to be “bad things are in this world, so there cannot be a God.” That is a deep philosophical question that deserves to be answered, but it has nothing to do with science at all.
ID’ers are often dismissed as “trying to bring religion” into the lab or classroom. Their ideas are ignored because they have “religious motivations.” Does that matter scientifically? Even if every ID’er was a Southern Baptist preacher (which they are not, many are Muslim, Jewish or even agnostic) would that still disprove the ideas they present?
Let me change the subject for a moment. Does the fact that the most vocal supporters of gay marriage happen to be gay make their cause automatically wrong? No, the personal practices, be they religious or sexual, of one presenting an idea are inconsequential to the truthfulness or rightness of the claim.
The writer, Jonathan Gerald, seems to be arguing against his own strawman stereotyped version of Intelligent Design. He, along with the reporter in the Bush story, frame the debate as one between science and religion. This ignores the scientific credentials of those on the side of ID. Here is a list of hundreds of scientists, with a doctorate in a hard science field, who believe in Biblical Creation. This does not even include the countless number who do not believe in a young earth, but believe in a Creator.
Gerald goes on to say: “Scientists claim the problem with intelligent design is that it is not subject to testing; it cannot be proved or disproved and thus is must remain in the realm of religion.” That is not merely a problem with Intelligent Design it is a problem with every Origin of Life theory or suggestion. By this standard, Darwinian evolution must also be unscientific because it has never been repeated in a lab or been subjected to the scientific method.
He goes on to confuse Intelligent Design with optimal design and beneficial design.
Here is the real reason why [evolution must be true]: If the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution are, in fact, an accurate model for the development of life on Earth, then it is reasonable to expect that some life forms and structures would come out looking like they were intelligently designed while others would not.
But if Darwin was wrong and the development of life is, in fact, directed by a, well, Director of Life, then everything would have to be designed intelligently. And very clearly it is not.
When a car company comes out with a new model and it will only go 100 MPH, do we say that the car is not intelligently designed? No, the car was not designed optimally as far as speed is concerned, but it may be a safer car or a more fuel efficent car. Trade-offs are required. If you add more safety features to a car, it may cause the car to go slower, have a longer accleration time or be more expensive. Simply because something is not designed optimally for one category does not mean that it is not designed intelligently.
Merely saying something is not beneficial to you or others you know does not make something less likely to be intelligently designed either. My brother-in-law has a terrible reaction to shrimp and other shell-fish. If someone cooked a delicious and beautiful plate of shrimp scampi, does the fact that it will cause him to swell remove the possiblility of design behind the meal? Of course not, neither does the existence of unbeneficial things in our world remove the possibility of an Intelligent Designer.
Gerald list mildew, mosquitoes, lower back problems, cancer and childhood leukemia as evidence that there is no Intelligent Designer. Did I miss it when Intelligent Design scientist claimed that a Creator caused world would be perfect today? Actually, it is the evolutionist that is claiming that the world should be getting better and better as we evolve. The current shape of the world fits with the Biblical model of creation and the fall.
The philosophical “problem of pain” is one that can and should be investigated and discussed, but a philosophical question does not prove or disprove the truthfulness of anything.
UPDATE: Can I say great minds think alike? In today’s Evangelical Outpost, Joe wrote about teleological arguments, specifically the anthropic principle. He goes on to list 26 of the parameters that must be present in the universe for life to exist.
Good points, Aaron. Dembski addressed evolutionists' lack of understanding ID a while ago, attributing it to something like arrogance. To the casual observer, ID still may appear as a little gnat, just a vocal but uneducated minority, that can be carelessly swatted. That is changing, though, as more scientists and philosophers (like Anthony Flew) come over to ID. What appears now to be a gnat is growing into something quite different. It's just a matter of time before they'll have to take questions like these seriously.
My problem with ID (or, more accurately, "creationism") is that, while it contends that it is merely a different scientific theory, it always is associated with religion. While "creationism" has been shown to be nothing but Genesis dressed up, ID can masquerade as science, supposedly shedding the religious framework and agenda, and thus be more acceptable in the schools. However, as our dear president has shown, it is always promoted by the religious and is part of their agenda of christianizing education and our society at large. The vast majority of legitimate scientists reject it, and it has little basis in real scientific pursuit.
Actually, the fact that you confuse ID with creationism shows that you do not understand ID (willfully or by accident), and confuse the claims of ID with its compatability with other worldviews, which includes creationism.
And while creationists like it because it jives with their view, it is not synonymous, nor even religious, any more than SETI is.
It merely states that, statistically, nature shows evidence of design, and that random chance mutations and other claims of evolution do not stack up to what we observe.
In fact, some of IDs main proponents, like Behe, are agnostics. ID has no religious bent, only a bent against the insane evolutionary orthodoxy that squelches any heretical questioning of its authority.
What sucks is that if anyone wants to question evolution, they are labeled a heretic, and trying to put religion in schools. But, like the Democratic party, this extreme, narrow view will ultimately lose in the battle of public opinion, and in the search for truth.
The meteoric popularity of ID is not evidence primarily of an ignorant and superstitious populace, but rather, it rings truer than the fantastic, religion-like claims of evolutions priests like Dawkins.
Your use of religious terminology (ie, "heresy," "orthodoxy," "religion-like") only proves that you view this as a religious argument. ID is religion, dressed up as science. The fact (or, more likely, ex cathedra contention) that the populace (ie, religious fanatics) wants to force it on the rest of us merely proves my case:
ID substitutes for the more difficult to accept Theory of Evolution which underlies all modern science. This isn't a "battle for public opinion" at all; this is science, which takes no account of politics nor popularity. Who cares what the public thinks? They'll believe any bullsh*t which tickles their prejudices. This is SCIENCE, and must bow to its dictates.
Please, prove to me that your god exists and that he's behind everything around me. I want PROOF, not just more assertions and bible-based dogmas! PROOF.
Actually, you make a few claims I have issue with:
1. "ID is religion" – actually, I claim that much of evolutionary theory is believed in just like a religion, and its practitioners believe in spite of contrary evidence and lack of evidence. They keep telling themselves and everyone else that there is incontrovertable evidence, but they hardly produce it.
2. "Evolutionary theory underpins all of science" – as I stated, much of science depends not at all on evolution, and most research done today is not based on evolution at all. I wish I had time to find some references on this, but I don't right now.
3. "The Battle for public opinion" – I am not saying that public opinion determines scientific truth, but rather, public opinion is growing for ID because they recognize it as closer to the truth than evolution – it is scientific truth, science hasn't proved it yet, there are at present only inferences.
4. "Prove that God is." There are many possible responses to this:
a. When those with disbelief said to Jesus "prove to us you are the messiah" he often responded "an evil generation demands proof – they hear the truth, but aren't willing to believe it – in fact, they usually kill the prophets sent to them." And while he did miracles, he taught that many could see miracles and not believe – in the parable of the dead man and Lazarus he taught this – the rich man begged to be able to warn his friends still alive about hell and torment, and was told that even if he came back from the dead, they would not believe – Abraham, who represents God in this parable, tells him "they have Moses and the Prophets."
b. If you are looking for inctrovertable evidence that God exists, with a repeatable exeriment, you probably won't get it. If that is what you require, you are mistaken.
c. Paul says that God's reality is seen, understood and known by anyone who looks at creation. Such things do not happen by accident. And the bad in creation? Due to the fall of man, who introduced death.
d. Augustine said that before faith comes, reason leads our life. We should use reason, however, to find sources of truth that we trust. Then, we do not need to be limited to what we can test or understand before we practice it. We can benefit from the wisdom of those who have gone before us, not having to reinvent the wheel. But once we find, through reason, a source we can trust, we can then exercise faith, and let reason trail behind, catching up when it can.
Is this risky? Yep. We can misunderstand, or find a source that is not totally trustworthy. However, it allows us to live much more truth than if we live the timid life of only doing what we understand.
e. Seek the truth and you will find it. Will you find it only in Xianity? No. I had to leave xianity to find truth in psycholoy and buddhism. However, some things about xianity remain true for me, including its soteriology – that we are saved by faith, not by works. That love is greater than faith and hope, but that all three are part of mature faith.
You (and I) will never have incontovertable truth, but if we are earnest and appeal to "god" for help in finding the truth and being kind to other seekers (even in disagreement), I think that is the best we can do.
Louis,
I understand your frustration with anything that could be associated with Christianity, which you feel a majority of the leaders of it are harming society (or at least preventing or hindering society from reaching a better place. You (wrongly, I think) lump ID in with Christianity.
As I said, many (if not the majority) of ID'ers are Christians, there are many who are of different faiths and some as seeker mentioned who are agnostics. Behe is one of the leaders of the ID scientific movement.
ID is based on research and experimentation as much as evolution is. It does not seek to establish a "god" to worship or obey, it merely evaluates the scientific evidence (anthropic principles, Big Bang theory, DNA, information theory, etc. as well as the evidence against evolution: missing missing links, inability to explain how life first developed, etc.) and makes judgements and hypothesises from that. Their scientific view is that evolution cannot explain where life came from and how it has developed.
As to your demand for proof of God's existence, you know the answer as well as I do. I can't prove by scientific measures that God exists any more than you can disprove by those same measures that God does not exists. Why else is called refered to as "supernatural?" He exists outside of natural explanations. I think there is evidence that God exists through Intelligent Design science and through philosophy, but none of that can prove to anyone that God exists.
You might as well ask me to prove that Julius Caesar existed. Sure there are writings and inscriptions about him, but I've never seen him. I can't do an experiment in a laboratory and show you Caesar. You except his existence because of the evidence that you have seen or heard about. The same basic principle is true with God. You accept his existence based on evidence you have seen or know about.
Or I could ask you to prove that Buddhism is true. Prove that reincarnation is a fact. We could list numerous questions of each other that it is impossible to prove in a scientific matter. ID doesn't even claim to prove the existence of a god. It merely states that the best plausible explanation of the events that we see is that some super intelligence created the universe and life.
Whatever.
btw: You might all be interested in the following:
Friday night I somehow got caught up in a religious discussion at my place of work. Of course, I was the minority of one in facing my fundamentalist co-workers.I soon realized what I should have learned here: rational discussion with christianists is impossible. This is because religion is based on faith and not reason. I came away feeling put-upon and alienated (I am out at work, and was told in no uncertain terms that homosexuality is "sin." I responded by declaring that sin is a tool by the powerful to lead us around by our noses and that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality. This didn't go down well.). Christianists are just so self-righteous and arrogant: you are just right, and that's it. The bible is true and anyone dissenting is just wrong and headed for trouble. There is no respect for alternate beliefs or different life-experiences. You guys just hold all the keys to life and the universe, and maintain a monopoly on everything true and good and beautiful. You just cannot understand the depth of my loathing right now for your religion and your way of thinking: I truly hate it. HATE IT. I sincerely wish I could live in a society without christianists, and, even, without straights. I feel like I'm living in a prison, with nowhere to turn.
Don't look for me to participate here for a while.
**** off. [edited by Aaron]
So, somebody intelligent designed the Earth and everything we know? Who?
Since this isn't a religious argument, I assume that your answer isn't God, particularly a Christian God, right?
As I said, the Intelligent Design discussion is in some respects really a knee-jerk reaction to the implausability of the random-chance argument. It is not about trying to get God and religion into science, but allowing a theistic world view to exist in science, rather than forcing an atheistic world view to be the only environment in which we problem solve in science.
Previously, much science was done by great men with a biblical world view – belief in a creator did not interfere with their science (although the famous example of astronomy and Galileo shows how it can), but rather, enabled them to believe that a systematic approach was reasonable because things were "designed." We were just unraveling the design, or as Johann Kepler said, "thinking God's thoughts after Him."
Seeker,
Again, who was it that so intelligent as to design the world? And if ID is taught, surely its supporters won't mind if the discussion includes a great deal about the varying people who are intelligent enough to have designed our world, right? By which I mean, a discussion of Gods other than yours wouldn't bother you in the slightest, right?
Because, again, this isn't a religious debate, so the obvious thing to do is include all of the explanations.
As many of the leaders of ID mention, who the designer is is another question, left to religion and such – some suggest Aliens. Heck, if you want to say Krishna or a giant turtle, fine.
The point is, we should stop the ridiculing, shunning, firing, and rejecting research proposals or papers from scientists and reasonable people who havn't drunk the intellectual kool-aid of evolution. You can do good science without joining that or any other church.
ID isn't even a full-orbed scientific theory – Creation Scientists might be able to integrate it into their view, but there is much else in their view that goes way beyond and does not depend on the intelligent design arguments. In my view, ID is merely a mathematical and philosphic view that rejects the conclusions of naturalistic, atheistic, chance-driven evolution.
In fact, I betcha that ID is compatible with theistic evolution – since ID doesn't even address the fossil record, it has no reason to think that evolution didn't have a designer's help.
What seeker said is true, many ID'ers are also theistic evolutionists (to the best of my knowledge per their writings) and most believe in billions of years and all that.
I don't think the identity of the "intelligence" should be discussed at all in the science class. That questions is one of purely a philosophical and metaphysical realm.
If you evaluate the ID argument and look at some of the evidence, you can reason out certain things about the "personality" of the intelligence, but again that is philosophy not necessarily scientific. So that should not be in the science class.
But if the teacher felt the need to discuss who the intelligence was, then I think you should look at the philosophical ideas behind who it might be. But I don't feel that is needed.
Most liberal thinkers really see ID as a Creationist wolf in sheep's clothing, and they often paint it as a conscious effort by Creationists to santize their message and get God into the schools.
And while I am sure that many creationists are using that technique, I don't think ID's main proponents are thinking that way – they want science to remain science, but they are refuting and rejecting the strong bias (doctrines?) in science that persecute anyone who disagrees with atheistic or random-mutation macroevolution as a plausible explanation for origins.
Evolution may be an appealing philosophy, but it is not science in the true sense, and to demand allegiance to it is improper, and may be hindering science, just like any other orthodoxy might.
Teacher: "Hi kids, today we're discussing Intelligent Design. Simplistically speaking, Intelligent Design is a theory based on the idea that because the earth is so complex, somebody must have designed it."
Student: "Who?"
Teacher: "We're not going to discuss that, because according to Seeker and Aaron, Intelligent Design can be taught without discussing the who."
Student: "Umm, who are Seeker and Aaron? And cmon, seriously, who designed it?"
Teacher: "Again, this theory can be taught without any explanation whatsoever of who the who is."
Student: "Whatever."
(Also, this is absurd. Why I even get into this with you guys is beyond me. You look at a mountain of evidence that supports the one side, while you give me nothing more than a theory on the other. Fossils for evolution…nothing for ID. Nothing. At. All. All ID can be construed to be is a cover for people who want the Student above to ask who and the Teacher to then say, "Why our Christian Lord of course? Hey Buddhists, Muslims and the non-religious…your gods or nongods are lame." Ugh.)
Science behind intelligent design? What science?
There is no laboratory, anywhere on Earth, working on intelligent design right now. There is no graduate seminar available in any biology department of any university to discuss the stuff, because there is no stuff to discuss. There is, in fact, ten times as many papers in science journals supporting cold fusion as there are supporting intelligent design in biology — and neither of the two papers in biology journals proposes any theory of intelligent design, nor offers a whit of research data to support the idea.
Intelligent design so far has failed in the marketplace of science ideas. It does not deserve a free pass to go to the head of the line in high school instruction without having had some serious research done on it, with real results supporting it, and several dozen research projects suggesting either real uses for the data or new questions tasty enough to research further.
ID right now has none of that. It's not science.
So, since there is no science, what is the motivation of those who argue it should be taught? If it's not religion, what is it? If it's not religion, why are the meetings supporting ID all held in churches? Why do the fund raising documents for ID groups say that the purpose of the political fight is to bring God into the curriculum?
If there's a shred of science in intelligent design, where is it being hidden from the rest of the world, and why?
When you close your eyes, it's hard to see the evidence.
Nobody's denying you your God Aaron. We're simply pointing out that it is possible for both God and science to co-exist peacefully with one another. Your position – as presented in that last post – is that we're ignorant by choice. Obviously, we wouldn't be ignorant if we believed the Earth was 6000 years old, and that God created it, but we are.
That's the point – I'm not trying to take anything away from you. There's no insult involved. You, on the other hand, are accusing me of being willfully ignorant, even after I've laid down what I expect from you to prove your point. Give me some evidence of ID, and I'll take a look. But you can't because there isn't any. It's just an explanation.
Sam, you want evidence for ID, okay, just off the top of my head (and it is not a very intelligent or extremely well informed head, many could do it much better).
Origin of chemicals – No one has yet to explain how chemicals came into being besides saying that basic chemicals evolved into more complex ones. Well how? With many of these issues, both evolutionists and IDers are arguing from “ignorance” in that we can’t go back and see it happen, we can only look at what we know today from experience and experiments and reason from that.
Origin of information – Even if evolutionists can explain how the first cell was formed, which they have yet to be able to propose a legitimate theory that takes into account all variables and all the things we now know, they still cannot explain how information has been added to DNA and RNA and cells, etc. Any time we see information we assume intelligence had something to do with it. You don’t assume that monkey’s randomly type out my posts and comments (at least I hope you don’t). You see the information and you assume that someone of reasonable intelligence is typing the information on the other side. Yet when evolutionists see the information in nature, random chance did it. Huh? Since when could random chance give you more information than is in the Encyclopeida Brittanica?
Fossils – Cambrian explosion is one of the worst things for evolutionists. If it takes millions and millions or even billions of years for these changes to take place, then how is the explosion of new life explained? Many new hypothesese have been throw out, but none can be verified scientifically. No one has ever seen evolution occur that quickly (not to mention at all, when you take out variation within the same type of animal).
Big Bang – We are now basically sure that the universe had a beginning at the Big Band. Well what caused it? What is the first cause? Numerous things have been throw out to try to avoid what is obvious to anyone besides someone that wants to deny the philosophical conclusions of a beginning – it must have a ‘beginner,” an intelligence to kick start everything. Many of the ideas floating around to explain away a definite beginning simply push the beginning back farther and say, ‘See no need for intelligence.” Like one theory is that there is a giant “universe factory” (to put it simply) and it produces universes left and right. Well where did the factory come from and who programmed it to produce universes (and produce them differently)?
Anthropic Prinicple – All of the varying things that make life possible on earth. The odds of all the things coming together just right for life to happen here far exceed the number of planets and the number of years that give rise to the possibility that we just got “lucky” being here. All the conditions on earth are just right (from the earth’s core, the magnetic field, the atmosphere, the balance of chemicals, etc.) just right in our solar system (just the right distance from the sun, just the right oribt, just the right distance from our moon, we have huge planets on outer orbits which protect us from asteroids and such, etc.), just the right position in our galaxy (too far out on the “arms” would cause problems or too far in toward the center would cause problems). Everything just happens to be perfect for life here. Say we built a “biodome” type structure on Mars with dials correlating to the specific things that have to be present for life and just left the dials at random places. If we went back after any length of time (10 years, 10 million years) and we found that the hundreds (in actuallity there are millions, if not more, but we will leave it at hundreds for this example) of dials were turned to just the right position for life to come about, we would trumpet this as proof of intelligent life (besides us) in the universe. But if we find our own universe, galaxy, solar system, planet, designed just perfect for life, we assume random, blind chance did it.
These are just a few of the “evidence” for ID. This does not venture into the irreducibly complex organisms, which could not have evolved because the structure would cease to work if anything about it changed. There are tons of research into ID. Most people don’t know about it or ignore it, but lots and lots of scientific research is taking place in the field.
If you honestly want to evaluate the case for ID, you need to read some of the books like Darwins’ Black Box by Michael Behe or Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, even Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel (he goes and talks to ID experts and asks tough questions and chronicles his own journey from a evolutionist to a Christian).
And here are some blogs that are done by IDers (including the last one, that would be shocked to know that he was pushing for schools to teach the Christian God, since he is Muslim and several of the others involved in the blogs below are agnostic or something else. Many are Christians but not all):
ID the future
Design Inference
Evolution News
The White Path
For a list of peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting ID:
go here
For a refutation of the claim that ID cannot be science because it cannot be refuted scientifically:
short
longer
As to your science classroom illustration – there are numerous times when studnets ask questions about material and the teacher can tell them that is not for this class period or whatever else they like. It is ridiculous to assume that the student can or would force the teacher to explain to him the in’s and out’s of the philosophical implications of the ID theory and the identity of the Designer. (In fact, one of the largest and best ID research institues: the Discover Institute’s official policy is that they do not want ID taught in schools, they merely want the students to know about the debate and have the best, actual evidence for evolution placed in the textbooks, not long since disproved and outdated evidence.)
I know this a lengthy comment, with a lot of information, but this is for you, Ed and everyone else here that seems to think there is no science with ID. If you honestly want to make those charges, then do the research and know what you are arguing against. My poor attempts to explain it should not be used to judge the credibility of the theory.
Sam, you said if I showed you the evidence you would take a look. Well, here it is.
Briefly –
You're confusing a great deal of science with Darwin's evolution. He simply proposed that animals evolve to survive. You're talking about the origin of the universe itself, which I neither feel like debating nor care about. I do think that animals evolve over time.
Sam
Sam,
I don't think anyone argues that animals evolve over time. Even literal 6 day creationists agree that animals have evolved and that all dogs, wolfs, coyotes, etc. had a common ancestor.
I knew you had said repeatedly that you did not care for orgin debates, which is why I was so confused by your stance on ID (since it is mainly an origin hypothesis).
If all Darwin teaches was that animals evolve to surive, then we would not be having a big discussion about all these things, since everyone (that I know of) believes that.
I am not sure of how much Darwin himself got into the origin of life, I do know that he raised the possiblility of the "chemical soup" origin. But this is very much where a lot of the questions and conflicts come about in the current debate.
The leading evolutionists constantly stress that evolution is much more than simply animals evolving. They claim that it along with natural selection is how everything came into being. They seek a naturalistic explanation for everything – hence the conflict.
The last two posts illustrate the confusion over evolution and ID, and why we fail to communicate, or even agree on points we actually might agree on:
1. ID is not Creationism – attacks of "ID is not science" are fallacious because ID is *math* and philosphy of science, not science, IMHO. I don't think you could design experiments based on ID, but rather, you could use it as a data point, or supporting your assumption that things were created fully formed, rather than having evolved by chance. That is, it could support creationism, but it is not the same. Here's a creationist assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of ID.
2. Creation Science *does* purport to be a scientific model which you could base experiments on. – There are many scientists who are doing science based on creationist assumptions. However, they have trouble getting funding and publication in the current scientific culture due to its overwhelming bias towards evolution. And when they do get published, they are often vilified (or fired) for questioning orthodoxy.
3. Natural Selection, Speciation, and Adaptation are NOT MacroEvolution – Sam, in your last comment, you say that Darwin said that "animals evolve to survive." That statement is a bit vague. Surely, we all agree that natural selection, speciation, and adaptation occur. Heck, even once in a while, a mutation *might* give preferential survivability (this is none of the three things I just mentioned), but it is almost never (ever?) passed on to progeny as macroevolution proposes. And even if such a rarity were to occur, this in no way is even close to conslusive that such changes would lead to higher animals. The best you can say is you would get a different kind of the same animal – a different insect, or whatever.
All of what I said above is consistent with creationism.
4. Evolution is not really the basis of most successful science. Most of what we know as scientific fact these days is not really based on evolutionary origins of life, but on systems theory. That is, each thing we investigate can be understood and investigated as a system – a designed system. I realize that is a bit circular, but my point is, evolutionary theory doesn't even enter into it. Why do we do research on monkeys? It is merely because we see them as *similar* to us. Does that mean we are related? That is immaterial! Similarity is enough for us to do our research. That is no small point, but lost on most people.
In fact, evolutionary assumptions may be hindering science .
5. Creationisms main beef w/ macroevolution is that it is not provable, and belongs more as a philosphy of science than as a science. And since, as a philosophy, it has world view and religious implications, it should not be labeled as science, nor accepted uncritically. In fact, the evidence arrayed against it is significant. And ID is just one of the data points that supports a Creationist world view.
Modern creationists (as opposed to backwards religious cranks) understand the difference between science and philosophy of science, and they have a well developed theology of the relationship between faith and all other disciplines, including science. Most secularists and atheists have no understanding of the relationship between the material and immaterial truths – for them, if it is not material, it can not be understood as a truth, but must be relegated to the realm of the superstition. :p
You guys are right – I'm interested in the beginning of the universe because it doesn't matter.
I am concerned about the proposal to teach ID, because no matter what you guys tell me, it's creationism dressed in sheep's clothing. The explanation implies that a God sat around and then created our universe, and that God is never different from the Christian one. If ID was at least honest enough to present the varying Gods, maybe I could grudgingly acknowledge that maybe it ought to be at least mentioned in school. But none of you guys want your kids learning about Allah, or the elephant, or anything that isn't your own Gods.
That's the hypocrisy of it – you have no interest in presenting anything but your own God in the guise of science.
Sam, I disagree with you, mostly. The facts in my view are:
(a) evolution has serious world view, origins, and religious implications that neccesitate it being addressed in schools and all institutions interested in teaching truth
(b) it has serious scientific challenges to it, which include the statistic impossibility of it (into which ID falls), and the contradictory evidence from all branches of science (paleontology, physics, chemistry, genetics, developmental biology)
If we fail to mention these things, we are being intellectually dishnosest, misleading, and perhaps downright wrong by teaching evolution as fact the way we do.
The simple fact that many scientists like DNA-structure co-discoverer Francis Crick believed that evolution in our accepted timeframe was more than impossible led them to invent such theories as Panspermia shows you that evolution was not convincing – ID is just putting more structure and argumentation around the statistical argument.
And there is nothing wrong with science indicating that there may indeed be a creator God. It can't prove it, but evolution seems to be disproving it, which of course, it does not.
ID is not another theory of origins, alongside evolution (though creationism might be), it is just one of the challenges to evolution which is credible.
As long as we stop preaching evolution as fact to the masses, a lot of us will be happier, and better scientists for it.
But actually Sam, you bring up a good point. Theories of origins are philosophy of science. But these all have practical applications.
I think you could do a lot of science based on either evolutionary or creationist assumptions and learn a lot. Or, you could just assume that nature is orderly and in systems, and research based on that assumption and not worry about origins, or teach it at all.
As I said, evolution itself is not really germaine to science. And facts like adaptation, natural selection, and speciation are all interesting and should be taught in a way that leaves the student to decide on how these things came about. But macroevolution? Fairy stories.
Seeker,
As usual, we disagree. But considering that this country is going in your direction – Christianist, afraid of anything that disagrees the teachings of a book in which incest plays a fundamental role – what point is this serving?
Unfortunately, my daughter will likely attend a public school where children are taught that a Christian God created the world by magic, and that the world is 6,000 years old. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't matter. I'm not in the majority after all, and obviously, the majority opinion should dominate truth. Just like it did when the world was flat. Or when disagreeing with the Catholic Church lead to death.
Of course, I'd rather that Christian parents teach whatever they want, and that prevailing scientific explanations are taught in schools. I'd rather that my daughter learn what a majority of scientists consider truth, rather than what the majority wants to believe is truth. I'm angry now, pissed off and frustrated by your position. Writing any more tonight, at least, threatens our remotely respectful position with one another.
those are mischaracterizations, of course. No use arguing w/ the sarcastic.
you could always home school your kids if your version of truth is more worthy ;)
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise … — Douglas Adams
The fact that I disagree with you doesn't matter. I'm not in the majority after all, and obviously, the majority opinion should dominate truth.
Lucky for you creationist proponents are not like evolutionists – they don't want a lock on what it taught, they only want to open up the truth that evolution is not fact, and that there is considerable doubt and alternate scientific views. I wouldn't worry too much about your daughter in public school, she'll probably be taught the myth of evolution as fact, and be taught never to question it – or be considered an ignorant religionist.