Posted on 08/03/2006 12:22:06 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part I)
----------------------------------------------
Eighty years after the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, the public still refuses to accept the idea that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for complex biological phenomena. In fact, opinion polls show that fewer people are willing to accept the idea that human beings developed from earlier species than they were just ten years ago.
In Britain—a country that is not exactly known for fundamentalist Christianity—fewer than half accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life. (And more than 40% of those polled believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.) Even doctors, who are more informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone.
Why do so many people have such difficulty accepting the theory? Is it due to a resurgence of religious-based creationism? Or is it that the Discovery Institute and other advocates of Intelligent Design are more persuasive? I believe the credit belongs not to the advocates of ID but to the theory’s critics.
Had the critics remained silent, ID might possibly have moldered in obscurity. But instead they launched a counter-offensive, forcing people into choosing sides. The problem is that the more the public learns about modern evolutionary theory, the more skeptical they become.
I won’t argue that critics of ID are always wrong or that ID is always—or even mostly—right in its claims. But I do think a compelling case can be made that the anti-IDers are losing the rhetorical battle. Here is the first five in a list of ten reasons ways in which they are helping to promote the theory of intelligent design:
#1 By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory. – Whether due to intellectual snobbery or intellectual laziness, too many critics of ID never bother to understand what the term means, much less learn the general tenets of the theory. Instead, they knock down a strawman version of ID that they have gleaned from other, equally ill-informed, critics. The belligerent or paranoid advocates of ID will assume that the misrepresentation is due to dishonesty or a conspiracy by “Darwinists.” But even those who are more charitable will agree that when a critic misrepresents the theory, it undermines their own credibility.
#2 By claiming that ID is stealth creationism. -- Resorting to this red herring is one of the most common arguments made against ID. While it’s true that ID could be used to promote a particular religious agenda, this is not a sufficient argument against it being a legitimate scientific research program. There is no a priori reason why a research program could not be completely in adherence to accepted scientific methods and yet be completely compatible with a particular religious viewpoint.
But it also refuses to acknowledge the vast majority of people throughout history have believed in at least a basic form of creationism. Most people believe that some form of intelligent being (i.e., God) created the universe and everything in it. For most of these people, “creationism” is not a derogatory term. The phrase “stealth creationism” might appeal to the pseudo-intellectuals (those who know almost nothing about science but do know that they despise “fundamentalist Christians”) yet for most ordinary people it sounds like bigoted nonsense.
#3 By resorting to “science of the gaps” arguments. – Critics of ID often claim that the theory relies on a “God of the Gaps” “argument. (Don’t understand how something occurred? Well…God did it. Case closed.) As scientific reasoning, this method is obviously flawed. Yet the critics of ID often resort to the same tactic, only instead of saying “God did it” they claim “Science will find it.”
The problem is that this almost never happens. Closing a "science gap" almost always leads to the discovery of other, even more difficult to explain gaps in knowledge. For example, when evolution was first proposed by Darwin, there was no explanation for the mechanism of transmission of traits from one generation to the next. With the discovery of DNA, Watson and Crick closed that particular “gap.”
But as physicist David Snoke notes, no one today has an adequate explanation for how this highly complicated molecule arose out of nowhere. Also, we do not have an adequate explanation within chemical evolutionary theory for the appearance of the mechanism that gives us a readout of the information, or for the appearance of methods that replicate information with out error, or for the appearance of the delicate balance of repair and maintenance of the molecular systems that use the information stored in DNA.
Scientific discoveries tend to find that nature is even more complex than we imagined which makes it even more unlikely that a process like natural selection is a sufficient explanation.
#4 By claiming that ID isn’t science since it's not published peer-reviewed literature...and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals. – The hypocrisy of snubbing ID because it lacks peer-review was exposed by the treatment of Richard Sternberg, a journal editor who made the career-killing mistake of actually publishing an article that was sympathetic to ID.
The resulting controversy exposed just how close-minded some scientists were to criticisms of neo-Darwinism. As Sternberg—who is not an advocate of ID--said after the incident, “It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."
#5 By making claims that natural selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features. -- Instead of saying that “God created X”, Darwinists tend to claim that “Sex selection created X.” Take, for instance, this statement made by zoologist Richard Dawkins:
"Why did humans lose their body hair? Why did they start walking on their hind legs? Why did they develop big brains? I think that the answer to all three questions is sexual selection," Dawkins said. Hairlessness advertises your health to potential mates, he explained. The less hair you have on your body, the less real estate you make available to lice and other ectoparasites. Of course, it was worth keeping the hair on our heads to protect against sunstroke, which can be very dangerous in Africa, where we evolved. As for the hair in our armpits and pubic regions, that was probably retained because it helps disseminate "pheromones," airborne scent signals that still play a bigger role in our sex lives than most of us realize.
Why did we lose our body hair? Sex selection. Why do we retain some body hair? Yep, sex selection. Why do humans walk on two legs? Again, the same answer, sex selection. Why do dogs walk on all four? You guessed it, sex selection.
The same goes for human behavior. Hardly a week goes by that some newspaper or magazine article does not include a story claiming how “evolution” is the reason humans do X, avoid Y, or prefer Z.
Even scientists grow weary of hearing such faith claims presented as if was “science.” As Philip S. Skell, emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, notes in a recent edition of The Scientist:
…Darwinian explanations for [human behavior] are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self- centered and aggressive - except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed - except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.
Even those who flunked high school biology can see that when a theory can be used to prove any behavior that it ceases to be science and enters the realm of faith. Yet when evolutionists make such claims they are often flummoxed by the public’s skeptical reaction. They can’t understand how we could be so stupid as to not accept their claims. And we wonder how they could be so stupid as to think we are really that gullible.
To be continued in Part II
The Belgian astronomer Georges LeMaitre was also a Catholic Priest. I can only imagine that Judge Jones would have "ruled" that LeMaitre's observations were motivated by creationist leanings and forbid his work from public schools.
That's not a factual statement, it's a statement of faith. Not that I mind since I see faith as a plus mind you.
None, nada, zippo!
So is your degree in evolutionary science? Are you qualified by education in that field to speak on it? You never answered that question. I don't really care what field it's in if you're not inclined to reveal it because that's personal info but a yes of no wouldn't be revealing too much.
Not at all.
On the internet, you are what you post. If you post some nonsense, all your posts will be suspect.
If you post solid data and well-reasoned theory, and do this consistently, your posts will generally be well-received. Similarly, if you post challenges with no support, your posts often will not be well received.
I have found freedumb2003's posts to be pretty accurate.
Oh, my credentials? Ph.D. in Anthropology, half in physical anthropology (evolution, human races, human osteology, etc.) and half in archaeology.
Not that this will make any difference on these threads, because the anti-evolution folks generally do not respect hard-earned knowledge. On these threads I have found that the anti-evolution folks frequently know little science, and what little they do know is often wrong. They disagree with some of the findings of science, and are out to discredit the entire scientific method as a result. In short, they generally don't trust science as a legitimate field of knowledge.
But that doesn't stop them from having strong opinions on everything from the big bang to biology, paleontology, geology, genetics, and the rest of the sciences.
And when I am wrong, I try to listen and learn.
Thanks for the support.
So what evidence is there that the universe did indeed create itself? What is the basis for your statement? You know, something scientific, testable, falsifiable, repeatable, observable. There must be some reason that you make that statement.
Define 'universe'.
And what do you think you guys should do to blue collar guys like me who have the audacity to engage the truly gifted?
Hanging or the stocks?
I know your credentials; you've made no secret of them.
Turns out she wasn't. It was Dr-somthing-or-other was the name, but in a followup post she admitted to being NOT being a doctor.
I don't expect everyone to be an expert. But I think they should have a basic understanding of the material at hand.
Perhaps my examples were a little over the top and suggested that only super-experts like Coyoteman can participate. In that I admit to some bombast.
But I think it is fair to ask people to come to the table with the basics.
The scientific method has some specific rules.
If a great scientist starts doing creation "science" they are not following the rules of science.
Here is why: science does not have any final answers. Science has a method for discovering new information: data and theory.
Creation "science" already has a final answer--adherence to the scriptures. Creation "science" will distort scientific data and theory, and the scientific method itself, or flat out lie if necessary, in order to make everything come out supporting the scriptures. That is not science.
Don't believe me? Check out the various creationist websites. See what kind of science they are doing. See what they have to do to support the "global flood." See what they have to do to support the "young earth" belief.
Its not pretty. And its not science. Its apologetics.
Give 3 examples ;)
Why don't you? Take your pick. Probably all the natural physical world that can be observed and measured and tested since that's what evos tend to go with, nothing outtside of that that would be considered *supernatural*. So how could it physical matter and the forces that control it have just created itself?
Study and learn. There is no "gifted" -- there is only hard work.
There is a lot of information available out there. You can to seek it out and study it.
But remember, as Heinlein wrote:
Belief gets in the way of learning.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Nice try. It is a question of "knowledge" not "ability."
You have to understand the fundametals of a subject before you can discuss it.
Can you discuss logic if you don't know boolean algebra? Can you discuss chemistry without knowing what acids and bases are?
There is a lot of material available to teach science and TToE (the real one, not the strawman portrayed in these therads). Avail yourself of it.
That is tagline material -- it'll be pn my profile in a few minutes.
LOL, you really have nothing to teach me. But thanks for the offer from the truly gifted. I am humbled.
Why don't you?
Nice try. But I think the burden is on you.
No offer.
I repeat: There is a lot of information available out there. You can to seek it out and study it.
I think that means that some of us are overstating their "knowledge" by about 3 sigmas.
And it ain't me.
Inferiority complex? People are treating you quite kindly. Why are you answering them with such sarcasm?
So can you. But perhaps a better idea would be to step away from the evo threads once in a while and engage your fellow humans face to face. You might not get any useful knowledge but you'll enjoy the company.
What is with you and this "gifted" thing? The question is "do you understand science fundamentals?"
If so, great. If not, then we recommend you learn.
You asked the question. Why get huffy about a straightforward answer?
Just for the record: Are you a Creationist?
Much of Genesis does not have any conflict with what science has *discovered* about the universe.
There's the *beginning* part which science tried for a long time to deny until Einstein and Hubble proved otherwise.
The earth being formless and void (solar nebula theory) and honestly I can't think of a more succinct way of describing the earth at that stage in fewer words.
Water is separated from land - the elements had to separate out and water from land.
Creation of light - light takes time to travel and the sun and stars would not give light until they ignited.
How could you explain how people who had no conceivable way of knowing any of that stuff could get so much right in so few verses?
The big issue with the evolution/creation debate seems to be the time frame. Put that aside and the Bible has much more credibility than some would like to give it credit for.
There are also odd comments about the natural world scattered throughout the Bible besides the creation account that also display knowledge that was unknowable to them at that time. How can that be explained away? Lucky guesses? That many of them?
Inferior to you? Very funny.
Not necessarily.
Christians (and Jews, for we all agree on this matter) say that it came into being as a result of a Creator, who exists outside of the universe, and is eternal.
That's nice. And your scientific evidence for this eternal Creator that exists completely outside of the Universe is . . . ?
Even scientists agree that the universe is not, and cannot be, eternal.
That's because they have this thing called evidence.
Oh, they've tried--Oh! How they've tried!-- to make it an eternal universe!
Actually, those who do are considered to be crackpots.
Debating over the definition of *universe* still doesn't answer the question of whether or not it could have created itself. It's just avoiding the issue. Nor is *Why not?* any kind of respectable scientific answer.
Wait, so now we have *science fundamentalists*? I thought fundamentalism was bad.
Now one for you. What are your qualifications for discussing science? Not that one should need any on a political website but hey let's be open here, we're among fellow conservatives.
Along with my blue collar I managed to get a BS in Electronic Engineering thanks to the GI bill and some hard work. Lots of Boolean Algebra and Logic btw.
Hey, I was just trying to figure out why you are being so sarcastic. What is bugging you so?
Why do you feel the need to list your accomplishments and those of your family?
I have not been disrespectful of you. Why do you feel you can be so of others?
I could list my accomplishments (substantial, but quite different than yours) in a "whose is bigger" contest, but what would be the point?
If you have the knowledge, great. If not, then get it. Your CV clearly indicates the ability to do so with ease.
You are always all over the map, but that was pretty funny ;)
Don't bother arguing with Fester Chugabrew: he actually concluded that evolution must be false, and his reasoning was that he was too stupid to understand it.
When it comes to evolution, that is putting it very mildly. Since it falls under the category of "a field of dreams".
Yup, a strong grip with smooth tempo, the right shaft, the proper angle of launch to maximise distance and boom, off she goes.
I also understand science fundamentalists.....
Sometimes.
Just so I know. Since your tone is pretty typical of Creationists on most of these threads. I'll toss it on the stack as an example of how Christians show love for their fellow man.
Now one for you. What are your qualifications for discussing science? Not that one should need any on a political website but hey let's be open here, we're among fellow conservatives.
Asked and answered. Feel free to puruse the thread.
Along with my blue collar I managed to get a BS in Electronic Engineering thanks to the GI bill and some hard work. Lots of Boolean Algebra and Logic btw.
Good. EE depends on science but is not a scientific field.
But what if someone came to you and wanted to discuss 3VL vs 2VL and didn't even understand a basic XOR? Would you think they are qualified to discuss that subject?
I spend a quite a bit of time in the wilderness with some Indian friends. I enjoy the company and learn a lot. There are usually some real old timers there. You can learn a lot by listening to real elders around a campfire, late at night, miles from the nearest road.
My primary reason for being on the crevo threads is to combat the anti-science folks. I try to keep my posts to scientific topics, and avoid religion. Unfortunately, some folks mistake belief and religion for scientific facts, and that does nobody any good.
Comprende?
That is funny (LOL) but I really do try to avoid words like "stupid" on these threads.
But since I didn't say it I get to laugh.
Debating over the 'definition' of *universe* still doesn't answer the question of whether or not it could have created itself.
Do you see the irony?
Glad to hear that. And I might add it sounds wonderful.
It was a followup. But if you want to exit the personal, feel free to answer my #238.
Obviously. It's evidence that if you go back far enough, the snakes' ancestors had actual functional legs.
How does a duckbill platypus have a bill and lay eggs. It seems reasonable to decide that a duckbill platypus is a transitional form between a bird and a mammal. Except I have been assured from my high-school biology on to the present day that no biologist considers it so. It's just a mammal that has a duck's bill and lays eggs.
It's roughly the same shpe as a duck's bill, but anatomically it's quite different - for one thing its an electrosnsory organ. The platypus is actually a mammal that retains some reptilian features (like the reptile-like, as opposed to bird-like eggs, and many details of its skeletal structure)
Check this out Oolon Colluphid's Guide to Creation. Follow the links to find many examples of things like snake legs: platypus teeth (which never erupt), baleen whale teeth (which are reabsorsbed before birth), marsupial egg teeth (which are never used), etc etc
Well, he said that the theory was far too complicated for HIM to understand, so it had to be false.
I guess nuclear energy is a complete hoax, then. :)
I would encourage them to discuss it as I encouraged and taught my employees how to become better informed in their chosen field. And I did it absent condescension and hubris.
LOL.
Does anyone know where to look and what to look for? Also, newly-emerging proto life would most likely be eaten by bacteria.
Actually, I remember studying Pasteur's experiment (scientific experiment, no less) that proved it doesn't happen.
That is quite absurd. Pasteur showed that bacteria, molds, etc, don't form in chicken broth, milk, etc, under sterile conditions. He showed absolutely nothing about, say, sea water circulating thorough volcanic "chimneys" with pyrite surface chemistry.
No, it was you being a nasty little sh6t which is OKAY except you then go on to whine about tone. Very unbecoming an adult of any political persuasion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.