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
Sigh. And snakes are extremely well adapted for their niche too. What has that got to do with the fact that cetacean embryos have vestigial legs that aren't programmed to grow? (on rare occasions they do grow, giving rise to dolphins with legs, like the rare humans who have tails). If God removed serpent legs as a punishment leaving the vestiges then what was His motive for doing the same thing to the cetaceans?
In a way this is all quite amusing. You've taken me to task in the past for attacking what you consider to be a strawman version of YEC literalist Christianity (ignoring the the many YEC Freepers who say that only YEC are true Christians). Yet other Freepers have taken me to task for mocking stories of talking snakes. They told me that the serpent in Genesis was obviously an allegory of satan, nothing to do with real snakes as you evidently believe. You people who believe this stuff need to get straight which bits are literal and which bits are allegorical and not take to task us non-believers who have such difficulty sorting out what you all believe in.
Not true.
Some creation myths posit a pre-existing universe, material stuff out of which their god(s) came, layed the egg, was made, or whatever.
Sauron
There is, nevertheless, at least one event or entity that has no cause or precedent. The necessity for causation is negated by the observation of existence.
Are you referring to the logical fallacy in the Kalam assertion which assumes non-causality as an axiom for 'create' to prove causality? In that case the Senator's assertion is precisely on the mark ... the Kalam is an illogical syllogism if used to try and prove a cause using a non-cause as the fundamental axiom.
You are mistaken:
Nope. The argument presupposes a creator that was not created. Think about this carefully.
The fact is that anything is possible "outside" our universe, infinites, causeless effects, self caused effect, etc. Anything. Because nothing in this universe necessarily reflects the outside.
Precisely. That's what we Christians say about our God. He exists outside this universe, is timeless, is eternal, immutable, yet immanent with this universe. He possesses properties that simply are not describable in any normal sense.
There has to have been a Great Uncaused First Cause. It won't turn out to be a thing, but a BEING. God.
Why?
Because things (universes) don't create THINGS. Beings create things, in the end. It's all about ORIGINS.
Sauron
How do you know?
The universe DID NOT create itself. The KCA implies that it couldn't have (see post #181).
Because God is outside of this universe, He Himself is not scientifically testable, because we are limited in our scope of observation, and this universe has limitations imposed by natural laws. Hence, He is inherently unknowable, outside of the following:
1. Special revelation.
2. General revelation.
Any other Christians want to take this up and explain the difference between #1 and #2 for me to this heathen mob? ;)
Sauron (Truth is hate to those who hate the Truth. --unknown)
I am simply saying that existence is a slam dunk demonstration that not everything has a precedent. Existence being a broader concept than the universe.
There is at least one instance of an existence without precedent.
My own take on this is that we are not equipped to comprehend the problem. Our intuitive understanding of time and causation fails on the big question.
But at the level we are capable of understanding, we can observe uncaused events.
Agreed; about 98% of the Christians out there don't understand the point you are making. I do. I am a Christian.
The possibility exists that ID is correct, however. Because of the nature of a Creator, being inherently untouchable through our limited senses, through our limited means of exploring the universe through science (because science can only reach out and touch, verify, and test those things bound within the confines of our own universe), the Creator may be forever un-verifiable.
Thus, the need for (1) General revelation, and (2) Special Revelation.
General Revelation: Noting that, hey, shucks, there shure are a buncha coincidences that occur in physics to make this planet habitable.
Shucks, there shure are a buncha coincidences in biology and chemistry and astronomy.... Darn! Bet it ain't all no coincidence, huh?
I, for one, believe that O.J. killed Nichole and that other guy. Why? Because there shure were a buncha coincidences you'd have to believe in if you concluded he was NOT guilty. I, for one, didn't believe they were all coincidences. They were evidence for the existence of a murder.
I believe that all the coincidences in the sciences that show how "wonderfully and fearfully made" the human body is (to quote the Bible), and in astronomy (with regard to the "Goldilocks" position of the Earth being "just right"), down to the fact that chemicals and atoms combine the way they do...all indicate INTENT.
I don't believe they are coincidences. I'd be a fool to believe O.J. Simpson isn't a murderer. I'd likewise be a fool not to believe in God, or, at least, some Creator.
Maybe I wouldn't be a fool. Perhaps, like many, I'd just be arrogant. ;)
Yes, folks: There's an Ant Farmer. We're the ants. Look around: things are just too perfect. Put two and two together.
Sauron
THE sun descending in the west,
The evening star does shine;
The birds are silent in their nest.
And I must seek for mine.
The moon, like a flower
In heaven's high bower,
With silent delight
Sits and smiles on the night.
from "Night," William Blake. (1757–1827)
"Okay, let's see... In mellow-speak, that would be... 'Oh, wow, look at the moon.'"
"Doonesbury" translation of the above, May 16, 1979.
I agree that some Christians are real Gomer Pyles when it comes to beliefs they hold. (Disclaimer: I am a Christian.)
1. Global flood: I believe it did occur, although maybe not globally (!). Why? Because the Hebrew words used are "adamah" and "eretz." One is total, the other implies only local (e.g., throughout the land). It might have been a regional catastrophe. E.g., the flooding of the Black Sea basin through the Bosporpus.
2. With regard to YENC (Young Earth Creation): I don't buy it. I'm an old Earth Christian. I don't think that bristlecone pines are 1/3 as old as the planet, nor that the Pyramids are 1/4 as old as the planet. ;)
There are heuristical rules for exegesis of Scripture. Most Christians don't follow any of them, and take things out of context, take passages literally when they are poetic or figuratively written, etc. I just completed a course in hermeneutics...boy, did I get a chance to see some common errors!
Sauron
Mark my words: It will one day come to that, folks.
Therefore, the Universe cannot be greater than what created it.
Too many scientists openly worship the universe.
Why worship the creation, instead of the Creator?
Sauron
Therefore, the Universe cannot be greater than what created it. Too many scientists openly worship the universe. Why worship the creation, instead of the Creator?
Pithy. No one that I know of is "worshipping" the Universe. Worship is clearly in the religious/theological/philosophical realm. That is appropriate.
Scientists who say "Science proves God doesn't exist" step out of their proper place. Likewise, theologists who say "God says TToE is not valid" are stepping out of their proper place.
There is no scientific way to "prove" or "disprove" a deity. There is no theological way to "prove" or "disprove" a Scientific Theory.
Atheists will not believe what the don't want to believe no matter what.
There's the *beginning* part which science tried for a long time to deny until Einstein and Hubble proved otherwise.
Metmom, sorry, but read the posts about Georges LeMaitre. HE was the one who argued for a creation of the universe, and he was a theologian/astronomer.
He posited the Big Bang (didn't call it that at the time), back in 1927, and was roundly criticized that he was attempting to put Genesis on scientific footing by proposing an origin to the universe--which, scientists argued at the time, had been in eternal existence.
Science OPPOSED the notion that we lived in a universe with an origin.
In other words: For 2,000 years, science argued it was an eternal universe, with no origin, no beginning..
For 2,000 years, Jews and Christians (ok, Jews a whole lot longer) argued it was a created universe, with a beginning in time.
I enjoy reading your posts. Keep it up. You just happen to be wrong on this one account. :P
But please go back and refer to posts #157, and especially #181.
Sauron
Your conclusions are well stated -- but the important thing is that science CAN'T operate on a premise of ID. It is of no value, since it can't advance scientific thinking or pursuit.
In terms of theology I think we are pretty much in the same space.
I am not especially interested in semantic arguments. When I say there is no definable cause, I do not mean there is possibly an undefined cause that exists - I mean that there is no material cause, known or unknown, that exists for this event. It is a spontaneous event, with no cause. If it amuses you to imagine undefinable causes, whatever that might mean, or immaterial causes, so be it, but such metaphysical speculations are, needless to say, not particularly scientific in nature. In any case, here we have a material event - decay - with no material cause, hence the premise that all things and events have a cause is empirically false, as I initially pointed out.
I am not enamored of attempts to "prove" the existence of God/the Creator. Proof is for those whose faith is weak :)
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.