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
God: (To Serpent). Thou Deceiver! Wriggle in the dust forever... ZAP!.... Oh, sorry Flipper, I didn't see you there standing behind the serpent; best get into the water pronto.
Well, for Flipper it could be an advantage (assuming he liked swimming and fish)
But vitamin C? Punish sailors thousands of years later? I man, most people *like* eating fruit.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh"
-- Heinlein
For syllogistic arguments, validity is purely a formal matter - i.e., is the argument of a proper form? The argument I gave above, of the following form:
P1: All S is P.
P2: All P is Q.
C1: Therefore, all S is Q.
...is valid by its very nature. In the example above, the argument regarding cats and spines is valid as a matter of form, as well as being true. Of course, it's also perfectly possible to formulate valid arguments that are untrue:
P1: All cats are purple animals.
P2: All purple animals are dinosaurs.
C1: Therefore, all cats are dinosaurs.
This argument is of precisely the same form as before. If the premises of such an argument are true, then the conclusion must necessarily be true as a consequence - therefore, this argument is valid. However, we know the premises to be untrue, and therefore the truth of the conclusion is logically suspect as well.
Similarly, it is quite possible to formulate an argument that is invalid, and yet still true. The fallacy of the fourth term is a common occurrence:
P1: All cats are furry animals.
P2: All furry animals are mammals.
C1: Therefore, humans are mammals.
This is a sterling example of an argument which has entirely true premises, and a true conclusion, but is logically invalid in that the conclusion, even though true, does not follow from the premises - it is not a necessary consequence of the stated premises.
Finally, it is also possible to have an argument that is both invalid and untrue:
P1: All evolutionists support Darwin's theory.
P2: All Nazis support Darwin's theory.
C1: Therefore, all evolutionists are Nazis.
Needless to say, minor variants of this argument are not exactly unknown in these parts. Nevertheless, the conclusion is patently false. Spotting the fallacy that renders this argument invalid is left as an exercise for the reader.
I am grateful for the link. I did not know of the amphisbenids. In fact, I had in mind the sister family Anguidae, which contains the Slow Worm of Europe, and the misnamed glass snakes (glass lizards), which we have down here in Florida.
In fact, as I read the modern reclassification of the Order Squamata, it appears the Anguids and the Amphisbenids may have evolved leglesness convergently. Or translated into Genesis-ese, both were smitten by the Lord along with the true snakes.
The punishment of the glass lizards seems particularly unfair.They are harmless, bug-devouring critters, who, if they were to tempt anyone with anything, would probably try a tasty cricket.
EITHER God exists, OR the theory of evolution is true.
I know, through divine revelation that God exists, therefore the theory of evolution is false.
They prefer not to consider the effect of their XOR premise on those who find the evidence for evolution compelling.
Indeed. Richard Dawkins is a good example of a person who has chosen the other side of the same conclusion: "Either God exists, or the theory of evolution is true. Evolution is true, therefore God does not exist." Funny how they agree on the initial premise, isn't it? ;)
How DARE you be so logical!!!
--EvoDude
Hey, I was feeling pretty adventurous. It's safer than bungee jumping.
Heinlein=evo-Scripture
"You mean...you guys get to believe in a theory--abiogenic evolution--that cannot be proven, even by your own standards?"
Sigh, this is so wrong it's not even wrong - what a waste of electrons. :(
None of that is necessarily true because as I said outside the universe **anything** could be possible. When you say "it won't turn out to be a thing" there is no way to know that. It could be - because anything could be possible outside our universe. The concept of "beings" might not even make sense outside our universe. Causation might not even make sense. There may be concepts outside our universe that are similar to causation and logic that we cannot even comprehend. In short any hypothesis about the origin of our universe is just a total wild guess.
NIV Isaiah 55:8-9
8. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. 9. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
NIV 1 Corinthians 2:9
However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" --
NIV Job 9:7-9
7. He speaks to the sun and it does not shine; he seals off the light of the stars.
8. He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.
9. He is the Maker of the Bear and Orion, the Pleiades and the constellations of the south.
(Science fiction?)
#1: One problem is that the IDers have failed to concretely state what it is in scientific terms. If scientists critique one definitions they claim it's a strawman attack because this other definition is the right one.
#2: ID is stealth creationism. This has been clearly stated by the Discovery Institute itself in the "Wedge Strategy." Here are some selected quotes from them:
#4: The problem is with the IDers not being able to put together a paper that passes the sniff test at the journals. Please remove the tin foil hat.
#5: Actually, scientists who make wild claims are most often attacked by other scientists, not the public. IDers are sad their newborn "theory" is getting hammered and feel persecuted -- well wake up, this is science's vetting process, get used to it. Einstein himself attacked quantum theory, but it's still going strong and has even crossed into practical application.
.
healthy skepticism?
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.