Conclusions From Uncounted Creation/Evolution Debates

PatrickHenry | 10 June 2006 | PatrickHenry (vanity)

[PatrickHenry]

Gentle FReepers, herewith I present a few conclusions I have reached after uncounted creation/evolution debates:

1. Creationism is a religious doctrine. This is not, as many claim, the arbitrary result of ACLU-inspired Supreme Court decisions like Epperson v. Arkansas, and Edwards v. Aguillard. Rather, those court decisions are inevitable, given the faith-based nature of creationism.

Is creationism really faith-based? Of course it is. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's nothing scientific about it either. Imagine a competent scientist from Japan or India or some other place where no one studied the creation account in Genesis (or its Islamic counterpart). If he were to honestly and systematically consider the objectively verifiable evidence in reaching scientific conclusions, then:

a. it would never occur to him that the world is only 6,000 years old [How Old is the Earth];

b. it would never occur to him that there had been a miles-deep global flood about 3,000 years ago [The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood];

c. it would never occur to him that all species lived at the same time [The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"]; and

d. he would inevitably conclude that all species are related by common descent, and that the relationships are becoming more clear all the time [Tree of Life Web Project ].

2. Regardless of the claims of some, creationism isn't the same thing as Christianity. Why do we say this?

a. First, because not all Christians are creationists, and therefore -- obviously -- creationism isn't essential to their conception of Christianity. We are very much aware that some denominations teach otherwise, and this essay isn't intended to be a debate among denominations. Further, this essay doesn't pretend to be a learned discourse about theology. It is unfortunate that we have a denominational (not scientific) dispute about evolution, but it exists.

In stating that creationism isn't essential, we are relying entirely on the statements of thousands of Christian clergy, e.g., The Clergy Letter Project, a strong, pro-evolution statement signed by over 10,000 Christian clergymen; Statements from Religious Organizations, a list of Christian and Jewish denominations, including Roman Catholics, that accept (or at least don't dispute) evolution; and the recent statement opposing creationism by the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the 70-million-member Anglican Communion.

Clergymen are usually not scientists; therefore their opinions (whether pro or con) have no special significance regarding the scientific validity of evolution. What the above-referenced opinions do indicate is that for all of these clergymen and their denominations, evolution is compatible with their religion.

b. Second, because not all creationists are Christians. To begin with, there are the Raelians, a sect based entirely on ID.

There are also a billion followers Islam. See: Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design, By Mustafa Akyol.

The Hare Krishnas also reject Darwinian evolution. Their website has this article: The Intelligent Designer.

There is also the Unification Church, founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. One of Moon's followers, Jonathan Wells, is a leading intellectual in the ID movement. He is the author of Icons of Evolution, and is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Wells has written movingly about how Rev. Moon motivated his career in ID: Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.

2. Intelligent Design (ID) is not science. This is quoted from the Dover decision:

[After a page of references to expert testimony] It is therefore readily apparent to the Court that ID fails to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations. (3:101-03 (Miller); 14:62 (Alters)). Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program, as advocated by Professor Fuller, for a view that has been unable to gain a foothold within the scientific establishment. Although ID's failure to meet the ground rules of science is sufficient for the Court to conclude that it is not science, out of an abundance of caution and in the exercise of completeness, we will analyze additional arguments advanced regarding the concepts of ID and science.

[snip]

The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Both Drs. Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical-electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian); 11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents', as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID's backers have sought to a void the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.

Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.

3. ID is creationism. Consider the ID text, Of Pandas and People, which is favorably regarded by ID advocates such as the Discovery Institute, as indicated by their link to this article: A Report on the ASA Conference Debate on Pandas and People Textbook. This is the book that the Dover school board recommended and made available to science students, with these results:

As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards [Edwards v. Aguillard], which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:

(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;

(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and

(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.

This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's [FTE = the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of Pandas] argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions.

Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..

4. There is no virtually dispute about evolution in scientific circles. Therefore there is no "controversy" that needs to be taught in science classes.

As Project Steve indicates, over 700 scientists named Steve (or Stephanie, Esteban, or Stefano, etc.), about two-thirds of whom are biologists, have signed on to a statement that says:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

These Steves are only the tip of the scientific iceberg, because the name "Steve" is given to only about 1% of the population. Therefore, the 700 Steves probably represent about 70,000 scientists. See also Project Steve update.

The Steves alone are greater in number than all the scientists (of every name) who have signed statements questioning evolution, and most of the evolution skeptics aren't biologists. For example, the much-publicized list of 500 names (compared to 70,000) collected by the Discovery Institute includes only about 154 biologists, less than one-third of the total. Those 500 signed a rather ambiguous statement, which says:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

[Note what a hollow statement that is, compared to the statement signed by the Steves; and also note what the hollow statement doesn't say: It doesn't say that those who sign it are creationists or advocates of ID (although some probably are). It doesn't even say that they reject evolution (although some probably do). It merely says they're "skeptical," presumably a term chosen to permit as many as possible to sign.]

In contrast, two-thirds of the 700 Steves are biologists, so the biologist-Steves are about 466 in number. The Steves being about 1% of the population represent approximately 46,600 biologists. Compare that number to the 154 biologists' names collected by the Discovery Institute. Those 154 are the totality of biologists who are evolution skeptics. Did you get that? The actual comparison is 46,600 biologists who accept evolution and a mere 154 who are "skeptical."

These competing lists clearly tell us that evolution skeptics are a tiny fringe group -- about one-third of one percent of biologists. Therefore, notwithstanding the unending demands to "teach the controversy," there literally is no scientific controversy about the basic principles of evolution. Scientists, especially those in the biological fields, are all but unanimous in their acceptance of evolution.

For more information, see The List-O-Links.

[Elsie]

 

You do realize judging and sinning are synonomous for the mortals, right?

 

No, I didn't.  While I wait for your explanation of this fact, I'll leave you with a few verses....

 

---

---

 

Matthew 7:7  "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.

 

 

Ah yes; the great verse that is used by those who do not wish to be judged by mere humans.

 

 

Too bad they tend to ignore others...

 

---

NIV Luke 12:57
  "Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?

 

 

NIV John 7:24
   Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."    (Said Jesus)

NIV Acts 15:19
   "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. (Says St. Luke)

 

NIV Romans 14:1
   Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 5:12-13
 12.  What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
 13.  God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
 

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 6:2-4
 2.  Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?
 3.  Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
 4.  Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!

 

 

Paul did a LOT of 'judging'....

NIV 1 Corinthians 2:15-16
 15.  The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
 16.  "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 5:3
   Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 7:25
   Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 7:40
   In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is--and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

 

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 10:15
  I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.

 

NIV 1 Corinthians 11:13
  Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

And Paul said this:

1 Corinthians 11:1  Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

[Elsie]

But seriously, how can you possibly think your brand of Christianity is better than someone else's?

Gosh... I hadn't thought about this!!!

What Brand® IS my Christianity anyway???

[mjolnir]

Yes, Dembski is well aware of the definition of complexity developed by Kolmogorov. That's why he talks about distinguishing between kinds of complexity, for instance, the complexity of a software program and the complexity of a snowflake.

I understand that people who find ID to be illegitimate a priori believe that these differences are, as you believe them to be, a purely artificial product of the sorts of associations we've been conditioned to see because of our experience with ourselves and other organisms (beavers, birds). However, anyone who accepts design inferences as legitimate must reject the Humean picture of induction, abduction and probability, whether they use the eliminativist program of Dembski or the Bayesian approach most other IDers favor.

An IDer need not believe in God at all, much less be a Christian. As I've said before, during the time Francis (the famously atheist-claimed-he-went-into-biology-to-undermine religion Crick) Crick promoted panspermia, he was an IDer. This fellow, who if we take him at his word, is not a theist of any sort, is not an IDer: http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=297

ID in no way necessitates belief in a personal God. Even the argument from design, which ID is not a form of, does no such thing--- historically, during the Enlightenment, the loudest proclaimers of the argument from design were Deists-- in fact, the fact that design arguments have no necessary connection to faith in a personal God is precisely why Cardinal Newman, Pascal and Kierkegaard disdained them. Darwin himself made this distinction--- while he was sympathetic in his disagreement with the argument from design, he came to believe it nearly immoral to believe in a personal God, given the existence of evil in both nature and human society. Read Old Earth Creationists such as Duane Gish or Hugh Ross. Ross will tell you he repudiate ID for similar reasons--- it isn't Biblically based.

The only way someone could think ID purports to be a form of natural theology is by committing what Elliot Sober calls the Birthday Fallacy, wrongly inferring that because everything has some cause, there's some cause that everything has, so once we someone claims any form of life is caused in part by design, why, then all life on Earth--- no, not just its life, but the the Earth itself--- no, the universe--- must each be designed by that same cause.

Of course, this is a fallacy. The fact that everyone has a birthday does not imply there's some birthday everyone has, and ID does not purport to be a form of natural theology.

Rightwing Professor, Dembski's Design Inference stuff is actually very highly regarded within probaility theory. having said that, I wouldn't be surprised that some math types you know were less impressed. If logicians are the redheaded stepchildren of philosophy and mathematics--- advanced studies of formal logic fit only partly in either, probability theory is the redheaded stepchild of logic and mathematics. Howler, I can tell you that within that field, being published in the Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory series is to be recognized as having a work at the very top of the heap by the scholars who themselves are at the top of the probability theory heap: the very top: Brian Skyrms, Ernest W. Adams, Ken Binmore, Jeremy Butterfield, Persi Diaconis, William L. Harper, John Harsanyi, Richard C. Jeffrey, Wolfgang Spohn and Patrick Suppes, the editors of the series, are each recognized without any controversy as each being eminences in at least one of the disciplines listed in the series title.

The well known logician and mathematician Keith Devlin, who is trying to promote math as the "science of patterns" these days, disagrees with Dembski's conclusions in the Design Inference and is a critic of ID (Devlin believes that, depending upon how one weights the variables, Dembski's design filter will support the proposition that all life evolved by a combination of chance and natural processes, just as easily as it might human life arose by design--- in other words, the same problem that the old Drake equation which claimed to show the probability of extra terrestrial life had )also maintains that "Dembski's theory has made an important
contribution to the theory of randomness-- if only by highlighting how hard it can be to differentiate the fingerprints of design from the whorls of chance'".

Now, that's obviously not an endorsement, so why does Devlin say this? The reason, I think, is that 'differentiating between the fingerprints of design and the whorls of chance' is a perfectly legitimate project. As A matter of fact, most IDers disagree with Dembski's methodology-- his approach is in many ways the opposite of the more common Bayesian one. But that the Design Inference is a useful, well written work in the most prestigious series in its field is hard to deny... And one may deny or not deny it without being a creationist, a Christian or a theist.

[SaveUS]

The Brand that makes people run away.

[JCEccles]

Gentle FReepers, herewith I present a few conclusions I have reached

GIGO.

[Elsie]

The Brand that makes people run away.

Good answer; doesn't reveal much, other than Scripture seems to repel you.

---

(Much like Sunlight repels that OTHER fellow that 'goes for the jugular.')

[SaveUS]

I guess I just keep picturing Ernest Ansley. HEAL! With a slap upside the skull and the poor lady faints dead away on the floor. Not to mention, when you type things like:

"(Much like Sunlight repels that OTHER fellow that 'goes for the jugular.')"

I have to wonder, WTH? Do you lead a lot of people to the light this way?

[NoGrayZone]

Perhaps the problem here is a lot of people think of Gods "7 days" in our time frame. Our day is 24 hours, his may be 1.5 million years (just made that number up, not stating it as fact). Or perhaps the bible was written so man can actually understand it. Remember, we only use, what, less than 10% of our brain. Pretty sure He knew that.

[SaveUS]

But saying that doesn't really help all the other stories that didn't happen as the men who wrote the bible say they did. Noah's flood. Didn't happen. Faith says it did. Reality says it didn't. No, God is WAY more powerful than the bible can explain with man's limited understanding. Do this: Read a Hawking book and when you are done say, "God did all that. Wow." Then you have something. Telling me it is just a Jeanie and Major Nelson story just isn't true. Scientists don't want to know IF God did it, they want to know HOW God did it. And it wasn't blink boing oing oing.

[sully777]

Clean up in aisle three: Lucy Is No Lady: Lucy: Clearcut Case of Evolutionist Fraud

[ahayes]

Hooey. Argument from personal incredulity plus baseless accusations.

[sully777]

It's what makes the threads such riotous fun.

[Ottofire]

And then I come to the ball-game late and hate to read all 500 posts...(okay 270+, but exaggeration is expected, right?)

Who said what? (lol)