Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.
Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.
It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment” in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.
The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear.
The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.
The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”
Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”
I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.
Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.
The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.
Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale
For Lurkers, here is a thread on that aspect:
It's essentially the same. Drift is directionless wandering. Direction can be imposed externally by barriers.
My original assertion from post 1144:
Collective consciousness is Eastern metaphysics and very popular among a number of scientists outside the United States. Again, this is not far afield of research in swarm intelligence, the behavior of ants, bees and the ilk.
God, of course, is the most logical candidate for designer among most Western civilizations whether Judeo/Christian, Islamic or myriad other religions.
For the Lurkers, the first two definitions below are finished. The last one is up for discussion.
Panspermia: A hypothesis that explains the presence of life on earth by the arrival and propagation of seeds that originated elsewhere and that are prevalent throughout the universe - with subsequent genetic variation also attributable to additional seeding of extraterrestrial origin - rather than by purely terrestrial emergence.
Collective Consciousness: A hypothesis that given features of actuality are explained by a collective of consciousness – rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.
The intelligent design hypothesis has no basis at all in theology. There are no articles of faith, no doctrines, no interpretations of Holy writ. It doesn't identify or personify the designer which we have called alternately "intelligent cause" and "volitional cause".
It simply doesn’t matter to the hypothesis if the agency of “volition” or “intelligence” emerged from purely naturalistic causes!
Likewise, it doesn’t matter to the hypothesis if the “volition” or “intelligence” is a fractal of a larger “volition” or “intelligence” – or whether it is rooted in both the infinite and the finite (as fractals are).
Likewise, it doesn’t matter to the hypothesis if the “volition” or “intelligence” is merely an epiphenomenon, an effecting illusion of the physical brain.
And most importantly to people of faith – of all kinds of faith – it doesn’t matter to the hypothesis if the “volition” or “intelligence” is a being, including the supreme being, God.
The Intelligent Design hypothesis is truly theologically and ideologically neutral!
Again, I aver that the intelligent design hypothesis – just like the theory of evolution – concerns itself with certain features, or given features --- not ALL features of actuality.
If it dealt with ALL features of actuality, then it would indeed be based on theology, philosophy or metaphysics - and people would be justified in equating terms such as "creationism" with intelligent design.
Men are from Mars, women from Venus, and -- according to the ancient Greeks, the gods are from Uranus. Now you know all.
Our disagreement is more apparent than real. Logic is "out there" in the sense of being a universal principle, perhaps the most fundamental principle in the Universe. But if logic were not also "in here," then it would be inaccessible by intelligent rational agents. It seems to me the world is logical through and through; existents themselves are expressions of logical form. Or so it seems to me.
As always, you understand my point perfectly. But the reason I bring it up, is that it is important for us to remember our own responsibility in these debates, and that is to understand the limitations of logic, as well as it's purpose. Strangely, logic is limited by that which makes it great: ourselves, and our inherent limitations.
...perhaps the greatest "second reality" ever constructed is Marxism. But any "second reality" is fairly easy to spot; the suffix, "-ism" is usually a reliable tip-off that what you're dealing with is an instance of a "second reality."
LOL! Those second realities are everywhere, even in my prefered lens to view the world: monotheism. In Christianity, second realities often take the form of systematic theologies, of which not even the theologians who construct them really understand what it is they've made. Anytime one reduces God to a bunch of abstract concepts, even good ones like justification, salvation, propriation, etc.; then we begin to start losing truth, and begin going down that slipperly slope to irrelevance.
That the false "god" was constructed by cherry-picking from Scriptures is not a justification - it is just as much idolatry as fabricating a golden calf or carving a household idol to be "worshipped".
Thank you for your post!
In that instance I was practicing critical thinking.
Would you believe me if I told you that is exactly how I view the Philosophy of Evolution?
Do you mean by that that TOE has no explanatory power?
The most fundamental nature of evidence is that it makes itself known to sense and reason.
But that isn't enough to make it evidence.
how evidence can even present itself to human reason without an intelligently designed process taking place.
Let us posit a universe, exactly like the one we inhabit, but which unfolds according to an unintelligently, undesigned process. In that universe, my senses and reason and experiences are indistinguishable from what I have now. I would say that, in that universe, I would have the same opinion WRT experiences constituting evidence as I do here and now. IOW, me considering an experience as evidence of something is purely a result of a physical state - the origin of that state is immaterial.
Well, it was a rhetorical question, but anyhow.
I am not attempting to demonstrate anything here except that the answers to the following questions are "no":
Any peripheral concerns of yours are completely tangential to my participation in this exercise. I am somewhat concerned about your stated intent to export the definitions that we've hammered out here to other contexts.
I will state right now in no uncertain terms that: I do not endorse these definitions for any purpose whatsoever beyond the parameters of our inquiry. Nor will I consent to their importation within any other debate of which I am a participant. In fact, I will assuredly reject these formulations and invite anyone else who sees fit to do likewise. It seems clear to me that the only other people who've seen reason to comment have similarly rejected these formulations as unscientific or imprecise and I have concurred with them at every instance. So far as I'm concerned, they are irredeemably distorted by your rhetorical contrivances that I've assented to only for the purpose of this exercise and for no other.
So, you transfer these definitions elsewhere at your own peril. =)
For all intents and purposes external to this inquiry, these are the definitions that I accept:
Intelligent Design (ID) is a controversial set of arguments that claim empirical evidence supports the conclusion that life on Earth was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents.
Panspermia is a hypothesis that the seeds of life are prevalent throughout the Universe, and furthermore that life on Earth began by such seeds landing on Earth and propagating.
They are from Wikipedia, and I find no reason to dispute them.
Moreover, I have never intended to demonstrate your logical fallacies to you. That would be insane; like trying to teach a fish how to ride a bicycle. I may have alluded to them at times, but that was not for purposes of debating them. Insofar as the fallacy of the excluded middle, it directly follows from your insistence that panspermia and "collective consciousness" are intelligent design hypotheses. So long as I demonstrate that they are not barring separate, corollary qualifications, then my task is complete. With regard to panspermia, it's all over but the shouting. With regard to "collective consciousness" the challenge will be greater and the outcome still unclear, because it's a mealy-mouthed term open to significant gimmickry.
I obviously do not wish to "fast-forward to the end" as you describe it because that is nothing more than your imagination. The "end" so far is I'm concerned is the answer to the twin questions above. Period. We had a third question that we've suspended consideration of, but I doubt that we will be able to agree on terms with which to even entertain an inquiry.
I will address your proposed definition of "collective consciousness" at some time later today.
PS. I do not make a habit of harrassing multiple people with unsolicited pings, but I am pinging anyone who has participated in any sense with our debate so that they will be cognizant of my categorical disclaimer above. I will also bookmark this post in the event that I need to refer back to it in future threads.
Please note my post #2610. I meant to include y'all in the ping and don't wanna leave anyone out!
Definitions are critical, and there should be no misunderstanding in this regard.
INGREDIENTS:
1 cup orcchiette pasta, cooked
4 oz calamari
1 tsp minced garlic
pinch of crushed red pepper flakes
1 tbs chopped parsley
2 tbs butter
1 tsp minced anchovies
1 cup clam juice
1 chopped tomato
4 tbs extravirgin olive oil
salt and pepper to taste
COOKING INSTRUCTIONS:
1. In a saute pan, saute the calamari in the olive oil on medium high heat for about one minute or until the sides of the calamari begin to curl.
2. Add the garlic, butter, crushed red peppers, tomato and anchovies, being sure to keep the butter blonde.
3. Add the pasta, parsley and clam juice. Season with salt and pepper to serve.
When, exactly, do sensory experiences become evidence? what else constitutes scientific evidence if it is not what manifests itself to the senses either directly or indirectly?
As an observer I tend to think of the sensory experiences as evidence, and reason as the tool for weighing it and coming to a conclusion.
It seems to me you consider only those things that can be, measured, quantified, or observed WRT cause and effect as "scientific." If so, I can see why ID may be mistaken as some crass attempt at quantifying God.
Within those confines I have yet to gain an adequate understanding of either point of view. Must the two be mutually exclusive? Some seem to think so, but I do not know how they've understood the arguments, and I do not know what biases each brings to the table.
Let us posit a universe, exactly like the one we inhabit, but which unfolds according to an unintelligently, undesigned process. In that universe, my senses and reason and experiences are indistinguishable from what I have now.
I consider it an illogical proposition to suggest a universe unfolding without intelligence or design yet producing an intelligent observer. Regardless of whether you believe sensory experience to be "purely a result of a physical state," I am hard pressed to imagine what other data your reason has to work with in using logic to arrive at any conclusions.
On a different note, do you think the amount of information needed to design and build a viable strand of DNA can be quantified? Also, can the chances of doing so without the aid of intelligence or design be quantified?
The horses are already out of the barn, closing the door will not get them back.
Additionally, you promised to stop the personal attacks but the insults just keep coming.
There is absolutely no point in corresponding with you. We're done.
So long as you are cognizant of my disclaimer, you are free to do whatever.
Thank you for halting this debate. At some point during this exchange, the realization sunk in that there is no common ground to speak of between us and I cannot imagine that there ever will be. There is nothing of value for us to contribute to one another in this context and we'd both be far happier people if we think cautiously before we acknowledge one another's existence in the future.
I don't think there's much prospect for us debating anything without significant acrimony and that is primarily my failing. It is what it is, so we should be mindful of that. We cannot relate with another. It simply wasn't meant to be.
Take care.
Science is not about deciding which sensory experiences are true and which are false. It is an iterative process of observation and theory formation.
How does one separate sensory experience from observation?
I see you missed the theory formation part.
Yes. My question concerns the first of these steps. Are you saying sensory data can be separated from observation?
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.