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
There's that obfuscation issue again.
Does 'evolution' mean that allele frequence (and with it phenotypic frequency) exhibits dynamics? The theory of common descent? Or the completeness and sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian synthesis as an explanation for all observed biological dynamics and organismic traits?
As I understand it Behe only claims to challenge the last of these.
Save him for a more appreciative audience.
And Richard Dawkins and his particular brand of marxism and bigotry is a gift to creationists worldwide.
The gift that keeps on giving.
Three cheers for Dawkins:
Hip, hip hooray.
Hip, hip hooray.
Hip, hip hooray!
No, but glaring empirical inaccuracy would detract from any other claims made.
It simply means that someone accurately recorded historical events.
And if the one making the accurate historical makes additional statements, which on their face are too fantastic to be believed and are non verifiable, what do we do with that? Particularly if both the material that can be verified and the fantastic, non verifiable materials are corroborated by others?
If he embellishes said events with references to the Almighty, one cannot infer that the Almighty exists. For example, the Greeks and Egyptians were pretty good about making records of just about everything under the Sun. Simply because they peppered their works with references to their gods does not, in any way, corroborate the exitence of those gods.
Now is when I get frustrated not being able to talk face to face. I wish we could have a free flowing dialogue so that I fully understood what you mean by "embellishes", "references to the Almighty" and "peppered their works with references to the gods".
I have in mind Homer's Illiad, but that would not really be appropriate for our discussion, since Homer never claimed to relate that saga under divine inspiration, nor claimed that it was the "Word of God". Undoubtedly, some aspects of the story are true and that has been proved by archeology. But Homer never claimed prophecy, revelation of God's will, or that he was writing the divinely inspired Word of God. The Bible actually raises the bar to that level.
At least in Greek mythology, I am not aware of any collected body of work, analagous to the Pentateuch, that claims "thus sayeth Zeus". I am less certain about any such collection the Egyptians assembled; I would be interested in seeing that if it exists.
That's a very good quote from the essay in your post. I think it explains a good number of creationists, and their ability to shrug off evidence.
Their "Morton's Demon" in full operation I guess.
Point 1, I said "as we know it today" and you bring up Galileo?
Yes I do. "As we know it today" is the result of a few hundred years of development (and resistance/suppression) -- or were you unaware of that? Or are you actually going to try to claim that the roots of science "as we know it today" only go back a dozen or so years?
A lot has happened since then.
Yes, much of it the same, in kind if not degree.
Additionally, to say that Galileo was forced to recant because of his science is a gross oversimplification.
No, it's based on the facts of the case -- your own assertion is a gross misrepresentation. From a prior post of mine in response to yet another apologist on this topic:
Not smart. So the Church overreacted and condemned him for heresy. Big mistake, indefensible, but the truth is that Galileo was not quite the "martyr for science" that secularists make him out to be.
This is really splitting hairs. "He wasn't persecuted for advocating science, he was persecuted for raising questions about scripture by advocating science"... Oh, well then, that's *entirely* different...
Unfortunately for such revisionism, there exist extensive records of the condemnations of Galileo and his heresy trial. They make entirely clear that it was specifically his advocacy of the Copernican system which was his primary "crime", and his "heresies" (i.e., believing that observations of nature itself give reliable insights into the workings of the universe) were a result of his daring to practice science in the manner that it is known today.
Papal condemnation/sentencing of Galileo: "Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it [i.e. for disagreeing with Bible-based criticisms - Ich.] [...] This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, [...] The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith. [...] Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture. [...] Likewise, you confessed that in several places the exposition of the said book is expressed in such a way that a reader could get the idea that the arguments given for the false side were effective enough to be capable of convincing, rather than being easy to refute. [...] We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. [This includes torture - Ich.]The text of Galileo's recantation also makes entirely clear that it was his SCIENTIFIC VIEW which was his crime, and which he had to renounce:Under threat of torture, and mindful that the Church had already burned at the stake Giordano Bruno for the same "crime", Galileo publicly renounced his "false" doctrine that the Earth revolves around the Sun: "I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you [...] I wrote and printed a book in which I discussed this doctrine already condemned, and adduced arguments of great cogency in its favor [horrors! - Ich.], without presenting any solution of these [i.e., without reconciling it with the Church's interpretation of Scripture -- Ich.]; and for this cause I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves. [...] with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me"Galileo's early "heretical" statements included this clear statement of the modern scientific viewpoint:
-- Galileo's forced recantation, June 27, 1633"The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned [by literalists] on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still… I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations.", "I accepted the Copernican position several years ago and discovered from thence the cause of many natural effects which are doubtless inexplicable by the current theories. [i.e., the new theory better matched and explained the observations - Ich.]" -- Galileo GalileiFurthermore, one of the more prominent denunciations of Galileo by a high-ranking Church official (prior to his arrest) makes clear that Galileo's primary "crime" was his scientific view itself:"But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. [...] And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. [...] Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens. [...] I add that the words 'the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God."I don't see how any person at all familiar with the trial of Galileo could possibly say with a straight face that his persecution was not a result of "a hostility towards science". That's *exactly* what it was about. The Church was hostile to the notion of anyone using scientific principles to reach conclusions contrary to existing church dogma.
-- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, April 12, 1615 letter to Foscarini.
Point 2, who is the founder of modern taxonomy and what was his faith? Who is the founder of the modern scientific method and what was his faith? Who is the "inventor" of Calculus and what was his faith?
Irrelevant to the original point you made and which you are (poorly) attempting to support here. Try again. You earlier claimed that "it was faith that gave us science and technology as we know them today". That's hardly the same thing as saying that some of the founders of science were men of faith, and the latter does not count as support for the former. Men "of" faith were involved, surely, but so were men not of faith. Many founders of science were left-handed, but that wouldn't support a claim that "left-handedness gave us science and technology as we know them today" either.
You were saying that "faith", *ITSELF*, was what "gave us science and technology". Try again. Your claim also carries an implication that faith was the sole or prime cause of science and technology -- feel free to support that as well, or at least clarify your statement if that's not what you're trying to say.
And if the one making the accurate historical makes additional statements, which on their face are too fantastic to be believed and are non verifiable, what do we do with that?
Punt.
Particularly if both the material that can be verified and the fantastic, non verifiable materials are corroborated by others?
Ooh, this should be fascinating -- please describe in detail this "corroboration by others" of the "fantastic" parts.
Also, what if many of the "fantastic" claims are contradicted by the evidence of the actual world? What if there is no evidence that a massive global flood ever occurred, and a lot of evidnence that one had not? What if there is evidence that mankind is far more ancient than documented in this book, and evidence that mankind had never descended from a genepool of only two (or five - cf. Noah) individuals? What if linguistic evidence is that the world's many languages are the result of long-term changes from a few ancestral languages far longer ago than any Babel myth? And so on?
Sure wish I knew what they are so afraid of.
"God desired fellowship with man, then why go through the evolutionary process to produce man, when he could have easily created him instantly?"
One could just as easily ask why God didn't create a man that would not have sinned, et al?
As God said to Job, "Where were you when I created the Heavens and the Earth?"
Dangerous game guessing why God does what He does. Equally dangerous to assume He works by what-we-call-logic.
Are you asking if there's any reason, beyond accidental, for the association of specific codes with particular amino acids? There are some speculative ideas floating around about this, but little experimental evidence.
No they don't.
Check it out.
I have, which is how I know that you're mistaken.
That depends. Did the oracle have an accuracy rate of 100%?
I know. And I find that sad. I would expect a higher level of civility from the those arguing young earth creation.
It would'nt break my heart to see these threads get killed instantly.
Yes, I'm sure you'd appreciate it if opposing views were silenced.
Now who is slandering? Which point of view have I opposed? My opposition is with the overall tone of these threads. Factually, or faith wise, I don't have a dog in this particular hunt. I would actually like to come on these threads and have clearly stated discussion points, without the patronizing arrogance on one side, and the "You'll burn for that" crap on the other.
I have yet to see one of those on this forum. On at least three occaisons I have got lit up from both sides when I pointed out the harsh level of their conversation. And it really has'nt gotten any better after the "terms of posting on Crevo threads" agreement.
Your reaction to my post, that was not addressed to you, BTW, proves my point. And if you believe that I was over generalizing than you can deal with it, but I reject your assertion.
These threads are little more than screaming matches from people with their positions set in concrete on either side, with little chance for some one that actually wants coherent, decent conversation to participate. I have regretted every single time I have participated in a Crevo thread, and I want to thank you for extending the streak. Good day, sir.
These essays you're posting are among the best I've seen.
That's my understanding too. It's not the claim that was originally made; what was claimed was that Behe has evidence that species could not evolve into each other by mutation and natural selection. That would be some powerful evidence.
Lest there be any misundertstanding, BTW, I believe Behe is wrong, but he isn't responsbile for 90% of the kooky ideas people blame him for.
They're just Ich's everyday output.
If you ever care to look at reality, try answering the questions I posed.
You might also look into politics and the difference between the "official record" and what went on, but that might be a stretch for you. I didn't say that Galileo wasn't condemned for his sun-centric views, I said it was a gross oversimplification to call it a faith-based persecution of science.
Shalom.
I know. And I find that sad. I would expect a higher level of civility from the those arguing young earth creation.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
Good one!
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.