Some scholars think unending arguments over evolution in U.S. are inescapably religious

Mainichi Daily News ^ | August 19, 2005

[AncientAirs]

NEW YORK -- As students head back to biology classrooms across the United States in the next few weeks, debate over whether they should be taught "intelligent design" concepts alongside evolution is getting hotter, with the president, other politicians and a high-profile Roman Catholic cardinal from Austria all weighing in.

Quizzed on the topic, President George W. Bush recently told reporters: "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas and the answer is 'Yes."'

The president's remark prompted sharp criticism from intelligent design opponents. Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Sunday on the CBS program "Face the Nation" that Bush is "anti-science" and "there's no factual evidence for intelligent design."

They aren't the only ones entering the fray.

Last month, Austria's Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece that "the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world." He said Catholicism cannot accept evolution if this means "an unguided, unplanned process."

Schoenborn's statements caused consternation among scientists and educators -- including some Catholics -- who have resisted intelligent design, known as ID, for a decade.

Meanwhile, the National Center for Science Education tallies evolution disputes in 18 states this year. Last week, the Kansas Board of Education gave preliminary approval to science standards that allow ID-style alternatives to be discussed alongside Darwinism. In Pennsylvania, a forthcoming federal trial will test the legality of disputed ID instruction in schools in the town of Dover.

The ID movement says Darwin's mechanism of natural selection acting upon gradual biological changes cannot address how life originated. ID also argues that Darwinism fails to fully explain how extremely varied and complex life forms emerged during the past 600 million years.

Therefore, it concludes, guidance and information from some external intelligence must be involved. That intelligence is usually left unidentified, but it sounds like God _ and critics say ID is religion masquerading as science.

Michael Ruse, a Florida State University philosophy professor and ardent ally of Darwinism, outlines the conflict in a new book, "The Evolution-Creation Struggle" (Harvard University Press).

Ruse says the fight over ID and evolution is important because it's "a struggle for the hearts and souls of people, with deep implications for the ways in which we live our lives and regulate our conduct. It is a religious or metaphysical battle, not simply a dispute about scientific theory."

While scientists accuse religious advocates of stepping outside their field by pronouncing on what is and isn't biologically possible, religious thinkers accuse scientists of reaching beyond science into the realm of theology with some of their pronouncements.

For example, a National Association of Biology Teachers statement once defined evolution as "an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process."

Two distinguished religion scholars, philosopher Alvin Plantinga and Huston Smith, a historian of world religions, convinced the association to drop the first two adjectives in 1997 because these were theological assertions, not scientific ones.

"How could an empirical inquiry show that God was not guiding and directing evolution?" the two scholars asked the association.

The answer is that such statements go beyond what science alone can discover and enter the realm of philosophy and religion, says Plantinga, a Protestant teaching at the University of Notre Dame. "'Unguided evolution' is not part of science," Plantinga says. "It's a theological add-on" that some scientists use to try and undercut religion.

In his view, schools should teach four things about evolution: there's lots of debate; most biologists see Darwinism as the best explanation; some think the process is wholly unguided and there are "respectable people" who disagree.

Warren Nord, an educational philosopher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, thinks the pros and cons should be fairly presented to students, whether or not ID is inherently religious. His reasons: There's wide discussion of the issue and it "ties into perennial philosophical questions about design in nature that go all the way back to the Greeks, as well as the Bible."

John F. Haught, a lay Catholic theologian at Georgetown University, agrees that scientists sometimes turn evolution into an anti-religious worldview that exceeds the proper limits of science. However, he opposes ID as both bad science and bad theology.

To Haught, educators fail to admit that "there are different layers of explanation" for phenomena. For example, water boiling on a stove can be validly explained as molecules responding to heat, as effects caused by turning on the burner, or as evidence that someone wanted a cup of tea.

Similarly, he thinks, evolution can be seen as both the result of natural selection and part of God's overarching purpose.

Where is this debate headed? The new challenge posed by ID seems destined to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1987 barred a different critique of Darwinism, Bible-based "creationism," from the nation's schoolrooms because it is advanced a "religious viewpoint." (AP)

August 19, 2005

[Oztrich Boy]

Some scholars think unending arguments over evolution in U.S. are inescapably religious

Some War Widows Oppose Sheehan

Somebody Loves Raymond

[MikefromOhio]

Someone knows Where Waldo is....

[simhomer]

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Sunday on the CBS program "Face the Nation" that ..... "there's no factual evidence for intelligent design."

Considering who Dr. Dean spends his time with, I can understand how he sees things this way...

[SteveMcKing]

What's wrong with arguing?

There's no need for concensus. It's a free country, so believe what you want.

[Jeff Blogworthy]

The religious stuff has to be reigned in - the religious Left keeps forcing their atheistic views down our throats.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC - finish reading later

[Kevin OMalley]

Whenever I see this "most scientists think" or "the majority of scholars agree" it reminds me of the nonsense of "most islamic followers say it is a peaceful religion." The parallelism to a religion is very strong for scientism, with its high priests (PhD bearing biologists) and its control of wherewithal (funding of grants for science projects).

[bobdsmith]

Yea it's the same for Astrology. We've been arguing for years that Astrology should be taught in Physics classes alongside astronomy, but those dogmatic Astronomers think it isn't science. The parallelism to a religion is very strong for scientism, with its high priests (PhD bearing astronomers) and its control of wherewithal (funding of grants for science projects).

[DaveLoneRanger]

(((Creationist Ping)))



You have been pinged because of your interest in matters of Creation vs. Evolution, Creation trumping evolution, and evolutionary fraud. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.

Colossians 1:16 "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."

---

Professor Ruse is wise enough to recognize that the creation-evolution debate is inescapably linked to religion…on both sides! Ye evolutionists here, you believe what your predecessors have taught you regarding evolution. Creationists begin with the belief that God’s Word (so far, irrefutable) tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[Havoc]

Similarly, he thinks, evolution can be seen as both the result of natural selection and part of God's overarching purpose.

Natural selection selects - it doesn't create what is not already there, it rather safegaurds what is there. Natural selection will never turn a bird into an elephant or anything else. It's purpose is to make sure the bird is the bird as defined by the information system within it's DNA. An information system which, interestingly is absent the mechanism for carrying out said information within itself. There are two mechanisms there at a minimum - a system which understands the DNA and works with it, and the complex book which is the DNA and is specific to each living being.

The point I'm making is this is a chicken and egg issue. DNA has a custom engine within the animal it comes from that is designed to process DNA for that type of animal as I understand it - which is why one cannot simply introduce T-Rex DNA into a human egg and get a baby T-Rex. The proper engine for reading DNA for that proper animal lies within that animal type. This would seem to preclude any argument over how DNA could make something different under natural selection. The engine to translate the DNA and make use of it would have to pre-exist the DNA. The problem is, pre-existing the DNA would mean an animal of the type that used the particular DNA would have to pre-exist the new DNA because that's where such mechanism would reside. Given that both are required, the information blueprint and the information engine, both must exist at the same time and could not spring instantly out of nothingness. And selection as a natural actual process is designed to keep DNA errors from ocurring.

[Havoc]

Similarly, he thinks, evolution can be seen as both the result of natural selection and part of God's overarching purpose.

Natural selection selects - it doesn't create what is not already there, it rather safegaurds what is there. Natural selection will never turn a bird into an elephant or anything else. It's purpose is to make sure the bird is the bird as defined by the information system within it's DNA. An information system which, interestingly is absent the mechanism for carrying out said information within itself. There are two mechanisms there at a minimum - a system which understands the DNA and works with it, and the complex book which is the DNA and is specific to each living being.

The point I'm making is this is a chicken and egg issue. DNA has a custom engine within the animal it comes from that is designed to process DNA for that type of animal as I understand it - which is why one cannot simply introduce T-Rex DNA into a human egg and get a baby T-Rex. The proper engine for reading DNA for that proper animal lies within that animal type. This would seem to preclude any argument over how DNA could make something different under natural selection. The engine to translate the DNA and make use of it would have to pre-exist the DNA. The problem is, pre-existing the DNA would mean an animal of the type that used the particular DNA would have to pre-exist the new DNA because that's where such mechanism would reside. Given that both are required, the information blueprint and the information engine, both must exist at the same time and could not spring instantly out of nothingness. And selection as a natural actual process is designed to keep DNA errors from ocurring.

[Kevin OMalley]

Yea it's the same for Astrology.
***Hey, good analogy. The difference is that astrology is demonstrably untrue. In a nutshell, their scientific basis is that the gravity of planets affects a person at birth. The reality is that the gravity field of the doctor and nurse is stronger on that baby than any field from a nearby planet.

Is intelligent design in that same category, or am I missing something? Can you dispense with it in 2 sentences the same way that we can with astrology? If that were true, how do we get this far down a path that even the president of the U.S. can float an idea and it's still being discussed?

Astrology has further value as an analogy. I read a book by a cryptobiologist (can't remember his name right now) who postulated that the Sumerians divided up the sky into 12 regions and used it as a means of finding direction. Pisces was where people lived with whom they could trade for fish, Leo was where there were Lions, that kind of thing. Suddenly there seems to be some value in investigating the origins of astronomy as a historical scientific inquiry, if even just to debunk such theories.

[SunkenCiv]

"postulated that the Sumerians divided up the sky into 12 regions and used it as a means of finding direction. Pisces was where people lived with whom they could trade for fish, Leo was where there were Lions, that kind of thing."

That's obviously not true, because where the constellations are in the sky varies the year round. Sounds like the postulator doesn't have a clue.

There's no connection between astrology and intelligent design. Such an equation is just a damning by association, and isn't an intellectual exercise.

[SunkenCiv]

---

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe hardcover online supplement	The Battle of Beginnings: Why Neither Side Is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate by Delvin Lee "Del" Ratzsch

---

[bobdsmith]

***Hey, good analogy. The difference is that astrology is demonstrably untrue. In a nutshell, their scientific basis is that the gravity of planets affects a person at birth.

Well that sounds like just one theory of astrology. Another theory is that some unknown supernatural force affects a person at birth, not a natural force like gravity.

[bobdsmith]

There's no connection between astrology and intelligent design.

They both disagree with methodological naturalism and think science should consider supernatural explainations.

[RightWhale]

There's no connection between astrology and intelligent design

Ge 1:14: . . . lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

[Kevin OMalley]

We're not connecting astrology and ID, we're using it as an analogy.

And the author of the book seemed to take the year/variations into account for his theory.

[Kevin OMalley]

But you overlook the point, which is that the gravity nonsense was their original scientific basis. The supernatural thingie is not a scientific basis for Astrology; hence, since there is no longer a scientific foundation claim, they relinquish the privilege of presentation in a science class... so to speak.

[bobdsmith]

Here's one of their new "scientific" claims:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/astrology_01.htm

There is evidence, largely ignored, that positions and movements of planets as seen from the sun, play a major role in the solar cycle. Furthermore, there is some evidence - highly controversial but difficult to dismiss - that some positions of the planets as seen from Earth at time of birth and linked to personality characteristics of individuals. [Gauquelin]

This evidence exists. What my theory does is to prepare an interpretation, based on this evidence, which can be scientifically tested. Very briefly the steps are:

# (1) Planets effect the solar cycle in specific ways.

# (2) The solar cycle effects the geomagnetic field.

# (3) The geomagnetic field affects life on Earth in certain observed ways.

# (4) Specifically, many species, including man, can be influenced by particular states of the geomagnetic field.

# (5) The particular influences appear to correlate with the planetary positions.

# (6) I propose that the behavior of the fetus at the time of birth is linked to the cycles within the geomagnetic field, which in turn are influenced by the solar cycle and positions of the planets. Resonance is the phenomenon by which the fetus is phase locked to specific cycles.

If a basis is made for mentioning ID in science classes, I can't see how stuff like this can be stopped either.

[Kuehn12]

There are crucial problems I have with evolution.

First, evolution must be a ever present process through out the universe. It can't be exclusive to Earth.

If so, life must be plentiful thought the universe.
Here is the problem, why haven't we found ample evidence of it? Surely a few species would be able to send detectable signals out into space as the natural course of technological advance. We have sent immense amounts of TV, Radio transmission out into space, and if some is listening they would know we are here.
Second, no one has ever shown a conversion of inorganic material into organic. A pool of constituent chemicals don't natural combine to form a DNA molecule or a basic protein molecules.

[Kevin OMalley]

Interesting stuff. But, since I'm not an astronomer, I have no idea whether this stuff follows the scientific method. My suspicion from the tone of your post is that it isn't all that scientific.

That's one of the problems I have with the whole debate on ID/abiogenesis/evolution. It very quickly moves to areas where the high priests need to take over. I have heard in the christian circles in the silicon valley that there is relentless pressure to keep one's mouth shut so that funding is not at risk.

OK, so let's assume that the astrology stuff does follow the scientific method. Then it should be allowed in the classroom. If it doesn't follow scientific method, it should not be allowed.

[Kevin OMalley]

I think the guy's name was Ivan Anderson, and I found a reference to his theory on the web:



http://www.present-truth.org/psychic_roulette_2.htm



Some say that modern astrology, most of it, is not at all like the original astrology of the Egyptians. One astrologer believes that it was never meant to be a religion as it is today. Rather, he says that "it was originally set up to be a timing device. It started in the valley of the Nile and was used by those old guys to tell the people when to expect the floods. . . . Before all this mysticism. . . got mixed up in it, it was an agricultural thing. It told people when to plant and sow. It was a practical thing."

Ivan Sanderson, who debunks modern astrology completely, thinks he has stumbled upon the real origin of the zodiac.

He has traced the zodiac, in his research, back to the ancient Sumerians. He says it had nothing to do with ancient astrology, that it was nothing more than a road map such as you might get from an oil company today. In other words, it was simply traveling direc­tions for anybody setting out in any direction from the head of the Persian Gulf.

He explains, "If you copy the zodiac wheel, as used today, on a piece of clear plastic; stick a pin through its hub, and then stab that pin on to the home-base of the Sumerians [and he supplies a map with the zodiac superimposed] you will immediately see what this is all about. . . .

"Imagine therefore that you are residing at the head of the Per­sian Gulf about 6,000 years ago. You will find that whichever way you might have wanted to travel from there-except down the sliver of the Gulf itself -you would have to traverse several hundred miles of desert before hitting a coast. Now, all deserts look alike, and especially flat ones. Unlike maritime navigation, there are no steady winds, currents, coasts, tides, or other even fairly stable natural phenomena to aid one. On deserts, where the winds can come from anywhere and at any time, and where there are no landmarks, the only things you have to guide you are the stars.

So, the Sumerians devised a star map for desert travelers, divided it into twelve segments, and gave each a simple symbol so that illiterate cameleers, horsemen, donkey-drivers, or plain foot-sloggers could keep going in at least the correct general direction that they desired. And the Sumerians were consummate astronomers, geographers, and also most knowledgeable students of international affairs:' He says that Sumerians seem to have been basically an economic empire, interested in trade and commerce. So they designated each land by its principal product.

He proceeds to illustrate. "So, take your zodiacal wheel and center it on Sumeria, and then arrange it so that the north-to-south line runs due north between Capricorn to the west and Sagittarius to the east. Imagine then that you are a merchant starting out from Sumeria to prosecute trade to the northwest-of-north. You will point up the left-hand side of the Mesopotamian valley and you hit the mountains and, if you get there, what will impress you most? Goats-both wild mountain goats, ibexes, and domesticated goats, since the last were the first animals to be domesticated -and by just those people you will find living there. Thus, the land of the 'Cap­ricorns' or 'Goat-horned Ones.' Further, to aid you in your travels the scientists back home have given you a pretty picture of a bunch of stars that you must find at night and which they have linked together by straight lines to form a goat."

He covers the other eleven sectors in equal detail, and then says, "Thus, having come around the full circle of the so-called zodiac, we find ourselves holding but one conclusion. This is that the original zodiac was, to early land travelers, what the later wind roses were to mariners. . . . However, the travelers who used this map were illiterate and so had to be given simple symbols-a mountain goat seen in profile for Capricorn; a ram seen from the front for Aries; and so forth. Having done this, the priests of Sumeria, who were true astronomers, took a bunch of stars that could be recognized in each segment, joined them up arbitrarily with lines to look like goats or sheep or oxen, and then trained these travelers to spot them, and so to send them safely on their way...

[Kevin OMalley]

Here's an article that bolsters my point on its control of wherewithal.


Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1467986/posts


The Washington Post ^ | Friday, August 19, 2005; Page A19 | Michael Powell


Posted on 08/21/2005 8:17:20 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger


Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.

As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for "intelligent design," a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand -- subtle or not -- of an intelligent creator.

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution -- which has helped fund and run the journal -- lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.