Posted on 01/20/2002 12:07:19 PM PST by PatrickHenry
In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."
In a forced binary choice between the "theory of creationism" and the "theory of evolution," 57 percent chose creationism against only 33 percent for evolution (10 percent said that they were "unsure"). One explanation for these findings can be seen in additional results showing that just 34 percent considered themselves to be "very informed" about evolution.
Although such findings are disturbing, truth in science is not determined democratically. It does not matter what percentage of the public believes a theory. It must stand or fall on the evidence, and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution. The preponderance of evidence from numerous converging lines of inquiry (geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, genetics, biogeography, and so on) points to the same conclusion--evolution is real. The 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called this process of independent lines of inquiry converging together to a conclusion a "consilience of inductions." I call it a "convergence of evidence." Whatever you call it, it is how historical events are proved.
The reason we are experiencing this peculiarly American phenomenon of evolution denial (the doppelgnäger of Holocaust denial, using the same techniques of rhetoric and debate) is that a small but vocal minority of religious fundamentalists misread the theory of evolution as a challenge to their deeply held religious convictions. Given this misunderstanding, their response is to attack the theory. It is no coincidence that most evolution deniers are Christians who believe that if God did not personally create life, then they have no basis for belief, morality and the meaning of life. Clearly for some, much is at stake in the findings of science.
Because the Constitution prohibits public schools from promoting any brand of religion, this has led to the oxymoronic movement known as "creation science" or, in its more recent incarnation, "intelligent design" (ID). ID (aka God) miraculously intervenes just in the places where science has yet to offer a comprehensive explanation for a particular phenomenon. (ID used to control the weather, but now that we understand it, He has moved on to more difficult problems, such as the origins of DNA and cellular life. Once these problems are mastered, then ID will no doubt find even more intractable conundrums.) Thus, IDers would have us teach children nonthreatening theories of science, but when it comes to the origins of life and certain aspects of evolution, children are to learn that "ID did it." I fail to see how this is science--or what, exactly, ID-ers hope will be taught in these public schools. "ID did it" makes for a rather short semester.
To counter the nefarious influence of the ID creationists, we need to employ a proactive strategy of science education and evolution explanation. It is not enough to argue that creationism is wrong; we must also show that evolution is right. The theory's founder, Charles Darwin, knew this when he reflected: "It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science."
Michael Shermer [the author] is founding publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com) and author of The Borderlands of Science.
robust in this context means that the theory is non-testable. It can adapt to cover any evidence or lack of evidence, hence it is a meaningless theory which cannot be falsified, cannot be tested and cannot predict anything.
Evolution is the only scientific theory which has as its goal to confound a particular religion. It seem that Darwin had 'issues' that went beyond a mere concern for the promotion of science.
When an evolutionist looks at a 747 he tries to explain it in terms of a causal chain of physical events (which he can if he is detailed enough). However he misses the true explaination for the existence of the 747 which is the minds of the engineer and machinists who created it.
Facing such a reality,"
Facing what reality? All we have here in the opening statement, is one man's opinion, and suddenly it's some kind of inescapable "reality." There are other scientists who look at the same universe and see a wealth of information pointing to a vast intellect designing the universe for the support of life. The parameters for this are so narrow, that the odds of this happening on earth are next to impossible, even with billions of years of blind chance working.
You want to give Bob a try and think you can defend the liberal propaganda of evolution, we'd all love to hear you try at 1-800-8Enyart between 9 and 10 p.m. ET on weeknights. Enyart is simply looking for one piece of evidence that proves evolution occurred.
In that case he understands nothing. I could run around babbling that I'm looking for the one piece of evidence that proves the Punic Wars occurred. Then, each time you show me something, I say: "No, that's not proof. Nor that. Sorry, that doesn't do it." Etc. Anyone can play that game.
Genesis 1: And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Romans 1:19-21 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
2 Timothy 3:7-9 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth--men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.
John 4:5-7 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
Proverbs 26:25-27 His malice may be concealed by deception, but his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly.
James 3:13-15 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth.
The mind? What mind? First you gotta prove the mind exists.
"A promotion of a certain kind of science" (ie: junk science), is more accurate.
Darwin was a failed Divinity student. He may have gotten mad at God (like so many others did and still do) when he read John 6:37, 44, and 65-66. :D
They have gone so far as to suggest that life originated by means we can barely imagine tens of billions of years ago, and possibly even in other universes or other dimensions far removed from this universe.
Life moves a piece at a time, and enhances whatever other life it encounters. This includes improvements on the genome. Since life is structured, these "improvements" would be taken by the improvident to develop a belief in "evolution".
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: MOVED FROM "NEW" Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
10: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
11: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
12: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
13: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
It is testable, and not all science involves direct observation. It can be falsified. Say, if you find a human fossil in rock that is undoubtedly from 80 million years ago. The scientists would have no choice but to change the theory, or abandon it altogether. This is the nature of science. I'm sure there are scientists out there wishing they could find this, because they would be one of the the most famous scientists of the last 100 years.
Take Creation Science, however. It's non-testable unless God starts creating stuff again. It doesn't have to adapt to new evidence because new evidence must adapt to it. In opposition to scientific method, it cannot be falsified because the first tenet is that it is true (while evolution is that this is the best we know based on what knowledge we have, subject to change). And it can't predict beyond what's already written.
Seriously, evolution has been around a long time, and while small parts have been challenged and changed over the years, the basic concept hasn't been successfully challenged yet in the open peer-review scientific community.
The only reason Dawkins can even make such an assertion and make it intelligible is because human beings have the capacity to discern and create design, and to fit it to a clear purpose. They also understand and employ concepts of good and evil, pity and cruelty. To be logically consistent Dawkins would have to deny the existence of such things in human experience. Dawkins is a highly educated, well-written, blind fool.
No, it completely ignores religion. If you consider it to have a goal to confound religion, then it is not one specific religion that it confounds, but hundreds or possibly thousands that have origins stories based on ancient tribal explanations for what we see around us.
Intentionally or not, you've just written something very profound that should always be at the forefront of these arguments.
Evolution can only teach by what physical process -- HOW -- we got here. It is science and only science, and therefore only answers the less important half of the big question. The other half, which evolution can't even touch, is WHY are we here, what purpose do we have. This is the job of religion.
Unfortunately, Creation Science tries to cross the line and also explain how, and does a quite pitiful job of it. Religion's useful place in explaining the physical world went away a long time ago, when we realized lightning and storms were not God's wrath, and that rain was not coming down through openings in the firmament.
Heh heh. Ever see the original "Connections" TV series, which beautifully illustrated the evolution of invention from the battle of Hastings in 1066 (first use of stirrups in battle) to the first landing on the moon in 1968? To ignore that science and invention evolve through human generations via teaching, learning, trial, and error is to put them into the category of magic and superstition.
This is not necessarily inconsistent with evolution. Evolution cannot account for the possibility of a "guiding hand" behind the scenes making evolution happen. Evolution is inconsistent with Biblical literalism and inerrancy.
The parameters for this are so narrow, that the odds of this happening on earth are next to impossible, even with billions of years of blind chance working.
Odds only matter if in the beginning you set the end result to be the current state. Odds have nothing to do with it when the end state is unknown. According to evolution, we are just as likely to have our current world as we would be to have any other.
In other words, what are the chances you will be doing something, anything, in the late afternoon tomorrow? 100%. What are the chances you'll be doing a specific thing? Then odds then could possibly be calculated.
This sounds like Kent Hovind's bogus $250,000 reward for "proving" evolution.
Yes, this guy is definitely one you don't want trying to defend evolution well. Zorobabel caught another of his screw-ups. Evolution only has logic going for it, and when its proponents make mistakes in that area, it hurts a lot.
"Most Existentially penetrating?" Try most Nihilistic. Shermer has the logical incompetence to say, in effect, "Oh yes, Nihilism in neo-Darwinian dress is perfectly compatible with all religion except for those icky fundamentalists, whose popularity is regrettable." (Challenge Dawkins, and of course you are an icky fundamentalist.) Not to mention that, if the Universe is blind and pitifully indifferent, and we are the products of said blind and pitiably insouciant Universe, then why are we humans truth-loving and truth-seeing organisms? Why are we not in the image of our "creator"? One who accepts Dawkins' initial fantasies truly risks ending in indifferentist subjectivism, for his sophomoric attempts at metaphysical gravitas end in irrationalism: just look at his memetic theory of knowledge, where science itself is but a matter of copying other people. No doubt I shall soon be shouted down by those screeching "Hail, High Priest of neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism and Most Hieratic Hierophant of Memes!" (But I must admit: The First Church of Memetic-Scientific Irrationalism has a nice ring to it.)
Moreover, Shermer caricatures the ID movement; at least one of its proponents, Michael Behe, is not a young-earth Creationist. Even more, if ID is in fact a valid method of investigation, then it is silent on the matter of a given entity's creator. ID could support Francis Crick's speculation about intelligent extraterrestrial DNA "seeders" just as easily as basic monotheistic creation tenents.
Bad arguments matched with political advocacy like those shown here do Scientific American no good, and they only serve to further undermine my trust in the scientific establishment. Shermer's forays into education advocacy are exactly what one would expect from a member of the Governmental-Educational Complex, whose only apparent purpose is to strangle intelligent thought among our youth.
Incorrect.
Theory is determined culturally.
Theory does not stand or fall on "evidence."
Rather, the culture that believes in a theory will stand or fall if belief in that theory increases or decreases that culture's ability to survive.
When logical arguments against another's point fail, always go ad hominem.
And Mendel was a monk.
Whoa, I just caught this. His column is even under the "Skeptic" section--did SA add that back during its "Popular Science" makeover? The scientific method is pragmatic, not ontological; tacking on people in the "Worldview business" imprudently obscures this.
As I earlier complained of religious people such as Kent Hovind pitifully trying to use religious text to explain scientific phenomena, here you've shown an example in the other direction. Dawkins is a scientist, not a philosopher, and he should stick to his science. He seems to be trying to make science address the WHY question, and he doesn't do well.
--- if the Universe is blind and pitifully indifferent, and we are the products of said blind and pitiably insouciant Universe, then why are we humans truth-loving and truth-seeing organisms?
Because we die if we don't establish true ideas from false ideology?
IE - We have learned, through the scientific method, to cure many ills, -- instead of listening to a medicine mans munbo-jumbo.
Now that is a blind, pitiless, indifferent truth. -- Right?
First, to state the obvious, evolution can't teach, only teachers can. One can exaggerate the evolutionary biologist's capacity to tell us "HOW" we got here. Are histories of human immigration--in many ways a physical process--within the competence of evolutionary theory? And if one only means that it can tell us how we inherited our particular genes, I suspect we are mistaking the theoretical construct for observation. (The observable science, of course, being the field of genetics.) But to ignore that point, it seems historical geneaology has far surer methods of proof than related attempts at extending its fields back into prehistorical times.
In comprehending how an endeavour like natural history proceeds, my greatest difficulty came not from reading scientific-sounding idiots like Dawkins, or his highly creative opponents, but rather from my own thought experiment:
Pretend a massive event like World War II extended over a million years.
Now reconstruct it using the physical evidence.
Oh, and there are no written records whatsoever. Have a nice day.
The task is staggering, and I suspect it would take another million years to recreate even an approximation of it. Not that nobody should try such a reconstruction, but it seems that both the sheer quantity of required information, and the presence of insurmountable information gaps--"knowledge bottlenecks" if you will--precludes natural history, and thus evolutionary theory, from being anything other than a highly, highly speculative endeavor.
But according to Dawkins, death is neither good nor bad.
Shermer is an incompetent philosopher who confuses realism with nihilism.
Well one of my questions can be turned into a "How," in fact it probably should have been. HOW is it that we products of an [allegedly] blind, indifferent universe can see the truth about it? This question certainly can use the work of the physical sciences, like neurobiology, but its own sphere is epistemology proper.
One of the axioms of science being a variant of epistemological realism, it is quite humorous to see folk like Dawkins inadvertently destroying it in the name of Science. I just wish he'd do it in private, and save the rest of us a lot of trouble.
The article is posted in the "Philosophy" category, the existence of which indicates that Jim Robinson encourages the free flow of ideas on this excellent website. I suggest that you should disregard this thread if it upsets you.
Where does the Constitution authorize tax-funded socialist public schools?
The US Constitution makes no such provision. It's left to the states. Which you already knew. And I agree that the states are making a botch of it. Private is better.
But evolutionists have been back pedaling since the start of the theory, it's too flexible to be meaningful or decisive. When a theory can cover any combination of facts or a total lack of facts, it doesn't contribute to knowledge. Its like a tautology: something that is true but in a trival way.
What's even worse is when turn of the century philosophers like Nietzche, Marx and Darwin point to evolution as a way of getting rid of God (and specifically Christianity), then they are taking a trivial physical theory and making serve a theological aim.
The problem is this: can any act of creation (the making of an airplane). Limited by the principles of physicalistic science, prove that it was not created by a mind. That is what evolution, in its fullest form, is really trying to do. Its a philosophically nonsensical task.
take any act of creation (the making of an airplane).
>No, it completely ignores religion. If you consider it to have a goal to confound religion, then it is not one specific religion that it confounds, but hundreds or possibly thousands that have origins stories based on ancient tribal explanations for what we see around us.
Darwin, Marx and Nietzche had only one religion in mind, all the others were cultural and philosophical and of no worry to them.
No need. The "bump lists" which he maintains include a listing for such threads. Your argument is with Jim Robinson, not with me. But I suggest that you don't call him "bozo" as he may not like it.
--- if the Universe is blind and pitifully indifferent, and we are the products of said blind and pitiably insouciant Universe, then why are we humans truth-loving and truth-seeing organisms?
Because we die if we don't establish true ideas from false ideology?
IE - We have learned, through the scientific method, to cure many ills, -- instead of listening to a medicine mans mumbo-jumbo.
Now that is a blind, pitiless, indifferent truth. -- Right?
36 posted by tpaine
But according to Dawkins, death is neither good nor bad.
Where did he say that? -- But if he did, he's wrong, - imo. - And in any case, so what? It doesn't have much to do with your question, does it?
Richard Dawkins concluded that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Then, the entire rest of the piece is a denial of this premise. Instead of upholding the view that there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, we are fed all these anything but indifferent evaluations, such as,
In a forced binary choice between the "theory of creationism" and the "theory of evolution," 57 percent chose creationism against only 33 percent for evolution (10 percent said that they were "unsure"). One explanation for these findings can be seen in additional results showing that just 34 percent considered themselves to be "very informed" about evolution.
Although such findings are disturbing,....
But why in the world should they be disturbing if "at bottom," there is, "no purpose, no evil and no good?" What difference does it make to Mr. Michael Shermer what anyone believes, since there is no purpose anyway?
He certainly sounds like he thinks there is a purpose when he says, "To counter the nefarious influence of the ID creationists, we need to employ a proactive strategy of science education and evolution explanation." The obvious question is, why? What difference does it make. Why doesn't he act like he really believes in "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference?"
We could overlook the internal contradictions, if nothing really mattered, but in case he is not being totally accurate (or lucid) about that, we'll mention them.
He refers to evolution as a theory, which it cannot be. It is an unproven hypothesis, in the scientific sense, and can never be proven in the scientific sense, since no experiment can be performed to test it.
He is actually unconsciousnly aware of this, and unwittingly contradicts the assertion that evolution is a theory by the this, "The 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called this process of independent lines of inquiry converging together to a conclusion a "consilience of inductions." I call it a "convergence of evidence." Whatever you call it, it is how historical events are proved." So, evolution, he unwittingly admits is not a branch of science, but a hypothetical branch of history, and the "proof" he offers is for history, not the confimation of a scientific hypothesis.
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.