Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Occasionally a social issue becomes so ubiquitous that almost everyone wants to talk about it -- even well-meaning but uninformed pundits. For example, Charles Krauthammer preaches that religious conservatives should stop being so darn, well, religious, and should accept his whitewashed version of religion-friendly Darwinism.1 George Will prophesies that disagreements over Darwin could destroy the future of conservatism.2 Both agree that intelligent design is not science.
It is not evident that either of these critics has read much by the design theorists they rebuke. They appear to have gotten most of their information about intelligent design from other critics of the theory, scholars bent on not only distorting the main arguments of intelligent design but also sometimes seeking to deny the academic freedom of design theorists.
In 2001, Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez’s research on galactic habitable zones appeared on the cover of Scientific American. Dr. Gonzalez’s research demonstrates that our universe, galaxy, and solar system were intelligently designed for advanced life. Although Gonzalez does not teach intelligent design in his classes, he nevertheless believes that “[t]he methods [of intelligent design] are scientific, and they don't start with a religious assumption.” But a faculty adviser to the campus atheist club circulated a petition condemning Gonzalez’s scientific views as merely “religious faith.” Attacks such as these should be familiar to the conservative minorities on many university campuses; however, the response to intelligent design has shifted from mere private intolerance to public witch hunts. Gonzalez is up for tenure next year and clearly is being targeted because of his scientific views.
The University of Idaho, in Moscow, Idaho, is home to Scott Minnich, a soft-spoken microbiologist who runs a lab studying the bacterial flagellum, a microscopic rotary engine that he and other scientists believe was intelligently designed -- see "What Is Intelligent Design.") Earlier this year Dr. Minnich testified in favor of intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial over the teaching of intelligent design. Apparently threatened by Dr. Minnich’s views, the university president, Tim White, issued an edict proclaiming that “teaching of views that differ from evolution ... is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula.” As Gonzaga University law professor David DeWolf asked in an editorial, “Which Moscow is this?” It’s the Moscow where Minnich’s career advancement is in now jeopardized because of his scientific views.
Scientists like Gonzalez and Minnich deserve not only to be understood, but also their cause should be defended. Conservative champions of intellectual freedom should be horrified by the witch hunts of academics seeking to limit academic freedom to investigate or objectively teach intelligent design. Krauthammer’s and Will’s attacks only add fuel to the fire.
By calling evolution “brilliant,” “elegant,” and “divine,” Krauthammer’s defense of Darwin is grounded in emotional arguments and the mirage that a Neo-Darwinism that is thoroughly friendly towards Western theism. While there is no denying the possibility of belief in God and Darwinism, the descriptions of evolution offered by top Darwinists differ greatly from Krauthammer’s sanitized version. For example, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins explains that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” In addition, Krauthammer’s understanding is in direct opposition to the portrayal of evolution in biology textbooks. Says Douglas Futuyma in the textbook Evolutionary Biology:
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”3
“Evolution in a pure Darwinian world has no goal or purpose: the exclusive driving force is random mutations sorted out by natural selection from one generation to the next. … However elevated in power over the rest of life, however exalted in self-image, we were descended from animals by the same blind force that created those animals. …”5
Mr. Luskin is an attorney and published scientist working with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash.
"We need more of them in congress, laboratories, and universities."
You mean there are not enough of them there already? :)
About 100%. There is a difference between theories of the origin of life (biogenesis) and theories of speciation (evolution within biology). Minor little dfferences like evolution assumes the existence of living things, whereas origin-of-life assumes there aren't any.
However, it's about 0.0% of biologists or other scientists who claim that evolution doesn't explain the variety of life.
No. It is common creationist cant that we should "teach the controversy." The Steve barrier is a refutation of the unfounded creationist implication that there is controversy within the scientific community over evolution.
Thanks for the 'Steve' explanation. I thought the reference was to an earlier post to me.
It seems like the position you and others have expressed is that ALL scientists share a single monolithic, unchallenged viewpoint that evolution explains it all.
I've read the work of scientists who disagree. I think questions about evolution, such as irreducible complexity should be taught.
The statement presumes that things are designed, thus it is a logical fallacy of presumption. You must first prove design beyond "It looks designed to me," which really isn't acceptable in a debate.
The Steve list didn't come about until the creationists started using the number of academics behind ID to give it an air of authenticity. And when they put up the list it does look impressive. It can make the average Joe think "Hmmm, maybe there's some valid science to this, maybe there's a real controversy."
The Steve list merely points out that there are far more scientists just named Steve who disagree, and who know about the list, and who signed on to the list, and who don't mind their names made public, and who aren't geologists and feel dissed because the authors left geology out of the text.
IOW, the "many" scientists is still an absurdly tiny number, truly representing the far fringe of (pseudo) scientific thought, since the people who signed the Steve list are a small fraction of a percentage of all scientists out there, and they still far outnumber the ID scientists.
What I suspect you intend is that "order cannot rise out of chaos in an unguided physical system". That is an unequivocal statement. There must always be a guide to the system, order does not rise spontaneously. In the case of weather, the physical laws are guides to the system.
But when you consider all of physical reality it is apparant there was a beginning. The measure of the cosmic microwave background radiation back in the 60's showed there was a beginning of space/time in this universe. Moreover, all cosmologies - whether big bang, ekpyrotic, cyclic, multi-world, multi-verse, imaginary time, hesitating universe, etc. - require a beginning because all of them rely on geometry for physical causality.
But the void in which there was a beginning was null - not just zero spatial and temporal dimensions, but no space, no time, no energy/matter, no thing - therefore, no physical causality. Also, no mathematics, no logic, no form, no automony, no qualia, no thing.
Thus there must have been an uncaused cause, a first cause, a guide so that order could rise out of the void. And because there can be no autonomous entities in the void, it must be the singular transcendent existence, i.e. God.
Therefore we can say that the existence of order from a beginning is evidence a guide to the system in the beginning.
Likewise we can observe that the unreasonable effectiveness of math (Wigner, Vafa), existence of information (successful communication) in biological systems, autonomy, semiosis and intelligence itself - all suggest the same conclusion, that there is a guide to the system from the beginning.
Two other points which, IMHO, would bolster your argument:
1. One cannot say a thing is random in the system without knowing what the system "is". And we do not yet know what the system "is" wrt physical reality (e.g. spatial/temporal dimensions, matter, etc.)
2. Causality can also be stated "were it not for A, C would not be". In this case, were it not for space/time, events would not occur, etc.
I think the questions should be seriously considered and addressed by scientists. I don't think they're far enough along to be taught though, otherwise you might as well teach every small question of every theory out there, which isn't done. Evolution is only singled-out for this treatment for religious reasons.
But let the IDers publish in peer-reviewed journals. I could see putting questions of irreducible complexity in the curriculum if their work withstands the scrutiny for several years, and if IDers stop resorting to subterfuge to promote their agenda. Be patient, as science considered standard today often took decades to be accepted initially.
Why do you assume atheism is the only viewpoint compatible with the study of the natural world? Many scientists with a strong belief in God simply acknowledge that their belief is outside the scope of their career choice. In any case, how does one use the scientific method to test for the presence of a supernatural agent? I am by no means trivializing religious belief or the importance of spirituality, I am only wondering how science could be used to give them validation.
Well, nearly all - that is the point of Project Steve (to which I thought "Steve barrier" was a reference - if not, my apologies for butting in).
Like you I have read Behe. Unlike you I was unimpressed. His argument is entirely made from his own astonishment.
"Perhaps you've come across an FSM."
Perhaps you've come across an Intelligent Designer. Care to share?
"I see no reason other than childishness to posit an entity that has no basis in reality as explantory of the same."
That very succinctly explains why most rational people will have no truck with ID.
"I take your correspondence with me to be evidence that you are concrete example of an intelligent designer."
Unfortunately for your hypothesis, the fossil record doesn't seem to contain old enough human remains. Next!
My post 111 explores the difference between methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism and political activism of atheists. The three often are wrongfully conflated in these debates - and by certain "movers and shakers" in the academia, e.g. Lewontin, Singer and Dawkins.
Post 920 was meant to be humorous - forcing the imaginary students to acknowledge ideological prejudice and sort themselves out:
But that is not the objective of the intelligent design movement. The objective of the movement is to remove the presupposition of naturalism in scientific investigations. Go where the evidence leads without unwarranted axioms and postulates – like physicists and mathematicians do.
More importantly, the intelligent design hypothesis needs to be understood separately from the intelligent design movement. (more in my post 998) Conflating them results in the same error as conflating methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.
If any of you take this to mean the metaphysically natural science of biology, you are in the wrong room – please go to the South wing, and ask for professor Dawkins’ laboratory, the course name is "atheism 101"
Dawkins' quote "Science does not produce evidence against God. Science and religion ask different questions" sounds more to me like methodological naturalism.
If any of you reject methodological naturalism as a presupposition in science, then please proceed to the North wing and ask for professor Behe’s laboratory, the course name is "intelligent design 101"
And to be fair to the previous example, you might want to say "theology 101."
You've disappointed me. The article in the link doesn't appear to mention ERV virus sequences, at least my scan, and searching for "ERV" and "virus" turns up nothing.
You obviously don't understand how retro viruses work. They insert themselves pretty much randomly into the host DNA, but since the couple of thousand ERV virus sequences in various primate genomes are in the *exact* same spot, that is proof that they come from a single infection event in a common ancestor, obviously millions of years ago. The odds against identical insertion points are billions to one.
Further, these sequences aren't perfect viral DNA sequences (since viruses mutate and evolve as well) and by definition the particular infection event failed (thus the infected cell survived to product offspring) because the infection was defective. Yet the particular ERV sequences are virtually identical to each other, again demonstrating they came from a single event.
To the extent these sequences vary between species, they vary by the expected amount that random DNA mutations should cause during the time since the original infection. Gene sequences from humans vs. chimps vary less than gene sequences of humans vs. New World Monkey. This is yet *another* confirmation of evidence, because these variations are a clock telling us when the last common ancestor lived. Less differences between humans vs. chimps means that the last common ancestor was more recent than the more differences between humans vs. New World Monkey.
Here's a bit more information from an Ichneumon post. Read down the page a bit to get to some specific information and charts.
I find the Dawkins quotation you selected to be rather fascinating in that it loses context when one does not consider the full context of Dawkins’ biography, publications, debates, political and ideological activism and so on: Wikipedia on Dawkins The quote is indeed methodological naturalism, but his ideology is clearly atheism, metaphysical naturalism. And he (like the folks at infidels.org) use circular reasoning to conclude that methodological naturalism proves metaphysical naturalism – i.e. one should not be surprised to find answers in nature when that is the only place they are looking.
Your other suggestion, that “intelligent design 101” ought to be labeled “theology 101” is not correct because intelligent design has no Holy writ, articles of faith or doctrine. The objective of the movement (as compared to hypothesis) is to eliminate naturalism as a presupposition.
However, I do agree the metaphor ought to be expanded to show where creationism would fit. So here goes:
All of you who believe God created the universe, which is creationism per se, please step to the back of the room for a moment. Ok, you guys in the front of the room: if any of you reject methodological naturalism as a presupposition in science, then please proceed to the North wing and ask for professor Behe’s laboratory, the course name is "intelligent design 101". (walking to the back of the room)
All of you who believe God created the universe and then did nothing further (Deists) – please move back to the front of the room, your beliefs will not get in the way. All of you who believe God created an old-looking universe at some time in the past (Gosse Omphalos hypothesis) – please move to the front of the room because your theology could mean anything from last Thursday to millennia or more and won’t interfere with the class.
Ok, now, those of you who believe God created the universe including evolution as His tool and that Adam was the first ensouled man (Catholics and the majority of Christians) – please move to the front of the room, your theology will not interfere.
Those of you who believe everything in Scripture but say the age of the universe is explained by relativity and inflationary theory (6000 years from the inception space/time coordinates approximately is 15 billion years for our space/time coordinates), proceed to the North wing and ask for professor Behe’s laboratory, the course name is "intelligent design 101".
Now, all of you that remain who do not believe the universe was created some 6,000 years ago and Adam was the first mortal man (Young Earth Creationism) - please go back to admissions, I don’t have a clue where you belong.
The rest of you here in the back of the room are Young Earth Creationists, please go to Morris’ classroom, “Biblical literalism 101”. (walking to the front of the room)
Whew. Ok, now all of you who remain in this classroom – we will be learning and doing biology with the presumption, not the metaphysics, of naturalism. If any of you try to bring your own ideology or metaphysics to the lab, you will be ejected from the class altogether.” LOL!
I have two problems with that.
One is I admit a personal bias that sometimes keeps me from separating the idea of ID with the practice of it. I have followed and studied creationists for a long time, and I saw the evolution from creationism to ID. I know that most of the proponents (at least the ones I see, the dolphin problem*) start with the Christian God as the creator, then put up this agnostic shield to protect themselves from claims of being neo-creationists. The recent Dover trial showed this quite clearly.
The other is a matter of wording, but one that is important to me. I see them as not trying to remove a naturalist presumption, but as trying to include the presumption of the supernatural.
FTR, I believe methodological naturalism is the right way.
* The dolphin thing, that I learned while taking psychology, roughly quoting the prof: "For thousands of years, there have been reports from sailors saying that dolphins saved them after a shipwreck or after being thrown overboard. They say how the dolphins pushed them to shore when they couldn't have made it themselves. From this, many assume that dolphins are our friends, that they try to save our lives."
"But I proffer that the dolphins don't care about us. They merely play with the creatures flailing in the water, pushing them in random directions. We think dolphins are friendly because we only hear the stories from those who were pushed to shore, not from those who were pushed out to sea to drown."
Of a truth, if one uses the ideology of a proponent of a hypothesis or theory as a basis to discredit that hypothesis or theory - he invites the correspondent to do likewise.
In this case, when one equates the intelligent design hypothesis to the creationists who support it - then the opponent will equate evolution theory to the atheists who support it.
Such reasoning is simply not productive - minds cannot be changed by exchanging spit wads.
IMHO, we ought to compare hypothesis to hypothesis, movement to movement, ideology to ideology etc.
The most obvious "cut" is whether one sees the "natural" as a subset of the "supernatural" or whether one sees it as an either/or. The majority of Christians, including virtually all Catholics, see the "natural" as a subset of the "supernatural" or transcedent, i.e. God created "all that there is" both spiritual and physical and He alone is transcedent (and yet immanent).
And then there are those on this forum who see "natural" and "supernatural" as mutually exclusive - the more science discovers natural causation, the less the supernatural can “be”. This false dichotomy leads to much of the crevo warfare around here, IMHO.
IOW, when science discovers a physical causation, then it can be asserted it was not spiritually caused - but it cannot be asserted that the supernatural or transcendent does not exist or is not relevant to the existence of the physical cause itself.
For me it is not the ideology, but the intent. I have seen a clear intent to use ID as a scientific veneer on top of creationism. I have no problem with the religious who honestly consider ID as a hypothesis.
IOW, when science discovers a physical causation, then it can be asserted it was not spiritually caused - but it cannot be asserted that the supernatural or transcendent does not exist or is not relevant to the existence of the physical cause itself.
That would be proving a negative. OTOH, the supernatural hasn't been scientifically supported, so it should be ignored by science until some future evidence appears. ID starts with the presupposition that the supernatural exists. It seems to me to be a shaky foundation.
Like I said, I'm willing to let ID survive or die on its own scientific merits. Unfortunately for ID, its greatest proponents always seem to get in the way with hyperbole, subterfuge, dishonesty and even perjury.
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.