“Scientifically speaking, Rush is the greatest band on the planet.” I first heard this bizarre during my freshman year of college (circa 1987) from a rabid fan of the Canadian prog-rock group. I had admitted to my friend that I believed in aesthetic objectivity, that truth and beauty were neither completely subjective values nor solely matters of personal preference. If I truly believed this, he reasoned, then I shouldn’t be surprised to find that one band was objectively better than all others. Based on this premise he preceded to painstakingly explain, using a worn-out copy of Moving Pictures and a rewind button, why following the evidence would lead to the “scientific” conclusion that Rush was the greatest band (and “Tom Sawyer” the greatest song).
I was reminded of my zealous buddy after reading some of the recent comments made by the increasingly frustrated critics of Intelligent Design theory. They are at a loss to understand how otherwise reasonable people could believe in an ID since it has been debunked by “science.” The problem is that, like my friend, they truly believe that they are drawing conclusions based on empirical science. Alvin Plantinga, the world’s greatest living philosopher, recently explained – once again – the problem with this line of reasoning:
[The idea that] human beings and other living creatures have come about by chance, rather than by God’s design, is also not a proper part of empirical science. How could science show that God has not intentionally designed and created human beings and other creatures? How could it show that they have arisen merely by chance. That’s not empirical science. That’s metaphysics, or maybe theology. It’s a theological add-on, not part of science itself. And, since it is a theological add-on, it shouldn’t, of course, be taught in public schools.
Confusion over the issue often arises because scientists are treated as if they had special expertise on the debate over ID. But there is nothing about being a scientist that provides one with more insight on matters of metaphysics. Of course, the opinions of scientists should be given as much credence as we would by any other non-expert and we should not dismiss their input on the debate merely because criticism of ID has little to do with science.
Unfortunately, the views offered by most critics of ID fail to register because they are allowing their presuppositions to influence their judgment. Indeed, they often fail to admit that presuppositions have anything at all to do with the matter. Although the debate often stalls because of this point, I believe we could keep in on track by asking the critics to answer the following question:
Without falling back on philosophical presuppositions, can you explain what scientific method is used to distinguish between biological entities that could have been the product of an intelligent designer and those which can only be created by non-intelligent, undirected processes?
Admittedly, this is something of a set-up since it is impossible make such a distinction using only the methods of empirical science because empirical methods are predicated on certain presuppositions. But continuously pressing the point may finally cause a light to go off in the minds of the critics, causing them to admit that there objections truly are about metaphysics rather than natural science. Eventually, the critics of ID will realize, like my friend the Rush fan, that their opinions are not really based on “science” at all.
(HT: Prosthesis)
1
"Without falling back on philosophical presupposition, can you explain what scientific method is used to distinguish between biological entities that could have been the product of an intelligent designer and those which can only be created by non-intelligent, undirected processes?"
An excellent question!
posted on 08.18.2005 3:04 AM2
Listening to critics of ID reminds me much of what I had heard about the critics of Louis Pasteur.
At the time of his discoveries/theories, etc. no one would believe him. After all, he wasn't a doctor and nobody would believe in these germs that cannot be seen.
posted on 08.18.2005 3:31 AM3
"Admittedly, this is something of a set-up since it is impossible make such a distinction using the methods of empirical science."
I believe that it is possible to make such a distinction using the methods of empirical science, in that biological entities, by their very nature, had to have been the product of design because "non-intelligent, non-directed processes" are incapable of producing anything but increased entropy. In fact, even our intelligent, directed processes are incapable of reproducing life in a labratory. There is no such thing as a "simple" life form, but the scientific method of distinguishing between a directed and non directed existence seems quite simple. It is a matter of cause and effect. It lives, therefore it was designed -- by a power far more intelligent than ourselves.
posted on 08.18.2005 4:39 AM
4
I whole-heartily agree! I mean, c'mon! We came from MONKIES?! I mean, how anyone in their right mind can believe that, when the logical explanation is right there in front of them, is beyond me! What is so hard to believe about God making man, taking a rib from him, and then making a woman?!
I guess I could see how someone would be a little confused, though. I mean, on the one hand, there are FACTS, and then on the other hand there's a BOOK.
5
A Short History of MONKIES
Given that the topic of "monkies" has been raised, I thought I would share some of the latest research on their history, culture, and habits. It appears that a subset of the human species did, in fact, devolve from "monkies". What is not-so-well-known, however, is that the "monkies" originated as a clan of people who had been banished from their villages after being convicted of felonious stupidity. They disrupted village life by repetitively chanting bad doggerel, holding endless candlelight vigils, petty theft, and random squalling. Banished individuals tended to band together (living off the generosity of villages) and eventually formed a whole subculture. Today, the subculture is perhaps best known for its worship of murderous psychotics like Che Guevara and addiction to bottled water. "Monkies", however, were also distinguished by impaired language skills and, rather than exhibiting the breadth of normal human vocabularies, tended to employ a few simple words that had variable meanings: good examples are "like" and "f**k". An example of this primitive protolanguage might read: "Those f**kers like better not like f**k with me, man, or I'll like f**king f**k them." To this day, linguists have difficulty decoding many recorded utterances. Originally, the term "monkie" was used as the diminutive of "monk". Monks were individuals who devoted their lives to scholarship, asceticism, and the search for truth. "Monkies", having neither the intellectual wherewithal or tempermental fiber (substance abuse was common, if not universal, in the "monkie" culture) for the intellectual life, nevertheless adopted many of the trappings of the intellectual monks, as imitative behaviors came easily (often resulting in the very rapid spread of odd behavioral and linguistic patterns: e.g., simple, childlike poetry like "bush lied, people died" or "f**k bush"). Like monks, "monkies" tended to eschew gainful employment, congregate only with members of their own "order", wear threadbare clothing, and and evangelize strangers. Hence, the origin of the phrase "monkie see, monkie do." Also, like their intellectual models, they tended to congregate in centers of higher learning. Of course, this was simply imitative behavior, but the universities were literally swarmed by the "monkie" hangers-on, and even went so far as introducing special curricula like "gender studies" to occupy their time and provide a simulation of scholarly activities. Their religious views were interesting as well. Being simple people, "monkies" eventually came to believe that they descended from monkeys, an English homonym of their native "monkie". This is not too surprising, given their behavioral commonalities with higher primates, like occasional outbursts of anger resulting in mindless vandalism, obsessive social grooming, and throwing feces at members of other social groups.
"Monkies" are, fortunately, still with us today as a protected species and can be observed in large numbers at any meeting of the WTO.
posted on 08.18.2005 7:35 AM6
There can be no observations without an immense apparatus of preexisting theory. Before sense experiences become "observations" we need a theoretical question, and what counts as a relevant observation depends upon a theoretical frame into which it is to be placed. Repeatable observations that do not fit into an existing frame have a way of disappearing from view, and the experiments that produced them are not revisited. ~ Richard Lewontin
Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination. ~ Daniel Dennett
7
There can be no observations without an immense apparatus of preexisting theory. Before sense experiences become "observations" we need a theoretical question, and what counts as a relevant observation depends upon a theoretical frame into which it is to be placed. Repeatable observations that do not fit into an existing frame have a way of disappearing from view, and the experiments that produced them are not revisited. ~ Richard Lewontin
Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination. ~ Daniel Dennett
8
Joe,quoting Plantinga:
”[The idea that] human beings and other living creatures have come about by chance, rather than by God’s design...
A false dichotomy, I think (not to mention the fact that "chance" is a poor description of evolution).
Without falling back on philosophical presupposition, can you explain what scientific method is used to distinguish between biological entities that could have been the product of an intelligent designer and those which can only be created by non-intelligent, undirected processes?
Not a terribly useful or interesting question, at least if we don't fall back on philosophical presupposition. It would be more valuable to ask:
What evidence is there that organisms and their biological characteristics arose by the mechanisms of mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift? What evidence is there that that organisms were designed and/or constructed by a designer by a specific method that is not mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift? Note that the first question includes specific mechanisms by which the organisms change, so the second questions should also define its designer and design methods (without falling back on philosophical presupposition).
Plantinga notes that:
God has intentionally created us human beings in His own image. He may have done so by using a process of evolution, but it isn’t by chance that we exist.”
This raises a couple of questions for ID supporters:
Do you think that mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift could have been the mechanism by which the designer designed/created? Is theistic evolution a variant of ID or a variant of "[The idea that] human beings and other living creatures have come about by chance?"
Since theistic evolution differs from Dawkins-style blind watchmaking by its philosophical presuppostions, but not its scientific content, the answers might have interesting implications for Dembski-style ID.
(I'm using "Dawkins-style" as shorthand for evolution plus atheistic philosophy and Dembski-style ID for ID that claims the mechnasims of mainstream evolutionary biology are insufficient to explain biological complexity.)
posted on 08.18.2005 8:26 AM9
There's no way a real Rush fan would think that Tom Sawyer is better than Vital Signs.
posted on 08.18.2005 9:02 AM10
Hello everybody!
By a serendipitious happenstance, I put up a post on Intelligent Design last night. It doesn't answer Joe's question directly, but it is certainly quite relevant to the discussion.
I encourage anyone who clicks through to leave comments -- I won't assume that anyone who disagrees with me (or who harbors doubts I am correct) has chosen to forgo salvation, or is being wilfully irrational.
I should warn you though. Fans of ID theory might feel challenged in an uncomfortable way, unless they have a lively sense of humor.
posted on 08.18.2005 10:36 AM11
So Joe, do you STILL believe in aesthetic objectivity? I'm not sure I completely understand that philosophy. As a gospel believer, I would agree that TRUTH is "neither a completely subjective value, nor solely a matter of personal preference," but lumping in BEAUTY with that statement doesn't necessarily seem to follow. I believe the Gospel is truth, whether or not I personally find it beautiful or to my liking at this moment. As a huge Rush fan (I am a Canadian drummer who grew up on those albums), I'd LIKE to insist that they are objectively "the best," but must allow for other interpretations, since one can't quantify or standardize musical excellence.
Either way, despite my attempts to persuade others to the truth of Christ, or the excellence of Rush, only those "with ears to hear" will hear it.
12
[The idea that] human beings and other living creatures have come about by chance, rather than by God’s design, is also not a proper part of empirical science. How could science show that God has not intentionally designed and created human beings and other creatures? How could it show that they have arisen merely by chance. That’s not empirical science. That’s metaphysics, or maybe theology. It’s a theological add-on, not part of science itself. And, since it is a theological add-on, it shouldn’t, of course, be taught in public schools.
Which it isn't. 'Chance' is deeply philsophical and whether the universe really incorporates chance or is deterministic is still an open question. In science it is still an open question whether life develops by lucky chance or if it is 'predisposed' and the same is true for intelligent life. An analogy might be bread left out. It will eventually get moldy but how long it takes depends on a lot of 'chance' conditions such as the temperature, humidity, preservatives used to make the bread etc. Whether or not evolution 'pulls' towards life & intelligent life is a cutting edge contraversy in science. Sadly the people that talk the most about these sorts of things are those that know the least. Has the author above ever actually read a textbook or lesson plan on evolution used in public schools? Can he actually cite any respected textbook that asserts the things he alleges?
Confusion over the issue often arises because scientists are treated as if they had special expertise on the debate over ID. But there is nothing about being a scientist that provides one with more insight on matters of metaphysics. Of course, the opinions of scientists should be given as much credence as we would by any other non-expert and we should not dismiss their input on the debate merely because criticism of ID has little to do with science.
Isn't it bizaar that supporters of a supposed scientific theory would assert that knowledge of science doesn't help one evaluate the theory? Could you imagine Einstein asserting that his theory could be judged just as fairly by someone with no knowledge of mathematics or physics as by one who has?
For the record a lot of ID criticism has been rooted in hard science. ID has attempted to make several scientific claims. I'll summarize them as best as I can:
1. ID has claimed design can be detected in complex systems.
2. ID has claimed 'irreduicible complexity' is a method that can detect design.
3. ID has claimed biological systems fit #2.
Scientifically these claims are subject to valid criticism that ID supporters tend to avoid addressing (hence the fall back position that you don't have to know anything about science to judge ID as a scientific theory).
I believe that it is possible to make such a distinction using the methods of empirical science, in that biological entities, by their very nature, had to have been the product of design because "non-intelligent, non-directed processes" are incapable of producing anything but increased entropy. In fact, even our intelligent, directed processes are incapable of reproducing life in a labratory. There is no such thing as a "simple" life form, but the scientific method of distinguishing between a directed and non directed existence seems quite simple. It is a matter of cause and effect. It lives, therefore it was designed -- by a power far more intelligent than ourselves.
A nice mishmash of nonsense. It begins by asserting that only an intelligent beign can create life yet ends by asserting intelligent beigns cannot create life. Non-intelligent processes produce entropy but they also produce order as well. Crystals, for example, are ordered yet are not intelligent. More to the point being intelligent does not exempt one from the laws of therodynamics. Anything human beigns do produces a net increase in entropy no matter how much intelligence they apply. All the order on earth including every living body is a drop in the bucket compared to the net increase in entropy that is radiated out into space by both the sun and the earth.
posted on 08.18.2005 11:53 AM13
Joe:
I take exception to this characterization:
They are at a loss to understand how otherwise reasonable people could believe in an ID since it has been debunked by “science.”ID hasn't really been "debunked by 'science'," as you put it. It has simply failed utterly to establish itself scientifically. Many Americans like the idea because it seems intuitive to them, and because it supports their particular worldview, but this is more wishful thinking than actual scientific establishment.
Now that said, certain "scientific" arguments given for ID have been pretty thoroughly debunked (e.g., Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" argument -- virtually every example he gave in Darwin's Black Box of an IC system has since been shown not to be IC, and in any case it's an argument from ignorance).
How could science show that God has not intentionally designed and created human beings and other creatures?Frankly, it can't. It can, however, show the apparent order of things and at least part of the process involved. Again, it doesn't prove that God didn't have a hand in this, but it does give us an insight into how He did whatever it is He may have done. (Assuming He exists and did anything at all -- science can't demonstrate that either, which is why ID is fundamentally misguided.)
Further, all the Christian obsession with ID shows, to me, a fundamental misunderstanding of what ID is and where it ultimately leads: not to a refutation of evolution, which is what most ID-supporting Christians seem to want, but to theistic evolution, i.e. a revised theory of evolution wherein evolution actually occurred, just with God's (well, ID's) guidance. (Remember, ID is scrupulously neutral on who the Designer[s] is/are.)
But there is nothing about being a scientist that provides one with more insight on matters of metaphysics.Correct, because metaphysics is not science, it's philosophy! ID is metaphysics. Ergo, ID is not science, it's philosophy. I'm glad we agree on this! :)
[C]riticism of ID has little to do with science.Criticism of ID has everything to do with science, to the extent that ID attempts to present itself as science. Every presentation of ID I've seen thus far has been an argument from ignorance, and that's simply not science. Science talks about what we can demonstrate, not what we can't. ID talks about what we can't demonstrate: We can't demonstrate how an IC system could evolve naturally and randomly, therefore ID. We can't demonstrate how CSI (whatever the hell that actually means) can form naturally, therefore ID. ID proponents hate the "God of the gaps" tag, but that's precisely what their argument has been to date.
Moving along, this betrays you:
Admittedly, this is something of a set-up since it is impossible make such a distinction using the methods of empirical science.First of all, this question is a set-up for the proponents of ID, because ID theory claims that we can empirically distinguish between things that are designed and things that are not. You claim here that this is not possible; thus, if you are correct, you have just refuted ID. (Dare I say, you've just shown ID to be self-refuting?!) Thanks for doing our work for us! :)
But secondly, the term "empirical science" is redundant. Science is empiricism. There's no such thing as non-empirical science (or, at least, no such widely-accepted thing). If you use the term "science" to refer to something that is not inherently empirical in nature, you're using a different definition of "science" than most would understand.
So in other words, you've at worst got it exactly backward, and at best established why ID isn't based on science at all, either, no matter what its critics have to say.
posted on 08.18.2005 11:55 AM14
One must be careful to point out that there are a couple different groups of people. More careful scientists will say that they don't think that science shows that we're all here as the result of mere chance (and a purposeless natural process); rather, they'll explain that evolution is the mechanism for how we got here -- but that doesn't mean that there might not be a purpose behind that mechanism. For this group I don't think your point will hold a lot of water because they are quite willing to admit that there COULD be a God who set things in motion, etc., as long as everything was accomplished by evolution.
Your point may carry more weight with the other group, which does indeed see evolution as a purposeless process that abolishes the need to appeal to the divine for an explanation of our existence.
posted on 08.18.2005 11:55 AM15
Macht:
Red Barchetta was better than either of those tunes, and in any case, any real Rush fan would pick the 2112 and Caress of Steel albums well ahead of Moving Pictures. :)
[/nerd]
posted on 08.18.2005 12:00 PM16
Boonton:
Actually, Plantinga has extensive credentials. That doesn't stop him from being bat-sh1t crazy about certain things, of course...
posted on 08.18.2005 12:03 PM17
Nailman:
Your point may carry more weight with the other group, which does indeed see evolution as a purposeless process that abolishes the need to appeal to the divine for an explanation of our existence.The thing is, however, that those who fall into the latter group don't feel this way because they think they can prove it's random or purposeless, but because there's little or no evidence of purpose. Understanding that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the reasoned position to take, for some, is no direction/purpose until I see some evidence thereof.
In other words, they reject directed/purposeful evolution (in favor of, for lack of a better term, "random" evolution) for the same reason you reject Gorga the Space God -- it's a concept with little or no evidence. You can't prove that Gorga doesn't exist, either, but that doesn't mean you have any good reason whatsoever to believe in Him.
posted on 08.18.2005 12:08 PM18
… virtually every example he gave in Darwin's Black Box of an IC system has since been shown not to be IC, and in any case it's an argument from ignorance.
Um, have you actually read any of the “debunkings” of Behe’s examples? They are all arguments from ignorance. If you can find one single refutation of Behe’s IC examples that does not involve the critic saying “Well, since it it is theoretically possible that the feature is not IC, then it is not IC” then I will buy you dinner.
(Remember, ID is scrupulously neutral on who the Designer[s] is/are.)
True. So I hope you’ll join us in criticizing those who claim it is “stealth creationism.” ; )
Correct, because metaphysics is not science, it's philosophy! ID is metaphysics.
True, ID – like neo-Darwinism -- is rooted in metaphysics.
Every presentation of ID I've seen thus far has been an argument from ignorance, and that's simply not science.
What, are you kidding? Just about everything in science is based on an argument from ignorance. That is why you have people vehemently defending “hypotheses” and “theories” as true even when they cannot be established as “scientific facts.”
Science talks about what we can demonstrate, not what we can't.
Well, if that is the case, demonstrate macro-evolution or the Big Bang.
ID proponents hate the "God of the gaps" tag, but that's precisely what their argument has been to date.
C’mon, dude, we’ve gone over this dozens of times. The ignorantiam fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true simply because it hasn't been proven false. If ID claimed that it was a true theory simply because it has not been falsified, then the critics would be right. To my knowledge, though, no serious ID advocate has ever made such a claim. Their position is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable.
You claim here that this is not possible; thus, if you are correct, you have just refuted ID.
Good grief, that was a very sloppy sentence. Thanks for pointing that out. I’ve since changed it to:
Admittedly, this is something of a set-up since it is impossible make such a distinction using only the methods of empirical science because empirical methods are predicated on certain presuppositions.
Understanding that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the reasoned position to take, for some, is no direction/purpose until I see some evidence thereof.
Says who? Again, you are trying to sneak in unwarranted presuppositions in order to make your case. Without them your position would fall apart.
In other words, they reject directed/purposeful evolution (in favor of, for lack of a better term, "random" evolution) for the same reason you reject Gorga the Space God -- it's a concept with little or no evidence. You can't prove that Gorga doesn't exist, either, but that doesn't mean you have any good reason whatsoever to believe in Him.
I want to point out for the audience that Tgirsch has done exactly what I said all critics of ID do: fall back on their unsupported presuppositions in order to make their case. Also, note the circular reasoning: We have no reason to search for evidence of purpose since we have no evidence of purpose.
19
Joe:
If you can find one single refutation of Behe’s IC examples that does not involve the critic saying “Well, since it it is theoretically possible that the feature is not IC, then it is not IC” then I will buy you dinner.
If you want a specific example, Mark Isaac's index of creationist claims says "Blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Some animals -- dolphins, for example -- get along fine without a component of the system humans have." That looks like a straightforward claim that the system is not IC, without any pussyfooting around with "theoretically possible that the system is not IC"
FWIW, most of the debunkings of IC that I have seen seem to involve pointing out actually existing systems that have some, but not all, of the features of the putative IC system. The critics don't claim that it is "theoretically possible that the system is not IC." Rather, they claim that the system is not IC and then go on to say that it is theoretically possible for such a system to evolve. They may also claim that even if the system were IC, it is theoretically possible for IC systems to evolve. That latter claim seems perfectly symmetrical with the IDers claim that it is theoretically impossible for IC systems to evolve.
20
"They are at a loss to understand how otherwise reasonable people could believe in an ID since it has been debunked by “science.” "
False.
We are at a loss to understand how people can continue to recite the same garbage about deities and gods being legitimate subjects of SCIENTIFIC study.
And we do understand why people recite this garbage.
They are either fundamentalists whose religious indoctrination prevents them from admitting that their religious beliefs are merely religious beliefs and are not based on the sort of evidence that, e.g., the science of evolutionary biology is based.
Or they are simply "liars for Jesus" like the hucksters at the Disclaimery Institute who have a broader goal of undermining the public trust in science in order to sell their religion to the public using Federal money.
What's truly remarkable is that after nearly two years of explaining these basic facts to folks here and elsewhere, folks still don't get it! They still recite the Disclaimery Institute scripts.
In those two years, how many scientific papers have been published that are consistent with the fact that life on earth evolved from a common ancestor over the past several billion years? And how many scientific papers have been published showing that invisible aliens designed every "irreducibly complex" subcellular or macrocellular component in every life form that ever existed on earth?
Two simple questions.
Please answer them, oh brilliant defenders of "intelligent design" garbage.
21
Tim
"Listening to critics of ID reminds me much of what I had heard about the critics of Louis Pasteur. At the time of his discoveries/theories, etc. no one would believe him. After all, he wasn't a doctor and nobody would believe in these germs that cannot be seen."
Good lord, the irony.
So all we need is for some twit at Liberty University to invent the detector to see what those mysterious alien beings, who created the universe and all the life in it, look like.
I'm curious as to how many eyes they have. What do you think? Probably two, right? Or maybe eight like a spider. Do they like spiders? Why don't we have eight eyes? Or at least two more on the back of our heads.
What do the defenders of "intelligent design" garbage have to say? C'mon, you great scientific minds! What do those alien designers look like?
posted on 08.18.2005 1:38 PM22
"But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination. ~ Daniel Dennett
Otherwise known throughout the scientific world as "Daniel who?"
posted on 08.18.2005 1:41 PM23
Hey Joe Carter
Please show me where Behe has defined "irreducible complexity" in a way that allows a scientist to determine whether an object is "irreducibly complex."
Let me save you some time.
Behe hasn't been able to do this.
That is why Behe is what we scientists call a "crank" or a "nobody."
When Behe actually does some reproducible experiments which prove that mysterious alien beings are much more likely to have designed the bacterial flagella than evolution, everyone will start paying attention. And Behe will get a Nobel prize.
Until then, his garbage is appropriately filed next to "Sasquatch babies" and "John Edward can communicate with your dead mom."
The only reason we all know about Behe and not about the "leader" in Sasquatch research is because Howard Ahmansen, a Christian reconstructionist who has previously supported some truly sick racist axxholes, has paid for Behe's big microphone.
Incontrovertible facts. How do you choose to deal with these facts, folks? Just ignore them? That is what the Disclaimery Institute wants you to do.
But why should you do what the Disclaimery Institute says?
Hmmm?
posted on 08.18.2005 1:52 PM24
Joe Carter
"Well, if that is the case, demonstrate macro-evolution"
It's already been demonstrated, Joe, with a combination of shovels, microscopes and DNA sequencers.
Again, you can choose to ignore these facts. But they are facts. Go to www.pubmed.org and do a little reading.
Or is that all just a bunch of baloney, Joe? The scribblings of a bunch of deluded hacks, huh?
And Behe and Dembski and their cohorts at the Disclaimery Institute -- funded by Christian Reconstructionist Howard Ahmonsen, a genuine looney tune -- they are all here to save the United States from the rantings of these deluded scientists.
Is that what's happening?
That's truly pathetic if you believe it to be true. But if you don't believe it to be true, then one has to question why the continued obsession with this topic and why the script keeps getting recycled.
Meanwhile, Behe and Dembski et al have contributed NOTHING to our understanding of how life on earth evolved. NOTHING. NADA. ZILCHO.
Kind of makes a reasonable person wonder if "ID theory" is nothing but politics, sort of like Holocaust denial and other smear tactics engaged in by lazy hacks who don't have the ability to contribute meaningfully to science or history.
posted on 08.18.2005 1:57 PM25
"I want to point out for the audience that Tgirsch has done exactly what I said all critics of ID do: fall back on their unsupported presuppositions in order to make their case. Also, note the circular reasoning: We have no reason to search for evidence of purpose since we have no evidence of purpose."
That's not circular reasonsing, Joe. That's common sense in a universe where are alive for a limited length of time with limited resources.
That plane crash in Greece -- why aren't we looking for evidence that some mysterious alien beings pushed it into that mountain? Have we ruled out that possibility?
We inevitably end up in territory that is uncomfortable for fundamentalist types, but guess what? We're not the ones who are claiming that science can prove that gods do or do not exist. You are.
posted on 08.18.2005 2:02 PM26
"...they are allowing their presuppositions to influence their judgment. Indeed, they often fail to admit that presuppositions have anything at all to do with the matter."
you say you think this is true of "opponents" of intelligent design, as opposed to the proponents?
that's funny. and another example why visiting this site is an utter WOT.
27
Larry,
I agree with you that evolution is well-established and that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.
But when you state that
[Macro-evolution has] already been demonstrated, Joe, with a combination of shovels, microscopes and DNA sequencers.,
you are not being irresistibly persuasive. You are stating a conclusion without getting down into any of the messy details of how the evidence supports the conclusion.
Joe claims that macro-evolution has not been proven. Joe's claim is false.
Here is the proof: "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution".
Of course, just as God's grace is not received by those who are not open to it, it is also true that the strongest arguments and evidences on behalf of macro-evolution will surely fail to persuade those who are not ready to evaluate them with an open mind.
If macro-evolution is contradicted by the Bible, then someone who believes the Bible is inerrant will never accept any proof that macro-evolution is true, no matter how persuasive or conclusive that proof may be. It's just not going to happen.
And if someone wilfully disbelieves macro-evolution, I don't think you should be surprised, Larry, that he will try to come up with a scientific explanation that macro-evolution either did not happen, or is in fact impossible. It does not mean he is a charlatan. It only means he is in denial, or not being honest with himself. That's all.
posted on 08.18.2005 2:27 PM28
Thank you for pointing out how little ID has to do with science. I don't mind a few self-indulgent theists wasting their time and money on it, but let's keep it out of the science curriculum until at least a considerable minority of reputable scientists support its inclusion. Push your nonsense at home or in church, but don't try to indoctrinate my child with easy answers.
If all the loving instruction of parents and clergy haven't sowed the theistic seed, perhaps the ground is not fertile. However, that doesn't give you the right to sow it on my side of the fence.
posted on 08.18.2005 2:34 PM29
On a related note, a certain Christopher Anthony Roller recently filed suit in Minnesota against David Copperfield (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Case No.: 05-446(JRT/FLN)).
In that case, Mr. Roller alleges that Copperfield
has ".. been using my godly power to perform his magic".
So, tell us, oh great believers in the science of god-ology, how is the Federal judge supposed to determine the validity of Roller's claims?
Is it religious discrimination to simply throw Roller's claims out the courtroom door and say "none of us have any clue what you're talking about"?
Does the court need to hear testimony from "experts in philosophy" to resolve the "controversy"?
How do you answer, oh defenders of "intelligent design" as genuine science????
More on Mr. Roller here: www.mytrumanshow.com
And for the record, Copperfield's lawyers responded in a very lawyerly fashion: "Defendant is unaware of any cause of action in this jurisdiction ... related to relief for an alleged usurpation of godly powers."
Try a new salad dressing.
posted on 08.18.2005 3:07 PM30
Mr. Carter,
I finally made the connection. I saw your interview by Trey Jackson at JSII.
Anyway, I learned, at an AIG seminar, that evidence CANNOT interpret itself. No experiment can be devised to answer the question you posed. Perhaps that was the point you were trying to make. Be that as it may, your premise, "Without falling back on philosophical presuppositions, ..." is invalid to the question.
The first rule of experimentation is that theories can only be proven in the PRESENT. Evidence to the past can only be interpretted from a priori presuppositions. Any experimental evidence collected is done IN THE PRESENT. It can never PROVE the past. Therefore experimental data can only support one's beliefs, not prove them.
Evolutionists are fond of putting the cart before the horse. One poster recently stated that experimental repeatability is unecessary to validate claims of the past. This is pure sheepdip. The only valid evidence to what happened in the past is the eye witness account of someone who was there.
Those of us who are held captive to time are forced to utilize the concept of faith and trust; either in the testimony of someone who was there, or in fallible theories of fallible men who weren't there and don't know everything.
posted on 08.18.2005 3:28 PM31
Larry Lord:
"That is why Behe is what we scientists call a 'crank' or a 'nobody.'"
"WE scientists?!?" LOL!
Please state your credentials for being a scientist rather than a moonbat crank from the east side of Madison.
32
Eventually, the critics of ID will realize, like my friend the Rush fan, that their opinions are not really based on “science” at all.
However, even if when you are correct in the above statement, it does not automatically mean that the proponents of ID are accurate either.
Having small closed minds is not the sole purview of those that believe evolution is the correct explanation of the origin of the human species. Just read many of the preceding comments for proof of that fact.
While I've seen some scientists get a bit touchy when asked to "prove" evolution, I will point out that often the people who asked the question of them in the first place are asking the question rhetorically. They would never accept any amount of evidence as sufficient enough, no matter how overwhelming, to "prove" evolution is correct. They have already completely committed to one point of view. And I believe that is a fair description of 99.9% of those that are currently advocating ID. So the question and the answer is usually pointless.
posted on 08.18.2005 3:58 PM34
Patrick However, even if when you are correct in the above statement, it does not automatically mean that the proponents of ID are accurate either.
I completely agree. ID may be end up being a fruitless research program. My concern has less to do with defending ID as in allowing an honest search for the truth that is free of restrictive biases.
posted on 08.18.2005 4:02 PM35
"Please state your credentials for being a scientist rather than a moonbat crank from the east side of Madison."
I have a Ph.D. in molecular biology.
And I never lived on the east side of Madison, although I slept there a couple times.
posted on 08.18.2005 4:07 PM36
CCC
"The only valid evidence to what happened in the past is the eye witness account of someone who was there."
So much for that holy book you guys are always talking about.
posted on 08.18.2005 4:10 PM37
I'm reminded of a silly, sarcastic post over at IDtheFuture where Paul Nelson tried to ironically show that simply negating a statement shouldn't change its epistemological status. I always had a nagging suspicion he was wrong, and now I see why.
Contrast these statements:
(1) A designer intentionally designed creatures. (Scientific, according to Nelson, Dembski, Behe, et. al.)
~ (1), or, It is not the case that a designer intentionally designed creatures.
(Outside the bounds of science, according to Plantinga)
Hey, presto! Magic is indeed possible, thanks to the tilde.
posted on 08.18.2005 4:13 PM39
"Based on this premise he preceded to painstakingly explain, using a worn-out copy of Moving Pictures and a rewind button, why following the evidence would lead to the “scientific” conclusion that Rush was the greatest band (and “Tom Sawyer” the greatest song)."
For what it's worth, I'd give a fair sum of money to hear a tape recording of this lecture!!!
posted on 08.18.2005 4:15 PM40
Um, have you actually read any of the “debunkings” of Behe’s examples? They are all arguments from ignorance. If you can find one single refutation of Behe’s IC examples that does not involve the critic saying “Well, since it it is theoretically possible that the feature is not IC, then it is not IC” then I will buy you dinner.
Let's look at the form of ID's style of proof. I like using the OJ analogy (which you might have heard before but let's go at it yet again). There's two ways to prove OJ guilty. The normal and easy way would be to prove he is guilty directly. The other way is to prove every other possible suspect (everyone in LA that night who wears those size shoes etc.) is innocent. The second style is rarely used by prosecutors because all a defense lawyer has to do is establish that one other person *may* be guilty to win. An example where such a strategy might make sense for a prosecutor would be a case I heard about in NY where several prisoners were being transported in a locked van. One of them killed the only guard and all blamed each other. If you could prove every inmate but one innocent the remaining one must be guility.
ID basically says 'here is a complicated system...who is guility of creating it?' ID then asserts that no natural process could have been guilty (natural here meaning non-designer influenced), therefore a designer must be guilty! The problem, though, is that to establish this one must not only prove evolution is innocent but so is all other natural processes...including ones no one has thought of. All a defense lawyer has to do is show how it is theoretically possible some supposed IC system could have developed without an ID style designer and the game is lost for ID supporters.
41
Another related court case:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Music/08/18/people.santana.ap/index.html
Bruce Kuhlman, 59, charges that Santana's wife, Deborah, brought in a man known as "Dr. Dan" so employees could grow closer to God and become better workers.
"In Deborah's view, the higher a person calibrated with Dr. Dan, the better employee they were because they were more 'spiritually evolved,' " the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit, filed in Marin Superior Court, alleges that "spiritual calibration" allowed a person to develop a deeper level of consciousness.
Kuhlman is seeking monetary damages for lost wages, emotional distress and unpaid overtime, among other demands.
------------------------
So, how do you think "Dr." Dan's methods are going to fly in court? Do you suppose "Dr." Dan's methods are scientifically testable? Do you suppose that "spiritual evolution" is reproducibly measurable by scientists?
Or is "Dr." Dan a charlatan like Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski? Is "spiritual evolution" something akin to "irreducible complexity", something that boils down to "incomprehnsible psuedoscientific gobbledy-gook" upon examination by reasonable minds?
42
Larry Lord, who????
Please exlpain to all of us idiots how eternal nothingness became something self existent, and how that thing then turned into all that we witness now? Please, no references to theory or evidence, just demonstrable hard-ass science, man..the god that is in your koolaid.
But I know, you hold no beliefs, and just know all. Dude, I envy you......NOT.
Clearly there are many deceived people here; Van Halen daily mopped the floor with that skinny bunch of Canuks...Rush, I think you call them.
posted on 08.18.2005 4:50 PM43
Joe:
If you can find one single refutation of Behe’s IC examples that does not involve the critic saying “Well, since it it is theoretically possible that the feature is not IC, then it is not IC” then I will buy you dinner.Take away the wooden base from the moustrap, and just attach the mechanism directly to the floor. I'll go easy on you, and only ask for Portillo's for dinner -- that's dirt cheap for Chicago. :)
So I hope you’ll join us in criticizing those who claim it is “stealth creationism.”Well, the remark was a bit tongue in cheek. In any case, this doesn't stop it from being "stealth creationism," it just stops it from being an explicitly Christian variety thereof. That said, however, you'll see a lot of winking and nudging going on when ID proponents say "we make no claims about who the designer is." ;)
True, ID – like neo-Darwinism -- is rooted in metaphysics.I can't even begin to address this without knowing precisely what you mean by "neo-Darwinism." As far as I know, that's a label made up by anti-evolutionists to apply to evolution supporters (i.e. pretty much the entire scientific community). I know of no one who refers to themselves as a "neo-Darwinist." In any case, assuming we agreed on that definition, the statement is only meaningful given the broadest possible definition of "metaphysics."
Just about everything in science is based on an argument from ignorance.Then you have a poor understanding of what science is, what the argument from ignorance is, or both.
The ignorantiam [sic] fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true simply because it hasn't been proven false.How, exactly, does "you can't explain it naturally, therefore it must be supernatural" fundamentally differ?
Their position is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology and that these causes are empirically detectable.And yet their "evidence" for this claim turns out not to be evidence for their position, but rather a lack of evidence for natural causes. Which brings us back to the appeal to ingorance.
Says me, and anyone else who agrees with me on this. Notice that I said "for some," indicating that not everyone will agree with this assessment. However, if you'd like, feel free to demonstrate to me and everyone present why this position isn't a reasonable one to take. Then tell me why you don't believe in Leprechauns, and whether or not it's "reasonable" for you to take that stance. :)[Me] ... the reasoned position to take, for some, is no direction/purpose until I see some evidence thereof.
[Joe] Says who?
I want to point out for the audience that Tgirsch has done exactly what I said all critics of ID do: fall back on their unsupported presuppositions in order to make their case.Not at all. All I did was make essentially the same argument you're making, using different terms, to point out the absurdity of your argument. Of course my statement is absurd, because it's analogous to your absurd argument!
Also, note the circular reasoning: We have no reason to search for evidence of purpose since we have no evidence of purpose.*FWEET* Strawman, 5 yards, loss of down. I never argued that we have no reason to search for evidence of purpose. I argued that we have no such reason, at this time, to believe in purpose (in this context). If somebody uncovers compelling evidence (or even decent evidence) of purpose, then we will indeed have some reason to believe. posted on 08.18.2005 4:51 PM
44
In your post, you state your hope that,
Eventually, the critics of ID will realize, like my friend the Rush fan, that their opinions are not really based on “science” at all.
In your last comment, you explain that,
My concern has less to do with defending ID as in allowing an honest search for the truth that is free of restrictive biases.
You seem to be saying firstly that scientists' criticisms of ID theory are not scientific. And then you seem to be saying that scientists should be open to the claims of ID theory.
When you add in your claim that macro-evolution has never been demonstrated or proven, I would have to disagree that you are honestly searching after the truth in a liberated manner.
It seems to me you have a very restrictive bias at work: God created life, guided it along, and personally intervened to get life to where it is today, in all its glorious variety and complexity. If anything comes up that challenges that viewpoint, you are defensive, dismissive, and decline to weigh the evidence. If that is searching after the truth in an honest, bias-free manner, then I think I am missing something.
Have you looked at the link I provided, "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution"? Is there anything you'd like to say in response to the many interesting arguments put forth there?
It's one thing to say you're interested in free, unrestricted inquiry. It's another to actually respond to someone who puts forward a meticulously researched and documented argument that challenges your viewpoint.
I'm not expecting that Douglas Theobald, the author of the linked paper, is going to suddenly change your mind. But he does pull together some very meaty scientific evidence, a treasure trove of facts and reasoning, including a host of falsifiable hypotheses. I would like to hear how your agenda of doggedly pursuing the truth about evolution would deal with what he has to say.
If you disagree with him, that's fine of course. But I'd be interested in hearing where precisely your points of disagreement would be.
And remember, all of Dr. Theobald's arguments are strictly scientific, so please try to answer him on his own terms, if possible.
Tgirsch,
*FWEET* Strawman, 5 yards, loss of down.
That's funny!
posted on 08.18.2005 5:06 PM45
The first part of my last comment was addressed to Joe, but I left his name out. Sorry!
posted on 08.18.2005 5:08 PM46
Rob B:
Please exlpain to all of us idiots how eternal nothingness became something self existentWho said it did? And for that matter, apply the same logic to God, and see how far you get.
I know, I know, God "transcends" all that. How convenient for Him.
Cheesehead:
Please state your credentials for being a scientist rather than a moonbat crank from the east side of Madison.That seems a bit specific. Most Wisconsin conservatives revile Madison in its entirety, not just one section of town. posted on 08.18.2005 5:25 PM
47
Joe:
My concern has less to do with defending ID as in allowing an honest search for the truth that is free of restrictive biases.I don't think anyone, anywhere, is arguing against this. Nobody is proposing a ban on ID research, to my knowledge. What irks me, at least, is that ID proponents demanding we take their theory very seriously now, despite the fact that they've done very little to earn respect.
The scientific community is always hostile to wild new ideas (look at the treatment superstring theory gets); if you're too thin-skinned to take it, then you've got no business being in science at all. Don't get mad at the ridicule -- prove it wrong.
Matthew:
That's funny!Thanks, although I can't take original credit. I stole that type of comment from Say Uncle who, in all likelihood, stole it from someone else. :) posted on 08.18.2005 5:27 PM
48
Alvin Plantinga is without a doubt one of the best thinkers alive today. Thanks.
posted on 08.18.2005 5:31 PM49
Wait, hang on a minute...
In the OP, did Joe contend that ID was not a science?
That’s not empirical science. That’s metaphysics, or maybe theology. It’s a theological add-on, not part of science itself. And, since it is a theological add-on, it shouldn’t, of course, be taught in public schools.
What are we talking about here? Joe appears to be talking about the philosophical position that "God" can be substituted for "chance" anywhere a discussion of evolution is made. This is indeed true, but also true is the inverse. The idea that it is God poking around with the universe that causes evolution is as irrelevant to science as the idea that it was not God. If the idea that God was not involved does not belong in the science classroom, and I agree that it does not, then the idea that he was involved also does not.
In which case, what on Earth is the issue? We won't teach our metaphysics as science and you don't teach yours as science. The thing is, we're not the ones trying to use the courts to force people to teach our metaphysics as science. It's already left out of the classroom, unless you consider the omission of your metaphysics to be the commission of ours. Unfortunately, we have to omit them all, because there isn't enough room to list all the invisible pink unicorns and the names of all the Gods that could have possibly caused what happened to happen.
So, let's have an agreement. We'll agree to remove all the times the phrase "this was definitely not caused by God" from science textbooks if you can find an example of such a phrase or sentiment ever appearing in one, and you'll agree to stop getting "this could have been caused by God" into them. And then we can have a "metaphysics" class introduced into the curriculum, where we can teach children properly.
Does that sound reasonable?
posted on 08.18.2005 6:19 PM50
Rob B
"Please exlpain to all of us idiots how eternal nothingness became something self existent, and how that thing then turned into all that we witness now?"
Huh? "Eternal nothingness"? Is that a scientific term?
Sounds like you need to talk to your preacher.
I'm talking about how life on earth evolved and why we observe changes in the fossil records, similarities in DNA sequences, etc.
Eternal nothingness? Yowza. Step into the light, bro.
posted on 08.18.2005 6:41 PM51
What evidence is there that that organisms were designed and/or constructed by a designer by a specific method that is not mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift?
That's not a claim that ID can make. ID can make the claim "we know what sort of steps neodarwinian evolution can take, and given those possible steps, we can identify systems which could not have been produced following those steps; therefore, exclusive neodarwinism did not produce those organisms."
(I know some IDers make stronger or weaker claims. Sorry about that, but it's the same for both sides.)
Oh, and for the person who wanted to know what "neodarwinian" meant: it's the theory that accidental genetic mutations plus natural selection accounts for evolution. Darwin knew about natural selection, of course, but he didn't know about genetic mutations. It's opposed by a number of theories -- Lysenkoism is a discredited one, and 7-day creationism is an unsupportable one; but there are some people searching for more detailed laws for genetic rearrangement who are hoping to discover a new mechanism for evolution (such a result wouldn't be neodarwinistic per se, although it could still be expressed in the language of naturalism). And finally, you have the guided evolution explanation, which is the main conclusion of the IDers -- their theory is that something aside from blind chance and natural selection is selecting _promising_ organisms and systems. Natural selection can't select promising things; it can only select currently useful things.
-Billy
52
"ID can make the claim "we know what sort of steps neodarwinian evolution can take, and given those possible steps, we can identify systems which could not have been produced following those steps; therefore, exclusive neodarwinism did not produce those organisms."
So which "systems" have these great ID scientists identified thus far? Which "systems" required intelligent intervention and which systems don't?
Of course you realize that for genuine scientists working in the field of evolutionary biology, any testable natural explanation that can explain an observation about the form of a living organism (extinct or extant) will be considered. If the explanation passes the test, it becomes a part of neodarwinism.
Get it?
All of biology after Darwin is neodarwinistic.
But who cares? Who cares if it's called "neoriuniteonicesonice" or anything else?
The point is that invoking deities or mysterious alien beings as scientific explanations of phenomenon is a scientific cop-out. A dead end. And that's pretty much all that the ID peddlers do, besides telling lies about scientists, the work of scientists, and the importance of their own "research."
Once again: do not be misled. Behe, Dembski etc. are not mocked for their beliefs. There are thousands and thousands of deluded people and cranks running around. Rather, they are mocked and chastised for their ACTIONS which nearly all informed people find loathesome and selfish.
It can not be said often enough that there are far far more Christians who are biologists who think ID is disgusting garbage than there are charlatans who take money to peddle their pseudoscientific garbage.
Once again, this is an incontrovertible fact that goes right to the very heart of the 'persecution' claims of the ID peddling loudmouths and their empty rhetoric about "secular materialism" and other propaganda.
posted on 08.18.2005 8:08 PM53
It's always cool when one can work both "yowza" and "bro" into the same post. Good show!
posted on 08.18.2005 8:25 PM54
Larry:
"It can not be said often enough that there are far far more Christians who are biologists who think ID is disgusting garbage than there are charlatans who take money to peddle their pseudoscientific garbage."
I have a book entitled: "That Their Words May Be Used Against Them." These are over 3500 lengthy quotations from over 1100 evolutionary scientists in the fields of astrophysics, exobiology, thermodynamics, genetics, palentology, anthropology, geology, geochronology and chemistry that repeat essentially what creationists have been saying all along -- there are major problems with neo-Darwinism. In fact many will admit that it is a pseudo-science, but the alternative (intelligent design or creationsm) does not fit into their philosophical presuppositions of dialectical materialism.
These include well known luminaries such as Arp, Asimov, Crick, Darwin, Davies, Dawkins, Dunbar, Eldredge, Gibbons, Gould, Hawkings, Hoyle, Huxley, Leaky, Lewin, Rifkin, Raup, Ruse, Simpson, Stanley, Thomsen and Valentine.
As a scientist, please give me an honest answer. Is it more logical that an omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent God created everything out of nothing, or that (a blind, deaf and dumb) nothing created itself into everything?
55
For those skeptics out there who do not believe in the authority of the Bible or what it has to say about creation and science, please give a logical explanation of the following passages . . .
O.T. passages:
Hydrauliclic cycle - "All rivers run to
the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from
whence the rivers come, thither they return again."
(Ecc. 1:7) Shape of the earth - "It is He that sitteth
on the 'circle' of the earth."
(Isa. 40:22) Cavemen - "For want and famine they were solitary
. . . driven forth from among men . . . to dwell in caves
of the earth."
(Job 30:3-8) Springs of the sea - "Hast
thou entered the springs of the sea?"
(Job 38:16) Dinosaurs "Behold now behemoth . . .
he moveth his tail like a cedar . . . his strength is
in his
belly . . . behold he drinketh up a river . . . his
bones are like strong pieces of brass . . . he lieth
in the covert of the reed and fens . . . " (Job 40 and
41)
Size of the Universe - (Jer 31:37) "If the heaven can
be measured and the foundations of the earth searched
out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of
Israel . . ."
Number of stars - "As the host of heaven cannot be
numbered, neither the sand of the sea
measured . . . " (Jer. 33:22)
How is it that thousands of years before the discovery
of the hydraulic cycle; a round earth; deep sea
springs; the destination of rivers; a description of
dinosaurs and cavemen; and a boundless universe with
countless stars are accurately described in the Bible?
Only a few centuries ago they believed the earth was
flat, and the universe contained only 5000 stars.
Other Biblical passages that I could cite, allude to
evaporation, hydrologic balance, the principal of
isotasy, rotation of the earth, erosion, glacial
period, uniformatarianism, uniqueness of each star,
precision of orbits, circulation of atmosphere, blood
circulation, chemical nature of flesh, mass energy
equivalence, and atomic disintegration.
posted on 08.18.2005 10:00 PM
56
How is it that thousands of years before the discovery
of the hydraulic cycle; a round earth; deep sea
springs; the destination of rivers; a description of
dinosaurs and cavemen; and a boundless universe with
countless stars are accurately described in the Bible?
People didn't care to notice or think about rivers, rain and water three thousand years ago? The idea that someone may find shelter in a cave was foreign to them? They didn't look up at the sky and see countless stars? No people 3,000 years ago were probably more aware of these things than people are today as they sit insulated in air conditioning and TV.
Other Biblical passages that I could cite, allude to
evaporation, hydrologic balance, the principal of
isotasy, rotation of the earth, erosion, glacial
period, uniformatarianism, uniqueness of each star,
precision of orbits, circulation of atmosphere, blood
circulation, chemical nature of flesh, mass energy
equivalence, and atomic disintegration.
Indeed just as you can post passages of Nostradamous that allude to everything from Hitler to Paris Hilton. Before we ascribe the power of revelation to Paris Hilton, though, we should be aware that these allusions were only clear (if that's what you think they are) after the fact. Why don't you pick something currently unknown such as the truth about string theory and see if you derive it from your passages?
posted on 08.18.2005 10:35 PM57
Dinosaurs "Behold now behemoth . . .
he moveth his tail like a cedar . . . his strength is in his belly . . . behold he drinketh up a river . . . his bones are like strong pieces of brass . . . he liethin the covert of the reed and fens . . . " (Job 40 and41)
Most footnotes consider this animal a hippopotamus. I googled this a bit and found more than a few cites chuckling over that. Hippo indeed with a tail like cedar. But it doesn't say his tail is like a cedar tree, it says his tail moves like a cedar tree. A distinction with a difference.
posted on 08.18.2005 10:44 PM58
Tgirsh Take away the wooden base from the moustrap, and just attach the mechanism directly to the floor.
But you haven’t “taken away” the wooden base. You have simply substituted another base for the one that you removed. For your example to work you would need to show how the mousetrap would be able to function without any base at all.
I can't even begin to address this without knowing precisely what you mean by "neo-Darwinism." As far as I know, that's a label made up by anti-evolutionists to apply to evolution supporters (i.e. pretty much the entire scientific community).
No, not at all. It was a term developed by scientists to distinguish the modified form of Darwinism from other theories, such as punctuated equilibrium.
How, exactly, does "you can't explain it naturally, therefore it must be supernatural" fundamentally differ?
Where does ID invoked the “supernatural?” All it says is that when we find something that has obviously been designed then we can assume an intelligent designer. Nothing more can be said – until the designer is discovered – about whether this designer is natural or supernatural.
And yet their "evidence" for this claim turns out not to be evidence for their position, but rather a lack of evidence for natural causes. Which brings us back to the appeal to ingorance.
If you truly believe this then why the special pleading? After all, you’ve already said that the “evidence” for the claim that it occurred by chance is that there is a lack of evidence for design.
Says me, and anyone else who agrees with me on this. Notice that I said "for some," indicating that not everyone will agree with this assessment. However, if you'd like, feel free to demonstrate to me and everyone present why this position isn't a reasonable one to take. Then tell me why you don't believe in Leprechauns, and whether or not it's "reasonable" for you to take that stance. :)
Okay, how about this: show me an example of an information rich, complex system that can is empirically observable and known to have been caused solely by natural causes (without the input of an intelligent being). Since you are basically claiming that this occurred millions of times throughout the earth’s history, it seems reasonable to assume that we should be able to see it happen now, right?
I argued that we have no such reason, at this time, to believe in purpose (in this context). If somebody uncovers compelling evidence (or even decent evidence) of purpose, then we will indeed have some reason to believe.
I assume you believe you had a purpose for writing that statement. If so, then we have reason to believe that humans are capable of creating purpose. But where did they get the ability in a completely purpose-less, natural universe. Who knows? Why don’t we look and see what we find? ; )
You seem to be saying firstly that scientists' criticisms of ID theory are not scientific. And then you seem to be saying that scientists should be open to the claims of ID theory.
I don’t have a problem with scientists criticizing ID on completely scientific merits. But they should also be able to show how they are able to distinguish between design and “designoid.” They need to explain how they were able to rule out intelligent design (and no, just starting with the assumption that there is no evidence of design, is not sufficient).
When you add in your claim that macro-evolution has never been demonstrated or proven, I would have to disagree that you are honestly searching after the truth in a liberated manner.
Anyone who claims that macro-evolution has been proven is being dishonest. I don’t know anyone who could truly say that with a straight face. They may believe that the evidence is sufficient. But it is not observable, so it cannot be provable.
Have you looked at the link I provided, "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution"? Is there anything you'd like to say in response to the many interesting arguments put forth there?
Interesting arguments? Have you read through the “evidences?” Unless you start with the same assumptions that methodological naturalism is true, then the “evidence” could be interpreted in completely different ways. Even those who completely believe in naturalistic macroevolution do not agree on how the data should be interpreted.
It's one thing to say you're interested in free, unrestricted inquiry. It's another to actually respond to someone who puts forward a meticulously researched and documented argument that challenges your viewpoint.
Why should we bother to rehash these same tired arguments? I could dig up rebuttals to every one of those points because this is not a new debate. That material has been covered hundreds of times before we every began to talk about the issue. Besides, what good would it do? Are you saying that if I could provide a comprehensive rebuttal that you would find it convincing? Of course you wouldn’t. Because our differences aren’t about facts but about philosophy.
I don't think anyone, anywhere, is arguing against this. Nobody is proposing a ban on ID research, to my knowledge. What irks me, at least, is that ID proponents demanding we take their theory very seriously now, despite the fact that they've done very little to earn respect.
I can’t believe you just said this. If no one is arguing this point then what is the problem with having ID published in peer-reviewed science journals. It’s not being rejected because the research is not up to the standards. It is being rejected because of philosophical biases against ID.
In the OP, did Joe contend that ID was not a science?
No, I didn’t.
What are we talking about here? Joe appears to be talking about the philosophical position that "God" can be substituted for "chance" anywhere a discussion of evolution is made.
Where did you get that idea? It certainly has nothing to do with ID? ID states that certain phenomenon can be determined to have been designed. That is not to say that random natural processes can’t produce anything, only that they can’t produce everything.
We won't teach our metaphysics as science and you don't teach yours as science.
Okay, so when we teach evolution in school we can take out any language that implies that the process is random or purposeful, directed or undirected. I’m fine with that if you are.
The thing is, we're not the ones trying to use the courts to force people to teach our metaphysics as science.
Of course you are. Haven’t you been paying attention to the debate? That's precisely the point of the controversy. I haven't heard too many people on the anti-ID side say that they are willing to admit that natural process may be directed and that we shouldn't attempt to express bias in science classes by claiming otherwise.
Larry All of biology after Darwin is neodarwinistic.
Um, no it’s not. How is it that Dr. Larry, who after two years of commenting on this blog suddenly discloses that he has a PhD in molecular biology, not aware of this.
So is Larry a liar as well as a crank?
59
One question.
What method objectively verifies the supremacy of the "scientific method"?
posted on 08.18.2005 11:19 PM60
Terence
"I have a book entitled: "That Their Words May Be Used Against Them."
Doesn't every card-carrying creationist? THat's the modus operandi! Too funny.
Let's start at the beginning. Please show me where Isaac Asimov said that there are "major problems with neodarwinism".
And lest you think for one second that I am going to let you beat your strawman without informing you that you are doing so, I have just retired that possibility.
No sincere biologist claims that we have discovered everything there is to know about how life on earth evolved.
That's not the point.
The point is that life evolved and it evolved slowly over the last several billion years and it continues to evolve because of very simple facts: living things reproduce imperfectly and environments change over time.
posted on 08.18.2005 11:39 PM61
"Other Biblical passages that I could cite, allude to evaporation, hydrologic balance, the principal of isotasy, rotation of the earth, erosion, glacial period, uniformatarianism, uniqueness of each star, precision of orbits, circulation of atmosphere, blood circulation, chemical nature of flesh, mass energy equivalence, and atomic disintegration."
Don't forget about talking plants, Terence!
Have you hugged a tree lately?
posted on 08.18.2005 11:42 PM62
How is it that thousands of years before the discovery
of the hydraulic cycle; a round earth; deep sea
springs; the destination of rivers; a description of
dinosaurs and cavemen; and a boundless universe with
countless stars are accurately described in the Bible?
Boonton reponds:
"People didn't care to notice or think about rivers, rain and water three thousand years ago? The idea that someone may find shelter in a cave was foreign to them? They didn't look up at the sky and see countless stars? No people 3,000 years ago were probably more aware of these things than people are today as they sit insulated in air conditioning and TV."
If they did actually contemplate these matters and wrote about them, then they invariably drew the wrong conclusions. Name any culture on earth besides the Hebrews that are on record describing of a round earth, or describing the hydraulic cycle, or the countless stars. Invariably their collective wisdom attested to the fact that the earth was flat, and the number of stars in the sky could be counted with the naked eye. At the time of Galileo there was an exact number ascribed. Perhaps you are thinking of the mythological Alantians who supposidly had everything figured out, but in the real world, almost everyone was in the dark.
posted on 08.18.2005 11:43 PM
63
I am a believer in ID because I am a Christian but even so I don't think the post makes a great deal of sense. From a scientific perspective there is neither evidence for or against ID but that does not mean there is no evidence for ID. This is really more a question of epistemology than metaphysics. If we buy the argument that scientific rationalism is the end all be all when it comes to epistemology then secular science wins the argument every time. But if, as some of the proponents of radical orthodoxy have proposed, we develop a competing Christian epistemology then we can present arguments for ID from a perspective that need not bow to the supremacy of science. This, of course, does not mean that we utterly reject scientific rationalism. After all this is an epistemology that has proven its worth in many areas. However, we should reject the notion that debates about matters such as ID must be undertaken on the terms set forth by the Enlightenment. If anyone is interested in reading more about these ideas I highly recommend James K. A. Smith's "Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-Secular Theology."
posted on 08.18.2005 11:55 PM64
"Um, no it’s not. How is it that Dr. Larry, who after two years of commenting on this blog suddenly discloses that he has a PhD in molecular biology, not aware of this. So is Larry a liar as well as a crank?"
Cranky, maybe, but not a crank.
And I have "disclosed" my Ph.D. here before (I can't imagine why you wouldn't read every one of my posts slowly and carefully ... ;)
Re my neodarwinism comment, let me put it this way. If some genetic phenomenon is identified which somehow affects the rate at which all or nearly all or even some portion of living things evolve, won't that phenomenon become an aspect of what scientists (or at least, some scientists) will call the "neodarwinistic theory of evolution"?
I mean, what is the alternative? Neo-neodarwinism?
Please let's keep our eyes on the ball. The fact is that the basic mechanisms of evolution are very well understood and tested beyond any reasonable doubt. Living things reproduce imperfectly. Environments change. Hundreds of millions of years go by. Some things go extinct. Some mutants survive. Some things look similar to their ancestors. Some things don't.
Note: I said hundreds of millions of years. Not hundreds of millions of seconds, which is still a damn long time. YEARS.
Think about it.
posted on 08.18.2005 11:59 PM65
Terence
"Name any culture on earth besides the Hebrews that are on record describing of a round earth"
Dude, the Hebrews didn't describe a round earth much less a spherical one, but even if they did, what the heck does that have to do with the fact that we shared a relatively recent common ancestor with chimpanzees?
Focus.
posted on 08.19.2005 12:03 AM66
Terence:
Is it more logical that an omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent God created everything out of nothing, or that (a blind, deaf and dumb) nothing created itself into everything?Can you say "False dilemma?" I knew you could!
Shape of the earth - "It is He that sitteth on the 'circle' of the earth."In Biblical times the world was held to be a disc (circle) rather than a globe (sphere). If it said "on the sphere" rather than "in the circle," you might have something. Also, a lot of Biblical scholars must have missed that for centuries, because for a long time the idea of a spherical, non-geocentric earth was blasphemy.
I do notice, however, how you leave out the embarrassing parts about rabbits chewing their cud (they don't) and pi being 3 (it isn't) and so on...
Joe:
But you haven’t “taken away” the wooden base. You have simply substituted another base for the one that you removed.Do you ever get tired of being wrong? Just curious. If you can show me how you can make a wooden-base mousetrap work without setting it on the floor (or some other horizontal surface), I'll concede the point. Sorry, but the floor (or counter, or whatever) is required, too. So by removing the wooden base and attaching the mechanism directly to the horizontal surface, whatever that happens to be, I have indeed reduced the complexity of the system while retaining most of its functionality. Now about that hot dog...
[Neo-Darwinism] was a term developed by scientists to distinguish the modified form of Darwinism from other theories, such as punctuated equilibrium.Umm, noooo, it was a term coined by George John Romanes, a guy who died in 1894; thus, I'd hardly call it a term to do away with punctuated equilibrium, which didn't come along until 1973, fully 79 years after the old chap had died.
Where does ID invoked the “supernatural?”OK, that one I'll concede. Substitute "mystery force/entity/deity/guy/group of guys X" for "supernatural," and carry on.
All it says is that when we find something that has obviously been designed then we can assume an intelligent designer.Yeah. Problem is it doesn't give us a clue how we can tell if something has "obviously" been designed. How can we differentiate between something that appears designed but isn't (say, a snowflake) and something that doesn't appear designed but is (say, a platypus)? Until we can answer that question, we don't even have a starting point. Irreducible complexity (IC) doesn't cut it, at least not until we have a solid working definition, which can be universally applied, as to what precisely constitutes IC. Same for CSI, for that matter.
After all, you’ve already said that the “evidence” for the claim that it occurred by chance is that there is a lack of evidence for design.Really? Where? Where, precisely, did I say this? You go find it. I'll wait.
The closest I can even imagine to saying anything like that is when I argued that we don't belive in direction because there's no good evidence for direction; but that's a far cry from saying that this is evidence for chance/nondirection.
And that argument is ultimately summed up in one statement, a statement with which you'll obviously disagree: It makes more sense to deny something for which there is no evidence than it does to accept something simply because we haven't completely ruled it out.
show me an example of an information rich, complex system that can is empirically observable and known to have been caused solely by natural causes (without the input of an intelligent being).Nice try, but until you give me precise definitions of "information-rich" (and, for that matter, "information") and "complex," there's simply no way to answer the question. And, in fact, you can't tell me how such systems came about even with the help of an intelligence, at least until you've properly defined those terms.
I surely hope you're not playing the Dembski semantic game, wherein you define "information-rich, complex systems" as systems which cannot have come about naturally, and then say that such systems, based on your purely arbitrary definition, are evidence that they did not come about naturally.
Since you are basically claiming that this occurred millions of times throughout the earth’s history, it seems reasonable to assume that we should be able to see it happen now, right?Sure, right after I demonstrate carving the Grand Canyon with a river. I suppose next we'll be having to kick geology out of the classroom, and replace it with "intelligent etching." (Again, I wish I could take credit for this joke, but I stole it from The Onion: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory.)
I assume you believe you had a purpose for writing that statement. If so, then we have reason to believe that humans are capable of creating purpose.I know you are, but what am I? :)
Unless you start with the same assumptions that methodological naturalism is true, then the “evidence” could be interpreted in completely different ways.And there we have it. See, why don't you just come out and say that you don't believe in science at all? Because, bottom line, science is methodological naturalism. So if you don't assume methodological naturalism is true, then science -- all of it, not just some -- is a sham. And if that's the case, why bother with ID at all? It's merely trying to insert God into a field (science) in which you don't believe at all. What would be the point of that?
I could dig up rebuttals to every one of those points because this is not a new debate.You're absolutely right: it is an old debate, and your side has lost the debate at every single turn. Sure, you'll always win over a few who are too hard-headed to accept defeat, or who would rather just believe whatever confirms their worldview. But in the court of scientific opinion, where it matters, your side consistently gets its ass handed to it. (And if you don't think the court of scientific opinion matters, then the whole ID exercise is just a waste of time.)
If no one is arguing this point then what is the problem with having ID published in peer-reviewed science journals. It’s not being rejected because the research is not up to the standards. It is being rejected because of philosophical biases against ID.I'll wait while you refill your kool-aid. Umm, actually it's being rejected because the research isn't up to the standards. But hey, if you're right about this, and I'm wrong, then you should be easily able to throw out a dozen examples of scientifically rigorous ID research papers that were unfairly rejected.
By the way, it's worth noting that once in a while, ID papers do get published in such journals. But when they do, they get laughed off the page. Again, don't complain about the skeptics -- prove them wrong.
And for what it's worth, rejection != ban; further, from a purely technical standpoint, refusal to publish the work isn't a ban on research either. It's ignoring the research, which is a different matter. The only question here is whether or not the research is being rightly ignored. So far, I contend, it is, and the vast majority of the scientific community agrees with me.
posted on 08.19.2005 12:13 AM67
"if, as some of the proponents of radical orthodoxy have proposed, we develop a competing Christian epistemology then we can present arguments for ID from a perspective that need not bow to the supremacy of science."
Bow to the supremacy of science?
What the heck are you talking about?
Remember: the ONLY reason that we are having this discussion is because the Discovery Institute is because the Discovery Institute wants to dilute the teaching of science in SCIENCE CLASSROOMS (at least, that's where they start).
Nobody is asking YOU to bow to the supremacy of anything. You can believe whatever you want. If you choose to recite untestable unscientific religious mythology (or beliefs, whatever term you prefer) as scientific facts, you should be prepared to have your claims destroyed in a venue where FACTS are deemed more important than FAITH BASED BELIEFS.
Many people here seem to wish that every venue would take their religious beliefs as seriously as scientists take facts like evolution, plate tectonics, and gravity.
That wish is ill-conceived. Consider the religious beliefs of others that contradict your own. Why are your beliefs better than theirs? How are we to determine whose religious beliefs about the most powerful deity are most accurate? Should we all vote or arm wrestle?
posted on 08.19.2005 12:18 AM68
"If you can show me how you can make a wooden-base mousetrap work without setting it on the floor (or some other horizontal surface), I'll concede the point."
Why wouldn't a wooden-base mousetrap work if you hung it from a string?
posted on 08.19.2005 12:20 AM69
Other Biblical passages that I could cite, allude to
evaporation, hydrologic balance, the principal of
isotasy, rotation of the earth, erosion, glacial
period, uniformatarianism, uniqueness of each star,
precision of orbits, circulation of atmosphere, blood
circulation, chemical nature of flesh, mass energy
equivalence, and atomic disintegration.
Boonton responds:
"Indeed just as you can post passages of Nostradamous that allude to everything from Hitler to Paris Hilton. Before we ascribe the power of revelation to Paris Hilton, though, we should be aware that these allusions were only clear (if that's what you think they are) after the fact. Why don't you pick something currently unknown such as the truth about string theory and see if you derive it from your passages?"
Most of the scriptures I cited were unabiguous scientific revelations which were made 3000 years before the advent of modern science. If they were wrong (such as the reference to "countless stars"), everyone would have heard about it by now. But if they are right, they are relegated to the ranks of Nostrdamas alluding to Paris Hilton. Is that your best shot?
70
"Most of the scriptures I cited were unabiguous scientific revelations which were made 3000 years before the advent of modern science."
No they weren't.
"Yes they were."
No they weren't.
"Yes they were."
etc.
posted on 08.19.2005 12:26 AM71
Larry Lord:
"Let's start at the beginning. Please show me where Isaac Asimov said that there are "major problems with neodarwinism".
I never said he did, only that "many" of the 1100 scientists quoted in the book cited had done so. But since you ask, let's examine what he did say to instill confidence in the troops that neo-Darwinism wasn't "much ado about nothing" . . .
"Perhaps in an infinite sea of nothingness, globs of positive and negative energy in equal sized pairs are constantly forming, and after passing through evolutionary stages, combining once more and vanishing. We are in one of those globs between nothing and nothing, and wondering about it." (Science Digest vol 69, 1974)
The world's most prolific atheist also stated,
"I don't have the evidence that God doesn't exist, but I strongly suspect he doesn't and I don't want to waste my time." ( Free Inquiry vol 2 (1982)
Here is the paean of modern secular humanism saying that having been created by nothing we are now between "nothing and nothing." Now that is really something!
72
Hi Joe,
Thank you very much for responding.
When I first read 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution a couple of months ago, I was truly very impressed with the tight reasoning and the wide array of evidence that Douglas Theobald was able to marshall.
Of course, Dr. Theobald needs to use very tight reasoning indeed, for his paper is very ambitious. His stated goal is nothing less than to prove the theory of macroevolution, which he defines as follows:
Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level.
And how does Dr. Theobald propose to accomplish this lofty task of establishing the truth of macroevolution?
Here is his summary of what his paper is about:
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life.
This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences. No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.
And the amazing thing is, he actually delivers on what he promises.
It takes a few hours or so to wade through all the research he cites, but I found it well worth the effort. He helpfully provides diagrams and some photos in order to illustrate and document some of the points that he makes, and he sets up the paper so that it is pretty easy to navigate from one section