Eighty years after the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, the public still refuses to accept the idea that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for complex biological phenomena. In fact, opinion polls show that fewer people are willing to accept the idea that human beings developed from earlier species than they were just ten years ago.
In Britain—a country that is not exactly known for fundamentalist Christianity—fewer than half accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life. (And more than 40% of those polled believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.) Even doctors, who are more informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone.
Why do so many people have such difficulty accepting the theory? Is it due to a resurgence of religious-based creationism? Or is it that the Discovery Institute and other advocates of Intelligent Design are more persuasive? I believe the credit belongs not to the advocates of ID but to the theory’s critics.
Had the critics remained silent, ID might possibly have moldered in obscurity. But instead they launched a counter-offensive, forcing people into choosing sides. The problem is that the more the public learns about modern evolutionary theory, the more skeptical they become.
I won’t argue that critics of ID are always wrong or that ID is always—or even mostly—right in its claims. But I do think a compelling case can be made that the anti-IDers are losing the rhetorical battle. Here is the first five in a list of ten reasons ways in which they are helping to promote the theory of intelligent design:
#1 By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory. – Whether due to intellectual snobbery or intellectual laziness, too many critics of ID never bother to understand what the term means, much less learn the general tenets of the theory. Instead, they knock down a strawman version of ID that they have gleaned from other, equally ill-informed, critics. The belligerent or paranoid advocates of ID will assume that the misrepresentation is due to dishonesty or a conspiracy by “Darwinists.” But even those who are more charitable will agree that when a critic misrepresents the theory, it undermines their own credibility.
#2 By claiming that ID is stealth creationism. -- Resorting to this red herring is one of the most common arguments made against ID. While it’s true that ID could be used to promote a particular religious agenda, this is not a sufficient argument against it being a legitimate scientific research program. There is no a priori reason why a research program could not be completely in adherence to accepted scientific methods and yet be completely compatible with a particular religious viewpoint.
But it also refuses to acknowledge the vast majority of people throughout history have believed in at least a basic form of creationism. Most people believe that some form of intelligent being (i.e., God) created the universe and everything in it. For most of these people, “creationism” is not a derogatory term. The phrase “stealth creationism” might appeal to the pseudo-intellectuals (those who know almost nothing about science but do know that they despise “fundamentalist Christians”) yet for most ordinary people it sounds like bigoted nonsense.
#3 By resorting to “science of the gaps” arguments. – Critics of ID often claim that the theory relies on a “God of the Gaps” “argument. (Don’t understand how something occurred? Well…God did it. Case closed.) As scientific reasoning, this method is obviously flawed. Yet the critics of ID often resort to the same tactic, only instead of saying “God did it” they claim “Science will find it.”
The problem is that this almost never happens. Closing a "science gap" almost always leads to the discovery of other, even more difficult to explain gaps in knowledge. For example, when evolution was first proposed by Darwin, there was no explanation for the mechanism of transmission of traits from one generation to the next. With the discovery of DNA, Watson and Crick closed that particular “gap.”
But as physicist David Snoke notes, no one today has an adequate explanation for how this highly complicated molecule arose out of nowhere. Also, we do not have an adequate explanation within chemical evolutionary theory for the appearance of the mechanism that gives us a readout of the information, or for the appearance of methods that replicate information with out error, or for the appearance of the delicate balance of repair and maintenance of the molecular systems that use the information stored in DNA.
Scientific discoveries tend to find that nature is even more complex than we imagined which makes it even more unlikely that a process like natural selection is a sufficient explanation.
#4 By claiming that ID isn’t science since it's not published peer-reviewed literature...and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals. – The hypocrisy of snubbing ID because it lacks peer-review was exposed by the treatment of Richard Sternberg, a journal editor who made the career-killing mistake of actually publishing an article that was sympathetic to ID.
The resulting controversy exposed just how close-minded some scientists were to criticisms of neo-Darwinism. As Sternberg—who is not an advocate of ID--said after the incident, “It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."
#5 By making claims that natural selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features. -- Instead of saying that “God created X”, Darwinists tend to claim that “Sex selection created X.” Take, for instance, this statement made by zoologist Richard Dawkins:
"Why did humans lose their body hair? Why did they start walking on their hind legs? Why did they develop big brains? I think that the answer to all three questions is sexual selection," Dawkins said. Hairlessness advertises your health to potential mates, he explained. The less hair you have on your body, the less real estate you make available to lice and other ectoparasites. Of course, it was worth keeping the hair on our heads to protect against sunstroke, which can be very dangerous in Africa, where we evolved. As for the hair in our armpits and pubic regions, that was probably retained because it helps disseminate "pheromones," airborne scent signals that still play a bigger role in our sex lives than most of us realize.
Why did we lose our body hair? Sex selection. Why do we retain some body hair? Yep, sex selection. Why do humans walk on two legs? Again, the same answer, sex selection. Why do dogs walk on all four? You guessed it, sex selection.
The same goes for human behavior. Hardly a week goes by that some newspaper or magazine article does not include a story claiming how “evolution” is the reason humans do X, avoid Y, or prefer Z.
Even scientists grow weary of hearing such faith claims presented as if was “science.” As Philip S. Skell, emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, notes in a recent edition of The Scientist:
…Darwinian explanations for [human behavior] are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self- centered and aggressive - except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed - except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.
Even those who flunked high school biology can see that when a theory can be used to prove any behavior that it ceases to be science and enters the realm of faith. Yet when evolutionists make such claims they are often flummoxed by the public’s skeptical reaction. They can’t understand how we could be so stupid as to not accept their claims. And we wonder how they could be so stupid as to think we are really that gullible.
To be continued in Part II
Actually i ve got a far more likely explanation as to why so many people reject the theory of evolution...because the majority of people dont even know what it is to begin with...you ask 20 people about it and i ll bet at least 15 will tell you it means that man descends from monkey. ( a false perception that creationist and IDist try to reinforce whenever they can BTW)...So given this overwhelming lack of scientific literacy even in the modern western world,is it really any wonder that people still turn to plagiarized sumerian folk tales as a favored explanation of human origin?
Actually i ve got a far more likely explanation as to why so many people reject the theory of evolution...because the majority of people dont even know what it is to begin with
Accepting this for a moment, why is this so? What is it about the TOE (Theory of Evolution) that evolutionary biologists can't develop a curriculum to give a basic understanding to the typical high-school biology student? For that matter, assuming the poll Joe cites is correct, they haven't even done a very good job of teaching it to medical doctors; who we would expect to have a much better understanding than a high-school biology student.
you ask 20 people about it and i ll bet at least 15 will tell you it means that man descends from monkey. ( a false perception that creationist and IDist try to reinforce whenever they can BTW)
How far from the truth is this perception (man evolving from monkeys)? My understanding is that, according to evolution man and monkey descend from a common primate ancestor. I assume that this ancestor would resemble a monkey more than a man. Obviously evolution deals with more than just the origins of man, but with respect to that specific portion of evolution, "man evolving from monkeys" is a pretty good approximation.
So given this overwhelming lack of scientific literacy even in the modern western world,
I don't see any evidence from your post of rampant scientific illiteracy in the West, only your own prejudices against people who disagree with your interpretation of the evidence for TOE.
I have read nearly the whole of Evolution [probably Acworth’s unpublished “The Lie of Evolution”] and am glad you sent it. I must confess it has shaken me: not in my belief in evolution, which was of the vaguest and most intermittent kind, but in my belief that the question was wholly unimportant. I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think that you may be right in regarding it as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders. ~ C.S. Lewis
As has been pointed out before, it does no good trying to pit C.S. Lewis against evolution. One read through The Problem of Pain shows that he had no problem accepting the development of man by evolutionary means, guided by God, as all natural processes are. What Lewis objected to, as he states clearly in The Abolition of Man, was the philosophy, what many ID proponents refer to as naturalism. Where many in this debate go wrong is in assuming that the science of evolution and the philosophy of naturalism (that the physical world is all that is and all that we believe and do are merely the result natural processes) are one and the same. They aren't, any more than the theory of gravity is the same as naturalism. One is an observation of facts and processes, and the other is the interpretation of a meaning behind those facts.
As for Joe's point, I do think that defenders of the science of evolution often turn people against that science by acting as if they also believe that the science and the philosophy are one and the same. If you argue for evolution on the grounds that it disproves God, you're overstepping the evidence and turning people off at the same time. It's the very same false dilemma that creationists and ID proponents are trying to promote to win public support.
Joe: "Even those who flunked high school biology can see that when a theory can be used to prove any behavior that it ceases to be science and enters the realm of faith."
Nonsense. You are trying to use the very comprehensiveness and elegance of the theory against it. It explains too much, so it must be a religion. But then, I aced biology, so maybe I can't see everything that those who flunked do.
ucfengr: "What is it about the TOE (Theory of Evolution) that evolutionary biologists can't develop a curriculum to give a basic understanding to the typical high-school biology student?"
What is it about geography that geographers can't develop a curriculum that imparts a basic understanding to the typical students? Haven't you seen the studies that indicate the widespread inability of American students to find Europe on a globe? Ignorance in all disciplines is rampant in our culture.
C.S.Lewis, courtesy of Bevets: "What inclines me now to think that you may be right in regarding it as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."
Lewis should be alive today to see the little Baptists in the halls with the "DARWIN LIED" t-shirts they got from church. If only Lewis could read Dawkins, then Jack Chick. What inclines me to think Christianity is the central lie of the web of falsehoods governing our lives is the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.
#1 By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory.
Heh, so when did the aliens land and erase the last year or so of Joe's memeories? I remember trying my best to get anyone here to give me a sensible definition of, say, 'specified information'.
Indeed, others here have put forth numerous examples of experiments and observations that either have been done or could easily be done by IDers to support or disprove their theory. It is IDers who, as a rule, do not seem to ever want to get their hands dirty with actual experiments.
#5 By making claims that natural selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features.
Ironically I think this actually makes the public more inclined to accept evolution. Ask people a question like why do Africans have darker skin than Europeans and most will leap some answer like "well there's more sun in Africa". Ask them why men and women may differ in certain behaviors and they will reach for some type of 'cave man' explanation.
It is the scientists who get upset with overreaching speculation. Dawkins ideas about why we have hair on our head but not the rest of our body is fine speculation but it couldn't be accepted without a lot more evidence. The public laps that sort of thing up because it makes sense but so would lots of other explanations. Some explanations may not even seem to make much sense but might end up being true. For example, suppose our relative hairlessness was caused by a virus that infected our population when it was very very small and left an alteration in our DNA that's been carried on ever since. Wacky but possible.
I'll say this after having giving IDers more text time than just about anyone here. IDers, especially on this list (esp. Gordon...God please don't let him notice another evolution thread!), refuse to see the difference between philosophy and science and between evolution as a theory and evolution as it fits into naturalist philosophy.
I'll add a #6: trumpeting every conceivable science story as a triumph for Darwinism and a defeat for ID. Whether the story is about Tiktaalik, Galapagos finches, or pseudogenes - the headline is always "Evolution Vindicated". In every case, a careful consideration of the new facts leads one to no such conclusion. This tactic smells like desperation.
I'll add a #6: trumpeting every conceivable science story as a triumph for Darwinism and a defeat for ID. Whether the story is about Tiktaalik, Galapagos finches, or pseudogenes - the headline is always "Evolution Vindicated". In every case, a careful consideration of the new facts leads one to no such conclusion. This tactic smells like desperation.
Joe still has 5 more points to go.
Haven't you seen the studies that indicate the widespread inability of American students to find Europe on a globe?
I saw what appeared to be a wildly overblown story (is there any other kind?) on CNN, but no, I haven't read the studies. However, I am a bit skepitcal of such studies. Every year, it seems there is a new study showing that American students can't read or do basic math or find Europe on a map, and yet we are still able to produce a pretty significant number of competent engineers, doctors, teachers (including geography), and (sadly) lawyers.
I think a case can be made for failure of high school biology classes to adequately teach evolution, but in fairness, most students get a single year of biology and there is a huge amount of ground to cover. Most Americans will probably never again crack open a science text or journal after high school, and their knowledge of ecology or physiology is probably as sketchy as their knowledge of evolution. The difference is that many people hear and read a steady stream of anti-evolution rhetoric from various religious and political sources.
I'd wager that the majority of people who take a serious evolutionary biology class in college are much more likely to be convinced that evolutionary biology is correct.
Even those who flunked high school biology can see that when a theory can be used to prove any behavior that it ceases to be science and enters the realm of faith. Yet when evolutionists make such claims they are often flummoxed by the public’s skeptical reaction. They can’t understand how we could be so stupid as to not accept their claims. And we wonder how they could be so stupid as to think we are really that gullible.
As Boonton points out, the public seems to lap up simplistic evolutionary hypotheses about human behavior, particularly when they reinforce their own biases. It's the more rigorously supported data for common ancestry that they reject. But hey, no one said that "those who flunked high school biology"* can't hold silly and contradictory opinions.
*who flunks high school biology, anyway? High school biology curriculums are so easy that I wouldn't trust someone who flunked it to walk and talk at the same time, let alone credit them with a intelligent opinion on evolution.
Thank you Darrell DeLaney. That is exactly my problem with the whole debate. We who believe in creation by God don't necessarily believe in "creationism." However, we are very concerned that the science of evolution has been overtaken by the philosophy of "evolutionism." I don't have any patience with six-day creationists. But the notion that evolution disproves a creator is not science; it's philosophy. Those of us who don't believe in a young earth, are at the same time worried that the philosophy of evolution is being taught as fact; that students are being told that science proves there can't be a creator. And I think I there is plenty of cause to be worried that this garbage is being taught.
As LudVanB stated above, I would put myself in with the majority of people who aren't really sure what Darwin taught, or what HIS theory of evolution actually teaches. (Though I believe "evolutionism" is no different than just another plagiarized "Sumerian folk tale.") In some ways, that raises red flags already. If it's science, why isn't it more settled and concrete? Maybe it's because the science is settled, but people on both sides (naturalism and creationism) are trying to take it where it doesn't belong.
Rob, I see two choices for evolution or Darwinism. Either it is atheistic, uncontrolled by the Judeo-Christian God or some other diety of choice, or existence is the result of one or more of those same dieties deciding on life and existence.
If it is the first, or athiestic evolution, or it is the second, which is ID. If the insistence is on athiestic evolution, the philosophical decisions of ID'er is warranted. Insistence by those who believe that origins does not require diety has no more validity than those who disagree.
For the 85% of Americans who believe in God, athiestic evolution is unacceptable.
It is also central to Christianity that the efforts of humans do not determine the truth of God, especially if the actions of us Baptists are fanatical and twisted. When Baptists start using suicide bombers and beheading infidels, maybe fanatical and twisted will apply. Until then, maybe we are emulating our critics too much.
Scott:
I see two choices for evolution or Darwinism. (snip)
If it is the first, or athiestic evolution, or it is the second, which is ID.
Either you have set up a false dichotomy, or you are using an unusual definition of ID. For instance, theistic evolution is a third option which is neither atheistic evolution nor ID of the Discovery Institute/Behe/Dembski variety. Notable supporters of theistic evolution such as Francis Collins are on record as opposing ID. On the other side, ID supporters often argue against theistic evolution.
Now, perhaps you are using ID as an umbrella term that includes ID sensu strictu and theistic evolution, but if so you ought to clearly define your terms so that people don't think you are using it in the more common way.
Thank you Darrell DeLaney. That is exactly my problem with the whole debate. We who believe in creation by God don't necessarily believe in "creationism." However, we are very concerned that the science of evolution has been overtaken by the philosophy of "evolutionism."
Interesting that you who are so concerned do not attack philosophers. You demand that science texts be rewritten rather than demanding that philsophy classes make sure they include critics of, say, Gould or Dennett.
But the notion that evolution disproves a creator is not science; it's philosophy
You will not find a single High School textbook in the United States that even comes within a mile of saying that. So why does it seem like 90% of this battle revolves around High Schools?
As LudVanB stated above, I would put myself in with the majority of people who aren't really sure what Darwin taught, or what HIS theory of evolution actually teaches. (Though I believe "evolutionism" is no different than just another plagiarized "Sumerian folk tale.") In some ways, that raises red flags already. If it's science, why isn't it more settled and concrete?
The red flag that goes up should be the one that says "why am I talking about something which I just told my audience I'm totally ignorant of?".
Maybe it's because the science is settled, but people on both sides (naturalism and creationism) are trying to take it where it doesn't belong
Ahhh this is what I call the classic bi-partisan fallacy. The assumption that 'both sides' must always be equally at fault. "Yea Republicans are corrupt, but so are Democrats"..."Yea Palestinians have killed civilians, but so has Israel" and so on. Maybe, though, you should consider that the problem here is not that both sides are trying to take this where it doesn't belong but ONE side is!
IMO most who argue the philosophical side are clear that their position is consistent with evolutionary theory but do not claim that evolutionary theory proves their philsophy. On the other side, though, most with a creationist bent (including IDers) seem obsessed with asserting either directly or indirectly that scientific evolution must be a philosophy no matter what.
Scott
Rob, I see two choices for evolution or Darwinism. Either it is atheistic, uncontrolled by the Judeo-Christian God or some other diety of choice, or existence is the result of one or more of those same dieties deciding on life and existence.
Errr, isn't say the theory of gravity also bound by these 'two choices'? How about the kenetic theory of gasses? Of all the many scientific theories, for some strange reason evolution seems to be the only one where this observation is made (cosmological theories about the Big Bang are a real but distant second).
For the 85% of Americans who believe in God, athiestic evolution is unacceptable.
Indeed but this is just a tautology and a rather inane one at that. For the 85% of Americans who believe in God athiestic gravity is also unacceptable. So would athiestic butter spread. All you're really saying is that for a non-athiest athiesm is unacceptable.
The reality is you don't see two choices 'for evolution or Darwinism' but rather you just see two choices period. That's a fine discussion to have but the truth is bringing evolution in is really just a distraction.
"Accepting this for a moment, why is this so? What is it about the TOE (Theory of Evolution) that evolutionary biologists can't develop a curriculum to give a basic understanding to the typical high-school biology student? For that matter, assuming the poll Joe cites is correct, they haven't even done a very good job of teaching it to medical doctors; who we would expect to have a much better understanding than a high-school biology student."
The reason for this is obvious...knowledge of evolutionary science is useless in the jobs occupied by most americans...likewise,most folks are incapable of understanding advanced university level math or even name the 10 province and 2 territories of Canada,their neighbor to the north...hell i once saw a poll that showed the majority couldnt even name all 50 states...btw,its the same thing for doctors...Evolutionary science serves little purpose in open heart surgery and most doctors have about the same high school level understanding of evolution as the average folks. Learning about evolution is a full time job and i imagine that most doctors would rather devote their lenghty studies on healing sick people. Of course,this ignorance of the facts of evolution does not stop anyone from voicing an opinion about it,however uninformed it may be.
"How far from the truth is this perception (man evolving from monkeys)? My understanding is that, according to evolution man and monkey descend from a common primate ancestor. I assume that this ancestor would resemble a monkey more than a man. Obviously evolution deals with more than just the origins of man, but with respect to that specific portion of evolution, "man evolving from monkeys" is a pretty good approximation."
On the contrary...the difference between "man descends from apes" and "man and apes share common ancestry" is enormous...the former being like saying "you descend from your cousins" which most people realise is nonsensical probably contributes heavily to the rejection of the ToE by the masses...which is probably why creationist and IDist reinforce that perception every chance they get...like you just did by claiming its " a close approximation" when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
"I don't see any evidence from your post of rampant scientific illiteracy in the West, only your own prejudices against people who disagree with your interpretation of the evidence for TOE"
But we were not discussing my or anyone's interpretations of the facts of the ToE...we were discussing Joe Average's awerness (or rather lack thereof) of those facts. I m not prejudiced against anyone...i know for a fact that the majority of people who actually know what the ToE is about dont reject it in favor of olf wives tales.
The reason for this is obvious...knowledge of evolutionary science is useless in the jobs occupied by most americans..
But how does this explain the apparent prevelence of disbelief in the TOE by medical doctors? Sureley they would be expected to have enough of a background in biology to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of the TOE.
the difference between "man descends from apes" and "man and apes share common ancestry" is enormous
Not if you assume that the common ancestor is more ape-like than human-like. If you don't accept that assumption, then you run into "Joe Point 5", where in one case (human) evolution selected for smarter (bigger brain) and in another (ape) evolution selected for dumber (smaller brain).
But we were not discussing my or anyone's interpretations of the facts of the ToE...
The problem with this statement is that we have very few facts WRT the TOE, what we have is evidence which can be interpreted in many different ways.
Sigh. When things get slow around here, count on Joe to toss out ID again. Yes, Boonton, Joe never does come around and explain what ID is - and neither does anyone else, except in the vaguest of language. What does ID tell us? What discoveries become possible through ID? How does a scientist employ ID theory to solve problems? Each time, same answer: bupkis.
IMO most who argue the philosophical side are clear that their position is consistent with evolutionary theory but do not claim that evolutionary theory proves their philsophy.
Correct. Moreover, we ought to go back to Joe's original post for a sec:
Scientific discoveries tend to find that nature is even more complex than we imagined which makes it even more unlikely that a process like natural selection is a sufficient explanation.
And once again we return to the incessant "because why? because why? because why" tantrum of a little child. Newsflash: It is not the job of science to explain everything. Science is a methodology, a procedure. It is the job of people to explain things. Thus, if you ask me for an account of evolution, I can use Dawin's theory to posit a plausible answer.
For example, you might ask me why our teeth are shaped the way they are. Evolutionary theory suggests some compelling ideas that the evidence supports. Can I give this explanation with 100% assurance? No - of course not. And this seems to be the big sticking point for the creationist set: They want rock-solid answers with no ambiguity.
"But how does this explain the apparent prevelence of disbelief in the TOE by medical doctors? Sureley they would be expected to have enough of a background in biology to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of the TOE."
Not really...as i said Evolution serves no purpose on an operating table and unless individual doctors have also taken up an interest in the study of evolutionary process,they are unlikely to know more about it than you do. Furthermore,most doctors are also christians...and if there s one thing i ve learned over the years,it that the ability of religionists to ignore/distort facts which do not conform to their cult's ideology can always be depended upon.
"Not if you assume that the common ancestor is more ape-like than human-like. If you don't accept that assumption, then you run into "Joe Point 5", where in one case (human) evolution selected for smarter (bigger brain) and in another (ape) evolution selected for dumber (smaller brain)."
But dont you see how wrong you are? even if your cousins and your ancestors look very much alike,its impossible for you to be descendant from the former...yet thats what creationist and IDisr claim evolution says...thats a misrepresentation of the facts and i have personally witnessed it REPEATABLY...its the number one favorite strawman of the anti-evolution crowd and they keep using it because it works...whenever people are told by creation/IDist that evolutionists expect them to believe that they descendants from the furry creatures to go laugh at in zoos,their reaction is obvious and predictable. and thats what creationist/IDist count on.
"The problem with this statement is that we have very few facts WRT the TOE, what we have is evidence which can be interpreted in many different ways."
That would only be true if each part of the puzzle was examined by itself seperate from all the other pieces with no larger context to place it in..but thats not the case here. when you put it all together,it becomes almost impossible to misinterpret the available evidence...unfortunately,its still very much possible to MISREPRESENT it.
But how does this explain the apparent prevelence of disbelief in the TOE by medical doctors? Sureley they would be expected to have enough of a background in biology to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of the TOE.
LudVanB covered that already. Even for doctors evolution plays only a limited role in their education and next to no role in their day to day work.
However:
Not really...as i said Evolution serves no purpose on an operating table and unless individual doctors have also taken up an interest in the study of evolutionary process,they are unlikely to know more about it than you do. Furthermore,most doctors are also christians...and if there s one thing i ve learned over the years,it that the ability of religionists to ignore/distort facts which do not conform to their cult's ideology can always be depended upon.
I disagree with this. I would venture to say that most educated people who spend time on the issue of evolution support the theory AND are Christians (or Jews). It is a myth that disbelief in evolution is a particularly Christian thing. IDers, though, would love for us to believe this myth because it would help them pressure Christians to believe their theory and secularists also enjoy the myth because it makes it easier for them to mount a case for rejecting religion.
Not if you assume that the common ancestor is more ape-like than human-like. If you don't accept that assumption, then you run into "Joe Point 5", where in one case (human) evolution selected for smarter (bigger brain) and in another (ape) evolution selected for dumber (smaller brain).
Aren't we lurching into the fallacy of 'appeal to popularity' here? Joe's post can be nicely summed up as arguing "Because polls show lots of people doubt evolution there must be something wrong with it".
However it's well known that lots of polls will show the public believes things we know are not true. For example, you'll find many polls agreeing with the statement that free trade cost jobs despite the fact that myth has been demolished by economists as firmly as anything else. Needless to say many people will say they believe in astrology in some form despite the fact that there is no objective reason to do so and lots of objective reasons to disbelieve astrology. I'm sure you could even find polls showing many Americans believe things that completely contradict the Christian faith they also profess to believe...such as a belief in reincarnation.
The hypocrisy of snubbing ID because it lacks peer-review was exposed by the treatment of Richard Sternberg, a journal editor who made the career-killing mistake of actually publishing an article that was sympathetic to ID. . . .
He made the career-killing moves of dishonesty, misrepresentation, and crankiness.
Sternberg had research privileges at, but was not an employee of, the Smithsonian Institution; he served one term as editor of one of their journals, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, devoted to taxonomy (naming and classification of organisms). Sternberg is also a Fellow of the "International Society for Complexity, Information and Design", an ID-advocacy group, and is on the editorial board of the "Baraminology [sic] Group", which promotes young-earth creationism (both he and they state that he's an "outside critic").
Just before publication of the last issue of the Proceedings for which he was editor, Sternberg received a manuscript from Stephen C. Meyer, who is Director of the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute - the "intelligent design" home base of which Meyer is also a founder. He was a participant in the 1992 "wedge conference" from which the infamous "Wedge Document" (advocating a coordinated strategy to discredit evolution theory as the first step toward a Christian revival) emerged - Meyer is named repeatedly in that document; he is also regarded as the author of the "teach the controversy" strategy (of claiming that creationism deserves equal time in schools with science because it is a legitimate and active scientific controversy). Meyer has an undergraduate degree in science, but his PhD is in history of science; he taught philosophy of science and theology at several Christian colleges and is now a mainstay of the Discovery Institute.
Both Meyer and Sternberg attended a "baraminology" conference at which Sternberg presented an invited paper; they certainly knew of each other before this incident.
Meyer's paper was not a scientific research report, and it had only indirect relation to the actual classification of organisms. It was a long essay, with the usual pseudo-scholarly quotes from people who actually object to his claims that for some reason creationists always like to use, that simply expresses the standard "argument from personal incredulity" regarding evolution of different types of species. Even a quick review demonstrates it to be extremely shoddy: long sections are given over to detailed and tedious descriptions of the improbability that specific proteins of a given size could be assembled randomly (no biologist claims that they arise randomly); he makes basic blunders in biological science, for instance stating that "neo-Darwinists assert that . . . the 'obvious design' of living things is only apparent since the selection/mutation mechanism can explain the origin of complex form" (biologists since Darwin have always known that genome mixing during sexual reproduction is at least as important a source of variation as genetic mutations - constant harping on mutations is a hallmark of a popular-science level of knowledge); he works in untestable creationist jargon such as "complex specified information".
He also makes a fallacious and obvious transition in the last few paragraphs, moving from "The remainder of this review will . . . help explain why the issue of teleology or design has reemerged within the scientific discussion of biological origins" (referring to technical discussions of ways in which body parts "serve a purpose" such as flight, digestion, etc.), to "First . . . Neo-Darwinists . . . have long acknowledged that organisms appear to have been designed" (they have long acknowledged that you can see them that way, not that they actually are so), to "[Second:] Conscious and rational agents have, as part of their powers of purposive intelligence, the capacity to design information-rich parts and to organize those parts into functional information-rich systems", to "[Third:] purposive agents have just those necessary powers that natural selection lacks." In other words, he cites perfectly reasonable uses of "teleology", "purpose", and "design" as descriptions of the forces shaping scientific processes in the first usage, then cites the same terms along with creationist uses of the same words in the next reference, then cites explicitly creationist uses of those terms in the third reference, and finally "concludes" that only conscious, intelligent agents can be responsible for phenomena that he introduced from ordinary scientific terms. This is nothing more than the fallacy of equivocation: an extensive, convoluted, and deliberately crafted one.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (you know - those hacks) said this about the incident:
"A scientific critique of the paper concludes that the paper is 'a rhetorical edifice [constructed] out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations.' In addition, the governing Council of the Biological Society of Washington issued a statement which declared: 'The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.'"
At any rate, Sternberg, as editor, "assigned" the paper to himself as in-house reviewer, and then sent copies to what he claims are three highly respected independent outside reviewers, as well as discussing it personally with another member of the Biological Society of Washington. The outside reviewers are the "peer reviewers" who advise on whether the paper should be published - this is the "peer review" process that science depends on. Sternberg claims that the reviewers all recommended that the paper be published after revisions were made, and that the BSW member also encouraged him to publish it, and that he then did so because the paper had passed peer review.
However, he did all this without even mentioning to any other member of the editorial board that he had received such a paper, that it was in review, or that it would be included in the journal when it went to press. He was the only person on the journal or the BSW management who knew anything about the paper, or who even knew that the paper existed or was coming out in the journal. He refuses to release the reviewers' reports or identify the reviewers or the BSW member he claims he spoke to. (Reviewers are normally anonymous, but this is for the sake of independence, not privacy; he could certainly ask them if they were willing to be identified, but apparently not a single person associated with this incident is willing to acknowledge their role.) Sternberg and Meyer both have published papers that were reviewed exclusively by members of creationist institutions.
So, an old-earth creationist associated with multiple creationist institutions received a cranky and unoriginal paper in secret from one of the most prominent figures in "intelligent design" creationism; the paper merely restates standard creationist arguments and presents no research results or new theory; Sternberg then used his position on an obscure journal dedicated to naming and classification to publish this paper supposedly on evolution theory - the journal's own board not only denounced the paper as incompetent but declared it was obviously in appropriate for the journal; Sternberg did this while actively preventing anyone else associated with the journal or its institution from hearing about it ahead of time; he claims he has the support of peer reviewers but refuses to identify them or prove his claim. That's "creation science" at work.
Sternberg is rightly mocked for all of this, and he has richly earned it.
As Sternberg—who is not an advocate of ID--said after the incident, “It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."
[I think you're wrong above: Sternberg is an advocate of "ID" - he's a Fellow of an organization devoted to "Complexity, Information and Design", which are key "ID" codewords. He claims he's not a "creationist", though he apparently just means he's not a young-earth creationist.]
I suspect they call him a creationist because he attends creationist meetings, serves on a creationist organization board, participates in "intelligent design" creationist work, and publishes creationist papers. Funny, that.
As for his much-treasured "martyrdom", he was indeed the subject of a great deal of perfectly appropriate back-channel discussion at the Smithsonian - because he behaved dishonestly, secretly colluded to misuse the forum of an associated organization's journal, refused to justify his actions with open evidence, and embarrassed his hosts. He was also, apparently, the subject of an inappropriate question about his religious affiliation, and some of his work privileges were cut back (in part because it was discovered he had extensive access and privileges that non-employee researchers do not get, and because his sponsoring scientist had died, leaving him without a required sponsor). The aftermath was handled badly, and he deserves an apology along with the eternal dose of contempt he has also earned - but none of that makes him any more reasonable or honest as a scientist.
LudVanB
"So given this overwhelming lack of scientific literacy even in the modern western world . Joe noted that, in Britain, doctors, who are more informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone.” It seems unlikely that the problem is the result of “overwhelming lack of scientific literacy even in the modern western world.” Unless British doctors are overwhelmingly lacking in scientific literacy.
Nick
Re: “Now, perhaps you are using ID as an umbrella term that includes ID sensu strictu and theistic evolution.” You are correct, I am guilty as charged. The difficulty is defining the Intelligence in the Designer, one that has the ability to influence physical existence. To pretend ID is not theistic, in my opinion, is dishonest. Note that Boonton lumps all of us with a creationist bent with ID’ers.
To clarify my position, the issue is determining the First Cause of existence. Is there a God? If no, then all existence is random and without purpose, which is what Darwinism has become. If yes, then is God responsible for existence, reality, physical laws, etc. God is the designer of the universe and its laws. That particular argument does not involve a spontaneous event like creation or a gradual event like evolution.
Boonton
“…isn't say the theory of gravity also bound by these 'two choices'? How about the kenetic theory of gasses?...”
I think so. If the universe was created by either God or some other Intelligent Designer yet to be determined, then all physical laws were the result of His actions. Us’ns with a creationist bent think God created a system where things are predictable, like gravity, gasses, and all other observable processes. I am aware that some feel that the fossil record makes evolution an observable process, but recreating the process is difficult. Big lab, lots of time, enormous budget. Which only God would have.
“All you're really saying is that for a non-athiest athiesm is unacceptable.” Not the point I was trying to make. The point is that more than just fanatical twisted Baptists have issues with Darwinism. I'll refer to Joe's list of fallacies to determine which one Rob is using, but he is painting with a very broad brush.
“The reality is you don't see two choices 'for evolution or Darwinism' but rather you just see two choices period . That's a fine discussion to have but the truth is bringing evolution in is really just a distraction. ” I don’t follow. Joe’s post is on the Darwin’s theory of natural selection, i.e., how did we all get here. My position is
1. Two choices. We either appeared spontaneously (creation), or we appeared gradually (evolution).
2. If we appeared via evolution, then, two choices. It is without direction, no I.D., no God, it just happened. Or it was directed: I.D. or God. If indeed you can have I.D. without God. If I read you correctly, you feel that I.D. has theistic elements.
On a slightly related note, it is interesting how much scientific literacy depends on the acceptance of Darwinism. But the science that drives the technology of our society has not the slightest underpinning of evolution. Metallurgy, electricity, medicine, rocket science, pick any and all. None of it depends on the acceptance of evolution. A person could cure cancer and the common cold, harness perpetual energy, and solve terrorism, but, if they reject Darwinism, they are automatically fanatical, twisted Baptist (Hyperbole intended). I'm just saying.
Not really...as i said Evolution serves no purpose on an operating table and unless individual doctors have also taken up an interest in the study of evolutionary process,they are unlikely to know more about it than you do.
Medical schools generally require a bachelor's degree with at least a full year of college biology (2 semesters + labs) as minimum requirements for admission. Most of the MD's I know (quite a few) did their undergradutate work in biology, microbiology, or biochemistry before attending Medical School. This is a better background than I can claim.
But dont you see how wrong you are?
Obviously I "dont" see how wrong I am.
even if your cousins and your ancestors look very much alike,its impossible for you to be descendant from the former
I am working under the assumption that evolution hypothesizes that all current species of primates (monkeys, chimpanzees, apes, humans, etc.) originated from some common, unspecified, but probably "monkey-like" ancestor. If that assumption is correct, and you have not indicated that you disagree with it, then your objection to the concept of "men evolving from monkeys" is more semantic than substantive.
That would only be true if each part of the puzzle was examined by itself seperate from all the other pieces with no larger context to place it in..but thats not the case here. when you put it all together,it becomes almost impossible to misinterpret the available evidence
Is is safe to assume that by "misinterpret", you mean disagree with your interpretation? I ask because there are a lot of folks that have a much stronger background in biology than I (and I assume yours as well, yours being in music I imagine) that express serious skepticism with the TOE and especially the concept that "natural selection" can explain all or even most of the differences among the various life-forms on earth.
Scott:
To clarify my position, the issue is determining the First Cause of existence. Is there a God? If no, then all existence is random and without purpose, which is what Darwinism has become. If yes, then is God responsible for existence, reality, physical laws, etc. God is the designer of the universe and its laws. That particular argument does not involve a spontaneous event like creation or a gradual event like evolution.
O.K., but that is not what is usually meant by ID in the context of biological sciences, and it is largely irrelevant to discussions of evolution. By your definition, a great many evolutionary biologists believe ID, which makes it not terribly useful for distinguishing the people who actually claim to be ID advocates. One could believe that God is the first cause of existence while also agreeing 100% with everything in all of S.J. Gould's essays on evolution and excoriating the Discovery Institute. Would that make one an ID advocate?
B--I am not sure I see the connection between this:
Not if you assume that the common ancestor is more ape-like than human-like. If you don't accept that assumption, then you run into "Joe Point 5", where in one case (human) evolution selected for smarter (bigger brain) and in another (ape) evolution selected for dumber (smaller brain).
and this:
Aren't we lurching into the fallacy of 'appeal to popularity' here? Joe's post can be nicely summed up as arguing "Because polls show lots of people doubt evolution there must be something wrong with it".
ID asserts not that God made the universe or made the universe with rules that would result in evolution producing people. ID instead asserts that the interaction of an intelligent designer can be detected by studying biological systems. IDers make a big, a really BIG, deal out of saying the designer may or may not be God.
So this is what I mean by saying you're statement is redundent and applies to just about everything. Either a person believes in God or he doesn't but that has nothing to do with evolution. A person who believes in God may or may not believe in evolution and vice versa. Likewise both atheists and theists believe in gravity (should you meet any that don't please shove them off the nearest cliff so our discussions will be simplier) but that doesn't mean the science texts have to have one chapter for theistic gravity and another for atheististic graviety.
True but that actually undercuts Joe's argument. You can do excellent work in medicine and believe in astrology too. The fact that evolution has limited application to many applied sciences means that someone who does not accept it can do good work in a lot of scientific centered endeavors. That doesn't mean, though, that their decision is correct. In fact, since nothing is riding on them making a correct decision about evolution that is all the less reason to believe they were motivated to put serious effort in evaluating it.
Medical schools generally require a bachelor's degree with at least a full year of college biology (2 semesters + labs) as minimum requirements for admission. Most of the MD's I know (quite a few) did their undergradutate work in biology, microbiology, or biochemistry before attending Medical School. This is a better background than I can claim.
Perhaps but again I'll say so what? Do doctors have reasons for doubting evolution or is this just some answer they are giving to a pollster without giving it a lot of thought? Again this fallacy is called the appeal to popularity. If some poll discovered that many doctors believed there was something to astrology that would do nothing to improve astrology's standing.
ucfengr...
B--I am not sure I see the connection between this:...and this...
You're right, I should have quoted this paragraph you wrote:
But how does this explain the apparent prevelence of disbelief in the TOE by medical doctors? Sureley they would be expected to have enough of a background in biology to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of the TOE.
If we are engaging in a psychological/sociological discussion about why a particular poll showed many doctors doubting evolution then yea this is relevant...I have a feeling, though, that Joe is trying to get us to think that if he can establish that a lot of people have doubts about evolution then that must make evolution doubtful which is a rather elementary logical fallacy.
I can tell you in the world of economics there are few myths as durable as the assertion that free trade causes the richer society to loose to the poorer one instead of benefiting both societies. Even for people who were econ majors, if you stopped them on the street and made them answer questions quickly you'll find that myth is very common. However as common as that myth might be that does not improve its status one bit. It remains a falsehood and even if the whole world rejects it it remains true like it or not.
I would personally be very curious to see an argument made by creationists or IDists that does not involve trying to invalidate the ToE...could a creationist provide us with positive evidence demonstrating a 6 day creation timeline of this planet some 6000 years ago?...could an IDist provide us with the mechanism that guided the intelligent design of life on this planet and the tools through which that design was implemented?
Personally, I think that when Joe passes away (at a point that I hope is far, far, in the future) that he will stand by the pearly gates and a gorilla will walk up to him and say, "Hey there Sonny, I'm your great-great...grandfather, would you like a banana?".
Really, Joe, considering how much you have gone on in the past about the many pounds of back hair that adorn you, can you have any doubt that you are descended from apes? We could have subpoenaed it and submitted it as evidence in the Dover case. Someone hold him down while I get the clippers.
I would personally be very curious to see an argument made by creationists or IDists that does not involve trying to invalidate the ToE...could a creationist provide us with positive evidence demonstrating a 6 day creation timeline of this planet some 6000 years ago?...could an IDist provide us with the mechanism that guided the intelligent design of life on this planet and the tools through which that design was implemented?
Back when it seemed every other post by Joe was evolution related I posted a series of questions for ID advocates. I asked things like:
- What is the relationship between designed species and evolution? Are some species designed and others evolved? Do species have a mix of evolution and design? If so how can you tell how much of each?
- What is the nature of the design? Was it a single instance or was evolution periodically 'tweaked' by a designer along the way to nudge it into the desired result?
- Is there evidence for one or more than one designers? Could there have been competiting designers? How can we tell today?
What was amazing about the answers was that just about all ID advocates seemed to consider these questions as barely worth their consideration or time. Even more amazing some proceeded to answer these questions even though no research was cited and hardly any reasoning.
Evolution, on the other hand, has a huge amount of interest in its mechanics. Does it happen at a steady pace or does it happen in fits of action followed by periods of stagnation? Which species are descended from each other and which are more removed. Which traits appeared first and where and why?
Yet when ID is even treated like a science it's advocates act more like armchair philosophers than scientists. They seem to think that thinking of a clever answer to profound questions is what science does rather than finding the right answer to mostly mundane questions.
Even doctors, who are more informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone.
I encourge you all to follow Joe's link here to http://www.hcdi.net/polls/J5776/Slide2.htm.
These are the answers:
God created humans exactly as they appear now.
(18%)
God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings.
(42%)
Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement - no divinity played any role.
(38%)
I don't like to think about such matters
(2%)
Only 18% of doctors responded in a way that would disagree with the any standard science textbook in either the college or graduate levels.
While no science text would say God initiated and guided the evolutionary process that resulted in human beigns by definition no scientific theory could rule such a thing out (God, by definition having infinite power, could guide a process and leave his mark undetectable by science).
Sorry friends, looks like Joe either lied about or distorted the claim that 60% of UK doctors reject evolution.
Thank you Joe for putting forth this post. I hope this will not expose me as a total idiot, but I am not sure what I believe. I am one of the people guaging the debate by the arguements posed and not by the supposed intelligence of the apologist.
I have an undergrad in biochemistry and have my name on published papers (which means almost nothing). I work as a PA in neurosurgery and spend most of my time with M.D.s, half of which are believers. Thats all I have for bonafides.
I am a believer in Christ and am not sure what to think of the fossil record. I am not convinced by the "true believers" in evolutionary theory that they are able to explain our existence. I think there has been a marriage between Evolutionary theory and the philosophy of Nietzsche. It is not mere science that we debate or the questions would be welcomed by the true scientist.
Scott: "The point is that more than just fanatical twisted Baptists have issues with Darwinism. I'll refer to Joe's list of fallacies to determine which one Rob is using, but he is painting with a very broad brush."
Whoa, Nellie! I never said that ONLY Baptists have a problem with evolutionary theory, nor did I say that ALL Baptists have a problem with it. What I do know, and what I alluded to, is that some Baptist churches in my school's community are passing out "DARWIN LIED" t-shirts. I think impugning the motives of a nineteenth-century naturalist is fanatical and twisted. You are free, of course, to disagree.
I have some Baptist friends (hard to avoid, since they are numerous hereabouts and often quite nice!)who believe in theistic evolution. They don't bring it up at church gatherings, though. Some of our Baptist churches are also fond of giving out Chick tracts and having Kent Hovind video viewings. If I had to generalize, I would say that Baptists are on balance quite hostile to the theory of evolution and somewhat inclined to young-earth creationism. They are by no means alone among denominations in those respects. But find an atheist or agnostic who thinks the Earth isn't millions of years old or that man and ape do not share common ancestry. You will have a great deal of trouble there. If the anti-evolution arguments were that compelling, you'd have some atheists saying "That's not how it happened".
Perhaps what you refer to as a broad brush is my last sentence in my first comment. That was intended as verbal irony. It is as ridiculous for me to place undue weight on the behavior of Christians in judging the merits of Christianity as it was for Lewis to place undue weight on the behavior of evolutionists in judging the merits of evolutionary theory. Neither Christians nor supporters of evolutionary theory are so monolithic that their actions can be seen to invalidate their beliefs. One must actually examine the belief itself to see if it withstands scrutiny.
Maybe a ;-) would have made that more clear.
"Joe noted that, in Britain, doctors, who are more informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone.” It seems unlikely that the problem is the result of “overwhelming lack of scientific literacy even in the modern western world.” Unless British doctors are overwhelmingly lacking in scientific literacy"
Problem with that tidbit is that medical doctors arent scientists...most either do general practice or specialise is a particular part of human anatomy to maintain in good health. They dont do any research and unless they have a special interest in evolutionary biology as a hobby they are not likely to know much more about it than your average high school students. but as i stated before that does not stop them from voicing opinions about it
-Brian in Idaho
I have a question for you then Brian...can you tell me what is the Theory of Evolution and what does it say concerning the origin of life on earth?
Yeah, funny that you think that an evolutionist is a creationist simply by virtue of not hating them. Apparently what defines the position a person holds isn't actually based on, well, the position a person holds, but on whether they ever associate with those who you consider to be the "wrong" people (even if they respectfully disagree with those people). Typical po-mo abuse of language and deliberate obstruction of logical clarity.
Indeed this is funny but not funny in an amusing sense but funny in the sense of mentally disturbing. This is what our friend, The Deuce, was talking about:
I suspect they call him a creationist because he attends creationist meetings, serves on a creationist organization board, participates in "intelligent design" creationist work, and publishes creationist papers. Funny, that.
I find it rather odd to imagine a creationist organization would name an evolutionist to its board. Even if that evolutionist was a really nice guy who had lots of creationist friends wouldn't they put...err...creationists on their board. Or is this really some type of creationist squabble where the old earth types are being written off as evolutionists by young earthers?
LudVanB
Problem with that tidbit is that medical doctors arent scientists...most either do general practice or specialise is a particular part of human anatomy to maintain in good health. They dont do any research and unless they have a special interest in evolutionary biology as a hobby they are not likely to know much more about it than your average high school students. but as i stated before that does not stop them from voicing opinions about it
No my friend, we have been had by Joe! Not even 20% of doctors in the poll support ID or creationism. What Joe did was read "God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings." as meaning the doctor disagreed with Darwinian theory. As Joe should know by now, though, one can believe everything written in every standard evolution/biology textbook and still agree with the statement that Joe considers ID friendly.
Boonton wrote;
Sorry friends, looks like Joe either lied about or distorted the claim that 60% of UK doctors reject evolution.
Actually, Joe states that they reject the theory of evolution, not evolution. As you have been privy to in debates on this board, all of us here believe in the existence of evolution. It's darwins theories and neo-darwinists theories that we quibble over.
I am eagerly awaiting Part 2. There are obviously many holes in evolutionary theory besides the ones even mentioned here. For instance, why are there so many examples of micro-evolution but zero of macro-evolution. The fossil record has yet to show the several missing links. And, of course, where did the original matter come from?
"I am eagerly awaiting Part 2. There are obviously many holes in evolutionary theory besides the ones even mentioned here. For instance, why are there so many examples of micro-evolution but zero of macro-evolution. The fossil record has yet to show the several missing links. And, of course, where did the original matter come from?"
If there were so many holes in the ToE,it would have been retired long ago by the scientific community...unless of course you subscribe to the fevered psychotic belief rampant among christian fundies that there is some sort of global conspiracy among scientists to "hide the truth" about evolution.
Another way that Darwinists have helped ID (#6 maybe) is by setting up a quasi-priesthood of evolutionary theologians who alone have been initiated into the mysteries of evolution and therefore are the only ones capable of fully understanding and making pronouncements on "Evolution". If a mathematician or physicist or engineer questions the prounouncements of the Darwinian priesthood they are dismissed because they have not been initiated into the order, and therefore have insufficient knowledge. If a biologist questions it, well they are heretics and must be destroyed.
Actually, Joe states that they reject the theory of evolution, not evolution. As you have been privy to in debates on this board, all of us here believe in the existence of evolution. It's darwins theories and neo-darwinists theories that we quibble over.
In that case it is still a lie. Again 38% agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement - no divinity played any role." This is fully compatatible with Darwin/neo-darwinists.
42% agreed with "God initiated and guided an evolutionary process that has led to current human beings." This is no less compatatible.
Only 18% agreed with "God created humans exactly as they appear now."
That is 80% who express no beef with Darwin or modern evolutionary theory. What the poll does show is that 60% reject philosophical materialism which is NOT a scientific theory and NOT a part of Darwinism or anything written in any standard textbook on evolution or biology.
Quite frankly the poll did not address ID unless you consider the young earth creationist view expressed in the statement that 18% agreed with as a type of ID theory. But then the ID supporters here get so snippy when ID is equated with creationists maybe I'll refrain from doing that.
Another way that Darwinists have helped ID (#6 maybe) is by setting up a quasi-priesthood of evolutionary theologians who alone have been initiated into the mysteries of evolution and therefore are the only ones capable of fully understanding and making pronouncements on "Evolution". If a mathematician or physicist or engineer questions the prounouncements of the Darwinian priesthood they are dismissed because they have not been initiated into the order, and therefore have insufficient knowledge. If a biologist questions it, well they are heretics and must be destroyed.
TRANSLATION: Those who agree with Darwin disagree with those who disagree with Darwin.
ucfengr gave up his point when he talked about biologists who question Darwin's theory. Obviously even those 'initiated' are not permitted to question. But in reality it is the IDers who treat science as some t ype of mystery. What are these 'mysteries of evolution'? Every treatment of the topic I've seen has had people on all levels of understanding, from the very basic to the most technical try to articulate as much as they can about the theory in the debates. I've never seen anyone just shrug and say "too complicated for someone like YOU to understand just take my word for it" unless it was after great frustration from debates that went on for ages.
Here the pro-science science side has literally produced hundreds or thousands of posts on all level of detail. I'm still waiting for IDers to answer basic, simple questions about their theory.
Rob Ryan: "What is it about geography that geographers can't develop a curriculum that imparts a basic understanding to the typical students? Haven't you seen the studies that indicate the widespread inability of American students to find Europe on a globe? Ignorance in all disciplines is rampant in our culture."
Thank God for the rise of homeschooling as an alternative for those parents who are not willing to sacrifice their children to the tender mercies of the public schools. There is much greater proficiency in all disciplines among homeschooled children than among their public schooled peers. They also happen to be less inclined to drink the Darwinist kool aid.
What a silly post. "Scientists help out ID," Yeah, and Baghdad Bob says there are no Americans in Iraq's capital. Stop shilling Joe, you look silly.
#1. " [scientists] never bother to understand what the term means" Perhaps. But, whenever ID is justly criticized, the response is T
That's not what I meant by ID." The only time anybody has been cornered into defining ID was Behe UNDER OATH in Dover. ID according to him was a "purposeful arrangement of parts." His definition was shredded.
Was he wrong? Do you have another definition?
I didn't think so.
"#2By claiming that ID is stealth creationism... this is not a sufficient argument against it being a legitimate scientific research program."
Please list the ID research laboratories:
[none]
Please list the research activities of any ID scientist anywhere on the planet (1) ti identify the criteria that would qualify a biological system as "irreducibly complex;" (2) to identify any irreducibly complex biological system or (3) calculate the odds of any selected biological system developing by natural selection.
No such research is being done.
It is a canard to suggest that ID is in any form a scientific research program. More effort is being put into UFO's and alien abductions.
IS ID creationism:
Did creationists first suggest that some biological systems were too complex to evolve naturally? YES
Did creationists first suggest that the odds of biological systems evolving naturally were too high? YES
Do ID advocates deny common descent? YES
Do ID advocates deny transitional fossils? YES
IS there any ID argument not previously made by creationists? NO
Is there any creationist argument not made by ID proponents? NO (except many ID proponents are do not agree with an Young Earth 6 day creation scenario)
Is there any difference at all between OEC and ID? No.
Can ID be fairly classified as a form of creationism? yes.
Fimnally, jd blurts out this whopper:
"I don't have any patience with six-day creationists."
How is that so? Do you point out the wretchedness of their biblical literalism and their scientific ingorance? Do you point out hwo they lie for God?
No, of course not, you stand silently while they crowd the comments boxes here and speak unchallenged from the pulpits in church.
What a hypocrite!
ucfengr gave up his point when he talked about biologists who question Darwin's theory.
Is that because no "real biologists" question Darwin's Theory?
Obviously even those 'initiated' are not permitted to question.
Ahh, an area of agreement.
But in reality it is the IDers who treat science as some type of mystery.
I think the reality is that most other scientific disiplines seem to recognize that there are limitations to what science can tell us, there doesn't seem to be that recognition when discussing evolutionary biology.
Is that because no "real biologists" question Darwin's Theory?
Possibly just as there are probably some physicists who question Einstein's theory. By question I assume you mean have a major challenge to its fundamental points...not simply questioning certain aspects of it or seeking to modify it by adding to it.
Sounds like you're still holding fast to the argument from authority fallacy. Ohhh if only one 'real biologist' questions Darwin then he must be wrong even if the other 99% disagree!
Ahh, an area of agreement.
And yet they do. The theory has been modified since Darwin's time, quite drastically in some areas, by both 'insiders' (whatever that means) as well as outsiders.
I think the reality is that most other scientific disiplines seem to recognize that there are limitations to what science can tell us, there doesn't seem to be that recognition when discussing evolutionary biology.
Show me how. Again please feel free to reference any standard biology or evolutionary TEXTBOOK at any level of study. I've become quite convinced that this isn't really a science fight but a fight about philosophy as examples are almost always drawn not from the work of science but from the work of philosophers who use science a lot in their thinking.
Mr. McFaul,
You've got some legitimate criticism here but also some errors in reasoning that need to be pointed out.
Personally, I think Dembski's book should have been divided into two separate books, with the first being the mathematical study and the second being the origins critique. ID is best used as a popperism (falsifier) against the origins aspect of evolution. It should not be seen as science in and of itself but as a critique of bad science.
The unfortunate misrepresentation of ID as being "not science" is tragic. It shows that the evol. crowd will go to extreme illogic to take something that does not claim (iirc) a methodological scientific construct and complain that it's not science.
Neither creation nor evolution (origins, that is, not speciation or sub-speciation) can fit a strict scientific construct (from memory, so please excuse any inadvertent exclusion):
a Thesis
b Experimentation
c Repeatable
d Verifiable/Falsifiable
e Quantifiable
Instead, after Thesis, both delve seriously into philosophy or theology. And that's why critics of the origins aspect of evolution see a great deal of "faith" of a sort in that world view as well.
BTW, have you read Dembski's book?
An amazing few have read it, of either the proponents or the detractors.
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
"the reality is that most other scientific disiplines seem to recognize that there are limitations to what science can tell us, there doesn't seem to be that recognition when discussing evolutionary biology."
Who doesn't recognize that? Here's a challenge: Find one scientist - just one - who claims that the TOE explains everything and that there are no limitations upon what it can tell us. I can save you some time, though, in warning you that the search will be fruitless.
Besides, most people opposed to the idea of natural selection aren't outraged by the idea of genetic mutation, because they don't come to the table with coherent questions that can be answered from the perspective of empirical knowledge. F'rinstance, you could go to a university and ask a biologist to show you how paleobiology allows us to track the movement of species over time geographically. You'd get a very detailed and complex answer, and surely one worth hearing.
But that's not the kind of question an "anti-Darwinist" asks. Such people never ask questions of that nature because their concerns are generally philosophical in scope. They want to know, "Why did man evolve from primates?" "Who was the first person that evolved?" "What is the purpose of life?" "Where did we come from?"
Really - if those are the kinds of questions you have, you don't go to a university for answers. Just curl up with a Bible and read Genesis. That's all you need to know.
Neither creation nor evolution (origins, that is, not speciation or sub-speciation)
Right off the bat Collin self destructs. Evolution is about speciation, it is not about origins. Yes any theory of origins will have to be consistent with evolution but they are really two different fields. Darwin wrote next to nothing about origins except for the broadest speculation.
If Collin doesn't even know what he is trying to criticize why should anyone here take him seriously?
F'rinstance, you could go to a university and ask a biologist to show you how paleobiology allows us to track the movement of species over time geographically. You'd get a very detailed and complex answer, and surely one worth hearing.
Indeed, you'll also get a messy one. One that involved countless people doing mundane things like digging through dirt, making long lists of mundane bones, lots and lots of filing work and so on. This is science which while boring to many allows lots of cool things to happen (such as being able to type this post and post it for you all to read).
For philosophy types that is not enough. Their armchair life needs action and excitement but their butts are firmly planted on their seats. Hence they need to address 'big questions' and impress us with how much they can read and how they can come up with clever arguments. That's all well and good but it isn't sicence.
But that's not the kind of question an "anti-Darwinist" asks. Such people never ask questions of that nature because their concerns are generally philosophical in scope. They want to know, "Why did man evolve from primates?" "Who was the first person that evolved?" "What is the purpose of life?" "Where did we come from?"
Or address it in the philosophy or possibly literature departments or theology if your university has it. It's both amazing and tiring that the pompus ID types on this list will stand around telling us that scientists are overstepping their bounds but don't even bother to actually know what scientists are actually doing.
You'd think from listening to the people on this blog that those philosophical questions Raven gave were chapter titles in any standard textbook on evolution.
For the latest way evolutionists helps ID, I would add really bad dating tips, a la David P. Barash, a professor of psychology at the University of Washington:
When man mated monkey
One hates to stray too far off-topic, but Cheesehead's indictment of public schools should be addressed.
C: "Thank God for the rise of homeschooling as an alternative for those parents who are not willing to sacrifice their children to the tender mercies of the public schools."
I was sacrificed to those "tender mercies", and I came away with a fantastic education that has prepared me for every facet of my life. Now an educator myself, I'm sacrificing both daughters to those same tender mercies, and they are excelling in their studies. I wouldn't hesitate to compare them to any homeschooled child. They learn at home AND at school.
C: "There is much greater proficiency in all disciplines among homeschooled children than among their public schooled peers."
Well, not according the the study very quietly released a couple of weeks ago (it seems the current administration likes to downplay successes in public education unless it can take credit for it). Perhaps you would like to link to some evidence to support your statement. I've noticed that children of foreign-born parents typically excel in American public schools; are our schools only bad for Americans? It is the support for education in the home that determines a student's level of learning. The educational opportunities are there in public schools. You can lead a horse to water...
C: "They also happen to be less inclined to drink the Darwinist kool aid."
My guess is that if this is true, it is because a higher percentage of homeschooled children come from religious families. They are less inclined to drink the koolaid because the parents either don't serve it or add bittering agents. Your statement is tantamount to expressing surprise that the rock you threw at a window broke the window. Many homeschooling parents are motivated by the desire to minimize or control their children's exposure to evolutionary theory, sex education, and whatever else the parents find pernicious about public education.
Rob Ryan: So let me get this straight: The overwhelming majority of children in America are schooled in the public schools. Ergo these schools are graduating millions of students of whom you just said,"Ignorance in all disciplines is rampant in our culture."
These are the same public schools that are apparently doing a great job of preparing all comers for "every facet of...life."
I'm glad you and your children have done so well with public education, but I would remind you that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
As to your desire to see links to data about homeschoolers, here is one for you: http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp
This is something that is very quantifiable and the results always trend in the same direction. Homeschoolers do better academically than their peers in public education, by any measure. (The study cited shows homeschoolers to score on average 67 points higher on the SAT.) Now how about a link from you about the "quietly released" study that by implication blows the homeschoolers out of the water?
Boonton: Don't you ever tire of riding the same old hobby horse?
Your insistence on trying to separate the question of the origin of life from evolutionary theory is absurd. No comprehensive theory of the origin of life can leave unanswered, ummm...the origin of life.
Nor does refering to evolution as the study of speciation resolve anything. There is no argument that speciation occurs. The argument is over the boundaries or lack thereof that govern speciation.
Your insistence on trying to separate the question of the origin of life from evolutionary theory is absurd. No comprehensive theory of the origin of life can leave unanswered, ummm...the origin of life.
Errr, Cheesehead, evolution is not a 'comprehensive theory of the origin of life' but a theory of how life (species) changes over time. Darwin's book was the Origin of Species, not the Origin of life. This is hardly a hobby horse, it is a basic fact that your side either keeps getting wrong either out of sheer ignorance or purposeful distortion.
AS for homeschooling, I think Rob's argument could be summed up as the public schools in general work well for those that take advantage of them and in this culture, unfortunately, many students and parents to not take advantage of them.
I have a slightly different take on the topic. I think the idea that American's are poorly educated is simply a myth. Since before the 1980's we have heard consistently how Americans don't know math, don't know science, don't know computers, don't know how to read and so on. Yet amazingly not only do most of us manage to find productive employment of some sort the US is often on the cutting edge of new technologies. It wasn't Japan that built the Internet into what it is today. Nor was it Germany that created Microsoft Office or the web browser. Yet you'll almost always hear how these countries do so much better than the US when it comes to educating their citizens.
Raven, you said (many posts ago), "And once again we return to the incessant "because why? because why? because why" tantrum of a little child. Newsflash: It is not the job of science to explain everything. Science is a methodology, a procedure. It is the job of people to explain things. Thus, if you ask me for an account of evolution, I can use Dawin's theory to posit a plausible answer."
Forgive me as an ignoramus, but I don't understand what you are saying. My semesters of biology and zoology were a long time ago, but I seem to recall reading and hearing explanations of how things evolved. If TOE isn't an explanation, what is it?
I don't recall seeing any experiments where lizards became birds or fish climbed out of the sea. Seems I remember some explanations given for how it happened (and my profs, at any rate, were pretty dogmatic about it).
I see you and Boonton and others differentiating between the science of evolution and the philosophy of naturalism/materialism/etc.--but not consistently. Sometimes I hear "evolution explains everything, we don't need the God hypothesis" and then I hear "It is not the job of science to explain everything". Evolution (as I was taught it) isn't about NOW, i