In a previous posting I reported how I had met with a Christian friend of mine who considered “Intelligent design” to be dishonest. It seems that he is not the only Christian who has reached this conclusion. As a concerned Christian myself, I find this comforting as it seems that fellow Christians have realized the potential cost of “Intelligent Design” for religious faith and science.
Nevertheless, there are still many ID supporters who remain unaware of the lack of much of any scientific support for Intelligent Design and who are fooled into believing that there is a controversy in science on the topic of evolution, relevant to the concept of Intelligent Design. Thus we see supporters take their crusades to local schoolboards, newspapers and senators unaware of the cost of their actions to religious faith and science alike.
Professor Richard Colling is the chairman of the of biological sciences at the Olivet Nazarene University who earned his Ph.D. from the University of Kansas in 1980. His professional interests are microbiology, immunology and biochemistry.
Professor Richard Colling, author of the book “Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with Creator” is quoted by Sharon Begley in Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists, Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2004; Page A15
In his new book, “Random Designer,” he writes: “It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods” when they say evolutionary theory is “in crisis” and claim that there is widespread skepticism about it among scientists. “Such statements are blatantly untrue,” he argues; “evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny. [1]”
(Sharon Begley in Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists, Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2004; Page A15 )
Not only do we see Intelligent Design proponents argue time after time that ‘evolution is in crisis’ but we also see more and more bolder claims about what Intelligent Design has accomplished. And yet, time after time, when pushing for details, the intelligent design proponent comes up empty-handed. Where are the positive hypotheses of Intelligent Design? Where are the non-trivial applications of the Design Explanatory Filter to biological entities? How does Intelligent Design movement deal with the issue of the Explanatory Filter being unreliable and thus ‘useless’ in the words of Dembski? How does the Intelligent Design movement deal with Del Ratzsch observation that the filter is unable to detect ‘new design’? How does the Intelligent Design movement deal with the scientific evidence other than ignoring ?
Recently we witnessed a good example of the lack of relevance of the Design Explanatory Filter when Salvador commented somewhat recklessly that a particular approach which used pattern matching was evidence of a successful application of the Design Explanatory Filter. Supporting this claim with more than rhetoric proved however to be a bit trickier.
Similarly we see on ARN how ID’s Bulldog makes reckless claims about the Design Explanatory Filter being used in Archaeology, Criminology, SETI etc. Not only do such claims lack much supporting evidence, other than appealing to the unsupported assertions by Dembski, but they are also easily contradicted by observing HOW design is inferred in these cases.
In other words, Intelligent Design not only has to trivialize, ignore or misrepresent actual scientific knowledge but it also seems to be doomed to make reckless and unsupported claims about its own accomplishments.
Trojan Horse
Some ID proponents object to the characterization of the goals of the ID movement as being a ‘Trojan horse’. On ARN we see ‘Mike Gene’ complain about the impact of such characterizations on one’s ability to conduct a discussion on the scientific merrits or lack thereof of the ID movement. I would like to comment on this argument. 1) ‘Mike Gene’ is a relatively minor player in the ID movement and has distantiated himself from many of the ID movements approaches or claims. When referring to the ID movement it should thus be obvious that this refers to the larger movement spearheaded by the Discovery’s Institute for the renewal of Science and Culture and by the ARN website. Pro ID websites such as ISCID and ARN have become more and more hostile towards ID critics leading to banning of critiques, or tactics of deleting complete threads as witnessed recently on ARN. I can understand the increased hostilities towards ID critics since there is little else ID can do that ignore these well supported criticisms or when they become too visible to its supporters, to actually prevent such discussions. 2) For the larger ID movement, the characterization of ‘Trojan horse’ is very accurate as evidenced by its claims that a) there is a crisis in evolution b) that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution which has scientific support.
I am not the only one to notice how the ID movement is making exaggerated claims and many other critics have documented similar complaints. What I find hopeful is to see how Christians are standing up against Intelligent Design and its behavior as it impacts religious faith, science and scientific inquiry.
Can critics who consider the ID movement’s goals to be a ‘Trojan horse’ fairly criticize its claims? I argue that it can and that websites such as Talkorigins, Talkdesign, Talkreason and Pandasthumb are evidence of this. ‘Mike Gene’ may not like the criticism which often details the many problems with ID’s claims but rejecting these criticism based on the fact that its proponents may hold to a viewpoint of ID which is biased hardly seems logical.
Richard Colling is a conservative Christian who believes that “People should not feel they have to deny reality in order to experience their faith”. Joining the ranks of other Christians like Denis Lamoureux, Howard van Till, Kenneth Miller, Patrick Frank [2], Denis Lamoureaux, John Haught, and Ryan Nichols [3]. But not only Christians are speaking out, we also find people from other religions opposing the claims of Intelligent Design. From the Jewish religion we have for instance Scott Gilbert, a professor at Swarthmore College [4].
On ARN, Salvador is calling for the ex-communication of Denis Lamoureux for what he sees as ‘compromising’
If Lamoureux were in my denomination I would re-commend his ex-communication and barring from the communion table. If he wants to align himself with the Darwinists leadership rather than the evangelicals FINE, but he should label himself as such : an NCSE Darwinist who rejected a central claim of the evangelical faith. He can call himself a liberal compromiser, a die-hard Darwinist, but he has no right to say he’s an evangelical.
Professor Colling bravely continues to express his strong sentiments towards “intelligent design”.
Intelligent-design advocates look at these sophisticated components of living things, can’t imagine how evolution could have produced them, and conclude that only God could have.
That makes Prof. Colling see red. “When Christians insert God into the gaps that science cannot explain — in this case how wondrous structures and forms of life came to be — they set themselves up for failure and even ridicule,” he told me. “Soon — and it’s already happening with the flagellum — science is going to come along and explain” how a seemingly miraculous bit of biological engineering in fact could have evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. And that will leave intelligent design backed into an ever-shrinking corner
Colling’s comments mirror my concerns and those of Lamoureux that by relying on poor scientific arguments which amount to nothing more than an argument from ignorance or “God of the Gap” argument, that Intelligent Design may become the worst enemy to religious faith and science alike.
It is obvious time after time that Intelligent Design
1. Has to ignore or misrepresent scientific knowledge or rely on old references (several of the recent papers by ID proponents seem to support these observations)
2. Has no positive theory(ies) of intelligent design beyond the appeal to ignorance or “God of the Gaps” approach
And as a Christian scientist, I find it encouraging to hear and see more and more Christians and scientists speak out against the Intelligent Design movement.
Footnotes
Not surprisingly this is the chosen approach of many ID proponents such as William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, and other Discovery Institute fellows. Some good examples involve how ID proponents and the Discovery Institute in particular presents the research of fellow ID proponents. Some examples include:
Dembski’s announced presentation at Seattle’s Discovery Institute on January 17th titled Darwinism’s Berlin Wall
Discovery Institute is pleased to welcome our esteemed Senior Fellow Bill Dembski to Seattle. Dr. Dembski is the author and editor of Uncommon Dissent and Debating Design and numerous other books and articles. He will discuss the growing number of scientific challenges to Darwinian theory
Jonathan Wells, Icons of evolution
And while some ID proponents are pushing Icons of Evolution as a curriculum in public schools, the reality is that the book is full of problems. See the many links of Don Lindsay’s website. The potential cost to both science and religion of using this book in schools, home schooling or even private schools can be quite hight.
Stephen C. Meyer The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, September 29, 2004. And the Discovery Institute’s ‘response: Discovery Institute Fellows
Neo-Darwinism’s Unsolved Problem of the Origin of Morphological Novelty October 11, 2004These were discussed in the many links in The “Meyer 2004” Medley
Pennock observed and predicted that once again ID does not propose any alternative hypotheses:
ID theorists, by contrast, are very close-mouthed about their own views. If evolution really cannot hope to explain the Cambrian explosion, and ID theorists can do better, one would expect them to show how. However, no “alternative theory” is forthcoming. ID leaders who are Young-Earth creationists, such as Paul Nelson, Percival Davis, and others, do not even accept the scientific dating of the Cambrian. However, even the Old-Earthers, such as Behe and presumably Meyer, have offered no positive account.
(Rober Pennock], DNA by Design? Stephen Meyer and the Return of the God Hypothesis, in Debating Design: from Darwin to DNA, a
volume edited by Michael Ruse and William Dembski, Cambridge University Press 2004)And makes the prediction which was actually fullfilled by Meyer in subsequent articles:
I have not seen the chapter that Meyer is writing on the Cambrian explosion for the present volume, but I encourage readers to check whether he departs from the pattern and offers any specific positive account. If ID is to have even a shot at being a real scientific alternative, one should expect to see some precise testable (and eventually tested) hypotheses that answer the obvious questions: what was designed and what wasn’t; and when, where, how, and by whom was design information supposedly inserted.
(Rober Pennock], DNA by Design? Stephen Meyer and the Return of the God Hypothesis, in Debating Design: from Darwin to DNA, a
volume edited by Michael Ruse and William Dembski, Cambridge University Press 2004)Then there is the paper by Michael J. Behe and David W. Snoke, Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues, Protein Science, The Protein Society, September 2, 2004
This paper was extensively reviewed and critiqued in Theory is as Theory Does. by PandaThumb’s contributors Ian F. Musgrave, Steve Reuland, and Reed A. Cartwright.
and the paper by Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria in Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece. September 1, 2004
which is reviewed and critiqued by Bacterial Flagella expert Nick Matzke in Deja vu again. Again. Nick Matzke also provided an indepth analysis of plausible evolutionary pathways in Evolution in Brownian space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum
So far the response of ID has been to ignore these contributions despite the fact that ID’s explanatory filter depends critically on evaluating the probabilities of such pathways in order to infer design. In other words, the bacterial flagellum can be argued to be at most an issue of ‘we don’t know’ but certainly presents to evidence for design. Yet we still see how ID is presenting IC, the explanatory filter and the bacterial flagellum as evidence FOR design.
Patrick Frank is the author of “On the Assumption of Design”, Theology and Science, Volume 2, Number 1 / April 2004, pp. 109 - 130.
Abstract: The assumption of design of the universe is examined from a scientific perspective. The claims of William Dembski and of Michael Behe are unscientific because they are a-theoretic. The argument from order or from utility are shown to be indeterminate, circular, to rest on psychological as opposed to factual certainty, or to be insupportable as regards humans but possibly not bacteria, respectively. The argument from the special intelligibility of the universe specifically to human science does not survive comparison with the capacities of other organisms. Finally, the argument from the unlikelihood of physical constants is vitiated by modern cosmogonic theory and recrudesces the God-of-the-gaps.
Ryan Nichols is the author of Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly , 2003 , vol. 77 , no 4 , pp. 591 - 611,
Abstract: Arguments of the following form are given against theories like psychoanalysis: Psychoanalysis implies X. Psychoanalysis also implies NOT(X). Hence, no observations of X or of NOT(X) can falsify psychoanalysis. Since an important proportion of propositions implied by psychoanalysis are similar to X in this respect, psychoanalysis is not falsifiable. Since psychoanalysis isn’t falsifiable, it is not a science.
In my argument against Intelligent Design Theory I will not contend that it is not falsifiable or that it implies contradictions. I’ll argue that Intelligent Design Theory doesn’t imply anything at all, i.e. it has no content. By content’ I refer to a body of determinate principles and propositions entailed by those principles. By principle’ I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue. By determinate principle’ I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue in which the extensions of its terms are clearly defined.
I’ll evaluate the work of William Dembski because he specifies his methodology in detail, thinks Intelligent Design Theory is contentful and thinks Intelligent Design Theory (hereafter IDT’) grounds an empirical research program. Later in the paper I assess a recent trend in which IDT is allegedly found a better home as a metascientific hypothesis, which serves as a paradigm that catalyzes research. I’ll conclude that, whether IDT is construed as a scientific or metascientific hypothesis, IDT lacks content.
Gilbert writes about Wells:
Wells (2000) makes the rather strange claim that since Haeckel’s erroneous picture has been reprinted in biology books for so long, evolutionary biology must have been based on it, and therefore all of evolutionary biology is wrong. Most biologists had been willing to use this illustration as an oversimplification of von Baer’s laws to illustrate that embryos pass through similar stages. Once Richardson published the actual pictures of the embryos, reprinting this picture became silly, and almost immediately the textbooks changed. My website amended the figure within a month of the appearance of Richardson’s article. So did the website that Ken Miller had for his introductory biology book. Other books, especially those without websites, had to wait longer. For more, see Ken Miller’s website and the Talkorigins site. The assertion that evolutionary biologists knew that these pictures were fraudulent but used them anyway is also wrong. I am a developmental biologist who also has a masters degree in the history of science. When I wrote the first editions of my textbook, I did not know they were wrong. In fact, I hadn’t realized they were from Haeckel, and I quoted the Romanes (1901) volume as my source of the picture (see Gilbert 1988, p. 153).
Interesting Links
Ron Okimoto on the Dover controversy where creationists are trying to convince the school board that ID is scientifically relevant.
Guest Opportunity on Janet Parshall’s America by Jack Krebs
49 Comments
Aaron Clausen · 7 December 2004
Pete Dunkelberg · 7 December 2004
Jeremy Mohn · 7 December 2004
Thanks, PvM, for the informative post.
I would like to add my name to the list of Christians who find ID to be lacking both scientifically and theologically. One of the problems I have with ID is that its supporters claim to see evidence of God's past creative activity in the present workings of Creation. But such claims actually put limits on God's creative power. ID implies that God is only involved in Creation during specific, exceptional events. This "God of occasional action" can too easily be interpreted as a "God of usual inaction." I prefer to think of God as continually active in Creation through the multiple processes of evolution.
Tinker · 8 December 2004
It seems to me that putting on blinders and refusing to see the way that nature works is vastly disrespectful to God. Loving the world and the God who created it means loving the world as it is, not as your limited human mind would like it to be.
Greg Jorgensen · 9 December 2004
Mrs Tilton · 9 December 2004
Greg writes:
Unless your Christian beliefs are actually adding something to our understanding of science I don't see how expressing those beliefs in public is anything more than vanity or missionary work.
'Having eyes, see ye not?' (As somebody or other once asked.)
As a Christian, I would assert quite strongly that Christian beliefs by definition cannot add anything to our understanding of science. And I imagine you'd agree.
But the thoughts expressed in the comments you complain of do indeed 'add something'; that something just isn't what you think it is. Advocates of creationist 'science' 'education' try to scare religious people by claiming that evolution is irreconcilable with Christian belief. Because religious belief is usually pretty important to religious people, this can be a successful tactic. As it happens, though, the creationist claim is false. Hence it's important that others who share these religious beliefs speak up to assert that the creationists' theological claims are as false as their scientific claims. And if while doing so they can persuasively argue that understanding nature as it is and not as Phillip Johnson would like it to be deepens rather than threatens their faith, so much the better.
This isn't proselytising at all. It's the opposite: 'preaching to the choir', very literally. I do not see anything upthread that looks like an attempt to convince atheists that God exists. Indeed, I do not see anything upthread that is really even addressed to atheists. People like these commenters, or like the two K. Millers, are reminding their fellow-theists that God is not the limited thing their human imaginations make him. That's an important thing for believers to bear in mind. But for non-believers, it's at best meaningless, at worst pernicious nonsense.
When a theist asserts that scientific knowledge is compatible with religious faith, he's not proselytising. I do not imagine that the commenters above pointing out that they are (i) Christians but (ii) not troglodytic creationist ignorami will have driven very many atheist readers to run out and seek baptism.
It looks like you think that people who believe in a god are being irrational. And I'll cheerfully agree that you might very well be right. But I can't agree that if I accept this bit of irrationality, I might as well go the whole hog and accept a creationist account of life on earth. That's an argument I'd reject, whether it is advanced by an atheist who thinks me stupid for believing in God or by a fundamentalist Christian who thinks me evil for believing in evolution.
Gerald Feeney · 9 December 2004
Greetings. I'm new here and hope it's okay for me to throw my hat into the ring. By way of introduction, my online "home" is The WELL (http://www.well.com), where I host the Christianity conference, despite the fact that I am not a Christian. I do believe in God.
Greg Jorgensen is a friend of mine, and I've always had much respect for his intellectual prowess. But I disagree with his view here as well as in the other thread where he asserted, in so many words, that people who hold irrational beliefs are somehow impaired in their ability to engage in science.
I'm not a scientist, but my wife is, and her boss is one of the most highly respected scientists in his field. (A google search on "cleaver feeney" will point you to some of their publications if you're interested.) He is also deeply religious, with daily devotions. And there are many others like him.
As a footnote, I have to say that I'm continually baffled by that subset of Christians who continue to deny science and promote creationism. In light of all that Christianity seems to offer, it's quite beyond me why any Christian even thinks it's important to try to include God in science, when God is clearly outside of the realm of science as we know it thus far. I can understand why there was widespread alarm a bit over a century ago, as Darwin's finding were being published and confirmed. The common fear was that it would lead to total godlessness. But that didn't happen. The fact is that many people continue to believe in God despite accepting evolution, and have no conflict about accepting the creation account of Genesis as allegory. Church attendance in the USA is the highest of any industrialized nation. The Catholic Church got over it, as did most Protestant denominations. Given no scriptural evidence whatsoever that a literal belief in Genesis is required for salvation, why can't these creationists choose an issue that's more central to the Christian message?
I don't think irrational beliefs are an issue in science. After all, from a certain point of view, it is irrational to conduct an experiment that has already been conducted by other scientists many times before. And yet science routinely does exactly that.
I also reject the idea that the inability to prove a given belief makes it irrational. If it's true that "God is love," as the Gospel of John says, then it must also be true that love is God. Therefore, anyone who has ever experienced love has partaken of God. I know of no way that love can be scientifically proven to exist. That doesn't stop me from believing that love exists.
Irrationality is not the enemy. The enemy is dogma. Any science influenced by dogma is tainted. And I hasten to point out that there are, unfortunately, a great many scientists - atheists included - who are prone to be dogmatic in their science, and that is not a good thing.
Personally, I think every student by about the 6th grade or so ought to presented with the creationist argument and then made to answer the question, "Why is this NOT science?" A student who cannot correctly answer that question is ill-prepared for life.
Katarina Aram · 9 December 2004
Sometimes I am astounded at how people with an intellect much sharper than mine fail to see the big picture. Such a person is Greg, and also many of the ID proponents. Greg, do you care nothing about attracting the political support of Christians and other theists? Why are you pushing so hard to convince everyone that theism is incompatible with good science? When you are old and feeble, your intellect may fail you, and maybe then you will reach for something beyond it.
PvM · 9 December 2004
Greg Jorgensen · 9 December 2004
Great White Wonder · 9 December 2004
Flint · 9 December 2004
Gerald Feeney · 9 December 2004
Great White Wonder · 9 December 2004
Lurker · 9 December 2004
Maybe Greg Jergenson is right to the extent that this website should only pursue the scientific aspect of the debate? There are too many atheists commenting and contributing, who are too rigid in their interpretations, to continue to carry on a constructive discussion concerning religion and the role it plays in the anti-evolution/evolution debate.
Flint · 9 December 2004
Gerald Feeney:
We are talking past one another. You expressed bafflement at how any Christian could deny science and promote creationism, and I attempted to explain the required mindset as I understand it. There is no question that the Bible itself is internally contradictory. It starts of with TWO creation tales, which are mutually incompatible! Interpretation is required throughout. Indeed, much of the Bible has been redacted over time to fit one agenda after another. So each sect decides which parts to take literally, which parts to interpret in which ways, and which parts to just kind of conveniently ignore. There's nothing particularly rational about most belief sets, and Christianity, everything considered, is one of the most truly bizarre ever invented.
Lurker:
The problem with your suggestion is, there aren't any scientific aspects of the debate. ID has no science on its side at all. Intelligent Design is a religious postulate, as unsupported by any trace of evidence as the claim that leprechauns guard pots of gold at the ends of the rainbows. How can such a claim be discussed "constructively", other than by pointing out that ID is religion, religion is not science, science and religion have no need to overlap, that science is not the side trying to force the overlap?
Mrs Tilton · 9 December 2004
I think Mrs Tilton expressed a valid reason for adding a Christian perspective to "our side:" ... It's a wedge strategy, the same kind of thing we criticize when the ID camp espouses it.
Thanks for your kind words, Greg, but I disagree, in a subtle way. It's not a matter of adding a 'Christian perspective' to your (and my) side. And it's not a matter of a 'wedge strategy' to win Christians into the evolutionist camp.
From a scientific perspective, it is absolutely irrelevant whether one happens also to believe that God (or Thor, or J.R. 'Bob' Dobbs) is The Deity Behind It All. Biology doesn't need a 'Christian perspective'. (Knowing something about biology can, I'd firmly insist, enrich a Christian's perspective, but that is another kettle of fish altogether.)
And there is no need for a 'wedge' to split the cleverer Christians off from their stupider brethren. (I am speaking in theoretical terms here; in purely practical terms, maybe there is such a need in America these days, heaven help you all). For the vast majority of Christians, evolution is an absolute non-issue. (That's for the vast majority of Christians today, of course. Not too long ago, many of them would have held to some more-or-less creationist account. But then, so too would many non-Christians have done. After all, as Richard Dawkins once wrote, prior to 1859 the best explanation for life in its complexity was William Paley's divine 'watchmaker'.)
We can all agree that Christian fundamentalist attempts to theocratise (and idiotise) education are a real danger. From a secular viewpoint, though, that's all these attempts are. From my own Christian viewpoint, I'd say they are at the same time also something at least equally evil, albeit on completely different grounds: they are blasphemy and idolatry. Now, you can probably understand on a conceptual level what I mean by that. But as you are not a theist, this consideration will be quite literally meaningless for you, and fair enough. I don't ask you to follow me here (for after all, this part of the criticism of creationism is a purely inter-theist squabble). I do ask you to try to understand that when people like Jeremy Mohn or Tinker (or for that matter myself) advance a theistic argument against creationism, it is not in any way a matter of vanity, much less proselytism. Rather, it is because in addition to the very real and valid reasons you and we together have to oppose creationism, we have a further reason: creationists are bad Christians. (For all I know, some of them might be good people; I cannot peer into their hearts. But is is eminently clear to me that they are making a god in their own image, and what a very small and uninteresting god that is.)
PvM · 9 December 2004
Some more Christians who are standing up against the theology and 'scientific' claims of Intelligent Design. The list is quickly getting longer.
Jesuit Father Edward Oakes
and
John Russell United Church of Christ, and Founder and director of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences
Greg Jorgensen · 10 December 2004
Gerald Feeney · 10 December 2004
Gerald Feeney · 10 December 2004
Gerald Feeney · 10 December 2004
Great White Wonder · 10 December 2004
Mike S. · 10 December 2004
Mike S. · 10 December 2004
Mike S. · 10 December 2004
For those who have access, the latest issue of Nature has several articles, editorials, and letters addressing science-and-religion and science-and-politics.
www.nature.com/nature
Steve · 10 December 2004
It's very easy for us atheists to oppose creationism. We say that religious faith is not any way to certify knowledge as reliable, science is, it points to evolution, so evolution it is.
Best I can tell, the liberal theists have to make a different argument to creationists, roughly as follows: science is reliable, and so you need to switch to a form of christianity that doesn't assert things contrary to science, and thereby have both science and faith, like us.
I think that argument fails though, and creationists reject it, because it subverts religious beliefs to rational ones. If faith is a valid way of knowing the truth, why must it accomodate science?
The liberal religionists might win, because people don't enjoy looking like total idiots in light of science, but i don't see how their argument is coherent.
Flint · 10 December 2004
steve:
Why should their arguments be coherent? Again, you are judging faith by scientific standards, and finding that faith does not meet them.
Still, I think you're onto something. Most people can't help but internalize the notion that reality matters. Hands on hot stoves, etc. Most people also seem to have the same sort of difficulty abandoning their faith as homosexuals have trying to be straight. Both of them can fake it, but the full sincere Winston Smith conversion is pretty well beyond them.
So the only solution is to accommodate. Yeah, there's a god, but it doesn't DO anything. It's all powerful, it hears our prayers, it allows us, even encourages us, to justify whatever happens as the answer to our prayers, even if the opposite happens. It makes us feel good and righteous. No explanation of anything in the real world requires it. It allows us to eat our cake until we're about to burst, without losing any cake in the process. Now THAT is real power.
Great White Wonder · 10 December 2004
Steve you make a good point.
Although it might not be more coherent, a related approach is to argue that (1) we all spend most of our lives behaving as if science was useful (i.e., we behave rationally, learn from experience, etc), (2) therefore it's hypocritical to select for public disparagement the scientific conclusions of those souls who earn a living by applying these everyday concepts to the study of biology.
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven." Matthew 6:1-6 RSV
Of course, I make these same sort of arguments to Christians all the time and not one has yet admitted that the first (irrefutable) point is true.
Mike S. · 10 December 2004
Steve,
May I recommend that you take the time to read John Polkinghorne's "The Faith of a Physicist", if you have not already done so? (Actually, anyone here who hasn't read it should.) It's a lucid account of how an accomplished physicist and Anglican priest reconciles faith and reason. He explicitly lays out the case from a "bottom-up" perspective. It's quite different from the fundamentalist approach, and will perhaps disabuse you of the notion that religious belief is inherently irrational. It cannot be fully rationalized, of course, but most of life cannot, including science.
Steve · 10 December 2004
Sorry, got much better things to read. Currently, The Guns of August, an essay called Mother Earth Mother Board (available online), and Wednesday's Dining In section of the NYT. All of which I highly recommend.
Great White Wonder · 10 December 2004
As for me, I'm enjoying the new Peanuts retrospectives, back when Charlie Brown was a little mofo.
Mike S. · 11 December 2004
Well, you'll understand then if I don't take your musings on religious believers' motivations and/or intelligence seriously. You rightly excoriate people who don't understand biology for criticizing evolution. Yet you feel no qualms about pontificating on theology, something about which you apparently know very little. There's little wonder the evoltion-creation debates have such a high heat/light ratio. Each side seems to enjoy bashing the other more than actually learning something new.
Steve · 12 December 2004
"Yet you feel no qualms about pontificating on theology, something about which you apparently know very little. There's little wonder the evoltion-creation (sic) debates have such a high heat/light ratio. "
Heat instead of light? You mean like you talking about what you presume I know or don't about religion, instead of addressing the substance of what I said? To remind you, what I said was that changing a fundamentalist's mind is essentially conversion, and I said I don't see how an argument for conversion can be rational, and I think there's a contradiction regarding the competing epistemologies. You didn't address any of that here, you just said I was ignorant. There's your heat instead of light. You have no idea what I know about religion. I'm no stranger to philosophy and theology, can discuss the Five Pillars of islam, the structural similarities between the Code of Hammurabi and the Torah, the history of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the value of ignorance recommended in the Lao Tzu, the various Awakenings which have gripped America, what it means that Lord Krishna picked such fundamentally different people as recipients of his knowledge, what philosophers think are huge problems in Ruse's answer to the demarcation problem, and on and on. I have no interest anymore in reading any books promoting religion by religious people because I've spent too much time with justifications of myths as it is. Should I put down such a fantastic book as The Guns of August to read yet another apologetic about an invisible man in the sky? No. I've had enough of that. I posted #11563 to suggest that liberal religionists are using an internally problematic tool on their creationist bretheren. The heat you bring fails to change my mind.
Anyway, you had bad timing. Since the purpose of creationists is to amuse me by being imaginatively retarded, most of my posts are little snarks about those things, and yet you criticise one of the rare posts in which I said something substantive. I have liked your posts in the past, and will probably like them in the future, as long as they're not presumptuous fictions about me.
Jeremy Mohn · 12 December 2004
Jeremy Mohn · 12 December 2004
Mike S. · 12 December 2004
Gav · 12 December 2004
Steve wrote "I think there's a contradiction regarding the competing epistemologies"
And why shouldn't people contradict themselves, indeed? Anyone who can't has got to have more than a bit of a fundamentalist about them.
Steve · 12 December 2004
Faith-based beliefs, whether compatible with reason or not, are by definition not founded on reason. The liberal theist who wants to fix the evolution-deniers has the task of converting fundamentalists from one faith-based belief to another faith-based belief more compatible with science. What I was pointing out is that trying to use a rational argument to do that is inherently problematic.
Your insults have not harmed my position. I'm not going to listen to you any longer, because your posts on this lack merit.
Gerald Feeney · 13 December 2004
Mrs Tilton · 13 December 2004
Johnson, in the linked article:
A huge percentage of the American public is skeptical of [evolution]. This is a problem that education ought to address.
Quite. Just not in the way Johnson would prefer.
Frank J · 14 December 2004
What Johnson really means is that a huge % of Americans are incredulous about evolution. I blindly accepted a caricature of evolution for 30 years. Only when I began to understand it as science defines it in the late '90s did I become skeptical of it. Of course I accepted it anyway and still do. As with "theory," anti-evolutionists exploit the difference between the common definition of "skeptical" and the scientific one.
joy b. · 15 December 2004
Interesting read, this thread. But I think a couple of significant points have been missed. First, it doesn't matter to science proper (in the service of humanity) what individual scientists or the general public believe about ultimate or final causes. Science is a methodology for examination and quantification of natural phenomena. An entirely FAPP enterprise that by rights has nothing legitimately scientific to say about ultimate or final causes.
Second, because science is not chartered to establish or investigate ultimate or final causation, it set itself up for the current challenges by trying to claim the power to judge beliefs about these things by its own limited standards.
True, the worst offenders are really ideologists doing what ideologists of all stripes have always done - draping themselves in some purportedly "authoritarian" mantle to give their ideological opinions more objective weight than they deserve. But science is the authority of our age, sociologically speaking.
I would contend that it doesn't really matter what anyone believes about how the world came to be. One could as easily assert that "real" scientists convert the loudmouth metaphysical materialists in the ranks from their faith-based belief to an acknowledgement of the ideologically neutral position of science itself.
The moment all the corruption of anti-theistic ideology is rejected by scientists and science teachers, the "controversy" disappears. The perennial theistic arguments can then meet as ideological equals in another class - sociology for example. Biology can be taught like science - provisional "best guess" theoretical framework(s) describing physical phenomena, supported and/or challenged by evidence in the real world. Faith in the accuracy of theoretical framework(s) is not a requirement - or shouldn't be if it's really science and not religion. "Faith" being by definition not founded on reason, and all.
Students will continue to do what students have always done - accept or reject, on their own bases of judgment. So long as they pass the test, they pass the course. What they do with it after that is their own business.
Great White Wonder · 15 December 2004
Mike S. · 16 December 2004
I think it's more accurate to say faith is not dependent on empirical evidence ("faith is hope in things unseen"), which is something different from reason. Math is not dependent upon empirical evidence, either, but it is rational.
The reason that statement is controversial, GWW, is that most people don't claim that their faith can be completely justified by rational arguments, but they usually claim that there are rational arguments in support of it (of course some people don't care about rational arguments one way or the other). I guess it depends upon what one means by 'founded'. Adjudicating such questions depends upon the particular faith claim being examined.
Russell · 17 December 2004
Joy B:
But science is the authority of our age, sociologically speaking.
I suspect that's the heart of the controversy right there. "Soft" creationists (most IDers included) might rightly object to the role of Science as Arbiter of Everything. Instead, what they do is essentially concede the point then - dishonestly, delusionally or otherwise - claim that Science supports their mythology.
Mike S. · 17 December 2004
Is "Science [the] Arbiter of Everything"?
Great White Wonder · 17 December 2004
katherine learmonth · 14 January 2005
hiya dere