Intellectual laziness over intelligent design

Ho, hum. Evolution schmevolution. Wake me when I'm evolved.

ROD LIDDLE does his best to knock scientists off their pedestals while taking care not to side with the "deadbeat" promoters of intelligent design (Comment, last week). But he goes one step too far.

Dawkins is supposedly a supremely rational human being. But there is another paradox here, because in his defence of theories to which he has affixed his flag and from which he has made his name, he betrays the distinctly irrational and human characteristic of possessing something called faith. "I believe but I cannot prove that all life, all intelligence and all design . . . is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection," he has said. Faith is indeed a touching thing.

I suspect --- note that word, suspect --- that he is right, though. I suspect --- note that word, suspect --- that he is right, though. And I am about 99.99% convinced that intelligent design or creationism is an incorrect explanation for the development of life on earth.

But that 0.01% of doubt is not allowed to intrude into Dawkins's philosophy, for he has total faith. He is 100% certain that creationism is both wrong and indeed cretinous.

I don't think about the religious consequences of ID. But lately I have pondered it a little. ID is a danger to christianity for a number of reasons. For instance, if HIV is intelligently designed, and our puny human brains one day figure out how to wipe it out, what does that say about the ethics or intelligence of the 'mysterious' designer?

Steve, for the answer to that just google Reverend Phelps.

Steve has touched on why ID is theologically risky. What if a Christian who is 'convinced' by the argument about ICness of the flagellum is confronted with the increased knowledge of science which suggests that it could have evolved? What does this say about the cornerstone example of ID?
What would this do to the faith of Christians who now have to face the argument that intelligent design has been disproven.
Or would disproving ICness of the flagellum present no risk to ID? In other words, it's just a ruse? What would that do to the faith of those who were told otherwise?

Do we ever have anything on Panda's thumb beyond 'Living organisms can't be designed because there is a book that claims they have been designed.'? Apparently not.

Ok, Creationist Troll, let's take the cow. Pick any cow. Cow bones don't appear with dinosaurs, or earlier, for that matter.

Creationist Troll, explain whence comes the cow?

Thanks. I await your reply.

Intellectual laziness - I love it!

PvM, I saw a similar comment a few days ago - can t remember where. It stated that ID implied that the Designer would gradually diminish in importance as more of the knowledge gaps were explained by science. The Incredible Shrinking God, indeed!

I ve got both of these stashed in my anti-ID armamentarium.

Bruce

A conversation between neodarwinian evolution and intelligent design:

NDE: How did that car get built?

ID: A designer designed it.

NDE: Okay, I know, but how did it actually get built? Did the designer build it himself, or did he get someone else to build it?

ID: Well, he designed the design of the car.

NDE: Yes, we know. But how did the car actually get built?

ID: Well, I don't have any information on that.

NDE: Any ideas?

ID: I don't need to come up with any ideas on that, because I can see that it was designed by a designer.

NDE: I'm not asking you about the design. I'm asking you how it got built.

ID: It was designed.

NDE: Never mind.

Apparently Liddle is 100% certain that Dawkins is 100% certain. In any case, his article is cretinous.

— ts

Sorry, in the absence of the bathroom wall being available, could I just ask someone to check if they can see my comments on Dembski's blog I'm Alan Fox. It's just that I recall someone else posting here that their comments appeared on their own screen and appeared invisible when accessed on any other computer. I wonder if the same is happening to me.

I can see several Alan Fox comments on that linked page. I'm about as certain as anyone can be that I'm not you and not on the same computer as you. So any invisibility problem is likely to be your own - which would be the reverse of the previous report of invisibility.

Hi Alan - your comments are there, in the middle of Dave Scot's sychophantc inane drivel.

Cheers

Thanks Kiwi

But just to be sure what number of comments shows in that thread, and do you see Alan Fox or Fox, Alan? Sorry to trouble you, we seem to be out of time sync. here. What time of day in Oz?

Thanks SEF (why so snotty about Dawkins?)

Well something's going on because I can no longer log on there. I re-registered and these comments were shown as 11 and 13, but the top count shows 11 comments.

It's Alan Fox, with 4 comments, and the last one at 4.41 AM. And it's 8.45 PM here in Oz. I'm always amused to see my comments come in at some ungodly (unintelligently designed?) time of the morning of the day before!

KiwiInOz

Merci, m'sieur, t'est gentil.

Bugger, I thought I'd become difficult enough to get banned.

What if a Christian who is 'convinced' by the argument about ICness of the flagellum is confronted with the increased knowledge of science which suggests that it could have evolved? What does this say about the cornerstone example of ID?

— PvM

PvM wrote: What if a Christian who is 'convinced' by the argument about ICness of the flagellum is confronted with the increased knowledge of science which suggests that it could have evolved? What does this say about the cornerstone example of ID?

Haven't we seen many examples of this? Very often, they ignore or deny the evidence, or question the credentials of the scientist. In the case of some Creationists, they even go so far as to say if the new evidence contradicts scripture, the new evidence is ipso facto wrong. The ID proponents are not likely to come out and say this, but they still often ignore and deny the evidence.

I fear there is cultural misunderstanding here, ts. This is a typical British response to a perceived over-strident piece by Dawkins. In the absence of any creationist (of the Southern Babtist variety) cabal of any significance in the UK mounting any response, Liddle feels he must support the underdog along the lines of "well, we can't condemn something until we've given it a fair hearing."

— Alan

As Dawkins implies, the creationists are guided less by scientific rigour than by pure faith. But it is a view that has been popularly believed for at least 2,000 years: why not allow it to be analysed scientifically within the classroom? For an afternoon, at least.

— Ron Liddle

Sorry -- there was a problem with the formatting. This will be more readable.

Religion and Science

The religion vs. evolution debate has broken out once again, and certain groups are trying to get their religious views into high school classrooms -- this time in the thinly-veiled form of "intelligent design," a broad tent where young earth creationists, old earth creationists, and people who simply prefer to remain more abstract can join together in common cause. In an online discussion devoted to the issue, one individual said that he couldn't really understand what the controversy was about. He argued that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, exists outside of the world He creates, and expects us to believe in Him through faith alone, then surely He would not have left any traces in His creation which would provide an empirical alternative to that faith. Viewed this way, the world discovered through science -- including evolution and the big bang -- is simply the divinely opaque means through which God created the world we now see.

I agreed. Properly understood, there is no conflict between religion and science: each deals with different human needs (and for some people, philosophy may satisfy the same needs that religion serves for others). The realm of empirical knowledge belongs to science, whereas religion ministers to the need for normative guidance. The question of whether or not God exists lies beyond the realm of empirical science, and properly belongs to religion and philosophy. Many scientists (including a good number of evolutionists) are in fact religious -- they simply do not let their religious views interfere with the quest for empirical knowledge. (For one example, see the "Science and Religion" interview with Kenneth R. Miller, available at http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.html.) Properly, scientists will respect these beliefs of their religious colleagues, realizing they may very well provide those colleagues with the moral guidance which makes them better scientists. The importance of moral guidance, and, more specifically, the moral courage to deal with the ever-present possibility of failure in both the existential and cognitive realms, is not to be underestimated.

In the existential realm, religion properly provides the individual with the moral courage to act despite the possibility of failure, where failure can sometimes mean the possibility of actual death, and the fear of failure itself can often be experienced as such. Likewise, the fear of being mistaken -- where being mistaken may threaten our beliefs about who we are -- is at times experienced as a threat much like death itself. Here, too, there is need for moral courage, although of a somewhat different kind. Properly, religion encourages in its own way the view that while recognizing one's mistakes may be experienced prospectively as a form of death, the act itself brings a form of rebirth and self-transcendence, giving one the courage to revise one's beliefs when confronted with new evidence.

However, when people attempt to mix the realms of religion and science -- attempting, for example, to use science to promote a given religious or philosophic view -- in the long run, given the very nature of the relationship between religion and science, the results will be the reverse of what is intended, and may end up damaging what in fact they hold most dear. For example, a proponent of science who believes that faith in God is absurd in the age of Science may end up creating a religious backlash against science itself among those who take a different view. But properly, empirical science cannot speak of the metaphysics of that which lies beyond the empirical realm and the ontology required by its naturalistic explanations.

Alternatively, those who attempt to use science to prove the existence of God will end up with a God susceptible to empirical criticism, when belief in God should be a matter of faith. A religious view rooted in science will be grounded in the shifting sands of scientific discourse, placed in constant threat of being uprooted by the newest scientific discoveries. For the better among those who initially accept this substitute for true faith, such a view will at first seem intoxicating, but will soon prove poisonous to their religious beliefs.

For others, the proper religious stance becomes transformed, and the proper intellectual courage to revise one's beliefs when confronted with new evidence is transmuted into its polar opposite. Intellectual "courage" becomes the will and the power to challenge, doubt and deny any body of empirical evidence or knowledge whenever it comes into conflict with their religious or political beliefs. At this point, one of the most fundamental ethical virtues -- honesty -- has itself become undermined, and with it all the virtues which would normally be encouraged and taught through the moral guidance of religion. Properly, religious leaders who understand what is at stake will oppose "empirical" faith both for the contradiction which it embodies and as the antithesis of the true faith they seek to protect and nourish.

When properly understood, this unnecessary conflict between religion and science will be consigned to the oblivion it so richly deserves. Yet more could undoubtedly be done so as to avoid such misunderstandings and consequent conflicts in the future. Science has been and continues to be responsible for a great deal of humanity's material and intellectual progress. Religion is responsible for humanity's moral and spiritual guidance. The roles they serve are complementary and to a significant extent in today's world, interdependent. Religion and science each have their own inner dynamic, but religious and scientific communities share a common concern for humanity as a whole. If religion and science are to perform their proper functions in human society, they must remain separate, with their fundamental natures respected. But still there can be dialogue.

Some time ago, Pope John Paul II visited with biologists to discuss evolution and then ended official Catholic Church opposition to evolutionary theory. This was a good beginning, but unfortunately there wasn't much follow-up. If a dialogue were to begin between the religious and scientific communities, one born out of mutual understanding and respect, such a dialogue could serve the interests of both communities and perhaps even the interests of humanity as a whole. As one interesting possibility, a scientist of the same denomination as a given church might occasionally make a good guest speaker, particularly if he were to discuss the role that religious belief has played in his life and work, and he were to share a few of the more interesting, recent discoveries in his particular field.

In a sense, such religious scientists might serve as bidirectional ambassadors between the two communities, and would deserve honored places within both. If properly promoted, such guest speakers might help to boost church attendance, particularly if they are good speakers. And perhaps when church services are not being held, churches could make available rooms where scientists could discuss their work with the public, and even their concerns for some of the problems which currently face humanity. This could also serve as good public relations for the religious and scientific communities as a whole. I myself do not know where a dialogue between these communities would lead -- this would be up to the participants. But I have little doubt that it could become quite interesting and enlightening for everyone involved.

Have scientists comment to kids about the possibilities of living inside a whale for a few days, or stopping the sun from moving for a period of time, or how to get striped offspring by putting sticks near mating animals?

Oh, I think I could live with that.

Chalmers hits the nail on the head with the 'L' word. What IDists demand is a social policy that entitles them to all the benefits of a scientific theory: an objective hearing by scientists, equal opportunity to federal grants, a fair representation in school curricula, etc. They assert a right to claim these benefits without doing any of the work that is normally associated with a science. No preliminary results. No research plan. Nothing.

In fact, the belief of entitlement is so strong for IDists that it is reinforces their lazy behavior. We see this feedback mechanism in action in those IDists who make excuses for a lack of research, whether in the past, now, or into the future, because they have been denied the resources to which they are entitled. In other words, they believe that taxpayers should support IDists for having done and continuing to do nothing.

Laziness is absolutely the right word for IDist behavior.

Dawkins is supposedly a supremely rational human being. But there is another paradox here, because in his defence of theories to which he has affixed his flag and from which he has made his name, he betrays the distinctly irrational and human characteristic of possessing something called faith. "I believe but I cannot prove that all life, all intelligence and all design ... is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection," he has said. Faith is indeed a touching thing.

— Liddle

Dawkins and God do not get along: they have issues, to the extent that Dawkins has gone so far as to suggest that God doesn't exist. God has never ventured to suggest the same of Dawkins.

— Liddle

Teach science in the science classroom, teach God in the God classroom (ie church, home, etc), the intelligent mind will come to its natural conclusion. It's that simple. Apparently, the proponents of ID do not have much faith in their God, otherwise, they would already understand this logical, yet simple equation. No body of evidence, no debate, the science classroom is the inappropriate place for ID. These same people (ID proponents) are opposed to the distribution of condoms in public schools on the grounds that the public schools are the inappropriate place for such distribution (which I agree), yet fail to recognize the inappropriateness of imposing their view of creationism on others that don't share their belief.

Apparently, the proponents of ID do not have much faith in their God,

Steve has touched on why ID is theologically risky. What if a Christian who is 'convinced' by the argument about ICness of the flagellum is confronted with the increased knowledge of science which suggests that it could have evolved? What does this say about the cornerstone example of ID? What would this do to the faith of Christians who now have to face the argument that intelligent design has been disproven. Or would disproving ICness of the flagellum present no risk to ID? In other words, it's just a ruse? What would that do to the faith of those who were told otherwise?

— PvM

I wonder why I rarely see anyone mention what would be of the intelligent designer if ID were correct. Ever try to explain to a little 5 year old why the gator ate his dog and that God made it that way intentionally? If we were to adopt ID as a scientific method (assuming it was possible) it would be short before people start to wonder about the intentions of the designer.
IDists answer these:
What was the designer intending when
he designed mother birds that kick out their runt youngins?
he designed male lions that kill cubs of other male lions when taking over their territory?
he designed praying mantises that eat their mates?
he designed baby sharks that eat their mothers from the inside out?

If ID is correct, the designer is rather merciless and gives no value to individual life.

If they had faith, they wouldn't feel the need to try to scientifically prove their god's existence.

— steve

Steve: Have scientists comment to kids about ... stopping the sun from moving for a period of time...

"NASA research proves that the sun really stood still in the sky!" (footnote: Actual lesson being taught in 300+ school districts)

Dave is quite correct to point out that "the idea of purpose and wholeness in natural substances has been around since Aristotle at least." But ID not only benefits from appealing to the mass of inherited prejudices we call common sense. Obviously inadequate as it is, the traditional view of things doesn't have any competition. Modern philosophical and scientific ideas are relentlessly complicated, arcane, counterintuitive, and depressing---the true holistic science, after all, turned out to be thermodynamics. The new consensus may be true, but it is a nonstarter in the battle for hearts and minds. Nature may not actually abhor a vacuum; but people certainly will not permanently tolerate the absence of a hopeful, easily comprehened, and therefore false vision of reality.

Which is why I expect that the Age of Science has an expiration date. Once people decide that the sciences are not going to make them any healthier or richer, they'll probably put the kabosh on rational inquiry as the Christians did at the end of antiquity and the Islamic masses did at the end of the Middle Ages.

What was the designer intending when ... he designed praying mantises that eat their mates? he designed baby sharks that eat their mothers from the inside out?

— HDM

Jim Harrison wrote: Which is why I expect that the Age of Science has an expiration date. Once people decide that the sciences are not going to make them any healthier or richer, they'll probably put the kabosh on rational inquiry as the Christians did at the end of antiquity and the Islamic masses did at the end of the Middle Ages.

I fear there is cultural misunderstanding here, ts. This is a typical British response to a perceived over-strident piece by Dawkins.

Considering how long it took to invent the zipper, I'm not too optimistic about finding the key to eternal life.

Obviously neither I nor anybody else has a clue what is or isn't technologically possible. I've mostly gotten out of the game of handicapping such horse races because I realized a fundamental problem with such guesses. One is retrospectively impressed with the progress of the sciences because one focuses on the successes, but there have also been many failures (cancer, AI, economical thermonuclear power, etc.). It is far harder to set a goal and meet it than to fool around and eventually come up with something impressive. As a result, if I were to have to place a bet, I'd guess that lots of interesting stuff will be found, but that much of what we hope to find will not work. We probably aren't going to fly off to the stars, for example. You heard it here first.

In the original story of the Princes of Serendip; Horace Walpole's moral wasn't that you are liable to find something better than you set out to find, but that you may as well be satisfied with the consolation prizes because that's all you're probably going to get. (Alchemist teeshirt: "I set out to find the philosopher's stone, and all I got was this lousy periodic table!)

By the way, we've already seen one instance in which public support for the sciences has partly ebbed away. In the years after WWII, the particle physicists could scare up big money from congress by intimating that something might turn up with military and/or economic implications. Unfortunately, thought the bigger and bigger accelerators produced highly satisfactory results for the scientists, they didn't yield the desired weaponry and the superconducting, supercollider got deep sixed.

I suspect that one day, science will provide the key to living forever

Kind of like the Jews didn't recognize Him the first time He came.

This is a typical British response to a perceived over-strident piece by Dawkins.

Jim wrote: Considering how long it took to invent the zipper, I'm not too optimistic about finding the key to eternal life. Obviously neither I nor anybody else has a clue what is or isn't technologically possible. I've mostly gotten out of the game of handicapping such horse races because I realized a fundamental problem with such guesses. One is retrospectively impressed with the progress of the sciences because one focuses on the successes, but there have also been many failures (cancer, AI, economical thermonuclear power, etc.). It is far harder to set a goal and meet it than to fool around and eventually come up with something impressive. As a result, if I were to have to place a bet, I'd guess that lots of interesting stuff will be found, but that much of what we hope to find will not work. We probably aren't going to fly off to the stars, for example. You heard it here first. In the original story of the Princes of Serendip; Horace Walpole's moral wasn't that you are liable to find something better than you set out to find, but that you may as well be satisfied with the consolation prizes because that's all you're probably going to get. (Alchemist teeshirt: "I set out to find the philosopher's stone, and all I got was this lousy periodic table!) By the way, we've already seen one instance in which public support for the sciences has partly ebbed away. In the years after WWII, the particle physicists could scare up big money from congress by intimating that something might turn up with military and/or economic implications. Unfortunately, thought the bigger and bigger accelerators produced highly satisfactory results for the scientists, they didn't yield the desired weaponry and the superconducting, supercollider got deep sixed.

Religious believers who support ID as an alternative theory to evolution usually refuse to accept the existence of a bright line between science and religion. The scientific revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries was largely driven by men who were religious believers and thought that each new discovery was made in service to the greater glory of God. Darwin was a religious believer until late in his life.

For this reason, among others I don't completely understand, IDer's that I have talked to just don't follow the argument when I try to explain that the "evidence" for ID doesn't fit within any framework of the scientific method. They don't think they have to advance any evidence at all. They think that if they can poke enough holes in evolution ID will somehow be proven.

It's not just morons who think this way. Many IDer's are quite intelligent, in other areas. Why they fall for the nonsense of ID seems to be just emotional and a defense mechanism to their fear of "scientific materialism." The fact that some scientists [Dawkins] claim that evolution proves atheism fuels these fears and reactions.

If that were all there was to it, it might be harmless. The problem is that they want to use the public schools to foist their religious ideas on others. That means that even if ID were science it would be politically motivated science, which is always bad science, e.g., eugenics, Lysenkoism, and these days, human-caused global warming.

I value the sciences in large part because I simply want to understand the world and how it works; but I'm aware that less ethereal motives are more important for other people, congressmen and women, for example. Science and its purportedly limitless benefits serves as a sort of Caucasian cargo cult for many Americans. If the natives ever lose faith in the eventual advent of the Great Pig, they are liable to get quite restless.

I have lots of faith in the potential of science, but I'm aware that it isn't magic and will never solve all human problems. Waiting for the electrician (or somebody like him) is likely to be as futile as waiting for the Second Coming.

The fact that some scientists [Dawkins] claim that evolution proves atheism fuels these fears and reactions.

ts

I said:

This is a typical British response to a perceived over-strident piece by Dawkins.

Does inserting "(by Liddle)after perceived help? I find Dawkins lucid, informative and always to the point, never over-strident. As l suspect Liddle is unaware of the huge amount of nonsense put about by that charlatan Dembski and his ilk (due to {perceived by me} his lack of research and/or absence of any effective ID proponents in the UK) I offer this explanation for his article.

Quetzal

Your expectations regarding the integrity of British journalism are somewhat outdated. A friend's son who is a sub editor on a rival UK national paper recently regaled me about how little checking is done before publishing. The more technical an article, the less one has to worry about accuracy!

Ken Willis is right (his most immediate remarks above). The only success I've ever had with ID advocates is asking them to provide me with the stuff I'd need to make a solid lesson plan -- and then this has only worked with teachers. Once they start to research ID trying to support it for instructional purposes, they immediately grasp the pedagogical vacuousness of ID, and then they see that this is a direct result of the complete lack of science.

Has anyone else ever dissuaded an ID advocate? What worked?

To the question about whether it is true that the sun's being stopped is being taught in 300+ schools: There is a curriculum on the Bible which is amazingly atrocious, and which includes that in its curriculum. The promoters of the curriculum claim it is being taught in more than 300 high schools, but they refuse to identify the districts. The Texas Freedom Network published a study and critique of the curriculum, here:
http://www.tfn.org/religiousfreedom/biblecurriculum/

News articles suggest the curriculum may be offered in these places, for a few examples:
Massac County High School, Illinois; Westcliff, Colorado; Ouachita Jr. High School, Ouachita, Louisiana; Forsyth, North Carolina; Pisgah High School in Haywood, NC; Big Spring High School, Big Spring, Texas; Marion 7 School District, South Carolina; Kress, Texas. (If you have information that this is not correct, I would love to hear it; also, if you know of a school which does offer the curriculum plugged by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, I would love that information, too. You can e-mail me.)

It's astounding that otherwise intelligent people who can make money would support such a claim in any curriculum. It's troubling that some people would spend good money to offer such garbage to kids as education.

Liddle is a pompous, self-important ass, who only has a platform because he used to edit the Today programme. He fancies himself as Hitchens-esque contrarian but doesn't any of Hitchens' prose stylism or investigative zeal. I doubt anyone pays him much attention these days.

Ken Willis wrote: If that were all there was to it, it might be harmless. The problem is that they want to use the public schools to foist their religious ideas on others. That means that even if ID were science it would be politically motivated science, which is always bad science, e.g., eugenics, Lysenkoism, and these days, human-caused global warming.

at car get built? ID: A designer designed it. NDE: Okay, I know, but how did it actually get built? Did the designer build it himself, or did he get someone else to build it?

— Eric Murphy

Frank J wrote: ID: A designer designed it. NDE 1 (aka Me): Okay, I know, but how did it actually get built? What happened and when? NDE 2, 3, and 4: A designer didn't design it, and here's why...(trots out "bad design" arguments, technical defenses of evolution that most people do not understand) ID: Oh, boy is this great! I can ignore NDE 1 and talk in circles with NDE 2, 3, and 4, and get clueless audiences to see them as "defensive 'Darwinists' denying design"!

One very important point that I believe has been ignored in the debate is one's perception or perspective on "who" or "what" God (ie. the Designer) is.

— PatrickS

Frank J wrote: If IDers framed this as a generic design vs. non-design argument, then there would be, and should be, more discussion of the designer's identity. And IDers would still find that most mainstream religions reject their caricature of the designer.

... politically motivated science, which is always bad science, e.g., eugenics, Lysenkoism, and these days, human-caused global warming.

...less ethereal motives are more important for other people, congressmen and women, for example.

The fact that some scientists [Dawkins] claim that evolution proves atheism fuels these fears and reactions.

— Ken Willis

That's not a fact.

— (ts)not tim

Uh, as I read that, it seems that you're claiming the reports of human/industrial influences on global warming, or maybe g.w. itself, are motivated more by politics than by science. Please, say it ain't so!

— Pierce R. Butler

As more profesors retire, and thus are no longer seeking grants and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms of human-caused global warming darwinist evolution, there may be even more dissent.

Uh, Lenny. I might be misunderstanding you but isn't it true that what human-caused global warming and the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution have in common is that they both represent the predominant point of view among college and university professors of all stripes, retired or otherwise? Demski, Behe and Wells represent a distinct minority of Darwin critics on college campuses don't they? And if there is any significant number of retired professors who question Darwinian theory I am not aware of it.

I hope I didn't say or imply that a majority of retired professors are questioning human-caused global warming, just that a "sizable number" of them do. Maybe it would be more correct to say that of all professors who do question this idea, a sizable number of them happen to be retired. Then I offered some specualtion that their retired status makes it a little easier for them to think objectively, with full admission that I may be wrong about this. [Don't think so, though]

I'm probably just missing it so I need you to clue me in on where and whose Waterloo we are celebrating so I can join in the fun.

Whooosh.

This is a typical British response to a perceived over-strident piece by Dawkins. Does inserting "(by Liddle)after perceived help?

— Alan

The fact that some scientists [Dawkins] claim that evolution proves atheism fuels these fears and reactions. That's not a fact. Willis: The first is a fact because Richard Dawkins himself makes that claim.

— Ken Willis

But he does base his atheism on the truth of evolution. He says so.

Help make Liddle's article less cretinous?

— you

No, to clarify that I meant it was Liddle's perception, not mine or anyone else's.

what human-caused global warming and the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution have in common is that they both represent the predominant point of view among college and university professors of all stripes, retired or otherwise?

I wrote "Apparently Liddle is 100% certain that Dawkins is 100% certain. In any case, his article is cretinous." This is what you took issue with...

— you

And yet you responded to my statement that it was cretinous by claiming that I suffered from a cultural misunderstanding -- even though you agreed with what I had written, and I hadn't made any claims one way or the other about Liddle's motivations or any other aspect of his article within some greater cultural context. Pardon me, but I think that your original charge smacks of being cretinous, and I feel a bit of a cretin to have engaged in this silly exchange.

ts

You can be So prickly. I wasn't making a charge in my original point, just a suggestion. Save your bullets for the enemy.

And you can be such a hypocrite. It was your bullet, which was indeed a "charge", that I responded to.

Jim Harrison wrote: I have lots of faith in the potential of science, but I'm aware that it isn't magic and will never solve all human problems. Waiting for the electrician (or somebody like him) is likely to be as futile as waiting for the Second Coming.

No, he doesn't, and even if he did, that would be nothing like the claim that evolution proves atheism. What Dawkins has said is that, without evolution, it would be difficult to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

— (ts) not tim

But perhaps not to a couple of real scrappers like you and the reverent doctor.

— Ken Willis

One might be an intellectually fulfilled atheist without being so evangelical about it, it seems to me.

— Ken Willis

It would seem to me that the ID movement would lose some of its allure if the perception were different. Dawkins and other contribute to this perception. Dawkins is the institutionalization of atheism at Oxford. One might be an intellectually fulfilled atheist without being so evangelical about it, it seems to me. Especially if you are one of the most widely known and read popularizers of science, to the point of having anthropomorphized your ideas [The Selfish Gene]. Maybe you don't accept the goals of this website which I thought was to promote evolution and persuade as many people as possible away from ID. Trying to understand why people find ID attractive might be a step in that direction. But perhaps not to a couple of real scrappers like you and the reverent doctor.

The problem with ID is that as has been pointed out elsewhere, it makes no sense unless the creator is supernatural, that is, outside of nature. Well, once you say that a natural phenomenon has a supernatural explanation, that is is exactly equivalent to saying "This problem is too difficult, we're going to stop looking at this point, we give up. " Because at that point, you can't go any further. And this should be taught in science classes??? In Darwin's time, a legitimate objection to evolution could have been taught to students. It could have been taught that the Earth could be no more than 10 million years old, not nearly old enought for evolution to have occurred. This is because there was no known energy source for the sun that could have powered it for longer than this. The evidence for evolution was compelling enough that the theory remained strong, and sure enough, a completely unexpected energy source, the strong force inside atomic nuclei, was eventually discovered. ID is a just a way of saying "We give up." Why should we stop trying to understand the universe that we live in?