10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part I)

Intelligent Design — By Joe Carter on April 22, 2008 at 12:22 am

Why do so many people have such difficulty accepting the theory of Darwinian (or more precisely, neo-Darwinian) evolution? 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.
Just look around at the reaction to Ben Stein’s new film Expelled. The film was trashed by numerous critics, dismissed by the blosphere’s intelligentsia, and yet still managed to pull in the second largest gross box office receipts on opening weekend of any political documentary (second only to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11).
Had the critics remained silent over the past decade, ID might possibly have moldered in obscurity. If they had given the theory the respect accorded to supernatural explanations like the “multiverse theory” it might even have faded from lack of support.
But instead the theory’s critics launched a irrational counter-offensive, forcing people into choosing sides. The problem with this approach is that the more the public learn about modern evolutionary theory, the more skeptical they become about it being an adequately robust explanation for the diversity of life on earth. For instance in Expelled, Michael Ruse and Richard Dawkins provide two explanations for how life probably began. Ruse says that we moved from the inorganic world to the world of the cell on the backs of crystals while Dawkins says that life on earth was most likely seeded by aliens from outer space.
When even Dawkins admits that intelligent agency is involved in creation of life on earth it isn’t difficult to see why other people think it is plausible.
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–their frothing at the mouth reaction to Expelled is a symptom–and that they have only themselves to blame.
Here is the first five in a list of ten reasons ways in which the critics of Expelled (as well as other neo-Darwinist apologists) 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 mental 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 the neo-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? Claim 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 process like undirected natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift are sufficient explanations.
#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 throughout Expelled. One example was 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 himself 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/sexual 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, noted in 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.
Continued in Part II

    77 Comments

  • ucfengr says:
    April 25, 2008 at 6:15 am

    It certainly puts the more naive arguments against determinism (ie with furrowed brow asking “Are you telling me conciousness is nothing but atoms??! How could that be!?!?”) and the whole predestination idea into context..
    I don’t accept the premise that this is a naive argument. Relying on something like QM, which almost no one understands at all, and very few, if any, understand well (even Einstein had a few WTF moments when dealing with QM) to explain anything is very, for lack of a better term, problematic. IMHO, if you can’t explain some concept in science so that the typical engineer, let alone typical person, can understand it, you should probably go back to the drawing board.

  • Neil says:
    April 26, 2008 at 11:59 am

    I don’t accept the theory of evolution for the following reasons.
    1. Evidential. The ability of random processes to build the complex, interdependent structures found in living systems has never been demonstrated. The only systems we can point to that approach the complexity found in nature have been designed.
    2. Philosophical. A definition of science that rules out a logically possible answer to the question of origins cannot arrive at the truth about nature.
    3. Sociological. The continued attempts to stifle reasoned debate sends a message that scientists cannot win that debate. The inflammatory language so frequently used doesn’t help either. The ultimate irony is that all this only confirms the premise of the movie, “Expelled”.

  • Rich says:
    April 26, 2008 at 9:03 pm

    “I don’t accept the premise that this is a naive argument. Relying on something like QM, which almost no one understands at all, and very few, if any, understand well (even Einstein had a few WTF moments when dealing with QM) to explain anything is very, for lack of a better term, problematic. IMHO, if you can’t explain some concept in science so that the typical engineer, let alone typical person, can understand it, you should probably go back to the drawing board.”
    Well first of all Einstein understood QM perfectly well. It just went against all his notions of how the universe should behave - “God does not play dice” and “spooky action at a distance” (which was actually proven experimentally by Aspect and others).
    It was more an aesthetic objection - it offended his sensibilities more than it was confusing to him. His failure to accept quantum had a lot to do with his lack of success post relativity.
    Secondly - Just because the average person doesn’t understand it does not mean its invalid. As many people have pointed out in the past - science is not a democracy. Ask any physicist. Bell’s theorem is a *proof* for example - that’s an important distinction to make.
    It’s not actually that hard either. The basics is easy. Look up the double slit experiment (which actually confirmed predictions) - the wavefunction - the definition of quanta - nonlocality etc.
    Give it a try. Please.
    With respect - “Typical engineer” is telling - and is half the problem here. Ever heard of the Salem Conjecture?

  • Rich says:
    April 26, 2008 at 10:43 pm

    “I don’t accept the theory of evolution for the following reasons.
    1. Evidential. The ability of random processes to build the complex, interdependent structures found in living systems has never been demonstrated. The only systems we can point to that approach the complexity found in nature have been designed.”
    Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. Evolution explains diversity not origins. I’m sure you have heard this many times so perhaps it should have sunk in by now? I apologise if this seems rude - but like many others this line of argument is getting very tired indeed.
    Yes it’s a problem. People are working on it. Its exciting :). There has been progress. It’s an extremely hard problem as early replicators would not be preserved in any way (for obvious reasons).
    The questions you should really be asking youself are:
    “What does teology mean?”
    and
    “Is the uncertainty at the frontiers of science a strength or a weakness - and is it an opportunity or an problem? What can we infer about this from past scientific advances?”
    “2. Philosophical. A definition of science that rules out a logically possible answer to the question of origins cannot arrive at the truth about nature.”
    You haven’t read your Kant have you? Also it has to be falsifiable to be science. As a very famous man once said - if you want to disprove evolution then all you need to do is find a rabbit fossil in the precambrian.
    Why don’t you propose a test for God? Then we can talk.
    Kant recognised this - for that reason he proposed the whole idea of religion and science occupying different spheres. He also recognised this was for religions benefit. In fact he regarded it as sinful to do otherwise.
    There is a parallel here to the most religious of the founding fathers (Madison) being the most outspoken about church and state separation. So the most religious of the philosophers of his era was the most careful to define science (and other temporal authority) and religion as operating in different areas.
    Kant’s Critique of pure Reason (besides being an awful tautology) does not prove god exists. But it does leave room for him (if no proof). Its a position of agnosticism ultimately - Occam’s razor notwithstanding. Hume had more to say about this as well if you are interested. Treating their ideas as a conversation is an interesting exercise.
    I suspect from this statement that you do not understand formal logic very well. You certainly don’t understand the scientific method. Thats not a philosophical argument either.
    It’s dangerous to argue philosophy is on your side here. From a scientific perspective its irrelevant as well. You are putting God in a box - a box that is steadily shrinking which is exactly what Kant anticipated and was why he wrote what he did . Some would argue he really only acheieved the exact opposite - but his intentions were clear.
    From here you could easily argue that ID is in fact slowly destroying its own religion due to it insisting on occupying the same sphere as science.
    3. Sociological. The continued attempts to stifle reasoned debate sends a message that scientists cannot win that debate. The inflammatory language so frequently used doesn’t help either. The ultimate irony is that all this only confirms the premise of the movie, “Expelled”.
    Project much?
    Its not reasoned debate. Its lies and dissembling. *NONE* (yes none) of those people were persecuted for their beliefs. This is not difficult to check up on. For bypassing peer review and using their position as an editor to publish rubbish - yes one was fired. One of them did not even hold the position they claimed - they were a research associate (unpaid) and they STILL ARE. All the examples from the film are dishonest to say the least. If you are truly interested in a “debate” then go read expelled exposed website.
    Its not scientists who realised they couldn’t win the argument either. Have you read the wedge document? If logic is so important to you then APPLY some to the premise’s of the film. In particular the disgusting and dishonest Hitler/genocide eugenics “argument”.
    Spot the fallacies?
    You don’t even need to actually research what was actually said and written by Hitler to dispose of this argument - although doing this removes any doubt. Shall we start holding all protestants to account for the holocaust for what Martin Luther wrote in what was the first mainstream German book to espouse antisemitism?
    Or is this being a little unfair?
    People who consider Eugenics to be a consequence of evolutionary theory are just plain wrong. Ever heard of hybrid vigor? The entire concept of “breeding” humans or creating a master race can be dispelled by taking a close look at the European royal families. Diversity is important and we need every bit of it we can get from current populations if you take the long view (our very survival past another few hundred years) here. “Fitness” is a very misunderstood concept outside of biology circles - it is dependent on the environment. Sickle cell anemia and white skin being perfect examples.
    ID is causing a stir in the sciences because they are trying to get it called science - when it is in fact anything but. And you people want this taught in schools? No wonder scientists are angry - not only do you effectively call them nazis but you want to teach our children unprovable rubbish. Keep it to the social studies or philosophy classes where it belongs - or work up an actual theory that makes falsifiable predictions.
    Heres what the issue boils down to. Science (remember Kepler and Galileo?) has always posed a problem. Not to religion - but rather the literalist approach to religion. If you consider Genesis (for example) to be not a literal creation account - but rather a morality story of hunter gatherers (and then nomadic herders) settling down to form towns and begin agriculture (with the attendant social problems that emerged) then it all starts to make sense.. Jared Diamond wrote a wonderful essay along these lines the name of which escapes me at the moment. If you want to cling to a literalist interpretation - fine. You are going to have to raise your game somewhat if you want it taught in schools as science.
    My final question to you is - what position will you retreat to when the problem of Abiogenesis is solved and someone creates a simple replicator from early earth conditions? What essentially will you have done to your religion should this happen and you have continued down this path?
    Its worth thinking about.

  • Rich says:
    April 27, 2008 at 12:02 am

    Erm thats “teleology” by the way. Duh.

  • Neil says:
    April 28, 2008 at 1:32 pm

    Response to Rich
    1. Evidential. I know abiogenesis is not evolution. You said evolution explains diversity not origins. I am asking specifically how DOES evolution explain diversity? This is Dr. Kenneth Miller’s testimony during cross examination in the 2005 Dover intelligent design trial (Sept. 26, 2005, p. 47, line 12).
    “Q. Is it true that scientists do not know enough about all structures in the cell to describe how they all work or how describe how evolution could have produced each of them by step-by-step Darwinian processes?
    “A. Well, you ask a very interesting question. And I, first of all, am going to enthusiastically agree with the first part, which is that scientists certainly do not understand enough about all of the structures in the living cell to understand how they work. That really is the business, my business and the business of Dr. Behe. Because the answers to that questions are going to come out of genetics — sorry. They’re going to come out of biochemistry. They’re going to come out of cell biology and maybe molecular biology and genetics as well. I’ll answer the second part of your question this way. Until we understand the first part, which is how everything works, we can’t even begin to understand how things evolved. So we will have to have an absolute and complete and total understanding of how everything in the cell works before we can even begin to put together an understanding of how it evolved.”
    Until science can put together an understanding of how the cell evolved, or how the giraffe evolved its long neck, or how a land animal evolved into a whale, or how the bacterial flagellum evolved, I will remain a skeptic of the theory.
    2. Philosophical. (Nope, I have not read Kant.)
    I have trouble with the discovery of the pre-Cambrian rabbit as a falsification for evolution. Serendipitous falsifications may never occur. What then? Is evolution therefore proven unequivocally? I don’t think so. Also, finding a pre-Cambrian rabbit, or for that matter finding any fossil tells us nothing about the mechanisms of evolution.
    You asked me to propose a test for God. Has anyone been asked to propose a test for the intelligent being that sends a signal from that planet far, far away? The detection of the signal comes first, and the obvious inference is that there is an intelligent being that sent the signal. Similarly, how do archaeologists determine that a people lived in a particular geographic area? By the artifacts they left behind. If you propose a test for the mechanism that changed one animal into another, then we can talk. Or more generally, how does science test any historical process?
    Darwin effectively refuted the design argument based on the science of his day. Dawkins argues in “The Blind Watchmaker” that the evidence for evolution reveals a universe without design. What kind of science allows arguments against a hypothesis, but permits no arguments for that hypothesis? This system sets up evolution as being unfalsifiable.
    3. Sociological. I did check on Richard Sternberg. He did follow “the standard peer review process, sending the paper to four qualified scientists, three of whom agreed to review it. The reviewers’ comments were provided to Dr. Meyer who made changes in the paper accordingly.”
    Richard Sternberg
    Dr. Robert Marks of Baylor University was also featured in “Expelled”.
    Baylor asked him to remove his web site from the Baylor server and grant funds that would have enabled Dr. Marks to hire an associate to assist his work in his evolutionary informatics lab were withdrawn.
    What if someone like Robert Marks is actually encouraged (with appropriate grants, lab space, and assistants) to conduct his research into evolutionary informatics? Would you be in favor of this? Is it possible that such research would show that random processes cannot account for the complexity and diversity of living things? What do scientists then do? Change the definition of science? Or what? I really would be interested in your response.
    Your final question touches on issues that I have been wrestling with for some time. If there is a religion that makes truth claims about reality and among those claims is a claim that there is a God who created heaven and earth and also created man in his image, then scientific evidence that refutes those claims would bring into question the nature of God, if indeed he does exist. He need not exist if there is nothing for him to do. If a belief in God is the result of an evolutionary adaptation as evolutionary theory would seem to suggest, then God truly is a figment of our imagination and not real. When I read that the majority of evolutionary biologists are atheists, and hear how people like Dawkins and Shermer became atheists as a result of learning about the theory, this only confirms the link between the the theory of evolution to atheism in my mind.
    Many Protestant denominations (and individual clergy) have reconciled their theology with the theory of evolution (as witnessed by the Clergy Letter Project). To claim that God works through the process of evolution when Darwin removed God as the agent of that process is a logical contradiction. If the evolutionary process is guided, it is no longer Darwinian. And if the evolutionary process is unguided, there is no room for God. Is God so clever that he can guide an unguided process?

  • Rich says:
    April 28, 2008 at 11:03 pm

    I’m at work today and its pretty busy - but that was a good response - I will get back to you in more detail when time permits.
    The last issue really comes down to whether you believe in the biblical god - or a Deist one. Or none at all. As mentioned a lot of christians have no issues with Theistic evolution - you seem to be taking the all or nothing approach. I’m not sure that’s going to be helpful to your cause.

  • Rich says:
    April 28, 2008 at 11:43 pm

    hmm just reading through - I think I’m going to make some time for this.
    “Until science can put together an understanding of how the cell evolved, or how the giraffe evolved its long neck, or how a land animal evolved into a whale, or how the bacterial flagellum evolved, I will remain a skeptic of the theory.”
    Cell evolution = Abiogenesis. We already discussed this. Not yet - promising but exciting.
    Land animal to whale:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
    Giraffe from short to long neck:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html
    I’m strapped for time - but it gets a brief mention. Have read a lot on this - trust me its out there - I’m sure you can find it should you really want to.
    Bacterial flagellum is the irreducible complexity argument. This has also been dealt with - similar to the “what good is half an eye” argument. Problem being they have already found examples of just that (half an eye) and since Behe proposed it they have found even more intermediate steps.
    flagellum:
    http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
    http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
    http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm
    Second example is by K.Miller. Can you explain why he did not appear in expelled by the way?
    half an eye:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
    “I have trouble with the discovery of the pre-Cambrian rabbit as a falsification for evolution. Serendipitous falsifications may never occur. What then? Is evolution therefore proven unequivocally? I don’t think so. Also, finding a pre-Cambrian rabbit, or for that matter finding any fossil tells us nothing about the mechanisms of evolution.”
    Well if you have problems with that then how about some other predictions of common descent - lets say the genetic ones - like retroviral inserts in Metazoan DNA ?
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
    “Has anyone been asked to propose a test for the intelligent being that sends a signal from that planet far, far away?”
    Have you ever heard of SETI. Google the WOW signal its interesting
    (disclaimer - I’m not a panspermia proponent- before anyone trys what Mathias did to Dawkins. Which was very very dishonest).
    “Or more generally, how does science test any historical process?”
    Its called forensics. Which is an important term to understand the real meaning of.
    Steinberg:
    see http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg
    Please read it and respond. You still haven’t accounted for the others. He never held the position they claimed he had at the smithsonian.
    This can only charitably be described as a “Bald faced Lie”.
    Where did you research Steinburg? Not the DI or AIG I hope.
    “Darwin effectively refuted the design argument based on the science of his day.”
    Yes he kinda did didn’t he. Draw your own conclusions from that.
    “Many Protestant denominations (and individual clergy) have reconciled their theology with the theory of evolution (as witnessed by the Clergy Letter Project). To claim that God works through the process of evolution when Darwin removed God as the agent of that process is a logical contradiction. If the evolutionary process is guided, it is no longer Darwinian. And if the evolutionary process is unguided, there is no room for God. Is God so clever that he can guide an unguided process?”
    Heres the all or nothing argument. I think you really need to answer that for yourself. Darwin was careful to let the evidence speak for itself.
    Shades of Epicurus there.

  • Rich says:
    April 29, 2008 at 1:49 am

    From the Miller piece - as it addresses a few other points above.
    The Failure of Design
    It is no secret that concepts like “irreducible complexity” and “intelligent design” have failed to take the scientific community by storm (Forrest 2002). Design has not prompted new research studies, new breakthroughs, or novel insights on so much as a single scientific question. Design advocates acknowledge this from time to time, but they often claim that this is because the scientific deck is stacked against them. The Darwinist establishment, they say, prevents them from getting a foot in the laboratory door.
    I would suggest that the real reason for the cold shoulder given “design” by the scientific community, particularly by life science researchers, is because time and time again its principal scientific claims have turned out to be wrong. Science is a pragmatic activity, and if your hypothesis doesn’t work, it is quickly discarded.
    The claim of irreducible complexity for the bacterial flagellum is an obvious example of this, but there are many others. Consider, for example, the intricate cascade of proteins involved in the clotting of vertebrate blood. This has been cited as one of the principal examples of the kind of complexity that evolution cannot generate, despite the elegant work of Russell Doolittle (Doolittle and Feng 1987; Doolittle 1993) to the contrary. A number of proteins are involved in this complex pathway, as described by Behe:
    When an animal is cut, a protein called Hagemann factor (XII) sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hagemann factor is then cleaved by a protein called HMK to yield activated Hagemann factor. Immediately the activated Hagemann factor converts another protein, called prekallikrein, to its active form, kallikrein. (Behe 1996a, 84)
    How important are each of these proteins? In line with the dogma of irreducible complexity, Behe argues that each and every component must be in place before the system will work, and he is perfectly clear on this point:
    . . . none of the cascade proteins are used for anything except controlling the formation of a clot. Yet in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot, and the system fails. (Behe 1996a, 86)
    As we have seen, the claim that every one of the components must be present for clotting to work is central to the “evidence” for design. One of those components, as these quotations indicate, is Factor XII, which initiates the cascade. Once again, however, a nasty little fact gets in the way of intelligent design theory. Dolphins lack Factor XII (Robinson, Kasting, and Aggeler 1969), and yet their blood clots perfectly well. How can this be if the clotting cascade is indeed irreducibly complex? It cannot, of course, and therefore the claim of irreducible complexity is wrong for this system as well. I would suggest, therefore, that the real reason for the rejection of “design” by the scientific community is remarkably simple – the claims of the intelligent design movement are contradicted time and time again by the scientific evidence.

  • Neil says:
    April 29, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    Response to Rich
    I appreciate the time you are taking to respond to my posts. You have given me a lot of homework to do, and this will take some time to digest. In the meantime I want to respond to some points that will not take as much time.
    “As mentioned a lot of Christians have no issues with Theistic evolution - you seem to be taking the all or nothing approach.”
    If by Theistic evolution you mean taking the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, which specifically has removed God from the process, and then adding God back in, then what other approach can I take? Either God was needed to bring about life as we know it, or he wasn’t.
    “Cell evolution = Abiogenesis. We already discussed this. Not yet - promising but exciting. “
    I interpreted Dr. Miller’s statement as saying that until we understand how the cell evolved, we can’t understand how evolution in general occurred. I still think this is true. But you’re right. He was talking about abiogenesis.
    “Have you ever heard of SETI? Google the WOW signal its interesting.”
    Yes, I have. And you have confirmed the point I was making. The test for the intelligent agent is made from the pattern detected in nature. The detection of the pattern comes first, then the inference to the intelligence that/who created it.
    “It’s called forensics. Which is an important term to understand the real meaning of.”
    From the American Heritage Dictionary on line:
    1. The art or study of formal debate; argumentation.
    2. The use of science and technology to investigate and establish facts in criminal or civil courts of law.
    With the risk of appearing dense, what is the real meaning of forensics that I need to understand?
    “Where did you research Sternberg? Not the DI or AIG I hope.”
    I should know better. I missed a link in another thread some time ago that consisted of bold face colored type. The following link is to his personal site. His site also includes a link to the U.S. government’s Office of Special Counsel report on his ordeal.
    Richard Sternberg
    “Yes he kinda did didn’t he. Draw your own conclusions from that.”
    I hope you noticed that I said he refuted the design argument based on the science of his day. Scientists have learned much more about the complexity of the cell since then. Then you didn’t address the question I was raising with my Darwin and Dawkins comments. They both made arguments against design. I’ll repeat my question. What kind of science is it that allows arguments against a hypothesis but doesn’t allow arguments for that hypothesis? Apparently, scientists no longer agree with Darwin’s own openness to arguments for and against his theory.
    “Design has not prompted new research studies.”
    Design has prompted new research studies. I mentioned Dr. Robert Marks and his evolutionary informatics lab at Baylor University. Look at what happened to him. I then asked if you would support a program such as his that is trying to determine how information impacts evolutionary mechanisms. Again, no answer. I also asked what would happen if these investigations did show that random processes could not build complex systems. Again, no answer.

  • Rich says:
    April 30, 2008 at 7:57 am

    Just one thing I missed. The whole by the science of his day thing.
    The science of today has a thousand times more evidence for evolution than existed in Darwins time. He didn’t have a mechanism for inherited characteristics (this came later) - he couldn’t possibly have understand the genetic aspect (which provides some of the strongest evidence to date) and the fossil evidence is stronger than ever (with many more transitional forms having been found).
    The creation of the cell is *again* abiogenesis so this is a more than a little disingenuous line of argument.
    For a slightly less orthodox take on this I recommend the book “Acquiring Genomes” by Margulis and Sagan if you are looking for something other than natural selection to mull over as a possibility…

  • Rich says:
    April 30, 2008 at 8:01 am

    Theres a wordy response that came before that post.. its “pending approval” though.

  • Boonton says:
    April 30, 2008 at 8:38 am

    Neil
    If by Theistic evolution you mean taking the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, which specifically has removed God from the process, and then adding God back in, then what other approach can I take? Either God was needed to bring about life as we know it, or he wasn’t.
    The problem is that any sensible theology would require God for everything, including natural laws. The God of IDers actually comes off less as God and more as a clumsy alien nerd whose creation is pretty lame. ‘Theistic evolution’ would simply be sane theists who view all of creation as God’s work.
    More than a few theists have started to notice the problem with ID. It implicitly divides creation into mundane ‘natural laws’ that don’t seem to require God and exciting ‘intelligent design’ that does. In the long run this view is a lot more dangerous to religion than it can ever be to science.
    I interpreted Dr. Miller’s statement as saying that until we understand how the cell evolved, we can’t understand how evolution in general occurred. I still think this is true. But you’re right. He was talking about abiogenesis.
    Yet they remain two different topics. Evolution talks about the mechanics of how living things change over time. Abiogensis talks about where the first living things came from. Saying it is about ‘the cell’ implies the first living thing was a cell or was a cell as we know it today which I think presumes too much.
    Even if we could rewind a videotape and discover a UFO splicing together some DNA, RNA and other stuff and dumping it into a pond 4 billion years ago before taking off never to return we would still have evolution from that point onward and ID would still not apply to evolution, only abiogensis!

  • Neil says:
    April 30, 2008 at 11:54 am

    Boonton
    The problem is that any sensible theology would require God for everything, including natural laws.
    What does it mean to say that God is required for natural laws? If it means that he set up the natural laws in the first place, I can accept that. Science took root because scientists assumed that there was a rational universe that could be understood. And the universe was rational because God had created it.
    But this is the challenge posed by ID. Can natural laws operate in a manner to create life in the first place, and then once created, can that life evolve into more complex forms? Can the interactions of matter and energy, and only the interactions of matter and energy create and evolve life?
    Beginning with Darwin and continuing with contempory scientists, (anti) theolological arguments have been used to support the case for the theory of evolution. In effect they say evolution has to be true because God would not have created life the way we find it.
    Douglas Futuyma in his textbook Evolutionary Biology said the following:
    “Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
    I see theistic evolution as a forced marriage between theism and materialistic evolution; it is a marriage that can never be consummated.

  • Boonton says:
    April 30, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    What does it mean to say that God is required for natural laws? If it means that he set up the natural laws in the first place, I can accept that. Science took root because scientists assumed that there was a rational universe that could be understood. And the universe was rational because God had created it.
    There we are in agreement.
    But this is the challenge posed by ID. Can natural laws operate in a manner to create life in the first place, and then once created, can that life evolve into more complex forms? Can the interactions of matter and energy, and only the interactions of matter and energy create and evolve life?
    Good question. How would you answer it? You have two problems:
    1. Are current theories of abiogensis and then evolution up to the job of explaining life in the context of natural laws. (The point is constantly confused but ID also challenges evolution itself….asserting even if you get beyond the origin of life it often asserts life could not develop as it has with just natural laws).
    2. Is natural law itself insufficient to explain life.
    #2 is the real kicker to ID. For ID to win on their own terms they not only have to show current theory is not up to the task but all possible theories that only involve natural law are not up to the task. This would be variations on evolution as well as theories that do not involve evolution but nonetheless confine themselves to natural laws only (Darwin was not the only guy to formulate a theory for life based on natural laws, he wasn’t even the only guy with an evolutionary theory of life). In other words everything you can think of plus all the stuff you can’t. That type of ‘proof by exclusion’ is impossible to pull off, not the ID even tries as far as I can see.
    Douglas Futuyma in his textbook Evolutionary Biology said the following:

    “Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”

    I see theistic evolution as a forced marriage between theism and materialistic evolution; it is a marriage that can never be consummated.
    What I think you’re missing is that:
    Descartes/Newton: “Physical Phenomena” -> Matter
    Darwin: “biological phenomena” - > Matter
    Matter - > ?????
    There is something forced about this discussion and it is forcing a debate about a scientific theory to be a discussion about a mature theism.
    Science can indeed be in conflict with immature theism. For example, “rain means God is crying” is an immature theism that a child may have that cannot hold up to science. “The people of Japan descended from the Sun God, other humans descended from mud” is likewise an immature theism that you may still find some adults holding that likewise cannot stand up to science.
    A mature theism, though, moved beyond such nonsense a long time ago and identified its diety (or dieties…even the ancient Greeks grasped this, I believe) as being responsible for existence itself and as something larger than an actor in existence (say by making a particular mountain or splitting a sea; that’s not to say mature theists cannot believe their diety(ies) also interacted in such a personal way with their creation).
    A few years ago Arther C Clark had an interesting book that I never read but only know from reviews. It’s premise was that humans invented a type of time machine that allowed one to view the past but not change it. So essentially any historical question you had (like who killed Kennedy? What happened to Jimmy Hoffa?) could be answered.
    Imagine such a thing did exist and we traced every generation of every living thing all the way back to a single cell-like entity and then traced every generation of that back to the different chemicals that were on the primordial earth and each step everything we see conforms perfectly with known laws of chemistry and physics. What does that say about the theism-atheism debate? Absolutely nothing at all.

  • Page says:
    July 10, 2008 at 5:45 pm

    http://xxccvvtt.snow.prohosting.com/index11.html Page [url=http://xxccvvtt.snow.prohosting.com/index11.html]Page[/url]

  • iwqx wxgi says:
    October 9, 2008 at 1:23 am

    skuzwlo cqlbszn gkcftveq gkfiebtj xeklwzc jplv nilhgscp

  • iwqx wxgi says:
    October 9, 2008 at 1:24 am

    skuzwlo cqlbszn gkcftveq gkfiebtj xeklwzc jplv nilhgscp

  • Michael Hawkins says:
    November 16, 2008 at 10:51 pm

    Dawkins did not say life was seeded by aliens. He said that it is certainly possible but that those aliens would have evolved either by natural selection or something very similar. This would make it useless to posit aliens as being the creators of life since we are positing they themselves were not created. He was bending over backward to offer ID a possible outlet. He did this, but he did not offer a plausible one. That is because ID has not a shred of evidence to support it.

« Older Comments

Leave a Reply

Trackbacks

Leave a Trackback

Additional comments powered by BackType