Utterly Meaningless

Daryl:

Folks who decree that ID isn’t science point to a naturalistic definition of science as their rationale. In other words, they define science as the search for natural (as opposed to super-natural) explanations for things. So, yes, if that’s the definition of science then you are right.

But, we need to acknowledge that limiting science in this way has consequences, both good and not so good.

The great Christian scientists that founded most of the major fields of science believed that they were “following God’s thoughts after him.” It was their belief in a rational creator that inspired them to understand His creation.

There ARE many benefits to limiting science to naturalistic explanation, which you have covered in the past. But if an intelligent agent is responsible for life’s fundamental mechanisms, (and the evidence does point that way) then it is non-sensical to cover our eyes and try to come up with natural explanations that amount to goo + lots of time = life as we know it. To a large extent, this is just a sophisticated cover for spontaneous generation, no? (e.g., Richard Dawkins’ “designoid” objects)

If you are interested, do some research regarding the work of Stanley Miller in the 1950’s and how his thinking changed in the subsequent years. Then, visit modern biology text books and consider how they treat Miller’s work. Its quite an eye-opener.

We need to acknowledge that materialistic humanism is the driving force or worldview (or religion) that many evolutionists adhere to. To ignore this and assume that these people are acting in a neutral or objective manner is naive.

One example – many people like to point to the Scopes monkey trial as the defining moment where creationists were defeated by science. However, what is not well known is that virtually all of the science that was presented for evolution during that trial has been discredited, not solely due to refinement of hypothesis and new evidence, but as hoaxes and wishful thinking.

A second example would be Discover magazine’s recent cover story on evolution being proven by scientists working on the Avida project. When you study what they have actually done and compare it to the claims they are making, it becomes pretty apparent that science, at least in this arena, is not the self-correcting, objective process that it aspires to.

When science and scientists resort to intimidation and rhetoric, they are operating in the political realm. That alone is a sign that something is seriously wrong with the state of evolutionary science, and non-scientists should be skeptical and do their own thinking rather than accept the highly speculative claims of naturalists masquerading as scientists.

I think the ID folks are operating in the same realm as those who work on projects like SETI and Avida. There’s quite a bit of math and complexity theory and statistics, so it is a different sort of science than evolutionary science that trys to show that matter under certain circumstances will self-assemble into replicating machines that can evolve into intelligent agents.

I think portions of ID can be woven into the standard curriculum for evolution – e.g., what is the probability that the life forms which arose during the Cambrian explosion could have evolved from known evolutionary mechanisms?

In fact, a recent paper on this topic by Dr. Stephen Meyer, is the subject of one of the most fascinating examples of scientific censorship that I’ve come across.

Thanks, Dave. Those are the shortcomings they never teach in schools, mostly because most instructors don’t believe evolution has any shortcomings. I was never taught any opposing viewpoints, and I have an undergraduate biology degree and some post-grad ecology classes under my belt…all other viewpoints I’ve had to read in my off-time (what there is of it.) I appreciate you pointing out other resources!

By definition science HAS to be “naturalistic,” otherwise it grinds to a halt. We haven’t found how life evolved? Oh, that’s cause God did it. It’s all handwaving bullshit to accommodate the folks who don’t like the evolutionary PROCESS of science. Yes, process. Scientists don’t know the answers a priori. We look at the existing data and postulate a mechanism for how it got there. We set about testing the mechanism to the extent we can, or looking for more data to either confirm or deny the proposed mechanism. Creationism and ID circumvent all that. They look at the data and say it’s wrong. The world appears to be billions of years old. Wrong. God created the world 10,000 years ago. How do we know? Just because the Bible tells me so. Or, the data appear to support the notion that more complex animals evolved from simpler ones. Must be wrong. Why? Because the Bible tells me so. ID’ers and creationists are free to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Just don’t try to tell me that it’s scientific.

And, BTW, the creationists won Scopes. They’ve just lost the debate with science ever since.

Daryl – When you put it that way, I agree with you.

Evolution starts with the belief that everything can be explained naturalistically, and turns that belief into a limited definition of science. That is the same logical fallacy as the creationist basis that starts with a creator. The problem is, if there is a creator today’s science could not ultimately arrive at that conclusion. Rather, they’ll just wave their hands and say, we know it happened naturally, we just don’t quite know how yet.

So how is that any different?

To me, its more honest to say, we don’t know if it happened naturally, we don’t know if there is a designer, but here is the evidence for these positions. (Are those screams of horror I hear coming from the NCSE? 😉 )

There is an emerging position, defined as process structuralism that accepts both possibilities and strives to follow the scientific evidence where ever it leads. And, many evolutionists will say that evolution is mute on origins to short circuit this particular aspect of the debate. (while continuing to say that ultimately there must be a naturalistic explanation for our existence)

I like your description of the scientific process, and I struggle with folks like Henry Morris that are biblical creationists. But, I read and listen to what they have to say and have found much of it to be very thought provoking. One can be an intellectually fulfilled Christian, after all!

Adele’s comments are key – they imply, as do yours, that primary and secondary teaching of evolution is done in a dogmatic fashion, such that by the time people are adults they have never or rarely thought critically about this important topic. unless they make special effort to do so. This weakens the scientific process IMHO.

Even Darwin stated that the evidence he cited for evolution could also support other hypotheses. (And the evidence taken as a whole for goo to you evolution is weaker today than it was 150 years ago)

Finally – Phillip Johnson’s “Defeating Darwinism…” is a good introduction to the social and political forces at play in this arena for younger folks, and his “Darwin on Trial” is similar but aimed at older audiences. If he is scheduled to speak in your backyard, I recommend that you find time to listen to him, espcially the Q&A sessions where he is usually devasting in his responses to evolutionist positions and evidences. I’d lend you my videos if you lived a little closer!

Creationism and ID circumvent all that. They look at the data and say it’s wrong. The world appears to be billions of years old. Wrong. God created the world 10,000 years ago. How do we know? Just because the Bible tells me so. Or, the data appear to support the notion that more complex animals evolved from simpler ones. Must be wrong. Why? Because the Bible tells me so. ID’ers and creationists are free to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Love your blog. I agree that Biblical creationism should not be taught in science classes.

However, your statement excerpted above does you no credit. Intelligent Design has nothing to say about the Bible. There are many atheist or agnostic ID’ers.

You know that reaction you have when you hear someone say something ignorant like, “How can evolution be true. If humans descend from apes, why do we still have apes?” It completely misrepresents Darwinian evolution and shows the speaker has no grasp of the issues.

The reaction to your misrepresenting the issues of ID is quite similar to that.

You don’t have to believe it, but if you’re interested in at least understanding the actual issues, here is a good blog to start with:

discov...ex.php

Evolution starts with the belief that everything can be explained naturalistically, and turns that belief into a limited definition of science.

Not quite. You’ve got it turned around. Evolutionary theory, chemistry, astronomy, SCIENCE don’t start with that belief. The starting point is that science can only deal with naturalistic mechanisms. Anything outside this is beyond the purview of science. So, science and theology are not by definition antagonists. The IDers and “creation scientists” (that was their name in the ’70s) don’t like science because the data (and our interpretations thereof) conflict with their interpretation of the Bible (and it ALWAYS comes back to the Bible in the end). So, they try to co-opt the word “science” to describe something that is much more faith-based.

To a certain extent, I feel for them. It must be difficult to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible in this age.

I’ve heard all the arguments and read ID literature. Answer me these– how can there be Intelligent Design without a Designer? And wouldn’t that Designer have to be eternal (or self-created)? I think there’s a common name for an eternal being who created everything.

So you’re read all the arguments and the ID literature, and you still completely misrepresent their views. Hmm.

Answer me these– how can there be Intelligent Design without a Designer? And wouldn’t that Designer have to be eternal (or self-created)?

Thinking their is a designer doesn’t mean you think the Earth was created in six days. You continue to equate ID’ers with fundamental Christianity.

Yes – its called methodological naturalism, and it is the basis for how institutional science operates today. However, it also acts as a filter that prevents science from hypothesizing that life is the creation of an intelligent agent, regardless of who or what that intelligent agent is.

A liberal definition and practice of science IMHO should not exclude any possibility, and the fact that it does is a sign that science has been co-opted by religious fundamentalists. (secular humanists)

But yes, you still have to follow the scientific method, and the ID folks are in the early stages of flushing out their theory. I think it is possible to develop a series of tests that one could apply to some artifact to determine if it is (with some probability) the product of an intelligent agent. Over time, the tests would be refined as we learned more about the limitations and power of natural mechanisms that purport to have creative power. But, as it currently stands, those natural mechanisms are not sufficient to explain origins of life and novel biological features.

I think you mean “fleshing.” 🙂

I think it is possible to develop a series of tests that one could apply to some artifact to determine if it is (with some probability) the product of an intelligent agent. Over time, the tests would be refined as we learned more about the limitations and power of natural mechanisms that purport to have creative power.

And when (or if) they get there, we can call it “science” and teach it in the g-schools. We’re not there yet.

Amy,
You didn’t answer my questions. And, the librarian who wrote the Op/Ed piece is calling for ID and creationism to be taught.

We’ve heard this idea before:

“Whether literalists, progressives, theists, or ID advocates, creationists’ arguments are quite similar on this topic: Science should not seek only naturalistic explanations but, when ‘necessary,’ should permit nonnaturalistic explanations as legitimate scientific theory. Creationists contend that methodological naturalism puts blinders on scientists who would otherwise conclude that empirical evidence points toward intelligent design….” from Defending Evolution by Brian J. and Sandra M. Alters, page 85 in the 2001 edition.

As a Christian, I am quite sure of the Truth I find in the Bible through many wonderful myths and stories. However, I do not find that these Truths in any way provide me with scientific detail, and my God is not a bit threatened by my exploring the world and coming to an understanding of how the universe was formed and how life evolved on earth.

Many of us who have studied and understand evolution are not secular humanists at all, by the way, though some in Christianity threaten to define us out, and I guess that is where we’d have to go if they keep drawing their circle so that truly scientific folks can’t stand inside with them.

Creationists and ID folks would like to argue that evolution “has become fundamental to the life sciences for RELIGIOUS reasons” (emphasis mine, but quoted from page 32 of the same book). I have often wondered if, since they can only perceive creation through a religious lens, creationists must assume that evolutionists are also seeing “creation” through a religious lens. It just ain’t so. The science leads me to the conclusions — I’ve not come up with the conclusions first and then invented the science, no matter how many creationists insist that scientists have done so in the way that creationists have.

Ah, the never-ending debate….

and then we could get started on something like the bumper sticker I saw recently: What Would Jesus Bomb?

Jeanne – I’m sure that there are folks that fit your description as there are that fit mine. Its very politicized and an unfortunately reality that many secular humanists don’t even realize that is their particular world-view, yet another sign of indoctrination. It takes quite a bit of courage, as it always has, to be a Christian and declare so in public.

Anyway, what of the science? I’d be very interested to hear of a couple of good sources that describe the science behind evolution. (please don’t point me to talk origins)

Hello Daryl.

Answer me these– how can there be Intelligent Design without a Designer?

Intelligent design requires a designer, by definition.

And wouldn’t that Designer have to be eternal (or self-created)?

Just as the question of origins is not relevant to the theory of evolution, neither is the composition of the designer relevant to the theory of intelligent design.

And, the librarian who wrote the Op/Ed piece is calling for ID and creationism to be taught.

I already agreed with you that she was wrong. I did not question your original post. I questioned the statement you made in response to a comment here. As it stands, the scientists involved in the intelligent design community do not currently want intelligent design taught in high schools.

Good. Then we’re all in accord– ID stays out of the g-school science classes.

Yep – now on to the important task of fixing the problems with the way evolution is being taught in the g-schools.

And this is where the evolutionists decry any attempts at reform as thinly veiled attempts to introduce creationism…

And around we go…

Dave, Dave, Dave. What of the science? I’ve been down this road before. If I mention plate tectonics, sedimentation and the fossil record, DNA and phylogenetics, transitional forms, Australopithicus and early hominids, microevolution, and other evidence, you can refute all of them, give me experts who are scientists who believe otherwise, and lecture me on missing links and theories about theory. Not going there. You know as well as I do what the science is.

Frankly, when I was nine years old and saw the vestigial toes on a horses’ legs (hard pieces of “horn” that are “toe nails” (hoof) that changed over time and populations as equine species evolved from their multi-toed ancestors whose fossils we can examine — I was first impressed with the elegance of evolution. It was “aha!” and “of course!”, not indoctrination. I have since had years of exposure to both “camps” and all camps in between, and become more fascinated by the linguistics involved. Creationists’ beliefs are “world views,” but my beliefs are a “sign of indoctrination.”

As for having courage to declare being a Christian in public, I have not ever had this problem. In fact, I have found it more necessary to summon courage to declare myself to be an evolutionist among some of my Christian fellows than to declare myself to be a Christian among my evolutionist fellows. To bring this full circle to homeschooling, I have been turned away from Christian homeschooling groups because I will not compromise our family’s study of science. Now, much to their consternation, I will defend these folks in their right to associate with whom they please, even if it is not me. But as a Christian, it saddens me that some Christians choose exclusion by statement of faith. Constitutionally defensible, but it seems, um, distinctly not what Jesus would do. Yes, yes, I know all the “unequally yoked” scripture, and I understand that I am a dangerous heretic and all that.

As for your statement: “And this is where the evolutionists decry any attempts at reform as thinly veiled attempts to introduce creationism.” You betcha. My tax dollars go to those government schools, and I definitely decry introduction of creationism. If I am to live in a country of religious choice and pluralism as a Christian, I find that my religious liberty is best protected when the State can’t introduce some Christians’ ideas of creation as science in taxpayer-funded government schools.

Why this so threatens some Christians is difficult for me to fathom. Sometimes I wonder if Biblical Inerrancy has become the god, the idol, and everything else must be reconstructed to fit this god. Dave, I don’t mean to be saying this disrespectfully, because I understand that these are deeply held matters. It is just a puzzle to me that folks work so hard to create this alternate universe to explain away the science. In talking to my fundamentalist friends, they seem to feel that if they “let” evolution “be” true, it means that their Bible is wrong, and the whole thing falls apart.

My faith just won’t fit inside that box, you know?

Jeanne – I appreciate your comments and agree with many of them. Personally, I don’t think its an either or question, but unfortunately, the media tends to like to cast things in a binary fasion. So the debate tends to be creation OR evolution, rather than the limits of evolution and the apparency of design in many realms. Yes, evolution happens, and perhaps goo to you, but there is no known mechanism that can explain how DNA and associated mechanisms such as protein synthesis have come about in a naturalistic fashion. To me this is key, rather than microevolutionary change, which is well understood and not controversial even amongst the young earth creation scientists.

This thread also highlights the challenges associated with making generalizations – there are obviously many points of view and overlap. Another reason why the either/or thinking is not sufficient for this discussion.

Since my primary interest is reforming how evolution is taught in the p-schools, I’ll repeat my standing offer: Mail me a copy of your local p-school’s middle or high-school level biology text, and I will return to you a list (usually long) of wishful speculations, errors of fact, and humanistic worldview. When school systems are confronted with this information (as well as text book publishers) rarely are the materials improved, and in many cases those raising the concerns are attacked by organizatinos such as the NCSE that serve to preserve the status quo for worldview reasons.

Dave, never the twain shall meet, I fear. I think that government schools SHOULD present a humanistic world view, including and especially in regard to science and the origin of humans. I agree with you that science texts, like most other high school text books I have read, are not very good. Using “good books” is one of the hundreds of advantages of homeschooling I have found for our family. But given the enthusiasm with which creationists have tried to get creationism included in public school science classes, I think they would be prudent to expect a lot of resistance when they offer to revise or otherwise point out the flaws in biology texts. Binary thinking works both ways; pun intended.

Wow, what a lot of opinion on this issue. I would question whether the average g-school kid (or even 90% of g-school kids) will be relevantly impacted by one or the other modes of thought. Now, if we are going to teach science, we should teach the methods of science, including — especially — the process of generating hypothesis (assuming a result) and experimentation (testing the hypothesis), and the process of critical thinking, rather than try to teach the ‘facts’ of science. Teaching these skills be of much more use to the student than settling the debate on evolution rather than ID or Creationism.
Any scientific ‘fact’ is subject to revision when new data is aquired.
Should we teach Creationism and ID in g-school science. Sure, but we should teach the students how to evaluate the evidence and draw their own conclusions based on the evidence, rather than given them a biased view of any of the ‘theories.’

Tad said, “Should we teach Creationism and ID in g-school science. Sure, but we should teach the students how to evaluate the evidence and draw their own conclusions based on the evidence, rather than given them a biased view of any of the ‘theories.'”

Well, I just don’t buy that we should not teach facts in science, and that instead we should teach all the theories and let the kids decide. Do we really want to teach a theory many hold, that humans were created by aliens? This is the belief of the Raeliens, a religious group that has their own “science” to explain the origins of humanity. Why is their version not as good as the fundamentalist Christian version of creation? And if theirs and the Christian version are ok, then we get into a whole bunch of other religions’ theories that we would be bound to teach in public schools. Again, as a Christian, I feel that my religious liberty is better protected when the actual SCIENCE is taught, not when many different religious versions of creation are taught as science. Now, if you want to teach those in a mythology or sociology or comparative religion or world literature class, that’s fine with me. But to give any of those the credence of “science” in a science class is an abomination and dangerous to the freedom of Christians — among others.

Christians should be careful what they ask for. If they get it, they could find flood gates open that they never imagined. It is easy not to think of this when your culture “feels” as if it is the majority — something you may be so accustomed to that you aren’t even truly conscious of it. But to give government school science classes the go-ahead to teach religious beliefs as being equal to scientific facts is an invitation to marginalizing the very religious beliefs that folks think should be promoted in government schools.

I know, I know, get my tin foil hat.

Lots of thought provoking comments here – I would say that its OK for the schools to limit their scientific teaching to a humanistic view, as long as it came with full disclosure.

“Hey, guess what? Science as we present it is limited to the search for natural explanations for things, even your origins. Elements of what we call life may have been created or designed by some intelligent agent, but that’s outside the realm of how we choose to define science. In fact, you’ll learn about people who have dedicated their lives (and careers) to the search for naturalistic explanations, even though it may be a dead end. On the other hand, when the search for intelligent origins suits our humanistic agenda, we’ll teach you all about it, like the SETI program and the AVIDA project. And anyway, technical journals publish their papers, so they must be credible. What you won’t hear is that after 150 years, science has less of a clue about the orgins of fundamental biological mechanisms than they did when Darwin first published Origins.”

Dave, I’m ok with your first two sentences in your second paragraph.