The IRA, after a hundred years of strife, has announced it’s laying down arms and wants to work toward its goals using non-violent means (as Kathleen has noted over on her website.)
So let’s say we flash forward ten years, and Al Qeada is still strong, in business, and a major terrorist force. Iraq is still a fragmented mess. And suddenly Al Qeada announces that it wants to lay down arms and work toward a peaceful unification of Iraq and the Muslim world.
Do we accept that? Do we start working with them?
PAD
• 
Iowa Jim, what is the exact primary thesis of Intelligent Design? Can it be proven false? What is the scientific methodology that ID proponents use to test this thesis? And what other evidence do they use besides the astronomical odds of something happening randomly?
Actually, I decided not to be lazy and looked at Wikipedia’s entry for it. A couple of highlights:
While the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation and speciation through natural selection, the “Intelligent Designer” in ID is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates Occam’s Razor by postulating an entity or entities to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving unobservable help.
Critics point to the fact that implicit in ID is a redefinition of natural science,[3] and cite books and statements of principal ID proponents calling for the elimination of “methodological naturalism” from science.[4] Natural science uses the scientific method to create a posteriori knowledge based on observation alone (sometimes called empirical science). Critics of ID consider the idea that some outside intelligence created life on Earth to be a priori (without observation) knowledge. ID proponents cite some complexity in nature that cannot yet be fully explained by the scientific method. (For instance, abiogenesis, the generation of life from non-living matter, is not completely understood scientifically, although the first stages have been reproduced in the Miller-Urey experiment.) ID proponents infer that an intelligent designer is behind the part of the process that is not understood scientifically. Since the designer cannot be observed, it is a priori knowledge.
This a priori inference that an intelligent designer (God or an alien life force[5]) created life on Earth has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids[6]. In both cases, the effect of this outside intelligence is not repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, and it violates Occam’s Razor as well. Empirical scientists would simply say “we don’t know exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids” and list what is known about Egyptian construction techniques…
Religion and leading ID proponents
Intelligent design arguments are carefully formulated in secular terms and intentionally avoid positing the identity of the designer. Phillip E. Johnson has stated that cultivating ambiguity by employing secular language in arguments which are carefully crafted to avoid overtones of theistic creationism is a necessary first step for ultimately introducing the Christian concept of God as the designer. Johnson emphasizes “the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion” and that “after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact.” only then can “biblical issues” be discussed.[9] Johnson explicitly calls for ID proponents to obfuscate their religious motivations so as to avoid having ID recognized “as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message.”[10] Though not all ID proponents are theistic or motivated by religious fervor, the majority of the principal ID advocates (including Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Stephen C. Meyer) are Christians and have stated that in their view the designer of life is clearly God.
[edit]
What Intelligent Design is not
Intelligent Design is not and does not claim to be an alternative theory replacing mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, or speciation. All of these have been observed in laboratories and in the field. For example, humans have themselves created many new species and have observed new species appearing in nature.[11] This is contrary to how ID is sometimes characterized by both supporters and critics.
I admit to reading quickly, so some of this may be out of a proper context.
How did chemical molecules organize into the first living cell?
We don’t know.
How hard is that to accept? We may know someday, but when we do, from a scientific standpoint, it will be through observation of NATURAL phenomena bound by natural laws.
That’s the thing: science deals with the NATURAL world, and relies on the assumption that the physical world is bound by physical laws. In order for there to scientifically-valid evidence of an Intellegent Designer(tm), that designer would ALSO have to be bound by physical laws, something few IDers would be willing to accept. You MIGHT be able to prove life on Earth was created by a race of highly-advanced aliens, but not a super-natural being. Once you open the possibility of an agency which can change or ignore the laws of physics, it becomes impossible to test.
Or, like they said on the Simpsons: “A wizard did it!”
If you look at the history of the creation debate, you can see an amazing lineage of backpedaling.
“God created the universe in seven days in 4004 BC!”
“OK, maybe not 4004 BC, but only a few thousand years, and he created every animal as it exists today!”
“OK, maybe some animals adapted after God created them, but they never became new species! And people were created special!”
“OK, maybe there are new species, but that’s only microevolution. There is no macroevolution! All those ape-like hominids are either just apes or deforemed humans!”
“OK, maybe there is macroevolution, and maybe the world is millions of years old, and maybe man evolved too, but God was the one who created life in the first place!”
The people pushing ID have developed an extensive methodology to allow ID to be tested. Read Dembski’s book “Intelligent Design” or Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box.” Dembski in particular has done a lot of work to give a scientifically based system of evaluating whether or not design is present. You may disagree with his methods
Jim, no. Please. You are simply wrong in this.
Dembski has been CONTINUALLY asked to use his filter to determine what is and what is not designed. He has flatly refused to field test his methods in the real world (let alone get to the point where others besides himself can take his methodology and apply it to the real world).
You may have been told otherwise, but the fact is that there has been NO lab work done on either irreduceable complexity OR CSI.
Using the term “master race” is more than a ‘little extreme’.
Hardly.
A “master race”, in this case, would be that everybody were Christians, good or otherwise, honest or hypocritical. And there are plenty of all of those to go around.
But when some Christians are trying to use their position to undermine the country and the thoughts of the people in the country, you have to wonder what they’re trying to accomplish.
I wouldn’t call subverting public opinion on things such as morals and marriage, and Christianity’s role in those things, as being noble.
The goal is for God in the classroom, in the home, and throughout government. It’s to ban abortion, deny equal rights to gays, and more.
It’s not entirely about helping the poor, keeping immoral and harmful corporations from overrunning our lives, etc.
I haven’t read Dembski’s book (and am not likely to have the time to do so in the near future), but one quote of his in particular stands out for me. Dembski (at least as quoted by Wikipedia) says that ID’s fundamental axiom is
“there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence.”
My question to Jim, or to anyone, is this: how in the world can you establish a clear, falsifiable test for the proposition that some systems cannot be adequately explained? The converse of the statement is “every natural system can be adequately explained,” and the only way to verify that is to take an infinite amount of time to check every one.
It’s rather like the claim “there is intelligent life in the universe somewhere other than Earth.” While it’s a very tempting claim (and something I suspect many of us would like to believe is true, myself included), it does not pass the test as a scientific claim: there is no way to falsify it that does not take an infinite amount of time. It doesn’t make it an invalid belief … but it means it is a belief, not a statement of scientific thought.
Jim also refers to Dean Kenyon, saying
he was a firm believer in chemical evolution.
Jim rather nicely demonstrates the real gap between our worldviews right there. One does not need to be a “believer” in evolution any more than one needs to believe in gravity — both are empirically observed processes.
Some years ago when I was living in Pasadena, a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses came to our door. Lisa told them early on that their time was likely better spent elsewhere, since we’re atheists. Their response was, and I quote:
“Oh, so you follow the teachings of Isaac Asimov.”
Even leaving aside that they pronounced the man’s name as “Eye-zay-uk”, I found it very telling that the alternative to following their teachings had to be following someone else’s. Thinking and reasoning for oneself was a foreign concept: one had to be guided down a particular path.
I’ll second Jack on this, Jim — if you want to posit a God that’s the “uncaused cause” behind the Big Bang and set all the physical laws in place, I’m happy to listen (though again, not in science classes), and even to consider it. If, however, you posit a God that’s going to step in and twiddle the rules, changing what was previously in place, then I have to ask what makes your claims any more likely than Erich von Daniken’s. (And if you don’t know who he is, I suggest you do a little research of your own.)
Again using the Wikipedia article, I can address at least one of Dembski’s claims directly: he refers to a Shakespearean sonnet as “both complex and specified,” thus pointing inexorably to a designer. Apparently Dembski hasn’t heard the old saw about an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters. Sure, the odds of it occurring by chance are astronomically tiny … but it’s an astronomically huge universe out there, and the odds of improbable things happening somewhere, somewhen are not even remotely small.
TWL
And Jim, while I agree with Jack that no one is really sure about the origin of the first cell, a few links might interest you. I suspect you’re not going to like what you find, but I present them here in the hope that (a) you might, or (b) others might.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html
http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm
TWL
Bill,
Maybe I’ll give some time to ancient Budhist ideas about the Earth resting on the back of a giant turtle. It’ll be fun.
Only if you promise to (a) tape it, and (b) put the footage up on the Web someplace where we can all enjoy it. 🙂
(it’s) TWL (all the way down)
For what it’s worth, it has been demonstrated that if you simulate Earth’s atmosphere as it existed billions of years ago and pass electricity through it (as in lightning), you can create amino acids. I think the leap from that point to microorganisms is the smaller jump than the one where you create complex chemicals in the first place, and we’ve shown that it can be done.
And the concept of drawing a line between microevolution and macroevolution always seemed silly to me. It’s the equivalent of saying that sure, there’s small changes, so you can add one and one and one together and get three steps of change, but no matter how long you give it, you can never add up enough ones to reach a million. Arguments of incredulity never held much water in my book.
The reality is, evolution has yet to give an explanation of how life first formed. The “gods of the gaps” for evolution is “time and chance.” Since we are here, it therefore must have happened. Yet the most basic sequencing of our DNA requires a complexity that has yet to be explained. My question is this: How did chemical molecules organize into the first living cell?
Evolution isn’t SUPPOSED to explain the origin of life! That’s far more of a biochemical question. And even if we one day create a primitive cell in a test tube that will in no way prove that it is what happened 4 billion years ago.
Only if you promise to (a) tape it, and (b) put the footage up on the Web someplace where we can all enjoy it. 🙂
yeah, I think I’d like to put that whole “I’ve got tenure, they can’t touch me!” theory to the test…one of my best friends told me I wouldn’t be happy until I went down in flames. In all honesty, I have to say that the folks here in old North Carolina are a lot more supportive and open minded than I’ve seen in some of the states I would have expected better from. There so far has been no limit to what I’ve been able to talk about in my classroom, except the time I really freaked out one poor child with a video on the situation in Africa (I mean, it’s good that she found out about this stuff but I shouold have softened the blow with a bit of warning–not everyone watches the discovery channel 24/7)
That would, IMHO, depend on who was in charge of Al-Qaieda at that point.
And the concept of drawing a line between microevolution and macroevolution always seemed silly to me.
Well, actually it’s not INHERENTLY silly.
What it is, actually, is a SCIENTIFIC question. If there’s a line, a barrier, then it SHOULD be detectable by scientific methods. And there’d be mechanisms that would show themselves.
Of course, there’s that awkward little problem that the line’s BEEN crossed in the wild and in the field….
Posted by: Iowa Jim at August 2, 2005 05:15 PM
If I throw several toothpicks on the floor, and they all happen to fall into perfect geometric patterns, someone could come along and say that those shapes, since they are an Intelligent Design, must have been created using Intelligent Design, when in actuality they fell that way by pure chance.
Iowa Jim: Your illustration cannot be farther from the truth. The people pushing ID have developed an extensive methodology to allow ID to be tested.
Luigi Novi: What for? There already is a methodology to test empirical knowledge: The Scientific Method. ID isn’t scientific.
Iowa Jim: Read Dembski’s book “Intelligent Design” or Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box.” Dembski in particular has done a lot of work to give a scientifically based system of evaluating whether or not design is present. You may disagree with his methods and conclusion, but it is grossly unfair to say those who believe in ID have not applied the rules of science to the process.
Luigi Novi: It’s not unfair, as it happens to be true. ID proponents do not abide by the Scientific Method, and have not offered any evidence for ID that has passed the Peer Review Process. Behe’s Irreducible Complexity Fallacy is simply recycled from William Paley’s Blind Watchmaker, and has been thoroughly debunked. Creationists simply ignore the rebuttals to that fallacy, or pretend they’re unaware of it.
Iowa Jim: They do not say design is true because the Bible says so, but because the evidence itself if looked at in any other situation would clearly point to design.
Luigi Novi: Only if you approach the matter by arguing design on an a priori basis. When one approaches it without believing that which you simply wish to believe, one sees that there is zero evidence for a Intelligent Designer, and that all the evidence we do have points to evolution.
Iowa Jim: The reality is, evolution has yet to give an explanation of how life first formed.
Luigi Novi: That’s because evolution has nothing to do with how life first formed. That’s abiogenesis, which has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution explains only how life adapted to its environment after it got here. Confusing the two is a commonly parroted creationist argument.
wow, this discussion has really shifted from the original post quite a bit, hasn’t it? 🙂
couple of points:
1) stem-cell research/in-vitro fertilization. in vitro fertilization DID have a lot of people against it on moral grounds when it was first developed. over time, those moral concerns have been either addressed or forgotten, but i would recommend that instead of getting upset about limits on stem-cell research (which, remember, are only limiting u.s. federal funding of new fetal stem cell lines), remember that stem-cell research is still brand new, and opposition will probably work much the same way as it did for in-vitro fertilization. also, this might be a good thing in the long run, IF the scientific community is able to use this time and delay to establish strong moral limits within which to work. and bush will only be president for a few more years – there’s even rumblings that other possible republican candidates won’t take as hard line a stance…
2) bush on intelligent design. bush is still an american citizen. he can have any opinion on i.d. he wants. heck, he can believe the world is flat if he wants, as long as he’s not passing legislation to make it mandatory teaching in schools. (which, to my knowledge, he hasn’t done)
3) intelligent design in science classes. i.d. is not science – it should not be taught in science classes. however, i do feel our schools should offer some sort of philosophy/comparitive religion class – saying i.d. should not be taught in science class doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be taught. asking “why” is every bit as fundamental as asking “how”, but people are so afraid of knowledge “corrupting” their kids (whether it’s knowledge of muslim beliefs, or hindu, or christian, or atheist) that they give the “why” a short shrift. yet, so much of our world as adults is guided/influenced by the “why”, and always has been. anyway, back to science classes, i do think that ‘alternate theories’ should be presented, but scientific ones. ‘steady state universe’, for example (an aside – what major theory could come up with two major tests that the theory doesn’t pass, and instead of calling into question the validity of the theory, new “mystery factors” are invented to explain the discrepancies? when big bang theory didn’t perform like expected, “dark matter”, and then “dark energy” were invented. not saying they don’t exist, but i think there are certainly possibilities that the ‘big bang’ as we understand it might be something the scientific community is grasping too tightly to.)
4) bush as worst science president. i’m not saying that he’s a great supporter of science. i’m just saying i don’t really know, and would rather work with facts, as opposed to anectdotal evidence. as i see it, there’s two ways a president can affect science – federal funding and vision. federal funding is limited, because it all comes down to what he puts in his budget, but congress is ultimately the body that determines what gets funded or doesn’t get funded. still, if scientific funding is increasing, just not in the areas you’d like to see it increased, that doesn’t mean he’s anti-science, it just means he has different views than you do (plenty of scientific advancements in history have come out of military funding, for instance). which lead us into “vision”, a rather nebulous term which generally talks about where science is planning to go. limiting stem cell research lines and planning missions to the moon and mars fall into this category. the problem is, as vision goes, as long as he’s not saying “science is evil, there will be no more science”, quantifying “anti-science” is very difficult. again, it’s more of a question of “science i like/don’t like” instead of “against all science”. but all of that said, it doesn’t get to the root of the statement. whatever level of “pro” or “anti” science we assign to bush, to claim he is the “worst” in the last, say, 50 years would mean judging past presidential administrations by the same yardsticks. is bush truly worse than carter? than reagan? than his dad? he might be, but i’d like to see that statement supported. (another aside: i don’t see how “results” can be used in this discussion, since often scientific results are not acheived for many years down the road. kennedy is often given credit for our landing men on the moon, but he did not produce those results. as you said, the shuttle program is having problems, and by even mentioning it you tie it to bush, even though the shuttle program should have been phased out long ago, probably by his dad, but most certainly by clinton…)
5) to bob jones:
sorry, it looks like the original topic is long long gone here….
-b
when big bang theory didn’t perform like expected, “dark matter”, and then “dark energy” were invented.
That’s a fairly serious oversimplification.
The idea of dark matter initially arose for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang, or even cosmology. Simple rotational dynamics made it very clear that the Milky Way’s got a lot more mass than the visible components of it can provide. Voila — dark matter. Granted, the concept was then scaled up a bit to help keep the universe geometrically flat, but that’s a separate issue.
As for dark energy … frankly, most of the astronomical community was surprised as hëll by this. It only directly connnects to the Big Bang if you define the BB as “anything having to do with an expanding universe.” Dark energy is something that several different teams of researchers working in very different areas (supernova analysis, microwave-background measurements, etc.) all came to more or less simultaneously — while it’s pretty shocking in some ways (and IMO, gets more shocking the more deeply you understand it), it’s also one of the more rigorous conclusions the field’s had in the last few decades.
Is it possible that there’s some more elegant idea out there which will explain the observations more cleanly and put a stake through much of current cosmological theory? Sure, it’s possible, and I think some within cosmology even hope for a radical change. (Observers, mostly — they love to pìšš øff the theorists. 🙂 Much more likely, however, is that the theory will continue to change gradually and be fine-tuned, but that the basic idea will stay intact.
TWL
Well, this conversation is starting to task my limited knowledge of big bang theories, matter explanations, etc. etc. But I think it’s a well-made point that ID is more suited to a philosophical discussion, and not one of science. Evolution may be a theory, yet it’s one that’s supported by obervable facts, and you can see repeating patterns within those facts. Anyone that wants to go out and study evolution has a lot of material to look at. I don’t think you can say the same thing for ID.
And if you could, how would you go about it? Start with a TV, take off the back, look at the collection of wires, tube, chips, circuit boards, and conclude that there’s an order and complexity present that makes the random accumulation of this material improbably, and this some intelligence must have designed it? And while you’d be accurate, I think you’d be missing the point: however improbable, it’s still possible that a random collision of material could produce a working, cable-ready, V-Chip equipped television. If it really is true that a complex work as detailed and dramatic as Shakespear’s Henry V could be randomly produces by an infinite amount of chimps at an infinite amount of typewriters, doesn’t that, in fact, bely the theory of ID?
And isn’t the whole idea of God based on faith? Those familiar with Hitchhiker’s know what happens when we prove God exists. Maybe we shouldn’t be looking to closely at the why of evolution. There might be a Babble Fish somewhere just waiting to be discovered.
2) bush on intelligent design. bush is still an american citizen. he can have any opinion on i.d. he wants.
No one ever said he couldn’t have an opinion. I would, however, prefer he try an informed one instead of the willfully ignorant one he usually peddles.
heck, he can believe the world is flat if he wants, as long as he’s not passing legislation to make it mandatory teaching in schools. (which, to my knowledge, he hasn’t done)
Give him time.
3) intelligent design in science classes. i.d. is not science – it should not be taught in science classes. however, i do feel our schools should offer some sort of philosophy/comparitive religion class
I can agree with that.
4) bush as worst science president. i’m not saying that he’s a great supporter of science. i’m just saying i don’t really know, and would rather work with facts, as opposed to anectdotal evidence. as i see it, there’s two ways a president can affect science – federal funding and vision.
Fact: Bush has publicly downplayed the signifigance of the potential stem cell research.
Fact: The Bush administration employed a lawyer (now an energy industry consultant) to alter EPA reports written by scientists to downplay the anything that supports the idea that global warning is real. A lawyer is just like a scientist, right?
Fact: Bush’s one big “vision” for science, ie going to Mars, has received only marginal funding and isn’t going anyway. We’re more likely to get to Mars by paddle boat than by following his initiative.
Fact: The abstinance only programs that Bush touted were shown in several studies last year to not only being ineffective, but also were giving out distorted and false information, such as exaggerating the failure rate of condoms and claiming that people have gotten AIDS from tears. But hey, why let facts get in the way of ideology?
Carter, Reagan, and Bush Sr all have scientific initiatives that they touted. Carter was big on alternative energy. Reagan was big on space exploration. Both put forth initiatives with concrete actions towards their goals instead of just pumping empty rhetoric. Something Bush has not done with his Mars plan.
On your “big bang” statement:
I can tell you from the astronomers and physicists that I studied under at PSU, that many of them were not comfortable with the idea of “dark matter” or “dark energy” filling in the gaps of cosmology, but all observed data indicated that the universe had more mass that they could see through their telescopes. There had to be *something* there to explain this. So they kept making observations and crunching the numbers. Over the years, they found many things that could fill in some of those gaps. That’s what real scientists do when they can’t fully explain something: They continue to make studies until they do. Often these studies take several lifetimes, but that is how scientific knowledge advances. They could have just said, “obviously, magic elves must be holding the galaxies together” and called it a day.
If we followed the Intelligent Designers approach to scientific research, we’d still be drilling holds in people’s heads to let the evil spirits out.
The argument is that if you see something complex, say a watch, it is more likely that is was designed by some intelligence than developed in an evolutionary process. However, in a sense, watches also developed by an evolutionary process. After all, the watches we have now didn’t just come to being by some watchmaker creating them all of a sudden. Thousands of watchmakers over history have tinkered and improved the watches, beginning with simpler mechanisms, and slowly developing more complex ones. It is not exactly like evolution since minds are involved, but it is not creation either.
couple of quick notes, then we should really let this rest.
tim:
yes, i oversimplified, again for brevity’s sake (and i am not an astronomer or a cosmologist, so my knowledge is, admittedly, somewhat limited) – my point was not to say that the big bang is wrong, or that dark matter/dark energy won’t be found. it’s rather that there seems to be an oversimplification in our public schools stating that the big bang is right, at least in the curriculum. if you get a great teacher, you will get the message that it is a theory, and the best one right now, but that there are other competing theories (in fact,the big bang theory isn’t really that old, as far as universal (no pun intended) acceptance goes). i’d rather see science classes put more emphasis on the scientific process than on teaching what is absolutely known to be true. (scientists can also fall prey to the kind of close minded thinking that religious adherents are known for) i’m reminded of that line in “men in black” where k says “Fifteen hundred years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago everybody KNEW the Earth was flat. And fifteen minutes ago you KNEW that people were alone on this planet.” – i’d like to see more of that approach taught in science classrooms – especially at high school level – but that’s a pet peeve of mine so we can now move on. 🙂
den:
well, you might be willing to blame bush for i.d. rules that he might someday try to enact, but i think that’s not only wrong to do in principle (blaming someone for something they might do because you don’t like them), but i think it’s dangerous if you truly don’t want to see i.d. in science classes. why? because it takes the focus off of the state and local decision makers and puts it on the president. the battle for science curriculum is is being fought at lower levels – as it should be. i.d. has been discussed in this thread, and bush has been discussed in regards to it multiple times, but the state of kansas not once. and yet it’s the state of kansas (amongst others, like ohio) who is actually trying to get i.d. put into textbooks. i’m afraid that in the fervor to find something else to denounce bush, local legislators fly under the radar and get this pushed through. believe me, if bush does try to push this through on a national level, i’ll stand beside you in denouncing it. (also, attacking him for things that he hasn’t done only makes it harder to convince people to support you when attacking things he has done…)
oh, and there are some links here to help keep science in the science classes:
http://www.ascb.org/publicpolicy/creationism.html
-b
Bob, if Bush’s support of ID were the only reason for me believe that he was anti-science, I would agree with you that it’s unfair to categorize him as such. I’ve given several other reasons in this blog, however, in support of my belief that his administration is anti-science.
We can talk about Kansas and Dover, PA (live about 60 miles from Dover) if you want. I’m not saying that Bush is the leader of some sinister evil conspiracy to shove ID into our schools and undermine scientific advancement. He is, however, a product of a growing anti-science movement in this country. More and more, the idea that scientific learning is something to be scorned as “pointed-headed intellectualism” is gaining in popularity. Our culture is reaching a point where willful ignorance is considered a virtue. Where revealed “truth”, whether that “truth” is to downplay the damage we are doing ot our environment, undermine science education in the schools, or to affirm the existance of WMDs in Iraq, is considered more important than observable facts. If the facts don’t conform to the “truth” then the facts must be wrong and need to altered or ignored.
Bush is a product of this mindset. Indeed, he clearly considers the willfully ignorant as part of his base support.
So, am I blaming Bush for the ID movement in schools? No, I am merely pointing out a pattern of behavior on his part that clearly demonstrates both a hostility towards the scientific method and a desire to make his worldview the predominant way of thinking in the country.
I consider that in itself to be very dangerous. The idea that revealed “truth” is more important that observable facts is the absolute worst mentality this country could adopt right now.
Wasn’t here yeaterday to comment, so I need to catch up.
But the target is Christians, whom it is clear from many of the postings here that many here truly despise. Not disagree with. Despise.
Speaking for myself, & I’m sure there are others who agree, I don’t despise people for being Christians. What I do despise is people calling themselves Christians, but acting in ways contrary to Christ’s teaching. What I despise is the hypocracy of many self-proclaimed Christians.
A few examples:
* People like Pat Robertson who calls Islam a violent religion, then says he wants to detonate a nuclear bomb at Foggy Bottom (The U.S. State Department Building)
* Jerry Falwell also calling Islam a violent religion, then, when asked about all the civilians killed in Iraq, laughingly says that God will sort them out
* Christ spoke of the importance of charity & helping the needy, but then self-proclaimed Christians opposing things like welfare, food stamps, medical coverage, etc.
* Saying bush is a “moral man” because he opposes gays & abortion, but ignoring the immorality of getting over 100,000 people killed in a war based on lies.
* Telling other people they have to live their lives according to their interpatation of the bible, because it is the ‘literal & explicit word og God’, but then fail to do so themselves. (i.e. – being gay is a sin, but they ignore the dietary laws (keeping kosher) laid down in the same bible).
And before anyone says I’m singling out Christians, note I am repling to a specific comment. Hypocrites come in all races, religions, & nationalities.
————————–
Re: the Pope & the inquisition:
A thought to consider – If bush had invaded a european nation & killed 100,000 people who were mostly Christian, woult the former head of the inquisition still call bush “pro-life”?
———————–
Re: who’s more evil:
1) Al Queda is upfront about their reasons for the violence they cause, which is an Islamic world. However, bush keeps lying about the cause for his (Iraq has WMD’s, Iraq was part of 9/11, etc.)
2) In regard to the body count: Before the Iraq invasion, Rumsfeld was talking about all of the super-precise weaponry the U.S. military has at it’s disposal. However, when we invaded, we dropped as many bombs as possible to kill & destroy as much as possible. To unnecessarily do so when we could have invaded by taking out the military targets alone, certainly seems very evil to me. Especially when we’re claiming to be the good guys.
————————–
re: Intelligent Design:
If you can provide proof by the scientific method, then teach it in science class. But since it is based on “I/we believe”, then it belongs in philosophy or comparitive religion.
————————–
Re: bush vs. science:
Prior to bush, the Dept. of Education’s website had proven methods of teaching safe sex, which reduced teen pregancy & STD’s. Now, that information is gone & replaced with absinence only, which has increased teen pregancy & STD’s.
Prior to bush, the Health & Human services website said there was no link between abortion & breast cancer. Under bush it says that studies are inconclusive.
Den — beautifully put in your last post.
Bob —
my point was not to say that the big bang is wrong, or that dark matter/dark energy won’t be found. it’s rather that there seems to be an oversimplification in our public schools stating that the big bang is right, at least in the curriculum. if you get a great teacher, you will get the message that it is a theory, and the best one right now, but that there are other competing theories (in fact,the big bang theory isn’t really that old, as far as universal (no pun intended) acceptance goes).
Bob, no disrespect intended — but I am an astronomer (or at least, I’ve got a master’s in the subject) and focused on cosmology during my grad years. I currently teach physics at the high school level and have done so for thirteen years.
I would ask you to name one “competing theory” to the big bang that isn’t laughable before lamenting that it’s being taught as “right.”
Now, the rest of your paragraph (hoping for as much emphasis on process as on “facts”) is something I completely and utterly agree with, and it’s something I like to focus on myself whenever given the chance. Even given something like Newtonian gravity, I like to provide enough history to show where the reasoning came from rather than simply saying “here ’tis.”
It’s one of the reasons I love teaching special relativity so much, frankly — you have to look at the reasoning and the experiments backing it up before it’ll make even the slightest bit of sense.
So while I think I’m with you when it comes to what you’d like to see in HS science classes, I also think you tend to put yourself out on very thin ice when it comes to several of the specifics.
TWL
Just for the heck of it, I saw this comment on another forum I read on this same subject (evolution vs creation).
A guy was talking about fossil evidence to back up the claim that birds evolved from dinosaurs.
The religious fellow responded with this:
“If someone has convinced you of this you HAVE been schnookered. Would love to see the fossils of the missing links though, because thats what those fossils will be…”
I mean, let’s face it: I can’t compete with that.
Apparently, to believe in evolution is to have been frauded. I mean, I wish *I* had an imaginary friend that could get me to believe this kind of stuff…
A couple of years ago, I saw a quote from a creationist publication that claimed that all of the fossils were actually planted by the devil to deceive us.
Yep, that’s right. The devil is so powerful that he can recreate the world into a complete lie. I loved it! The truth is what we believe it to be and if the evidence proves otherwise, then the evidence is fabricated.
And people wonder why I’m worried about the state of science education in this country.
Re: bush vs. science:
Prior to bush, the Dept. of Education’s website had proven methods of teaching safe sex, which reduced teen pregancy & STD’s. Now, that information is gone & replaced with absinence only, which has increased teen pregancy & STD’s.
Since I run an after school Teen Pregnancy prevention program I’d like to know where you get your data. According to the CDC the birth rate for the youngest teens has fallen to the lowest levels since 1948. For 15-17 year olds the rate fell 38% from 1990 to 2002. If there are more up to date reports from reputable sources please let me know.
One does not need to be a “believer” in evolution any more than one needs to believe in gravity — both are empirically observed processes.
And, indeed, the MECHANISM of gravity is LESS well understood than the mechanisms of evolution, but darn it, the planets just keep on goin’…
If I recall, the pregnancy rates were falling before abstinence only programs were instituted, so there’s no correlation there.
Of the programs that DO cut teen pregnancy, they include:
School-based comprehensive sex education
These programs, which include the abstinence message, discuss contraception and draw on peer leaders to conduct role-playing exercises. Result: They delay the first time a teen has sex and also make condom use more likely.
Teen outreach programs
These programs, found in 16 states, channel teens into community-service activities, with adult mentors teaching the teens how to be effective as volunteers. Although sex education is not a formal part of the program, the pregnancy rate of participants fell by a third.
Intensive mentoring programs
The New York City Carrera Program run by the Children’s Aid Society was the star of the study. This program does it all: sex education, health care, individual tutoring, mentoring and arts enrichment. It cut pregnancy rates in half, a phenomenal success rate for any kind of teen-pregnancy program.
I believe there’s an Advocate for Youths study that shows there were no difference in pregnancy rates between those in abstinence only programs and those who weren’t (so there’s a tenuous support for claims against abstinence only programs).=
re: Posted by Bill Mulligan at August 3, 2005 05:01 PM
I admit I may have been given bad information about this. I don’t mean this to sound flip, but I will defer to yet expertise over information from a layman.
‘yet’ should be ‘your’ in my last post
Michael,
It’s cool. frankly, the data is very poor and this is one of those things where it is incredibly difficult to measure the effects, good or ill, that one does. Since my progrqam is one of the teen outreach types that Roger talks about, I’m happy to hear that they are being credited with the good results…but in all honesty there are an incredible number of variables that go into these things. So much of it has to do with elements beyond anyone’s control–the improving economy may have as much to do with the recent improvement in my home town as anything I could possibly do. And if the results suddenly go south–if next year teen pregnancy goes up 20% how could I know that without the programs we’ve been running it wouldn’t have been 30%?
Right and Left love to quote effect and either claim credit or give blame for the cause but most of the time they have very very little to back it up with.
My question to Jim, or to anyone, is this: how in the world can you establish a clear, falsifiable test for the proposition that some systems cannot be adequately explained? The converse of the statement is “every natural system can be adequately explained,” and the only way to verify that is to take an infinite amount of time to check every one.
First, let me say that I am interested why most of you disagree, so I appreciate the responses that were thoughtful and specific.
Tim, I realize that this is where I don’t understand evolution. Yes, specific things (such as mutations, genetics, etc.) are observable. But those are evidences that are then used to add up to Evolution. Most ID and/or Creation scientists do not argue that these things exist, but they disagree with the conclusions that are drawn from them. So while specific pieces of evolution are falsifiable, the overarching theory itself does not seem to be.
To answer your question, I would not begin to try to summarize Dembski since it has been a few years since I read his book. My response is based on my own logic. The issue is not that some systems cannot be adequately explained, at least for me. The issue is that we have gone down not just to the cellular level but also the molecular level, and things remain incredibly complex. If this was 50 years ago, I would say you have a point. But at this point, we have gotten down to virtually the bottom without really solving the riddle. Thus Behe, and others, argue that there is not going to be an answer to why these systems exist. You then have to fall back on your presuppositions. If you say “god” / a designer does not exist, or that you cannot even consider that “god” exists, then you have to say it had to happen naturally since the system itself exists. There is an inherent problem with this. Even if you could explain the evolution of man from the formation of the universe billions of years ago, you are still left with the question of where the universe came from. You are then left with guesses such as that we are one of many universes (which solves nothing except push it back even farther), or similar ideas. Bottom line, you are left with either the belief/faith that nature itself is in some way eternal, or that a “designer” / “god” of some sort exists and designed it all.
So to ask you a question, what do you do when you get to the most basic building blocks of the universe and you still have no idea what system formed it in the first place? You may argue we are not there yet, but my question is what do you do if this were to happen?
Jim rather nicely demonstrates the real gap between our worldviews right there. One does not need to be a “believer” in evolution any more than one needs to believe in gravity — both are empirically observed processes.
You are comparing apples to oranges. Evolution is a much bigger and all encompasing theory then gravity alone. I again ask where you we can actually observe evolution itself in action? The few examples I have read are weak stretches (such as the change in the length of a beak of a bird) that do not demonstrate the formation of a new and more complex system. If you want to say that based on a string of observed processes, you have pieced together a theory, I can understand that. But evolution itself is not a simple process, it is a far more complex system then is gravity. (I know gravity is complex, but talking about the theory of gravity does not encompass the breadth of issues and processes that evolution attempts to encompass.)
I’ll second Jack on this, Jim — if you want to posit a God that’s the “uncaused cause” behind the Big Bang and set all the physical laws in place, I’m happy to listen (though again, not in science classes), and even to consider it. If, however, you posit a God that’s going to step in and twiddle the rules, changing what was previously in place, then I have to ask what makes your claims any more likely than Erich von Daniken’s. (And if you don’t know who he is, I suggest you do a little research of your own.)
I don’t believe God is constantly “tinkering” with the rules. I believe the universe has consistency. But if God does exist, he by definition exists in a higher plane/dimension than ours. Because he is in a higher dimension, it is logical that the rules of that dimension could in fact have an impact here that would seem “contrary to nature” while actually being in line with true reality. It is the old analogy of a 3 dimensional person interacting with a 2 dimensional world.
I personally believe in a literal 6 day creation, which would not require God to “tinker” anyways, at least not after he is done creating. Miracles are not “tinkering” with the laws of physics, but just the intervention of a higher dimension on a lower one.
Again using the Wikipedia article, I can address at least one of Dembski’s claims directly: he refers to a Shakespearean sonnet as “both complex and specified,” thus pointing inexorably to a designer. Apparently Dembski hasn’t heard the old saw about an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters. Sure, the odds of it occurring by chance are astronomically tiny … but it’s an astronomically huge universe out there, and the odds of improbable things happening somewhere, somewhen are not even remotely small.
You have left out one crucial aspect in this analogy: time. Yes, you could suggest that while improbable, it is not impossible. Until you do the math. If you say the monkeys have unlimited time, then you can maintain the illusion it could happen. But when you quantify that the monkeys can type X keystrokes a minute, and that when you add up the keystrokes needed to write perfectly the sonnet, you suddenly realize that it is statistically an impossibility. That is what ID is arguing. Even if the universe is as old as mainstream evolution currently states it to be (and many ID scientists accept this figure as being true), there is not enough time for random chance to bring about the complexity that is observed.
When you realize it is not just one sonnet that has to be written, but you have to write all of the sonnets by Shakespeare and they have to be in the same order as he wrote them, that is where the claim that “Sure, the odds of it occurring by chance are astronomically tiny … but it’s an astronomically huge universe out there, and the odds of improbable things happening somewhere, somewhen are not even remotely small” is just absurd to me.
Iowa Jim
By the way, thanks for the links. I will read them soon when it is not 2 am in the morning.
Actually, Jim, that’s where you’re wrong. Given an INFINITE number of monkeys, getting the collected works of not only Shakespeare, but of Peter David, the Bronte Sisters, and Bob the janitor is not only probable, but a statistical CERTAINTY, even within time constraints.
One problem with the assertion that God MUST have guided creation is the assumption that the universe was only created once. The universe could have had nearly infinite permutations, from Big Bang to Gnab Gib, before this one and we’d never know, since there would be no evidence of said permutations after their demise. So, we have a finite (albeit astronimically huge) amount of material to work with and an infinite amount of time to work in, and therefore a statistical certainty that life as we know it would eventually arise.
Granted, that still doesn’t explain the ultimate origin of ALL, but given the observable behavior of the universe, Life is a statistical certainty even without Intelligent Design, whether people can wrap their heads around it or not.
-Rex Hondo-
Just want to point out that I have no problem with Intelligent Design as a philosiphical concept, just when proponents attempt to put it into scientific terms when it cannot comform to the scientific method.
Also, on a side note, Jim, I rather like the idea of God (or whatever you want to call him/her/it) existing in a higher set of dimensions. Of course, I’ve come to believe we exist in six dimensions. But that’s a discussion for another time, I think. 😛
-Rex Hondo-
So to ask you a question, what do you do when you get to the most basic building blocks of the universe and you still have no idea what system formed it in the first place? You may argue we are not there yet, but my question is what do you do if this were to happen?
Scientists will do what they always do when the reach a point that the don’t undestand: Continue to make observations, postulate theories, and test them. My problem with Intelligent Design as a philosophical construct is not that it requires belief in an intelligent creater. In fact, I do believe that there is a higher intelligence to the universe. My problem is that the idea as present asks us to just accept an intelligent designer as the end of the story. I can’t accept that. I want to know what’s behind the curtain.
To look at your point from the other direction, when I was a kid in Sunday school, I asked what I thought was a reasonable question: What happened before God created the universe? In other words, what created God? The teachers looked at me like I had just sprouted another head. Even as a child, I could not accept the idea of an infinite being that always existed. Everything has to have come from somewhere, even God.
I never got a decent answer to that question.
Jim raises many points that I think lead to different conclusions.
First, it seems as though you’re saying that evolution argues against ID. I don’t think it does. Evolution doesn’t try to explain how things started: it explains how we got to where we are today. In the process of studying fossil records, we hope that maybe we’ll gain a deeper understanding of the forces behind evolution, ad to a degree, we have. We’ve seen that environment plays a large/huge role in determining what characteristics and species suceed. But so does illness, intelligence, random chance, foreign species invasion, food supply (granted, you could lump sum most of these into environment). But most of these are still just observations…understanding the deeper why of the process is still beyond us.
ID is just one possible explanation of the why. And to my mind, ID is very much like the deist approach to science and religion: God acts through science. When you start with the premise that God created everything, you don’t need to have a theory like ID or creationism. No matter how far back you go, how microscopic you go, God will always be there, and will probably always be one step away from you. If we ever do get to an end-point of science, we’ll either have discovered God, or we’ll blow everything up (depending on which myth you tend to follow).
In other words, to say that something happens “naturally” to a deist is to say that things happen because that’s the way God planned for them to happen. Not in a “God’s Day Planner, 300 million BC, hurl comet at Earth to destroy 99% of all life, including those pesky large dinosarus….200 million BC, evolve suriving pesky dinosaurs into birds….that’ll teach ’em” way, but in a “I’ve created the universe with all kinds of laws, orders, and forces that man will one day call ‘Nature'” kind of way.
“I again ask where you we can actually observe evolution itself in action?”
This is the big question those against the idea of evolution always seem to ask. The answer is, look around you. You see it all the time. But the creationist response typically is “no, that’s MICROevolution (beaks getting longer), I want to see MACROevolution (T-Rex turns into a pigeon). Well, you’d better start looking for the fountain of youth first, because MACRAevolution is just MICROevolution stretched out over a few hundred million years (and of course, first you have to get out of the strict creationist mindset that Earth is only 15,000 years old). It’s like trying to watch a flower open it’s petals in the morning: If your impatient, and you can only sit for 10 minutes, all you’re going to see is…well, nothing. THe flower’s going to appear to reamin motionless. But if you can sit for, say 3 hours, or you use time-laspe photography, you’ll see that the flower not only moves, but moves a great deal. Our human perception is so short, compared to evolutionary changes, that in all the history of modern man/homo sapiens, only Vandal Savage would have even begun to see any evolutionary change.
We’re starting to see evolution in fossil records with the dinosaurs. Just in my lifetime (34 years) dinosaurs have gone from giant, lumbering, stupid, cold-blooded ancestors of reptiles to warm-blooded, agile, intelligent ancestors of birds. Will we find a complete record in fossils? Probably not. Why? Because we won’t find a fossil of every dinosaur that ever lived. There were millions, if not billions, of dinosaurs that have been on earth. Probably less than 0.01% of those had their remains fossilized. Meaning it’s likely entire species of dinos were never fossilized. So we won’t have a complete record (until Doc Brown invents his Time Machine). But the increasing amount of evidence indicates that dinos were not just related to birds, they were birds. It’s been my experience that the evidence to see evolution is there, but creationists fail to see it for what it is, and apply some other explanation to it.
The logical question is, of course, Jim, what explanation do you have for the similarities between dino fossils and modern birds? What do you say to those that study both fossil records and modern bird skeletons and see not just a resemblance, but identicle features?
As to the devil planting fossils to deceive/corrupt us, I’ve always thought that, wouldn’t it be kinda funny if that were actually true? Or in the alternative, what if sometimes, when something gets fossilized, it increases in size over time? So T-Rex really wasn’t really a 40 foot long T-Rex, but just a big pigeon that grew as it fossilized?
A pigeon with sharp teeth?
The one thing that creationists argue is that there have been no transitionary fossils found, when there actually have been. In fact the whole dinos-to-birds theory came about because numerous fossils were found that scientists had trouble classifying as belonging to birds or dinosaurs.
Aye, I totally agree with you Den. I was looking at pics of the no-longer extinct Ivory Billed Woodpecker this week…put a muzzle instead of a beak on that guy, and he’s almost a dead ringer for acheopteryx.
We’ve got a few swans and more geese around the office pond these days. And, ever since seeing the Jurrasic Park movie, I’m really thankful that the big pointy teeth birds evolved out. But go watch a swan floating around a pond sometime, and superimpose the image of a sauropod over it. Then blow it up 1000 times in size. It can get pretty daunting.
Actually, Jim, that’s where you’re wrong. Given an INFINITE number of monkeys, getting the collected works of not only Shakespeare, but of Peter David, the Bronte Sisters, and Bob the janitor is not only probable, but a statistical CERTAINTY, even within time constraints.
I am not sure it is a “certainty” statistically unless you truly are talking about an infinite amount of time and monkeys (I can’t believe I just said that!). However, we are talking about the real world where there still are limits both in terms of both time AND materials (i.e., monkeys). My contention is that based on the known laws of the universe, including the most generous estimates of time and matter available, the odds are still so astronomically low as to be considered in any other setting impossible. If you can give a factual reason why there are an infinite number of monkeys, I am ready to listen.
One problem with the assertion that God MUST have guided creation is the assumption that the universe was only created once. The universe could have had nearly infinite permutations, from Big Bang to Gnab Gib, before this one and we’d never know, since there would be no evidence of said permutations after their demise. So, we have a finite (albeit astronimically huge) amount of material to work with and an infinite amount of time to work in, and therefore a statistical certainty that life as we know it would eventually arise.
The problem with your suggestion is that it is as much of an assumption as the suggestion that God did it. You can’t test it. And in my opinion, it really answers nothing because you are saying that matter and the laws of nature are in some way eternal. If you can prove this scientifically, please do so. Otherwise, it is as much a “belief” as is my assertion that God created everything.
Granted, that still doesn’t explain the ultimate origin of ALL, but given the observable behavior of the universe, Life is a statistical certainty even without Intelligent Design, whether people can wrap their heads around it or not.
This is where I really don’t get it. It is only a “statistical certainty” when you say that with infinite number for trys, one of them is bound to get it right. Otherwise, all of the arguments I have read boil down to “we are here, so it must be natural for this to happen.” Which is not science at all. Please explain to me why Life is so certain.
Iowa Jim
Swans are vicious animals. I can see them rampaging over everything in sight if they were bigger.
Getting back the “devil made the fossil record” point, whether they admit it or not, creationists always fall back on a kind of “turtles all the way down” argument. And that’s why their arguments can never be considered as an “alternative scientific theory.” As I said earlier, if you start with the belief that your revealed “truth” is correct no matter what, you have to then keep manufacturing new mental constructs like the devil running around burying fake bones or God deliberately creating the world “old.” That these constructs are completely unfalsifiable doesn’t deter them from believing in them.
Also, on a side note, Jim, I rather like the idea of God (or whatever you want to call him/her/it) existing in a higher set of dimensions. Of course, I’ve come to believe we exist in six dimensions. But that’s a discussion for another time, I think. 😛
This is not an original idea from me. Hugh Ross has written a book that explores this concept. It is called “Beyond the Cosmos.” He uses current theory about higher dimensions to show how it is scientifically possible to walk through walls (if someone was living in a higher dimension).
Iowa Jim
To look at your point from the other direction, when I was a kid in Sunday school, I asked what I thought was a reasonable question: What happened before God created the universe? In other words, what created God? The teachers looked at me like I had just sprouted another head. Even as a child, I could not accept the idea of an infinite being that always existed. Everything has to have come from somewhere, even God.
I think that is a fair question. But I disagree that it has to be true. By definition, God is a being who exists outside of the known natural universe. It is like a 2 dimensional being trying to comprehend 3 dimensions. The fact that I don’t understand it doesn’t make it not true.
Ok, let’s move for a second into theology, not science. One reason I don’t agree with matter and the universe being eternal is because it is in my dimension. I can somewhat grasp it, and the laws I observe make it difficult to believe it has always existed. If that is true, then why do I believe a “god” exists who is truly beyond my comprehension? Because I believe he has chosen to reveal himself through the Bible and through becoming a man (i.e., Jesus Christ). I don’t say this to try to convert anyone, but to simply say that if what I believe is true, then it would open the door to the option that God could be eternal and did not need to “come from somewhere.” As I said, this is theology/philosophy, not science. It cannot be proved by science. But neither can it be disproved.
Iowa Jim
This is where I really don’t get it. It is only a “statistical certainty” when you say that with infinite number for trys, one of them is bound to get it right. Otherwise, all of the arguments I have read boil down to “we are here, so it must be natural for this to happen.” Which is not science at all. Please explain to me why Life is so certain.
“Certainty” would not be the right word if your requirement is that the universe is infinite. However, given that there are billions upon billions of stars in billions of galaxies, the universe is about as close to infinite as the human mind can grasp. Given the sheer number of stars out there, that one could hold a planetary system capable of supporting life is, if not 100% certain, than so highly probable so as to be nearly certain.
“Given the sheer number of stars out there, that one could hold a planetary system capable of supporting life is, if not 100% certain, than so highly probable so as to be nearly certain.”
Just to play devil’s advocate (hm, waitaminute…the Devil’s been raised on the board, and now a lawyer is arguing for him….)
Anyway, if life exists on another planet, and tree on that planet falls, and there’s no one for Earth around to observe it, does it really happen?
Which is sort of to say, just because something is a statistical certainty isn’t the same thing as saying it’s an acuality. Give inifinite monkeys infinite time and ink, and they’ll recreate every literary work ever created by man. But that doesn’t mean that it will happen, ever. It’s just an obervation. If I go stand on a metal plate in a thunderstorm enough times, eventually I should reach a point were, from a statistical certainty point, I should have been struck by lightning. But if I manage to not be struck by lightning, I’ve then beaten the odds, despite the statistical certainty.
Which, if you follow me, is why the nearly certain logic fails. Granted, I’ll likely never be able to prove, or disprove, that theory. But using a statistical certainty is dangerous tool to rely on when trying to make a point.
By definition, God is a being who exists outside of the known natural universe.
By whose definition? Since God hasn’t bothered to show himself except through intermediaries (Jesus, Moses, Buddha, etc), how do we know what he is “by definition.
As I said, this is theology/philosophy, not science. It cannot be proved by science. But neither can it be disproved.
And this is exactly why it doesn’t belong in a science class. Philosophy/religion class? No problem. Science class? No way!
The logical question is, of course, Jim, what explanation do you have for the similarities between dino fossils and modern birds? What do you say to those that study both fossil records and modern bird skeletons and see not just a resemblance, but identicle features?
For many ID scientists, your question is a non-issue since they accept much of evolution.
Since I believe in a 6 day creation, obviously this would be an issue. I don’t believe the fossils are fake, etc., but I have not seen clear evidence that it has to be a transition between two distinct animals. I don’t say this as an easy way out, but it is possible that God created the creatures with similarities, such as between a bird and a dinasour, and they are not a transition. The evidence I have read has not yet been convincing that it was a transition, but I freely admit it would have to be overwhelming.
MACRAevolution is just MICROevolution stretched out over a few hundred million years (and of course, first you have to get out of the strict creationist mindset that Earth is only 15,000 years old). It’s like trying to watch a flower open it’s petals in the morning: If your impatient, and you can only sit for 10 minutes, all you’re going to see is…well, nothing.
I get that this is the point of evolution, and I don’t expect to see it happen in 10 minutes right under my nose. But the analogy would be better put this way. I have a time lapse camera that takes 20 pictures at very infrequent intervals over a one year period. I then try to piece together what has happened. That is what evolution has done. It takes known processes that can be observed today (“microevolution”) and the snapshots we have over time (fossils) and comes up with a theory (“macroevolution”). As you get more snapshots, you can better refine your theory. But it may also show your theory was way off.
The problem I have is that I don’t believe there is evidence that microevolution can really produce the changes you see in the snapshots. And I am not alone in this. You have increasingly complex organisms that have increasingly complex information. “Natural selection” does not answer how the list of options (the information stored in the DNA) came about in the first place. And without that foundational structure, evolution makes no sense at all. Even with the time frame you suggest of billions of years, it still does not add up.
When you go back to the beginning, you don’t just have the freedom with the chemical building blocks to start mixing and matching. It is more like a jigsaw puzzle where only certain pieces match with certain other pieces. And when you have a limited number of jigsaw pieces and a limited amount of time and you must have a very precise order to create life and only a totally random process in order to match up the pieces, you are in trouble. If we really did come about this way, it must have been the biggest fluke in cosmic history, and we are foolish to waste time looking for intelligent life on other planets since statistics would say the chances of it happening twice really would be nil.
Iowa Jim
Hmmm… after some reflection, I feel the need to clarify my thoughts on ID. I would have to say that I adhere to a mix of Deism/Roman Catholicism about God’s role in the shaping of the universe and his influence in it. Philosophically, I rather like the Watchmaker concept and the idea that the way things work and our ability to observe them come from something God put into motion. In an ironic way, that probably makes me a believer in some form of ID, from a RELIGIOUS standpoint. Where I have a problem with the ID movement is the argument that it’s based on some kind of thorough scientific analysis that should be held to the same SCIENTIFIC esteem as Newton’s Three Laws, the Theory of Relativity, Evolution, etc. Its proponents are a group of people using the current political environment to usurp the concept of scientific thought and observation to promote a religious-based agenda. I guess my issue is that when teaching science, I agree with other posters on here that the key concept we’re trying to teach is the Scientific Method; yes, we’re trying to teach kids about biology, chemistry, physics, etc., but it’s much more important to give them the critical thinking skills to find things out for themselves. And teaching ID as a scientific concept, versus the philosophical/religious subject it is, is a stunting of our country’s intellectual growth. Studying science makes me KNOW how things work, but observing the unique and improbable wonders of science definitely makes me BELIEVE in God.
By whose definition? Since God hasn’t bothered to show himself except through intermediaries (Jesus, Moses, Buddha, etc), how do we know what he is “by definition.
To be precise, I don’t believe Jesus was an intermediary but was God in the flesh, but that is beside the point. “By definition” is simply referring to the philosophical discussion about God. You can come up with a theory of a “god” within our universe (somewhat like the Greek and Roman “gods). I am saying that if you start with the concept that God is, by definition, a being outside of the natural universe, the rest makes sense.
The 3D vs 2D analogy works again here. If you imagine a 3 dimensional person interacting with a 2 dimensional world, those in the 2D world will only see a very limited part of the 3D person. So, to use that dreaded term again, by definition it would not be possible for God to fully reveal himself to us unless he made us 3D.
To be clear, I am not trying to say that I get to define what or who God is. When I say “by definition,” I simply mean it as a presupposition or starting place for the discussion.
And this is exactly why it doesn’t belong in a science class. Philosophy/religion class? No problem. Science class? No way!
I agree that my theological discussion would not be appropriate in a science class if you are talking about the nature of “god.” But neither is it appropriate to say in a science class that “god” does not exist and that he/she/it does not ineract with our natural universe. Science strictly deals with what is observed. So if I did see a man who had his ear cut off and it was instantly and fully restored or someone who was dead and buried for 4 days suddenly come back to life and full health (i.e., a miracle), then I would have to deal with that observation. Most science classes and scientists would rule out any possibility that “god” was involved and say it had to have a natural explanation. I would suggest that we should not be so quick and certain that something “supernatural” does not exist.
Iowa Jim
But if Science is generally defined as the study of our universe according to observable, natural theory, why would we want to or expect to be able to use it to study the supernatural?
Jim, by its very nature, science HAS to look at natural causes and can’t look at anything else. It HAS to be quick and certain to rule out “supernatural causes” by its very definition. Anything that’s supernatural is inherently outside of science, and trying to force that into science is an excercis in futility.