Blogcritics: Comments on Diluting Evolution

Comment by chipmunk stew

Thu, 26 May 2005 13:00:28 EDT

Dayton Turner: Thank you, Stew, for permission to believe as I choose. You're welcome, but I wasn't presuming to grant permission, I was just placing the answer in its appropriate context--faith not science. Plus, I always have my ace of trump -- maybe that is the way the intelligent designer did it. I totally agree. If it's true (humanity may never know for sure) it renders this "controversy" meaningless, though, doesn't it? After all, the implication of this argument is that acts of God are synonymous with natural events. In other words, evolution is describing how God did it. Unfortunately, that's not all that Intelligent Design (the written hypothesis, not the abstract notion) proposes. ID the hypothesis says (among other things) that natural selection only happens on a small time scale and genetic mutation on a small change scale, and that distinct species lines were created separately by an intelligent designer. This is far from being verified, and the convergence of evidence refutes it. It doesn't render evolution only "a theory, not a fact" as the sticker on Georgia's textbooks said.

Comment by Dayton Turner

Wed, 25 May 2005 19:31:20 EDT

Thank you, Stew, for permission to believe as I choose. It appears we agree on a crucial element of this discussion. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. As I said before, some aspects of evolution are easy to trace, but others are not. Plus, I always have my ace of trump -- maybe that is the way the intelligent designer did it.

Comment by chipmunk stew

Tue, 24 May 2005 13:13:16 EDT

The mousetrap is a false analogy. A literal example is the human eye, which ID-proponents like to point to as being irreducibly complex. But it's not. First of all, some sight is better than none. People with impaired vision (partial blindness, color-blindness, blurred vision, etc., which are all caused by disruptions or malformations to parts of the whole) have an easier time navigating through the world than people with no vision. Second, it's easy to see by looking at species living today to see how a human eye probably developed. There are animals with simple eyespots (detect light), animals with recessed eyespots (detect direction of light), animals with pinhole lenses (crudely focus images), animals with true lenses (sharply focus images), animals with rods and cones (detect color). Third, the human eye would work better if its layers were reversed--our vision would be crisper and more accurate. As it is, the rods and cones point away from the incoming light, and they sit behind a layer of blood vessels. If humans can conceive of a better design for their own eyes, what does that say about the intelligence of the designer? Fourth, ID-proponents use this idea of irreducible complexity (an unverified conjecture) to bolster the argument you touched upon that the introduction of "completely new species with no genetic relationship to others" is not explainable by evolutionary theory. This is the missing link argument, and its primary function is to show that modern humans do not share a common ancestor with other hominids. There has been no species ever that has no genetic relationship to others. Let's clear that up right now. As to the idea of gaps in the fossil record, every time a new fossil is discovered that shows a new link between us and our ape-like ancestors, creationists and ID-proponents point to the new (now smaller) gap between us and that link. Before long, they'll be saying show me the missing link between you and your mother. Microevolution vs. macroevolution is a false dichotomy. It's just evolution, which happens quickly when a system is stressed, and more slowly when a system is stable. As to the origin of life itself, this is an openly acknowledged gap in scientific understanding, and the appropriate scientific answer is "we don't know" (which is what my high school biology teacher [who believed in God] and textbook said). You're free to believe what you wish.

Comment by Dayton Turner

Tue, 24 May 2005 02:21:41 EDT

Hmmm. I miswrote in what you quoted but you saw right through it to what I actually meant. It depends on what aspects of evolutionary theories you are referring to. When it comes to adaptations or the fittest animals surviving and reproduction those qualities which made them the fittest, I see no need for direct intervention and manipulation by an intelligent designer. But when it comes to the development of a completely new species with no genetic relationship to others, I might consider some other causation. You mention "irreducible complexity," and I suppose you are talking about Michael Behe's mouse trap and other closed end systems. And there is the other guy (whose name evades me) who showed how he could reduce the mousetrap to a single spring. However, no one started with a single spring and then developed the more complex mousetrap by successively adding pieces. If the single spring had been an effective mousetrap, that is what we would be using this very day. The mousetrap that has only the spring is ultimately no more effective than a blood clotting system that only clots and never stops clotting. Deconstructing something does not guarantee that it has been deconstructed in the exact opposite steps with which it was constructed. The intelligent designer who made the six piece mousetrap was, IMHO, a more effective designer than the one who made the single spring design, if the single spring designer was, indeed, a designer rather than a refiner. Evolution, to the extent that it has been measured and quantified, is not a problem for the concept of intelligent design. The unproven, unvarified, impossible-to-reproduce evolutionary leap in which dead materials spontaneously spring to life is a concept intelligent design would necessarily question. I find the idea of spontaneous generation of life very difficult -- well, impossible -- to believe.

Comment by chipmunk stew

Mon, 23 May 2005 06:46:50 EDT

Dayton Turner: It still remains, no matter how you attempt to disguise it, people who discount intelligent design, by necessity, must believe nothing came from nothing as the result of some inexplicable randomness. If you're talking about "intelligent design" as an abstract notion, then you're probably right. You're absolutely wrong if you're referring to Intelligent Design as an alternative theory to evolution. I.D. makes assertions (such as "irreducible complexity") which can, without contradiction, be dismissed while retaining belief in some ultimate creator of the cosmos.

Comment by Dayton Turner

Mon, 23 May 2005 02:47:55 EDT

I do understand that quantum theory establishes a universal paradigm of unpredictable chaos as opposed to the relative (pun) universal stability of the theories of relativity. And now, to settle the obvious discrepancy between these virtually diametrically opposed theories, there is the totally unquantifiable, immeasureable string theory which is clearly suppose to clear up the whole picture. (I suppose the stings come from the same place the intelligent designer comes from. Hmmm, maybe the strings are intelligent and that will merge all the ideas under one umbrella.) Seems as though science continues to build a more and more complex, difficult to comprehend paradigms that are less and less believable. I may have to turn my cuff up another fold. I do not think I sell science short; but neither do I give it credit for fully explaining that which it does not fully explain. I give it credit for continually offering new possibilities, any or all of which may be partially or fully plausible. When it comes to origins, we all believe something. My thing is that those who happen to believe in intelligent design, or even some God for that matter are not stupid, ignorant asses. I hardly think you would find a scientist in the Muslim world who did not profess Islam. Many scientists of today believe in some degree of intelligent design or even profess Christianity. This neither invalidates science nor proves the existence of an intelligent designer. It merely shows that some can see both sides of this coin. It still remains, no matter how you attempt to disguise it, people who discount intelligent design, by necessity, must believe nothing came from nothing as the result of some inexplicable randomness. Science seems to say, "We don't have the answers yet, but the truth is out there," which is no more of an explanation to me than someone saying, "God did it," is to you. This is certainly not an argument which we will resolve here. I have no expectation that you would ever come to an intellectual point where you could consider there might be some merit in the idea of intelligent design. And I can assure you, you have said nothing that does any more than convince me that the silliness of my beliefs are no more silly than the silliness of your beliefs.

Comment by gonzo marx

Sun, 22 May 2005 23:57:06 EDT

to Duane.. /golfclap you just said in yoru last paragraph what i have been attempting with the thousands of words i spewed all over this Thread.. i am awestruck >bows, hand over fist< Excelsior!

Comment by Bennett

Sun, 22 May 2005 23:49:48 EDT

"...in spite of the uninformed skepticism of the I-need-to-be-comforted uninitiated." Wow Duane. Nice. Is that copyrighted, or can I use it? Good answer.

Comment by Duane

Sun, 22 May 2005 23:37:54 EDT

Seems like that would take a lot more faith than believing that something figured out how to make something out of nothing. That just begs the question. Where did your "something" come from? Do you think time extends infinitely backwards. Physicists would disagree with you. And making something from nothing is not impossible according to quantum mechanics. Without having some knowledge of physics, your assertions carry no weight. Go spend 10 minutes on the web, and read about quantum fluctuations in the context of the beginning of the Universe. You won't understand it (I'm not saying that I do, although I have a working knowledge of quantum mechanics), but maybe you can at least acknowledge that faith has ZERO to do with science. As is typical with ID proponents, you sell science and scientists short, maybe not out of sheer arrogance, but probably more out of ignorance of modern research. It's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of hard-working scientists, using the tools of science, and advancing the frontiers of knowledge, in spite of the uninformed skepticism of the I-need-to-be-comforted uninitiated. So, when you said, "Well, I dunno," it would have been better to just leave it at that.

Comment by daytonturner

Sun, 22 May 2005 20:56:47 EDT

Well, I dunno. It seems to me when it comes to faith, but sides of this question have to have some faith. Your side has faith in the idea that nothing took nothing and made something. Seems like that would take a lot more faith than believing that something figured out how to make something out of nothing.

Comment by gonzo marx

Sun, 22 May 2005 17:02:47 EDT

dayton sez.. *I'm sorry that you do not see that evolution today is being taught as axiomatic or a proveable theorum. * you misunderstand my words..i do NOT see it as being taught as axiomatic..but i DO see it being shown as a provable Theorem...what is NOT being shown as a provable theorem is the concept of ID dayton sez.. *So far, all that has been discovered is that some animals and plants are related to other animals and plants which look different and that they can be cross bred to produce hybrids which do not quite look like either of the parents and that, in some cases, these hybrids can, in turn, breed and multiply as a now new animal or plant. In those cases, we can easily trace the lineages back to a common ancestors. Which is, essentially, what Darwin investigated.* you confuse genetics and evolutionary Theory here..and i might suggest you actually READ Darwin's work before making further commentary on the subject...it might also help to note that tho he began the process of codifying the Theory of Evolution..it did not stop there...it still continues to this very day... what you are Postulating is semantically equal to stating that Newton's work is the sole defining treatise on calculus(see his Principia Mathematica) or that his work completely defines our current understanding of Cosmology and Astrophysics...which it most certainly does not... dayton sez.. *That is, in my opinion, what science is about.* this non-sequitor occurs directly after my last quoted paragraph...please define your Opinion as it is not evident by your statement...then we can discuss it but here is a good rule of thumb...if it cannot be described and/or quantified utilizing the tools of mathematics and Symbolic Logic than it is not "science" but a fuzzy Subject...math itself cannot "prove" anything, but is a descriptive Tool of human Reason, and thus quite useful in the pursuit of Knowledge under the auspices of "science" dayton sez... *I just cannot accept that it is honest or educational to teach that because we can breed a horse and a donkey and end up with a mule, it shows that maybe the lion and giraffe got togethr to produce the wildebeast.* could you please show us just WHERE this is being taught in our public schools in a science class?...otherwise it is merely rhetoric and deserves no rebuttal dayton sez.. *I'm only saying that your answer, "This all happened as a result of random inexplicable events," is no more or less valid or logical than the suggestion that some intelligence orchestrated those very events.* read carefully..i have NEVER said anything like what you ascribe dayton sez... *We always end up at the same dichotomy of explanations. Did it happen by chance or by design. Either of these answers requires one to make something of a leap of faith to fill in the gaps between what we know and what we believe.* my contention is that the Theory cureently being taught in high school biology conforms to, and is being taught as..a Theory...something that has the weight of research, empirical data and has passed the rigors of peer review within the scientific Community...so far, ID has not... my apologies if i have not been clear enough on this point.. dayton sez.. *The biggest difference is that those who believe it happened by chance are allowed to preach their doctrine (with virtual impunity) in the U.S. public school system while those who believe there was design are not.* as i have pointed out..one is accepted as science by the process i have outlined above..the other has yet to pass the rigors of such a "test" you use of the semantically loaded words "preach" and "doctrine" is quite telling when speaking about this...merely my own Observation... not to the nut of the matter at hand.. dayton sez.. *I continue to insist that this is not education but brain washing through indoctrination and propagandizing on a scale not seen since the hey-day of communism. It just sorta make me see red.* i will not rise to the bait of your implied "red herring" here, but instead will ask you to define your terms in reference to "education" and "brain washing"...because this failure in agreement of epistomology seems to be at the crux of our disagreement... please note that current curriculum teaches the scientific methodology of Thought and Reason..how to prove or disprove a Hypothesis...the rigors of Logic and how it is applied to science..coupled with the required to graduate course in mathematics you achieve a fairly decent baseline in understanding Critical Thought, and the tools needed to go on to higher education for further study... if someone could show me that ID does this, and does NOT rely on faith alone...i would be more than happy to look at the work... thanks for the rational discussion.. Excelsior!

Comment by daytonturner

Sun, 22 May 2005 13:06:55 EDT

I'm sorry that you do not see that evolution today is being taught as axiomatic or a proveable theorum. So far, all that has been discovered is that some animals and plants are related to other animals and plants which look different and that they can be cross bred to produce hybrids which do not quite look like either of the parents and that, in some cases, these hybrids can, in turn, breed and multiply as a now new animal or plant. In those cases, we can easily trace the lineages back to a common ancestors. Which is, essentially, what Darwin investigated. That is, in my opinion, what science is about. Science has not, however, discovered common ancestors between different species of animals or plants. There is no genetic or fossil link between say, cats and dogs. It is insidious to suggest that, while we don't have those links available to us today, we will positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt figure them out some day. Current biology instruction glosses over the gaps by either ignoring them or pooh-poohing them. I do not insist that no such link can ever be found. I do not insist that it had to have been done by God or some other non-deitic intelligence. I merely insist that no one knows the answer to the questions as to where or how the universe came into being or how life began. I just cannot accept that it is honest or educational to teach that because we can breed a horse and a donkey and end up with a mule, it shows that maybe the lion and giraffe got togethr to produce the wildebeast. If you want to see that theory taken to its ultimate rediculousness, perhaps you could read some Piers Anthony "Land of Xanth" fantasies. I'm only saying that your answer, "This all happened as a result of random inexplicable events," is no more or less valid or logical than the suggestion that some intelligence orchestrated those very events. Either of these answers comes as a result of looking at our surroundings and interpreting those observations through our base of attained knowledge and our life experiences. Just because some people assign deitic qualities to their supposed intelligent designer, does not prove that an intelligence designer is, indeed, someone's God. We always end up at the same dichotomy of explanations. Did it happen by chance or by design. Either of these answers requires one to make something of a leap of faith to fill in the gaps between what we know and what we believe. The biggest difference is that those who believe it happened by chance are allowed to preach their doctrine (with virtual impunity) in the U.S. public school system while those who believe there was design are not. I continue to insist that this is not education but brain washing through indoctrination and propagandizing on a scale not seen since the hey-day of communism. It just sorta make me see red.

Comment by gonzo marx

Sun, 22 May 2005 02:47:56 EDT

Dayton sez... *However, to teach theory such as evolution as proven science is incompetent, if not dishonest. To refuse to admit to deficiencies and flaws in a theory is propagandizing.* first..evoloution, as taught in high school biology classes in the U.S. is taught as a "Theory" of current science.. big difference than what you wrote my only problem with ID is that no scientific methodology to either prove or disprove any of it's core Postulates has been put forth and subjected to the rigors of peer Review.. that alone removes it from the category of what should be taught in a SCIENCE class, and places it in the realm of Metaphysics and Philosophy if you desire to advance the cause of ID, then you must define and quantify the Designer, and subject the Hypothesis once again to experimentation , gathering of empirical data, and peer review this makes the difference between "what i think" or "what i believe" and accepted scientific Theory by current standards and practices i have yet to find ANY of this accomplished, in any research i have undertaken on the subject of ID, what i find are Logical fallacies or Semantic trickery that defies mathematical description and offers innuendo or supposition rather than hard data or empirical evidence of any kind... that is NOT to say that the Hypothesis itself is not interesting...and i do think that it is quite worthy of further study....but it is NOT yet ready to be the subject of high school biology class it comes down to the category of curriculum...place it in the Philosophy, or Metaphysics class...and i can't see anyone objecting.. but in biology class? not ready for prime time, yet.. your mileage may vary.. Excelsior!

Comment by Dayton Turner

Sun, 22 May 2005 02:33:18 EDT

Hmm. Seems like the only people who see religion in ID are non-religious people. But when religious people contend that humanism is a form of religion, the non-religious (many humanists), vehemently protest. Or if theists claim atheism is a belief, just as theism is, atheists are taken aback. Apparently, non-religious people are the only people qualified to speak out on religion, philosophy, politics, logic, science or any other intellectual pursuit. The biggest problem here are people who don't know the difference among what they know, what they don't know and what they believe. I do not know how the universe began or how life orginated, but I do know no one else who has posted on this thread knows, either. There is enough evidence available that one can intellectually develop any number of beliefs concerning the origins. To limit the discussion to only one paradigm is not an education process, but an indoctrination process. I would not want an education system which indoctrinated young minds that some specific God worshipped by a specific group of people perpetrated the origins. However, to teach theory such as evolution as proven science is incompetent, if not dishonest. To refuse to admit to deficiencies and flaws in a theory is propagandizing. There seems to be no unwillingness to point to inexplicable complications in the theories on Relativity or to point to the problems of quantum physics and the seeming diametric opposite points of view these two theories offer toward the nature of the universe. I can't thinking you non-religious folks may be far more worried about there being a God than we religious folks are worried about there not being a God.

Comment by chipmunk stew

Fri, 20 May 2005 06:44:08 EDT

Dayton Turner: "Is, for example, discussion of extra terrestrial life, for which there is only questionable evidence, a proper topic for discussion in scientific curriculum?" Not as a theory, especially not as a theory that intentionally exploits gaps in a well-verified theory as part of its evidence. "If we wish to discuss some flaw in some perceived chemistry theory, would we not discuss it in chemistry class? If there is some disagreement over a matter in physics, would we not discuss that in physics class? If we have controversy concerning the beginnings of life, what more appropriate forum to discuss this in other than biology class?" We teach disagreements all the time, but we don't teach "some small vocal minority claims there is another planet sharing our orbit exactly opposite the sun" as a controversy. We might bring it up as an amusing anecdote, though. There is no "controversy" in science about the beginnings of life. There are acknowledged gaps in our understanding. ID-proponents claim to have answers. When the scientific community said show me, they failed to produce even a testable model, and the vast majority of scientists said it's not good enough, get back to work. Instead of getting back to work, they started lobbying school boards to "teach the controversy". This is not how science is done. The "controversy" is a political fiction.

Comment by Steve S

Fri, 20 May 2005 00:16:08 EDT

Two, they believe it is the first step of introducing religious instruction into the public school system. I fall into this category. In your comment, you compare intelligent design to math and UFOs, but I do not think they are comparable. I don't think you can make analogies there. Religion is different than anything else, not only because it has faith as a sole foundation, but because it involves worship. We don't worship the mathematical equation or those blurry pics on A Current Affair. There is no current religion I know of that acknowledges a diety and just leaves it at that. All the religions I know of, give the diety some sort of fealty, in worship and praying, sometimes kneeling multiple times a day, and dedicating lives and souls and considering their diety a Loving Father™. You cannot tell people that a higher power created you without implying that the higher power, in some way, 'fathered' you and therefore some fealty is implied. Unless you think it's okay for society to adopt the concept that a 'child' owes nothing to the 'parent'. Intelligent design is still nothing more than a crafty way for evangelicals to do their job.

Comment by Dayton Turner

Thu, 19 May 2005 23:23:48 EDT

While as participants here, we are often discussing the relative merits of intelligent design, we should not forget the overall purpose. This particular blog is focused on a discussion as to whether the idea of intelligent design as a paradigm for the beginnings of the universe and life is a legitimate and appropriate topic to be included in the curriculum of public schools. There are those who, given the final say, would return curriculum to pre-Scopes trial days in which creation by God (very specifically, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) was the assumed and unassailable causation. It would seem obvious that such presumption was and is in violation of the 1st Amendment. The discussion here seems to have focused on the legitimacy of intelligent design as a scientifically relevant paradigm. Those opposed to including ID as an alternative explanation seem to have two main bases for their objections. One, they do not believe ID has enough scientific foundation to be included as an aspect of science or to raise legitimate objections to the present offering. Two, they believe it is the first step of introducing religious instruction into the public school system. So let's look at the first main objection, the lack of scientific foundation for ID. The question I feel compelled to pose here is whether other information and topics come under the purview of science while lacking a solid scientific foundation (whatever that actually is). Is, for example, discussion of extra terrestrial life, for which there is only questionable evidence, a proper topic for discussion in scientific curriculum? The only possible links are the unsubstantiated claims of UFO sightings and claimed encounters with occupants of said UFOs. Or if you decide that this is a philosophical question which has not place in the science class, let's change the scenario slightly and discuss whether 2 and 2 IS four or 2 and 2 ARE 4. Do you refuse to discuss this in math class because it is a question of grammar or do you refuse to discuss it in grammar class because it is a math equation which has no place in the grammar class. This is a silly example, but my point is that all these things are somewhat interrelated. If we wish to discuss some flaw in some perceived chemistry theory, would we not discuss it in chemistry class? If there is some disagreement over a matter in physics, would we not discuss that in physics class? If we have controversy concerning the beginnings of life, what more appropriate forum to discuss this in other than biology class? I don't think the lack of scientific foundation or improper forum are very strong arguments for keeping this discussion out of school curriculum. Which leaves the second objection, that it is a violation of the 1st Amendment which says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." From this has evolved the concept of separation of church and state. It would have been nice if the writers of the amendment had expounded on that a little more. I know this has been argued in the courts for years but it remains unclear to me whether the proper use of establishment in that phrase is as a verb or as a noun. If establishment is used as a verb, the amendment prohibits congress from establishing (or probably even endorsing) religion. But even there it is not clear in a literal reading if it is referring to an identifiable specific religion or just religion as a generic concept. As a noun, the clause now means that congress is prohibited from making any laws which would restrict or endorse any existing or future religion. If "religion" in the clause refers to an identifiable specific religion, it could not apply to instruction relating to intelligent design because ID does not relate to a specific religion. Any of several religions could ostensibly claim the intelligent designer referred to their god(s) and only if the instruction specifically singled out one of those religions could it be considered promoting an identifiable religion. If "religion" in the clause refers to generic religious concepts, it is still difficult to eliminate such instruction so long as it does not suggest that that intelligent designer is an entity which also serves as the object of worship for some religion. So, in addition to the subject matter propriety and philosophical objections, there is also a legal question related to this topic.

Comment by td

Thu, 19 May 2005 09:44:36 EDT

great post bhw. I totally agree with your last paragraph. All my teachers taught evolution and big bang theory, but they were careful not to go to far into any possible religious implications of these theories. Never once did they say that it had to be one or the other. If you bring ID into the classroom then it will open the door to discussions about which is correct, ID or Evolution, and students will be forced to take sides. I personally am not a supporter of integrating metaphysics and science in the same class. Science class exists to teach the scientific methode. It's not about why, it's only about how. If you don't want school systems to use the theory of evolution to teach kids about the scientific method then petition your school board to focus on another scientific theory. But don't inject a non-scientific theory into the class room so you can balance out the why implications of evolution. You don't see scientists petitioning the government to allow themselves to present evolution theory in Church so that they can balance out the how implications of religion. And as far as the 'We don't know' vs 'We don't know yet' debate. When it comes to science class, the point is 'What do we know'. Evolution theory, though not perfect, is a plausible explanation of the evidence and based upon the scientific methode. ID may be a plausible explanation of the evidence, but it is not based on the scientific methode and therefore it should not be taught in science class.

Comment by bhw

Thu, 19 May 2005 01:16:16 EDT

As to ID-phobia – the idea that by teaching intelligent design, you open the door to teaching that the intelligent designer is deity which then opens the door to teach that the deity is God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If that is not the same exact logic used by homophobics that tolerance opens the door to acceptance which in turn opens the door to endorsement – hey, I'll eat your shorts. It would seem to me that anyone would be reviled by this kind of thinking. Hope you're hungry. The problem is, as I have pointed out in other comments on this thread, that ID proponents believe evolution to be a "threat to Christianity" [their words, not mine]. How can you really question that their ultimate goal is to teach that ID confirms the existence of Christianity's god? That's the whole point of the theory in the first place, that it confirms their pre-existing belief in God, the intelligent designer. The Intelligent Design Network website talks about how science impacts religion. IDers are bringing religion into the discussion of science -- it's part of the package. You can't have ID without religion. Now, I personally prefer integrated school curricula. I see no reason to keep science discussions separate from metaphysical ones, so long as the distinction is made between them and students understand the difference between the scientific method and belief systems. So if IDers want ID taught in science class, then they have to be ready for the inevitable questioning of the basic foundation of the "theory": that there is a creator who purposfully designed the universe and us in it. But I guarantee you that they won't like that because you will be questioning and challenging their religion. And that's because their "science" is founded upon a religious belief. It all boils down to the fact that ID itself has been intelligently (?) designed to confirm religious beliefs. There's no getting around the connection to religion.

Comment by Duane

Thu, 19 May 2005 00:39:55 EDT

Dayton, Thank you for the thoughtful reply. What? You don't believe in aliens, either? Are you one of these people who doesn't believe in anything? I believe in ghosts, or something like what people call ghosts. Would we understand the bonding of elements if some scientist had not asked why do oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water? OK, sure. But that's more of a "how" question. When I referred to the "why" question, I was speaking more in terms of "why are things the way they are?" Nobody knows why, for example, the electron has the charge that it has, or why the speed of light is what it is, etc. I would bet that same person puts a lot of credence into the latest fad concept of string theory which has at least two things standing in its way. It is unquantifiable and immeasurable. Excellent point. This aspect of string theory has given rise to a lot of opposition in the physics community. But Margaret should at least be gratified that a certain fraction of physicists have their minds open to the possibility that someone might come across a quantifiable prediction. Science is fraught with former errors which it has found and corrected. Which exemplifies the fact that dogma is anathema to science. Scientists, as arrogant as they are, are still humble in the face of nature. They strive only to describe nature, and then to construct an underlying theory that unifies the observed phenomena. Modern scientists do not claim to discover "truths." Newton himself is famous for pointing out what he saw as likely flaws in his assumptions, which Maxwell and Einstein, for example, later amended by introducing radical new concepts of nature. As you probably know, string theory is an attempt to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. It has been known since the 1920s that the two theories are incompatible, yet each describes to high accuracy a limited range of phenomena. In spite of all the self-correcting that has and will occur, the scientific enterprise has been remarkably successful. When someone rolls out the comment, "Yeah, but Newton was wrong, so we can't trust science!" kind of comment, I remind them of the comment made by one of the astronauts onboard one of the Apollo spacecrraft to the effect, "I think Isaac Newton is doing all the driving right now." ...the first law of thermodynamics that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed was changed to fit a new reality.... The first law states that energy is a conseved quantity in a closed system. By special relativity, energy can be converted to mass, and vice versa, but the point is that mass and energy are equivalent. The First Law still holds. I didn't understand your point concerning the Second Law. And "we don't have the answers today but we will find them," honestly, is no more satisfactory to the theist than "God did it," is to the atheist. The past is a pretty good indication of the future. I think many scientifically literate people worry that the anti-evolution noise signals a rejection of science and the scientific method, as well as a complete disregard of history. Not only does it not lead to the conclusion that there is an intelligent designer but neither does it preclude that possibility nor disprove the concept. Quite right. Again, scientists do not "prove" anything. They only look to devise working models of how things work, then adjust them as new data come along. They cannot disprove any theory unless the theory makes a prediction that is shown to be false. As many people here and elsewhere on BC have pointed out, ID makes no testable predictions, therefore, cannot be disproven, therefore, does not constitute a scientific theory, therefore, does not deserve to be competed against evolution. ID truly is a conjecture, and a very old one at that. The only truly honest answer is, "WE DON'T KNOW." I would say, "WE DON'T KNOW YET."

Comment by Bennett

Thu, 19 May 2005 00:07:47 EDT

The final paragraph in the last post was extracted from Dayton's post, for reference purposes.

Comment by Bennett

Thu, 19 May 2005 00:04:04 EDT

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong (been a looooong day) but this analogy relies on tricking the reader into ignoring that you are equating "teaching" and "tolerence", as if they are the same thing. Okay, here's the deal. You can teach ID for one hour per week in public high school science classes, and Gay/Lesbian Awareness Groups can teach tolerance and homo-sensitivity in science classes for one hour each week. You down with that? As to ID-phobia – the idea that by teaching intelligent design, you open the door to teaching that the intelligent designer is deity which then opens the door to teach that the deity is God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If that is not the same exact logic used by homophobics that tolerance opens the door to acceptance which in turn opens the door to endorsement – hey, I'll eat your shorts. It would seem to me that anyone would be reviled by this kind of thinking.

Comment by Dayton Turner

Wed, 18 May 2005 23:42:21 EDT

Duane: What? You don't believe in aliens, either? Are you one of these people who doesn't believe in anything? Actually, I think Margaret is doing a pretty good job, but I suppose that is a matter of perspective which, of course, also directs one's view of the importance and relevance of various pieces of information relating to this topic. As to cosmology, I did watch the Carl Sagen series, but I'm sure that by now cosmology is completely different, leaving me somewhere behind, whereas my basic beliefs pretty much remain quite similar to what they were then. I do not recall posing the question why, but do agree with Gonzo that "why" is more of a philosophical approach. Even so, that is only the aspect of why which might discuss the meaning and purpose of life rather than the aspect of why which discusses the way things work or integrate together. Would we understand the bonding of elements if some scientist had not asked why do oxygen and hydrogen combine to form water? And why are there no compounds using helium? I am not sure how you leap from my comment that we have no idea how we got here to suggest that I believe science has (or should have) thrown in the towel. I guess I didn't mean "no" idea. I meant that even with all the theories being advanced, none seem to have advanced to the fore. We are still almost as perplexed by this question as was the first person who posed it. I have no fear of science investigating various ideas on how the universe came about and how life started. What troubles me is that the prevailing tide dominates because it has successfully squelched any intelligent opposition in the education process. Then it insists that grade and high school is an inappropriate place to present both sides of this issue. "Wait until we have thoroughly indoctrinated and propagandized these little minds before you try to confuse them with other alternate facts." As to ID-phobia – the idea that by teaching intelligent design, you open the door to teaching that the intelligent designer is deity which then opens the door to teach that the deity is God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If that is not the same exact logic used by homophobics that tolerance opens the door to acceptance which in turn opens the door to endorsement – hey, I'll eat your shorts. It would seem to me that anyone would be reviled by this kind of thinking. What I find is that often both sides of this question charge the other side with the very same flaw they themselves suffer. As another example, someone up above chastises intelligent design because it is unquantifiable and immeasurable. I would bet that same person puts a lot of credence into the latest fad concept of string theory which has at least two things standing in its way. It is unquantifiable and immeasurable. What you, Duane, actually said was, "Scientific advancement occurs over long periods of time. The fact that we don't have all the answers today does not imply that scientists have given up . . ." Scientific advancement involves not only verification but also debunking. Science is fraught with former errors which it has found and corrected. One need only to look at the laws of thermodynamics as they appeared in 1940's text books and as they now read. I mean, when the very basic laws of science must be changed and revised, how deeply should one rely on them? It is a true case of the old oxymoron that the only thing that is constant is change. (In my lifetime the first law of thermodynamics that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed was changed to fit a new reality and right now, in this very day, the second law dealing with universal entrophy is being questioned and strongly challenged by {honest to goodness scientific} information which indicates that rather than slowing down, the universe is actually speeding up!) And "we don't have the answers today but we will find them," honestly, is no more satisfactory to the theist than "God did it," is to the atheist. It is the exact same argument from the opposite ends of the spectrum. You did get half the point of the irrefutable evidence comment. Not only does it not lead to the conclusion that there is an intelligent designer but neither does it preclude that possibility nor disprove the concept. The only truly honest answer is, "WE DON'T KNOW." Current data on this matter is often enough to allow a person to intellectually lean toward one side or the other of this question, but I know of nothing which proves or disproves the existence of some intelligence behind the formation of the universe and the development of life. Reasonably intelligent people look at all this information and come to different conclusions. But I am of the opinion that no one's opinion on this matter is totally and completely the result of intellectual investigation. All that information is filtered through our value systems, our life experiences and other factors which go into making us the unique individuals we are. So is the reason some believe and some do not believe, a scientific question or a philosophical question? Or is it because some people are smart and others are stupid?

Comment by MDE

Wed, 18 May 2005 22:35:28 EDT

As Hume would say, "Commit this thread to the flames, for it contains naught but metaphysics and illusion." Mark

Comment by chipmunk stew

Wed, 18 May 2005 21:30:35 EDT

Margaret Romao Toigo: "Sure, there are proponents of intelligent design who would rather operate from the assumption that there is an actual designer, but they have confused this issue in the same manner as the evolutionists who operate under the assumption that only natural processes can explain nature's phenomena." Correction: Evolutionists operate under the (correct) assumption that science can only explain nature's phenomena in naturalistic terms. (NATURE's phenomena, thus the term NATURALISM) Restricting science this way is not close-minded (many evolutionists and other scientists believe in God or some "intelligent designer", just not Intelligent Design as a scientific theory), it's pragmatic. SCIENCE SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK ANY OTHER WAY. Supernatural explanations short-circuit further scientific exploration.