I grew up with a healthy suspicion of religious extremists and their bizarre concerns. I was raised in South Africa, where the main white Christian church stood solidly behind apartheid. They said apartheid was based on the Bible and ordained by God. Although religion can drive a noble cause, like anti-slavery, it's often used to further all sorts of malevolent agendas.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - D.C.
Evolution is nothing more than Hocus Pocus of modern acedemia. Pffff. Big Bang, Inflation then Evolution. WOW! Those who claim to be Christians, especially ministers, who believe in evolution are nothing more than modern Gnostics in Christianity. Oh, I know! As humans evolved, plants did too, which just happen to pull out of the earth elements we need to eat. Which also happen to be in the earth in the first place. The coincidences could go on. How the earth recycles itself. How the water is recycled through evaporation to replenish the earth. Why babies , who chew their fingers, don't have teeth yet (Lucky for them). That the eath is covered in green and brown, the most calming colors, with a few patches of colors scattered here and there. Or the details of the human brain. How the brain stores in a FRU, a place that stored just faces, this is all just by chance. Yeah right. And Michael Moore will really be president someday! You people are so sad out there. Oh and don't forget, which came first through evolution? The adult or the infant?
77 - dave
"You can try to dismiss Adam's satire as negative, but you got in a nice little huff when Susan crushed you with that house analogy.
And I do mean crushed you.
And you know it too, or you wouldn't have started calling her dense."
You got me. I can't pretend anymore.
Yeah, I didn't know what I was gonna do when Susan came out of the blue with that one. For a while I was in such a panic that I forgot which section of Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion contained David Hume's original statment of the "false analogy" argument. Then for a second I thought about digging out St. Thomas and looking into his statements about the nature of analogical knowledge, to see if maybe I could counter Susan's whithering critique. No, I'd have to go further -- as brilliant as St. Thomas was, he's no match for Susan.
Finally, I realized that I was going to have to go back to the pre-Socratics, to Anaximander of Miletus, who first articulated the Analogy of Being that holds across all particulars, making all knowledge possible. What I had to do was counter Susans's phenomenological approach, indebted as it was to a post-Husserlian reduction, with a pre-modern appeal to analogy as understood by the Ancients. The problem separating Susan's approach and mine, is of course, Descartes' ubiquitous dualism, which, I would say is the underlying problem. Once you've separated the res extensa and the res cogitans, the dubito comes in on a rope, right? Under the modern assuption of radical doubt, analogy of course is vulnerable. But the Ancients understood analogy differently, as fundamental to all knowledge. So it is there, and only there that I might find the resources to parry this bold philosophical thrust.
78 - Steve S
which came first through evolution? The adult or the infant?
the infant. When we were cavemen, we were having infants, also when we first learned to walk upright. Infants are always first. Whenever there was a change/mutation in the lineage of mankind, someone would have to be born with it.
While it is hard to comprehend evolution because it takes place over millions of years, we can look at much shorter time spans and still see a form of environmental adaptation going on, which to me would still be evolutionary.
For example, the average height of a man in Shakespeare's time vs. our time. You can see evolutionary changes in even as little time as that.
79 - Paul Roy
Great post Adam. I couldn't agree with you and Mr. Klinkenborg more. Like your blog as well. Some of these replies are down-right scary though aren't they?
80 - D.C.
But of nuts.
81 - ss
Dave:
You're well read, no one could argue that. The crux of Susan's arguement seemed to be that citing examples of order imposed on chaos by an act of will does not refute the arguement that order can also arise from chaos without an external act of will, so long as there is a source of external energy to overcome the second law of thermo-dynamics (energy comes into a system, system cannot then be a closed system, entropy then does not apply)
She did this by refuting your analogy. While telling us all about the many fine philosophical enquiries into the nature of knowledge that you have no doubt read, you have failed to provide any argument that gives your original analogy any more weight than than the analogy she used to counter it.
Instead you've attacked the use of analogy, because hers was better than yours.
82 - Bob A. Booey
Dave, that was meant to be parody right?
If so, that's a pretty funny satire of Philosophy 101 style jargon and rambling without any understanding of what texts mean.
This is a really poor philosophical debate, which illustrates why discussing Intelligent Design would be an absolute pedagogical disaster and waste of time in science classrooms. Metaphysical speculation is almost completely useless, particularly metaphysical speculation that has nothign particularly instructive to say about the substance of science itself. Sure, you believe in telos and a Designer -- that doesn't tell you anything useful about how design took place through the process of evolution, whom the Designer is, and why the Designer chose what appears to be pretty ordered, historical evolutionary patterns to make His (we are praying, apparently, before our lab experiments after all) "will" known.
This is all pointless. No ID proponents will ever gain any measure of respect in mainstream academic science because this isn't the stuff of science journals and legitimate, actually scientific research. It's not philosophy either, which is why I think you see such desperation and anti-intellectual anger on the part of the would-be cosmologists who push inchoate ideologies like this upon politicians who don't know anything about religion OR science.
It's a legitimate critique of science to say that it's too oriented toward techne and is unable to provide meaning for human life. That's fine and probably true. But Intelligent Design is not an answer bridging the gap between humanism and science because it's neither scientific nor philosophical, which is the entire problem. Intelligent Design doesn't elevate your religious ethics to the level of scientific inquiry, nor does it humble science's claim to truth into mere speculative metaphysical claims that are only equally as valid as some casual observation about how various species look alike and thus reveal the beauty of God's hand in their complexity.
Dave: I know you aren't a student of philosophy so much as a mindless name-dropper, but you do realize that your entire teleological argument you've made is an almost perfect tautology right? You defined "design" as being something like "mind" working through matter and biological objects and infer that "design" is thus an essential part of reality and existence. How do we know design is at work? Because, you tell us, of the "life" and "mind" that is working through design. That's the definition of circular logic and your definition of "mind" in relation to our biological facticity is eccentric an interpretation at best, unsupported by any serious philosophical literature.
Very few of the philosophers you bastardize would take this silly body of theory or the conclusions you draw from their worky seriously.
What exactly are the possibilities that are closed off from current understanding that Intelligent Design would open us up to in the process of scientific discovery? Don't be general, be very specific and explicit with examples of what you think we might discover and learn from being open to "design."
The only good thing you wrote here was your point that much of string theory or cutting-edge physics is speculative and borderline metaphysical and can't be verified by experiment. This is true. But at least it's an extrapolation upon the body of knowledge up to the limits of what experimental science has shown us is true once technology catches up to scientific theory and allows experimentation to test these ideas. The level of "speculation" in theoretical physics is also infinitely more advanced and complex than any Design speculation I've ever heard. Intelligent Design already begs the question before it answers it -- it closes off understanding to assume the role of a Designer rather than opening us up to new questions. If your entire "scientific" theory centers on one metaphysical issue -- did God design this? -- all your "science" and philosophy will ultimately be defined through the lens of your theology and they cease to be science and philosophy as a result.
I'm convinced that engaging in these discussions is a waste of time and gives "Intelligent Design" more credit than it deserves. It's NOT a real debate in the scientific community and it's not a contest between two equally valid points of view. As far as I can tell, Intelligent Design does not have a distinct point of view.
That is all.
83 - Brian Garrepy
I was misinformed...I thought evolutionists came to this theory of "Intelligent Design" because they were halted with some sort of "Animated Stasis"?? To be truthfully honest...Evolution hasn't been proven because there is no way to show it happening and just because our Finite minds cannot fathom the infinite wisdom of God doesn't mean you can prove that a creator doesn't exisist!! When people keep judging God on man's poor decisions then Evolutionists will still only have science to base everything on....I find that to be pretty narrow minded considering we haven't even reached the bottom of the ocean.
84 - Susan
Brian, it's fun to sling adjectives like "narrow-minded" around until you educate yourself by looking the word up in a dictionary and realize that it refers to prejudiced people: people who pre judge before all the facts are in. Scientists refuse to call evolution fact. Yet religious extremists want to call ID a scientific theory. Who is doing the prejudging?
The word "narrow-minded" also refers to intolerant people. I suppose you could call those of us who are intolerant of ignorance and prejudice "narrow-minded," but then since you are intolerant of our view, what do you call yourself?
Bob: You have an excellent Bullshit detector. Glad you are on the side of truth...but, then, that's why you are on the side of truth.
85 - Bob A. Booey
Susan, I like your um BS detector as well. You're smart, honey :) Why do you only write about boring religious crap though? There are much more interesting discussions on this site.
Like I said before, it's almost as much of a waste of time to engage in debates with religious fundamentalists as it is to be one yourself. Atheist argument is a frustrated defeatist gesture.
Let's mate like savage primates and breed some smart skeptic little monkeys. I'm so good at hot monkey lovin it must be evidence of design in the universe.
THat is all.
86 - Bob A. Booey
But only if you're hot, of course.
That is all.
87 - Bob A. Booey
And I don't believe in absolute capital-T Truths about the universe or metaphysics.
I think we had this discussion already in the atheism discussion I got bored of.
But if you're cool with that and hot, let's have some hot monkey love.
That is all.
88 - Susan
What are the more interesting topics? I do weary of the those who don't think for themselves.
89 - Brian Garrepy
Susan, I refuse to see that term the whole valid point to my comment but thanks for the English class. *Sigh*
I think when anyone on this site makes any kind of valid point against evolution then the Darwin Nazi's have to disect anything just to get points. For example, Scientists are making close ended statements that because there are commonalities between man and ape that we must have evolved..Right?? But, those same scientists haven't been to the bottom of the ocean, so, who knows what's down there?? Do you??
That is pretty narrow minded* to come to such a conclusion especially if we haven't explored all the planets in our solar system either.
I can honestly state that I'm not narrow minded** to the idea that everything is linked together in a way but to say that we have become smart and self reliant over time and that every other creature hasn't yet does makes me question Evolution(Darwinism, Animated Stasis,etc..)My religious viewpoint will have to come in another post because it does consider things beyond the realm of lab tests and theories.
I guess if you are indirectly calling me predjudice and ignorant then i feel you are narrow minded** because you can't fathom someone else being smart if they don't agree with you...I didn't see anyone give Gonzo Marx an English class about "Excelsior"?!? Is he talking about,"fine curled wood shavings used especially for packing fragile items"?? You tell me...
(Touche..*smirk*)
*-to pre judge before all facts are accounted for.
**-Intolerant person
90 - Susan
So you think humans have ancestors at the bottom of the ocean or in space? What about DNA evidence for creatures right here on earth? Are you going to feel better about evolving from an eel or a space creature? Why? What do you care where you came from? It doesn't change how wonderful you are. Surely you know by now what you are capable of. What do you care what science reveals? It changes nothing about what you already know yourself to be.
Smart does not mean morally better. If you think only smart beings are worthy, are you advocating the killing of mentally retarded people? No, of course not. So what if we are smarter than dogs? It's just a fact. No need for pride; we were born with it. What we do with our intelligence is the moral test. All animals have a right to make their way on this earth. I hope we humans who are smarter use our intelligence to protect the less intelligent rather that what we have done historically--beat them up and take their land or their oil.
Incidentally, whenever someone calls you a nasty name, don't think you need an English class. Use a dictionary because 8 and 1/2 times out of 10 it is Freudian projection, i.e. they are accusing you of the very thing of which they are guilty.
91 - Brian Garrepy
Okay... So now you're really losing me. If I shouldn't care about where I come from then what's your reason for living(or arguing evolution)? Is it just to point out other people's inadequecies? Is it to group us religious folk with the people who maime,torture and kill for worldy posessions??It is definately an interesting topic that if we evolved to such a state why haven't other creatures done the same? Or if God has created us,then "Intelligent Design" doesn't follow his word. Also, I brought up the ocean and solar system because of your ability to state the obvious which is the usage of the term "narrow minded". My thanking you for the English class wasn't a passive stance from an insult but a sarcastic statement because I could sense your elitist attitude, i.e.; To make me look stupid so that people reading my comment wouldn't take it seriously!! The mere fact that you mention the realm of mistreatment to humanity means you took my words out of context and you probably have done that with the Bible.(giving you the initial credit because I don't believe you ever read it)So, you're already lopsided on your quest for facts!! What your truly saying is that you weren't calling me Narrow Minded you were just projecting your own inadequecies on me?? Bunched with your elitist attitude, no one will ever be able to prove anything to you because you already have come to your own conclusions!!Thanks for the pyschotherapy, but I'm burnt out from replying to someone who doesn't necessarily care about the truth just being real witty about putting people down!! Maybe you should read John's scripture from the New Testament....
Peace.
92 - Mr. O
Brian
"Darwin-Nazis," wow, clever! Was it Jon Stewart who said, "in the future everyone will be Hitler for fifteen minutes!" Wait just one damn minute are you sure you're not really Bill Oreilly?
Cheers
93 - dave
"Dave, that was meant to be parody right?"
No, it's a precis for my dissertation.
Whaddaya think?
94 - adam
Bob A. Booey:
You've certainly gone through a few stages of evolution on this thread, both forwards and backwards.
Susan, don't mind Bob's monkey ways; if the truth be told, we ALL secretly admire you.
Dave, thank you for keeping us all going. I liked that analogy hop through various philosophers a lot. In fact, I find your sense of humor the only compelling argument for ID you've made.
Baronius, I'm sorry I can't live up to my own ideals of inclusion, but I've decided to exclude New Agists after all. Along with folk singers and efficiency experts.
95 - adam
From wood s lot:
A Child's Primer of Intelligent Design
Susie Day
The Baby Jesus will grow up and become very wise and holy, and invent the steam engine. He will sponsor all sorts of crusades and slave trades and inquisitions and bake-sales, until one day He is tricked by a wicked anthropologist into visiting the Bronx Zoo, where He is stomped to death by a lesbian gorilla. Which just goes to show: it is very hard to get a proper education in today's America.
On, now, to our next chapter, in which the Baby Jesus comes back and gets revenge. Hurry, children -- we don't want any of you to be left behind.
96 - D.C.
But a Nuts again. Who is out there quoting John Stewart? You Michael Moron wannabe.
97 - Susan
Brian: "If I shouldn't care about where I come from then what's your reason for living(or arguing evolution)? Is it just to point out other people's inadequecies? Is it to group us religious folk with the people who maime,torture and kill for worldy posessions?"
Brian, I have a moral compass that is built on my own thinking. It works regardless of outside influence. What I learn in science class will never change how I treat others because science is NOT religion. That's the problem with ID in a science classroom. I don't understand why religious people want to put it in there. It's no place to for discussions about how or why to be a good person.
Non-religious people care where they come from because it is scientifically interesting. Our goodness rests with ourselves and is our responsibility whether we came from the mud, from space aliens, or from God. We know how to be good people no matter what science uncovers.
Brian: "What your truly saying is that you weren't calling me Narrow Minded you were just projecting your own inadequecies on me??"
Freudian projection only works on a subconscious level. Only the originator of the name-calling can be subconsciously projecting.
98 - Brian Garrepy
Susan, I guess I should've made it clearer that I am not a Proponent for ID. I find that it goes against Christianity. I don't feel that religion should be kept out of the Science classroom either because it does explain how things were started(in my opinion). It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to preach the new testament but to say to children that God doesn't exist would be rather "narrow minded" because just as I don't have the exact 100% proof that Evolution doesn't occur, you don't have that proof either that God doesn't exist.
Susan,"Non-religious people care where they come from because it is scientifically interesting."
Does that mean that anything that has to do with our species that cannot be explained by science wouldn't be as interesting?
If it is ever proven beyond faith that we were created by God, would you be able to admit that your goodness and evil were created by design(not ID)? And if that is the case then just as in science there are outside forces that impose upon any matter, that your thoughts and emotions aren't just your responsibility!! To say that everything is linked and then to say that we as individuals are responsible for the way we think and act kind of contradicts itself. Yes, we can think and act on our own, but those thoughts and actions affect everybody and everything, sometimes beyond our understanding. The reason why I have my faith is that though evolution could prove the process it doesn't explain(to me) how or why. My faith in a greater being that I call GOD gives me the opportunity to ask questions and somtimes get answers by myself or with a group. Some answers I will never understand because as much as we can rationalize and feel, we are not omnicient or omnipitent.
Susan, I was actually refering to the idealogy as narrow minded, not the scientists. So, I guess I may have made some prejudgments without all the facts at sometime in my life but who hasn't. It's not a guilty conscious that made me use the term but having bad experiences with that mindset.
99 - dave
"I know you aren't a student of philosophy so much as a mindless name-dropper,"
Who you callin' mindless?
You know, it's funny how many dog-eared, margin-cribbed, highlighted editions of philosophy texts you have to read, mark up and re-read just to drop names and look snazzy on some blog. But what's life worth if you don't have a hobby?
" but you do realize that your entire teleological argument you've made is an almost perfect tautology right? You defined "design" as being something like "mind" working through matter and biological objects and infer that "design" is thus an essential part of reality and existence."
Realizing that the "but you've misunderstood me" argument rarely gains traction in these discussions (see my exchange with Susan above), I'll try to clarify what you've missed.
Design *implies* mind. Mind is interesting from the standpoint of metaphysics because of the long history of philosophers who have tried to establish mind as opposed to inert matter as the irreducible fact of reality. Science has ignored them en toto. Berkeley. Bergson. Whitehead. (That klunking sound you hear is more names hitting the floor.)
The teleological argument has a long and venerable history, and no, it's not tautological. No less than Kant (klunk) said that it "always deserves to be mentioned with respect . It is the oldest, the clearest and the most accordant with the common reason of mankind."
What I'd like to see is the ID movement mature past the stage where designed natural substances are like easter eggs (hey! found one!) to the point where it can integrate with more comprehensive metaphysics like that of Bergson or Whitehead (or Aristotle/Maritain) ((klunk, klunk, klunk, klunk)) into an elegant physics that brings the strength of the Baconian (klunk) insight in contact with a worldview that doesn't have all the problems of materialist reductionism -- the fact/value dichotomy for instance.
Would make a helluva dissertation, actually.
100 - Susan
Brian, religion may tell you and other Christians how life got started, but it does not tell non-Christians the scientific truth. That's why it is wrong to teach it as fact or scientific theory. It's your opinion, as you say, but taxpayer money shouldn't go to fund the propagation of your opinion under the auspices of "science."
I don't think there's a science teacher in these United States that would dare teach that God does not exist. If there is one, I would agree that teacher needs to be fired just as fast as a teacher who teaches that God does exist. It's simply not our place to teach religion in a public setting. It is not about being narrow-minded.
Science teachers teach evolution because that's what is the current thinking in the scientific field. God belief is faith, not science. Do you want your preachers preaching about string theory? Why not? Would you say they are "narrow-minded" because they refuse to preach it?
Susan,"Non-religious people care where they come from because it is scientifically interesting."
Brian: "Does that mean that anything that has to do with our species that cannot be explained by science wouldn't be as interesting?
No, the questions are cool. What is uninteresting is looking for the answer to those kinds of questions through faith. Good thing scientists don't do too much of that. It's unproductive.
Brian: "If it is ever proven beyond faith that we were created by God, would you be able to admit that your goodness and evil were created by design(not ID)?"
I hope goodness is our own, otherwise what kind of a god designed serial killers? But proof beyond faith of anything? Why would I get upset about that? That's all I require!
Brian: "To say that everything is linked and then to say that we as individuals are responsible for the way we think and act kind of contradicts itself."
I'm not saying "everything is linked." Physically we are linked, but I do believe in individuals. I am not a fan of the collective unconscious.
Brian: "[Evolution] doesn't explain(to me) how or why."
No, it doesn't, but it doesn't pretend to. To get that I think you are looking to other men for your answers. Why not look within yourself?
Brian: "Some answers I will never understand because as much as we can rationalize and feel, we are not omnicient or omnipitent."
If you can't understand it and it can't be tested, it's not an answer. I suggest it is another human manipulating you. Don't give them money.
Brian: "It's not a guilty conscious that made me use the term but having bad experiences with that mindset."
That's the most honestly candid thing you have said. Scientists and preachers are all people. Both can help and both can be manipulators. How can you distinguish good people from bad? There are many ways, but one thing's for certain, just because someone says they believe in God does not give them a free pass to abuse you.
101 - Brian Garrepy
Susan,
Don't mince my words and enough with the pyschobabble. You always take things out of context and spin them like a rabid DJ. I will sum it up for you... You're a confused Elitist. You can't say that you don't think that everything is linked if you constantly support Evolution and to share truth wether it be God in the Science room or Darwin in the church, I don't feel it would be doing any injustice. You guys don't search for the truth!! You just want to throw around your psuedo-intellectual garble and try to make average people seem like they have been abused because you couldn't believe in anything other than your own arrogance even if it came with a seal of approval from Darwin himself.
I've had enough with close minded fools like yourself...Goodnight!
102 - ochairball
i'm not a christian radical. i'm not even a christian. and i don't believe in genesis. i think the bible is largely metaphorical.
but i do believe that there may be alternate theories on life. heck, scientists have many different theories for beginnings of the universe. there may be more to the picture than evolution. of course, there's more.
let them teach intelligent design. there are dumber things that schools have done. like cut out art and music... science.
frankly, i don't know too many schools that actually spend more than one day a week on science anyway. Now, that's something everyone should be up in arms about.
103 - Susan
Brian,
I have not drifted to a different blog. There is nothing in your post to which I can respond.
104 - Susan
Well, there is one thing to say: Your accusation that I am elitist is puzzling to me. I have dropped one name, Freud. You have dropped...well, why count. Brian, would it make you feel smart and important if other posters caled you elitist? That's all I can come up with....
105 - D.C.
LETS ALL TALK ABOUT THE MAYA.
106 - Bunny
My Goodness! I tried to read this whole train, but it is too long! So I'll tag on my caboose.
There are two types of discussion going on here. One is about the facts and the methodology of science, how it is or should be conducted, and how it should or should not be taught. The second is about whether there is a God, and if there is should we all kill ourselves now and get it over with?
I truly don't understand the whole fear of God thing. If you really respect Science as the resource for answers about our world, then let the scientific process happen. Let the ID side present their case, and seek the facts. If the facts point to intelligent design, then they do. If not, then they don't.
And IF, when it is all said and done, intelligence is shown to be a primary component of our universe, that does not mean that Science corroborated the Pope, the Crusades, the anti-abortion agenda, or any other "Christian" brand of historical or current "evil" that people perpetrate on each other. All it would show is that there was intelligence involved in the process of life.
The debate over the implications of intelligence, or lack thereof, is a separate one. If you want to argue religion, that is fine. But science gets nowhere (ask Galileo) when it is consumed from within by religous fervor. And yes, atheism is by definition a religion, and has its fanatical members.
On another thread, I saw a few passing references to everyone's favorite American (not Bush), Pat Robertson. News flash: One supposedly Christian man suggests murder, and it is reason to hate all Christians? The Soviet Union was expressly atheistic and murdered millions of people. Should all non-atheists use that as a motive for hating atheists? No. That is ridiculous. So is trying to pin Robertson on the average American church-goer.
107 - Baronius
Bunny - interesting post, but do you really think that the debate over the implications of intelligence can be kept separate from this discussion?
There's a guy around here (I think it's Duane) who regularly asks ID'ers if they would accept evolution if the next 20 years brought answers to all of the open debates within the theory. As much as I wish I could agree with Bunny's and Duane's common goal - studying and debating the science without regard to its philosophical implications - I don't believe that many people are up to the challenge.
Biblical literalists need young-earth creation. Atheists need no guiding hand in evolution. Other beliefs may not be so limiting, but their followers may have preferences. One liberal friend sees any compromise with ID as a victory for Bush. One committed Christian friend thinks that creationism alienates people from Christianity; another sees Darwin as the last surviving atheist of the 19th century and wants him dead and buried.
(Me, I'm a crank. ID would neither help nor hinder my beliefs. I'm curious to see if the theory leads to anything conclusive, but mainly I like the sound of people yelling at each other.)
Bunny, do you think that ID can get a fair hearing in the paleontology departments, the school boards, the press?
108 - Susan
Baronius, do you think ID should have a hearing in the school boards or the press when it hasn't pass scientific muster?
We can't just teach anything to students because it might be true or we want it to be true. We have to have scientific evidence for it. Quick name a piece of evidence for ID that accounts for me having an appendix.
Bunny; 'Let the ID side present their case, and seek the facts.'
What would those facts be? and why haven't they been presented?
109 - Susan
Here's a fact from evolution to show that if there is a Designer, it is not so intelligent:
Daniel C. Dennett: "Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. The nerve fibers that carry the signals from the eye's rods and cones (which sense light and color) lie on top of them, and have to plunge through a large hole in the retina to get to the brain, creating the blind spot. No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process."
110 - WTF
This is gettin tiresome....
I'm gonna go do some calculus for a while -- to perk myself up.
seeya
111 - dave
Daniel C. Dennett: "No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process."
This is just one of the unwarranted leaps that Dennett makes throughout the book. Dennett's enthusiasm for Darwin is almost religious -- the book reads like a hagiography for an idea. Dennett's a smart guy, but he's an old school reductionist given to inflating the efficacy of evolutionary algorithms with lofty rhetoric. For Dennett, no less than our entire understanding of the cosmos, ourselves, our history and our purpose hangs on the strength of Darwin's idea. It's a fascinating read, as one of the best overviews of the history and effects of the idea on culture, but it also gives amazing insight into how desperately the materialistic worldview needs Darwin, clings to Darwin, praises Darwin to the high heavens. The inverse of Dennett's Darwinian rapture is the utter despair he would be in if Darwinian algorithms were ever shown to be inadequate to the herculean accomplishments he ascribes to them. Its the inverse of fundamentalist zeal/fear.
As to the eye: First of all, our knowledge of the eye and its relationship to our neurological processes is anything but exhuastive. For you, Dennett or anyone else to claim the "blind spot" (which, amazingly, is accounted for and adjusted to by the brain) as proof of lack of design is a huge leap. We simply don't know enough to say this -- you're betraying prior commitments by pushing the evidence to give you more than it does.
Second, there has never been an adequate evolutionary pathway *demonstrated* that could produce the eye itself. To claim a supposed inadequacy like the blind spot is somehow "proof" of a process that has never been observed, is, again, a massive overreach.
Third, who says design, even of a deity, always has to be optimal? That's a value judgement. What if the designer wasn't out to create super-beings, but simply human beings? All good engineers understand how to design within tolerances, to trade off effiency in one system to account for another -- to design towards the stated goal, and no more. And the human biological entity is a wonder in that regard. We have an amazing, rich and mysterious existence. If the "blind spot" were an ongoing source of aggravation or even suffering, you might have a point.
But let's turn the table. Instead of projecting what we'd expect to see from a designer -- what would we expect to see from evolutionary algorithms? Thousands of transitional species, not only in the fossil record, but living and walking among us. Vestigal organs in the dozens or hundreds; genetic starts and stops, aborted attempts, biological graduation of infinite variety. What have you actually got? A tailbone, an appendix, a panda's thumb and a few other similar examples shouldered with the burden of supporting and Idea that must replace religion, metaphysics and teleology, and become the bedrock of the majority of the hard sciences. A paltry showing for a mechanism that supposedly has accomplished all that Dennett attributes to it.
112 - Susan
Dave,
You have an interesting habit of doing the very thing you claim other do: Dennett is religious and he'd cry inconsolably without his god Darwin, and he uses lofty rhetoric. These things describe you!
You also use exaggeration to denounce believable ideas by claiming they are exaggerations. There is no controversy about the blind spot’s design flaw. So why would you say that a person who thinks the eye is a poor design is making a huge "leap"? You even defend the idea of a design flaw when you claim that the brain must “correct” for it and when you say the designer deliberately made if faulty because it was unconcerned about making the design optimal.
Dave: "If the "blind spot" were an ongoing source of aggravation or even suffering, you might have a point."
Okay, let's talk about the appendix.
113 - dave
"There is no controversy about the blind spot�s design flaw. So why would you say that a person who thinks the eye is a poor design is making a huge "leap"?"
1. Poor design is still design.
2. "Poor" design is a value judgement that you have no standard to judge against, lacking as you do exhaustive knowlege of the neurology of image processing.
(And another thing, when's the last time this horrible "design flaw" bugged you? "Why do you have bruises all over your face, Dave? Oh, I keep running into doors -- it's my damn blind spot.")
"Okay, let's talk about the appendix."
You keep coming back to the appendix. If it really is the source of such a greivous personal loss then you have my sincere condolences.
But in that case I think the real issue is the problem of evil and/or anger with God. The appendix itself and its apparent uselessness is a flimsy basis for a worldview.
114 - dave
"You have an interesting habit of doing the very thing you claim other do: Dennett is religious and he'd cry inconsolably without his god Darwin, and he uses lofty rhetoric. These things describe you!"
Tu quoque? In philosophy this move is a formal fallacy.
And, so what? Let's say I grant you this. All you've done is agree that Dennett has the same kind of pre-philosophical emotive commitment to his metaphysic as I do to mine. I believe that is essentially the point I was making.
115 - Susan
DAVE: "1. Poor design is still design."
Poor design is not Intelligent Design.
Poor design is not necessarily Design. We don't look at the remnants of a house whipped apart by a tornado and think Design, but we may see a "design" in the direction of the wind. Chaos has its own design. If chaos is Design, you are worshipping a very mean god.
How come if you and Dennett are equally religious, you see it as a flaw when applied to Dennett but not when applied to you? You were the one to start in on the formal fallacizing.
Dave: "The appendix itself and its apparent uselessness is a flimsy basis for a worldview."
That's not a worldview, silly. It's only proof that ID isn't true. The design of the appendix is not intelligent. It's left over from our ancestors, some of which went on to become rabbits who actually use their appendices.
116 - Susan
Say, Dave, does religion to you just mean the worshipping of something unworthy?
117 - dave
"Poor design is not Intelligent Design."
Design, by definition, is intelligent.
"Poor design is not necessarily Design."
That's like being a little bit pregnant.
"We don't look at the remnants of a house whipped apart by a tornado and think Design..."
???
"...but we may see a "design" in the direction of the wind. Chaos has its own design. If chaos is Design, you are worshipping a very mean god."
You have a basic misunderstanding of the concept of design. Chaos, by definition, is not design. I'm really not sure what your point is here. You seem to be blurring the boundaries between the problem of evil and the question of intelligent design, with the result that your articulation of both is incoherent.
"How come if you and Dennett are equally religious, you see it as a flaw when applied to Dennett but not when applied to you? You were the one to start in on the formal fallacizing."
I don't see it as a flaw. I just doubt seriously that Dennett would ever own up to his presuppostions.
"That's not a worldview, silly. It's only proof that ID isn't true."
It is no such thing. The existence of the appendix is neither here nor there with regard to the argument from design. If it can be shown that Darwinian pathways cannot account for a biological entity, what relevance is it to point out that another organ is vestigal? It's a non sequitur.
Intelligent Design and evolution are compatible. I happen to personally think that the appendix is an extraordinarally thin basis upon which to place your faith in Darwin (I mean, really -- is that ALL you got??) but if it makes you happy, go crazy. It has absolutely nothing to do with the question of design. Most, if not all, design theorists will argue that at least some speciation has been accomplished by descent with modification; the existence of the appendix is an indifferent matter to the question of, say, the irreducible comlexity of the bacterial flagellum.
118 - dave
"Say, Dave, does religion to you just mean the worshipping of something unworthy?"
Religion to me is concern with the highest things, expressed as faith.
119 - dave
Here's an article from the Washington Post that gets closer to some of the ideas that I think could take ID into the next 10, 20 years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/28/AR2005082800964.html
120 - dave
"Most, if not all, design theorists will argue that at least some speciation has been accomplished by descent with modification;"
I take that back. No *speciation* has ever been demonstrated to have occured because of the mechanism of evolutionary algorithms (pace Dennett). And not all design theorists are agreed as to whether inter-species leaps have or even could possibly occur. All agree in principle, however, that descent with modification is compatible with ID.
121 - dave
Here's some excerpts from Michael Denton on the implications of the "blind spot," in response to Dennett:
"It would seem that rather than being one of the classic “evidences” for undirected evolution and for maladaptation, the inversion of the retina is in fact highly problematic in terms of undirected models of evolution. Why on any undirected model should such an unlikely, improbable arrangement--unique in the animal kingdom--have appeared in the first place some 600 million years ago in the earliest of vertebrates who had presumably no need for high acuity vision and in all probability possessed photoreceptors with metabolic rates perhaps one or two orders of magnitude less than those of higher warm-blooded vertebrates today? If the non-inverted retina works so well for the cold-blooded cephalopods why did evolution go to such trouble to invert the retina in cold-blooded vertebrates? And is it really just fortuity that this curious event resulted in an adaptation which turned out to be essential for high acuity vision in the most advanced terrestrial vertebrates that appeared on earth long after this remarkable choice was made.
Rather than being a case of maladaptation, the inverted design of the vertebrate retina would seem to be a classic case of pre-adaptation--where an ancient adaptation was “chosen” long before its utility was of necessity. It is evidence for design and foresight in nature rather than evidence of chance. Evidently not all “tidy-minded engineers” get things right."
122 - dave
Again, Susan, is that all you got?? The usual suspects: blind spots and appendices? Where are the gradations? The aborted pathways, vestigal organs, intermediate fauna? Where's the slam dunk?
A theory that's supposed to be as well-tested and proven as Newton's conservation of energy should be simple and unrefutable to demonstrate.
123 - Susan
Again, Susan, is that all you got?? The usual suspects: blind spots and appendices? Where are the gradations? The aborted pathways, vestigal organs,
Dave, what do you think is the definition of a vestigal organ?
124 - dave
Is there some confusion on the matter? It's an organ or its remains whose usefullness is diminished, wholly or in part, because its function has been taken over by other system(s) or is otherwise no longer needed.
125 - Susan
No, at least you are not confused about that. The appendix's usefulness in humans is poor design.
Goodbye, and good luck, Dave.