Posted on 08/03/2006 12:22:06 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design (Part I)
----------------------------------------------
Eighty years after the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, the public still refuses to accept the idea that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for complex biological phenomena. In fact, opinion polls show that fewer people are willing to accept the idea that human beings developed from earlier species than they were just ten years ago.
In Britain—a country that is not exactly known for fundamentalist Christianity—fewer than half accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life. (And more than 40% of those polled believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.) Even doctors, who are more informed about biology than the general public, overwhelmingly (60%) reject the claim that humans evolved through natural processes alone.
Why do so many people have such difficulty accepting the theory? Is it due to a resurgence of religious-based creationism? Or is it that the Discovery Institute and other advocates of Intelligent Design are more persuasive? I believe the credit belongs not to the advocates of ID but to the theory’s critics.
Had the critics remained silent, ID might possibly have moldered in obscurity. But instead they launched a counter-offensive, forcing people into choosing sides. The problem is that the more the public learns about modern evolutionary theory, the more skeptical they become.
I won’t argue that critics of ID are always wrong or that ID is always—or even mostly—right in its claims. But I do think a compelling case can be made that the anti-IDers are losing the rhetorical battle. Here is the first five in a list of ten reasons ways in which they are helping to promote the theory of intelligent design:
#1 By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory. – Whether due to intellectual snobbery or intellectual laziness, too many critics of ID never bother to understand what the term means, much less learn the general tenets of the theory. Instead, they knock down a strawman version of ID that they have gleaned from other, equally ill-informed, critics. The belligerent or paranoid advocates of ID will assume that the misrepresentation is due to dishonesty or a conspiracy by “Darwinists.” But even those who are more charitable will agree that when a critic misrepresents the theory, it undermines their own credibility.
#2 By claiming that ID is stealth creationism. -- Resorting to this red herring is one of the most common arguments made against ID. While it’s true that ID could be used to promote a particular religious agenda, this is not a sufficient argument against it being a legitimate scientific research program. There is no a priori reason why a research program could not be completely in adherence to accepted scientific methods and yet be completely compatible with a particular religious viewpoint.
But it also refuses to acknowledge the vast majority of people throughout history have believed in at least a basic form of creationism. Most people believe that some form of intelligent being (i.e., God) created the universe and everything in it. For most of these people, “creationism” is not a derogatory term. The phrase “stealth creationism” might appeal to the pseudo-intellectuals (those who know almost nothing about science but do know that they despise “fundamentalist Christians”) yet for most ordinary people it sounds like bigoted nonsense.
#3 By resorting to “science of the gaps” arguments. – Critics of ID often claim that the theory relies on a “God of the Gaps” “argument. (Don’t understand how something occurred? Well…God did it. Case closed.) As scientific reasoning, this method is obviously flawed. Yet the critics of ID often resort to the same tactic, only instead of saying “God did it” they claim “Science will find it.”
The problem is that this almost never happens. Closing a "science gap" almost always leads to the discovery of other, even more difficult to explain gaps in knowledge. For example, when evolution was first proposed by Darwin, there was no explanation for the mechanism of transmission of traits from one generation to the next. With the discovery of DNA, Watson and Crick closed that particular “gap.”
But as physicist David Snoke notes, no one today has an adequate explanation for how this highly complicated molecule arose out of nowhere. Also, we do not have an adequate explanation within chemical evolutionary theory for the appearance of the mechanism that gives us a readout of the information, or for the appearance of methods that replicate information with out error, or for the appearance of the delicate balance of repair and maintenance of the molecular systems that use the information stored in DNA.
Scientific discoveries tend to find that nature is even more complex than we imagined which makes it even more unlikely that a process like natural selection is a sufficient explanation.
#4 By claiming that ID isn’t science since it's not published peer-reviewed literature...and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals. – The hypocrisy of snubbing ID because it lacks peer-review was exposed by the treatment of Richard Sternberg, a journal editor who made the career-killing mistake of actually publishing an article that was sympathetic to ID.
The resulting controversy exposed just how close-minded some scientists were to criticisms of neo-Darwinism. As Sternberg—who is not an advocate of ID--said after the incident, “It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."
#5 By making claims that natural selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features. -- Instead of saying that “God created X”, Darwinists tend to claim that “Sex selection created X.” Take, for instance, this statement made by zoologist Richard Dawkins:
"Why did humans lose their body hair? Why did they start walking on their hind legs? Why did they develop big brains? I think that the answer to all three questions is sexual selection," Dawkins said. Hairlessness advertises your health to potential mates, he explained. The less hair you have on your body, the less real estate you make available to lice and other ectoparasites. Of course, it was worth keeping the hair on our heads to protect against sunstroke, which can be very dangerous in Africa, where we evolved. As for the hair in our armpits and pubic regions, that was probably retained because it helps disseminate "pheromones," airborne scent signals that still play a bigger role in our sex lives than most of us realize.
Why did we lose our body hair? Sex selection. Why do we retain some body hair? Yep, sex selection. Why do humans walk on two legs? Again, the same answer, sex selection. Why do dogs walk on all four? You guessed it, sex selection.
The same goes for human behavior. Hardly a week goes by that some newspaper or magazine article does not include a story claiming how “evolution” is the reason humans do X, avoid Y, or prefer Z.
Even scientists grow weary of hearing such faith claims presented as if was “science.” As Philip S. Skell, emeritus professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, notes in a recent edition of The Scientist:
…Darwinian explanations for [human behavior] are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self- centered and aggressive - except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed - except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.
Even those who flunked high school biology can see that when a theory can be used to prove any behavior that it ceases to be science and enters the realm of faith. Yet when evolutionists make such claims they are often flummoxed by the public’s skeptical reaction. They can’t understand how we could be so stupid as to not accept their claims. And we wonder how they could be so stupid as to think we are really that gullible.
To be continued in Part II
That goes for science's creation myth. Science just doesn't begin with a deity, it begins simply with matter that *existed*. It doesn't explain how it got there either. *In the beginning there was singularity.....*
So where'd singularity come from? What was holding it together? How long was it like that? If it was being held together, what caused it to expand?
Science can't get past singularity; it has nothing better to offer than religion does with God did it. If anything, at least religion offers a cause, something science can't deal with.
Unless it's a question about global warming.....
Yeah, who created the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
The only clear evidence of change in form in the Bible and God did it.
Your #1, #2 are entirely wrong.
Other religions have their deity using pre-existing matter to concoct the elements around us.
A key distinction of the Judeo-Christian belief is that, as the Penteteuch tells us, God pre-existed the material "stuff" of the universe. It did not create Him, He created it.
In addition to that, I have studied other creation accounts. The Judaic one is remarkable, and distinct from the others. Cf. North American, South American, African, East Asian, Pacific Islander, Norse, Celtic (pre-Christian), and other accounts.
You mentioned turtles. There are also serpents, eggs, etc. Some of them are quite silly. The Judaic one is remarkable in that it just about gets it right, and close to the right order, at that.
Sauron
Wrong. (I can't leave a blanket statements such as that unchallenged.)
My ancestors of A.D. 1000 had the same genetic height potential as I do.
They suffered from nutritional deficiencies. Cf. 1940's Japanese vs. today's generation: A 7" height increase in some cases. Look at today's American kids. Same with French. Romans, too--modern ones are tall due to better nutrition.
Our genetic code doesn't change that quickly.
And as for the blanket statement that height is a positive attribute:
Forest deer are shorter than Elk. Why? They have to navigate undergrowth.
Pygmies are shorter than Watusies. Why? They live in dense jungles, and have to navigate undergrowth.
Height is a selective adaptational advantage only if you life in a savanna world. Else: It's a way to die young, without progeny.
"Where do your questions stop?"
They don't. That's what science is about; no matter how much it learns, it keeps asking questions to try to learn more.
Just because the answer is "I don't know yet" doesn't mean you're not asking questions.
Desperate Placemarker
Read C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity and see how he is able to knock down the concept of creational dualism. He makes an elegant argument, a convincing one, that MONISM is the only way, in the end. He cinches it.
...and once you are left with MONISM, you cut down 90% of the other creation accounts with one quick whack.
If you look at the various creation stories in their basic foundations, they are all pretty much the same. Some are animistic, with players like the Crow and the Coyote. Others are more oriented toward invisible beings. But the order is essentially the same.
Another blanket statement. You can't lump the "various creation stories" because, frankly, some of them are quite completely different and stand distinct from the others.
And you are also wrong about your last statement: The order is not essentially the same.
Study and compare them.
Sauron
What is more unscientific than infinity?
The mathematical concept of infinity is fundamental to science.
Actually, I remember studying Pasteur's experiment (scientific experiment, no less) that proved it doesn't happen.
Yeah, and the Miller-Urey experiment. Couldn't create life. If they could have improved on the faltering results of Miller-Urey, they would have.
We've had decades. Don't you think they would have, if they could have? ;)
(Ever notice how quiet they are about the lack of progress on this front? We can't create long strands--there's a natural limitation to the length of strand we can create.)
Sauron
"What is more unscientific than infinity?"
I am not aware of infinity being considered unscientific.
"Tangentially, if I keep asking questions about God and trying to learn more about my religion, am I practicing science?"
Only if you are applying the scientific method to it.
You are so RIGHT ON about that!
Astronomers bashed the Belgian astronmer Georges LeMaitre, who was the first to posit the Big Bang Theory.
Because he was also a priest, they attacked him, his idea, and loudly proclaimed it was "merely an attempt to put Genesis on scientific footing."
He knew that the properties of infinities prevented an infinitely old universe, and in fact, indicated a beginning to it.
What the readers here must understand is this: For 2,000 years, up until the 20th century even, scientists were wrong in holding that the universe was eternal in existence, and saying it had no beginning point.
Nowadays, LeMaitre is forgotten, and young Gen-Xer scientists ignorantly proclaim the Big Bang Theory, ignorant of the fact that they owe it to a Christian, and their predecessors fought tooth and nail against the very idea of a Big Bang.
My, how things turn around.
Sauron
Fair enough: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1554295/posts
>>A sparrow is not a mammal.<<
So, then, you believe that Sparrows and mammals have completely discrete evolutionary paths, going back to their very beginning root of "life from lifelessness"?
True, but a complete formal education does not guarantee knowledge, nor does the lack of one guarantee the lack of knowledge. As proof of the former, I give you Ted Kennedy, for the latter, Bill Gates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.