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
Have you been following this one to this point?
I haven't insulted you, please do not do so with me. FD or FD2003 will do if you don't want to type my full name.
You have only to look at the thread to see what started this whole thing.
If you bristle at the suggestion you should educate yourself, then one has to wonder what other things cause you to get so defensive.
And I won't be discussing boolean logic with you at all until I see some bona fides.
IOW you don't know what I am talking about. You don't know what I mean by 2VL and 3VL, do you? You don't know what an XOR is, do you?
So you really DON'T know boolean logic, do you? So how much else of your CV is fudged?
I'll even give you a head-start 2VL and 3VL stand for 2 Value Logic and 3 Value Logic.
Your move. Or do you want everyone to public see you take back your contention (see how kind I am? I didn't say "assertion") you "know boolean logic?"
Say what? Perhaps you should write more clearly because what this sentence tells me is that you take offense at strong opinions on anything that differs from yours.
This is a website dedicated to opinions. If you want pure science there are plenty of sites dedicated to that aim. You choose to post here and then take umbrage at "strong opinions"?
Very funny Coyoteman.
When will you find time to eat?
;-)
LOL!! I just snorted beer all over my keyboard!!! That is the Post Of The Thread (IMHO)
Wonder if some ancient Canaanite or Hebrew or Sumerian, whoever first came up with the "just so" story of "how the snake lost its legs", had actually studied a snake skeleton and seen the vestiges?
Still no bona fides? Did you graduate from high school at least?
This is a website dedicated to opinions. If you want pure science there are plenty of sites dedicated to that aim. You choose to post here and then take umbrage at "strong opinions"?
This is what I posted:
Not that this will make any difference on these threads, because the anti-evolution folks generally do not respect hard-earned knowledge. On these threads I have found that the anti-evolution folks frequently know little science, and what little they do know is often wrong. They disagree with some of the findings of science, and are out to discredit the entire scientific method as a result. In short, they generally don't trust science as a legitimate field of knowledge.But that doesn't stop them from having strong opinions on everything from the big bang to biology, paleontology, geology, genetics, and the rest of the sciences.
I think it is clear that I do not respect unsupported, and uneducated, opinions.
I do not "take offense at strong opinions on anything that differs from yours" but if the opinions are not backed up with some facts or well-supported theories, I do not respect them either.
I have spent a lot of time studying, and I see no reason to accept everything posted to these threads as being of equal value. I reserve the right to use my understanding of science, and of a few of the fields within science, to tell the difference between accurate and inaccurate posts.
And, I am willing to be corrected by superior knowledge.
Was it Miller Genuine Draft? We have a thread here on FR that a court just held MGD to be beer.
I worry about these things.
BS Pepperdine University, Malibu. 2 years post-Grad work in Applied Technology. 30 years IT experience. Previously Director of Operations for a major State University. Certified in multiple databases, applications, ERPs, etc.
Now -- what do you think of 2VL vs 3VL?
I am in Milwaukee. There is a law here about beer being Miller (or else!).
Fortunately, Miller is light enough that it doesn't cause any motherboard disruptions.
Perhaps you'll get that and perhaps you won't, it depends on your level of knowledge.
Did you wean yourself off the public teat yet?
No, but politics does, and politicians control the purse strings.
Cheers!
[Loud burst of applause.]
Cheers!
BS in what?
So which do scientists think came first, the snake or the serpent/reptile/whatever you want to call it?
If the legged creature, what would have caused it to lose its legs, then? It certainly would not have provided any evolutionary advantage and it couldn't be classified as *not needing it* (like the old appendix argument). Legs are a bit more critical than that.
The final paragraph stands all on its own. You take umbrage at non scientists having strong opinions on science, on a website rife with strong opinions, and yet return here on a daily basis for more umbrage.
Coyoteman, the wall never feels pain.
They don't use computers in the colleges and universities where you live? Or are those computers self-managing?
Is this the way you deal with those of us who sacrifice ourselves -- to the tune of 60-80 hours a week to make sure some snot-nosed little brat can get his grades and transcripts paid? That 911 calls can be made and get through? That people can enroll for classes?
But if they don't use computers where you are, then I can see how you would have disdain for people who manage them.
And how about that 2VL vs 3VL thing? By now you should have been able to google up a good cut-and-paste.
So, what are your thoughts on the 2VL vs 3VL controversy?
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.