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.

"They disagree with some of the findings of science"

I respect the dedication you put into your education as I have even late in age......it's dedication and when one seeks knowledge they also gain responsibility. Some that don't want to gain knowledge maybe even know better as they don't want responsibility and therefore don't seek knowledge or personal improvement. Others are just full of family responsibility and just can't find the time actually...in any case; It boils down to what one really wants to believe and not filter what information is received. Einstein was so much against the existence of the idea of a God that he actually manipulated his theory to reflect a static universe. This is a documented fact. A Physicist following his theories discovered a flaw involving the K constant and reported this to Einstein who subsequently changed his theory back to an expanding and decelerating universe....long story short. Scientific theory is changing all the time...being discovered and rediscovered by four dimensional beings.....scientist who are influenced by what is known in their time to be true. Just because a scientist says this or that does not make it true in reality......they are only four dimensional beings.......and are prone to discovery, failure, re-experimental research...back to the drawing board...etc...and so the story goes.

So what evidence is there that the universe did indeed create itself? What is the basis for your statement? You know, something scientific, testable, falsifiable, repeatable, observable. There must be some reason that you make that statement.

None, just as there is no evidence that it has a creator. Once you step outside methodlogical naturalism literally anything is possible and therefore there is not an ounce of certainty in any particular explaination.

">>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"?"

What? Sparrows are not mammals. That is what I wrote. They are, however, vertebrates, so you don't have to go back to the primal ooze to find the place where the branch occurred.

Surely you knew that. Do not extend my arguments past the point I make. You'll be incorrect.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence.

This premise is empirically false, hence the remainder of the kalam argument is worthless.

Sorry, but the finest thinkers in all human societies disagree with you, and you are out of step with them.

The Kalam C.A. has withstood many centuries of testing, and though there have been other cosmological arguments, the KCA is considered the best. It holds together, and even the most hardened atheists have traditionally conceded the point.

Google it.

Sauron

What "the finest thinkers" think is wholly irrelevant - you do know what "empirically false" means, right? It means that there have been observed cases where that proposition is not true - i.e., there are cases where something has begun to exist with no cause for its existence. It really doesn't matter whether all the world's finest thinkers tell me that a rock will always fall upward when dropped, because the proposition is empirically false on its face. Causality is not a universal principle - there exist effects without causes, and such causeless events happen all around you, during every minute of every hour of every day.

All I can suggest is that perhaps the "finest thinkers" aren't quite as fine as they're touted to be, in such a case, although I suppose we can allow that the kalam argument is the pinnacle of Islamic theology. Which is really quite sad in its own way, considering how bankrupt the argument is.

The argument presupposes a creator that was not created.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (q.v., explained at the bottom of Post #181) does nothing of the sort.

You are mistaken: It makes no attempt to cover the issue of a creator. It merely is a mechanism to make it patently obvious that our own universe...had to have been created.

The implication, however, is that someone, or something had to have caused this act of creation. In other words, OURS IS A CREATED UNIVERSE.

The KCA offers logical proof of this. It has never been refuted, and it dates back many centuries.

(Q.v., last part of Post #181, read it carefully.)

i.e., there are cases where something has begun to exist with no cause for its existence.

You might be referring to subatomic particles "popping" into existence?

Just because we don't know why, or where from, doesn't mean that your assertion is correct--it's quite INcorrect. There is a cause.

We just haven't been able to determine their cause for existence, but we know that everything has a cause, unless you are subscribing to some form of "magic."

So I disagree with your reasoning. It makes the assumption there is NO cause, and in time, our science will prove you wrong.

You might be referring to subatomic particles "popping" into existence?

No. Radioactive decay is spontaneous and uncaused, and by that I do not mean that the cause is currently unknown - I mean that it is provably the case that decay is uncaused. If there were a proximate cause for the instantaneous decay of an atom, even an unknown cause, the experimental results would be different from what they are.

Causality is simply not a universal rule, necessary always and everywhere. Hence, any argument that relies on causality as a hard and fast rule, as the kalam argument does, is plainly dead on arrival.

Kalam was propounded, under different names in different centuries, by many different Christian theologians. The best, most succinct, and elegant version was offered by Islamic theologians (sad to say), and hence the name. (I'm obviously a Christian, btw.)

The logic, and evident truth of the proposition caused many Christian and Muslim scholars to "discover" it quite independently of each other, which alone might indicate that there's something to it.

You like to rely on scholars, unless it doesn't suit you (as in this case). I've read your posts.

You should be aware that mathematicians have no issue with it, and philosophers have no issue with it (though they personally might not want to believe in a god). Logicians consider it both logically valid and true (in logic, truth and validity are entirely separate issues).

Thus, you seem to have a problem with man's finest thinkers. Take it up with them.

As I have already demonstrated, Q.E.D., all things have a cause for their existence. You are sounding silly arguing against that proposition. ;)

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, as opposed to the Thomistic and Leibnizian, is one of the better-respected arguments for the existence of God. Because its validity is not controversial, because it aligns with the most prominent scientific theories of the universe, and because it agrees with general philosophical insight concerning properties of infinities, it is one of the more interesting pieces of religious philosophy.

(Q.v. post #181 for a full explanation of the KCA, folks.)

Sauron

Radioactive decay is spontaneous and uncaused, and by that I do not mean that the cause is currently unknown - I mean that it is provably the case that decay is uncaused.

1. Prove your assertion.

2. If decay happens at a known and constant rate, if it is a predictable event, then something inherent to itself (it doesn't have to be a "proximate cause" as you said) has acted to cause the decay. We just haven't (yet) determined what the cause may be.

3. Objects stay in motion unless acted upon. Objects stand still unless acted upon. Decay occurs because of a pre-existing cause. If you don't know what that cause is...then it doesn't imply there is no cause. You just don't know what the cause is.

4. Are you now going to switch sides again and assert that the "experts" (remember, the ones you dissed in post #328) are to be believed, and that you now believe their opinions carry weight? ;)

You asserted, "No. Radioactive decay is spontaneous and uncaused ..." Perhaps you are confusing a reductionist perspective regarding symmetry breaking with a concept of emergent phenomena ... the Pauli exclusion principle may be applied to explain decay even though it is not possible to show the causality in action of decay. Tortoise is fond of pointing out (wisely) something to the effect of random is not to be confused with 'uncaused'. That you cannot define the specific cause for decay on the scale of a single atom should not be misinterpreted to signify no causality. With the development of the concept of emergence, we find that indeed all events in our universe of spacetime and all its permutations have a cause, though some causes are unknowable in current research. It is simple enough to prove to yourself: if an event happens in this universe then it is somehow involved with entropy and thus exists under 'causality' not beyond causality.

Prove your assertion.

I am not sure what you would consider proof - would you like me to solicit some recommendations for physics textbooks where you can learn QM?

If decay happens at a known and constant rate, if it is a predictable event, then something inherent to itself (it doesn't have to be a "proximate cause" as you said) has acted to cause the decay.

You are inartfully conflating two separate propositions - the decay of an individual atom is a completely unpredictable event, which is not obviated by the fact that we can draw statistical conclusions about groups of atoms. The decay of an atom is not dependent on any prior state or event - it has no cause. It is an uncaused event, which is why it's impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay. I can tell you, from a statistical standpoint, how many atoms will have decayed out of some group at some point in time, but I cannot tell you which atoms will have decayed by that time. Nobody can.

Objects stay in motion unless acted upon. Objects stand still unless acted upon. Decay occurs because of a pre-existing cause.

Two non-sequiturs and an incorrect assertion.

If you don't know what that cause is...then it doesn't imply there is no cause. You just don't know what the cause is.

No, I'm telling you, there is no cause, not even an unknown one. It's not that nobody knows the cause - the problem is that we know there is no cause.

Are you now going to switch sides again and assert that the "experts" (remember, the ones you dissed in post #328) are to be believed, and that you now believe their opinions carry weight?

I am rather discriminatory when it comes to "thinkers". When thinkers propose things to be true that are known to be false, I tend to consider them less than fine with respect to that particular topic. In this case, the world's "finest thinkers" apparently do not include any physicists, who could readily explain to the "finest thinkers" that the proposition of universal causality is a false proposition.

That you cannot define the specific cause for decay on the scale of a single atom should not be misinterpreted to signify no causality.

No, there is no material cause for the decay - it is not dependent on any prior event or state, and hence there is no definable cause. This is not a misinterpretation.

The universe is how it is, regardless of how inconvenient to our philosophical constructs that may be.

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.