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
But it usually still has a beginning -- in the same way that Genesis says that God created the Universe.
Remember, I was answering someone who said the Christian Bible was "unique" in positing a beginning. In Genesis, God stands astride the Universe and thus is an anchor point.
Some (few) creation myths might suggest an infinite backdrop, but I can't think of one, offhand.
Does anyone know where to look and what to look for? Also, newly-emerging proto life would most likely be eaten by bacteria.
Ahh, no, I'm not lettin' ya skate on that. I'm holding your rhetorical feet to the fire :P
We'd surely see EVIDENCE of this going on...and we don't. We have microsopes, dontchaknow. Didn'tchaknow?
Scientists have abiogenesis down so pat, with very detailed explanations about "what must have happened," that you can't change course 180 degrees and claim we don't know what to look for. We have a pretty good idea, and the microscopes with which to do it.
Besides, we'd have "bumped into" the process and discovered bigger things eatin' littler things by now.
Rather telling that we haven't. :P
Sauron
I think you make a critical point. God says that faith is what makes Man different. If we knew God existed, we would be on our best behavior always, since we would know He is watching (Santa writ large).
Instead, we are given a set of Moral laws that we follow, based on our Faith. Essentially, it boils down to us seeing God's love in the rules He laid out for us (C.S. Lewis' Moral Laws). We follow these out of Love and Faith, not fear of punishment.
God rarely took a personal form -- just enough to nudge us and make us aware if Him.
Just a few theological thoughts.
That is EXACTLY what I think! I hate to say it, but "Touched By An Angel" always bothered me, since at the end Roma Downey would reveal herself as an angel. Tangible Proof that God exists!! No need for Faith when God provides a direct link!
"Highway to Heaven" was much more theologically sound. Jonathan rarely revealed himself and only used "the stuff" quietly. Most people never knew they had been in contact with an angel.
This premise is empirically false, hence the remainder of the kalam argument is worthless.
Let me get this straight : You are saying that something can cause itself?
You are saying that "things happen" without being caused to happen?
You are, in effect, telling us that you believe that some things do not have causes, and yet therefore perform actions...all without something acting upon it?
Oh, this is rich.
This is gonna be a good thread....
Sauron
LOL!
Sauron (The cause merely hasn't been discovered, yet. You're a believer in MAGIC, are you?)
Who shut down debate?
Why do you think ID doesn't accept macroevolution?
No need.
I am familiar with quantum theory.
Apparently, according to MHGinTN's posts (especially #337, q.v.) you are insufficiently versed in the study of physics, as he ably corrected you in your faulty understanding of radioactive decay. :P (Backatacha, sonny!)
Sauron
Especially with crevo threads, they reach a point in the first 100 posts where they've devolved into uninteresting reruns. I usually don't even see them before the first 100 posts but this time I did so I jumped in. However, by the time I came back this morning it had already reached critical mass and I saw many people doing a better job than I could of making my points so I didn't bother to re-join.
If there's something specific that you'd like to hear from me, feel free to ask and I'll answer. I'm not being a snob so much as presuming I don't have anything to offer.
Shalom.
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.
Two correct analogies and a correct conclusion. Thank you, Sauron, for your great wisdom in correcting my misconception.
Sauron
God isn't scientifically testable.
Are you now, or have you ever been, a CHRISTIAN?
Mark my words: It will one day come to that, folks.
The Kalam cosmological argument is Islamic in origin. So, according to you, it's authors are condemned.
And BTW, gratuitous condemnation of all those you don't consider Christian noted.
Anyone who has studied logic knows that truth and validity are mutually exclusive, but that a logically valid and truthful argument are the highest form.
Modus Ponens, Modus Tolens, Square of Opposition, Tautology, Venn Diagrams, and all that rot. ;)
Kalam is a good instrument to move the atheist at least into deism. Hopefully, he will continue with inquiry until he reaches some form of theism, and from that, hopefully, into Christianity.
Sauron
False premise. Neutral characteristics also survive.
Indeed - demonstrably so.
The cause merely hasn't been discovered, yet.
No. There is no cause for a particular atom decaying at a particular moment. It just goes "boing!" all by itself.
Apparently, according to MHGinTN's posts (especially #337, q.v.) you are insufficiently versed in the study of physics, as he ably corrected you in your faulty understanding of radioactive decay.
Actually, he simply raised much the same objection as you did, albeit with less extravagance on the font attributes. There is no hidden, unknown cause for the decay of a particular atom at a particular moment. I am sorry if this offends you, but causality was never provable to begin with, so we should hardly be surprised to find exceptions now and then.
Ad hominems are also not needed.
An ad hominem argument would be if I somehow attacked you for your personal qualities or characteristics. Characterizing your statements as wrong or irrelevant, as the case may be, can therefore hardly be an ad hominem, since it is directed st your statements, and not at you personally. Along with QM material, would you also like me to recommend a logic textbook?
Nope.
Re-read post #181.
The KCA merely states that the universe, because it exists, cannot be infinitely old, nor can it cause itself--that something/someone acted to cause it to come into being.
Don't infer anything more. It's a powerful tool to get people to think about what it is out there that is greater than the universe.
Something out there is greater than, and created, the universe.
Sauron
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.