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
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.
It states this, it doesn't prove it. It assumes it.
There are no proofs of God.
Tongue in cheek poke at something that Dawkins and others often do. They are probably oversimplifying, but the approach lends itself to arguing in favor of a tautology.
In fact, I would think things would tend to survive unless they hindered survival - a sort of biological inertia.
However, when discussing how traits came to be - as in "the selfish gene" - the argument looks very much like the above. Since it survived, it must be a survival charasteristic. Now we need to develop a story to explain why.
I was unimpressed with the story in "the selfish gene" by the way.
Shalom.
I completely agree with this statement.
I think it has to be a being, and not a thing.
Sauron
I'm sorry, what? So if truth and validity are mutually exclusive - which will be news to logicians everywhere, no doubt - how do you actually achieve this "highest form" of a valid and truthful argument? Is it like squaring the circle, or solving the mystery of where missing socks go when they leave the dryer?
Creationism however, states that the world is only some thousands of years old, and that living creatures were created similar to the way they currently are (such as their genus, a canine animal could have been the ancestor for all the canines--dogs, wolves, dingos, hyenas, etc.). Microevolution (natural selection) tends to witlle away genes; macroevolution would require an addition of genes.
Your posts were spot-on, and motivated me to join in.
Sauron
You are correct.
Because God is outside of this universe, He Himself is not scientifically testable, because we are limited in our scope of observation, and this universe has limitations imposed by natural laws. Hence, He is inherently unknowable, outside of the following:
1. Special revelation.
2. General revelation.
Are you related to str.org? (!)
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.
You have mischaracterized or misunderstood. Go back and review the posts. There are a lot of them, we're in the three hundred range now, so you might have missed a few.
I haven't condemned anyone. Yet. (But I'm thinkin' 'bout you.)
You might also take note that you are the only one that has misunderstood.
By the way, I am aware of--and pointed out in a prior post--that the Kalam C.A. is Islamic in origin. I also noted that they were able to more concisely spell it out despite the fact that many more Christian scholars also had bumped into it. Thus, it has historically been credited with the name that it has.
Sauron
Not needed.
I already have one by Irving Copi, and, unlike some, I've actually read it.
It's a good one: I can mail it to you, if you'd like. It might help you with this kind of thinking that you expressed in post #379, where you expressed a belief in "boing theory," which seems indistinguishable from magic.
Sauron
You have mischaracterized or misunderstood.
Really? So what does this mean? "Are you now, or have you ever been, a CHRISTIAN? Mark my words: It will one day come to that, folks." Sounds like at a minimum a thinly veiled warning of some kind to me. Whether intended or not, this is a condemnation.
I haven't condemned anyone. Yet. (But I'm thinkin' 'bout you.)
Logically, you have, unless you'd like to hide behind your rhetoric.
You might also take note that you are the only one that has misunderstood.
Again your logic fails. Just because I am the only one who mentioned it - that is, what you characterized as misunderstood- it doesn't follow that I am the only one who read that meaning in your words.
It states this, it doesn't prove it. It assumes it.
You believe the universe is infinitely old? Uncaused? Both?
There are no proofs of God.
Agree, as explained in #349, supra, since our science lacks the ability to reach outside our own universe and touch Him. We have only the senses/tools/means afforded within the laws of this universe to utilize.
That said, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence--enough to convict God in a court of law--that indicates the presence of an intelligent Creator.
As I've said, if you believe the circumstantial evidence that O.J. Simpson committed murder--and that's all we've got, is circumstantial evidence--people have been convicted based only on circumstantial evidence--then you should also be able to see the myriad forms of circumstantial evidence that we've been living inside an ant farm, and that there's an Ant Farmer out there.
Physics, chemistry, astonomy, biology...all are too "fine-tuned" to be more coincidence.
One astronomer even said (may have been Hoyle) that it appeared that a super-intellect had "monkeyed" with the universe to ensure the creation/survival of life.
Sauron
That seems unlikely, but if you do indeed have a copy, you can start with chapter 5, paying particular attention to the section on fallacies of relevance.
...which seems indistinguishable from magic.
I can hardly be responsible for your perceptions, or how things "seem" to you. It's not magic, it's quantum mechanics. You may end up not believing that, and it's obvious you don't, but then again, I don't really care if you believe it or not. Those who are truly interested in the subject will be off looking it up for themselves, where they will confirm the correctness of what I say. Those who are not particularly interested in facts that may present some danger of contradicting a cherished worldview will continue to quibble. And so it goes.
:) I threw that out there to test you, see if you've taken logic. You haven't.
Yep, boys and girls, the shocking thing you learn in college when you take your symbolic logic course is that truth and validity are mutually exclusive.
It is possible to have a logically valid form that is untrue. They have truth tables in logic, too. It's a lotta fun.
I wasn't joking in #389. I will mail you the book on symbolic logic by Irving Copi.
It looks like you could use it.
Sauron (OK, I apologize, I was rude. Good thread, guys, but I have to leave for home soon.)
You believe the universe is infinitely old? Uncaused? Both?
I don't know (neither do you). I don't dwell on unanswerable questions. It's a waste of time. But don't let me stop you. Oh, and this also applies to the rest of your post.
One day, it may not seem like "magic," and we will see that, yes, what we thought was un-caused is in fact, caused.
Thus, I argue that all things are caused. They merely appear not to be. And our physics knowledge will continue to grow.
It is currently incorrect if it says (QT) that decay is uncaused. Patently wrong. It merely appears to us to be that way...for now.
In a century, that will seem a foolish idea.
Sauron
I thought my meaning was quite clear.
And your comments attacking me for it prove me right.
Sauron
As I thought.
I don't know (neither do you). I don't dwell on unanswerable questions.
UNANSWERABLE?
We know the universe did have an origin. Big Bang Theory. Kalam. Choose one. Choose both--they're congruent and complementary.
Unanswerable...sheesh, like you haven't ready any of the 300+ posts so far? ;)
Sauron
We know the universe did have an origin.
No 'we' don't. But apparently you think you do.
"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? "
You are totally full of it. Organic molecules are so efficiently scavenged by soil and water microflora, that newly happening abiogenesis would never have a chance. Dontchknow. Get with the program.
VA is spot on.
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.