Posted on 06/10/2006 4:33:28 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Gentle FReepers, herewith I present a few conclusions I have reached after uncounted creation/evolution debates:
1. Creationism is a religious doctrine. This is not, as many claim, the arbitrary result of ACLU-inspired Supreme Court decisions like Epperson v. Arkansas, and Edwards v. Aguillard. Rather, those court decisions are inevitable, given the faith-based nature of creationism.
Is creationism really faith-based? Of course it is. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's nothing scientific about it either. Imagine a competent scientist from Japan or India or some other place where no one studied the creation account in Genesis (or its Islamic counterpart). If he were to honestly and systematically consider the objectively verifiable evidence in reaching scientific conclusions, then:
a. it would never occur to him that the world is only 6,000 years old [How Old is the Earth];
b. it would never occur to him that there had been a miles-deep global flood about 3,000 years ago [The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood];
c. it would never occur to him that all species lived at the same time [The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"]; and
d. he would inevitably conclude that all species are related by common descent, and that the relationships are becoming more clear all the time [Tree of Life Web Project ].
2. Regardless of the claims of some, creationism isn't the same thing as Christianity. Why do we say this?
a. First, because not all Christians are creationists, and therefore -- obviously -- creationism isn't essential to their conception of Christianity. We are very much aware that some denominations teach otherwise, and this essay isn't intended to be a debate among denominations. Further, this essay doesn't pretend to be a learned discourse about theology. It is unfortunate that we have a denominational (not scientific) dispute about evolution, but it exists.
In stating that creationism isn't essential, we are relying entirely on the statements of thousands of Christian clergy, e.g., The Clergy Letter Project, a strong, pro-evolution statement signed by over 10,000 Christian clergymen; Statements from Religious Organizations, a list of Christian and Jewish denominations, including Roman Catholics, that accept (or at least don't dispute) evolution; and the recent statement opposing creationism by the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the 70-million-member Anglican Communion.
Clergymen are usually not scientists; therefore their opinions (whether pro or con) have no special significance regarding the scientific validity of evolution. What the above-referenced opinions do indicate is that for all of these clergymen and their denominations, evolution is compatible with their religion.
b. Second, because not all creationists are Christians. To begin with, there are the Raelians, a sect based entirely on ID.
There are also a billion followers Islam. See: Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design, By Mustafa Akyol.
The Hare Krishnas also reject Darwinian evolution. Their website has this article: The Intelligent Designer.
There is also the Unification Church, founded by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. One of Moon's followers, Jonathan Wells, is a leading intellectual in the ID movement. He is the author of Icons of Evolution, and is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Wells has written movingly about how Rev. Moon motivated his career in ID: Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.
2. Intelligent Design (ID) is not science. This is quoted from the Dover decision:
[After a page of references to expert testimony] It is therefore readily apparent to the Court that ID fails to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations. (3:101-03 (Miller); 14:62 (Alters)). Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program, as advocated by Professor Fuller, for a view that has been unable to gain a foothold within the scientific establishment. Although ID's failure to meet the ground rules of science is sufficient for the Court to conclude that it is not science, out of an abundance of caution and in the exercise of completeness, we will analyze additional arguments advanced regarding the concepts of ID and science.
[snip]
The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Both Drs. Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical-electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian); 11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).
After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents', as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID's backers have sought to a void the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.
Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.
3. ID is creationism. Consider the ID text, Of Pandas and People, which is favorably regarded by ID advocates such as the Discovery Institute, as indicated by their link to this article: A Report on the ASA Conference Debate on Pandas and People Textbook. This is the book that the Dover school board recommended and made available to science students, with these results:
As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards [Edwards v. Aguillard], which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID;
(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and
(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.
This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's [FTE = the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the publisher of Pandas] argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact -- fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions.
Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..
4. There is no virtually dispute about evolution in scientific circles. Therefore there is no "controversy" that needs to be taught in science classes.
As Project Steve indicates, over 700 scientists named Steve (or Stephanie, Esteban, or Stefano, etc.), about two-thirds of whom are biologists, have signed on to a statement that says:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
These Steves are only the tip of the scientific iceberg, because the name "Steve" is given to only about 1% of the population. Therefore, the 700 Steves probably represent about 70,000 scientists. See also Project Steve update.
The Steves alone are greater in number than all the scientists (of every name) who have signed statements questioning evolution, and most of the evolution skeptics aren't biologists. For example, the much-publicized list of 500 names (compared to 70,000) collected by the Discovery Institute includes only about 154 biologists, less than one-third of the total. Those 500 signed a rather ambiguous statement, which says:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
[Note what a hollow statement that is, compared to the statement signed by the Steves; and also note what the hollow statement doesn't say: It doesn't say that those who sign it are creationists or advocates of ID (although some probably are). It doesn't even say that they reject evolution (although some probably do). It merely says they're "skeptical," presumably a term chosen to permit as many as possible to sign.]
In contrast, two-thirds of the 700 Steves are biologists, so the biologist-Steves are about 466 in number. The Steves being about 1% of the population represent approximately 46,600 biologists. Compare that number to the 154 biologists' names collected by the Discovery Institute. Those 154 are the totality of biologists who are evolution skeptics. Did you get that? The actual comparison is 46,600 biologists who accept evolution and a mere 154 who are "skeptical."
These competing lists clearly tell us that evolution skeptics are a tiny fringe group -- about one-third of one percent of biologists. Therefore, notwithstanding the unending demands to "teach the controversy," there literally is no scientific controversy about the basic principles of evolution. Scientists, especially those in the biological fields, are all but unanimous in their acceptance of evolution.
For more information, see The List-O-Links.
"The Genesis creation story is/was law? How so?"
Even better, how did man procreate without incest? If you have Adam and Eve, how do you get past their kids without doing something the bible forbids? After all, it was only a short 4000 years or so ago that all this happened, right?
"Very scientific post on your part. Exemplary! You've obviously learned from the most scientific of scientists!"
And your feelings on that? Is science wrong?
"older but certainly much less old than billions of years, mind you."
So how old? How old would you say your typical dinosaur would be? I know that is a huge range, but would you say a couple of thousand years old? A million? A billion?
And what author was responsible for writing Genesis? Mind you, it had to be carved in stone (that is a lot of carving) if it was much older than 0-BC. So that would have made a stack of rocks that would fill a room at least. Then, they had to wait for someone to invent paper and a quill pen so they could rewrite the whole thing. And still my question, Does the bible accept incest as acceptable behavior? If not, how did we get here with White people, Black people, Chinese People, and a bunch of other people in just a few thousand years? And, what need was there in zapping a gazillion stars out there at distances like 200 million light years away? Just decoration? This just brings up more questions than it answers. I now know why you prefer "Poof" theory.
One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
"Think about all things - even religion - scientifically and you will draw closer to the truth."
Amen to that. I think most of the old testament is symbolic. I see more in scientific evidence for God than the literalists ever will. For instance, what is SCIENCE saying about the beginning of man? Common theory of SCIENCE says it all started with one common ancestor in central Africa. Sound familiar? And another thing. I can believe the world is billions of years old AND believe in Jesus as the Savior of mankind. Because in the end, even if I am dead wrong, I'm not any worse for believing he came to make us better men. What I won't do is tell anyone else (except Zarqawi and other terrorists) that they are going to hell if they don't believe what I believe. It is about a relationship, NOT a religion. If I am the man I think I am, I will share heaven with people from all over the world, not just fundamentalist Christians. (They may have a private resort in heaven and think they are the only one's who made it, but I'll get to eat Chinese.) I'll definitely be sharing something with all of them because I refuse to judge them (except Zarqawi and other terrorists).
I think you've misinterpreted my post. You may want to go back and re-read it.
"I think you've misinterpreted my post. You may want to go back and re-read it."
Oh no, I understood exactly what you were saying, I just used the last part to make a different point. Yes, I fully realize there are a group of people out there who think they can tell people that they either have to believe it word for word, all of it has to be false. I just don't believe that.
My remark was aimed at the comment, not the commenter. As I explained in my response to the other poster, whether Wolf e is a creationist or not is irrelevant, the comment he made was an example of comments made by those with a cursory knowledge of evolution. There are times when even the most ardent proponent of evolution makes a seemingly unknowledgable or incorrect statement reminiscent of something a creationist would say. This very well could be one of those times. That this is the case or not does not diminish the error in the statement made, which was the focus of my response.
"Contrary to what Liberal Creationists (TM) tell you, human evolution has never stopped. And yes, Hamiltonianism is the best theory on the evolution of sociability and altruism available.
I find it difficult to believe that some would think that any evolution, even human evolution, has ceased. Large populations make it more difficult for a specific allele to fix but says very little about the availability of variation. I suspect many that suggest human evolution has ceased are limiting their considered selection to environmental processes where human technology has had a limiting impact. They tend to forget technology can have it's own selective influence on the human phenotype. The human population has yet to meet the 7 Hardy-Weinberg conditions.
"As for estimating the precise "genetic impact" on our mental state, that is dependent on the environment,
Simply because as a ratio, any reduction in the environmental proportion increases the genetic proportion.
" as well as on precisely which variable is being studied. General intelligence is frequently estimated to have an hereditability coefficient above 60 percent, for instance. But keep in mind plasticity is also a trait coded for by our genes...
That very plasticity, a result of evolution itself, reduces the need for initial innate mental states to those necessary for the developmental period of ontogeny (including intelligence).
Depends on how you mean it.
I suppose Heinlein's nutty ideas in Stranger in a Strange Land would the best proof of his statement-- maybe as a fan of his you would know how much (if any) of that book was meant seriously rather than as satire.
Incidentally, it seems to me the premise of this thread fails the smell test for intellectual fairness. If someone made the criticism that liberalism (defined as the term is commonly used)equals Communism after listing the evils of Communism, I'd say that he was poisoning the well. A similar line of reasoning is often used by leftists--- list the errors of Shockley regarding race, declare that Murray and Hernstein are equivalent to Shockley; then, after poisoning the well, go on to make criticisms of Hernstein and Murray.
Of course, many Creationists are proponents of some form of Intelligent Design. Many atheists are Darwinians; that doesn't make Darwinism the same thing as atheism anymore than the fact that many Darwinians are Christians means that Christianity is a form of Darwinism or vice versa.
The only assumption that ID posits is that it's possible to make design inferences based on the specified complexity one finds. That's all there is to it. Creationism, as I understand it, is in its broadest sense the notion that God created the universe, more specifically that God in one way or another is responsible for life on Earth, and in Young Earth Creationism, that the sort of literal interpretation of the Bible that became popular among Seventh Day Adventists and spread from there, that the Earth is only six thousand or so years old and was created in seven 24 hour days. The differences are clear. A Creationist need not buy into the notion of design inferences at all--- he can simply say, "I take the Bible to be saying x and therefore x must be is the case and all science must be done within the constraint that x is the case". For his part, an IDer need not have any faith in the Bible to be an IDer-- certainly Aristotle and Voltaire, who each promoted different forms of the design argument, did not. So ID forms no necessary part of Creationism and no aspect of Creationism forms a necessary part of ID.
One may fairly present reasons why either ID or creationism or both are silly and stupid. One may claim that were Voltaire or Aristotle were alive today, they would recognize the error of their ways, or that the Bible does support the interpretation Creationists place upon it. But to conflate them is to either make a category mistake or to be purposefully sloppy-- to take a short cut when reasoned argument is determined to be too much trouble.
Ah, yes, all too frequent.
"and was created in seven 24 hour days."
Pre-Union. I'm thinking overtime must have been available. What is minimum wage x 6 billion years? No way that could have been done on a Union wage and a 40 hour week.
Creationists begin with the Bible and twist science to support it. Evolutionists Scientists begin with assumptions as well; a anthropocentric, naturalistic perspective, and then search for science to support it then follow where the evidence leads.
There, all better now.
You want evidence for twisting science? Your post claiming scientific evidence for a global flood is a prime example.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Notice he's already zotted?
Pre-Union. I'm thinking overtime must have been available. What is minimum wage x 6 billion years? No way that could have been done on a Union wage and a 40 hour week.
I think you're right! Fortunately, in the future, there will be no pesky unions, or as Dr. McCoy put it,
According to myth, God created the earth in six days.
(Did I say seven days? Whoops!)
Now watch out! Here comes Genesis, we'll do it for you in 6 minutes!
aequoanimo zotted? I didn't notice. So sad ...
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.