Darwin under fire (again): Intelligent design vs. evolution

First Amendment Center ^ | 12/5/04 | Charles C. Haynes

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Is Darwin winning the battle, but losing the war?

As soon as one challenge to the teaching of evolution is beaten in the courts, another emerges to take its place.

The current contender is “intelligent design,” a theory that according to advocates at the Discovery Institute “makes no religious claims, but says that the best natural evidence for life’s origins points to design rather than a process of random mutation and natural selection.”

[stremba]

Well said, and I agree totally. People like Weinberg and Gould are entitled to state their opinions, but they should make it clear that these opinions are distinct from their scientific work, however.

[Aquinasfan]

It won't be enough because you WANT to believe in ID and God.

8-) You're a mind reader too? I took evolution to be as much as a fact as the earth revolving around the sun, because that's what I was taught in school, and through the media.

I read "Darwin on Trial" in the mid-'90s and realized that the emperor has no clothes. I've found Darwinism to consist of a lot of hand-waving, and not much else. Your mileage may vary.

[narby]

Dataman regularly goes beyond the pale in these threads. Just ignore him.

His style of "debate" makes me think that "Dataman" is James Carville's troll name.

[atlaw]

Oh, I don't know. Ever take a close look at a tasmanian devil, or an aardwolf, or a platypus, or a slender seamoth or ghostpipefish or frogfish? Looks like committee work to me.

[MeanWestTexan]

I believe God (ID) designed Creation.

Part of His design was change through evolution.

Does a baker not still bake bread because the yeast causes it to rise? Same thing.

[Right Wing Professor]

The natural sciences rest on metaphysical presuppositions such as the idea that natural laws are uniform and predictable; that the universe is ordered and predictable; that scientists can trust the evidence of their senses; that something cannot both be, and not be, in the same sense and at the same time; that the whole is greater than its parts; that mathematics has objective value and existence; that objective truth exists, etc.

You raise some serious issues that I will try to discuss seriously

• - that natural laws are uniform and predictable, and that universe is ordered and predictable, are metaphysical presuppositions. I dispute both contentions. That natural systems are uniform and predictable is an empirical observation, and one that is not universal. Quantum mechanical systems in some cases exhibit randomness which we believe to be unavoidable; some dynamical systems exhibit chaos - behavior that is determinisitic but diverges rapidly towards unpredictability. We do seem to have discovered some universal laws, but I submit they are universal only because we haven't yet found counterexamples; not because we make the assumption they are universal.
• that scientists can trust the evidence of their senses. There is some justification for calling realism a metaphysical presupposition, but it's not unique to science. The assumption of realism is universal to all human endeavors (except, perhaps, some religions). And I'd make the argument that it's a byproduct of experience as much as a presupposition. When we're infants, we notice that we cry, and mommy comes. Thence we discover that we can affect the world around us, and can do so in ways that have pleasant results.
• that something cannot both be, and not be, in the same sense and at the same time. This is an empirical observation, and not a universal one. Before a measurement, a quantum mechanical system is generally in a superposition of states. If you ask if a hydrogen atom is in the 1s state; the answer is yes; if you ask is it not in the 1s state, the answer is also yes. Once you do the measurement, you force the system to 'make up its mind', if you like.
• that the whole is greater than its parts Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. Empirical observation.
• that mathematics has objective value and existenceMathematics has done a pretty thorough job of analyzing its own structure as a mathematical problem. I'm not really competent to discuss that; but I agree that it does appear that mathematics is not a closed, complete system; some small number of presuppositions are necessary. As to whether math exists and has value: again, I'd say that's far more an empirical observation than a presupposition. Some fields of science are highly mathematical; some are still mostly qualitative; the extent to which math. is valuable depends to a great extent on the maturity and the complexity of the field.
• that objective truth exists Apparently, yes, there are some universal constants, but their 'objectivity' is a matter of scientific observation. Einstein emphasized that GR, which is all about what are universal, objective measurements and what are based on reference frame, stood or fell by experimental test, not by the beauty or mathematical consistency of its structure. Observationally, there are some entities, like the speed of light, that have an objective value irrespective of reference frame. But the key word is 'observationally'.

To conclude; I agree that science requires a small number of metaphysical presuppositions. Those presuppositions are, however, so limited and so universal beyond science that they don't really support the contention that philosophy (or less yet, theology, which presumes an entity whose existence many scientists don't accept) have some sort of essential underlying structural role in science, or that they determine its scope. What philosophers think of science has seldom had any impact on us at all.

[Right Wing Professor]

Question for edification: how does one determine the first cell is not resistant without killing it?

Pick it randomly from a culture; show that at least some very high percentage of the other cells in the culture are not resistant (say >99.9%). If the 99.9% or whatever isn't a satifactory degree of certainty, repeat the experiment a few times.

[Dimensio]

"This is definitely how the world works" --- how typically Evolutionist.

Not only have I never said that, but I have said in the past that I am willing to accept that I am wrong should contrary evidence surface.

Lying: how typically Elsie.

[Dimensio]

If my township census indicates that ALL persons living in it in are WASP's in 1980 and in 2000 .1% are Samoan, you could say the population has changed.

If you THEN claim that that individuals making up the population are the SAME, who is being 'irrational'?

The individuals are the same. Or are you saying that .1% of the individuals within the population were transmogrified from WASPs into Samoans?

[Dimensio]

I read "Darwin on Trial" in the mid-'90s and realized that the emperor has no clothes.

Because, as I've said before, who is better qualified to criticially examine the flaws of a biological theory than a lawyer?

[Aquinasfan]

That natural systems are uniform and predictable is an empirical observation, and one that is not universal. Quantum mechanical systems in some cases exhibit randomness which we believe to be unavoidable; some dynamical systems exhibit chaos - behavior that is deterministic but diverges rapidly towards unpredictability. We do seem to have discovered some universal laws, but I submit they are universal only because we haven't yet found counterexamples; not because we make the assumption they are universal.

Is this universally true? Is this assessment based on observation of every known aspect of the universe at all times? Or is this a judgment?

that scientists can trust the evidence of their senses. There is some justification for calling realism a metaphysical presupposition, but it's not unique to science.

Nevertheless, metaphysics lies outside both the nature and definition of the natural sciences. Moreover, the materialist nature of scientism makes a realist metaphysics impossible. Nominalism, and its inherent contradictions, follows necessarily from scientism.

The assumption of realism is universal to all human endeavors (except, perhaps, some religions). And I'd make the argument that it's a byproduct of experience as much as a presupposition. When we're infants, we notice that we cry, and mommy comes. Thence we discover that we can affect the world around us, and can do so in ways that have pleasant results.

Realism is true. The problem is that the presuppositions of scientism make a logical explanation of moderate Realism impossible. See the link above.

that something cannot both be, and not be, in the same sense and at the same time. This is an empirical observation, and not a universal one.

No, it is a first principle. It is an eternal truth, since its truth is independent of time and place. It is the presupposition inherent in all thought. And thought precedes all empirical analysis.

that the whole is greater than its parts Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. Empirical observation.

This reductionism is one of the central errors of scientism.

A Ford Mustang is greater than its components scattered across the garage floor. There is a difference between a car and its components. The difference is real, and the whole car is superior to its parts, since the whole car possesses real, additional qualities that the group of components do not. Similarly with all things.

that mathematics has objective value and existence. Mathematics has done a pretty thorough job of analyzing its own structure as a mathematical problem. I'm not really competent to discuss that; but I agree that it does appear that mathematics is not a closed, complete system; some small number of presuppositions are necessary.

I'm getting at something less complex. Has anyone ever observed a number? Number is essentially a non-material or spiritual reality.

Quantity (except for unity) is an accidental quality of any particular substance. Any particular thing may be grouped, for example, as number 8 of ten things or number 6,589 of a million things. Both numberings can be true, and we can know both numberings to be true. Therefore, this real characteristic of things is a real, non-essential (or accidental), non-material (or spiritual) aspect of things.

truth exists

Apparently, yes, there are some universal constants,

I thought there were no universals? And how would you know empirically if there were without observing every part of the universe at all times?

...but their 'objectivity' is a matter of scientific observation. Einstein emphasized that GR, which is all about what are universal, objective measurements and what are based on reference frame, stood or fell by experimental test, not by the beauty or mathematical consistency of its structure. Observationally, there are some entities, like the speed of light, that have an objective value irrespective of reference frame. But the key word is 'observationally'.

The law of non-contradiction is an eternal truth, since its truth is independent of time and place. The first principle of ethics, that the good is to be done and evil avoided, is also true and eternal since it too is independent of time and place. Eternal truths, which are essentially spiritual (non-material) truths are beyond the realm of the natural sciences, which are limited to the material.

[Aquinasfan]

Because, as I've said before, who is better qualified to criticially examine the flaws of a biological theory than a lawyer?

That argument would have more weight if Darwinism was a theory based strictly on empirical evidence, and not a theory based primarily on materialist presuppositions and speculation.

Some lawyers are adept at understanding arguments and at identifying underlying assumptions. Many biologists are not.

[Dimensio]

That argument would have more weight if Darwinism was a theory based strictly on empirical evidence, and not a theory based primarily on materialist presuppositions and speculation.

Is this tied in with the common (and false) creationist belief that the theory of evolution was written not because of observations made by Darwin but because Darwin wanted to find some 'exuse' to explain life without a Creator?

[Aquinasfan]

Is this tied in with the common (and false) creationist belief that the theory of evolution was written not because of observations made by Darwin but because Darwin wanted to find some 'exuse' to explain life without a Creator?

The idea that blind material forces built up all life is speculation, and speculation based on the false philosophy of materialism. This may or may not have been Darwin's theory, or his intention, but it represents "evolution" as the term is commonly understood today.

Additionally, support for the theory seems to me to be generally based on an a priori conviction that the theory is true, rather than on a careful and open-minded evaluation of the evidence.

[Dimensio]

The idea that blind material forces built up all life is speculation, and speculation based on the false philosophy of materialism.

What other force would have done it, and what evidence is there for this force?

[Aquinasfan]

What other force would have done it, and what evidence is there for this force?

Besides everything?

First Cause Argument

[Dataman]

The key word is "always."

[Dataman]

No, I know enough about fallacies to be aware that it's your obligation to prove him right.

Thanks for that excellent example of your inability to distinguish a fallacy from the burden of proof. It's easy to see why evolution is collapsing.

[Dimensio]

I'm aware of the First Cause Argument, and its failings, such as (just for example) its assumption of completely linear time -- and I'm not even going to get into the illogic that is his third argument wherein he asserts -- using faulty reasoning -- that the 'first cause' must be 'eternal' or the utterly unfounded assumption of the fourth argument. However, even if such a 'first cause' existed, that would be at the beginning of the chain of events that led to the existence of life, which means that you could still have 'blind materialistic forces' being responsible for life, so long as those 'blind materialistic forces' were, themselves, part of the chain that began at the 'first cause'.

[Dataman]

In almost every thread you try to play the "evolution is just a theory".

Here are a few questions you might like to answer:

When did evolution become a fact?

If it isn't a theory, where's the proof?

If it isn't a theory, why do only a small fraction believe it?

Even when theistic evolutionists are added less than half of Americans believe in evolution. If it's a fact, why?

If evolution is a fact, why are the peppered moths still in the texts? Why are Haekel's embryos still in the texts? Why does the evolution of the horse hoax still appear in the texts? Why the finch beaks? If evolution is a fact, you don't need the fake stuff, do you?

If you want to get technical about it, evolution isn't even a theory, it's a model. It's a model because it hasn't been observed, can't be tested, and can't be falsified. So no, evolution doesn't qualify as a theory.