Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)

Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[billorites]

Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.

Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.

It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment” in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.

The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear.

The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.

Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale

[edsheppa]

A snowflake, for instance, is not an example of self-organizing complexity because it is made structurally complex by external forces.

What external forces? And please don't change the meaning of the word force - the accepted definition is perfectly fine.

[edsheppa]

Wow. So much for new and surprising. Did Copernicus just rip Aristarchus off? Or did he dust off an old theory in the light of new information? The explanation of the seasons was Copernicus' though, right?

Yes he considered it incomplete but I think it is fair to say, as I did, that Einstein never reconciled himself to the reality of QM. He didn't want to give up determinism and locality - philosophically he could not completely accept a theory that didn't have them.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for your question!

Snow Crystals, Physics of Snow Crystals

Under what conditions do the different snow crystal types form?

   This is a key point for understanding snow crystals.  By growing snow crystals in the laboratory under controlled conditions, one finds that snow crystals grow in different forms depending on the temperature and humidity in which the crystal grows. This behavior is summarized in a "morphology diagram," which gives the crystal shape under different conditions.

   From this diagram, we see that the crystal shape depends mainly on temperature.  The growth changes from plates around -2 C to columns near -5 C, to plates again near -15 C, and to a combination of plates and columns around -30 C.
   Furthermore, we can see that snow crystals tend to form simpler shapes at lower humidities and more complex shapes at higher humidities.  The most extreme shapes -- long needles around -5C and large thin plates around -15C -- form when the humidity is relatively high. 

Why do snow crystals form such complex shapes in the first place?

   Snow crystal shapes depend on a delicate combination of faceting and branching.  These are explained further in Crystal Faceting and Snowflake Branching.

Why do snow crystals grow differently at different temperatures?

    This is still not known, believe it or not.  The different ice facets grow at different rates in different temperatures, and to date we don't really know why the growth rates depend so strongly on temperature.  The growth depends on exactly how water vapor molecules are incorporated into the growing ice crystal, and the physics behind this is quite complex and not well understood.  It is the subject of current research in my lab and elsewhere.

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOLOL! What a wonderful post, Fester Chugabrew! Thank you so much!

[js1138]

Certainly you can have correlation without causation, but can you cite an example of causation without correlation?

The examples you cite are post selection.

[edsheppa]

I'm sorry, you said external forces. I see no external forces mentioned.

[AntiGuv]

I have no problem with this concept of "fractal intelligence" so long as and to the extent that the components operate in tandem as a discrete entity.

I will propose a merger of our various alternatives:

Intelligence - abstract comprehension, experiential awareness, and reasoned purpose whether fractal, emergent, or otherwise.

That would work great in my view.

[AntiGuv]

PS. And, to modify that very slightly, I would insert "calculation" or "intentionality" where we both have "purpose" above (to distinguish from "purpose" in the sense of exhibiting utility or function).

[Fester Chugabrew]

They fall right of the theory. No ad hoc-ness at all.

Given the assumptions with which you operate and the evidence presented to your senses and reason, it is no surprise to me that you find the theory of evolution to be a simple explanation. I do, too. Copernicus' idea was not "simple" where direct sense and reason is concerned. That is in large part why he and his successors had to fight an uphill battle against the scientific conservatism of the day.

As for ascribing the word "conservative" to science, in certain respects this is obviously the case. In other respects it is not. As further evidence of intelligent design I would like to point out the capacity for human language to make use of the same word yet apply it with different meanings and still communicate an idea.

Incidentally, that is why reports of similar genetic material between man and monkey need not be interpreted as if the former is necessarily derived from the latter in history. Human language, as common and simple as it might appear to science, has yet to be fully explored by science, yet it allows the same word to have entirely different meanings depending on context. It would not surpise me in the least to find out that the biochemical world demonstrates the same attribute of variable expressions emanating from the same molecular substance.

Why do you think I or anyone should find that convincing?

If by "convincing" you mean "conclusive," "provable," "unfalsifiable," and the like, then I would not expect as much. Given the information that has come my way, namely that God created man in His image, it stands to reason that man would bear the imprint of creativity, which he does. Having been told that God spoke the creation into existence, it stands to reason that man, if created in the image of God, would also bear the imprint of speech that is instrumental in causing change.

Analogy is not science.

No, but science often makes use of analogy to express its ideas.

I'm curious, what do you say to people who would claim that God is made in man's image? Analogy works both ways you know.

No one has ever attempted to communicate such a thing to me in so many words, but there are a good many reports of people who make up their own gods, or try to make God say something He has not said.

If someone were to say "God is made in man's image" I would probably ask what makes them believe as much. As far as my personal observations go, the universe often demonstrates a line of progression from source to product. "God," by the language of human convention, is a source, not a product.

[betty boop]

Perhaps you'll find some time this summer to author an essay-article to get just such a discussion started here.

I'll do that, A-G, and ASAP. I am still a little "bogged down" with a project, probably for the next couple of weeks. As soon as I can free up time to write, that will be my topic. I'm already gathering my sources....

Thank you so much for your kind words of encouragement!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Certainly you can have correlation without causation, but can you cite an example of causation without correlation?

It occurs to me that not all causations or correlations would be observable - contemplation and subconsciousness for instance might have to reach a certain threshhold before the person is aware of it.

I'm interested in both your thoughts on the subject...

[Right Wing Professor]

This "volitional business" is not as simple as it looks, IHMO. For one thing, presumably most atheists would readily acknowledge that they have volition. So volition is fact. Thus I gather they just think that there is no volitional God. And therefore, the only rational question is "How?" because "Why?" is an idiotic question if there is no God. Thus utility becomes god-king, and questions of meaning have no rational basis.

Questions of meaning with respect to the natural world external to humans have no basis. Obviously, since humans are volitional, questions of meaning have a basis.

Contrast 'why did you do that?', which is completely different from 'how did you do that?'; but 'why did the earthquake occur?' really means little more than 'how did the earthquake occur?'.

If atheists say "there is no God," then it seems to me they are hoist on the same petard as their "banished" God; for such an assertion renders not only God meaningless, but also the atheist as well. And everything else in the world for that matter, especially including human reason.

Let's follow the course of the fallacy as it develops, boys and girls. Here we transition from a reasonably well-formed statement
questions 'why' pertaining to the natural world have no meaning, or are really questions 'how'
to
a person has no meaning.

Of course a person is not a question, and so this is an unwarranted generalization from the specific category of questions to (at least) questions+ human beings. And of course, if we move to specific instances, the speciousness is transparent. What is the meaning of Howard Dean?

And to say that man and everything else is meaningless seems to be the statement of a blind man. For you just have to walk around in the world to see that men are motivated by what is meaningful to them. If there is no meaning, then all men are thus deluded and delusional. (Including atheists -- that is, if they deliberately choose to pursue activities that are important, i.e., meaningful to them.)

Step two of the fallacy. First generalize from questions to questions + people, and now narrow from people to 'questions of people'. It's not a warranted or logically justified extension either, but it's necessary, because otherwise the claim that 'questions about people's motivation are meaningless' would be simply a naked assertion.

The rest, following from the above analyzed piece of logical legerdemain, is specious, because it rests on specious assumpmtions. I do not assert that 'why' is a meaningless question when it applies to human action; nor do I claim that humans are not volitional. In both instances I claim the opposite. And if one wants to show that these two statements follow from my original statement, one will have to do better than this.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

I'm sorry, you said external forces. I see no external forces mentioned.

Based on the physics described on the excerpt at post 2323, including the links to faceting and branching, the "external forces" involved in the formation of complex structures of snowflakes are: molecular forces on the lattice, diffusion of water molecules in the air and the primary causation for patterns: temperature and humidity.

For Lurkers: in post 2316, I contrasted this type of complexity to self-organizing complexity (from the link):

Self-organization is seen as the process by which systems of many components tend to reach a particular state, a set of cycling states, or a small volume of their state space (attractor basins), with no external interference.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

A recap for Lurkers on the definition project: we are agreed to the following definition of an intelligent design hypothesis subject to an agreement on a definition for “intelligence”:

Intelligent Design: A hypothesis that given features of actuality are explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.

Previous suggestions for a definition of intelligence:

Intelligence - any ability - whether fractal, emergent or otherwise - to comprehend, understand and profit from experience.

Intelligence - decision-making, awareness and purpose whether fractal, emergent or otherwise.

Definition for intelligence currently on the table:

Intelligence - abstract comprehension, experiential awareness, and reasoned purpose whether fractal, emergent, or otherwise.

The word ”abstract” would limit intelligence to the mind (i.e. disembodiment, the wikipedia box) which would therefore stand in favor of emergent and against fractal intelligence.

Conversely, the word ”experiential” would limit intelligence by experience (i.e. embodiment) which would stand in favor of fractal and against emergent intelligence.

Either adjective could also redirect this project into a discussion of the false "Cartesian split" which I don't believe we wish to do at this time.

Also, the phrase “reasoned purpose” doesn’t get the point of intentionality across, as you say, and IMHO doesn’t give enough weight to property of decision-making – or reasoning.

My counter-proposal:

Intelligence - intention, comprehension, awareness and reason whether fractal, emergent, or otherwise.

[AntiGuv]

OK, I would accept a slightly more precise variation, as follows:

Intelligence - comprehension, awareness, intentionality, and reasoning whether fractal, emergent, or otherwise.

That attributes the intention and reason to the entity under consideration.

[AntiGuv]

That also gives each of eight different complex terms one of eight different suffixes. A form of linguistic beauty that warms my heart. =)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for your reply! That definition looks fine to me, too. To recap:

Intelligent Design: A hypothesis that given features of actuality are explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.

Intelligence - comprehension, awareness, intentionality, and reasoning whether fractal, emergent, or otherwise.

I gather you wish to nail the panspermia hypothesis next and then move to the collective consciousness hypothesis.

Since the panspermiasts have now expanded their scope to cosmic ancestry, I suggest we do it as the “panspermia/cosmic ancestry hypothesis”:

Panspermia/Cosmic Ancestry

Q. Why are we calling it Cosmic Ancestry now, instead of panspermia?

A. The old theory of panspermia deals with only the origin of life on Earth. The modern version adds a completely new understanding of evolution to the theory. And Cosmic Ancestry integrates the theory called Gaia, according to which life engineers its environment, into the new worldview.

The panspermia definition from wikipedia:

Wikipedia: Panspermia

Panspermia is a hypothesis that the seeds of life are prevalent throughout the Universe, and furthermore that life on Earth began by such seeds landing on Earth and propagating. The idea has its origins in the writings of Anaxagoras, but was first proposed in its modern form by Hermann von Helmholtz in 1879. Panspermia can be said to be either interstellar (between star systems) or interplanetary (between planets in the same solar system). There is as yet no compelling evidence to support or contradict it, although the consensus view holds that panspermia - especially in its interstellar form - is unlikely given the challenges of survival and transport in space.

My first suggestion:

Panspermia/Cosmic Ancestry: A hypothesis that given features of actuality are explained by engineered emergence from cosmic origins, rather than by an unengineered process such as natural selection.

[xzins]

Panspermia/Cosmic Ancestry: A hypothesis that given features of actuality are explained by engineered emergence from cosmic origins, rather than by an unengineered process such as natural selection.

Given your definition of intelligent design, that is a neat and tidy definition of panspermia, AG. Easily understandable and reference to your prior discussions. You have simply named the type of intelligence involved.

If panspermia is cosmic seeding, who or what are the seeders?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply and encouragements!!!

If panspermia is cosmic seeding, who or what are the seeders?

Exactly. Just like the intelligent design hypothesis does not stipulate the designer, the panspermia/cosmic ancestry hypothesis does not stipulate the seeder.

It could be God, "Gaia", intelligent beings putting "seeds" on probes capable of surviving space travel (or as we did when we accidentally put bacteria on the moon), some emergent (or fractal) intelligence that itself achieves velocity of matter (which carries the capability of emergence) in order to escape the gravity of its origin and protect itself in space travel.

The concept is not far afield of exogenesis, the difference is in the properties - "engineering" for emergence on the receiving end.

I understand that scientists today are considering something like this to continue life elsewhere in the cosmos as our own sun cannot survive forever.

[AntiGuv]

The panspermia hypothesis doesn't stipulate a seeder because it does not specify intentional seeding. The panspermia hypothesis is as follows:

Panspermia: a hypothesis that the seeds of life are prevalent throughout the universe, and furthermore that life on Earth began by such seeds landing on Earth and propagating.

Cosmic ancestry is (properly) defined by Wikipedia as follows.

Cosmic ancestry: An extreme form of panspermia [that] states [i]ntelligent life is neither the product of supernatural creation nor was it spontaneously generation through abiogenesis (the Origin of Life) but has always existed in the universe. Simply, intelligent life comes only from pre-existing intelligent life forms.

I will absolutely reject any effort to conflate the two or to equate panspermia with cosmic ancestry alone. Cosmic ancestry is an extreme subset of panspermia, but panspermia of its own accord makes a far different (and narrower) statement. I am open to a modified definition of "cosmic ancestry" other than that of Brig Klyce who originated the concept.

Moreover, I see no need to force any of the other definitions to conform with the definition of "intelligent design" that we have settled as follows.

Intelligent Design: A hypothesis that given features of actuality are explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected process such as natural selection.

Each definition is its own discrete endeavor. They will be compared and contrasted at the proper juncture.