Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by 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
"Could you explain to me how Behe's research, which has largely been on the physical chemistry of DNA, shows that species did not evolve from each other?"
I wasn't saying that this is what Behe's research shows. As you are no doubt aware, his work is more related to the structure and operation of sub-cellular organelles.
However, if you are expert in this field, perhaps you can answer a question which I have wondered about for a long time?
Why does a group of 3 nucleotides, when read by a ribosome, encode for a particular amino acid?
I'm kind of a Pariah on these threads, which is why I am not often on them. My crimes?
1) I make a distinction between "Origins" (of the universe) and "Evolution" (an observable phenomena arising from the interaction of genetics, reproduction and living things with their environment).
2) I am also comfortable with the many aspects of God's message to us. Some of the Bible is historical fact, some literature, some biographical, some poetry -- It is filled with declarations, symbols, and allegory.
The nature of what God shared first with the Jews, then later the rest of the world and the nature of God leads me to believe that any of it is possible. That is, the 18 billion year old universe and spontaneous generation of life is possible and so is the 6,000 year old world with a 6 day creation.
I am comfortable in admitting that I do not everything, which is the most terrible crime of all on these threads, where both sides have every answer and the individual adherents on both sides know everything. And are not shy about telling how much they know and how stupid everyone that disagrees with them is.
All of that, and loads more, is here
The List-O-Links. Direct link to the right part of my homepage.
|
You're right. It illustrates how the swipe at Kansans detracts from the message of the article.
The first task of ID is to define the characteristics of something that was designed vs. something that wasn't. This would provide the basis for discussion.
But, I am afraid that the specifics of my research project are not quite delineated yet. As far as I can tell, everything in the living world was, in some sense or another "designed" to serve some purpose. I'm afraid you will have to be more specific, or I will be unable to write my grant proposal.
Oooookay... I guess that's why they forced Galileo to recant the scientific theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of vice versa, under pain of torture.
Furthermore, your claim flies in the face of the actual history of science, but keep believing it if you want to.
My most liberal college professor was a priest.
No, I'm not aware of that. Back when Behe was actually doing science, he was looking at the p. chem of DNA. I don't count his popular press and un-peer-reviewed meanderings about flagella.
Why does a group of 3 nucleotides, when read by a ribosome, encode for a particular amino acid?
The recognition anticodon of tRNA is three nucleotides. Each tRNA is specific for one amino acid, and it's what recognizes the codon. Two would be an insufficient number to account for 20 amino acids.
You're in luck!
Additionally, there are ID clubs forming at universities all over the country and more and more scientists are embracing it. Stay tuned for more ID-related research.
Lurkers can go to ARN.org for more info.
1) I make a distinction between "Origins" (of the universe) and "Evolution" (an observable phenomena arising from the interaction of genetics, reproduction and living things with their environment).
2) I am also comfortable with the many aspects of God's message to us. Some of the Bible is historical fact, some literature, some biographical, some poetry -- It is filled with declarations, symbols, and allegory.
Don't delude yourself. Those are not the reasons that you are (allegedly) a "pariah" on these threads. Those two points are true of many of the evolutionists who participate in these threads on a regular basis. (Quick, does the phrase "evolution is not abiogenesis" ring a bell? It's your point #1, a point commonly made by the evolutionists on these threads.)
I am comfortable in admitting that I do not everything, which is the most terrible crime of all on these threads, where both sides have every answer and the individual adherents on both sides know everything.
Now *THIS* is why you may not be welcome on these threads -- we really don't appreciate you telling slanderous lies about us like this. Go find somewhere else to insult the participants with falsehoods.
Point 1, I said "as we know it today" and you bring up Galileo? A lot has happened since then. Additionally, to say that Galileo was forced to recant because of his science is a gross oversimplification.
Point 2, who is the founder of modern taxonomy and what was his faith? Who is the founder of the modern scientific method and what was his faith? Who is the "inventor" of Calculus and what was his faith?
Shalom.
"Each tRNA is specific for one amino acid, and it's what recognizes the codon."
Yes, but WHY does a tRNA code for an amino acid? What is there about it that says that this group of nucleotides "means" this amino acid?
You're in luck! ID Research
Okay, I'll bite -- exactly how (in your own words, please) is that actually "ID research" in any way? That is, how in the hell would the results of that research actually support/disprove any particular ID hypothesis, and/or distinguish it from possible alternative hypotheses? We'll wait. This should be highly amusing -- it's always fun to watch you ID folks play at science without actually understanding the first thing about how it's (properly) done.
Additionally, there are ID clubs forming at universities all over the country
Oh, well then, it *must* be science. And so must those "Lord of the Rings" clubs forming at universities all over the country, I guess.
and more and more scientists are embracing it.
ROFL! You're so cute when you're posting your false presumptions as if they were facts.
Stay tuned for more ID-related research.
What do you mean, "more"?
Did you read just the article or the linked article there?
If you didn't read the linked article, do.
It's bad enough to be funny, and, as I posted on that thread, a serious case of conclusions preceding facts.
Please support this amazing statement.
Many people who saw and relayed it back were killed.
And this one.
Not quick deaths mind you, but tortured under extreme measures to shut people up.
And this one.
You would think if this was just sacred fiction they would be subdued about the subject or even keep it a secret.
No, I wouldn't think that.
Either they were telling the truth by using the observation and their experience of empirical evidence by their 5 senses or they were just insane, thus implying every Christian is insane.
Class, this is a marvelous example of the "fallacy of the false dichotomy". The number of alternative explanations which the author has overlooked is left as an excercise for the reader.
Most of the regular participants do fine on each other.
How many bannings from arrogant know it alls screaming at each other have taken place as a result of these threads? Way too many. Or perhaps not enough in some people's opinion.
It would'nt break my heart to see these threads get killed instantly.
This should say, "...un-Christian..."
Huh? Historical accuracy does not correlate to evidence for the Word of God. It simply means that someone accurately recorded historical events. If he embellishes said events with references to the Almighty, one cannot infer that the Almighty exists. For example, the Greeks and Egyptians were pretty good about making records of just about everything under the Sun. Simply because they peppered their works with references to their gods does not, in any way, corroborate the exitence of those gods.
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.