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
The Greeks could also claim a number of fulfilled prophesies. Does this mean that the Oracle at Delphi was chatting with real gods?
I'm not particularly fond of someone who attempts to impugn my character behind my back. By the way, what on earth do you mean by Sea-Lawyer? (Clarity in your comments seems to be generally lacking.)
You stated:
OTOH creationists look for scientific data which seem to support their theory - i.e. that all species were created as they are and that one species does not develop or arise from another one.
And I asked:
Could you point me in the direction of this research? And what, exactly, would this data look like?
It's a simple question. Where is this research in creationism, and what would the data look like that supports their theory?
Here's two, but you will have to read them, and I think I probably have wasted my time looking for them
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1351793/posts?page=36
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/1343600/posts?page=156
see above
Similarly, verification of the many historic events and places detailed in "Gone With the Wind" does not in any way bolster the claim that Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara actually existed.
Authors (of any time period) commonly write their stories and characters amid actual places and events. Historical accuracy of any of these books hardly supports the truth of *all* their contents.
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.
ROFL!
Thanks. I appreciate but I'll be impressed when they do it from scratch.
Most of the regular participants do fine on each other.
Ah, the old Clinton excuse: "Everyone does it!" Sorry, but that hardly excuses your own false slander, which is one of the worst examples I've seen recently, so don't try to play Mr. Innocent here, or try to pretend that you're sitting on any high ground. You made a transparently false and wildly overgeneralized accusation. And you were caught at it. Deal with it.
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.
The bannings have been almost exclusively on the creationist side, by the way.
It would'nt break my heart to see these threads get killed instantly.
Yes, I'm sure you'd appreciate it if opposing views were silenced.
Horticulture, not Darwinism.
Palies now claim that all living humans have the same DNA as one early ancestor whom they believed came from Africa. Check it out.
Very well said. Science is something which can be proven by fact, data, and tangible evidence. The rest is theory, and in my case, FAITH. JK
Amen!!
So you digested both those threads in one minute? Some kind of record.
Thank you for proving my assessment of creationists. They ask a question. You supply an answer. They ignore it.
I have a cyborg beetle in my bottle. I guess it's time for the stimulus/response routine.
PH - what shall we do with Senor Beetle?
No scientist has ever taken the basic elements and made a human being. They can't even make a simple flower. Manipulating genes to make something 'new' isn't new at all.
Yes, yes, of course, you're absolutely right -- none of the vast amounts of evidence and research supporting evolution means anything at all until they can snap their fingers and create a human from nothing. Got it. Clearly, you've cut to the heart of the matter and invalidated 150 years of science, and shown why you shouldn't have to bother your pretty head actually learning anything about this topic before you form a conclusion about it. How could we all have been so blind?
(Wow, that's *SO* much easier than thinking...)
Don't get all huffy with me. I didn't come on this to debate. I could care less whether you believe in creation or not.
Call me whatever you want. I could give a damn.
"Dawkins isn't religion bashing. He's creationist bashing. There is a big difference."
Not to thin-skinned, easily offended Christians.
That's nice. Now if you're done flinging your feces, are you going to answer my question about your alleged "research", or are you going to again avoid discussing the actual topic?
Here it is again -- ask for help with the big words if you need it:
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.
Oh - by the way - did you see the Discovery Institute opened a new field office in DC?
Yes, all the better to force their agenda via lobbying the legislature instead of performing actual research. No surprise there.
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.