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
I've not said anything I haven't said before. I just don't debate evolution. Only reason why I'm in this thread was a claim made by someone that I thought was ridiculous. I still do but doesn't mean I'm going to try and change anyone's mind about evolution. The Bible says there's nothing new under the sun and I happen to believe that.
But he's written plenty. It's their for the reading.
If you don't believe in G-d's word as in the book of Genesis which states G-d created the heavens and the earth, then it would suffice to say this bloke is bashing anyone who believes in the word of G-d? Once again we have intolerance from the far left. One thing they seem to forget about science, men are the ones who come up with the theories and men are the ones who prove these theories so who is to say they are always correct in their findings?
But hell, as long as you're bringing up schools, let's discuss the way Creationists belong to the Goebbels Big Lie school.
How are they different? Both seem to assert it deadens the synapses to reality and reason, without qualification. Help me with some of this Ed.
Pshaw. If either had had their way religion would be banned. To say otherwise is irrational. You are being irrational Ed.
But hell, as long as you're bringing up schools, let's discuss the way Creationists belong to the Goebbels Big Lie school.
Which Creationist Ed? A lie is a lie. A bigot is a bigot. They come in all flavors.
OK, you don't want to expand your knowledge base. I offered.
Now I'm back to work for a few hours.
A fine preacher of philosophy indeed. Even has his own choir, cheerleaders, and hymn writers.
Ed, Mr Walsh thinks the ranks of those who point out the excesses of creationism are more than well represented around here. He thinks the ranks of those whose attack paints a bit too broad brush, from a rational scientific point of view, are under represented. Mr. Walsh saw an empty niche, and decided to fill it, as the challenge, and for the pleasure of not only himself, but for his God. That is my take.
A retreat into a niche is one of the mechanisms supporting evolution. Do we really have a creationist "proving" evolution?
The False Dichotomy rides again... It's getting quite a workout on this thread.
Yes, of the thought provoking kind. Fostering a good debate, even as the devil's advocate, is a grand thing really.
After some Googling it seems Friedrich Bessel made the first parallax measurment two years before John Draper made the first daguerreotype image of the Moon.
Modern measurment are done with photography and spectroscopy, but it seems the pioneering work was done with sextants.
Sometimes, sometimes not. Always with nondysjunction. Partial trisomy does not affect every chromosome 21. Translocation does not result always result in trisomy but results in Downs, the extra #21 chromosome can attach elsewhere. Translocation is heritable.
It's not a point mutation if that's what you were arguing about.
Now you're on my side.
Find me one, in context quote of Dawkins where he advocates for the banning (dictionary meaning: an official prohibition or edict) of religion. He's so prolific, it should be easy for you.
Which Creationist Ed?
Oh let's see, how about the poster of the article who felt compelled to add his a lie to the title? Or how about those who inevitabley claim that all evolutionists are atheists? Or maybe folks who claim that Dawkins is from the Marx school of religious thought? Creationists lies are a dime a dozen.
Is it a requirement that I now call you a liar because we disagree on this? I don't see how that gets us anywhere but if it's in the rules I'll do it.
Why, because in your arrogance you believe it's utterly impossible that any reasonable person could disagree with you on this point for any reason other than willful dishonesty?
Seek professional help. Seriously.
You owe him an apology for your appalling behavior.
Ooooookay... You really need to stop reading the creationist propaganda and get out in the real world some more.
And it has apparently escaped your notice that the *majority* of Americans who are "evolutionists" are *Christians*. I'm sorry if that punctures your cherished preconceptions, or makes your head explode.
I'd have to see your "Fair Witness" registration card before I'd consider that.
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.