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 really doubt he is troubled by your distinction.
Skeptic: In River Out of Eden, you also say that, "Science shares with religion the claim that it answers deep questions about origins, the nature of life, and the cosmos. But there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not" (p. 33). But doesn't one first have to make the choice or decision to use pragmatism as the standard by which we judge? That is, we must first agree to base our decisions on what works, rather than on revelation or intuition. Isn't the most we can ask of the religious crowd, "Either lay hands on flat tires and pray for the sick, rather than taking them to a mechanic or a doctor, or if you are not willing to be consistent, just shut up and go away?" Doesn't the religious view amount to, "When we're afraid, we seek God. When God doesn't answer our prayers, blame it on the Devil?"
Dawkins: Yes, it's a kind of pathetic, childish response to some failure.
7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools [a] despise wisdom and discipline.
Proverbs 1:6-8
This statement is absolutely true. The logic is biased and is my chief complaint with "Scientific Creationism." It's not an attempt to put forth proof of creationism, it's an attempt to debunk Darwinism. If they succeed, they will not have proven creationism, they will merely have left a vacuum.
That said, there is a lot of good research that can come out of Intelligent Design study. Whether the end result is to prove or disprove a design to the universe, it should not be merely tossed off.
It is obvious that Mount Rushmore did not happen by natural causes. Even if we did not know the history of the sculpting of that mountain, we would never believe it was created by erosion or any other natural cause of which we know.
But "It is obvious" is problematic in science. 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.
There is no need to stop either naturalistic nor super-naturalistic researchers in their tracks while the discussion is going on. Trying to shut ID down because you don't like the implication is a bad idea.
Shalom.
False dichotomy
It's perfectly possible to "...believe in a creator God and the words & teachings He's given us in His book?..."
...and not agree that you have the only correct interpretation.
I've just found a new tag....
While it may comfort your believers, it won't get you respect from the gallery.
I have never called a person on this website a "knuckle dragger" or a "fundie", and I encourage you to look through my posts to find me insulting anyone on this site. I think you'll find that for the most part, I have treated my opponents with the respect that they have accorded me.
As far as the ICR and AIG go, it is very well documented that 99.9% of the time, if they quote a scientific paper, they will do so out of context, and once one looks at the context of the paper, it will be completely different than what the ICR or AIG author quotes them as saying. It is not hypocrisy to point this out. It is the truth.
Madalyn Murray O'Hare used to be an atheist.
That's called mountains from molehills.
The fat that man is imperfect requires that there be errors either in transcribing or interpreting the bible. It is hubris to think otherwise.
"...black, but comely." refers to her status as an outdoor laborer. Her tanned skin was not the culturally popular concept of 'beauty.'
Nearby verse SS 1:4 kind of blows the alegory theory, btw.
An important principle in understanding God's Word is that it is spiritually discerned.
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.
We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him" but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
I Cor 2:4-10
Well let's start at the beginning. I believe the following is literal. How do you interpret it?
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
But I find their excuse that they "have no money" to be rather thin. I'm certian the real truth is that there is no genuine science to back them up, so they refuse to do any.
Yes, you are correct.
Poor chose of words on my part.
"...appreciating His art..."
You just nailed in one short phrase what started my initial interest in science.
I wish obdurate creationists could see it.
evolution is scientific theory. it attempts to use verifiable objective phenomena to explain physical events. It is still a theory, not a law. Any scientist who believes more than what investigation thus far revealed is not practicing science, agreed. Evidence and experimentation are the only criteria to judge "scientific" validity. Much of the material world fits the theoretical constructs of evolutionary theory. That does not mean further investigation will not make it necessary to revise the theory in light of new evidence. We search for objective truth and are not slave to any particular theory.
I guess I'm ignorant. Oh well...science is forever trying to catch up with God anyway. Nothing special about them. When they've made a human being from scratch on the first try, I'll be impressed.
Wrong. Any change in the genetic makeup of the spotted owls that gives them an advantage in the "next to the Quickie Mart" environment would be an example of evolution. I don't know whether or not this has occurred, but there need not be a large change to the population such as you suggest for evolution to have occurred.
You're side may be correct. Our side my be right. BUT If our side is correct, I sure wouldn't want to be in your place at the last roundup!
Actually, the bottom line isn't quite that simple. Which creator God are you professing belief in? And of the vast array of gods throughout history, how do you know your's is the right one?
So the "bottom line" is, if you are worshiping the wrong god, "I sure wouldn't want to be in your place at the last roundup!"
May I suggest that you ask the mods to alter that one word (substitute "creationism" bashing instead of "religion" bashing) in the title? I would have made that request myself, but I think it's inappropriate to do that with someone else's thread. The change may help to deflect some serious misunderstandings.
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.