Posted on 08/19/2005 4:21:19 PM PDT by strategofr
On those rare occasions that I write a column touching remotely on science, especially if I depart from the conventional wisdom of the greater scientific community, the contemptuous e-mails fill my inbox.
Such was the case a few columns ago when I broached the subject of Intelligent Design (ID) after President Bush indicated his receptiveness to ID theory being taught alongside evolution in the public schools. The hostile e-mailers pointed out what a consummate idiot and criminal trespasser I was for treading on their real estate.
They demanded I stick to law and politics, not because I know much more about them either, but by concentrating on those subjects at least I wouldn't be encroaching on their turf, which is reserved for the gifted. OK, they didn't really say that explicitly, but I divined, via supernatural intuition, that that's precisely what they meant.
The thrust of the e-mails was that ID is not science-based but is purely a matter of faith -- Biblical creationism in disguise. It cannot be tested in a lab (can macroevolution or any historical science be reproduced in a lab?). As such, ID should only be taught in public schools, if at all, under the rubric of philosophy or religion, not science. Besides, it is just one alternative theory. If you teach it, in fairness you must teach all other competing theories.
But not all scientists agree that ID lacks a scientific foundation. In the first place, ID uses science to confute certain tenets of Darwinism. In addition, ID proponents, such as Michael Behe and William Dembski, have developed criteria for testing design inferences.
Behe contends that irreducibly complex features are better explained by design because our knowledge and reason tell us that such features can only be produced by intelligent causes -- putting the lie, by the way, to the claim that ID is just one competing theory. Thus, ID advocates argue that design inference is testable: It could be refuted if someone could empirically demonstrate that unguided natural processes could produce irreducible complexity.
Moreover, ID theory is neither faith-based, nor results-oriented. It is not a concoction of Christians who were already convinced that God created the world but needed a scientific theory around which to wrap their unscientific faith.
It is not the slave of certain preordained conclusions. It examines the evidence and follows it to its logical conclusions, even if those conclusions -- such as that ID is the most plausible explanation for life's origin -- deviate from currently accepted science orthodoxy.
I trust my correspondents will meet these assertions with equal contempt. But many of them are guilty of the primary sin they ascribe to ID proponents. For they begin with an irrebuttable presumption not just that evolution is a valid theory but that the very origins of life are the result of material, not supernatural causes and any inquiry that proceeds apart from this presumption, by definition, is not scientific. After all, God's existence cannot be proved in a laboratory. By the clever use of circular logic, they ensure that ID can never be accepted as scientific.
Anyone who does not initiate his inquiry with the obligatory presumption is, by definition, a heretic, a crackpot and not part of the scientific community no matter how many science-related degrees he may have on his CV. So again, through grossly circular logic, they perpetuate the myth that no scientists believe in ID.
Consider what Harvard chemistry professor David Liu said about Harvard University's plan to spend $1 million annually toward research concerning the origin of life. "My expectation," said Liu, "is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."
Liu's statement is a tacit admission that Darwinists (used loosely here to include all scientific materialists) have yet to demonstrate the origin of life but nevertheless still fervently hold to their rigid presupposition that only a natural explanation is conceivable. That life began without intelligent causes is thus dutifully accepted without question and merely awaits the inevitable confirming evidence.
So held to their own standards, isn't the Darwinists' presupposition that life began without design unscientific? At the very least it requires as much faith as ID could conceivably require. Darwinists haven't even been able to prove, through empirical testing or otherwise, the evolution of existing species to others by Darwinian mechanisms.
I realize that not all scientists reject the idea of an intelligent creator. Nor am I saying that microevolution and ID are mutually exclusive theories. Natural selection, to a point, is entirely compatible with ID -- and with Biblical creationism, for that matter. It is the Darwinists' unsubstantiated leap that all forms of life began apart from intelligent causes that is incompatible, obviously, with ID.
It is neither ID proponents nor Christians who have created an artificial divide between science and faith but dyed-in-the-wool Darwinists. Many of them -- not all -- have chosen to define science in such a way that excludes the supernatural.
So why not allow ID to be taught in public schools or simply permit the fallacies of Darwinism to be exposed? As the brilliant biologist Jonathan Wells demonstrated in his "Icons of Evolution," much of the evidence Darwinists have offered has been exaggerated, distorted or even faked, including certain basic "facts" routinely included in biology textbooks. Does such "science" qualify as science?
I repeat: Why can't we have an open inquiry?
It is certainly true that Darwinism has to defend itself against intelligent design in all the standard battlefields of science. This includes discussions in scientific journals, evaluation of any laboratory evidence come up with by ID proponents, etc. To deny this is indeed to take a somewhat "faith based" view of Darwinism.
Nonetheless, ID is wrong. People who understand science know that it is wrong, because it contradicts every other piece of knowledge that science gives us.
Our exploration of science so far in my opinion, makes it clear that all phenomenon in the world can be explained in a certain kind of way. I believe, a large preponderance of evidence points to the fact that life can be explained in the same way that all other heretofore investigated phenomenon in the universe can be explained.
This of course, is quite different from saying that we understand everything there is to know about life. I can easily believe that the ID proponents have come up with examples of mechanisms of living things that the evolution theorists cannot provide an adequate explanation for off-the-cuff. In fact, various mechanisms have been discovered so far in the study of biology that shed light on the question of how such complex structures could have been created without ID. For example, the mechanisms all of DNA mutation and various aspects, in effect, that control the rates of mutation inside living things to optimize those rates for development.
This is one example of a surprising mechanism of evolution that helps us understand how organisms can provide an element of "management" to their own evolution---despite the fact that there is no intelligence behind this process.
I will confess that I am not a biologist, and cannot to expand on this mechanism for FR readers or adequately defend myself against the attacks that will surely come on this point. It is possible that some biologist may pick up my slack on this point or perhaps not.
The simple fact is, that evolution is an extremely complicated process. A number of surprising mechanisms have been uncovered to help us understand how this very complicated process could occur without ID. The process of uncovering these mechanisms is far from complete. The search for these mechanisms will both be no doubt be us stimulated by the ID debate and this will be a good thing for evolution theory.
The ID people have every right to put forward their views on this debate---regardless of their levels of knowledge. Some highly qualified scientists are on the ID side. the question of ID versus evolution is not simple, nor is it easy to see why the ID position is wrong.
However, much as the ID people will hate me for saying it, this is really just a new phase of the debate that was going on in Galileo's time. As with the Galileo debate, it will become clear to everyone over time time that the theory of evolution is correct.
"The problem with missing links is that they are still missing." Richard Leakey
Our secular popular culture is throwing a fit over President Bush's endorsement of teaching in public schools the controversies surrounding Darwinian theory.
Note that the president did not recommend that the teaching of Darwinism be banned in public schools, merely that the theory of intelligent design (ID) ought to be taught as well. Mr. Bush said, "I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."
The main players in the ID movement are not even insisting on that much. Discovery Institute, for example, opposes the mandatory teaching of ID in public schools but favors requiring students to be exposed to criticisms of Darwin's theory.
But whether you believe ID theory ought to get equal billing with Darwinian theory, some lesser treatment, or that students should at least be apprised of alleged chinks in the Darwinian armor, what's all the fuss about?
Don't academics purport to champion free and open inquiry? What, then, are they so afraid of regarding the innocuous introduction into the classroom of legitimate questions concerning Darwinism?
Their defensiveness toward challenges to their dogma is inexplicable unless you understand their attitude as springing from a worldview steeped in strong, secular predispositions that must be guarded with a blind religious fervor.
Indeed, it appears many Darwinists are guilty of precisely that of which they accuse ID proponents: having a set of preconceived assumptions that taint their scientific objectivity.
Don't take my word for it. Consider the words of Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard. "Our willingness," confessed Mr. Lewontin, "to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for the unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. . . . Materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."
So is God the real bogeyman for some Darwinists? Is that why they fight to suppress any theory, like ID, they fear might allow God's "foot in the door?"
And, if their science were unassailable, would they so vigorously resist its subjection to academic scrutiny by scientists no longer drinking the Darwin Kool-Aid? It's no secret that scientists who have broken from Darwinian orthodoxy have been ridiculed, suppressed and ostracized by much of the Orwellian scientific establishment.
Many of ID's cynical detractors patronizingly frame this entire debate in terms of a struggle between faith and science. Intelligent design, they say, is but a thinly disguised argument for Biblical creationism and its proponents threaten to obliterate the "wall of separation" between church and state by cleverly sneaking creationism back into the schools inside the Trojan horse of ID.
But that is simply false. ID is fundamentally science-based. The fact that scientific inquiry leads certain scientists toward a conclusion compatible with the Judeo-Christian worldview -- that intelligent causes were behind the creation of the universe and life -- does not disqualify them as scientists any more than the militant secularism of many Darwinists disqualifies them.
Nor does ID's compatibility with the Judeo-Christian worldview require that it be classified as religious rather than scientific. If ID's theories were faith-based rather than science-based, the secular scientific community would have a stronger case in demanding they not be introduced into science classes.
But no amount of protest and name-calling from the scientific community will change the fact that ID proponents are not pseudo-scientists. You might be surprised to learn that over 400 scientists from all disciplines have signed onto a list of those expressing skepticism "of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." And that list is growing, despite the persecution of some signers since they signed it.
This is most interesting, in light of statements made in PBS's "Evolution" series that no scientists disagreed with Darwinian evolution. I ask you: Which side is playing fast and loose with the facts?
As one recent signatory, the prestigious Russian biologist Vladimir L. Voeikov said, "The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism, which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology, seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field's real problems."
A short column is not the place to debate the merits of ID versus Darwinism, but it is an appropriate venue to offer the humble suggestion that the very essence of science -- the search for causes -- militates in favor of exposing students to modern criticisms of Darwinism. Introducing kids to scientific challenges to Darwinism and to the alternative ID theory would vindicate the scientific method and science itself. Opponents should lighten up, and the public should insist on a fair fight.
http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050808-085558-9866r
I weep to think we have come to the point that educated don't know what science is. My only solice is the the dems are burdened with Scientism, New Age mysticism, spoon benders, pyramid powers, plants are like people, and the like.
DL is so full of it ...
Excellent.
My biggest problem with Darwin's theory is that proponents will not accept ANY criticism of it. In the DVD 'Icons of Evolution' they show a high school biology teacher who was censured by his school. Not for teaching ID. What he did was to describe each part of the theory of evolution, and also to show the problem that each part had. The students could then try to figure it out for themselves.
He was banned from using any sources other than books approved by the school . The DVD showed an interview with another scientist who basically said that Darwin was absolute incontrovertible fact, period.
Any scientist who believes categorically that they know all the answers is either delusional or a really bad scientist.
In China biologists joke that in USA you can criticize the government but not Darwin and in China, you can criticize Darwin but not the government,
I'm with you there. The Darwinists behave with religious-like fervor (and Inquisition-like bigotry), and then they complain that ID should be kept out of science courses because of it's religious nature.
Kudos to Mr. Limbaugh.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Although there may be members of the Unification Church who do not believe Reverend Moon to be the second coming of Christ, I think it is fair to say that such people must be a small minority; indeed, it is difficult to imagine anyone persevering in the rigorous life of a Unificationist without believing that Sun Myung Moon is to our generation what Jesus was to his.
Jonathan Wells, in Marriage and the Family: the Unification Blessing
I doubt if it's one half of one percent of biologists, the discipline that matters. And I notice Limbaugh doesn't dwell on this point?
In the first place, ID uses science to confute certain tenets of Darwinism.
This is in the first place? What happened to the numbers of scientists turning to ID? At any rate, we don't have anyone using science to refute "Darwinism." We have a handful of guys using pseudoscientific sleight of hand to deceive people named "Limbaugh."
In addition, ID proponents, such as Michael Behe and William Dembski, have developed criteria for testing design inferences.
Not so far. The box has been delivered, opened, and found empty.
Behe contends that irreducibly complex features are better explained by design because our knowledge and reason tell us that such features can only be produced by intelligent causes -- putting the lie, by the way, to the claim that ID is just one competing theory.
Thus, ID advocates argue that design inference is testable: It could be refuted if someone could empirically demonstrate that unguided natural processes could produce irreducible complexity.
Really, Dave? That's all that needs to be done? Just demonstrate how an IC thing can evolve? We've known how such structures can evolve since before Behe ever published. A Nobelist name Muller did it circa 1948, but Behe keeps forgetting to credit the guy. Maybe that's because Muller came up with the same question Behe did but also ANSWERED THE QUESTION. Behe can't seem to find Muller's answer anywhere.
So ID is going to fold up its tent and go home now, right?
For Dembski, Spetner, and Gitt info-theory types, click here.
My personal search for that one creation/ID "good penny," an argument not based on bad facts or bad logic, has come up empty for six years. There aren't any.
Macroevolution is a term used by Id'rs, not evolutionsts. The orgin of life was never an area of purvey by evolution theory. ID is not a scientifc theory, it fails to meet the crietria for a theory, it even fails to mee the criteria for a hypothesis. Not investigating the "supernatural" is an inherent limitation of science because science is based upon empirical observation.
Limbaugh should stick to the law and politics.
It's amazing to me the hubris evident in the evolution crowd. With such statements as: People who understand science know that it is wrong....
Obviously, if anyone believes and observes the intelligent design that abounds they're clearly ignorant of science, the scientific method etc. No matter their expertise, knowledge, education. You've defined the absolute that should bar them (us) from any debate.
Yet, the frauds that have been perpetrated in the name of evolution are untouchable and spared from any argument.
You're eloquent defense of your beliefs betrays your own lack of scientific investigation. You don't support your verdicts but simply state that "intelligent design is wrong." You don't yet know the answer but it is floating out there yet to be found, perhaps from your own evolutionary messiah waiting in the wings.
You remind me of caller on a radio show, who supported evolution and the creation of life through random occurences. Lightning, asteroid, cellular collution throuh expenditure of vast amounts of energy, I can't remember. When confronted with a scientific phenomenon called entropy, the caller scolded the radio host for using common sense to refute his beliefs. You see, explained the caller, common sense cannot be used to refute evolution because it uses a thought process devoid of any new thinking or data. Never mind that entropy is a physical law that explains energy loss and dissipation. Obviously, the radio host reasoned on a much lower plane. Perhaps that caller was you.
A scientist looks at history.
Does that not demand the assumption that science method is infallible, perfectly apply, and absolute reference point for absolute truth?... Your conclusions can only be good as you method but how do you prove your method is infallible?... you have to start from an assumption and all is proven referenced off that assumption...There always is the caveat:... this is true if my starting assumption is true
No, I'm afraid chanting is the sort of thing you do in Church. We don't do a lot of it in science class. But I do find it revealing that you seem to have to speculate about what goes on in a science class. Why not just stroll down to your local community college and find out?
DL is joining the Pat Buchanan bandwagon.
If parents want to teach their kids ID, then they should do it at home, during Bible study.
"Supernatural" (quotes included) is a term used by the Darwinists. I am a skeptic about the "God" as in the way most people see "Him" but I am also skeptical that any of us know that much. When I hear "ID" I don't think of "Supernatural" just "alien to earth". Your problem is just so obviously with religion.
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.