Posted on 10/07/2005 4:03:19 AM PDT by gobucks
It doesn't matter if you like it or not. It doesn't matter if you think it's true or not. Intelligent Design theory is destined to supplant Darwinism as the primary scientific explanation for the origin of human life. ID will be taught in public schools as a matter of course. It will happen in our lifetime. It's happening right now, actually.
Here's why:
1) ID will win because it's a religion-friendly, conservative-friendly, red-state kind of theory, and no one will lose money betting on the success of red-state theories in the next fifty to one hundred years.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: families that reproduce people tend to reproduce ideas, as well. The most vocal non-scientist proponents of ID are those delightfully fertile Catholics, Evangelicals, and similarly right-leaning middle-class college-educated folk -- the kind whose children will inherit the country. Eventually, the social right will have the sheer manpower to teach ID wherever they please.
Despite what angry ID opponents may tell you, the advent of ID won't hurt American productivity a bit. Belief in ID does nothing to make believers less capable in science or engineering. No geek in the world will find his computer mojo diminished because of his opinions on irreducible complexity. To the contrary: ID might make biology and the natural sciences more appealing to believers who might otherwise find science to be too far removed from God's presence. As ID appeals to the conservative mindset without hurting anyone's skills, why wouldn't the social right embrace it?
To be sure, believers don't need ID to accept modern science. The Catholic Church, for example, made peace with traditional Darwinist theory long ago. Many scientists see no contradiction between Darwinism and their own religious beliefs. Rightly understood, Darwinist theory doesn't diminish God's glory any more than any other set of rules governing the world. An omnipotent God can act through scientific media as well as miraculous interventions.
But if ID is correct, then the intelligent designer of life must have lavished astonishing care and attention upon the human race to give it unique dignity and value -- as well as handicaps and temptations that only virtue can overcome. The God of Moses and Jesus didn't leave fingerprints at this scene, but it's His MO all the way. And as believers are detectives of the Almighty's presence, they're naturally more inclined to follow the clues revealing that familiar pattern.
2) ID will win because the pro-Darwin crowd is acting like a bunch of losers.
"Ewww…intelligent design people! They're just buck-toothed Bible-pushing nincompoops with community-college degrees who're trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public! No need to address their concerns or respond to their arguments. They are Not Science. They are poopy-heads."
There. I just saved you the trouble of reading 90% of the responses to the ID position. Vitriol, condescension, and endless accusations of bad faith all characterize far too much of the standard pro-Darwinian response to criticism. A reasonable observer might note that many ID advocates appear exceptionally well-educated, reasonable, and articulate; they might also note that ID advocates have pointed out many problems with the Darwinist catechism that even pro-Darwin scientists have been known to concede, when they think the Jesus-kissing crowd isn't listening. And yet, even in the face of a sober, thoughtful ID position, the pro-Darwin crowd insists on the same phooey-to-the-boobgeois shtick that was tiresome in Mencken's day. This is how losers act just before they lose: arrogant, self-satisfied, too important to be bothered with substantive refutation, and disdainful of their own faults. Pride goeth before a fall.
3) ID will win because it can be reconciled with any advance that takes place in biology, whereas Darwinism cannot yield even an inch of ground to ID.
So you've discovered the missing link? Proven that viruses distribute super-complex DNA proteins? Shown that fractals can produce evolution-friendly three-dimensional shapes? It doesn't matter. To the ID mind, you're just pushing the question further down the road. How was the missing link designed? What is the origin of the viruses? Who designed the fractals? ID has already made its peace with natural selection and the irrefutable aspects of Darwinism. By contrast, Darwinism cannot accept even the slightest possibility that it has failed to explain any significant dimension of evolution. It must dogmatically insist that it will resolve all of its ambiguities and shortcomings -- even the ones that have lingered since the beginning of Darwinism. The entire edifice of Darwinian theory comes crashing down with even a single credible demonstration of design in any living thing. Can science really plug a finger into every hole in the Darwinian dyke for the next fifty years?
4) ID will win because it can piggyback on the growth of information theory, which will attract the best minds in the world over the next fifty years.
ID is a proposition about information. It contends that the processes of life are so specific and carefully ordered that they must reflect deliberate action. Put simply: a complex message implies an even more complex sender. Separating ordered but random data from relevant, purposeful data -- that is, separating noise from messages -- is one of the key undertakings of the 21st century. In nearly every field, from statistics to quantum physics to cryptology to computer science, the smartest people on the planet are struggling to understand and apply the unfathomable power of information that modern technology has bequeathed to them. We have only scratched the surface of the problem-solving power that the Internet and cheap computing power open to us. As superior intellects strive to understand the metaphysics of information, they will find the information-oriented arguments of ID increasingly sensible and appealing. ID will fit nicely into the emerging worldview of tomorrow's intellectual elite.
This emerging worldview will take a more expansive view of science than does the current elite. Consider the "meme" meme. We all know what a meme is: a thought pattern that spreads from person to person and group to group like a viral infection spreading through a population. Yet memes cannot be bisected, or examined under a microscope, or "falsified" via the scientific method. Even so, we can make statements about memes with varying degrees of objective truthfulness. Is it possible to speak of a "science" of concepts? Right now, the scientific establishment says no. This unhelpful understanding of science will soon be discarded in favor of something more useful in the information age.
5) ID will win because ID assumes that man will find design in life -- and, as the mind of man is hard-wired to detect design, man will likely find what he seeks.
The human mind seeks order in everything. The entire body of knowledge available to mankind reflects our incorrigible desire to analyze, systemize, hypothesize, and theorize. It may well be that our brains are physically configured in such a way that we can't help but find order and design in the world. Don't look so surprised, evolutionists -- a brain attuned to order and design is a brain more likely to survive. The ability to detect design is essentially the ability to detect patterns, and the ability to detect patterns is the key to most applications of human intelligence. Hammers tend to find nails, screwdrivers tend to find screws, and the human mind tends to find design. Of course, the propensity to see designs doesn't mean that the designs aren't actually there. But the quintessential human perception is one of design -- and, to the extent that perceptions define reality, a theory built on the perception of design has a huge advantage over its competitors.
The only remaining question is whether Darwinism will exit gracefully, or whether it will go down biting, screaming, censoring, and denouncing to the bitter end. Rightly or wrongly, the future belongs to ID. There's nothing irreducibly complex about it.
Douglas Kern is a lawyer and TCS contributor. To see another view of the debate over ID, read "Descent of Man in Dover" by Sallie Baliunas on TCS today.
Two points. Evolution will not go away because that's how biology works. Secondly, only a nation that celebrates ignorance will support ID. If ID does become entrenched in the U.S., look forward to this country becoming a technologucal and medical backwater. Only by letting foreign scientists, with solid educations, immigrate to the U.S. can this be prevented. In other words, evolution will be demonstrated on an social level if ID 'wins.' We will lose our competitive edge. But don't worry. Everything comes from the designer, God, so you don't need to think objectively anymore. ID is just another example of dumbing down education. Science is to hard, so let's just say God did it and leave it at that.
Go on - what do you picture?
And that's the exact path ID will lead our children. It will remove the need to think objectively. ID will do to science education what liberalism has done to the social sciences.
Note this sentence from the end:
The only remaining question is whether Darwinism will exit gracefully, or whether it will go down biting, screaming, censoring, and denouncing to the bitter end. Rightly or wrongly, the future belongs to ID. There's nothing irreducibly complex about it.
This statement has the stench of a historical dialectic.
No, science is not a democracy, but neither is it a dictatorship. Science is a meritocracy. ID seeks to use the force of political authority to give it the standing that the scientific process has refused to award it.
"...ID might make biology and the natural sciences more appealing to believers who might otherwise find science to be too far removed from God's presence."
Balanced people like Copernicus and Galileo, maybe. :)
What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church? "..it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science.." Read on:
What were Galileo Galilei's conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church? It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. Galileo expressed his scientific views supporting Copernicus as well as his biblical views in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany which became the basis of his first Church trial and censure. A major work published in 1632 resulted in Galileo's conviction on suspicion of heresy and a lifetime house arrest. The Galileo affair provides important lessons and applications to the Church and to science today.
Background
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) believed the universe is finite and spherical with a stationary earth at its center. Enclosing the whole universe is the sphere of the Prime Motion turned by the First Unmoved Mover. Inside that were transparent spheres containing fixed and unchanging stars, planets, moon and sun.[1] Aristotle was also a renowned philosopher.
Clement and Origen (185-254 A.D.), both of Alexandria, sought to reconcile Greek wisdom (Aristotle's thoughts in philosophy and sciences) with scriptural wisdom. Origen imagined separate literal, moral, and spiritual senses of Bible passages (expanded to five senses in Concordism today).[2]
Van Bebber says, "This allegorical interpretation gave birth to a new brand of Christianity. Augustine (354-430 A.D.), although not as extreme as Clement or Origen, accepted this new approach. Through Augustine the mixing of philosophy, culture, and theology became inter-twined. And, since Catholic theology recognizes the traditions of the Church as equal in authority with written scripture, changing this trend became impossible. Eventually, the roots planted in Augustine took full bloom in Thomas Aquinas" (1224-1274 A.D.).[3] The Renaissance Period (1300-1600 A.D.), the rebirth of Greek philosophy, reinforced Aristotle's philosophy and science, already embedded in Roman Catholic theology and tradition. The most serious scientific error was acceptance of an earth-centered cosmos. But this error fit well in the man-centered theme of the Renaissance.
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543 A.D.) was a Renaissance man educated in the classics, law, theology, mathematics, metaphysics, languages, and astronomy. Copernicus developed a cosmology with the sun at the center, the earth rotating about a polar axis, and the earth and planets circling the sun, essentially as we know it today.[4]
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642 A.D.) received a broad Renaissance education. Until 1610, when Galileo built his first telescope at age 46, he focused mainly on physics, not astronomy. He soon made discoveries which shook the foundations of the Aristotelian cosmos. He saw mountains, valleys and other features indicating change on the moon. He observed the motion of four of Jupiter's moons, now referred to as the Galilean moons. No longer could scientists say that heavenly bodies revolve exclusively around the earth. He also observed the phases of Venus, the only explanation of which is that Venus moves around the sun and not the earth.
Response to these discoveries ranged from enthusiastic to very hostile. Never fearing a fight, Galileo actively defended his evidence which supported the Copernican cosmos. Hummel states,
"He was a passionate, powerful character who could dominate any room or discussion. His talent and wit won a variety of illustrious friends in university, court and church circles, ... At the same time his biting sarcasm against those whose arguments were vulnerable to his scientific discoveries made him some formidable enemies. Galileo thrived on debate... His professional life was spent not only in observing and calculating but also in arguing and convincing. His goal was to promote as well as develop a new scientific world view."[5]
Johnston, a Catholic defending the Church, wrote that Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the throat of Christendom. Johnston claims that Galileo's position and manner had alienated many and left the Church authorities no room to maneuver. While there is some truth in Johnston's assertion, it was a minor factor in the conflict.
The primary problem, as introduced earlier, was that Aristotle's science was going out of style; but the church was still attached to him. It could not make a distinction between Aristotle and Christian teachings; and in that era, there was no distinguishment or separation of science from philosophy. For the Church, if Aristotle was wrong, Christianity was wrong.[6]
Another background factor in Galileo's conflict with the Church was the influence of the Reformation. Because Martin Luther (1483-1546 A.D.) and the Protestant reformation (1517 A.D.) questioned Church authority, the Roman Church lost significant power and influence. It reacted with a list of literature forbidden to Catholics. Included were any writings challenging traditional Scripture interpretation.[7]
Letter to Madame Christina
In 1615 Galileo wrote a letter outlining his views to Madame Christina of Lorraine, the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, "Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science."[8] The tribunal used this letter against him in his first trial in 1616. They directed Galileo to relinquish Copernicanism and to abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion and doctrine, and even from discussing it.[9]
Excerpts from the letter to Madame Christina help to reveal Galileo's view of Scripture and that of his predecessors. He writes, "I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood."[10]
He cited Copernicus in the same vein: "He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood".[11] He quotes Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth.
"And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there'"[12]
The Church had no problem with these solid orthodox views. Galileo was a man of faith as well as science.
Two examples from Galileo's letter help to illustrate his interpretation of Scripture dealing with science. Some say he should have left Scripture alone and just stuck to science, but he was in a "no-win situation" whatever he did, for the Roman Catholic Church's Aristotelian views were being challenged.
Job 9:6 says, "Who moveth the earth from its place..." Galileo cites the Commentary on Job (1584) by Didacus a Stunica which concluded that the mobility of the earth is not contrary to Scripture.[13] Today, creationists would term this passage "observer true." In Galileo's day, they used the equivalent phrase or expression "speaking according to appearances." That is, for us who live on the earth it does not appear to move under our feet. But Galileo's opponents would not accept this explanation.[14]
A second passage and Galileo's commentary illustrate that he felt Scripture dealing with science should not be interpreted literally. Job 26:7 states, "He stretcheth out the north over the void, and hangeth the earth above nothing." Galileo says, "St. Thomas Aquinas notes that the Bible calls 'void' or 'nothing' that space which we know to be not empty, but filled with air. Nevertheless the Bible he says, in order to accommodate itself to the beliefs of the common people (who think there is nothing in that space), calls it 'void' or 'nothing'."[15] As a side note, today we know that this verse is literally and scientifically true as written. No accommodation needs to be made for the common or uneducated person. Space is a void except for a thin layer of air surrounding our earth.
A New Book and a Second Trial
In 1632, Galileo completed his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems -- Ptolemaic & Copernican. This publication, a twelve year effort, presented all the arguments for and against the two great world systems--the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or Ptolemaic (earth centered). Galileo also warned the Church of a trap they were walking into:
"Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of sun and earth you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the earth to stand still and the sun to change position--eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be physically or logically proved that the earth moves and the sun stands still."[16]
The Roman Catholic hierarchy and their Aristotlean-Ptolemaic advisors did not heed this advice. The Roman Curia promptly banned and confiscated Galileo's monumental work; and it became the basis for his second trial, censure, and lifetime house arrest by the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1633. The Roman Catholic Church convicted him of breaking his agreement of 1616 and of teaching the Copernican theory as a truth and not a hypothesis. They suspected him of holding heretical opinions condemned by the Church, which they ordered him to abjure [abandon a false opinion]. Seven of the ten Cardinals presiding signed his condemnation.[17]
The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: "The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."[18]
Historical Aftermath of the Galileo Affair
As new observations poured in, evidence grew supporting a Copernican view. The Roman Catholic Church leadership looked like fools, opening a wedge between science and religion that has increasingly widened to today. As Johnston put it, "To the popular mind, the Galileo affair is prima facie evidence that the free pursuit of truth became possible only after science 'Liberated' itself from the theological shackles of the Middle Ages. ...the Galileo case is one of the historic bludgeons that are used to beat on the Church -- the other two being the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition."[19]
Applications and Lessons Today
Application to Science
Today, Science views Galileo's conflict with Church hierarchy as a great triumph of science over religion. Today Science is king, Nature is the Creator, and God (if He exists) is irrelevant. Galileo would not have viewed it thus, for his faith in the truth of God's Word remained strong. He recognized that God is King and Creator, not Nature.
Misapplication by Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists
Theistic evolutionists and Progressive Creationists often use a "Two Book" concept to reconcile or compromise the Bible with Science. They claim both the "Book of Nature" and the "Book of Scripture" are true or applicable in their own realm. But today, Science is always put first. Thus, religion must bow to scientific findings. The "Book of Scripture" must yield to and accommodate the "Book of Nature". Theologians must reinterpret or compromise Scripture to accommodate whatever today's Science says is true. When new scientific theories come along, Biblical interpretations must change accordingly.
The Two-Book concept was encouraged by Galileo's view that scientific descriptions in the Bible were not important, for the common man could not understand them. Galileo used the same terminology. For example, Galileo said, "The Book of Nature is written in (clearly-understood) mathematics."[20] Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[21]
Lessons to Religious Authority
The Roman Curia, the religious authorities, imposed Aristotle's view upon the Bible, allowing Greek philosophy to influence its theology. They steadfastly maintained their traditions and erroneous interpretations of Scripture[22] above increasing scientific observations to the contrary. Galileo's published works remained on the Roman Church's Index of Prohibited Books until 1835. Not until 1981 did the Roman Catholic Church officially forgive Galileo.[23]
Van Bebber aptly states, "The Bible is the only infallible, inspired revelation of God. Motivated by a love for the Creator and His word, the believer must carefully weigh his every thought against the standard of the Bible. Those ideas which oppose sound Biblical teachings must be abandoned. Had this been achieved during the days of Galileo, a peaceful and reasonable solution would have helped to strip the Catholic Church of traditional, non-Christian philosophies which proved to hinder its effectiveness."[24]
Lesson to All
A final lesson and warning applies to the Church, Science, and the modern Creationist movement today. Beware of holding steadfastly to a particular interpretation of Scripture and/or a scientific model, which may be in error. For instance, there are various scientific challenges to the Young-Earth Creationist position. We should hold many of our scientific views and their corresponding Biblical interpretations loosely. For we will never have all the right answers this side of heaven. ~
What is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo? http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html
I don't. And if you have read any of the other posts I've made on this topic, you would know that. Granted I usually lurk on these threads and post infrequently.
But a lot of the posts from some incredibly smart people on this very forum resembles the language in the "90%" reference in the article. I don't make an assumption there. Many passionate defenders of evolution make quite clear their utter contempt for religion.
Think about your question, Wormwood, the one I responded to:
"Is that ID's main appeal? Simplicity?"
Spending some time on this forum, reading posts from both sides of this issue, the sneer behind the word "simplicity" you typed out is fairly obvious.
Outstanding crap.
"Science is to hard"
Apparently so are spelling and grammar. Maybe schools should concentrate in that area.
"Only by letting foreign scientists, with solid educations, immigrate to the U.S. can this be prevented."
I understand the French are really good at providing 'solid' educations. Maybe we should be more like the French yes? Import French scientists too, yes?? Sheesh.
Do you know what astrophysics is?
Remedial education of the deliberately ignorant gets tedious.
Yes, freedom of religion is great. There's not even anything Mr. Elias can do to stop me from praying for him.
Can you show me where evolutionary biology, the subject, not just one or aonther individual, but the basis of the field POSITS the absence of a Creator?
Don't call people dishonest unless you can demonstrate with specific references.
Actually, we are. The company I work for cannot find qualified U.S. scientists for our R&D center. Since the company is French based, many of the scientists we hire are French and they are very, very good at what they do. Just to add insult to injury, there are no American companies left in our industry. None of them had the technical expertise for innovations to keep on top of the market.
The teacher will avoid saying anything that can be construed as offence. Probably something like "that's a really good question, but its really not a question for science class, however I am happy to discuss it after class with you if you want"
That's what I picture.
Do you know what astrophysics is?
Yes I was making an analogy to the argument that "beliving in creationism does not make one less capable at genetics" which is also true.
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.