Posted on 11/10/2005 4:43:24 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
In an election in Pennsylvania this week, voters tossed out eight members of the Pittsburgh school board who wanted Intelligent Design theory to be taught alongside evolution in school. But should Intelligent Design -- the theory that living organisms were created at least in part by an intelligent designer, not by a blind process of evolution by natural selection -- be taught in public schools? In one way, the answer to this question is simple: if it's a scientific theory, it should; if it's not, it shouldn't (on pain of flaunting the Establishment Clause). The question, however, is whether Intelligent Design (ID) is a scientific theory.
Opponents dismiss ID's scientific credentials, claiming that the theory is too implausible to qualify as scientific. But this reasoning is fallacious: a bad scientific theory is still a scientific theory, just as a bad car is still a car. There may be pedagogical reasons to avoid teaching bad scientific theories in our public schools, but there are no legal ones. The Constitution contains no interdiction on teaching bad theories, or for that matter demonstrably false ones. As long as theory is science and not religion, there is no legal barrier to teaching it.
To make their case, opponents of teaching ID must show not just that the theory is bad, but that it's not science. This raises a much more complicated question: What is science? What distinguishes genuinely scientific theories from non-scientific ones?
In one form or another, the question has bothered scientists and philosophers for centuries. But it was given an explicit formulation only in the 1920s, by Karl Popper, the most important 20th century philosopher of science. Popper called it "the problem of demarcation," because it asked how to demarcate scientific research and distinguish it from other modes of thought (respectable though they may be in their own right).
One thing Popper emphasized was that a theory's status as scientific doesn't depend on its plausibility. The great majority of scientific theories turn out to be false, including such works of genius as Newton's mechanics. Conversely, the story of Adam and Eve may well be pure truth, but if it is, it's not scientific truth, but some other kind of truth.
So what is the mark of genuine science? To attack this question, Popper examined several theories he thought were inherently unscientific but had a vague allure of science about them. His favorites were Marx's theory of history and Freud's theory of human behavior. Both attempted to describe the world without appeal to super-natural phenomena, but yet seem fundamentally different from, say, the theory of relativity or the gene theory.
What Popper noticed was that, in both cases, there was no way to prove to proponents of the theory that they were wrong. Suppose Jim's parents moved around a lot when Jim was a child. If Jim also moves around a lot as an adult, the Freudian explains that this was predictable given the patterns of behavior Jim grew up with. If Jim never moves, the Freudian explains -- with equal confidence -- that this was predictable as a reaction to Jim's unpleasant experiences of a rootless childhood. Either way the Freudian has a ready-made answer and cannot be refuted. Likewise, however much history seemed to diverge from Marx's model, Marxists would always introduce new modifications and roundabout excuses for their theory, never allowing it to be proven false.
Popper concluded that the mark of true science was falsifiability: a theory is genuinely scientific only if it's possible in principle to refute it. This may sound paradoxical, since science is about seeking truth, not falsehood. But Popper showed that it was precisely the willingness to be proven false, the critical mindset of being open to the possibility that you're wrong, that makes for progress toward truth.
What scientists do in designing experiments that test their theories is create conditions under which their theory might be proven false. When a theory passes a sufficient number of such tests, the scientific community starts taking it seriously, and ultimately as plausible.
When Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, the first thing he did was to make a concrete prediction: he predicted that a certain planet must exist in such-and-such a place even though it had never been observed before. If it turned out that the planet did not exist, his theory would be refuted. In 1919, 14 years after the advent of Special Relativity, the planet was discovered exactly where he said. The theory survived the test. But the possibility of failing a test -- the willingness to put the theory up for refutation -- was what made it a scientific theory in the first place.
To win in the game of science, a theory must be submitted to many tests and survive all of them without being falsified. But to be even allowed into the game, the theory must be falsifiable in principle: there must be a conceivable experiment that would prove it false.
If we examine ID in this light, it becomes pretty clear that the theory isn't scientific. It is impossible to refute ID, because if an animal shows one characteristic, IDers can explain that the intelligent designer made it this way, and if the animal shows the opposite characteristic, IDers can explain with equal confidence that the designer made it that way. For that matter, it is fully consistent with ID that the supreme intelligence designed the world to evolve according to Darwin's laws of natural selection. Given this, there is no conceivable experiment that can prove ID false.
It is sometimes complained that IDers resemble the Marxist historians who always found a way to modify and reframe their theory so it evades any possible falsification, never offering an experimental procedure by which ID could in principle be falsified. To my mind, this complaint is warranted indeed. But the primary problem is not with the intellectual honesty of IDers, but with the nature of their theory. The theory simply cannot be fashioned to make any potentially falsified predictions, and therefore cannot earn entry into the game of science.
None of this suggests that ID is in fact false. For all I've said, it may well be pure truth. But if it is, it wouldn't be scientific truth, because it isn't scientific at all. As such, we shouldn't allow it into our science classrooms. At least that's what the Constitution says.
The writer teaches philosophy at the University of Arizona.
"Why did the Hebrews need to be told these things by God, but other societies were able to work it out for themselves?"
I don't think other societies formulated the first four commandments on which the other six were based. The exclusive monotheism of Israel and rigid moral code of Israel with its personal responsibility and accountability to the one God set them apart from all the other societies who for the most part were idol worshipping polytheist who blamed their many gods for their breaking the codes of conduct. Much like what is happening today with psychiatric, economic and enviromental excuses for evil; the old Flip Wilson "the devil made me do it".
"Would that you were to examine your personal beliefs as thoroughly as you claim to examine scientific findings"
I don't remember making any claims to examining scientific findings. Perhaps you can point them out.
I'm pretty much a loon. I just enjoy the company of the voice in my head.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
Not to mention the actions of the devout religious folks from Spain in the New World. (Of course, the Rubber Barons were pretty bad in the early years of the last century, too; but that was in Brazil and besides those Indians are dead.)
I never said the codes were identical, but they all have things in common: don't kill, don't steal, don't commit adultery, don't lie. Basically the rules you need to live peacefully with your neighbors.
That rule, in particular, means nothing if it wasn't given by God, does it? Why should I care what I do on Saturday (or Sunday), if there is no God, and all of this is just some "fictionalized account" that teaches us some truth.
(The New Testament permits worship on Resurrection Day...Sunday. Also, Jesus pointed out that most of the little legalisms that were practiced on the Sabbath were entirely unnecessary. The Sabbath was supposed to be renewing and refreshing for humans -- not a pain in the ass.)
Keeping the Sabbath holy is one of the commandments. It has nothing to do with worship -- one can worship seven days a week. The Sabbath (Saturday) was to be a day without work which was devoted to God and family. Jesus, who you claim to follow, said he did not come to change the law, which means the law is still in effect (IOW, Sunday does not replace Saturday).
So, do you keep Saturday holy?
Do you assume the solutions will be naturalistic?
What are you doing? Playing the part of Satan? This is what Jesus said.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
He has fulfilled the law
I've been following your posts regarding the issue you raise. Taxonomy relies upon morphology. And, to answer your specific question, the major difference lies in morphology (which you disregard for the sake of argument) and behavior. Aside from skeletal differences there are a few muscle attachments which are different, mostly in the throat and jaw areas and, of course the larger distribution of body hair and overall stature.
Ac 20:7 - Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.
Colossians 2: 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements .........16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ
Ro 6:14 - For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
Ga 2:21 - I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."
Precisely.
How are you? Haven't seen you in a while.
Exo 20:11
(ASV) for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(CEV) In six days I made the sky, the earth, the oceans, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested. That's why I made the Sabbath a special day that belongs to me.
(Darby) For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(GB) For in sixe dayes the Lord made the heauen and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seuenth day: therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(GLB) Denn in sechs Tagen hat der HERR Himmel und Erde gemacht und das Meer und alles, was darinnen ist, und ruhte am siebenten Tage. Darum segnete der HERR den Sabbattag und heiligte ihn.
(GNB) In six days I, the LORD, made the earth, the sky, the seas, and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested. That is why I, the LORD, blessed the Sabbath and made it holy.
(KJV) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(LITV) For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all which is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; on account of this Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and sanctified it.
(MKJV) For in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.
(MSG) For in six days GOD made Heaven, Earth, and sea, and everything in them; he rested on the seventh day. Therefore GOD blessed the Sabbath day; he set it apart as a holy day.
(RSV) for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.
(WEB) for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore Yahweh blessed the Sabbath day, and made it holy.
(Webster) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath-day, and hallowed it.
(YLT) for six days hath Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and resteth in the seventh day; therefore hath Jehovah blessed the Sabbath-day, and doth sanctify it.
There seems to be a common theme here.
"You forget we are social critters. We live in groups because we need cooperation among individuals to survive"
"They are out-competed very effectively by societies that promote co-operation"
You are still dealing in the area of self interest, not altruism or common good. The Carnegies, Rockefellers, Fords, Soros, Gates, Stalins, Pol Pots, China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia all use cooperation to suit their selfish ends but when necessary they, at heart, are ruthless self monopolists right out of the Ayn Rand school of the strong individualist survives because there is nothing greater than themselves or a transcendant being they must one day answer to.
How can you trust someone whose ethic is what he thinks is right at the time but might change in the next minute do to a changing circumstance? Who is to say that the looting actions in New Orleans during and after Katrina are not justfied by the ethic of the have-nots getting their "just" do? Certainly in those circumstances cooperation or "the Golden Rule" was suspended in the face of self interest.
I'm fine. I just don't spend too much time responding. I generally read, chuckle, and move on.
"I can at least confirm that Hell is noisy neighbors"
Amen to that, and clients too!!
I've withdrawn lately, too.
I've been so busy with the new building we're putting up that my time has dried up.
New building?
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.