Posted on 11/18/2005 4:34:43 AM PST by StatenIsland
Why intelligent design proponents are wrong.
Because every few years this country, in its infinite tolerance, insists on hearing yet another appeal of the Scopes monkey trial, I feel obliged to point out what would otherwise be superfluous - that the two greatest scientists in the history of our species were Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, and they were both religious. Newton's religiosity was traditional. He was a staunch believer in Christianity and member of the Church of England. Einstein's was a more diffuse belief in a deity who set the rules for everything that occurs in the universe.
Neither saw science as an enemy of religion. On the contrary. "He believed he was doing God's work," wrote James Gleick in his recent biography of Newton. Einstein saw his entire vocation - understanding the workings of the universe - as an attempt to understand the mind of God.
Not a crude and willful God who pushes and pulls and does things according to whim. Newton was trying to supplant the view that first believed the sun's motion around the Earth was the work of Apollo and his chariot, and later believed it was a complicated system of cycles and epicycles, one tacked on upon the other every time some wobble in the orbit of a planet was found. Newton's God was not at all so crude. The laws of his universe were so simple, so elegant, so economical, and therefore so beautiful that they could only be divine.
Which brings us to Dover (Pa.), Pat Robertson, the Kansas State Board of Education and a fight over evolution that is so anachronistic and retrograde as to be a national embarrassment.
Dover distinguished itself this Election Day by throwing out all eight members of its school board who tried to impose "intelligent design" - today's tarted-up version of creationism - on the biology curriculum. Robertson then called down the wrath of God upon the good people of Dover for voting "God out of your city." Meanwhile in Kansas, the school board did a reverse Dover, mandating the teaching of skepticism about evolution and forcing intelligent design into the statewide biology curriculum.
Let's be clear. "Intelligent design" may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge - in this case, evolution - they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science - that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution - or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?
In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase "natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," thus unmistakably implying - by fiat of definition, no less - that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and to science.
The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an "unguided process" with no "discernable direction or goal." This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an "unguided process" by which the Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an "unguided process" of molecular interactions without "purpose"? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?
He may be, of course. But that discussion is the province of religion, not science. The relentless attempt to confuse the two by teaching warmed-over creationism as science can only bring ridicule to religion, gratuitously discrediting a great human endeavor and our deepest source of wisdom precisely about those questions - arguably, the most important questions in life - that lie beyond the material.
How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too.
Originally published on November 18, 2005
Really? The common ancestor for humans and chimps wasn't an ape? You should probably inform the biological community.
Oh, lots of things. For example, if you could find modern human skulls in layers that date prior to the ape-man skulls, that would cast serious doubt on whether we evolved from these humanoid creatures, (which really did exist and which really do change through the fossil record in a seamless fashion from remarkably chimp-like creatures to remarkably man-like creatures).
Alternatively, someone could find a fossil that does NOT fit into this chain, or into any logically compatible branch of it. For example, suppose somebody found a humanoid creature with a large, human-like brain and an ape-like jaw. Such a thing would not fit in with the rest of the fossil evidence at all. That's how the Piltdown forgery was detected. But if such a fossil were found and verified, it would cast serious doubt on human evolution.
Another possibility would be that our DNA is not structured in a way that is compatible with gradual transitions from ape to man. For example, let's suppose that the genetic evidence showed that chimp DNA was just monkey DNA with a whole bunch of little changes. I can also say something about the DNA of ancient apes ancestral to us, by focusing on sets of changes that are common to gorillas and chimps. (This works because chimps and humans share a common ancestor more recent than chimps and gorillas, thus any chimp-gorilla common ancestor must, if evolution is correct, be ancestral to us.) Suppose further that human DNA was just ancient-ape DNA with more changes, except for a significantly large section that doesn't have the monkey-to-ancient-ape changes. It would be as if some chunk of the DNA went from monkey to man without passing through our putative ape ancestor. That would falsify human evolution.
Now, what would you say about human evolution, if those skulls and their dates were proven correct?
I frankly do not believe in any doctrine such as "plenary verbal inspiration" that holds that the Bible is free of error. I do not base my Christian faith on this doctrine. I base my Christian faith on what we do know about the history of the Church and its origin, what we do know about what Christ taught and did, and on what God has done in my own life and the lives of people I know. (I am an Episcopalian; we acknowledge the authority of the scriptures but we do not hold them over reason and tradition.)
I do not hold to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy in part because we do not know who wrote many books of the Bible, including the New Testament (e.g., Hebrews). Who declared or decided which books are in the canon? The early Church argued, indeed people still argue, as to whether Revelation should be in the canon. People who believe that book is inspired still argue exactly when it was written -- in the 60s, in which case its prophecies were fulfilled by the destruction of the Temple and its system of worship; or in the 90s, to buttress a case that Revelation consists of prophecies as yet unfulfilled. Thus, how can we be certain of its reliability?
Nor do I hold that Jesus himself was omniscient while he completed his ministry on Earth. Jesus may well have shared the beliefs of his contemporaries about the authorship of the Torah, even those these beliefs were mistaken. You may find this suggestion outrageous, but please consider: Would you have been able to ask Jesus questions about quantum mechanics or molecular biology? Did Jesus possess that kind of supernatural knowledge? Evangelicals frequently brush up against the heresy of docetism, as well as bibliolatry: docetism is the doctrine that Jesus was God but not man. Of course, Evangelicals do teach Jesus was fully human as well as fully God. But a Jesus who had supernatural knowledge of all things, including who wrote the Torah, or scientific knowledge of quantum mechanics or the like, or what was happening on Neptune's moon Triton that day -- that's not a Jesus who is fully human, that's a Jesus who is God in a human suit.
So when Jesus spoke of the Flood and of Moses, we cannot conclude the Flood actually happened. (The geological evidence is emphatic: there was no global flood. Also, the chronology of Genesis would put the flood about the time of the construction of the great pyramids of Egypt. We possess written records from Egypt. No one made note of such an event.) Instead, Jesus was using a familiar story to drive home an important -- and true -- point, that his generation was in peril, that destruction would come upon them suddenly. (And, he was right: the temple worship system as well as their nation were soon destroyed.)
I would say I believe God created humans as humans.
It has been confused with creationism which IS a religious doctrine. It is also not a "god of the gaps" notion. Properly speaking it is that the evolutionary mechanism proposed by Darwin, even as updated by neo-darwinists, does not explain the evidence.
But what about those previous, almost-human creatures? Would they be human, or not human? Did God breathe life into a remarkably chimp-like human, which "begat" over time, changing to look like us along the way? Or did the ape-descended hominids evolve up to a certain point and die out, after which God fashioned a nearly identical creature out of clay?
Once you accept the skulls, you have to accept the gradual evolution of the hominids. But how do you set us apart from that chain? Are those the skulls of our ancestors, or not? What are those things, anyway?
I don't accept those skulls because I have never seen them, don't know what was actually found, where, when, under what circumstances, or how many are composites. By the way, how many have you personally examined and under what circumstances?
So theory intelligent design is simply the idea that Darwinism is wrong?
|
On this thread, you can see the Luddites failing to see the ammunition they have handed the left even as they get peppered with it by the liberal glitterati.
"None so blind..." and all that.
Yes:
Another self appointed spokesman speaks.
A highly educated one. You may want to listen to what he has to say.
Except here is the rub. A scientific theory can be modified by data points when they no longer fit within the framework of that model. So I am certainly open to "junk" evolution should evidence (real, verifiable, peer reviewed) come along that is at odds with the evolutionary model. Religion on the other hand (being set down by God) has no checks and balances. Our notions of God are completely subjective as apposed to objective. So with that in mind, do you wonder that all of us (living in a solipsistic universe) have our own ideas of what God is? How then can you use "God" to define or help define the observed models we create to describe this physical universe?
So back to belief. Does your belief in the Bible allow you to rewrite or junk the parts of it that are shown to be no longer true as we continue to increase our collective knowledge as a species? Science works just that way. We junk or modify old theories and models as we discover new information that requires us to re-evaluate those models.
I am pretty sure science would say the resurrection of Jesus was impossible yet I believe it.
Nope. That is a belief and does not fall into the realm of science one way or the other.
I've certainly heard some biblical advocates here argue that some or all of the old testament are no longer applicable, and that other parts of the bible are allegorical. The most amazing posters seem to think that every word is literally true, and are prepared to discard the entire body of physical science if it gets in the way of their views.
Surely science would be able to determine if a resurrection would be scientifically possible.
There are real in-the-field working scientists (many with PhDs) on FR. A large number of them grace these threads. If you went to college, you might remember just how busy your professors were and what it took to get a “one-on-one”.
So here is a unique opportunity, possibly the only one you will ever have in your lifetime, to have at your fingertips their years of study, knowledge, and cutting edge research from pretty much all walks of science. From what I have seen over the past 4.5 years here, most are willing to answer anything they can in great detail. What an opportunity. Just think for a moment what you have here…..
Longshadow was more eloquent than I. :-) Here is his post from a few months ago:
It's worse than that; much worse. In the history of the world, only a tiny fraction of all the people who ever lived have had the opportunity to ask highly qualified scientists direct questions, and learn from their wisdom. Happily, because of the internet and places like FR, it is now possible for people from all walks of life to converse directly with all sorts of scientific experts; we have physicists, microbiologists, mathematicians, astronomers, and chemists, to specify but a few, roaming these threads, and eager to explain what they know and how they know it to virtually anyone willing to ask an intelligent question.
But there is another segment of people on these threads who, instead of asking these learned folks intelligent questions and thus expanding their knowledge and understanding, insist instead upon bludgeoning them with their ignorance, and questioning the patriotism, honesty, and intellect of people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of scientific knowledge.
I submit that such people are not here to learn anything, but are in fact interested in quite the opposite. I submit they are here to interfere with the dissemination of scientific knowledge that they find offensive. They don't want other people to ask the experts questions and learn from them; no, they are hear to attack the experts and cast doubt upon their wisdom, in the desperate hope that others will turn away and not listen to them.
IMHO that is why the same people show up over and over again parroting the same refuted diatribes and misinformation, and spewing the same bogus out-of-context quotes designed specifically to disrupt the dissemination of scientific knowledge. That why the same people show up over and over again misrepresenting what scientific theories and laws are, despite having had it explained to them 1720th time; they are here to instill confusion and spread their ignorance, not to disseminate knowledge.
The experts here on these threads ought to be revered and thanked for sharing with us their insights and explanations of the natural world around us; instead scorn is heaped upon them and their knowledge by the belligerently ignorant. I submit that these purveyors of unknowledge should be treated for the intellectual disruptors that they are. The stare the best opportunity any of us will ever have to gain more insight and understanding in the face, and spit in the eyes of those who offer and have the knowledge to help make that a reality.
Behold, I give you the belligerently ignorant, the intellectual Luddite's of our time. Know them for the anti-knowledge disruptors they are.
Not if it were a supernatural even. Again that falls out of the realm of science.
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.