Your theory has been falsified.
Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Occasionally a social issue becomes so ubiquitous that almost everyone wants to talk about it -- even well-meaning but uninformed pundits. For example, Charles Krauthammer preaches that religious conservatives should stop being so darn, well, religious, and should accept his whitewashed version of religion-friendly Darwinism.1 George Will prophesies that disagreements over Darwin could destroy the future of conservatism.2 Both agree that intelligent design is not science.
It is not evident that either of these critics has read much by the design theorists they rebuke. They appear to have gotten most of their information about intelligent design from other critics of the theory, scholars bent on not only distorting the main arguments of intelligent design but also sometimes seeking to deny the academic freedom of design theorists.
In 2001, Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez’s research on galactic habitable zones appeared on the cover of Scientific American. Dr. Gonzalez’s research demonstrates that our universe, galaxy, and solar system were intelligently designed for advanced life. Although Gonzalez does not teach intelligent design in his classes, he nevertheless believes that “[t]he methods [of intelligent design] are scientific, and they don't start with a religious assumption.” But a faculty adviser to the campus atheist club circulated a petition condemning Gonzalez’s scientific views as merely “religious faith.” Attacks such as these should be familiar to the conservative minorities on many university campuses; however, the response to intelligent design has shifted from mere private intolerance to public witch hunts. Gonzalez is up for tenure next year and clearly is being targeted because of his scientific views.
The University of Idaho, in Moscow, Idaho, is home to Scott Minnich, a soft-spoken microbiologist who runs a lab studying the bacterial flagellum, a microscopic rotary engine that he and other scientists believe was intelligently designed -- see "What Is Intelligent Design.") Earlier this year Dr. Minnich testified in favor of intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial over the teaching of intelligent design. Apparently threatened by Dr. Minnich’s views, the university president, Tim White, issued an edict proclaiming that “teaching of views that differ from evolution ... is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula.” As Gonzaga University law professor David DeWolf asked in an editorial, “Which Moscow is this?” It’s the Moscow where Minnich’s career advancement is in now jeopardized because of his scientific views.
Scientists like Gonzalez and Minnich deserve not only to be understood, but also their cause should be defended. Conservative champions of intellectual freedom should be horrified by the witch hunts of academics seeking to limit academic freedom to investigate or objectively teach intelligent design. Krauthammer’s and Will’s attacks only add fuel to the fire.
By calling evolution “brilliant,” “elegant,” and “divine,” Krauthammer’s defense of Darwin is grounded in emotional arguments and the mirage that a Neo-Darwinism that is thoroughly friendly towards Western theism. While there is no denying the possibility of belief in God and Darwinism, the descriptions of evolution offered by top Darwinists differ greatly from Krauthammer’s sanitized version. For example, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins explains that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” In addition, Krauthammer’s understanding is in direct opposition to the portrayal of evolution in biology textbooks. Says Douglas Futuyma in the textbook Evolutionary Biology:
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”3
“Evolution in a pure Darwinian world has no goal or purpose: the exclusive driving force is random mutations sorted out by natural selection from one generation to the next. … However elevated in power over the rest of life, however exalted in self-image, we were descended from animals by the same blind force that created those animals. …”5
Mr. Luskin is an attorney and published scientist working with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash.
This would be much easier: Can you name even one biologist with relevant professional bonafides who DOES agree with you, that natural selection should eliminate (or preclude the development of) a moral sense? And/or, in the meantime, maybe you can provide us some coherent argument as to why it should?
You made this as a flat assertion and simply declared it a conundrum. I don't see the conundrum at. Quite the opposite. The conundrum to me would be if evolution hadn't come up with something like morality.
Once you have fairly intelligent animals living in groups you have complex social relations, and once you have that a moral sense (or something very similar) seems nearly essential for individuals to manage and navigate the social scene.
For example an intelligent social animal needs to be able to avoid triggering acts of retribution by other members of his society, or least by too many other members. How does the animal know what behaviors are likely to trigger retribution unless he has some sense of what is "wrong".
From the other end the payoffs of mutual cooperation are so high (as are the costs of mutual aggression) that retribution systems are sure to develop. There will be a very strong pressure on social animals to figure out which individuals they can cooperate with, and which are uncooperative (don't reciprocate, cheat, etc). The later individuals will be to whatever extent denied the advantages of cooperation, and you have a system of retribution or shunning, and with that you have the basic mechanisms and structures of a moral system.
Little "e" evolution is a scientific fact, per the definition of a scientific fact (as opposed to the vulgar). It is observable and repeatable, and subject to revision or discard as the tools of observation improve. The "Theory of Evolution" is a scientific theory, in which the scientific fact of evolution plays a central mechanistic role.
I usually must assume that the Creationists/IDers on these threads are conflating evolution withthe Theory of Evolution when they address these themselves to the topic, because I have yet to find one who deos not accept what they call "microevolution" -- therefore, when they profess skepticism regarding "evolution", I presume they are in fact referring to the Theory of Evolution, and frame my response within that context.
Your theory has been falsified.
Finding an ERV in both orangutans and chimps that was not also present in gorillas and people would disprove the currently-accepted family tree of the primates. Doing the same thing over and over, with, say, cows, hippos and whales, or dogs, cats and bears, etc. would destroy the theory of evolution, with or without some sort of guiding intelligence.
Actually ID isn't even that bold. They won't say (except by hoping you'll assume it, i.e. fill in the blanks yourself without committing the IDer to anything) that intelligence actually did something, because they won't address how (or when or where or by whom or by what) instances of "intelligent design" are or were instantiated.
All they'll do is infer (or pretend to infer) the existence of "intelligent design" as an end product. All else is mystery, and I believe is intentionally kept so. Once you begin to talk about how design actually happens then you've got "creationism," which is harder to "wedge" with!
Also, when you move beyond the vacuousness of ID you've got schisms among antievolutionists because they can't agree on even the most general scenarios of earth and life history (age of the earth, flood and geology, progressive vs special creation, etc, etc) and they can't settle those disputes in a normal scientific manner because there are always significant elements of dogma in play.
I don't need new material as long as there are people posting who think that ID is somehow compatible with young earth creationism.
Which seems to be a lot of people.
Yes, but they use different words.
No deal. Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a theory.
I think not. Ted's classification is more properly Hippopotamus amphibius. This is clearly not a pig. Gumleg's theory stands unfalsified. :)
Need I point out that every single "metaphysical naturalist" alive is a "closeted philosopher?" Who simultaneously claims for himself the "objectivity" of a scientist?
Polyphemus was a Cyclops. That's a one-eyed monster: kuklos + ops
And the probability of that is....?
Somewhere below Dembski's Universal Lower Bound of 10-150 I suspect.
How many of us have tried t explain this to him? Morton's Demon is working overtime I'm afraid.
Your claim is manifestly false. (Having no more integrity than "Bush lied" and similar leftist mantras.) You have, and always have had, every theological shade among evolutionists. You have agressive atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) you have skeptical agnostics (e.g. Darwin himself) and YOU ALSO HAVE theists, often fairly pious ones (e.g. Asa Gray, Kenneth Miller, Francisco Ayala, Ronald Fisher, Simon Conway Morris, just to name a few that come to mind).
read later
It's surprising the number of arguments that utilize the 'Appeal to Dictionary' fallacy. LOL.
On another thread, post 322, Fester was saying he values written records above anything else:
I tend to consider the written records and observations of man to be more reliable in explaining what the universe has contained throughout its history. There is simply no record denoting a gradual progression of life from amoeba to man. Not in any case over 10,000 years.
Could you describe the thoughts that go through your mind when you are making that decision?
But is IS compatible with young earth creationism. It's also compatible with old earth creationism, and every other sort of creationism. It's also compatible the theory that every-single-thing-in-the-entire-universe-evolved-naturally-except-this-one-little-bit-of-intelligent-design-over-here-no-over-there-oops-you-missed-it.
It's vacuous, and therefore compatible with just about anything. (It was intelligently designed that way.)
The reality of ID as a religiously based philosophy is not reliant on the number of times its proponents mention 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.