Deny the Designer, Save "Science"

http://www.spectator.org ^ | 1/23/2006 12:06:59 AM | P. David Hornik

[Para-Ord.45]

People who celebrated Judge John Jones's recent ruling that Intelligent Design is a "religious view" and "not science," so that it is "unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution," are satisfied because religion and science have been kept strictly apart, which suits their worldview. It amounts, though, to begging the question that is at stake, and "winning" the argument by sheer force.

Before explaining why, it's worth noting that science is being defined flexibly. If someone says -- "The fossil record does not actually indicate that species evolved into other species, and evidence of the necessary transitional species has not been found, but we assume that those species did exist because our theory requires it" -- this, of course, is science. And if someone says -- "We have no idea how the single bacterium from which all other species allegedly evolved could have emerged from inanimate matter, but we assume that it must have" -- this too is science, to be taught to children as established fact. It is, after all, a "naturalistic" explanation, hence true, hence science.

Most people who believe in God, however, believe that God created nature. If that were so, then it should be at least theoretically possible that scientists, who investigate nature, could come upon evidence of God while doing so. When you delve deeply into something, the goal is usually to discover its source. Einstein, like many titans of science before him, acknowledged this in a general way in many statements, such as: "everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man," or his reference to "rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

Such statements, though, while interesting and important, are admittedly not science. ID scientists make a different claim -- that their rigorous investigation of natural phenomena like organisms and parts of organisms, or their rigorous application of mathematical laws of randomness and probability to the complexity of such organisms, yields specific evidence that they were designed, and that evolution does not adequately explain their existence.

ID scientists have presented their evidence in peer-reviewed books published by major, prestigious publishers and in peer-reviewed articles published by major, prestigious journals. A statement circulated by the Discovery Institute -- "We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged" -- has already been signed by over four hundred scientists. They come from fields like biochemistry, bacteriology, astrophysics, mathematics, and computer science and from institutions like Princeton, Cornell, Cambridge, Columbia, and MIT.

Twenty years ago, you didn't hear about this sort of thing. Now you do -- because, as often happens, a scientific theory, in this case evolution, is coming under challenge, and a different paradigm, in this case ID, is arising in its place. Of course, not all the scientists who doubt evolution accept ID. But many of them do, and they do so on the basis of scientific research.

Why, then, the claim that ID is "not science"? Part of the reason, to repeat, is sheer prejudice. People who espouse a naturalistic, materialist view of reality, which Darwinism supposedly corroborated and did much to promote, realize that the posited designer of nature is a deity. A deity, as they see it, belongs to "religion" -- at best soft, sentimental stuff that may have a place in the church or synagogue but not in a serious domain like science.

The other claim against ID is that it is "not falsifiable." First of all, the term is, once more, flexible. The statement that "Even if we don't currently understand how evolution via random mutation and natural selection could have produced the species existing in the world, we will eventually" -- is also not falsifiable but, rather, an expression of faith. Second, two Discovery Institute fellows, while acknowledging "that there's no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists," demonstrate here that "the specific design arguments currently in play are empirically testable, even falsifiable, and involve testable predictions."

And as for that "bare assertion," if it were true that nature had been designed, and if science has now grown sophisticated enough to detect evidence of the designer, then it could, logically and conceivably, also be the case that the assertion is not falsifiable because it is not false.

Interesting questions, calling for further research and open minds. So interesting we might even let children know about them.

[caffe]

yes it is, I wonder if all the "conservatives" who post here also accept the majority scientific view that global warming is a fact just as non-critically as they accept evolution. Judging from their posts, the answer is YES. They should also be concerned about the majority academic position on all topics if they want to remain intellectually intact...but I fear it's too late.

[burzum]

Some thoughts before I get flamed (it's impossible to post any opinion on an evolution thread without someone taking offense, regardless of how abstract the argument):

1. I think evolution is a scientific theory based upon observations across a broad spectrum. It is also falsifiable.
2. I think ID is a theory based upon observations across a very narrow spectrum. It is not falsifiable.
3. Saying "Fact" or "truth" is so much of a cliche. No one really means it. If we get to the point where people say "I think ..." we will be much better off.
4. I think it is reasonable to accept a scientific theory without accepting the cultural waste. I would argue that most people dislike the theory of evolution because of the cultural and political issues, not the scientific issues.

I can only hope that someday we will be able to get to the point where we can discuss an evolution thread by stating our own thoughts and opinions on the subject and ignoring the politics. I think a discussion where people who weren't openly pro-evolution or pro-ID would be much more helpful.

[JTN]

This curious Court order disallowing the teaching of Intelligent Design as an alternative to the cheasy science called 'evolution' actually represents the criminalization of religion, particularly Christianity.

I thought that ID wasn't religion. That's what we're told by all the people who want to teach it in schools.

Our Christian belief that the practicing of homosexual perversion is a great evil has become a "hate crime" if we dare speak out publicly about these beliefs.

Nonsense. You can speak publicly about it all you want. Write a letter to the editor! Distribute a pamphlet! No one can stop you.

There's also the anti-6th Commandment/ anti-Christian laws that allow doctors to help destroy certain patients who are ill and feel desperate. (Many of these patients are not elderly or terminally ill, they are simply depressed and feel like they want to die).

More nonsense. The Oregon law states that at least two doctors must state that the patient is terminal with less than six months to live.

Darwinism, the flimsiest of all modern 'sciences', is nothing other than a subversive cult engaged in the fine art of destroying the Christian faith. People are finally beginning to realize this, and Charles Darwin's 'evolution' will soon be rotting in the grave along with its Christian-bashing, Bible-hating founder.

"[N]ew knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [... de nouvelles connaissances conduisent a reconnaitre dans la theorie de l'evolution plus qu'une hypothese.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

Pope John Paul II, 1996

"I see no good reasons why the views given in this volume should shock the religious sensibilities of anyone."

Charles Darwin, The Origin Of Species, 1869.

[Hunble]

Well, this "scientist" will use your example of Global Warming and Intelligent Design as rather similar.

HOW does it work, and can they reproduce examples of the known factual information in a laboratory? Can independent researchers derive the same results in their experiments?

Would their experiments survive a "Double Blind" study?

[MonroeDNA]

I believe that God created the universe, including evolution.

What's the big deal?

[caffe]

I suppose you think you can prove evolution by that lame example of "scientific methods"

Again, you should not depart from all the true scientists in global warming fame, you will be hated and allienated if you depart from your "scientific" brothers and sisters.

[dr_lew]

How did NOTHING do it?

In the universe, the difficult things are done as if they are easy. - Lao Tsu

Quoted by Timothy Ferris in GALAXIES

[MonroeDNA]

I just read the definition of "Deist."

"Deism (n): Belief in God as revealed by nature and reason combined with a disbelief in scripture, prophets, superstition and church authority. Deism is a free-thought philosophy, much like Agnosticism, Atheism or Pantheism in that it rejects the dogmas and superstitions of religion in favor of individual reason and empirical observation of the universe. Deism differs from these other free-thought philosophies in that it sees an order and architecture to the universe that indicates a Creator. The word "God" is used to describe this creator, not to be confused with the "Biblegod." Deism notes that we as humans are endowed with the power of reason and an indomitable spirit. It follows that we are intended to exercise them. Therefore, skepticism and doubt are not "sins" but rather natural expressions of God's gift of reason. Because skepticism and doubt are not sins, Deists view with extreme suspicion any efforts by other humans to claim divine authority, such as claiming to be a "prophet" or citing "sacred scripture" said to be written by alleged prophets (as in the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc.). Placing faith in scriptures, prophets, priests, churches, "holy" figures, or traditions is surrendering your personal reason to another source. Usually, this other source has far less interest in "the state of your soul" as the accumulation of wealth and political power. With scripture and revelation removed, all that remains to know God is personal reason and observation of the universe. Essentially, this is getting to know the artist by studying the artwork. The only "Word of God" is the universe itself. "

I am a Deist, too.

[burzum]

You CANNOT prove that humans evolved from monkies. Observations INDICATE, but the evidence is still lacking.

Noone says that humans had evolved from monkeys (that I can recall). Evolutionists do say that humans and monkeys evolved along separate paths from and at one point there was a precursor animal to both of them.

As far as proof, you need to be very careful on your definition. Every mathematical and scientific theory is built on axioms (unproved assertions). Such as the definition of a line or of a circle (for mathematics). I think it is unreasonable to throw out all axioms, because then the words 'scientific proof' would have no meaning.

Additionally you will need to define a probability that says where a theory is reasonable or unreasonable. Scientists typically do this with the standard deviation of a number and line fits (such as χ² if you are familiar with that notation). By these methods you can say that if you repeated the observations randomly, there would be a certain percentage probability that they would fall within various ranges from what the theory predicts. This is the modern method of a scientific proof. You don't say that something is 100% certain, you say it is 98.353% certain, and you list your sources so that people can critique you and re-perform your calculations to make sure you are correct.

I would argue that based upon the above considerations, that the theory of evolutions has been proved to a certain level of confidence.

[Hunble]

I also believe in magic!

I can make things happen by simply thinking about them and performing some rather simple rituals. Well, not all that simple, but you get the idea.

That is why I have no problems with Intelligent Design, since it should be rather easy to reproduce in a laboratory environment. Facts are facts, unless someone is trying to use deception.

Of course, you would also be the first one to question my ability to use magic and label it as something Satanic.

However, by defending the concept of Intelligent Design, you are also supporting that magic is something real. To you, this is how God has created new life forms on Earth.

[peyton randolph]

I am a Deist, too.

I suspect that many who are flamed on these threads as "atheists" are actually deists.

[dr_lew]

Noone says that humans had evolved from monkeys (that I can recall). Evolutionists do say that humans and monkeys evolved along separate paths from and at one point there was a precursor animal to both of them.

Well, apes evolved from monkeys, and humans evolved from apes, in fact a particular branch of the apes. The molecular boys claim we are closely related to the chimps, and have more recent common ancestors with the chimps than the chimps do with gorillas, so we really ARE an ape, or even a chimp. In fact, the radical faction wants to classify chimps as Hominids, i.e. in the same phylogentic family as humans.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

[Virginia-American]

It is actually quite entertaining to hear the atheists go on about how ID is a theory but Evolution is a fact. LOL.

Could you please supply a few examples of this?

Especially anyone calling ID a theory.

[Virginia-American]

look for a whole load of bile to come down on the thread.

[Virginia-American]

so it has had to revert to hoaxes like "Piltdown Man", and bungling 'evidence' such as the "Galapigos finch" dud.

So which is this:

hoax or bungle?

Source

You know, all you, or the DI, or AiG, or any other ID-er or creationist has to do is find an ERV that is shared by two primates in a way that doesn't fit the phylogenetic tree.

But you can't.

"Evolution" isn't a science, it's a political, anti-religion movement that carries on in the atheist, Bible bashing traditions...

So how do you explain the above chart without invoking common descent?

Are you willing to claim that the hypothetical designer is constrained by the rule that any ERV in both new world and old world monkeys must also be in every species of ape, including ourselves?

By the rule that any ERV in both orangutans and gibbons, which live in Asia must also be in every species of African ape, including ourselves?

If the hypothetical designer is constrained by the rules summarized in the diagram, why? Explain in detail.

If it isn't, then why is nature?

This is just the primates. The same sort of rules apply everywhere: artiodactyls, carnivores, you name it.

How many examples does it take until "common descent" seems reasonable?

[liliesgrandpa]

IMHO I think that when a Christian hears the word evolution, he thinks abiogenesis. When an atheist hears the word evolution, he tries hard not to think about abiogenesis.

[muir_redwoods]

Evolution is a theory, a well-suported and tested body of observations. ID is a hypothesis, a wishful guess. Learn the difference.

[TN4Liberty]

What's the big deal?

The big deal is that some would ensure that you are not permitted to even hint at that in a public setting.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks, but the article doesn't justify deployment of the ping list.