Posted on 07/01/2002 7:25:44 AM PDT by aculeus
My deliberately provocative title is borrowed from Leonard Krishtalka, who directs the Natural History Museum at the University of Kansas. Hired-gun "design theorists" in cheap tuxedos have met with some success in getting close to their target: public science education. I hope to convince you that this threat is worth paying attention to. As I write, intelligent design (ID) is a hot issue in the states of Washington and Ohio (see Physics Today, May 2002, page 31*). Evolutionary biology is ID's primary target, but geology and physics are within its blast zone.
Creationism evolves. As in biological evolution, old forms persist alongside new. After the Scopes "Monkey Trial" of 1925, creationists tried to get public schools to teach biblical accounts of the origin and diversity of life. Various courts ruled the strategy unconstitutional. Next came the invention of "creation science," which was intended to bypass constitutional protections. It, too, was recognized by the courts as religion. Despite adverse court rulings, creationists persist in reapplying these old strategies locally. In many places, the pressure keeps public school biology teachers intimidated and evolution quietly minimized.
However, a new strategy, based on so-called ID theory, is now at the cutting edge of creationism. ID is different from its forebears. It does a better job of disguising its sectarian intent. It is well funded and nationally coordinated. To appeal to a wider range of people, biblical literalism, Earth's age, and other awkward issues are swept under the rug. Indeed, ID obfuscates sufficiently well that some educated people with little background in the relevant science have been taken in by it. Among ID's diverse adherents are engineers, doctors--and even physicists.
ID advocates can't accept the inability of science to deal with supernatural hypotheses, and they see this limitation as a sacrilegious denial of God's work and presence. Desperately in need of affirmation, they invent "theistic science" in which the design of the Creator is manifest. Perhaps because their religious faith is rather weak, they need to bolster their beliefs every way they can--including hijacking science to save souls and prove the existence of God.
William Dembski, a mathematician and philosopher at Baylor University and one of ID's chief advocates, asserts that: " . . . any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."1 Whether or not they agree with Dembski on this point, most Americans hold some form of religious belief. Using what they call the Wedge Strategy,2 ID advocates seek to pry Americans away from "naturalistic science" by forcing them to choose between science and religion. ID advocates know that science will lose. They portray science as we know it as innately antireligious, thereby blurring the distinction between science and how science may be interpreted.
When presenting their views before the public, ID advocates generally disguise their religious intent. In academic venues, they avoid any direct reference to the Designer. They portray ID as merely an exercise in detecting design, citing examples from archaeology, the SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) project, and other enterprises. Cambridge University Press has published one ID book,3 which, the ID advocates repeatedly proclaim, constitutes evidence that their case has real scientific merit. ID creationist publications are nearly absent from refereed journals, and this state of affairs is presented as evidence of censorship.
This censorship, ID advocates argue, justifies the exploitation of public schools and the children in them to circumvent established scientific procedures. In tort law, expert scientific testimony must agree with the consensus of experts in a given field. No such limitation exists with respect to public education. ID advocates can snow the public and school boards with pseudoscientific presentations. As represented by ID advocates, biological evolution is a theory in crisis, fraught with numerous plausible-sounding failures, most of which are recycled from overt creationists. It is "only fair," the ID case continues, to present alternatives so that children can make up their own minds. Yesterday's alternative was "Flood geology." Today's is "design theory."
Fairness, open discussion, and democracy are core American values and often problematic. Unfortunately, journalists routinely present controversies where none exist, or they present political controversies as scientific controversies. Stories on conflicts gain readers, and advertising follows. This bias toward reporting conflicts, along with journalists' inability to evaluate scientific content and their unwillingness to do accuracy checks (with notable exceptions), are among the greatest challenges to the broad public understanding of science.
ID creationism is largely content-free rhetoric. Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University and an ID proponent, argues that many biochemical and biophysical mechanisms are "irreducibly complex."4 He means that, if partially dismembered, they would not work, so they could not have evolved. This line of argument ignores the large number of biological functions that look irreducibly complex, but for which intermediates have been found. One response to Behe's claims consists of the tedious task of demonstrating functions in a possible evolutionary path to the claimed irreducibly complex state. When presented with these paths, Behe typically ignores them and moves on. I admire the people who are willing to spend the time to put together the detailed refutations.5
The position of an ID creationist can be summarized as: "I can't understand how this complex outcome could have arisen, so it must be a miracle." In an inversion of the usual procedure in science, the null hypothesis is taken to be the thing Dembski, Behe, and their cohorts want to prove, albeit with considerable window-dressing. Dembski classifies all phenomena as resulting from necessity, chance, or design. In ruling out necessity, he means approximately that one could not predict the detailed structures and information we see in biological systems from the laws of physics. His reference to chance is essentially equivalent to the creationist use of one of the red herrings introduced by Fred Hoyle:
A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there?6 Having dispensed with necessity and chance, Dembski concludes that design has been detected on the grounds that nothing else can explain the phenomenon--at least according to him.
Of course, design has no predictive power. ID is not a scientific theory. If we had previously attributed the unexplainable to design, we would still be using Thor's hammer to explain thunder. Nor does ID have any technological applications. It can be fun to ask ID advocates about the practical applications of their work. Evolution has numerous practical technological applications, including vaccine development. ID has none.
As organisms evolve, they become more complex, but evolution doesn't contravene the second law of thermodynamics. Dembski, like his creationist predecessors, misuses thermodynamics. To support the case for ID, he has presented arguments based on a supposed Law of Conservation of Information, an axiomatic law that applies only to closed systems with very restricted assumptions.7 Organisms, of course, are not closed systems.
ID's reach extends beyond biology to physics and cosmology. One interesting discussion concerns the fundamental constants. There is a well-known point of view that our existence depends on a number of constants lying within a narrow range. As one might expect, the religious community has generally viewed this coincidence as evidence in favor of--or at least as a plausibility argument for--their beliefs. The ID creationist community has adopted the fundamental constants as additional evidence for their Designer of Life--apparently not realizing that many fine-tuning arguments are based on physical constants allowing evolution to proceed. Physical cosmology is largely absent from school science standards. Where present, as in Kansas, it is likely to come under ID attack.
I have only scratched the surface here. Don't assume everything is fine in your school system even if it seems free of conflict. Peace may mean that evolution, the core concept of biology, is minimized. No region of the country is immune. Watch out for the guys in tuxedos--they don't have violins in those cases.
Adrian Melott is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. He is also a founding board member of Kansas Citizens for Science.
Letters are encouraged and should be sent to Letters, Physics Today, American Center for Physics, One Physics Ellipse, College Park, MD 20740-3842 or by e-mail to ptletter@aip.org (using your surname as "Subject"). Please include your affiliation, mailing address, and daytime phone number. We reserve the right to edit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References 1. W. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill. (1999), p. 206. 2. See http://rnaworld.bio.ukans.edu/id-intro/sect3.html. Another source is http://www.sunflower.com/~jkrebs/JCCC/05%20Wedge_edited.html 3. W. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities, Cambridge U. Press, New York (1998). For a review by W. Elsberry, see http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/dembski7.html. 4. M. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Free Press, New York (1996). 5. See http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/catalano/box/behe.htm. See also http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/behe.html 6. F. Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York (1983), p. 18. 7. W. Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Md. (2002).
Science doesn't assume everything has a natural explaination? Of course it does. It must. That is the essence of science. Please observe I have assigned no fault to anyone, and I said before that I agree that science should assume a priori that all phenomena have a natural explaination. Science is the study of the natural world. People may not assume these things if they wish, but science as a discipline does indeed assume that everything has a natural explaination.
The key difference between the approach of a scientist and an advocate of ID is that the scientist will continue to search for a natural explanation -- reasonably suspecting, I suppose, that there is such an explanation, based on the magnificent track record of science. The ID advocate, however, is content to halt the search at a convenient place -- such as right now -- and declare that not only is there no natural explanation at this time, but that there will never be one. Thus -- ta da! -- the Intelligent Designer. This isn't science, it's laziness.
Yep. The vast majority of supposed evolution has never been observed. The vast majority of transitional fossils are missing due to [fill in your favorite natural disaster]. This isn't to say that all of life didn't develop naturally. Maybe it did. Science assumes a priori that it did and then sets about explaining how based on the data that it can find. So, of course it is taken on faith that life developed naturally. It can't be empirically proven, no matter how many hypothesis and just-so stories scientists can dream up.
Ah, so any missing evidence is adequeate for the ID advocate to declare that the whole enterprise of science is bogus. However, in the real world we often lack all the desired data points. For example, if you are hunting a fugative who leaves Utah and who ends up in West Virginia, you may have a few sightings along the way, enough to point you in the general direction. The ID advocate, however, asserts that unless you have a heliocopter flying over his car and filming the entire journey, we don't know what has happened, and we are unjustified in assuming that he traveled from one point continuously to the other. The ID approach is a mere convenience for denying the obvious conclusion presented by the available evidence.
There's a road. People can travel on it at any time.
Deliberate-point-missing, invincible-ignorance-rampant, going-on-vacation placemarker.
In the real world in the cases of believable scientific theories, you often lack A FEW data points. When ALL the data points are lacking, as in the case of evolution, real scientists are usually not in the business of patching together BS theories based on said total lack of data.
Would major evidence of a biplanetary society in ancient times suffice?
Why should anyone else care what you think of yourself?
You might have mentioned that the stone in the picture is still in the quarry -- it was not moved from where you see it. Also the three similar stones are somewhat smaller -- a mere 1000 tons. :)
Known as Hajar el Gouble, the Stone of the South, or the Hajar el Hibla, the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, it weighs an estimated 1200 tonnes.(2) It lays at a raised angle - the lowest part of its base still attached to the living rock - cut and ready to be broken free and transported to its presumed destination next to the Trilithon, the name given to the three great stones in ancient times.
Those column stones were not created by dinosaurs 70 million years ago and the Army Corps of Engineers has flatly asserted that no modern technology, much less any ancient technology, could move them (in present gravity that is).
You'll need to update this assertion from the Army Corps of Engineers. At the following site:
http://www.demag24.com/en/produkte/gittermast/index.asp
You'll find (with pictures):
Lifting the heaviest loads to the dizziest of heights
Demag lattice-boom cranes are capable of lifting the heaviest loads to incredible heights. In the case of the CC models, the crawler carrier ensures a high level of mobility, while the TC range comes with a road-going truck carrier. Demag lattice-boom cranes are characterised by an intelligent design concept incorporating highly refined erection and transportation logistics. All Demag lattice-boom cranes offer superior lifting technology, with the various models capable of lifting capacities ranging from 300t to a gigantic 1600t, and lifting heights of up to 234m.
CC 12600
With a maximum lifting capacity of 1600t and 22m radius, the Demag CC 12600 is the world's most powerful crawler crane with pick-and-carry capability. The 114m main boom can be combined with a 120m luffing or fixed jib to give a maximum hook height of 234 m! All the crane components have been optimised for effective transport logistics and can be easily assembled and dismantled.
I totally disagree. The mechanisms of evolution -- mutation and natural selection -- are supported by abundant evidence. I know of no species which is immune to these influences. Over time -- lots more time than the "young earthers" will admit -- the cumulative effects of mutation and natural selection can account for the presently-observed diversity of life on earth, as well as the fossil record of life in prior eras.
You may be right, but to assert that any particular conclusion is "obvious" from the evidence at hand is absurd. It's only obvious in so far as science is a field studying the natural world. In this paradigm I fully agree that natural evolution is the obvious conclusion. I simply see no reason to conclude that science's presupposition is in fact exclusively true simply because in the realm of science it is true by definition. You seem to think science has some sort of monoply on what is possible. I think that's a rather narrow way to look at the world.
All I'm talking about is science, which does indeed have a monopoly on what is possible -- in the natural world. If you want to discuss the happenings in the spirit world, I'll have to drop out of the discussion, because I can only deal with verifiable evidence. There may be loads of things happening among the incorporeal spirits, but without evidence we can see, touch, etc., I don't know how I'm going to learn about such matters.
In conclusion, I would point out once again that what is an "obvious" conclusion totally depends upon the paradigm in which one is examining the "evidence".
I'm sure that's true. But a non-scientific paradigm -- although one is perfectly free to persue it -- has no place in a scientific setting. This is my principle point.
I have little respect and a high level of disdain for speculative theories based on limited data filtered through a materialist paradigm and foisted on people as "the truth".
Me too. But I don't think evolution is one of those theories. I guess we'll just have to leave it there.
Lesser gravity, or denser atmosphere?
How about understanding the effects of releasing animals bred in captivity into an area other than that from which their parents originated? To be sure, Darwinian mechanics are of somewhat limitted usefulness here as the consequences of such action are largely speculative. But an understanding of Darwinian evolution may help in predicting what's apt to happen (and thus in deciding whether such a planned release is a good idea).
INbreeding does indeed have such effects; Darwinian mechanics suggests that inbred animal populations of moderate size are apt to become unduly adapted to the circumstances in which they are bred. If there is a characteristic which would provide a major survival or reproductive benefit in most situations but it provides even a slight disadvantage in the situation where animals are inbred, that useful trait will be "evolved out" of the inbred animals.
Of course, in many cases Mendel's understanding of genetics and the effects of recessive genes is a more important consideration, but from what I understand it is Darwinian mechanics that exposes the risk of captive-breeding programs that select against traits that are needed in the wild.
The animals on either side of the divide would become more specialized as a result of separation from former predators. Such speciailization is not a matter of addition or subtraction, but rather substitution. Or, to put it another way, it's about subtracting what would have been obstacles to the addition of what (under new circumstances) are clearly desirable traits.
BTW, the reason I espouse the position I do is not that I believe in any particular mechanism by which a technically new species might come about, but rather because I believe that the position that nearly all species were created by a means other than evolution is more easily supportable than the claim that absolutely all species were so created, and yet the religious implications of the two statements are essentially identical.
The statement that absolutely no species came about through evolution is essentially unprovable (since one can't prove a total negative) and yet could potentially be disproven by a single counter-example. The claim that evolution is responsible for the creation of at most a very small portion of the species in existence is much more strongly supportable, since not only would it require many counter-examples to disprove, but the fact that counterexamples have not been discovered provides strong evidence that they cannot be numerous.
Even if the above is granted, so what? Just because ID may imply the existence of God does not mean it is untrue. Just because ID is an attack on evolution, does not mean it is not true. Just because ID may imply a non-material entity does not mean that it is not science. Many astronomers think that the universe implies a Creator, that does not mean that astronomy is not science.
What evolutionists are trying to do with ID is just dismiss it out of hand. Now that is not science. A theory that claims to be science has to answer to scientific questions. The questions being posed by ID are indeed scientific questions and can be responded to by science. Evolutionists know this, their problem with ID is that they do not like to answer the questions.
No Jenny, it is you who refuses to see. What matters is not how many children the person who has the child produces, it is the differential between how many children that person and the rest of the population produce that is the problem for transmission. Unless the mutation gives a tremendous advantage to the procreation of the individual - right away - it is almost impossible for it to beat the odds of 50%. Let's remember this, the casinos in Vegas were built with far smaller odds. A 5% odds against the gambler is enough for them to make a fortune. Now the odds against any mutation being spread are 50%! Those odds are way too big for the mutation to spread amongst a species.
He did no experiments on the Beagle. His famous finches, he did not even classify them properly and did not show much interest in them. So, yes, Darwin was no scientist. He did no experiments, certainly none that had anything to do with evolution. The man was a charlatan. A very good charlatan, but a charlatan nevertheless.
That is totally absurd! Who or what guarantees that such a sequence will be formed at random? Nothing, nothing at all. You have to have the exact sequence not just any sequence. The exact sequence in the exact order. That is even harder than a lottery where the order does not matter. The chances are just as slim as a bunch of monkeys writing Hamlet - or worse.
Well, I consider his disecting animals to see how their organisms work experimentation. Perhaps you do not.
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.