Replies

Here is a summary of the two sides, best I can reproduce:

1) There are many problems with evolutionary theory. There are mathematical improbabilities associated with observed complexities that are not easily explained no matter how much time is provided for them to develop, there are questions about whether the fossil record truly represents changing from one phyla to another (or points to common ancestry), and there is NO evidence of abiogenesis. Since the only alternative theories out there are cosmic panspermia and intelligent design by an intelligent source (the two may be conflated, for sake of the debate), perhaps alternative theories should be discussed.
2) The other side, best I can see, holds:
a) this is an attempt to teach religion in the name of science
b) all the smart scientists believe this theory, only a few mutants believe otherwise
c) this will destroy science itself if we bring in the supernatural

As a subset to this challenge, and what is really the core issue to me, "science" -so called- has been completely co-opted by philosophical empiricism. Many modernists who work within scientific disciplines have confused methodology with philosophical assumptions and insist on a skeptical empiricism as their starting point. This starting point is not "scientific" nor scientifically justifiable, nor justified from the history of science itself, but arbitrarily chosen. The real problem is that most of them don't see it as an arbitrary dictum, but as a part of the warp and woof of science itself. That is why, when the issue is brought up, you get the ridiculous challenges to "prove" a theistic construct of the universe using the scientific method. Neither construct is scientifically verifiable; the assumption that we live in a supernatural world, nor the assumption that science properly done assumes a cosmos explainable by empirical observation alone.

For example- there are two scientists in two labs. One believes in a Creator, and believes the way to bring honor to that Creator in discovering the "patterns" in which the creator works. He believes the Creator has communicated in a variety of means that He is a Being of order, regularity, and discoverable patterns of operation in the cosmos. He believes that it is part of his job to "worship" this creator to discover these patterns of behavior in the cosmos, as the Creator displays Himself in creation for those who will open their eyes to see. He believes in a rigid use of the empirical method to determine those patterns of behavior. He believes in the use of deductions to piece together theories of behavior in the cosmos, because his God is one of order. Although he believes in the possiblity of the miraculous, he defines miracles as a suspension of the general (not natural, GENERAL) order of works. He believes that the observed "everyday" workings in the cosmos are just as much a reflection of the glory of God as the story of a crucified and risen Savior, and it is his job to expand and expound that glory through science just as much as a "preacher" is called to do the same thing through the pulpit. The history of science is replete with such men and women.

The other lab is a naturalist...., if not OUT OF THE LAB, at least while he is in the lab. He makes the assumption (entirely UNscientifically arrived at), that the study of the cosmos is best performed within the assumption of a "closed system." That is, that the practical assumption that is the basis of "true science" is to assume naturalism, exclude the supernatural, and "observe the data." Supernaturalism scares these folks. To many of them, acknowleding the supernatural is a short trip to suspended reason and invoking the miraculous over everything, resulting in praying to drive out the demons rather than seek amoxycillin. In their minds, assuming the supernatural means the death of true science. They misuse Occam, thinking they have "cleaved away" unnecessary baggage, when all they have done is start at a different place and argued in a circle.

Of course, there are gradations of both labs out there in the real world, and the differences are made louder, if not clearer, by asshats on both sides. Religious fundamentalists (some very intelligent, IQ has nothing to do with being an asshat) will at times insist that "the bible teaches......." something completely unjustifiable from the text, like Archbishop Ussher's assertion of the date of creation. On the other page, Carl Sagan will make pronouncements of profound idiocy ("The cosmos is all there is and all there ever has been," which is simply a restatement of the philosophical position of lab "b" above) in the name of "science."

The point is, that BOTH parties employ identical methodology and do "real science," capable of independent testing, peer review, and publication. They can communicate with each other on one level, because they share agreement on a methodology, but they CANNOT communicate with each other as to what the correct attitude toward science is, because they are living in diffeent philosophical universes. They can, however, lay down their swords and collaborate to get data that each of them respect. The problem is that they disagree on what "science" is.

The differences have NOTHING to do with scientific method itself. Rather, they are talking "past" each other and reciting their philosophical prejudices. One side acknowledges this. The other insists that their philosophy is science itself. This is hogwash and a better shell game than you will find in Central Park. The problem is compounded when one claims that science "teaches" a theory of origins of one type or another, and both sides demand equal time to display their philosophical prejudices masquerading as science. On this point, it is the evo crowd who is really silly. at least the ID people recognize that there are philosophical positions being argued. The evo crowd either doesn't see it, or doesn't want to see it.

Science isn't allowed to cite god or miracles, because they, by their nature, can't be understood by the scientific method. Can you imagine a publication that essentially says, "I can't make much sense of the data, so I assume god did it." It essentially ends the search for patterns in nature by resorting to the supernatural.

WOW! I've never seen such a well-developed, reasoned response on here. Thank you for a breath of fresh air.

Good summary.

1) There are many problems with evolutionary theory. There are mathematical improbabilities associated with observed complexities that are not easily explained no matter how much time is provided for them to develop, there are questions about whether the fossil record truly represents changing from one phyla to another (or points to common ancestry), and there is NO evidence of abiogenesis. Since the only alternative theories out there are cosmic panspermia and intelligent design by an intelligent source (the two may be conflated, for sake of the debate), perhaps alternative theories should be discussed.

Nope. Hmmm... Read all the links from both Ichneumon's and PatrickHenry's home pages. You might be surprized at just how much is known and where your statement is in error.

Thank you for your well written summary of "Evolution" vs. "Intelligent Design"

I have archived this.

I think one of the best "one liners" from it is, "Although [ID] believes in the possiblity of the miraculous, [it] defines miracles as a suspension of the general (not natural, GENERAL) order of works."
`

".....at least the ID people recognize that there are philosophical positions being argued. The evo crowd either doesn't see it, or doesn't want to see it." ~ chronic_loser

It's getting harder and harder for them to pretend they don't see it. Hahahaha

"I lobbied the NABT [National Association of Biology Teachers] board of directors to make the change http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/theology_philosophy/bcs089.html [in their statement] because of both my respect for science and my respect for the philosophy of humanism that draws so strongly upon it. To explain requires me to reflect a bit upon both religion and science.

Therefore, I agreed with the two theologians http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html who asked NABT to take the words "impersonal" and "unsupervised" from its statement on evolution. NABT was making a philosophical statement outside of what science can tell us. Plantinga and Smith wrote:

[I]t is extremely hard to see how an empirical science, such as biology, could address such a theological question as whether a process like evolution is or isn't directed by God.... How could an empirical inquiry possibly show that God was not guiding and directing evolution?

And they were right. If we are to say to postmodernist attackers of science that they should not confuse science with positions or philosophies derived from science, then we must be consistent and not equate science with materialist philosophy.

Now we get down to the nitty-gritty of science and religion, and why I lobbied to take the words "impersonal" and "unsupervised" Out of the NABT statement.

Consider: If to test something scientifically requires the ability to hold constant certain effects, this means that omnipotent powers cannot be used as part of scientific explanations.

....if science is limited by methodological materialism because of our inability to control an omnipotent power's interference in nature, both "God did it" and "God didn't do it" fail as scientific statements.

Properly understood, the principle of methodological materialism requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act.

I could say, speaking from the perspective of my personal philosophy, that matter and energy and their interactions (materialism) are not only sufficient to understand the natural world (methodological materialism) but in fact, I believe there is nothing beyond matter and energy.

This is the philosophy of materialism, which I, and probably most humanists, hold to.

I intentionally added "I believe" when I spoke of my personal philosophy, which is entirely proper.

"I believe," however, is not a phrase that belongs in science. ..."

Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism
by Eugenie C. Scott
[In May 1998 Dr Eugenie C Scott, NCSE'S Executive Director, was awarded the American Humanist Association's 1998 "Isaac Asimov Science Award". What follows is excerpted from her acceptance speech. Ed.]
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/391_science_and_religion_methodol_5_1_1998.asp

*

Leading Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse:

"I allow - I insist - that, from its very birth, evolutionism has been used for more than mere science.

In this wise, it is often appropriate to speak of evolution as a form of religion, meaning a faith system with a moral message that makes sense of life's ultimate meaning.

You have only to look at the writings of a nineteenth-century figure like Herbert Spencer to see that this is true.

Or a twentieth-century figure like Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous Huxley the novelist). This second evolutionist even went so far as to write a book entitle Religion without Revelation!

There is all sorts of stuff about evolution being the key to the mysteries of existence and that kind of thing. Moreover, this brand of secular proselytizing is going on into the twenty-first century.

Look at Harvard entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson's recent best-seller Consilience.

I should say that it is by no means the case that evolution-as-religion is anti-Christian.

Sometimes it is. The English biologist Richard Dawkins (author of the Selfish Gene) is a fiery atheist, speaking of Christians as afflicted by an "unconscionable flabbiness of the intellect."

Sometimes it is not. The French, Jesuit, paleontologist-priest Teilhard de Chardin thought that evolution leads up to the "Omega point," something he identified with Jesus Christ. .." - Michael Ruse

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/message/8517

Both sides share an inescapable anthropic worldview and are not capable of knowing the real truth behind life, the universe and everything. Knowing something and believing something are different.