Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.
Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.
It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment” in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.
The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear.
The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.
The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”
Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”
I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.
Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.
The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.
Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale
Yes! And before the page is done refreshing.. ;)
I always figured androids -- biological constructs designed for a specific purpose. The actual aliens are just too damned alien for us...
BTW, if you'd rather attempt to persuade me that there is plenty (or any) evidence of the existence of a deity, then you are welcome to do that instead. I'm more in the mood to discuss that than to discuss the definition of "random" anyhow.
Yes, and these people are idiots. They believe that the first day (24 hour) came before the sun was created. And, much more... Perhaps it is some sort of a "natural selection" selection process in and of itself.
I expect you've already seen the evidence, since it appears you've been on these pages for some years. The evidence is historic, archeologic, prophetic, etc.
There's plenty of it.
That is not the same as saying that others haven't come up with arguments they think discounts it. Since I've never been convinced by their counter-arguments, I'm sure it falls in the category of disputed territory.
Then, of course, there's my personal experience. I cannot transmit that to you at the same level that I feel it, but I can tell you. You can do with all of this what you will. Some have had their eyes blinded and it's not given to them to see on my time schedule.
You are one of the very few people who sincerely think that ID is not a slicked-up version of creationism. My guess is that almost everyone else who supports ID does so in the way that voters supported John Kerry -- he wasn't much, but at least he wasn't George Bush. It was widely known as the "anyone but Bush" syndrome. Similarly, there's a group that will support "anything but evolution." Nothing else can explain how otherwise intelligent people will profess to believe that "little green men from Uranus are responsible for all the evidence that is currently explained by evolution" is an hypothesis that biologists should seriously consider.
I've missed you around these threads. Where ya' been?
Baaahhhh!
There's plenty of it.
None of what I've seen is evidence for deities. It is evidence of people believing in deities, which isn't even remotely the same thing. I already knew there was plenty of that, so I didn't ask for it.
That is not the same as saying that others haven't come up with arguments they think discounts it.
Naturally.
Since I've never been convinced by their counter-arguments, I'm sure it falls in the category of disputed territory.
Obviously.
Then, of course, there's my personal experience. I cannot transmit that to you at the same level that I feel it, but I can tell you.
Feel free to do so. I am curious.
You can do with all of this what you will.
Well, what I asked for - if you wanted to take a shot at it - was an attempt to persuade me that there is plenty (or any) evidence for the existence of a deity. Surely you don't think the above post qualifies? If you think your experience might be persuasive, go ahead with it. I'm curious in any event.
Some have had their eyes blinded and it's not given to them to see on my time schedule.
Yeah, but you never know, now do you?
Historic evidence is legitimate evidence.
For example, you really have only a few choices regarding the apostles' testimony regarding the resurrection. They were either relaying the truth (T) of what they had seen or they were not relaying the truth (NT) of what they had seen. Either of those categories could have been knowingly (K) or unknowingly. (UK)
We have, then: (1)TK, (2) TUK, (3)NTK, (4) NTUK.
This is exactly what we have regarding any recorded eyewitness account of anything in history.
In the case of the apostles, we can rule out #3, I think, because of the terrible demise that each of them encountered over a period of time.
The worst analysis that can be made, then, is that, at a minimum, they thought they saw something extraordinary.
Thanks for reminding me, it's almost too late to plant my Begonians..
Who do you think they've been calling to testify on behalf of evolutionist teaching, Bozo the Clown? The academic world looks to scientists as a source of reliable information about the universe. It should. But when those same scientists make a priori assumptions that inhibit an understanding of the universe, they should be challenged, along with their teachings.
Yep, but the stoning of Stephen was 2-3 years after the Crucifixion. There's nothing to indicate Saul was in Jerusalem during the last week of Jesus' life.
Then there's 1 Corinthians 15:
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Here Paul states that he saw Jesus after Peter, the apostles, the "five hundred", then James, and then the apostles again. Clearly this is after the Crucifixion.
It's odd that the other gospels mention neither Peter nor James meeting with the resurrected Christ alone, nor do they the mention the disputed "five hundred".
Another oddity is Paul doesn't seem to know that the first appearance of the resurrected Jesus was to Mary Magdalene (Mark, Matt., & John).
Odder still is Paul refers to scriptures that were nonexistent.
He also did not spend 3 days in a coma, but blind. He was alert for those three days.
You're correct there. 'Seizure' should have been the better word for me to use.
You can ignore the claims in Galatians 1 if you wish, but they are entirely consistent with other claims of the apperance of the Resurrected Christ made at the time.
I'm unaware of any corporeal appearances of Christ after the Ascension (Acts 1:3-9). Paul's travel to Damascus was at least 2 years after that (see St. Stephen above). Since he mentions escaping arrest (2 Cor 11:32) from King Aretas, who died in 40AD, we can date Paul's conversion between 36AD and 39AD.
And finally there's Galatians 1:
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
So Paul was a witness to Jesus by his vision.
St. Paul is stunningly silent on the lineage of David, the virgin birth, John the Baptist, feeding of the multitude, healing of the sick, raising of Lazarus, Sermon on the Mount, Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, cleansing of the temple, the trial and cruxifixtion of Jesus; in fact he ignores all of the touchstones of the Gospels.
Certainly, Paul was a superb preacher for faith, he seems to be totally ignorant of the life, teachings, and Passion of Jesus Christ.
Apparently you have difficulty judging evidence on its own merits. I hope you are not a professional scientist or teacher. You fail to take into account that my obervations extend only to the point where the evidence confirms the biblical account that the heavens and the earth were created. You also fail to recognize that my faith is not based upon whimsical reports spun out of a fertile imagination, but the well-respected testimony of others. You are recalcitrant in maintaining that my belief must be absolutely provable to be considered either scientific or supported by evidence. Lastly, your compass must be out of whack where the mental processing of propositional data is concerned.
Obviously you are not alone in your judgements, but you err.
Of course. (smacks forehead). The trusty ol' "Fraunhofer heliometer"!
All of the intelligent entities you mention here explicitly denote personhood. Is that a logical, or ontological, necessity where intelligent design is concerned?
I'll repeat the question: who is responsible for for recent schoolboard meetings about the teaching of evolutionary science. Scientists?
The academic world looks to scientists as a source of reliable information about the universe.
No, it doesn't--the universe is larger than science. However, the academic world does think, as a matter of ordinary, uncontroversial common sense, that science classes should teach children what scientists think.
It should. But when those same scientists make a priori assumptions that inhibit an understanding of the universe, they should be challenged, along with their teachings.
It is not routinely observed that scientists are terribly delinquent in policing their own a priori assumptions, incompentent opinions of non-scientists, with a painfully obvious ax to grind, to the contrary notwithstanding.
Who made you this threads monitor?
We can go on like this but whats the point? If you have evidence countering my assertion that Marx and Dawkins woul both ban religion bring it forth, otherwise I'd suggest you try yet a third way. You're getting exactly nowhere.
I've already conceded that people believed in supernatural events; you don't need to prove that to me any further. What I've asked for is evidence of deities.
Actually I have some quite specific evidence having asked Patrick to ping the "list" to a thread on judicial activism. I actually was interested in finding out the "lists" views on the holding. Patrick was none too pleased, a bit arrogant and firing ad hominem from the gitgo.
Having said that, I consider it an honor to be considered arrogant by the the Prince of Arrogance.
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.