Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)

Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[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

[Fester Chugabrew]

I've known where machines come from since I was about 5.

How did you know where they came from? Did you have to see someone designing and building them to know it did not design and assemble itself?

If you saw a hammer for the first time, and were not told that someone had to fashion that hammer, would you assume it is a product of natural selection and random mutation or other "natural forces" devoid of intelligence?

[Doctor Stochastic]

"Hello, I'm Harley Earl."

[furball4paws]

Do you distinguish between ignorance and stupidity?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Do you distinguish between ignorance and stupidity?

Yes. The latter word tends to be exclusively perjorative, while the former may be used to denote simple lack of knowledge.

[js1138]

For some, both things are happening at the same time.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply and encouragement!

In my experience, the "creationist" school tended to be from only the 6 day/young earth group.

IMHO, that is to be expected when so many use the term "creationist" as a pejorative. And certainly around here when people use that term, YEC is what they mean. Nevertheless, many if not most people who believe in creation are not YEC.

[Fester Chugabrew]

For some, both things are happening at the same time.

And how fortunate is the world that you are entirely incapable of demonstrating either one! Doubtless your progeny will one day be a super race.

[donh]

Am I to conclude from this that science is incapable of bias?

How do you derive from the claim that science is good at policing it's biases that it is incapable of bias--unless you are more interesting in scoring propaganda points than in making sense?

Is it incumbent upon science to declare that only "natural" explanations are qualified as explanatory of the universe when the word "natural" only means what is commonly known and observed?

Well, no--if you have stated your question correctly. But when scientists are yanked away from their work to tell yet another loony-infested schoolboard what science is, they generally point out that all scientific theories are provisional, and will forever be open to question, and will often also point out that scientific explanations, due to their limited scope of interest only in material evidence, has no competence whatsoever concerning metaphysical explanations of the universe.

You have demonstrated well that you fail to police your own a-priori assumptions. As I said, I hope you are not a professional scientist or a teacher.

You have demonstrated well that being patronizing and snotty is one possible tactic for trying to give your reasoning the patina, if not the actuality of substance.

[furball4paws]

Of course ignorance drives science in this respect. Scientists operate by saying "We don't know this, let's find out" (ignorance). Of course as soon as one thing is discovered it points to more things that need to be discovered, so "ignorance" in this form is never eliminated and it does drive more work.

However, "professed ignorance", "studied ignorance" or "willful ignorance" are equivalent to stupidity and are the responsibility of the professed, studied or willfully stupid individual.

No one can know everything, so we choose what we care to pursue and what we care to leave behind. If you leave behind evolution (for these threads) and science in general, that's OK, but you cannot make informed comments and judgments from a position of ignorance. It just makes you look silly (at best) or stupid (at worst).

The only impediment to learning is a person who refuses to learn.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

I've missed you around these threads. Where ya' been?

LOLOL! I've been gone every afternoon helping my husband on his construction project. I did however look in on this thread earlier and it seemed that it might be getting a bit hot, so I withheld comment.

Similarly, there's a group that will support "anything but evolution."

IMHO, when this group of supporters get involved it actually hurts the Intelligent Design arguments by misdirecting it to a theism/atheism debate. It is also wrongheaded because ID is not associated with any theology.

When ID is discussed without theology or ideology it becomes clear that the theory of evolution is incomplete, needs to be updated with state-of-the-art mathematics/physics and that the notion of randomness needs to be abandoned.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your question!

me: The designer could be God, collective consciousness, or aliens.

you: All of the intelligent entities you mention here explicitly denote personhood. Is that a logical, or ontological, necessity where intelligent design is concerned?

A collective consciousness is not a person but an overarching "force" or "field" in the universe which causes it to become more than the sum of its parts.

In a metaphysical naturalist (atheist) worldview this could be seen as a cumulative, overarching epiphenomenon of the physical "brains" contained within space/time.

In a theistic worldview this could be seen as a mediating "field" between God - or "beyond" space/time - and that which is corporeal within space/time. Plato might have called it the "metaxy".

[edsheppa]

The presence of a designer would be a good start.

Misses the mark IMO. What is required is a theory of design that meets scientific criteria. If you cannot, from the theory, say that when A is observed we will also observe B (perhaps with a given probability), then it is not a scientific theory.

ID does not meet this criterion. But science does employ other theories of design. If fact I would say that such theories are routinely employed, in archeology for example.

[L,TOWM]

Sorry I took so long in replying, but your post deserved a thoughtful rsponse. Your links to the two Pharoahs contained some interesting information, but your timeline may be in question.

First, from the source you directed me to, Wikipedia, there is this interesting tidbit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah
As you can see, the 3rd paragraph refers to the "only" mention of Israel from Ancient Egypt, on the:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele

Now, some of my sources offer completely different timelines, such as this "traditional" Exodus at 1250 BCE:
http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/Research%20History%20and%20Great%20Links/timleine_of_the_old_testament_chart.htm

This earlier, circa 1450 BCE Exodus (close to your timeline):
http://www.mustardseed.net/timeline/timeline3.html

And yet another placing the Exodus at 1496 BCE:
http://www.matthewmcgee.org/ottimlin.html

Now, please don't take this as me attempting to impugn your knowledge on Ancient Egypt, Lord knows, I am not as expert myself. But the known recordkeeping in Ancient Egypt looks to be quite uneven, especially during the Hyksos period (2nd Intermediate). Coincidentality, that time period coincides with most of the 400 years mentioned as the time of slavery in Egypt.

In short, my opinion is that you may have overstated your case for Ancient Egyptian recordkeeping. I would be particularly interested in the source of the slave sales records you cited. Junior, I'm not trying to play "gotcha"; I want to learn!

And before you tee off on the differences in the timelines, let me just offer that the study of the History of the Bible, once you get past Chapter 8 of Genesis, is a serious discipline with its own schools of thought, disagreements, and intra scholar controversies. Roughly akin to some of the disputes among the "gradualistic" and the "upheaval" schools of thought on macro - evolution.

There are still a lot more places to dig and a lot more things to discover about antiquity.

[js1138]

...the notion of randomness needs to be abandoned.

I would think it would be quite a coup for ID to demonstrate a correlation between mutation and adaptive success in the absense of selection.

I understand that correlation doesn't prove causation, but I'm at a loss to see how causation could be asserted in the absense of correlation.

[Fester Chugabrew]

But when scientists are yanked away from their work to tell yet another loony-infested schoolboard what science is . . .

I hardly believe evolutionists think themselves "yanked away" from important work when the propagation their dogma is at stake. Whatever scientists testified at this Kansas hearing did so out of a sense of duty, as if human knowledge is threatened by omitting the word "natural." They need to see to it that students are flogged with their version of "science" and are, under no circumstances, allowed free thought.

You have demonstrated well that being patronizing and snotty is one possible tactic . . .

I tend to reply with the same tone in which I am addressed. You and your ilk have been "patronizing and snotty" from the get go, pal. I do not foresee any change in that regard. There is, however, substance behind the suggestion that you refrain from professional science and teaching unless you offer a qualifier or six. The philosophy room is down the hall to the left.

[donh]

Telling people about JESUS isn't debating the word.

Thomas Aquinus' most important work was written to provide one long argument to the jews as to why they must accept jesus as savior, rather than just another, however admirable, human--is Thomas Aquinus roasting in hell for that?

If you are going to suggest to people that they should give up their heathen religions and take up yours, than you are presenting arguments, whether you chose to call it that or not. Right now, you are engaged with me in an argument about whether or not you should argue with me about the word of God, using quotes from the bible. I realize this probably doesn't amuse you as much as it amuses me...but it amuses me quite a bit.

This is a manifestation of a fairly obnoxious christian trait sometimes referred to as other-foot-itis: If someone is arguing for his faith, he's actually "testifying to the word of god, and neither adding to it or taking away from it". If a heathen does the same thing--why, that's arguing.

[Condorman]

Reconcile this with the fact that places like MIT are copying the evolutionary process and using genetic algorithms as efficient problem solving strategies?

Sometimes effective, but really pretty hard to call efficient, problem solving strategies, given the right problem, entailing debugging and support challenges of substantial daunt-itude.

True enough. Also worth noting that the massive trial-and-error process is not efficient in and of itself, but due to the speed of modern computers, the speed with which we can process the results makes it appear so.

[Right Wing Professor]

Good or bad, without ignorance there would be no such thing as science. Is that good or bad?

That's a hypothetical with an impossible premise. We can't possibly know everything. Therefore there will always be ignorance.

I've already answered that ignorance is bad. I don't respond well to attempts at bullyragging.

[Right Wing Professor]

You and your ilk have been "patronizing and snotty" from the get go, pal.

If you make a point of telling people how ignorant you are, you can't reasonably get upset if they take you at your word.

[AntiGuv]

Nevertheless, IMHO, the arguments raised by panspermia/cosmic ancestry are indistinguishable from the Intelligent Design objections to evolution.

Which objections? Based on all the ID objections I'm aware of, your opinion here is blatantly wrong.

Among these are the ones who do not personify the greater power but rather speak of something overarching, which I paraphrase as a "collective consciousness".

Then that paraphrase is misleading and inaccurate. Your cause would be served by coming up with a better description. I'd recommend "cosmic force" off the top of my head..

At any rate, the specific beliefs are irrelevant..

No, they're most certainly not.

...since Intelligent Design does not identify who or what the designer is other than to attribute intelligence ipso facto.

Yes. When there is nothing to identify, it's safe to identify nothing. But I have no problem moving along with that: show me evidence of your uncharacterized intelligence.

I disagree. Personification is a matter of personal metaphysics.

I'm not sure what you mean to say here, but "intelligence" is by definition a personified concept. Below you seem to think that when I use the term "entity" I mean "corporeal" but, if so, that would be incorrect. I'm not at all confused about the terms.

As an example, I don’t know whether Sheldrake would accept the label of “intelligent design” any more than Crick would have – nevertheless, his theory of morphic fields would be an accumulation of that type of intelligence.

The morphic fields are the entity. I didn't say the entity had to be corporeal, because it doesn't.

The Flynn Effect may be pointing to something non-corporeal as well.

The Flynn Effect may very well point to something non-corporeal, but since the Flynn Effect is utterly irrelevant to the subject at hand, who cares?

For some “all that there is” is that which exists in space/time – a microscope to telescope worldview. For many or most of us, “all that there is” is much more than this.

If you are implying the false dichotomy between us that I'm inferring, then it doesn't exist. I do not limit "all that there is" to space/time.

We include mathematical structures, forms, qualia and the ilk in “reality”.

Yeah, we includes me.

Moreover, most of us would say that "all that there is" is God’s will and unknowable in its fullness.

So what? We aren't talking about what "most of us would say" but rather of what reality is.

Likewise, to those whose worldview of reality is physical – objective truth can be deduced from within space/time because that is "all that there is" for them.

So what? The objective truth is the same for both classes you've identified. That's why it's the objective truth. It's very neat, though, how you play this little trick all the time of making objectivity subjective, but it's not.

But to those of us with the encompassing view..

My view is encompassing, and surely no less so than yours. Please don't mischaracterize me. It's dishonest and offensive.

...space/time is merely a hypercube of n dimensions which contains corporeal existents.

That works well enough for me. But in truth, we don't have a definitive answer to what lies beyond space/time, only conjecture, two examples are: your supernatural fantasies and the superstring hypothesis.

...therefore, "objective truth" can only be revealed from outside space/time, everything within space/time is relative per se.

Objective truth is not "objective truth"; it is objective truth. The innuendo of those little quotation marks is a sly ploy at subjectivism, consistent with your overall relativistic formula. God cannot exist for you but not for me. God either exists or does not exist. Period.

To us, God is Truth.

Good for you. But the question at hand does not regard what God is to you. The question regards what, if anything, God is.

You and I may well have such an irreconcilable difference in worldview.

The worldview you've described is relativism, and I am not a relativist. I do however find it intriguing that you are using relativism to try to reach an absolutist outcome. My suspicion is that you don't recognize it for what it is, but I could be wrong. You may in fact be an avowed relativist, or you may be dissembling.

IMHO, there are three phenomenon in the physical realm which scream that God exists: the unreasonable effectiveness of math, the fact of a beginning and information (successful communication) in life v non-life/death in nature.

To be blunt, truth is not contingent on your opinion. So, if this is actually meant to present an argument for the existence of God, why don't you try presenting an argument to support the premises, rather than informing me of your feelings.

Shall we recognize that we have an irreconcilable difference in worldview and agree to disagree? Or would you like to continue?

As I've often said before, I have no problem agreeing to disagree, but that is not an agreement that our contrasting views are equally valid. I am not a relativist, nor will I agree to pretend to be one.