Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)
Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: biblethumpers; cary; creation; crevolist; dawkins; evolution; excellentessay; funnyresponses; hahahahahahaha; liberalgarbage; phenryjerkalert; smegheads
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,321-1,3401,341-1,3601,361-1,380 ... 2,661-2,678 next last
To: patriot_wes
Please donh, I didn't think even you would bring up the silly vent origins hypothesis.

...so, I assume the same little fairies that fed you that last piece of slanderous nonsense about Urey-Miller fed you this one too. What's the theory this time?: too close to hell? As in happens, the vents produce oxidating gases, and, since sulferated lifeforms have been found down there, one wonders what, exactly, the objection is.

1,341 posted on 05/27/2005 2:50:00 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1337 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Your logic is either nonexistent or it confounds all that try to decipher it. When you can come up with some sort of argument that doesn't claim that because of someone's disbelief in a god they must be a Marxist, you have contributed no more than I have. All I see in your argument is a non-sequitur.
1,342 posted on 05/27/2005 3:00:10 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

And that's funny, too.


1,343 posted on 05/27/2005 3:00:12 PM PDT by L,TOWM (Liberals, The Other White Meat [Born in California, Texan by the Grace of God.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1318 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla

Of course she is, isn't it obvious?


1,344 posted on 05/27/2005 3:00:54 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
This conversation looks familiar.

Hi Condorman. Yes. We went a few rounds on that one. It hasn't ended yet. This might be a good opportunity for you to clarify what evidence is necessary for you to conclude that an entity exists as a result of intelligent design. How do you know, when you see a "man-made" object, that it is man-made?

If you're gonna bet beers I hope they're ice cold.

1,345 posted on 05/27/2005 3:04:05 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1338 | View Replies]

To: stremba
So, was God unable to come up with a more precise measuring system then?

Actually, I think the Hebrews came up with the dreaded "cubit", the length of a man's arm. Talk about an imprecise measurement! ;-) The only thing God wanted was for people to use "fair" scales and measurements in dealing with other.

And if you are an "inerrant" adherent but reject literalism, than be prepared to get warm and toasted from the literalists and the atheists alike on these threads. One of the reasons I post on a Crevo thread about twice a year.

1,346 posted on 05/27/2005 3:08:15 PM PDT by L,TOWM (Liberals, The Other White Meat [Born in California, Texan by the Grace of God.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1317 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Wow! Jenny, I have'nt seen a post from you in long time! I was wondering if you'd been zotted or if I missed your Opus.

How have you been?


1,347 posted on 05/27/2005 3:11:22 PM PDT by L,TOWM (Liberals, The Other White Meat [Born in California, Texan by the Grace of God.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1340 | View Replies]

To: patriot_wes

"I sure wouldn't want to be in your place at the last roundup!"

I'm betting with Paschal myself!


1,348 posted on 05/27/2005 3:28:00 PM PDT by FatherofFive (Choose life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
One can only hope public educational institutions do not base their cirricula upon what you are personally aware, or unaware, of. It stands as an observable fact that evolutionists wield power over public school cirricla in manner like that of the Roman Cardinals in Galileo's day. It is more than annoying to see free inquiry squelched in the name of the limited "awareness" of this or that group of people.

That is just preposterous. Scientists "yield" power over the cirriculum of science classes by virtue of the fact that science classes teach children what scientists think. There is no shortage of opportunities to teach what everyone else thinks in other courses that don't explicitly claim to be about what scientists think. As I believe I've pointed out before--scientists do not routinely threaten their rhetorical opponents with death by fire, which differs distinctly from "the Roman Cardinals in Galileo's day".

1,349 posted on 05/27/2005 3:39:18 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1336 | View Replies]

To: Condorman

Courtesy reply. Nice to "see" you.


1,350 posted on 05/27/2005 3:43:42 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1339 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Your logic is either nonexistent or it confounds all that try to decipher it.

The logic is impeccable so the confounding must be due to something else.

When you can come up with some sort of argument that doesn't claim that because of someone's disbelief in a god they must be a Marxist, you have contributed no more than I have.

You just made an assertion with no basis in fact. None, nada, zip. I mean, you like many others here, just seem to make up assertions as you need them. Not one poster with a different view of Dawkins than I have has commented at all on the substance that I posted including Marx's exhortations to ban religion and Dawkins views that religion is the enemy of rationality. When something is your enemy, it is extremely probable that if you were King you would ban it. It is my opinion, substantiated on this thread by the writings of Marx and Dawkins that both would have banned religion if they could.

In return, I have gotten the usual ad hominems, false assertions, foul language and accusations of bigotry against the Godless. All garbage. Such is life.

All I see in your argument is a non-sequitur.

Then you have willfully misread my posts and the references I provided. There is no other way around it. Your statement above is just another false assertion in a long list of them.

But you're a civil guy, I'll give you that.

1,351 posted on 05/27/2005 3:48:03 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1342 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM
Wow! Jenny, I have'nt seen a post from you in long time! I was wondering if you'd been zotted or if I missed your Opus.

LOL, no, just hunkering down a bit at work. When I'm not wasting time keeping up my message board.

1,352 posted on 05/27/2005 4:04:27 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING: The Pentagon's New Map by Barnett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1347 | View Replies]

To: donh
. . . science classes teach children what scientists think.

In public schools this applies only to the degree that "what scientists think" is confined, restrained, limited, to their biases. IOW, it applies unless certain scientists suggest Darwinian theory has some explaining to do.

Galileo was redressed because he suggested science has a role in determining how the Scriputures should be interpreted. Today science is being redressed because it suggests biblical propositions have little or no basis in reality. A well-rounded educational system will allow the teaching and exposition of more than one point of view. That point seems to be lost on dogmatic evolutionists.

BTW, my reading of history has not revealed that Galileo was threatened with "death by fire."

1,353 posted on 05/27/2005 4:14:00 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1349 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
In public schools this applies only to the degree that "what scientists think" is confined, restrained, limited, to their biases. IOW, it applies unless certain scientists suggest Darwinian theory has some explaining to do. Galileo was redressed because he suggested science has a role in determining how the Scriputures should be interpreted. Today science is being redressed because it suggests biblical propositions have little or no basis in reality. A well-rounded educational system will allow the teaching and exposition of more than one point of view. That point seems to be lost on dogmatic evolutionists.

BTW, my reading of history has not revealed that Galileo was threatened with "death by fire."

Well than you'd be mistaken. Geordono Bruno was conflagrated for thought crimes of science much in the same vein as Galileo's. At any rate--I didn't say he was.

1,354 posted on 05/27/2005 4:19:13 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1353 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
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,

Science is futile. if you're never going to have The Answer what's the point?

OTOH If you bave The Answer, what's the point?

The Gripping Hand. Closure is overrated.

1,355 posted on 05/27/2005 4:29:00 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (You must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil - Horatio Nelson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1289 | View Replies]

To: donh
Geordono Bruno was conflagrated for thought crimes of science . . .

Whatever. My argument concerns the manner of policing and silencing free thought and expression, not its degree. My assertion stands that dogmatic evolutionists cannot stomach the suggestion that Darwinian evolution has some explaining to do. So much so they would rather file lawsuits than see the subject of ID brought up in an academic context. This does not speak well for their supposed interest in executing the conquest of ignorance.

1,356 posted on 05/27/2005 4:31:54 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1354 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Science is about keeping an open mind to all possibilities where the universe has not been explained.

So, for instance, you believe that it would be "scientific" to spend valuable time considering whether fairies dance in the garden when you don't know why the grass was trampled? There is, after all, photographic evidence:

and


1,357 posted on 05/27/2005 4:38:34 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1333 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

Aristotle also thought plants were not alive because they had no souls.

A giant in philosophy, but pretty awful in biology.


1,358 posted on 05/27/2005 4:41:48 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1329 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

There is the extreme point of that there is a finite number of things and so eventually all will be known.

Will that be the death of ignorance?

He, he, he.


1,359 posted on 05/27/2005 4:47:28 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1355 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
There is the extreme point of that there is a finite number of things and so eventually all will be known. Will that be the death of ignorance?

No. By the time we get to the other end of the galaxy, and find out what's going on there, we'll be totally out of touch with what's happening at our point of origin, so we'll have to go back and start all over again.

1,360 posted on 05/27/2005 4:50:24 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1359 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,321-1,3401,341-1,3601,361-1,380 ... 2,661-2,678 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson