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 ... 1,341-1,3601,361-1,3801,381-1,400 ... 2,661-2,678 next last
To: furball4paws

Did Aristotle run the plants through some sort of ancient pneumanonmeter? More lost ancient knowledge!


1,361 posted on 05/27/2005 4:51:06 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1358 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
My assertion stands that dogmatic evolutionists cannot stomach the suggestion that Darwinian evolution has some explaining to do.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, both as to the existence of "dogmatic" evolutionists and that they have some 'splainin' to do.

So much so they would rather file lawsuits than see the subject of ID brought up in an academic context.

Huh. Would you feel the same way about someone filing suit to get their children properly educated in a school district that decided to give equal time in college-track english class to eubonics and phonics?

1,362 posted on 05/27/2005 4:52:07 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1356 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; 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.

As long as the FesterChugabrews and the gore3000s live, there will be no death of ignorance.

1,363 posted on 05/27/2005 4:54:16 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1360 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

end-of-galaxy placemarker


1,364 posted on 05/27/2005 4:54:39 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1360 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Not unless there were some credible evidence to that effect. I personally doubt it will be forthcoming. But if those photographs are of real, live fairies I would think science might take an interest.

I've always been taught that fairies, by definition, are fictitious. Therefore, if those little people in that picture are really alive, they would not be fairies, but they would certainly pique the interest of biologists.

Science does not deal with fiction until it starts entertaining the notion that all the various biologial species (or the table of elements for that matter) arose and manifested themselves without the aid of intelligence or design.

What is there about those pictures that suggests to your reason and senses they are staged? My intuition says these are pictures denoting fake fairies. Does yours? If so, why? If not, take these pictures to the university for further evaluation.

Based on the evidence you've presented, no, science classes need not address fairies at this time. But science must keep an open mind. Just because a fairy has yet to be revealed to science does not mean there is no such thing.


1,365 posted on 05/27/2005 4:55:02 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1357 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
As long as the FesterChugabrews and the gore3000s live, there will be no death of ignorance.

Don't tell me. If it ever happened that the human population of earth consisted of nothing other than Gumlegs clones, then ignorance would never be an issue.

But the pursuit of knowledge, a.k.a. science, would be dead.

1,366 posted on 05/27/2005 4:58:49 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1363 | View Replies]

To: donh
Would you feel the same way about someone filing suit to get their children properly educated in a school district that decided to give equal time in college-track english class to eubonics and phonics?

Nope. Lawsuits are not the way to establish or maintain a cirriculum. Neither are public schools the best way to educate the crowing glory of God's creation. But as long as they're there, decisions must be made that tend to the betterment of the students. In the case you mention, the swap is a bad one, whether by force of law or voice of persuasion.

Where one person's idea of betterment conflicts with another person's idea of betterment, hopefully a compromise can be reached that allows options. Heretofore the option of teaching ID in an academic setting has been opposed BY LAW from those who think the government ought enforce their idea of what is better. You know. Rome and all that.

1,367 posted on 05/27/2005 5:12:29 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1362 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Not unless there were some credible evidence to that effect. I personally doubt it will be forthcoming. But if those photographs are of real, live fairies I would think science might take an interest.

The photos in question are quite old. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (the creator of Sherlock Holmes, and an MD), saw them and found them convincing.

I've always been taught that fairies, by definition, are fictitious. Therefore, if those little people in that picture are really alive, they would not be fairies, but they would certainly pique the interest of biologists.

The name makes all the difference, then? Okay, call them angels. Now do they belong in science class?

Science does not deal with fiction until it starts entertaining the notion that all the various biologial species (or the table of elements for that matter) arose and manifested themselves without the aid of intelligence or design.

I know you haven't noticed this the last thousand times it's been pointed out, but abiogenesis has nothing whatever to do with the theory of evolution.

What is there about those pictures that suggests to your reason and senses they are staged? My intuition says these are pictures denoting fake fairies. Does yours? If so, why? If not, take these pictures to the university for further evaluation.

Being the sort who wants something resembling ... you know ... evidence, I've researched them thoroughly. I know what kind of camera was used to take them, what kind of film was used, I know what's on the negatives outside the print area, and I know quite a few facts about the biographies of the little girls pictured. I know exactly how the photographs were created and some pretty good theories as to why.

I can also inform you that there is no image manipulation involved. Each photograph is a single exposure, provided by two young ladies who were considered by all contemporary authorities to be incapable of fraud.

Photo two, btw, provides an important clue as to their authenticity. Can you name that clue?

Based on the evidence you've presented, no, science classes need not address fairies at this time.

Why? State some facts, some theories, some laws of science. Don't just make an assertion.

But science must keep an open mind. Just because a fairy has yet to be revealed to science does not mean there is no such thing.

So, maybe science class should consider the possibility of fairies ... excuse me "angels."

1,368 posted on 05/27/2005 5:17:31 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1365 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

A world of nothing butGumlegs clones would be incredibly boring, but it wouldn't matter because it wouldn't last past one generation anyway.


1,369 posted on 05/27/2005 5:20:23 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1366 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Here's a space to insert between "but" and "Gumlegs" in my last post.


1,370 posted on 05/27/2005 5:21:11 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1369 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

I can't remember much about it, but the first chapter in my Botany book in college was that reading from Aristotle. It has always stuck with me. I've been on these threads for a wile now (not as long as you, I'm sure). Notice how plants are rarely mentioned? Yet they make up a majority of the biosphere.

i am firmly convinced that evolution would mean squat to creationists if it didn't include man.


1,371 posted on 05/27/2005 5:25:04 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1361 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
So, maybe science class should consider the possibility of fairies ... excuse me "angels."

Science needs to remain neutral concerning any phenomenon it has yet to discover or explore.

1,372 posted on 05/27/2005 5:25:13 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1368 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Science needs to remain neutral concerning any phenomenon it has yet to discover or explore.

Like an "intelligent designer," perhaps? You may be making progress after all.

1,373 posted on 05/27/2005 5:33:29 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1372 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
I know you haven't noticed this the last thousand times it's been pointed out, but abiogenesis has nothing whatever to do with the theory of evolution.

Oh, I've heard it said many times. But I keep hearing this thing about the "common ancestry" of all living things, which, if it were something less than a fairy tale would explain a.) how the first living cell come about, and b.) how it propagated itself to the point we observe it today, with both phenomena occuring completely apart from any agent capable of intelligence and/or design.

Surely you are not going to tell me dogmatic evolutionists have said nothing about common ancestry where the biosphere is concerned?

1,374 posted on 05/27/2005 5:35:38 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1368 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Well, I lurked for several months before being compelled to sign up so I could join the "poopy diaper" thread.

No need to go into that now.

You're exactly right about evolution, man, and creationists. Two Catholic Popes, Pius XII and John Paul II, both had no problems with evolution at all ... as long as man was considered a special case. Both Popes defined "special case" in such a way as to allow Catholics, if they wished, to accept evolutionary theory and not be in conflict with the church. So there's no doubt that a theory about everything but man would hardly have made a ripple.

But I'm with Mark Twain on the matter. Ichy provided the Twain quote on this thread already.

1,375 posted on 05/27/2005 5:38:37 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1371 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
A world of nothing but Gumlegs clones would be incredibly boring . . .

Yes it would. As it is there is only one Gumlegs who happens to be a special creation of God, and who has blessed me with spirited challenges to my understanding of the universe.

1,376 posted on 05/27/2005 5:39:19 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1369 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Like an "intelligent designer," perhaps?

Yes. Science must remain neutral, i.e. open, to the possibility of an intelligent designer.

1,377 posted on 05/27/2005 5:41:37 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1373 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; VadeRetro
Announcing the new, improved edition of Darwin Central's hottest production: Evos Gone Wild! Featuring:
* Ecstasy in the fossil digs!
* Miss Nude DNA goes ape!
* Find the bone!
* Gumlegs plugs the gap!
* Macro-man goes transitional!
* Randy Random and his missing link!
* VadeRetro and his vestigial organ!
* Lucy experiences her first Cambrian explosion!
* Longshadow displays his geologic column!
* RadioAstronomer demonstrates spontaneous generation!
* The Darwin gang re-enacts the Big Bang!

1,378 posted on 05/27/2005 5:45:55 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1370 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I keep hearing this thing about the "common ancestry" of all living things, which, if it were something less than a fairy tale would explain a.) how the first living cell come about,

Um, no. The origin of life has always been outside of the theory of evolution. Is color theory unacceptable because it doesn't explain the origin of life?

... and b.) how it propagated itself to the point we observe it today, with both phenomena occuring completely apart from any agent capable of intelligence and/or design.

Study the theory itself (and not a cartoon version of it), and you'll find out. You'll find out what scientists believe we can explain, and what we currently have no explanation for. Science admits these things.

... with both phenomena occuring completely apart from any agent capable of intelligence and/or design.

Because there's no way to test for "any agent capable of intelligence and/or design." We've been over this, too.

Surely you are not going to tell me dogmatic evolutionists have said nothing about common ancestry where the biosphere is concerned?

I'm not and don't call me "shirley." ;>)

1,379 posted on 05/27/2005 5:46:25 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1374 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
... there is only one Gumlegs

For this, more people than you are thankful.

... who happens to be a special creation of God,

There is no evidence for this, and according to my aunt, much against, but I'll take the compliment.

... and who has blessed me with spirited challenges to my understanding of the universe.

You're working with a definition of "blessed," which is unrecognized by my family. We're both conservatives, so we're on the same side.

1,380 posted on 05/27/2005 5:50:48 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1376 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,341-1,3601,361-1,3801,381-1,400 ... 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