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
I know, but I can't find an appropriate article.
Just grab one at random and post it under the title "God Sucks" or "Evolutionists Eat Babies", that should take care of it.
kudzu = beastly fields
He might at that, Alamo-Girl! Sir Isaac Newton termed it the sensorium Dei.... I find that particularly apt at the level of a quasi-physical description, for it is directly analogous to the idea of the universal Vacuum field. Plato's metaxy, on the other hand, seems to have more of a psychological than a physical resonance. For it refers to a psychic field "in-between" dimensions, in between matter and spirit; and the phenomena that take place "there" seem to result from the coupling of cosmic fields....
The collective consciousness is, i think, just as you describe it, A-G: "...not a person but an overarching 'force' or 'field' in the universe which causes it to become more than the sum of its parts." Perhaps a more detailed picture would show it as the collective of individual consciousnesses, interacting in some way with that "overarching field." It has been suggested e.g., by Sheldrake and Bohm too, as I recall, that this sort of thing is a two-way street. The evolving universe is evolving intelligence also as it goes along, and humans may have some kind of role in this process.
Then again, you can debase the whole idea of the collective consciousness by pointing to its more unsavory kin -- ideologies are a form of collective consciousness, too.
Been working pretty hard the past several days, so am just "coming up for air" here. Am calling it a day, but thought I'd look in here first. I am amazed that such a light-weight piece as Dawkin's has "inspired" a thread of this length....
Dawkins seems to have studied rhetoric with Saul Alinsky. I mean really, just try to analyze one single paragraph of this screed for its logical form. It virtually has none, it's all proselytization and abuse of his "enemies"... and kissy-kissy for his friends, e.g., Lewontin. Arrgghhhhh!!!!!!!
Anyhoot Alamo-Girl, your posts here have been wonderful and informative, as usual. Thank you oh so very much!!!
Ok. Hat, jockstrap, bra, dog, chocolate, ruler and a microwave.
Keeping up Uncle Fester?
No, and that isn't what I said. I said I had to at least see a representation of the manufacturing process in general. BTW, we actually have plenty of verification of this phenomenon because we know how people that are ignorant of the manufacturing process react to said objects (i.e., from historical accounts and from psychological studies). They think that many of the objects are alive or are magical.
What I said was that I recognize technology when I see it and so long as I am able to classify an object as technology I can deduce its origins as manufactured.
This is the only evidence that would convince you of intelligent design? I don't think so. I would like to know what properties of an object lead you to conclude intelligent design was involved with it's existence.
It evidences the attributes of being manufactured - i.e., the application of manual implements.
Are they in the same kind as meercats?
I'm not sure that meercats are mere cats, though.
My problem at the time was that I couldn't figure out exactly what you were addressing. Yes, I left out a kingdom or a million.
Now my only problem is mortality. Can you fix it?
Or power-wedgies
Should I take your word for it, or study the details before responding?
Not me. The first sentence drew me in: "Science feeds on mystery." To the extent Dawkins is willing to posit this, I am willing to grant him a say in science.
LOL! More or less, but don't let Gumlegs come after me with a camera or science will believe not only in fairies, but in fat, balding ones.
If that's their objection, than the "ID" folks, and the "growing number" (read "miniscule handful") of "non-ID investigators" are scientific illiterates when it comes to evolutionary biology, and deserve no respect on the subject.
Needless to say, evolution proceeds by many more stochastic changes than just "a single random mutation". In any given population it does not take long for literally millions of mutations to occur, and furthermore natural selection (and other types of selection) are the "more" in the (overly simplistic) description of the rise of complexity "requiring more than" mutation alone.
And no, the observation that this often occurs by "fits and starts" doesn't invalidate traditional mechanisms either. I often see "fits and starts" in the increase in fitness (and the pace of novel functional innovations) when I'm doing problem-solving by genetic algorithms (which are just another instance of evolution). Evolution will "stumble upon" a quantum improvement every once in a while, followed by a short period of rapid "capitalization" upon the breakthrough, followed by longer periods of relative stasis until the next breakthrough. In short, using nothing but random variation and selection, "punctuated equilibrium" occurs automatically as a result of the interplay of chance processes.
I really wish people would bother to learn more about the evolutionary *basics* -- and what's already known about them -- before they go leaping about insisting that there "must" be additional forces at work because they "know" that Darwinian evolution "can't" account for [fill in the blank], and then go flying off in a unicorn hunt.
Can these folks hope to discover new paradigms if they can't even grasp the old one at a basic level of competency?
Behe, Dembski, Spetner, et al -- and almost all of their ID disciples -- may be conversant in their own fields (although frankly I haven't been too impressed with the level of their work even there), but in all honesty they really don't know squat about evolution, despite their self-appointed roles as the leaders of a "new movement" in evolutionary biology. They keep making elementary mistakes that reveal that they don't even have as good a grasp of basic evolutionary fundamentals as the average grad student in some evolution-related discipline.
Okay. Boil it down a little further. What are the attributes of "being manufactured?"
Evidence of the application of manual implements.
Release the army of killer finches...
Has science observed and documented time vs. number of mutations? If so, what is the size of the sample and the duration of time that the sampling took place? Just say it simply in your own words, please. Just set forth the figures, and I will attempt to do my own research to verify them.
Thank you, and remember, there are only two facts I am asking you to submit for verification:
1.) size of sample WRT the population.
2.) period of time for observation.
And I'm curious. Can all these mutations take place in the amount of time it takes me to chug a brew? I know the answer, but I want to see if yours comes close to mine.
Yes. What constitutes evidence of the application of manual implements? For that matter, what consitutes evidence of the application of intelligent design?
BWHAAHAAHA! Thats priceless.
2) Whether "collective consciousness" is a version of "intelligent design"..
me: That’s a tall order for a reply post and has been addressed already on myriad threads. In a general category, I would call it geometric physics (dimensionality, forms, etc.). More specific to life v. non-life/death in nature: information (successful communication), autonomy, semiosis, complexity and intelligence. If you care to specify which area interests you the most, I’ll be glad to gather up information and post it later this evening. I have to be gone this afternoon again.
It can be a wide-ranging conversation and most likely will result in a lot of links and excerpts posted to the thread, so if you do want to discuss it we can move things along better if you narrow in on the subjects of interest.
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.