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

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

No. Your logic is a fallacy in this form:

1. Intelligent Design has no basis in theology.
2. Panspermia has no basis in theology.
3. Therefore, panspermia is intelligent design.

A not B; C not B; therefore C=A. Wrong.

Er, that was not my assertion nor could that be deduced from it. Again, with emphasis:

Intelligent Design has no basis in theology at all. It does not specify the designer.
(ipso facto) The designer could be God, collective consciousness, or aliens.

Your statement is “begging the question” as I understand the term because you have presumed your conclusion, i.e. that an alien designer is not a candidate designer under the Intelligent Design hypothesis.

Continuing…

So, what we need to do is identify our questions. We've evidently agreed to at least the following:

1. Is the hypothesis of panspermia an Intelligent Design hypothesis?
2. Is the hypothesis of "collective consciousness" an Intelligent Design hypothesis?

Again, please allow me to refocus the inquiry. The question at hand is whether an hypothesis that speciation is the result of aliens or collective consciousness would meet the criteria of an intelligent design hypothesis.

To put it another way, since the intelligent design hypothesis does not stipulate a designer at all – there would be no hypotheses which characterize the designer beyond "intelligent".

Then we need to define our terms; the terms that require definition are the following:

1. Intelligent Design
2. Panspermia
3. "collective consciousness"

Whether or not Intelligent Design has a basis in theology is part of the definition. More importantly, in order for panspermia or "collective consciousness" to be Intelligent Design hypotheses, then they must at minimum have design, and the design must also be intelligent.

That is the juncture of our disagreement.

The project of determining whether hypotheses of “panspermia/cosmic ancestry” or “collective consciousness” include both characteristics – design and intelligence – is a very useful endeavor on its own! I’m “in”.

So, the current step is to define our terms. Let's start with:

What is Intelligent Design? In other words, what makes a hypothesis an Intelligent Design hypothesis?

I will start by stating what is insufficient: Any proposed solution to any given objection to the modern synthesis theory of genetic evolution.

So, let's proceed from there. What is it that you think qualifies a hypothesis to be an Intelligent Design hypothesis?

Intelligent Design holds that ” certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

Evidently you wish to narrow the scope to biological life which is fine with me as well.

An hypothesis is an intelligent design hypothesis (for the purpose of our discussion here) if it holds that certain features of life v non-life/death in nature are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

More simply stated, an intelligent design hypothesis is one which holds that certain features of life v non-life/death in nature are directed by intelligent cause.

Notably, such an hypothesis will neither raise nor dispute the age of the universe, mutations – even random mutations or natural selection. It will rather assert that such explanations are incomplete or inadequate to explain certain features of life v non-life/death in nature.

To summarize, these are the properties of an intelligent design hypothesis:

identifies certain features of life v non-life/death in nature which cannot be explained by undirected processes
speculates that such features are the effect of a cause
speculates that such features were intended or directed
does not dispute the age of the universe (or geologic ages)
does not dispute that mutations occur, even random mutations
does not dispute that natural selection occurs

[HiTech RedNeck]

Philosophical inquiry is for mature minds.

So THAT'S why the scientists shy away. I knew it! Even at graduate school level scientists don't verge into philosophy. Rather, it's competing here-is-the-truths.

[donh]

Hey, I got post #1500.
Doesn't everybody owe me rent now?

[AntiGuv]

You usually strike me as fairly rational, but I guess it's early this morning..

1) Resurrections are not realistic; they are fantasmagorical. So are demon possessions, miracle cures, limb regenerations, walking on water, and transmutation.

2) If a manuscript faithfully copies another manuscript it is usually then very easy to reconcile its text with that of the manuscript that it copied.

I'm not sure what you think a focus on Jesus indicates. What else would a Christian gospel focus on??

[HiTech RedNeck]

You did do a pretty good job of describing why today's "science" (the word is a straight borrow from the Greek "skientia" meaning "to know" -- pretty sweeping claim) is actually intellectually impoverished. Funny how "Humean" doubts didn't seem to bog down the experiments, observations, and conclusions of men who were unabashed Christians when it came down to metaphysics. Not even Mr. Darwin himself who at least gave plausible lip service to a Christian view of God when he wrote his Origin of Species.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The resurrection was not some amorphous thing giving rise to conflicting eyewitness accounts that could not be reconciled with one another. It was not a event that welcomed a diversity of subjectivity. Jesus Christ was back on earth in his body, and that was that. It was about as "fantasmagorical" as radio waves.

If one gospel writer piggybacked off of the writings of another one - so what? They didn't know they were writing "the Bible." They were writing reports to share with their friends. You going to try to have it both ways, that agreement means collusion and disagreement (purported) means collusion?

[AndrewC]

Your points don't need refutation. They need pity. For instance it is quite clear that a probability is calculated, the linked pages show that.

Again, your shock is no argument for anything but your shock.

Plus your gambling problem does not help your argument either. Notice that the summation for the calculation of pi has a symbol on top. That means something.

And the set of rationals is closed when using all of the operations in the equation.

Finally, your not understanding irony is no virtue. A recent study pinpointed a cause for that. It was brain damage to the frontal lobe.

'Sarcasm' brain areas discovered

Damage to any of three different areas could render individuals unable to understand sarcastic comments.

As you so kindly treated Alamo-girl, I will return the favor. Don't post to me.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Hey, I got post #1500. Doesn't everybody owe me rent now?

Other way around. You posted on prime cyber estate.

[AntiGuv]

OK, so this would seem to be our working definition of Intelligent Design:

Intelligent Design: A hypothesis wherein speciation is explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I have narrowed down our "features of the universe and of living things" to speciation since that's what the theory of evolution explains.

Is that our definition, or do you have something more to add?

[PatrickHenry]

PactrickHenry thinks Darwin Central can escape paying the rent.

You got me to wondering about area code 666. The internet, as almost always, supplies the information. There seems to be no 666 in the US (I can't imagine why). The numerically nearest country code is 664, which is Montserrat (a volcanic island in the Leeward Islands of the British West Indies, southeast of Puerto Rico, northwest of Guadeloupe in the Caribbean). Saudi Arabia is 966, which is intriguingly close.

I've also learned that the country code for Ecuador is 593, and the Galapagos Islands have an area code of 05. All their phone numbers have six digits preceded by an area code. So to make an international call to the Galapagos Islands you'd dial 011-593-05 + six digits. (Darwin Central, being sovereign, doesn't use Ecuador's numbers; we have our own code -- which you know so well.)

And one more piece of fascinating information: The zip code for Topeka, Kansas is 66601. 66606 is also in Topeka. Make of that what you will.

[donh]

You did do a pretty good job of describing why today's "science" (the word is a straight borrow from the Greek "skientia" meaning "to know" -- pretty sweeping claim) is actually intellectually impoverished.

Uh, huh. Intellectually impoverished. The very first words that leap into mind upon reviewing science at the end of the 20th century. Your suggestion that "to know" means not to be systematically critical of one's basic assumptions, in the face of the changes that have occured in virtually every fundamental assumption of science since 1900, is duly noted, and alloted all the respect it deserves.

Funny how "Humean" doubts didn't seem to bog down the experiments, observations, and conclusions of men who were unabashed Christians when it came down to metaphysics.

Oh really? Based on what double blind field study?

Not even Mr. Darwin himself who at least gave plausible lip service to a Christian view of God when he wrote his Origin of Species.

Darwin was well on his way to being ordaned in the Anglican church before he got distracted by sea turtles. It would be a good guess that it was more than lip service.

[PatrickHenry]

I certainly should have pinged you to 1510.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Uh, huh. Intellectually impoverished. The very first words that leap into mind upon reviewing science at the end of the 20th century. Your suggestion that "to know" means not to be systematically critical of one's basic assumptions, in the face of the changes that have occured in virtually every fundamental assumption of science since 1900, is duly noted, and alloted all the respect it deserves.

In philosophical terms they are, to put it figuratively, 1000 kilometers deep and 1 nanometer wide.

"We Are The Guys Who Know" is a rather arrogant label for such a thing, which masks away as irrelevant to Knowledge huge areas of human thought that older, wiser thinkers did not spurn. Thinkers who did not dare reduce humanity to a heap of wiggly particles.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Is there any area code which is a triple repeated digit?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Funny how "Humean" doubts didn't seem to bog down the experiments, observations, and conclusions of men who were unabashed Christians when it came down to metaphysics.

"Oh really? Based on what double blind field study?"

You've furnished me with a good laugh. When did YOU start basing everything that YOU have argued on "double blind field studies"?

I thought you'd be a hardcase. This is easy.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

OK, so this would seem to be our working definition of Intelligent Design:

Intelligent Design: A hypothesis wherein speciation is explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I have narrowed down our "features of the universe and of living things" to speciation since that's what the theory of evolution explains.

Is that our definition, or do you have something more to add?

The “speciation” substitution does not capture the point of intelligent design. The ID hypothesis concerns “certain features”. IOW, whether those certain features are functional molecular machinery common to all species (such as eyeness) or whether those certain features are points of differentiation between species is not an issue.

I’d rather go back to the official statement narrowing in on “living things” more specifically as follows:

Intelligent Design: An hypothesis wherein certain features of life v non-life/death in nature is best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

[betty boop]

"Science feeds on mystery."

Forgive me, Chester, but IMO science is not about mystery. It is about explaining the physical world. "Mystery" is the bailiwick of religion.

This statement from Dawkins is the sort of rhetorical tactic I most object to. He is making an emotional appeal here for his own particular brand of religion, atheistic scienfic materialism. And there's nothing "mysterious" about that.

Wake up and smell the roses....

FWIW. Thanks for writing!

[PatrickHenry]

Is there any area code which is a triple repeated digit?

Not really. 555 is reserved for directory assistance applications. 888 is listed as US/Canada toll free. 999 is "Often used by carriers to indicate that the area code information is unavailable for CNID, even though the rest of the number is present."

I found only one triple for international dialing codes: 222 is Mauritania.

[donh]

In philosophical terms they are, to put it figuratively, 1000 kilometers deep and 1 nanometer wide.

You garbled this homily right?

The difference between a invariant fixed frame universe, and an Einsteinian universe is a mile wide and an inch deep? How about a fixed crust vs subducting continental shelves? How about a universe several trillion times larger? You are one tough audience.

"We Are The Guys Who Know" is a rather arrogant label for such a thing, which masks away as irrelevant to Knowledge huge areas of human thought that older, wiser thinkers did not spurn. Thinkers who did not dare reduce humanity to a heap of wiggly particles.

Nonsense, science makes no such claims. It only knows things about a very limited field of discourse, and is very aware of that; looking at it's history, it is hard to understand how someone could maintain such an encompassing notion of science, except through rigorous avoidance of science's daily business.

Certainly most scientist's don't hold any such attitude.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Not even Mr. Darwin himself who at least gave plausible lip service to a Christian view of God when he wrote his Origin of Species.

"Darwin was well on his way to being ordaned in the Anglican church before he got distracted by sea turtles. It would be a good guess that it was more than lip service.

Accounts differ on how devout he was in later life. The story about a deathbed conversion (or reconversion) is apparently false. It appears that materialism had pretty much walked away with his thought by that point. Other Christians were more successful in keeping their faith while exploring down the avenues of biological evolution. It became a problem for mankind when it became the basis of a whole new philosophy that denied it WAS "a philosophy" but reduced the plants, animals AND man to self organized matter. The object of observation had swallowed up the observer. The rules man had formerly used as a tool to a pursuit carried out under his will, had become his dictator.

I guess I am sounding a lot like C. S. Lewis. He was one cool thinker who knew that when you take 1 - 1, you shouldn't expect anything other than 0.