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
Intelligent Design: A hypothesis wherein given features of life v non-life are explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Excellent! Then, our next task is to define "panspermia"; a definition of which, much to our convenience, is provided at Wikipedia as follows:
Panspermia: A hypothesis that the seeds of life are prevalent throughout the Universe, and furthermore that life on Earth began by such seeds landing on Earth and propagating.
So, is that our definition of "panspermia"?
Well, now. Threaten me with burning at the stake and I'll be a darn good christian too. Coerced testimony isn't generally considered reliable in a court of law, you realize?
Which makes metaphysical claims including that of special intervention in the physical world.
At the present moment, about half of all working scientists believe exactly the same thing, with no qualms because, as I've repeatedly pointed out, your protests to the contrary notwithstanding, many of them are christian, and most of them thorougly understand that science is NOT about the entire universe, just the parts it can easily gather evidence about, and even that's a little goosey.
I guess I made the "foolish" mistake of believing them when they say they did. I guess you want to find a mind dump somewhere to prove that they really did believe what they said they did.
I'll be happy to take that for a concession speech.
Here are your words that started this embroglio off:
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.
Followed by a gobsmack of smart remarks. Let me just point out something a little odd about this. What you are going pridefully on about here, is that christian scientists entertain no doubts whatsoever about their enterprise, whereas ordinary modern scientists do.
Does this seem like an exceptionally odd way to condemn modern science for its arrogant global self-assurance? it does to me--unless the agenda here is to make propaganda points for creationism, rather than sensible, consistent arguments one is willing to stand behind.
Well the point is, in the mechanization of the pi calculation, whenever you pause, or stop, the answer is rational and not pi(kinda like needles and pins), but the formula is correct(just like needles and pins).
I would insert "at least some" before the "given" to avoid the inadvertent creation of a strawman related to the finitude of any inquiry carried out by the finite agent, man. Some supersets of Intelligent Design (e.g. theism) would put "all" there. But that question is not in scope.
If such truly "inexplicable in principle" features are identified (and I see the search for them as a worthy subject for investigation) then the ID hypothesis becomes scientifically respectable -- in my always humble opinion. But I think it's premature to be proposing various agencies as possible causes of ID when the subject for the ID hypothesis (truly inexplicable features) hasn't yet been identified to the satisfaction of anyone outside of the narrow ID community.
Here, once again, are YOUR words:
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.
I have just about concluded that making propaganda points for God is way more important to you than making sense. Please don't bother posting to me any more. I'm ashamed of you, and suspect God is too.
Thank you for clarifying what you think I said. But it isn't what I said.
I'm challenging you whether there's any evidence that the question of just where the boundary between supernatural and natural lies, has impeded these Christian scientists compared to their secular counterparts. The lone bone of contention being macroevolution, and for many not even that.
Whoa I didn't say that no "Humean" questions arose. I'm saying that in spite of a supernaturalistic worldview which would seemingly open the door wide for such a thing, which you claimed to be a showstopper, Christian scientists were not stopped in their progress in the scienceS (deliberate capitalization). The sole exception being macroevolution as the story of all life on earth, and for many not even that.
So you don't know what that little "sideways eight" atop the sigma symbol means? Sad.
The claim is softer in principle -- it is an "overwhelming likelihood" claim, not a "to a mathematical perfection" claim. Again let us avoid creating strawmen. It's the kind of claim analogous to how I might state "I will not win the Powerball lottery" even though, in fact, I have bought a ticket to that lottery and so could theoretically win it.
IOW, they acknowledged the doubt and ran with the hypothesis anyhow. Like you seem to have said was a crippling conflict. Except that it isn't: the Bible explicitly points out that Christians' current knowledge is incomplete, that it can be incorrect, and will ultimately be corrected to perfection by God.
Don't have or need $100..
There are a lot of fairy tales for modern consumption..
Take Socialism.. theres an economic fairy tale..(Slavery by Gov't)
or a Democracy.. theres a political fairy tale..(MOB Rule)
or a George Bush Administration theres a politically conservative fairy tale..
or a "black hole" thats an astro-physical fairy tale..
Theres just no end of designer fairy tales for adults, children, blacks, whites, asians, muslims, "scientists", mathematicians, politicians, RINOs, DINOs, theres many more..
Humans, as I've said, love a good story. When they believe in nothing they will believe in anything.. Take the theory of natural selection; its true to an extent, but as with anything, it can be expanded to its ultimate level of incompetance.. makeing it a fairy tale not a theory anymore.. Laurence Peter penned "The Peter Princple"..
Morphing theorys into belief systems is not rare.. but are mostly limited to political scientists and other "scientists" with some political bent.. say (but not limited to) atheists or socialists.. Those two groups need something to believe in even if they need to create that something themselves..
The Peter Principle is not a theory.. thats what humans do, promote "what they are "into", into its ultimale level of incompetency..
What do you do for a living.?.
Huh? Not all the Catholics lived during the Inquisition. And then there is the Protestant take on the faith: the stake burnings there (unless you were seemingly a witch) seem to have added up to exactly one (Servetus, at the hands of Calvin). And even one was one too many, but hardly the threat you enunciate.
I guess until we have the capability of visiting a black hole, or an alleged black hole, the question will remain. It was a clergyman who apparently first came up with the idea that some objects might be so dense that not even light could escape their gravity.
I understand the point you're making. My statement of the ID hypothesis was a deliberate attempt to avoid what you're saying.
As I see it, singling out a curious biological feature, and trying to identify how it might have evolved, is a good PhD project for a biology student. Indeed, this is exactly the sort of thing Darwin did, for example, with the eye. He highlighted it, and then he proceed to search for (and find) earlier steps along the way, leading to eyes as we know them. This is how science works -- (a) focus on an apparent anomaly, and then (b) investigate it. But too much of what I observe from the supporters of ID involves only the first part -- pointing to an apparent anomaly. They leave out part "b" entirely, electing instead to leap to a possibly unwarranted conclusion.
I have quoted your own words to you twice now. I'll not continue to do so.
I'm saying that in spite of a supernaturalistic worldview which would seemingly open the door wide for such a thing,
Now...why would a belief in God be expected to "open the door wide" for skeptical doubt about the nature of certainty about evidence? This seems to me to be precisely the opposite of the case.
which you claimed to be a showstopper,
Eh? Where did I do that?
Christian scientists were not stopped in their progress in the scienceS (deliberate capitalization).
Based on what metrics? Please don't answer unless you can do so without the half-dozen or so extraneous one-liner insults.
The sole exception being macroevolution as the story of all life on earth, and for many not even that.]
Well, you lost me on that curve.
"I'll be happy to take that for a concession speech."
If you are saying that you can't buy the idea that Christian scientists believed Christianity and honestly thought it to be true, without seeing a study which proves it, well I cease my challenges in that vein (other apologists take up the torch well enough) but I do not cede the claim that they did. I just don't buy Science as Proof Of Everything That Matters (including that kind of matter).
I won't continue to fight with a parser. Good-day.
Intelligent Design: A hypothesis wherein given features of life v non-life are explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
HiTech RedNeck says: I would insert "at least some" before the "given" to avoid the inadvertent creation of a strawman related to the finitude of any inquiry carried out by the finite agent, man.
I'll have to decline. The qualifier "at least some" is redundant, and "the finitude of any inquiry carried out by the finite agent" is irrelevant to our purposes.
The given features can be one feature, a set of features, or all features - any of these options being quite consistent with the definition we've specified.
So, with your caveat duly noted for the record, the task at hand is to define "panspermia"..
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.