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
The the result becomes random if any piece is random.
I'd say rather that it was a weaker theory - more qualitative logic than quantitative.
Among other things, you are confusing scientific theories with reality.
Goering had two, but very small.
Get in line pal!
To recap, it is my opinuion...
That and $1.00 will get you a cup of coffee.
Nowhere does Dawkins write he would ban religion if he had unlimited power.
KATHY MARTIN (Kansas State Board of Education): What we're saying is that the neo- Darwinism and some of the materialistic explanations of evolution have led young folks away from Christianity and their beliefs. They're a lot of different theories out there, and I don't think teaching creationism in a science class -- no, that's definitely not what we want to do, but just to allow critical analysis and more than just one point of view.
I wish! I have too much damn work to do and it won't calm down until July.
My beef was with your poor logic in this particular case. The argument you used can be expressed as a categorical syllogism with propositions of type 'a'. When expressed this way it shows clearly that you have formed an example of the fallacy of undistributed middle.
Whatever."
Well don't go yelling at us about bad logic then. Sheesh.
All Marxists are atheists who want to ban religion"
Here you've made an unwarranted aaumption. Not all Marxists are atheists and not all atheists are Marxists. But Karl Marx viewed religion as something that should be banned. So does Dawkins and in that way Dawkins is marxist.
I used 'all' to make the argument more straight forward. I would never assume that all Marxists are atheists, and from my earlier post it is obvious that not all atheists are marxists. However that premise does not state that all atheists are Marxists.
Therefore Dawkins is a Marxist.
Not my view. My view is that Dakins view on religion is marxist in that he would ban it if he could.
OK. His views on religion are Marxist like then.
Let's try this:
Did Karl Marx advocate for the abolition of religion?
Yes.
Do you think Richard Dawkins would abolish religion if he could?
Yes.
His ideas and Marx's ideas about religion are the same.
I will use the term strong atheist to describe those atheists that would like to get rid of all religion.
Why? Why not simply use the term bigot?
It was easier than typing the full bit. Besides, Dawkins hates religion, not the relgious.
If you meant that Dawkins' religious views are like those of Marxists then you are right, but if you meant that Dawkins is a Marxist, your argument fails to show it.
I said what I meant. Dawkins' views on religion are marxist. Nobody on this thread has demonstrated otherwise while I have demonstrated exactly what I claimed.
Logically, two people can share an idea without belonging to the same group. Your claiming Dawkins' views on religion make him a religious Marxist doesn't make sense unless you can partition a human up and label each partition with a different ideological label. That in itself is not helpful.
BTW whether Dawkins is a Marxist or not has no bearing on the validity of his views of biology.
Dawkins writes on relgion and politics often. He doesn't get a 'No criticism because he is a scientist card'.
Now, don't go putting words in my mouth. If you want to complain about his politics, go ahead. If you want to argue with his biology, go ahead. Just don't conflate the two.
This hick woman is getting way too much publicity.
Speak for yourself. Personally, I can't get enough of her. Besides, she's almost single-handedly plunging Kansas back into the Dark Ages. That's probably more than you've done. Nya, nya, nyaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
"Himmler had something similar....."
... and oh, what He Hath Wrought ...
SAT scores in America have been measured by the current system since 1941. Holding consistently for 21 years, scores did not go up or down for more than two years in a row. But beginning in 1963, the year following the Engel v. Vitale decision, SAT scores took an 18 year plunge downward, followed by a brief upturn when parents en masse removed their children to private schools, and then downward again.29% of high school graduates are "functional illiterates", and another 30% cannot read well enough to adequately learn other subjects. 700,000 students recently graduating from American high schools could not read their own diploma. 90,000,000 Americans (nearly one half of the adult population) are functionally illiterate (banner headlines in the early 1990's).
America, which before 1962 was at the top of the world, three decades later in nearly every area of education is consistently at the bottom compared with other major industrial countries.
Public schools spend about $3800 per student per year, private schools less than one third that amount, about $1100 (1986 figures -- well beyond that now, 2003). Public schools (88% of America's student population) produce only 61% of America's honor students, while private schools (only 12% of the student population) produce 39% of America's honor students, over three times the expected number. Public schools therefore produce less than one third the percent of honor students at over three times the cost.
(http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Ed/God&Ed.htm)
What exactly, you Darwin-bots, has seperation of G-d, religion and morals from education, including G-d-less *evolution* done for education and science in our schools? (That's a rhetorical! The facts are clear!)
Seculatist education -- a key part of which is G-d-free evolution and scince -- produces far more ninnies.
Now, if you are all as wise as you think you think you are, where would you send your kiddies? To a private school -- Catholic Parochial, Christian Day School or Jewish Day School! There they have a fighting chance to get a decent education and become the scientists you Darwin-Alpha-and-Omega-bots imagine such to be.
The SAT Scores are facts. How would a scientist explain the evolution of those scores?
With denial of the obvious? Not so scientific, eh?
Hooray for Kathy Martin! She loves the next generation of kids more than some of you would seem to.
When I read that, I saw the specter of the beautiful as she is brilliant Kathy Martin armed with a copy of Darwin's "Origin" with a dagger through it in one hand and a "plumber's helper" in the other. The mere thought of it makes me quiver with excitement.
Two hands, I'd pay to see.
You mean "secularist." Anyway, it's the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. There were other things going on in the 60s and 70s, you know.
"Kathy earned her Bachelors Degree in Elementary Education in 1967,...."[emphasis added]
Anyway, it's the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.Darn, I was going to blaim Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech in 1963 as the obvious cause for dropping SAT scores. I mean, obviously students started daydreaming instead of learning anything.
I'll bet that when she was getting that degree, she found the work very demanding, and really had to hit those books.
Dam* you. Every time I think I can one up a creationist with a swift kick in the logical fallacy someone (you) beats me to it.
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.