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

[Right Wing Professor]

Since jwalsh07 has seen fit to impugn the conservative credentials of evos in general, I though I'd post this link , from today's Lincoln Journal-Star. First letter on the page.

The May 21 Lincoln Journal Star piece on the Rosenbergs' son's address to the American Civil Liberties Union annual dinner glosses over the most important fact of the case.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were unquestionably spies; the Venona intercepts, Khrushchev's statement that the pair provided "very significant help in accelerating the production of our atomic bomb," and released KGB documents show that Julius was in fact a leading Soviet spy in America who led an espionage ring that transferred nuclear weapons technology to the Soviets.

In this way the Rosenbergs put in jeopardy the lives of every man, woman and child in this country and sustained an evil empire that kept hundreds of millions of people in bondage.

Nonetheless, the ACLU persists in trying to maintain the long-discredited lie that these treasonous agents of a tyrannical foreign power were somehow innocent victims of anti-Communist hysteria.

Why this 50-year love affair with virulent enemies of the United States? Has the ACLU run out of innocent people to defend?

Of course, it's easy to post snide insinuations on FR about atheists, with a cohort of fundy brethren around to provide cover. It's not so easy to confront liberals on their own turf. The Rosenbergs were real Marxists, and real enemies of the United States. Dawkins is a Lib Dem who happens not to like the President. To some of us, that's a meaningful distinction.

[AntiGuv]

You'll need the following definition as well.

Wild-Ass Guess: fantasy pulled out one's behind.

[jwalsh07]

Hey Prof you're done with me, remember? But since you insist.

Since jwalsh07 has seen fit to impugn the conservative credentials of evos in general, I though I'd post this link , from today's Lincoln Journal-Star. First letter on the page.

A false assertion not backed by any evidence. In fact, I have pointed out that certain "evos" are great contributors whose opinions I hold in high esteem on conservative issues. You, at times, have been among them.

I assume you wrote that letter to the editor and you have my thanks for doing it. Well done prof. I'll ping you next time one of my letters makes it through the liberal filter of my local newspaper. To be fair though, they have printed a number of my rants.

Of course, it's easy to post snide insinuations on FR about atheists, with a cohort of fundy brethren around to provide cover.

Another unfounded assertion 180 out from the facts. I debated this issue on this thread by myself. The "brethren" were all on your side. Not complaining, just stating a fact. I expect nothing less when I visit your 'turf'.

It's not so easy to confront liberals on their own turf.LOL, I rode around Boston in particular and New England in general with "Impeach the President and her husband" bumper stickers on my cars for near 6 years. I've gone nose to nose with union thugs trying to suppress conservatives rights to speech at various rallies here in Ct. I've posted some of those very pictures here at FR. Confrontation happens. Such is life.

The Rosenbergs were real Marxists, and real enemies of the United States. Dawkins is a Lib Dem who happens not to like the President. To some of us, that's a meaningful distinction.

Yes the Rosenbergs were Marxists. Dawkins writings regarding religion, and I have read quite a bit of them, force me to conclude that his views on religion are the same as Marx. How you conclude from that that that I think all atheists are marxist in their views toward religion I have no idea.

But here's something you can take to the bank Prof. My personal rule on FR is that I don't write anything that I wouldn't say to you in person.

Regards.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Unless you understand that "theory" entails conjecture you are not working with the correct definition of theory. Do you see the words "system of assumptions" in the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "theory", or does cognative dissonance kick in whenever those words come up?

[longshadow]

She makes up for her lack of science education by being a hottie.

Like I keep saying: "she's as beautuful as she is brilliant."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

I recall this being discussed a few months a go. Some of our more math-literate posters really tore into it. I'm not qualified to re-create what they said, and I didn't fully follow the discussion.

Not at all. What was being challenged was the definition of the word "algorithm" - hence I'm being specific right up front this time in stipulating the type of algorithm, i.e. Euclidean.

I wish you would stay engaged in the discussion, PatrickHenry! Your insights are always much appreciated. Hugs!

[Fester Chugabrew]

Wild-Ass Guess: fantasy pulled out one's behind.

In understanding the universe we try to avoid those, but we all must make some. A wild-ass guess need not be a deemed a "fantasy." Science works with the assumption that nothing travels faster than the speed of light in a vaccuum. As far as I am concerned, that is a fairly large assumption - large enough to be a wild-ass guess but not a fantasy insofar as reason has been able apprehend reality. If we were to work with the assumption that nothing moves faster than the speed Jeff Gordon in a dump truck, then we would be engaging in a wild-ass guess that could be deemed fantasy.

[AntiGuv]

Science works with the assumption that nothing travels faster than the speed of light in a vaccuum.

Science doesn't 'work with that assumption'; science reaches that conclusion. There's a major difference.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank y'all so much for the ping to your discussion!

xzins: Were the universe to be deterministic and not of an intelligent design, then one must posit the universe itself as some prior, highly organized entity that spawns highly organized subsystems. That would beg the question, too, of the first organized universe, or the organizing principle that underlies it.

AntiGuv: That is true, but the organizing principle need not be intelligent. Two examples of non-intelligent organizing principles are general relativity and quantum mechanics. Some would posit that the ultimate organizing principle that underlies the universe is the Theory of Everything (hence, the name..) but I guess we can't be sure unless and until we discover it!

xzins is correct. As long as there is a beginning at all - and all cosmologies posit geometry and therefore a beginning - the organizing principle itself raises the issue of first cause or uncaused cause.

This is an issue of time - whether one views our 4D block as three spatial dimensions evolving over time or whether one views time as a dimension: x,y,z,t.

This also hinges AntiGuv's presumption that general relativity and quantum mechanics are not intelligent organizing principles. Relativity, quantum mechanics, string theories and many "theories of everything" view time as a dimension and therefore that presumption cannot withstand scrutiny.

I would love to also engage in a discussion of time, null paths, light bending at positive gravity indentations, inter-dimensional gravity and the ilk - if anyone would care to "go there".

AntiGuv: And, as an idle aside, although in a much less methodical way than I intend to do so in our framework debate, I've here demonstrated the error that Alamo-Girl was expounding earlier: That any proposed solution to any given objection to the modern synthesis theory of genetic evolution is "intelligent design"...Oh, and once again, that error is the fallacy of the excluded middle.

For you to prevail in this assertion, you'll have to construct a syllogism from my reasoning in which the middle is undistributed. But I have made no syllogistic assertions. So I'm particularly curious how you are going to pull it off.

The theories of everything definition from Wikipedia is a great case-in-point since not all TOEs are physics and yet they are TOEs by definition. In a like manner, a homosexual man may not "want" to be a man but he is a man nonetheless, by definition of what a man "is".

Notwithstanding that, our definition process is very illuminating.

xzins: I'm content to allow non-randomness explanations (as speculative possibilities) from whatever source, philosophy, science, etc. It just seems clear to me that the randomness piece of evolution makes it untenable. I'm content with the evaluation that the current evolutionary understanding is inadequate. I know the direction to search is away from randomness-infected evolutionary theory. The best guesses lie in some non-randomness direction.

You are in very good company indeed, dear xzins! Many – if not most – of the mathematicians and physicists who are deeply engaged in evolution biology, along with the likes of Gehring, are brutalizing the concept of randomness in evolution theory. (The definition of randomness falls in the domain of mathematics.)

IMHO, most of them along with researchers in panspermia/cosmic ancestry/exobiology and collective consciousness would keel over at the notion that their work fits the definition of an intelligent design hypothesis. After all, being tagged “ID” is a scarlet letter to mainstream scientists. LOL!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Nice link!.

It even includes plants, the bane of creationist and ID thinkers.

[Right Wing Professor]

Unless you understand that "theory" entails conjecture you are not working with the correct definition of theory. Do you see the words "system of assumptions" in the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "theory", or does cognative dissonance kick in whenever those words come up?

I suggest you either learn to accept the consensus meanings of English words, or choose another language in which to converse. No part in the definition of 'theory' involves an inference from incomplete data, or guesswork. And the first sign of a charlatan is an attempt to change the accepted meaning of terms.

[Right Wing Professor]

Science works with the assumption that nothing travels faster than the speed of light in a vaccuum.

Ballocks. That's a deduction, not an assumption.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I do not know of any textbook that presents the fossil record in a manner that reflects the exact geological location and position of each one.

My guess is that you get your science information from the main-stream media or creationist web sites.

Biologists are still arguing over the number of animal phyla and the best way to organize them. The proposals range from 32 to 36 but this could change next year. Molecular data sometimes results in dramatic reclassification. Cladists are now trying to build trees based on gene appearance, cell types and organ types. Classifying organisms is an ongoing battle. It's not as clean-cut and trivial as you're led to believe.

Also I don't think you could put all that information into one book. It would weigh tons. I agree there could be some reasonable number of samples, though.

I'm going to spend some time with PatrickHenry's link and see how that looks.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your question!

We are almost there, but I want to reconsider one final component of the definition. That is the phrase "life v non-life"; I'd like to see in your own words what you mean by that. I've been taking it in the sense of 'why are things this way, and not that way' .. in other words, any feature of existence or of reality can be deemed a "feature of life v non-life" in some sense or other. Stated yet differently, everything is life or non-life or some variation/subset/quality thereof.

But, it occurred to me that you may intend to signify something more narrow by this contrast. So, I want to see what precisely you mean by "life v non-life" (and, for that matter, I'd like to know why you generally phrase it "life v non-life/death in nature").

Indeed, I have a narrow construction of the term based on Claude Shannon's mathematical theory of communications which is useful to delineating between "what is life v. non-life/death in nature".

Claude Shannon's theory is the origin of the field of mathematics known as information theory and is used in pharmaceutical and cancer research among other things. The discipline is generally known as "information theory and molecular biology".

Here is my post from another thread:

Information is that which distinguishes life from non-life/death.

Information, paraphrased as “successful communication” is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in a receiver or molecular machine in going from a before state to an after state. It is the action, the communication itself, the arrows on the chart below. It is not the message. The value or meaning of the message being transmitted has no bearing on the model.

Two quick thought experiments for Lurkers:

Consider the difference between a live skin cell and a dead skin cell from the same person, e.g. the DNA and chemicals are as good dead as alive.

Consider what would happen if you dropped a live bird, a dead bird and a cannonball from the rooftop.

Successful communication includes all of the named elements. In biological systems these elements should be interpreted as follows:

• source = the inception, beginning or initiation of a communication:
  interrupt (e.g. presence of food, heat, radiation, other environmental change)

  cycle (e.g. rhythm, timing)

  will

  involuntary, the “will to live” or “want to live” or “struggle to survive” which characterizes all life, plant and animal, amoebas to whales, collectives of organisms, molecular machinery within organisms integrated cooperatively for the organism to survive, individual cells. Also known as life principle and fecundity principle.

  voluntary, “self-will” or "free will" such as intention, abstraction, anticipation, choice. Examples include the will to move a finger, analyze a problem, envision a plan, fly away, etc.

• message = genetic message in DNA (including tRNA)
• encoder/transmitter = transcription into mRNA
• channel (channel code is mRNA code)
• decoder/receiver = translation into protein
• noise = genetic noise (mutations, viruses), noise in genetic code (tRNA), prions

Applied to the enigmas, this definition would interpret all of the following as living with the following restrictions:

Bacteria - autonomous successful communication

Bacterial Spores – autonomous successful communication

Mycoplasmas – autonomous bacterial model parasite successful communication

Mimivirus – autonomous virus model parasite successful communication

Viroids – non-autonomous virus-like noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication (no protein coat)

Viruses – non-autonomous virus noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication (feeds genetic data to the host)

Prions – non-autonomous protein noise/mutation contributing to successful/failed communication (protein crystallization)

There is so far no known origin for information (the successful communication) in space/time. This should be visualized as activity represented by the arrows on the above chart. Possible origins include a universal vacuum field, harmonics, geometry.

If you have an alternative mathematical definition, I'd love to see it!

[Fester Chugabrew]

That's a deduction, not an assumption.

All deductions result in, and are based upon, the assumption they accurately reflect reality. Once one makes a conclusion, he uses it as an assumption upon which to base further thought. And no matter how many times you write to the contrary, a theory by definition entails a set of assumptions. Besides, it is common usage to make use of the word "theory" in a manner that deflects the meaning of "fact" or "absolute truth."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your opinions of researchers in collective consciousness!

The intent of my post was not to endorse or debunk their work but to evidence what their work entails vis-a-vis science.

I get somewhat amused at the notion of aliens seeding life on this planet - but for researchers such as Crick, this was the best explanation.

It is what it is.

The point of defining panspermia/cosmic ancestry and collective consciousness on this thread is to determine whether the definition fits the definition of an intelligent design hypothesis.

[donh]

No, it's been a while since I've studied distribution of any kind.....stat & research classes at KSU in 95. The Gaussian rings a bell.....curve???? :>)

Right. So when evolutionists say that evolution occurs by the process of random variation and selection, the claim, at least as originally vetted, is that, while the variation step is uniformly (sorry about the original terminology) distributed, after the selection step, the distribution is gaussian, with a central tendency toward those individuals whose attributes give them the best chances of survival. This is the invisible sculping blade with which evolution "designs" species as the blade changes shape over time. If you want to argue against the evolutionary story, this is what you need to attack. Attacking "chance", as if uniform distribution were the story is a strawman attack.

[Right Wing Professor]

All deductions result in, and are based upon, the assumption they accurately reflect reality.

More little word games. Please restrict yourself to posts in English. I'm sure you'd love to construct another language in which a deduction is in fact an assumption, but that's not the one we're using here.

That nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is a consequence of special relativity, not an assumption. Deal with it.

[edsheppa]

You're a real piece of work, using an out of context quote to support a lie. Not only that, the quote doesn't even call for a ban on religion as you have claimed he does.

The man has denied it directly.

[Alamo-Girl]

It indicates that Euclid was intelligent. (Or whoever invented the algorithm.)

Indeed. That is the point. Thank you for your post and the link!