Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)

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

AntiGuv wrote: Wherever the elements of the universe are arranged in such manner that they might organize organically, then they will do so, and the longer they are serendipitously graced with a stable environment, they will arrange themselves in ever more complex forms.

Or even in an unstable environment.

Sounds life the fecundity principle, a/k/a life principle at work. But I must point out that a principle is not a material thing at all. And form and organization imply intelligence and information. These are not material things either.

Looks like AntiGuv may be some kind of closet ID-er after all. :^)

Thanks for the ping, Alamo-Girl! I have to turn in early for I have to get up at 5 a.m. to attend an all-day conference in Boston tomorrow. I'll be off-line all day, but will check back in in the evening. Hugs for now!!!

No, I'm not a lawyer but I can read a dictionary.

libel
• noun 1 the publication of a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation. Compare with SLANDER. 2 a written defamation.
• verb (libelled, libelling; US libeled, libeling) defame by publishing a libel.
publish
• verb 1 prepare and issue (a book, newspaper, piece of music, etc.) for public sale. 2 print in a book, newspaper, or journal so as to make generally known. 3 announce formally. 4 communicate (a libel) to a third party.

Claiming that Dawkins would ban religion is false and defamatory and you have written it publicly. It is therefore libel. You really think people are too stupid to see through your bluster. It is amazing.

"Supposed" error? Bullshit. You claimed that rational arithmetic is closed under all the operations in that equation. It has been shown otherwise but you won't admit you were wrong. It is pathetic.

What is pathetic is your grasping at some imagined dragon. Don Quixote has nothing on you.

This is the context of my statement.

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

"That means something" means something. This was your conclusion So you don't know what that little "sideways eight" atop the sigma symbol means? Sad.

You are just as wrong now.

Ah, the old throwing dust in their eyes trick. I'm not going to let you get away with it. You said "and the set of rationals is closed when using all of the operations in the equation." That is wrong. It has been shown to be wrong. You should cut your losses and admit it.

My questioning whether you understood the meaning of that symbol in the equation is simply explained. Since rational arithmetic is not closed under that operation, I figured you didn't understand its meaning. As you showed later, you did (which I acknowledged here).

But your claim about closure is still wrong. And you still trying to bluff it out.

I'm not throwing dust or bluffing anything. The discussion is clear, except to you. The purpose was not to discuss your personal view of the discussion. Rationals are closed under addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. I mentioned the little thing on top for a reason. It was not just to add words to my post.

When will Dawkins be appearing?

Oh yeah, before I forget, you flatter yourself that Dawkins would come here and debate you. What an ego.

Why don't you dare him? Maybe that will rile him up enough and it would sure be a spectacle. I gave you his email address. Not too chicken are you?

You are just incapable of admitting you were wrong. Is it a phychological problem?

Look, I'll try and make if very easy for you. I promise it won't hurt. You just have to answer this question with a simple yes. Were you wrong to claim that rational arithmetic is closed under all the operations in that equation?

Why don't you dare him? Maybe that will rile him up enough and it would sure be a spectacle. I gave you his email address. Not too chicken are you?

How does a 6 year old have a teenage child Ed? That's what you act like, a six year old. Dare ya, double dare ya ya chicken creationist liar.

Grow up.

Thank you for your reply!

me: For any atheist, the quality of life after physical death is zero. No wonder they are so interested in avoiding it.

you: You say this like it's a Bad Thing. The alternative would be what? Embrace death?

As betty boop says the alternative is to embrace life.

For the atheist, physical life is all the life there is - but for many of us, "life" itself is not only physical and therefore does not end upon physical death (as compared to life v non-life/death in nature).

We who are Christian have the added awareness of being alive already in timelessness while still in the flesh - thus we are dead and yet we live (Col 3:3, Gal 2:20). We will not taste the second death (Revelation).

One of these days we need to tackle the false Cartesian split in a wide-ranging discussion. It touches many subjects we debate around here - and like our previous discussions of "reality" and "types of knowledge and valuation of them" and "what is life", it would surely help us to communicate more effectively.

Were you wrong to claim that rational arithmetic is closed under all the operations in that equation?

And I'll make it easy for you. No, not in the context for which I made the statement. The infinite symbol was given special attention for a reason. It was to set up the next statement. The one which troubles you so much.

Thank you for your reply! From your previous post at 1788:

What Dawkins meant, I think, was the evolution gives one a credible explanation for most of the world as we observe it. It gives us the 'how'. 'How?' is almost always a good question. Many people are looking for an answer to 'why?'; most atheists, I think, think the 'why' is meaningful only if there is a volition; and if you deny a deity, then there is no volition to puzzle about.

This line of thinking is an example of the ideology to which I was speaking. My remarks were not intended to be personal, from post 2200:

How can one be “fulfilled” when he sees himself as an epiphenomenon of his physical brain? What is there to fill for him but his skull with a few more brain cells? And what is the point of seeking recognition at all if the man really thinks he is just an epiphenomenon of the brain? IMHO, by denying God and Spirit the true atheist life is both shallow and meaningless.

My hope is that you two will pursue the debate as to why "fulfilled atheist" is an oxymoron - or not.

In my opinion, if you could, you would ban the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public schools.

Stalin banned the teaching of Darwinism in public schools

Therefore you are a Stalinist.

Zdrastvuite, tovarisch!

Thank you so much for your reply! I'm tickled that you saw this connection right away also.

As we continue on the definition project - and get into a definition of the collective consciousness hypothesis - then I'm sure we'll be revisiting the fecundity principle, life principle and evolution of one. I'm very much looking forward to it.

As you say, "a principle is not a material thing at all. And form and organization imply intelligence and information. These are not material things either."

My greatest hope is that the Lurkers and correspondents will realize from this definition project that there is more interest in the hypothesis of intelligent causation than just the fellows and supporters of the Discovery Institute. A rose by any other name...

Have a great time in Boston tomorrow, betty boop! Hugs!

Favoring stamping out religion seems like a ban that is effective. Granted I don't know how Dawkins proposes to carry out his agenda. Maybe he just wants the government to turn schools into brain washings institutions, and reach the minds and hearts of the young and thereby cause religion to die a natural death. He seems annoyed about the influence religious parents have on their young. How might that influence be "stamped out?" Why don't you ask him how he proposes to go about implementation?

Dawkin seems like an extremist. I think extremists usually tend to spoiliate the public square.

By the way expression of opinion are not libelous per se.

In my opinion, if you could, you would ban the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public schools.

Come on Prof, a little originality and intellectual honesty. We've been over this before. You have no basis in fact for making such an idiotic assertion. Unfounded assertions devoid of fact are simply unfounded assertions.

I won't comment on your motive for making such an unfounded assertion. Nor will I threaten you with libel or call you a "Darwinian Liar". I'll just get a good laugh out of the lengths otherwise smart folks go to to defend a bigot because they like the science he does.

{Insert hearty blue collar laugh right here!}

You have no basis in fact for making such an idiotic assertion. ,P>Sure I have. I've seen your hostility to the theory of evolution. Sure, you've never said you would ban it, but then, Dawkins has never said he'd ban religion. He denies it, you deny it. He's a Marxist, you're a Stalinist, why should be believe either?

What really amuses me are people who can't follow their own logic to its conclusion.

Dobre noch', in any case.

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.