…whereas the advance of science continually strengthens the broader and more traditional version of the design argument, the ID movement’s version is hostage to every advance in biological science. Science must fail for ID to succeed. In the famous “explanatory filter” of William A. Dembski, one finds “design” by eliminating “law” and “chance” as explanations. This, in effect, makes it a zero-sum game between God and nature. What nature does and science can explain is crossed off the list, and what remains is the evidence for God. This conception of design plays right into the hands of atheists, whose caricature of religion has always been that it is a substitute for the scientific understanding of nature.
The ID movement has also rubbed a very raw wound in the relation between science and religion. For decades scientists have had to fend off the attempts by Young Earth creationists to promote their ideas as a valid alternative science. The scientific world’s exasperation with creationists is understandable. Imagine yourself a serious historian in a country where half the population believed in Afrocentric history, say, or a serious political scientist in a country where half the people believed that the world is run by the Bilderberg Group or the Rockefellers. It would get to you after a while, especially if there were constant attempts to insert these alternative theories into textbooks. So, when the ID movement came along and suggested that its ideas be taught in science classrooms, it touched a nerve. This is one reason that the New Atheists attracted such a huge audience.
It is indeed frustrating to argue about science and evolution with people who understand neither. And they don’t realize how much damage they do to their cause.
Wow, kudos to First Things for running that.
That’s the amusing thing about democrats vs republicans. Republicans who are anti-evolution don’t believe little changes could add up over time into order, but do believe the free market can work. Democrats believe in evolution, but don’t believe that the mass of people can direct their own money to create a robust free market.
It’s the exact same thing.
At least God released his source code. Maybe when the “scientists” do that we will take them seriously….
;-}
Silvermine, nearly all Democrats believe that the mass of people can create a robust free market undirected. Democrats (and to their left, European democratic-socialists) simply believe that too many people will get hurt in the process.
Metaphors involving “social darwinism” are usually based on incorrect biology if you take the metaphor too far, but one basic idea from biology applies here: that an individual animal’s suffering doesn’t matter when determining whether its species will successfully adapt to changing conditions. Democrats want to use their intelligence to create safeguards so individuals don’t suffer inordinately as the market chooses new winners. You can argue endlessly (and you should) about the degree to which individuals should be shielded from pain while allowing their species to adapt, but don’t think that Democrats are dumb as anti-evolutionsts.
I don’t think there is anything dumb about questioning evolution. It may well be the best scientific explanation for how life on earth arrived in it’s present form, but just because it’s the best answer we have doesn’t make it right. I can’t even imagine how anyone would ever go about proving such a thing. How exactly does one run an evolution experiment? Maybe on fruit flies. But does that scale to all forms of life everywhere on earth? Maybe, but where’s the proof?
Furthermore, while evolution is a compelling theory for explaining change over time and relationships between different life forms, it says virtually nothing about how life began. Or did I miss that break- through?
Given the failure of the climate change “consensus” we should be quite mindful of the fact that consensus is not proof. I have no reason to doubt evolutionary theory per se, but every reason to doubt claims that it is ‘the truth’ and therefore that ID must be wrong. ID may well be wrong, it may not be anywhere near robust enought to be taught in schools or given credence in scientific circles, but anyone who claims to know with certainty that it is wrong is engaging in the same type of irrationality and dogmatism that creationists are accused of.
The one reason I give ID some consideration is this: the best scientific explanation I’ve heard for how life began was as a result of a spontaneous reaction involving such things as lightning and the primordial soup. (No doubt that is a simplistic framing.) The argument goes that as unlikely as such an event seems, there was literally billions of years for it to happen, and one day it did. Well fine. If the odds of such a thing really is on the order of 1 in a billion (give or take a few zeros) then that is a reasonable argument.
But is it 1 in a billion? (Is it even possible!) Or what if it is possible but actually much more unlikely than that, orders of magnitude more unlikely? Does evolution say anything about the odds? Does any science we have today? As far as I know it’s all speculation. Unless we can characterize the true odds it’s not sufficient to say that there were billions of years so therefore it could have happened. What if the odds are, say, 1 in 10 to the billionth power? At some point, as implausible as it seems, the chance that an intelligent designer took a hand in it, call it god, call it an alien, call it something we’ve never encountered, becomes the more rationale possibility.
The odds don’t actually matter. Just because it isn’t likely that you could flip a coin 20 times and gets heads every time doesn’t make it impossible. It’s a little too “anthropic principle” for me at times, but even if it’s a low probability, that doesn’t mean it can’t happen. Maybe we’re the result of a rather amazing spurt of luck.
As it turns out, fossilized life has been found so far back, it basically dates to when the earth cooled. (Yes, billions of years ago). It didn’t take waiting around billions of years for it to finally happen here. Just a place that wasn’t gas or boiling. 😉
Bob-1: The democrats don’t seem at all concerned about the people their Big Giant Plan will hurt, though, do they? Just the people hurt by not enough government control. Somehow power in their hands could never *possibly* hurt anyone. It can never be voluntary…
Oh! And I will add, nothing is a “fact”. It’s all a model based on the best possible distillation of any evidence. But any real scientist should be willing to chuck their model if a better one comes along. Otherwise it’s not science. However, the new model does actually have to be better. 😉
I was interested in evolution in undergrad. The problem was, I realized, that no — you really *can’t* do a lot of real experiments on it. It’s a lot of guessing about things that lived in the past. Really anything truely interesting would never be something you’d guess. You’d never imagine a gila monster or a duck billed platypus. Everyone would tell you there couldn’t possibly be a mammal with a bill and venom, because none of the other ones do. How boring. You have to assume everything you’re studying from the past is average.
So instead I worked on protein folding — another problem where you have millions of tiny choatic interactions all building up together to make a cohesive whole, all without anything from above telling them to. 😉
It is indeed frustrating to argue about science and evolution with people who understand neither. And they don’t realize how much damage they do to their cause.
I could not agree more. However, you wouldn’t expect everyone that believes in the creator to understand science. Nor would you expect them to just shut up when their core beliefs are attacked. This is not a defense, just an observation.
My personal belief is that God, described in scripture as a god of organization, would not be a trickster and so science supports my belief in god. It’s a mistake to say God did it when there is a scientific explanation.
Isaac Asimov used to debunk scripture by what people believed about it. The bible says the Earth is a sphere that hangs upon nothing. Asimov said people interpreted this to mean a solid dome over the Earth with stars fixed in it. I prefer to believe that a sphere hanging upon nothing is a pretty good description regardless of how stupid an understanding many may have. There are many other examples.
I respect that not believing in god is a reasonable position that I disagree with because of the evidence I’ve come to see.
As far as ID goes, there is a lot of over reaching, but the premise that multiple parts being required for something to provide an evolutionary advantage is not unreasonable to consider. Evolution involves probabilities so examining those probabilities (understanding the limits of knowing them exactly) is reasonable.
It’s unfortunate that people unqualified to speak are often the most vocal.
A model or theory should be predictive. If ID was credible, it should have lead to advances in bio-science. It did not. This alone should make it clear to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that ID is bunk. Even the guy who wrote the article for FT (which, BTW, is a far right Christian site) concedes this point.
The Christian right people should get over this and move on.
I believe God Created the world. I also take the Bible very literally.
I don’t know how He did it, and since the first couple of “days” occurred prior to the formation of the sun, I see no reason to limit God to six periods of 24 hours.
Also, given the gaps in Biblical chronology, (How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden before the fall?) I don’t feel tied to a young earth either.
On the other hand, evolution has some glaring gaps to those not blinded by “consensus.” How can you accurately describe the evolution of a species when you can’t even agree on the definition of species?
Natural selection is great at describing phenotypical responses to new environments, but falls completely flat when confronted with biochemical challenges. The biochemistry of the eye spot of a planarium has absolutely nothing in common with that of the compound eye of a fly. There is simply no way to get from one to the other through a steady series of small changes.
The failure to admit that gaps like these exist in evolutionary theory is a product of a religious fervor, not science.
Democrats believe in evolution, but don’t believe that the mass of people can direct their own money to create a robust free market.
I’ve been using the term “Economic Creationism” for years. It’s amazing how much fun it is to make the heads of “progressives” implode.
Economic Creationism relies on the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Higher Power whose decisions are wiser, more efficient, and more just than the spontaneous order of the grubby, tainted, immoral marketplace.
“Suppose you were walking through a field one day and you found an economy. Does not the existence of an economy imply — nay, demand! — the existence of a Economy Czar?”
No doubt, this statement is as loaded as any I’ve heard on this topic.
.
.
It is indeed frustrating to argue about science and evolution with people who understand neither.
.
.
The assumption that because someone believes in God(s), that they lack the ability to “understand” science is at the same time galling and foolish. It goes to the common belief that most American Christians live in small towns, work at menial tasks and have little, if any education. As we’re discussing religion here, I’ll play nice…BULLSNOT!!
.
I’m guessing no one ever heard of a Christian, with a Doctorate in Biology or Anthropology or paleontology? Well who do you suppose teaches those subjects at CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITIES? Soybean farmers from AL, and MS aren’t really qualified, so it must be trained, Doctors of the aforementioned specialties, huh? But they can’t really be honest to God scientists, oops sorry, REAL scientists because they are Christians. Specious, very specious.
As with almost all arguments, there is a bell curve here, and most of the arguers ignore it. The “God can’t enter a public Classroom” crowd is on one end, and the “God must enter every room” crowd is on the other end. But in the middle is rationality. People who are sided with either end, who don’t care what the other guy believes. Most people just want to live with their beliefs and want to be left alone with those beliefs. They don’t want churches closed, and the other guys don’t want to be dragged there either. Likewise, most Christians I know, have better things to do than argue this point for a living. I am a Christian, personally I am an Old Earth believer, but that’s a whole different argument within Christian circles. And it’s just as hotly debated.
Here’s where I am, as are many. I simply cannot understand WHY Christians don’t see schools as places of “science” and churches as places of “faith”. I don’t understand why they feel so threatened by their kids being taught science at school, and can’t just teach their kids the faith part at home. For that matter, I know many home schoolers who do just that. We teach our kids manners and potty training at home, why assume that religion or lack of religion should be taught in public school. As it’s a PUBLIC school with everyone’s tax bucks supporting it, somewhat of both sides should be taught.
Having said that, I don’t understand WHY the non-believers think that saying A prayer, or mentioning the possibility of ANY God(s), is going to undermine our entire political structure, and cause our kids to want a theocracy.
Again, two words, Bell Curve.
But, back to the Old Earth believers. There are Christians who believe every bit of Evolution to be true, AFTER the Big Bang. The Big Bang and belief in God are, after all, not incompatible inside that belief. And even as a Christian, this is how I taught my kids.
It is absolutely possible that evolution came about, in the manner which scientists say, but with a nudge from God. If God created the primordial soup, and the lightning, and the planets over billions of years… well, I think that’s the answer. We all mostly believe in the Big Bang, even if most Christians don’t say so, or realize it that way. And I have talked a few around to seeing this my way.
Scientists don’t know how, but BELIEVE that some dense glob of intensely packed matter exploded billions of years ago, to start and create our universe, and set evolution on it’s course.
Christians don’t know how, but BELIEVE that God always existed, and began the universe by saying “Let there be Light…”. He then set out over 6 days (but how long are ‘God’ days) to create the universe.
I think we can all agree that it was one hell of a big bang to start. Any of you, believer in God(s) or not, ever see a huge explosion, WITHOUT light, a flash of light, a blinding flashing light?! Let’s try to shed some light on being strong enough to believe what we each believe, without wanting to squash the other guys beliefs, to prove our own.
The last time I looked, that forcing your beliefs on the other guy thing, IS the roots of fascism. And religious fascism is not right either.
notanexpert – You are making an error (well, I am charitably assuming it’s an error and not deliberate) often made by creationists. (Let’s get rid of the ID smokescreen right now, shall we?) The error is to confuse abiogenesis and evolution, which are NOT the same.
There is a great deal of evidence for evolution. There is no evidence at all for abiogenesis.
Der Schtumpy
Evolution is not about belief. Teaching evolution is about teaching science: how we learn and know about the universe. Not big S “Science” which is what we think we know now, which can and will change over time, but rather the Scientific Method, which is the only way to accumulate knowledge in this universe.
Even using the word belief in this context is wrong. I don’t believe in evolution, I see the information we’ve gathered and come to the conclusion things happens this way. Maybe someday we’ll find new evidence, but for now most fields of study: biology, chemistry, archaelogy, geology, etc, point towards one conclusion.
It’s not “belief”, it’s gathering evidence and coming to a conclusion. You can be skeptical, indeed skepticism is an important part of the scientific method. But ID is not skepticism. That is why evolution belongs in the classroom, and ID does not. ID is not science, it’s belief. It’s fine to believe that and teach your children, but it’s not science, and therefore has no place in a science class.
The assumption that because someone believes in God(s), that they lack the ability to “understand” science is at the same time galling and foolish.
I made no such assumption. I wrote what I wrote, which said nothing about believing in God.
There is a great deal of evidence for evolution. There is no evidence at all for abiogenesis.
I have to disagree here. Abiogenesis has some supporting evidence. For example, all life on Earth that we know of has a vast amount of common biochemistry. That’s what you’d expect if there was a single source of life (panspermia is another theory that could result in a single source of life). Second, we’ve done a variety of experiments to see whether it is possible to see whether complex biological molecules can form from abiological means. As I understand it, they’ve gotten amino acids and other complex organic molecules from fairly straightforward processes like lightning, UV radiation, cosmic radiation, etc.
There is no “smoking gun” and such a thing may never be found. But we haven’t found information to rule out abiogenesis.
Karl – Complex molecules do not life make. Suggestive but not definitive. The fact that all life on Earth uses the same components and, to a large extent, the same code could just as easily be explained by saying that there was only one creation event – in essence, that God seeded the oceans with primitive bacteria.
There is no proof of abiogenesis. But, to use another truism, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For what it’s worth, I happen to think that there is some sort of organising principle that (at the price of increasing entropy elsewhere) leads to pockets of low entropy and hence to life. No proof of that either, but one might as well say that such a principle was put into the universe by God in the first moments – less than the Planck time, in fact.
It also might be said that creating a set of laws for the universe that lead inevitably to life and mind is much more elegant than putting everything together “by hand”.
Fletcher, you throw out the phrase “There is no proof of…” as if that’s supposed to mean something. There are no proofs for that which is on the edge of scientific discovery — there is only evidence, hypothesis, bold frontiersmen and the vast unsolved puzzle of the cosmos. Proofs reside in the bustling downtowns and secure suburbs of science, not at the borderlands.
Der Schtumpy makes soem good points. There is definitely a debate within Christian circles. As a kid who grew up reading every paleontology book I could, I could scarcely turn out to be a New Earth Christian. I have had discussions with CHristian New Earthers, including a prof at my univesity who was an Aerospace Engineer. I haven’t followed ID as closely as I might, because I have always believed in DE, or what I call Directed Evolution. It fits the Christian model of History, that it is chaotic, often random, affected at times by individuals, and ultimately under the direction of a diety. For those who don’t believe in a God, you just leave out the last ingredient but it still holds up.
THe big beef many Christians have is that they believe that evolution is used in many schools as a battering ram against their beliefs.
I believe that Christians make a mistake in blindly rejecting of the basic theory of Evolution. Every farmer knows you select for certain traits when breeding animals and that some traits do allow one animal to survive better than another. Accepting the general theory does not entail surrender of one’s religious beliefs.
After all, I don’t have to believe in Marxism to realize that economic determinism can be useful in figuring out how or why certain things work the way they do.
Doug, while I appreciate your POV, I don’t even see why DE is in any way necessary. A modernized Deistic philosophy would suffice — if we assume that God resides outside of spacetime and is a higher-dimensional being, then he created the first second of the universe simultaneously with the last along with every moment in between.
Yoinks, me thinks I heard one of my synapses popping. I guess you could do that, if you wished. As Bartleby the Scribner said, “I’d rather not.”
Karl – Complex molecules do not life make. Suggestive but not definitive. The fact that all life on Earth uses the same components and, to a large extent, the same code could just as easily be explained by saying that there was only one creation event – in essence, that God seeded the oceans with primitive bacteria.
The point here is that if you’re going to get from what we think the early atmosphere was (containing things like methane and carbon dioxide) to cellular life, then you need a mechanism for creating complicated organic molecules from what was there. Any number of things could have seeded life on Earth in the way that we observe. But abiogenesis requires that there be a viable way to transition from the sterile environment of pre-life Earth to cells. We have failed to rule out this theory.
So yes, you are right Fletcher. This sort of thing is suggestive, but not definitive.
Alright Titus, substitute “there is no even vaguely convincing evidence for” for the phrase I actually used.
Science often uses the word “proved” to mean “convincingly demonstrated”. Useful shorthand. I don’t think anyone here thinks that any scientific truth is as undeniable as the theorems of mathematics. Some of them, however, are pretty difficult to dislodge.
I can’t remember who first said this, but evolution is actually (conceptually) rather easy to conclusively disprove. A rabbit fossil in undisturbed Precambrian rock would do that job just fine. “God did it”, however, is unprovable even in the limited sense in which science uses the term.
“he created the first second of the universe simultaneously with the last along with every moment in between.” What exactly does “simultaneous” mean here? Maybe God’s time is orthogonal to our own?
@Fletcher
I did conflate the two to some degree and I did it intentionally. Whenever I encounter this argument in a religious or political context the two issues are always conflated, and I think it’s a big part of the problem with this ongoing debate. I may not have made myself clear when I opined thusly: evolution … says virtually nothing about how life began, but I was actually trying to illuminate the very point you make.
It’s unfortunate that both sides of the issue use evolution as a stalking horse for the real debate — how did life on earth begin — which is the issue that both atheists and creationist alike find threatening because it bears on the really big question: IS there a GOD?
As laughable as I find the idea of teaching creationism as science, I am just as skeptical of those who accept evolution as an article of faith, especially the unsupportable leap from there to abiogenesis, which is the real goal of aggressive, anti-religious atheists*, to undermine not only the need for a god, but the very legitimacy of belief in god. I wish the two sides would just get together and talk about god as a spiritual question and leave science out of it.
*I am specifically not including all atheists in this description, just the very vocal minority that is so obnoxious about their (non) beliefs.
You got it.
Most people (on all sides of the debate) understand speciation of multicellular organisms as well as they understand Star Trek transporter technology. They know what it’s purported to do, but it involved process(es) that people have no firsthand experience with.
People can grasp cellular mutation because they have direct conscious experience with simple chemical reactions. A + B makes C + D. (As in the case of oxidation of iron, Chemical D is often imperceptible to the unaided eye.) A cell is a bag of chemicals. Add a new chemical to its innards, a chemical reaction takes place – and its programming guarantees that the change will be replicated upon the next cell division.
A process that creates a new chemical or two within a cell in a single iteration is logically not the same thing as a process that creates entire cells within a multicellular organism in a single iteration.
Evolution is kinda interesting, until people actually start talking about it. Among the reasons is that it’s hard to find someone who starts at Square One, making the effort to explain the latter process in terms that average folks can understand. To many, that process sounds as wildly speculative as the Enterprise’s transporters.
plutosdad,
No you don’t. Your not a ‘believer’ and IDers are not sceptics?
Wrong on both counts. You lose all credibility when you claim no belief required. I absolutely believe in the scientific method which is all about looking for contradictions. Whether right or wrong, ID is about an apparent contradiction. That’s science. Now that’s not to say that every ID proponent is using good methodology but the claim they are not sceptics is wrong on it’s face. They are sceptical of some of evolutions claims. Irreducible complexity is a valid question. Not answering valid question is when science becomes global warming.