skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Alan Keyes in today's World Net Daily: The Evolutionist's Comical Dogma...
I am continually impressed with the incongruity of our situation as Americans. We live in a country where the form of government (a constitutional republic framed to secure unalienable rights by implementing the principle that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the people) logically and historically depends upon an idea of human justice that appeals to the authority of the Creator. But it is also a country where the most widely accepted and enforced paradigm for human knowledge (empirical science) is held to require the exclusion of creation as a rational explanation for the existence of human life. I again experienced this impression recently as I read an article about the controversy in which Stephen Meyer's book "The Signature in the Cell" continues to simmer…
Aristotle was probably right to see this assumption of intelligibility in nature as the key first step toward natural philosophy... It has obviously proven useful to mark out fortuitous moments (stretches of the space-time continuum) in which a certain appearance of rule-governed order is allowed to contradict the reality of prevailing chaos. Indeed, the activities and inventions made possible by doing so are in other contexts the solid basis for praising and promoting scientific endeavors. But the predictability and precision that allowed people to fashion rocket ships and ride them to the moon; build electrical devices to make certain aspects of life vastly more convenient and comfortable; or devise electronic engines that digest and transmit vast quantities of data in a few instants; these are not the sine qua non of scientific validity. Instead, the true scientist must recognize the hallmark of scientific rigor as…the profound observation that, given enough time, an intricate, deeply improbable order of things just happens.
There is something comically irrational about this kind of dogmatism.
Top 10 Astronomy Pictures of 2009: "Colorful stars, wispy, ethereal nebulae, galactic vistas sprawling out across our telescopes… it’s art no matter how you look at it."
Journey Inside The Cell: A cool animation.
Burial Cloth Found in Jerusalem Cave Casts Doubt on Authenticity of Turin Shroud: “Ancient shrouds from the period have been found before in the Holy Land, but never in Jerusalem. Researchers say the weave and design of the shroud discovered in a burial cave near Jerusalem's Old City are completely different to the Turin Shroud."
When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite: "A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men. Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself?...Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone…Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.”
Universal Uchitel: “Here’s one big obvious lesson to be learned from Tiger Woods: Sex makes people stupid…This is why we need a little thing called ‘civilization’ to intervene between people and sexual passion, so we don’t leave the young-uns to rely on their own genius to figure out certain enduring truths.”
I've also updated my essay, What is the Function of Science?
David Klinghoffer tackles the "Bad Design" argument frequently used by atheists in his new essay, With Chanukah Approaching, My Knee Hurts.
Because of my sore knee, it follows that there this is no God.
You think I'm kidding but this line of reasoning is commonly heard from devotees of evangelizing atheism like Richard Dawkins.
It's the argument from seemingly poor, botched, or suboptimal design...
That is a theological argument, not a scientific one, based on the premise that Dawkins & Co. know what a God would or wouldn't do if that God existed which he does not.
If a trivial example like a sore knee is "bad design" and a point scored for atheism, then any trivial lack of perfection in created reality is enough to trigger the atheist response. Any evil in nature, any suffering. Over Shabbat, a dentist friend of our family was at our home for lunch and he told about how one of his patients was up hiking on a mountain trail near Seattle and got eaten by cougar…
The world can be rough and it's obviously not all a matter of people freely choosing evil. The verse in Isaiah (45:7) says it directly:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
My apologies if this upsets any delicate sensibilities, but consider the alternative. A world without evil. What would that be like? It would be the perfect hamster cage or turtle terrarium, where all our needs are provided, there are no predators, no contagious disease, no confusion, no loneliness, no sin, no particular purpose, no growth, just spinning aimlessly on our exercise wheel or swimming idly in our calm, algaed paddling pool.
For Dawkins & Co., it's either the turtle terrarium or a Godless universe. What an absurd false dilemma…
Creatures that could never grow or change spiritually because they were unchallenged and therefore totally uninteresting? What's the point? Once we admit that some lack, or anyway so we perceive it, in creation was inevitable if there was to be a creation, what extent of deficiency was going to be enough? Maybe a little, maybe a lot. You will have to ask God when you meet him.
In fairness, Jerry Coyne (an atheist biologist) offers a decent rebuttal…
I may be wrong, but couldn’t God have arranged the world so that people could “grow and change spiritually” without horrible things happening to innocents? Do little kids have to get leukemia so the rest of us can experience spiritual growth? What kind of growth is enabled by the deaths of thousands of people in Indonesian tsunamis?...
I took a stab at addressing these concerns in my essay, God, Evil, and Forgiveness.
H/T: Darwiniana
John Stossel’s New TV Show Premieres Thursday Night: Click on the Fox Business Network at 8 PM EST. Supposedly, one of the first episodes will be about Atlas Shrugged.
'Tea party' Polls Better Than GOP: "Should the 'Tea Party' movement organize itself to run congressional candidates across the country, it would poll better than the Republican Party, according to a new survey by Rasmussen Reports. In the national telephone poll of 1,000 likely voters released Monday, 23% said they preferred to vote for a candidate from the yet unformed “Tea Party” for Congress in 2010. The Republican Party trailed the non-existent political organization by 5 percentage points, getting the support of 18% of respondents."
The Fiction Of Climate Science: "In 1974, the National Science Board announced: 'During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age'…From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.Vive La Différence! But How Did It Begin?: "If we accept evolutionary theory we are required to imagine that each animal that today reproduces sexually, in the distant past was going about its business of reproducing asexually, dividing and budding away, when all of a sudden it accidentally produced an egg and at the same time, in the same locale, another animal of the same species just happened to make a sperm cell. Also, simultaneously and independently they each accidentally acquired the apparatus to get the egg and sperm together so they could produce offspring with a full set of genes. Are you buying this?… To my mind, the very fact of sexual differentiation necessitates, yes, demands a plan. And a plan demands a planner."
I’ve also updated 2 essays...
Tea Partiers Organize for 2010
Weekly Wrap-Up (9/25/09)
I also discovered a good website worth sharing: God vs. the Bible: How God's Creation Discredits Christian Scripture
Last but not least, the debate over consciousness continues at Luke’s blog. I’ll write a summary once the discussion wraps up.
Muslims are Outraged Over Swiss Minaret Vote, But How Do They Handle Churches?: "Muslim reaction across the world to Sunday’s Swiss referendum banning the construction of further minarets for mosques in the tiny Alpine nation has been almost entirely negative…Egyptian Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, close to the regime of President Hosni Mubarak, said the ban was an attempt to 'insult the feelings of the Muslim community in and outside Switzerland.' Yet the referendums outcome pales in comparison to restrictions on non-Muslims who aim to practice their faith in Muslim lands."
Obama Will Bankrupt America:"When President Barack Obama entered office in January, the greatest problem America faced was neither the war in Afghanistan nor the recession. It was the imminent crisis of the welfare state. Not only has Obama failed to deal with this crisis, he is pursuing policies that will bankrupt America."
Georgia Editorial in Support of Intelligent Design: "David Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, states that it takes approximately 50,000 morphologic changes to go from an ocean to a land-based animal. If there was only one change required it would be easy to miss in the fossil record, but what about the 49,999 others?"
Have We Discovered it All?: "Billions are spent on medical research, but we have entered an era of diminishing returns."
A Pornography Study Doomed to Fail: "Scientists studying the effects of pornography fell at the first hurdle - after failing to find a man who had not viewed X-rated material."
I've also updated my essay, If Darwinists Worked in the Private Sector.
Intelligent Design Film Shut Down By Museum: “A decision at a popular museum in Los Angeles to shut down debate over Darwin's theory of evolution has prompted a lawsuit alleging officials violated the First Amendment rights of supporters of a documentary exploring Intelligent Design…It claims museum CEO Jeffrey Rudolph ‘was pressured to cancel the event by colleagues at the Smithsonian Institution, the University of Southern California, the Huntington Library and elsewhere.’ But as a state agency, it is not allowed to 'suppress legitimate discussion.'"
Year of Darwin Lecture to Feature 'What Darwin Got Wrong': “In his forthcoming book with co-author Massimo Piattelli-Palmarinin, What Darwin Got Wrong (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, February 2010), [Jerry] Fodor argues that the Darwinian account of evolution is committed to a fallacious inference from “creatures with such and such a trait are selected,’ to “creatures are selected for having such and such a trait.’ He argues that this fallacy is fatal and suggests new ways of thinking about evolution.” H/T: Darwiniana
Darwinism Used as Cudgel Against Human Exceptionalism: "When Darwinism is brought to bear to undermine human exceptionalism and reduce us to merely another animal in the forest–as opposed to explaining biological processes–it gives aid to powerful and profoundly destructive social forces. So, no more complacency. No more pretending that the elites still generally believe that all men are created equal or that Jefferson’s insight is still considered a self-evident truth. No more blithely assuming that if one can just prove that a threatened life is human, that it will necessarily win the debate over whether the most vulnerable among us can be killed or objectified. It really is time to defend human exceptionalism against all its foes. I mean if being human is not what, ipso facto, gives rise to ultimate moral value, the very principle of universal human rights becomes intellectually untenable." H/T: Darwiniana
Dr. Michael Egnor on Climategate: "I'm not sure that the scientific community can or will respond to this debacle in a courageous or ethical way. The ID-Darwinism debate clearly demonstrates that venality and shameless self-interest, as well as a toxic leftist-atheist ideology, runs very deep in the scientific community. Science surely provides much benefit to mankind, but we may need to pursue scientific truth with a different set of scientists than the ones we have now. Surely many many scientists knew of the frauds so clearly documented in the ClimateGate scandal; where were the august scientific organizations--the Royal Academy, the UN's IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science--while this fraud was growing and gaining power. The obvious truth is that these citadels of organized science were part of the fraud, or at least acquiescent in it...It may well be that the public will be forced to protect itself from organized science, as we now protect ourselves from organized crime."
Barbara Hollingsworth on Scientific Corruption: When former Cambridge biochemist Douglas Axe computed the chances that the four amino acids that form DNA could self-arrange themselves into just one functional protein, he found it was 1:10164 -- or less than the odds of finding one marked subatomic particle in the entire observable universe. In other words, the evolutionary story now universally taught to students fails to account for the origin of the basic information that forms the very blueprint of life.… 'If we've defined science such that it cannot get to the true answer, we've got a pretty lame definition of science,' Axe said." H/T: Darwiniana
The Dangerous Mystery of Consciousness: "If I had the time, I would establish an international Mysterian society for those who recognize that the universe is still a profoundly mysterious place and yet don't want to be alone thinking dark thoughts about it. That's really all I want to do. It bothers me. I want it to bother others, too… I don't think religion has the answers, but I don't think science does either. Yet. Whether it ever will is the fourth great mystery." H/T: Darwiniana
In today's Guardian, Alastair Nobel has a fine piece defending the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools...
As a former science teacher and schools inspector, I am disturbed that proposals for science education are based on near-complete ignorance of intelligent design. I also think the views of most British people in this matter should not be so readily set aside.
It is easily overlooked that the origin of life, the integrated complexity of biological systems and the vast information content of DNA have not been adequately explained by purely materialistic or neo-Darwinian processes. Indeed it is hard to see how they ever will.
In an area such as this, where we cannot observe what happened directly, a legitimate scientific approach is to make an inference to the best explanation. In the case of the huge bank of functional information embedded in biological systems, the best explanation – based on the observation everywhere else that such information only arises from intelligence – is that it too has an intelligent source.
There is a tendency in school science to present the evidence for evolution as uniformly convincing and all-encompassing, failing to distinguish between what is directly observable – such as change and adaptation over time through natural selection – and the more hypothetical elements, like the descent of all living things from a common ancestor. The evidence for these various strands is not of equal strength.
If you insist that intelligent causation is to be excluded in the study of origins then you are teaching materialist philosophy, not science.'
I believe current government guidance is wrong in denying intelligent design the status of science. However, it does encourage teachers to handle it "positively and educationally". That's a small step in the right direction.
In many ways, I agree with Hegel and Marx that indeed, the Truth is Relative. But, from a position of what works for a civilization? Well… that must have elements of an Absolute Truth to it, or cultural hegemony will never arise, and civilization will never occur...
Christianity has been not too bad, because it is firmly based in the concept of Absolute Truth, and can be used to pull us back from the brink of La La Land when we get a little too insane. It is an anchor...
If you want to know why most Communist countries abolish Christianity, it is because it is firmly rooted in the concept of “Absolute Truth” which is directly at odds with dialectical manipulation...
It is for this reason as well, that the lefties are so adamant about Evolution...
Marx and Engels were extremely excited when Darwin came out with his theory, because it was the “science” that supported their political philosophy – namely, that the Truth is Relative...
Whether one believes in Evolution or not, this very important political aspect rarely gets mentioned in the debate, but it is core to the importance of a lot of philosophy about “truth.”
This is why the leftists pee their pants so quickly whenever someone begins to discuss intelligent design. If intelligent design were to be proven, it would indicate a “plan,” which would indicate the existence of Absolute Truth… and the entire political philosophy of the left would fall to bits. They need evolution to be true for more reasons than what they… so does the Creationist side… the Intelligent Design side doesn’t, however, because it is dispassionate. - Fedrz in his essay Men, Religion, and Morality
When Darwinists criticize Intelligent Design, one of their chief lines of attack is that I.D. is basically a modern-day regurgitation of the “God of the Gaps” argument.
What’s “God of the Gaps?” Per Wikipedia...
The phrase God of the gaps refers to a view of God as existing in the "gaps" or aspects of reality that are currently unexplained by scientific knowledge...
The term "God of the gaps" is sometimes used in describing the perceived incremental retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena in the face of increasingly comprehensive scientific explanations for those phenomena. An example of the line of reasoning starts with the position that early religious descriptions of objects and events (such as the Sun, Moon, and stars; thunder and lightning) placed these in the realm of things created or controlled by a god or gods. As scientific explanations were found for observations in the realms of astronomy, meteorology, geology, cosmology and biology, the use of supernatural explanations for phenomena was progressively reduced, occupying smaller and smaller 'gaps' in knowledge…
One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of "intelligent design", for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.
On the surface, equating I.D. with “God of the Gaps” is a fair criticism. Considering everything we’re learned about the material world in the last few centuries, equating a lack of knowledge about physical phenomenon (weather currents, the shifting of tectonics plates, the power of magnetic fields, etc.) to divine intervention seems a tad odd. We can explain patterns in non-living matter fairly well without resorting to the possibility of a supernatural agent.
However, biology – “Life” itself – is fundamentally different from non-living matter. Life is a true mystery, and any honest scientist will admit as much. What is "Life" – the mysterious essence which turns inert matter into volitional consciousness (and keeps that consciousness churning every second of every day until death)? We don’t know. In his solid book, The Vital Dimension, Carl Gunther examines the awe-inspiring mystery of Life in exquisite detail. We aren't even close to explaining what "Life" is - never mind its origin. So while it's fair to reject a “God of the Gaps” argument for purely material phenomenon, when it comes to Life we shouldn’t automatically reject it because Life itself strongly suggests at least a partly non-material dimension. We have to keep our minds open to the possibility of a divine origin and plan. Based on what we know about “Life” (which is practically nothing) it would be irresponsible to rule out a divine source automatically.
Consider this: Everything in the Universe – all matter, all life, everything - started with the Big Bang. But when scientists are inevitably asked, “What caused the Big Bang?” their typical answer is, “We don’t know and we may never know.” That's a fine answer. And an honest one. So why can’t we ask the same question about Life itself: “What caused Life?” Given what little we know about Life, why is it unthinkable to answer – in light of the failure of Darwinian theory - “We don’t know and we may never know.” On such a question, the materialist framework fails us. And thus we come to the possibility of an Intelligent Designer – the same Designer who instituted the “fine tuning of the Universe (as demonstrated in the “Anthropic Principle"). The fine-tuning of the Universe began with the Big Bang 14 billion years ago. So why can’t there be a fine-tuning of Life with the creation of the first cell 3 billion years ago? And once we accept that possibility, it becomes OK to consider the chance that there was some monkeying around with the creation of human beings (this would go against the concept of “Common Descent” – perhaps the only part of Darwinian theory that seems plausible given the evidence at hand).
If we accept this possibility – this distinct possibility, this likelihood, in fact – that doesn’t mean science comes to an end. Centuries ago, when God-believing scientists (Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, and others too numerous to count) worked to understand the laws of matter, they accepted the inherent “mystery” of the true source of matter, but out of a spirit of curiosity, they still groped to understand the mystery, and through that process, they advanced our knowledge and – through technical innovations – they improved our quality of life enormously. Why can’t we recapture that same attitude toward God as we work to say to unlock the mysteries of Life? We can. And we must. Because it’s true.
Today's Debate inside the Scientific Community
Darwinist: I.D. isn’t science. And if it’s not science, it isn’t true.
I.D. Proponent: Isn’t science the quest for truth about life and the universe?
Darwinist: Only if that quest is done within a materialist framework.
I.D. Proponent: But what if that quests needs to go OUTSIDE the materialist framework?
Darwinist: Then it’s not science. And thus, it's not true.
Let’s take this debate into the private sector…
Employee: Boss, I have a great idea. Instead of using typewriters, why don’t we start using computers? Computers are a lot faster and better.
Boss: Do computers use a mechanical process?
Employee: Well, yes – but what makes them better is their use of information technology.
Boss: We can’t use information technology.
Employee: Why not?
Boss: Because it’s outside the realm of mechanics. We decided a long time ago that work – by definition – can only be a mechanical process. Information theory (or any form of “mind”) must be ruled out.
Employee: Um, but computers are a lot better than typewriters! With computers, we can do twice as much work in half the time!
Boss: Sorry, get back to your typewriter.
In the private sector, that boss would never survive. How much longer can Darwinism survive?
**UPDATE, DEC. 3, 2009**
This entry has been cross-posted by Denyse O'Leary with commentary here and here.
As I noted last week, Luke "The Common Sense Atheist" reviewed a debate between Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and biologist Francisco Ayala about the viability of Intelligent Design. According to Luke, who won? Believe it or not, Craig!
This led me to write...
This is very interesting, and thanks for recommending it, Luke. I will watch the video soon. In the meantime, I’m glad you picked up on something I’ve noticed: In the debates I’ve seen on the issue of the Intelligent Design issue, I.D. opponents rarely address the subject head-on. They use semantic games, evasions, and sometimes blatant misinformation. Even though I support I.D., I can think of a way for an anti-I.D. person to score well in a debate, but the only way to do it is to acknowledge that the I.D. supporters have a point, and since only 5% of the evolutionists can acknowledge that, they always come across as the weaker debater.
This led to an exchange with "Tony" and a few other Darwinists.
When I stated, "I.D. is just as scientific as Darwinism," Tony challenged me: "This would depend on how you define science. Do you have a definition that you can provide?"
TW: I’ll take a stab at a definition: “Increasing our knowledge and understanding of the Universe by using the Scientific Method to collect evidence, and then drawing objective conclusions from that evidence.”
Tony: The TOE does make predictions (we should look for transitional fossils in these rock formations, for instance), explains much through common descent (why dolphins and whales don’t swim like fish, e.g.), and offers its explanatory hypotheses for all these.
TW: The fossil record has consistently failed to comply with the prediction of Darwin and modern-day TOE advocates. That’s why Stephen Jay Gould said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”
Tony: I should ask if you think the TOE and ID are equally scientific because TOE does not do as I stated above, or if you agree with my statements about the TOE how it is that you think ID conforms equally to the scientific method.
TW: I guess both. TOE often fails to conform to the “scientific expectations” it holds for ID. But, in my opinion, TOE IS still scientific in important ways, and ways that can be duplicated by ID.
Tony: If the first, could you please provide where you think the TOE is insufficiently scientific (according to your definition), and if the second, what the hypothesis of ID is?
TW: I think TOE IS scientific, just flawed, and worthy of skepticism. If you’re looking for ID’s hypothesis on the Fossil Record, I guess that would depend on how who you ask. I would say it would be something like this: We can (and should) continue to look for fossils in order to increase our understanding of Earth’s history, but since the real mystery is Life itself, a more worthy project is figuring out how Life works among the species living today. That would mean focusing on DNA, which Bill Gates described as “being like a software program, except much more complex than any program ever devised.” The ID folks are very interested in DNA. Indeed, they were the ones pushing for research into “junk DNA” when the TOE consensus was that “junk DNA was…well junk.” Now we know that junk DNA is nothing of the sort.
Tony: Evolution predicts a hierarchy of lineages separated by time as revealed in the rock strata. This has yet to be falsified (the rabbit in the pre-Cambrian).
TW: What “hierarchy” can there be when we observe the Cambrian Explosion – the transition from simple organisms composed of a few cells to a rapid explosion of fully-formed complex animals over a 5-20 million period of time (or it could have happened immediately; we just don’t know).
Tony: Punctuated equilibrium explains this.
TW: I’m not sure how Punctuated Equilibrium explains anything. First of all, there is a great deal of debate over whether or not Punctuated Equlibrium actually happened (Dawkins, for instance, thinks it did NOT happen), and even if it DID happen, no one (not even Gould) has proposed HOW it happened.
Tony: This is too vague too respond to. Can you provide an example?
TW: TOE claims that the ability to be falsified is a prerequisite for a scientific theory (and thus, they throw out ID for being unfalsifiable) but both ID and TOE occupy the same ground in the falsifiable/unfalsifiable spectrum. Depending on how people interpret TOE or ID, there is the danger of making it unfalsifiable (and indeed, TOE advocates do that all the time). See how the Evo Psyche people explain every human emotion – from altruism to selfishness, from intelligence to consciousness itself – as an “evolutionary adaptation.”
DRJ: While those ID’ists are busy being ‘interested’ in DNA (while maintaining a healthy distance) people in the feilds of genomics, bioinformatics, microbiology, evo-devo etc are happily getting their hands dirty with it – all without ID.
TW: And how - pray tell - did TOE help them in their work? And keep in mind, I’m talking about the theory itself, not the principle “change over time;” every ID proponent acknowledges that organisms “change over time.” The question is “How?” And here it would be interesting to know how TOE helped them.
DRJ: Junk was simply the nickname given to large sequences of non-coding DNA for which no function was yet known.
TW: It was unknown and ignored for a long time because the TOE consenus was that DNA SHOULD have a lot of junk, just like the human body SHOULD have vestigial organs (another TOE prediction that’s been falsified).
Tony: Evolutionary biologists have conducted the only research on DNA (and discovered it because of Darwin’s theory, and incidences of atavism that result from junk DNA are another example of evidence for common descent).
TW: Darwin’s theory led to the discovery of DNA? What TOE principles did Crick and Watson use in their discovery? I’d be very curious to know. Also, see my earlier post to DRJ above.
Plus, keep in mind that Common descent is an issue that’s controversial in the ID community; some proponents, like Behe, support it. Also, it should be noted that while Darwin advocated Common Descent, the idea itself predates Darwin.
I personally don’t think Common Descent has been proven, but I think it’s the most substantiated (actually, the only substantiated) piece of the TOE paradigm.
Everything else – how life began, how consciousness developed, how species were formed – is still in the theory stage; actually, maybe “theory” is too nice. It’s really more of a “hope.”
Tony: A hypothesis which cannot be tested is inherently unscientific.
TW: The junk DNA hypothesis was tested and verified.
Tony: ID folks have conducted no scientific research.
TW: The Biologic Institute and Evolutionary Informatics are 2 prominent ID research labs.
http://www.biologicinstitute.org/
http://www.evoinfo.org/
Rhys: If you are an ID proponent, how do you justify the resultant double standard in regards to your vehement assertion that the scientific community is guilty of intellectual discrimination and complete disregard of the academic process, yet you want to cut right past peer review and put ID straight into the classrooms?
TW: For the record, the Discovery Institute’s policy is NOT to advocate teaching ID in the classroom (in fact, they opposed the Dover School Board for precisely that reason). I’m essentially on board with Discovery’s policy, especially if – from a legal perspective – it makes it more likely that school teachers will simply have the academic freedom to show the flaws with TOE (without necessarily going into the details of ID). That strikes me as a common sense compromise.
Tony: ID proponents have tried to skip doing science (the part where they actually test a hypothesis) to publish their pet ideologies and have been caught doing so red-handed. So far, none of them has been caught doing science.
TW: I really do have to challenge you on this assertion, and since I’ve already given you the links to 2 research labs, I don’t think it’s unfair of me to suggest that the burden of proof rests on you to demonstrate otherwise.
Tony: Do you have any idea a) what the hypothesis is that they’re testing, and b) a single result or new piece of data they’ve brought to light? If not, why would you offer them as evidence for scientific research (into ID)?
TW: This webpage explains the biologic institute’s “core ideas” and lists its publications…
http://biologicinstitute.org/research/
Tony: “That there is an explosion of life in the Cambrian does not mean that it happened all at once, only that it happened relatively quickly. Are you saying that there is no hierarchy?”
TW: I’m saying that the Cambrian Explosion is counter to what we would expect under TOE. TOE would predict a gradual, progressive development in body forms over literally hundreds of millions of years. Instead, the Cambrian Era shows an explosion of body forms in a blink of an eye (historically speaking) and then a general stasis running up until the recent past.
Tony: “No one has been able to provide a hypothesis for ID. Without a hypothesis, there is nothing to falsify.”
TW: I’ll paraphrase a hypothesis: “Living things show the handiwork of design, as we see, for instance in the functionality of body parts. Thus, in the case of DNA, we expect to find things like ‘junk DNA’ to have functions useful to the organism.”
Tony: I didn’t ask you to provide me with links to websites that promote ID. I asked you what is the science being done on ID. Providing the websites you did is not good faith.
TW: Tony, I don’t know what you’re so upset about. First, you say ID isn’t science because it doesn’t have “hypotheses,” so I give you a “hypothesis.” Then you say there’s no research labs doing ID research; so I give you the names of 2 labs which are doing ID research. Then you say those labs aren’t publishing articles; then I give you the names of published articles. Now you’re saying…what? You cut and paste the article abstract, but don’t criticize it in any way. Then you call me a troll (again).
Note: This is not a full transcript.
Note: "TOE" stands for "Theory of Evolution."
On Tuesday, Casey Luskin made a very good observation about the Darwin/Intelligent Design debate…
Good scholarship always tries critique one’s opponents’ actual and strongest arguments rather than merely tearing down straw men caricatures. Unfortunately, Dr. Miller is notorious for using the latter approach rather than the former when attacking ID. As Michael Behe observes:
"In philosophy there is something called the 'principle of charitable reading.' In a nutshell it means that one should construe an author’s argument in the best way possible, so that the argument is engaged in its strongest form. Unfortunately, in my experience Miller does the opposite — call it the 'principle of malicious reading.' He ignores (or doesn’t comprehend) context, ignores (or doesn’t comprehend) the distinctions an author makes, and construes the argument in the worst way possible."
This is exactly right. In my brief discussions with Darwinists, I find that they’re quite eager to engage in side-arguments, such as...
*“I.D. isn’t science"
*“I.D. equals Creationism,"
*“I.D. has already been disproven,”
*“The Discovery Institute is a Christian organization,”
*“I.D. has never been peer-reviewed,”
*“I.D. researchers don’t do any research,”
*“Evolution is a fact,”
*“Criticizing Darwinism makes as much as sense as criticizing Heliocentrism,
*"Everyone knows that Darwinism is true.”
Am I forgetting anything?
Consider my debate with “Tony” at “The Common Sense Atheist" website.
After several days of arguments, I responded in exasperation…
Tony: I don’t know what you’re so upset about. First, you say ID isn’t science because it doesn’t have “hypotheses,” so I give you a “hypothesis.” Then you say there’s no research labs doing ID research; so I give you the names of 2 labs which are doing ID research. Then you say those labs aren’t publishing articles; then I give you the names of published articles. Now you’re saying…what? You cut and paste the article abstract, but don’t criticize it in any way. Then you call me a troll (again).
This is partly why materialists have a “credibility problem.”
If the Darwinists wanted to be persuasive, they would do things…
1) Address the criticisms of Darwinism head-on
2) Challenge the evidence in favor of I.D. head-on
And yet, how often do those things happen?
Very, very, very rarely.
Dr. Cornelius Hunter conducts a fascinating interview about the failure of Darwin's predictions. Dr. Hunter has written several books, including Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, and Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion over Science. I haven't read any of those books, but they look very interesting.
Physicists Calculate Number of Universes in the Multiverse. Pray tell, where is the evidence of this "Multiverse?" Gosh, if Intelligent Design ain't science, what the heck is this stuff?
A Darwin/I.D. Debate: Who Won?: Luke "The Common Sense Atheist" watches a debate between Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and biologist Francisco Ayala about the viability of Intelligent Design. Who won, according to Luke? Craig! Listen here.
A Compilation of Francis Collins Crap: “People increasingly ask me about Francis Collins’s opposition of ID and what to make of it. The short answer is, 'Though a Christian, Collins is a thorough-going Darwinist, implacably opposes ID, asserts that it has been discredited scientifically, yet gives little evidence of understanding ID’s main arguments and refuses to engage proponents of ID in public discourse.' For the longer answer, see the following replies to Collins by ID proponents…”
Intelligence Squared Hosts a Debate over Catholicism. The debate motion was: “The Catholic church is a force for good in the world.” The audience voted before the debate began: 678 people were in favor of the church, 1102 were against it. But after the debate, they voted again. What happened? A massive 410 people changed their mind from supporting the Catholic Church to being against it. H/T: Luke.
9/11 All Over Again: "Nidal Hasan gave numerous indications to numerous individuals of his hostility and lack of loyalty to the United States, and even of his support for terrorism against the United States, but, like Col. Terry Lee whose TV interview I linked the other day, while they would disagree with him and criticize him (this was the 'harassment' of which he complained), none of them did anything about it…And so Nidal was remained ensconced in the U.S. Army, where he was at liberty to carry out a mass murder of unarmed soldiers who had been waiting for medical exams."
Nidal Malik Hasan & Jason Rodrigeuz: Two More Examples Of How Game Can Save Lives: Yes, that's the actual headline from Obsidian's new essay. And I love the last line: "Game just may be the Last Best Hope for the World." Wow!
I also updated my essay, A Game Debate with Obsidian.
As promised, Luke “The Common Sense Atheist” has begun to tackle the Intelligent Design controversy. In his first major post on this issue, Is Intelligent Design Creationism?, Luke wrote...
Here’s how I like to think of Creationism and Intelligent Design. I tend to use “Creationism” to refer to theories informed by the Bible or Christian (or Muslim) theology. For example, a theory including a 6,000 year old Earth is obviously Creationism.
In contrast, I tend to use “Intelligent Design” to refer to modern attempts at natural theology, which are not dependent on scripture or doctrine. The method of natural theology is to make an inference from observations of public, natural evidence to the existence of some kind of Designer or First Cause. This method does not allow you to assume any properties at all about the Designer that cannot be inferred from the observations of public, natural evidence...
Under this proposal, it is quite possible (and common) for someone to accept Creationism but argue for intelligent design. Indeed, it may be unlikely that someone would defend intelligent design without first personally accepting Creationism. But one may argue for intelligent design without any reference to Creationism.
I responded...
Luke: This is a pretty fair opening essay, and I’m glad that you’re validating my original hope that you were an honest seeker of truth. I don’t agree with everything you wrote, course, but I agree with your most important point: There IS a distinction between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Usually, in my previous discussions with Darwinists, if they tell me that “I.D. and Creationism are the same thing,” I have to reluctantly end the debate. Why? Because they are not even familiar with the most basic terms in the debate.
I do want to point out though that when people say the “Pandas” book is a smoking gun that ID = Creationism, they’re allowing their bias to influence their judgment. Why? Because they’re playing semantic games. In the early 1980s, the word ID hadn’t been invented yet; the word “Creationism” was a general term to denote that mind (intelligence) was a better explanation for the origin and diversity of life than the mindless, random form of evolution advocated by Darwinists. While I appreciate the history lesson, in the year 2009, the terms Creationism and Intelligent Design mean separate things (as you noted). Today, Creationists believe the account of life found in the Bible. I.D. is an outgrowth of the Scientific Method. I.D. looks at the evidence we’ve accumulated, and makes judgments based on that. It is separate from Creationism. I hope – thanks to you – that more Darwinists will appreciate that.
This did not sit well with "Hermes," who wrote... Todd, consider that by using the word ‘darwinists’, and exacerbating it by making it a proper noun by using a capital “D”, you’re guilty of what you object to.
In short: If you yourself are an honest broker, and want a conversation, then cut it out.
I responded... Hermes: It’s not clear to me what’s objectionable about the term “Darwinist.” Darwinists are people who advocate Darwinism in the same way Christians advocate Christianity, conservatives advocate conservatism, etc, etc. “Darwinist” is a clear, factually correct term.
Then, after a bit more back and forth, I wrote...
Herm: For the sake of being a nice guy, if you honestly find the term “Darwinist” offensive, I will not describe your views in that way.
Herm replied...
Sorry, not good enough. If you want special considerations from everyone, you should be willing to do so for everyone as well. If not, then you are coming up short morally and ethically...
Will you not use “Darwinist”/”darwinist” now that you know it is incorrect as well as a prerogative term? I’d like your assurance on this so that I can see I am dealing with someone who has honor and integrity and is not asking for special treatment for them and them alone.
Todd White, do you have that honor and integrity or not?
I replied...
Hermes: I have enough “honor and integrity” to say that I can’t go beyond the compromise I suggested earlier.
To ask me to accept that “Darwinist” is an “incorrect term” would be a violation of Reason and Reality – and Reason and Reality are my only 2 absolutes.
Again, I don’t know what else to say. You seem like a decent guy, though, so I’m disappointed that we couldn’t resolve this matter in a more satisfying way.
Then "Fortuna" jumped in. I responded to her as follows...
Fortuna: I appreciate that you directly answered my question (the first person so far).
You wrote: "We don’t ’support’ the theory of evolution in any meaningful sense I can think of; it’s quite well supported in terms of being the most powerful explanation available.”
Yes, I think we’ve getting closer to the nub of the matter.
Consider if I said the following… “I don’t ’support’ Christianity in any meaningful sense I can think of; it’s quite well supported in terms of being the most powerful explanation available.” That’s bizarre, right? Well, that’s how I feel about your comment (although in fairness, I think you just haven’t really thought about how it comes across to people like me).
Bonus: These days, the vast majority of Christians would never make the statement I just did; they’re mostly tolerant of other people’s faith – even though they’re 100% convinced that Christianity is true. That’s probably one of the reasons they wouldn’t object to the term “Christian.” It’s just a logical way to distinguish those who accept Christ from those who don’t. The same applies for Darwi – I mean…whatever y’all want to call yourselves ;)
Fortuna replied (in part)...
It’s not so much that I object to it, or find it inappropriate.
I find it inappropriate as a descriptor, especially in contexts where it is being used to imply that evolution is equivalent to a religious doctrine. Which is, like, 95% of its use on the internet.*It fails to describe the position we hold, and is inappropriate in that sense; it’s not that it hurts our poor little feelings.
This led to my response...
Fortuna: “It fails to describe the position we hold, and is inappropriate in that sense.”
TW: See, again, that’s something I have to disagree with. It goes back to my “A is A” argument above. To say that “Darwinism fails to describe the position we hold” strikes me as along the same lines as 2+2=5.
Sorry to be a stickler, but on some level, this has actually become a very interesting and revealing debate. Our inability to find a consensus on defining the most basic terms shows what a major epistemological gulf exists between your side and my side.
Luke - to his credit - interjected with 2 useful posts... I’ve never had a problem with being called a ‘Darwinist.’ Perhaps it implies too much emphasis on the man rather than the theory of common descent by natural selection as it has developed in accord with the evidence, but it is useful to distinguish ideas as ‘Darwinian’ rather than, say, ‘Lamarkian...’
I read the terms ‘Darwinist’ and ‘Darwinian’ in scientific and philosophical literature all the time, and it’s obviously not being used pejoratively there.
Eventually, though, when the topic turned to Darwinism itself (and not just semantics), the conversation went downhill fast - so downhill, I wrote something I almost never write... Guys, I’m out. I’ve been commenting on this website for a few days and all I get is name-calling, projection, semantic games, and misinformation. In fairness, a few people (like Luke and Josh) seem knowledgebale (and mostly) open-minded. But overall, this just ain’t worth my time.
If you need to reach me, you can do so on my website.
Later.
To that, Luke said... Todd, I don’t blame you. This thread has been insane.
I guess we'll have to try again sometime in the future, Luke.
**UPDATE, NOV. 7, 2009**
Note: This is not a full transcript. See Fortuna's comment in the Comment Section.
As part of my research on the "Richard Sternberg incident" for my discussion on the "Common Sense Atheist" website, I came across this 12-page document from Mr. Sternberg himself explaining How My Views on Evolution Evolved.
The article is honest, erudite, and worth reading in full. But I've summarized the thrust of the piece below...
I began my university education in the early 1980s as a committed Darwinian…By the age of 20, I was an intellectually fulfilled atheist…I had only a cursory knowledge of Intelligent Design prior to 2004...
Now the question that has constantly been posed of me since August 2004 goes something like this: "Where do you really stand on the Intelligent Design issue?"…My position asserts that the cosmos is fundamentally intelligible in such a way that it can be logically, mathematically, and scientifically recognized to be such; and moreover…that the universe emanates from Nous (Mind). So in this sense, my thinking is compatible with intelligent design broadly defined.
For the past 3 days, I’ve been commenting on a new essay by Luke “the Common Sense Atheist:” How to Make Creationists Believe in Evolution.
Actually, it’s not really an essay. It’s a cartoon. And a dumb one.
I wrote…
Luke: Don’t you get bored bashing Creationists? I know I would. If you want a real challenge, use your rational tools to analyze the Intelligent Design debate. That’s much more interesting, wouldn’t you say? A person who calls himself a “Common Sense Atheist” should stretch his intellectual horizons in that direction, rather than constantly pick the spoiled and low-hanging fruit of Creationism.
Eventually, I got dragged into a discussion with a few arch-Darwinists, and we covered some of the main issues in the Darwinism/ID debate…
On the “Of Pandas and People controversy”...
ID: The whole movement was also shown to be a creationist movement through ‘of pandas and people’s early drafts.
TW: The ID movement began after that book was published. Furthermore, you have to separate facts from the intentions of those who disseminate those facts. For example, should we disallow Richard Dawkins’ evidence FOR Darwinism because he’s a vocal atheist? Also, keep in mind that not all ID supporters are Bible thumpers. The modern ID movement includes Jews and agnostics and non-Christian theists. They find the evidence from ID (as opposed to Creationism) compelling enough to believe that it deserves a fair hearing from the public.
On pro-I.D. literature…
Luke: Anybody got any heavy-hitting pro-intelligent-design literature outside Behe-Dembski-Meyer?
TW: I think it depends on what aspect of the I.D./Darwin debate you’re researching. The debate has a lot of dimensions (which is one of the main reasons it’s so fascinating).
Here’s a few links that may be helpful.
1) William Provine/Phillip Johnson Debate
2) Speech delivered by Stephen Meyer, pro-ID author
3) George Gilder on the link between life and Information Theory
4) Barry Arrington explains “My Views in a Nutshell”
5) “Frequently Raised but Weak Arguments Against Intelligent Design”
In terms of books, I think the most comprehensive (yet reader-friendly) account is Denyse O’Leary’s By Design or By Chance?
Of course, the most famous book of all (which I confess I haven’t read) is Philip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial.
On the Bloggingheads TV controversy...
TW: If Darwinists shouldn’t feel threatened by Behe – as you claim – then they should allow his ideas to be freely discussed, instead of engaging in Stalinist tactics to silence him. One recent example... [the Blogginheads TV incident]
Mark H: “The BloggingHeads video was reposted once Robert Wright, the site owner, returned from a retreat.
TW: Robert Wright re-posted the video after complaints from free speech advocates, but not before apologizing for having the discussion in the first place. Even Wright’s apology wasn’t enough for 2 pro-Darwin Blogginghead contributors who resigned in protest.
Also, it’s not unreasonable to call the head of a private organization “Stalinist.” Stalin was famous for doctoring photos and re-writing records to pretend that some events “never happened.” That’s exactly what the folks at Bloggingheads were trying to do before they were called out on it.
Mark H: John McWhorter requested that the video be removed. It wasn’t censorship.
TW: It seems to me that there are 2 possibilities (neither of which make Wright and his pals look good).
1) Once the Darwinists started screaming, the Blogginghead folks quietly asked McWhorter to make that request. This would be the equivalent of a high-profile boss (say, President Obama) asking his subordinate to publicly “resign” rather than be tainted with the knowledge that he was fired. In light of the Darwinists behavior, such a “request” by McWhorter would work in the interests of both parties.
2) McWorter really did make that request.
Let’s say Number 2 happened (as you suggest), which is certainly possible, although I’m skeptical. Even so, don’t you think that’s very, very strange?
Re-read the McWhorter statement. Why would a man “apologize” for an open, informative exchange of ideas? Why would he say that the interview “doesn’t represent himself?” Doesn’t that strike you as bizarre? How often does this happen in other fields: Does Jim Lehrer apologize for interviewing Joe Biden about a mainstream issue (say, health care) and then say the interview “doesn’t represent himself?” What would compel him to say something like that?
To your credit, you say, “Unfortunately, nobody knows what McWhorter means by this message, or what prompted it.”
That’s true enough, but I’ll speculate: McWorther got an earful from the Darwinists (including those on the Bloggingheads staff) and told McWorter: “Apologize, or we have the ability to make you regret it later.”
And if THAT is the case, that is certainly a sad indictment of people who claim to be pro-reason, courageously following the facts wherever they lead.
On the Richard Sternberg/Smithsonian Incident...
Josh: It’s in a biologist’s self interest to overthrow “Darwinism.”
TW: I honestly don’t see how it would be in a biologist’s self-interest to overthrow Darwinism, given the harassment and firings of people who dare to even the broach the subject of Darwin’s truth (see for example, the Richard Sternberg/Smithsonian incident).
Luke: I, for one, have no problem believing that some who advance intelligent design in the academy have been persecuted and lost jobs because of it.
Josh: Consider if a geologist were positing flat earth theory. That is what intelligent design is akin to. Of course people would get pissed off at him.
TW: [using a Reagan voice] “There you go again.”
The flat earth theory was disproven when Magellan sailed around the world. What aspect of ID has been disproven in such a bone-crushing way? If you dropped a cow into the ocean and it became a whale, that would be enough evidence for Darwinism to kill I.D once and for all. But obviously we haven’t observed anything close to that to make your analogy valid.
Rebutting some of Josh’s main arguments for Darwinism…
TW: 1) The fossil record contradicts Darwinism. Fossil species are remarkably stable over long periods of time and the appearance of new species is typically abrupt. Evidence for transitional forms is rare – and even those may be open to misinterpretation.
2) Molecular evidence contradicts Darwinism. DNA sequences do NOT look like they descended with modification from ancestral sequences.
3) Morphological evidence contradicts Darwinism. The so-called “Tree of Life” is a mess. In fact, you rarely hear about the “Tree of Life” anymore because it’s become an embarassment. The human body doesn’t contain a single vestigial organ – even through Darwinists insisted it did.
4) I don’t understand your 4th point.
5) The conditions for macroevolution do not exist in the Real World because macroevolution itself is a conjecture of microevolution. There is no convincing evidence for macroevolution.
6) Observed “evolution” evidence contradicts Darwinism. Thousands of generations of bacteria have been grown in the lab to test the “edge of evolution.” And what did we find? Random mutations are rare and those that do occur are far more likely to be regressive than beneficial.
Oh, and no matter what, a bacteria ALWAYS stays a bacteria. It never “evolves” into anything else.
On the Devastating William Provine Video…
TW: In my opinion, the highlight of the Provine-Johnson debate is this 37-second clip in which Provine explains the philosophical implications of Darwinism.
If Provine is correct in his judgment (and I think he’s mostly correct), then we – the general public – should be pretty darn sure that Darwinism is correct.
Luke: I have no idea how Provine thinks that biology entails all that! Provine is clearly not a philosopher.
TW: I mostly agree with Provine on this matter. I don’t think Darwinism REQUIRES all of the philosophical implications that Provine suggests, but they certainly make those implications a heck of a lot more likely. What DOES make those implications a requirement? An ideological commitment to materialism. And since most Darwinists are materialists (and in a fun twist, it was – in many cases – Darwinism itself that converted them to the “truth” of materialism), then you can make a solid (but not insurmountable) claim that yes, Darwinism does lead to Provine’s philosophy.
On How Science Works...
Lee: You are saying that they are lying about the fossil record, the genome evience — the whole nine yards.
TW: No, I’m saying that most of them are misinterpreting the data. It happens a lot in life. For example, everyone works in politics is very knowledgeable about politics but they break down into Republicans and Democrats because they interpret the data from political science differently.
For the full discussion (which is still ongoing) click here.
