Arguing in the Streets
by MikeGeneY'see Hunter, if you send your scholars into the streets, don't expect the street people to sit quietly with hands folded in their laps. Expect questions, cynicism and maybe even [gasp], critical thinking. Imagine this scenario unfolding for one of your scholars:
Scholar: I'm here to explain that ID is religiously motivated and that science and evolution do not conflict with religion.
Streetperson: I know, but now that we have you, can you answer a few questions for us.
Scholar: Surely. What are they?
Streetperson: Recently, we have seen the faculty at Iowa State University and LeHigh University eagerly and publicly distance themselves from colleagues who argue for Intelligent Design. Do you think this is good?
Scholar: Yes. The public might falsely get the impression that these schools somehow endorse Intelligent Design.
Streetperson: Have the schools said something that might lead to this impression?
Scholar: No.
Streetperson: Do you have any evidence that this impression exists out here on the streets?
Scholar: No. But there is the potential that such an impression might arise. Thus, it is wise and prudent to issue such public statements before such a problem occurs.
Streetperson: I see. Better safe than sorry?
Scholar: Exactly. In fact, I have a colleague who has written extensively on this subject.
Streetperson: That's nice. But I have another question. What do you think of this statement?
"My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious; many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood."
Scholar: I don't agree.
Streetperson: Are you saying the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists are not atheists?
Scholar: There are many religious scientists. I disagree with this irresponsible assertion that most scientists are afraid to tell people that religion and science cannot coexist because they are worried about funding.
Streetperson: I see. What about this statement?
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. "
Scholar: No, naturalistic evolution does not have such clear consequences. One of the reasons I am here is to explain that science and evolution do not conflict with religion.
Streetperson: But these two statements come from one of your colleagues at Cornell University "“ William Provine. Have you or any of your other Cornell colleagues signed a public petition distancing yourself from these views?
Scholar: No. Why should we?
Streetperson: But don't you think there are many among the public who have impressions that are exactly as Provine stated things?
Scholar: I'm not sure.
Streetperson: Then why have you come here to teach us that science and evolution do not conflict with religion?
Scholar: Look, I do not agree with Dr. Provine's statement nor does Dr. Provine speak for most scientists.
Streetperson: Then why don't you have a petition to show me? You said it was important for faculty at ISU and LeHigh to issue public statements distancing themselves from controversial positions because of a potential impression that may arise. But here we have real-world impressions that do exist and that are being propped up by a colleague at your own school.
Scholar: Look, I didn't know that Dr. Provine said these things.
Streetperson: Okay, so will you now start up a petition drive at your school to condemn such comments and distance yourselves from them? Or do you secretly agree that "many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood?"
Scholar: I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Look, does anybody else out here want to talk about the religious motivations of ID or learn that science and evolution does not conflict with religion?
October 27th, 2005 at 2:56 am
Scholar: One of the reasons I am here is to explain that science and evolution do not conflict with religion.
Cornell Street Student : If that's the case, then why should it bother you if ID is religiously motivated since you say there is no conflict between science and religion?
Scholar: I never thought of that, and gee I'm a "Bright", so it's surprises me I didn't think of that first. Anyway, ID is harming the scientific enterprise. This is a matter of urgent importance.
Cornell Street Student: Given that ID is harming the scientific enterprise, do you think then that faculty with ID leanings should be denied tenure or even be fired, that job applicants be denied jobs, and students denied diplomas based on their belief in ID?
Scholar: I wouldn't go that far, but something has to be done becaue ID is harming the scientific enterprise. This is a matter of urgent importance. Students and faculty who believe in ID should be persuaded somehow to renounce their views. That's why I'm here to enlighten you. You see, I'm an objective "Bright" and you're a religiously motivated "Dim". I'm here to change your mind and evangelize you.
Cornell Street StudentI'm a Biology Student studying to become a medical Doctor. My daddy is a Doctor and member of the CMA. My daddy is a Chritian and believes in ID, just like Cornell Biology Professor John Sanford who testified at the Kansas hearings. Are you saying we (me, daddy, and Professor Sanford, etc.) are Dims because we believe in ID.
Scholar: Absolutely! I'm glad you finally figured out that I have such a low view of people with religious motivations. People like you, your Dad, and Cornell Professor Sanford are what's wrong with this country. I'm here to tell you that so that this campus becomes less polarized.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 27, 2005 @ 2:56 am
October 27th, 2005 at 6:30 am
Provine: "My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious; many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood."
Funny, had it been an IDist writing like this, we would have heard from critics how insulting and demeaning it is for scientists to be accused of lying to the public.
Comment by Krauze — October 27, 2005 @ 6:30 am
October 27th, 2005 at 7:49 am
Scholar: I'm here to explain that ID is religiously motivated and that science and evolution do not conflict with religion much.
Streetperson: I know, but now that we have you, can you answer a few questions?
Scholar: Surely. What are they?
Streetperson: Recently, we have seen the faculty at Iowa State University and LeHigh University eagerly and publicly distance themselves from colleagues who argue for Intelligent Design. Do you think this is good?
Scholar: Yes. The public might falsely get the impression that these schools somehow endorse Intelligent Design.
Streetperson: Have the schools said something that might lead to this impression?
Scholar. No, but Behe and Gonzalez trade on their university affiliations to add weight to their opinions. If the schools did nothing to counter this, people might well think we're endorsing their rather silly books.
Streetperson: Silly books! Why Behe and Gonzalez are scientists! And they have written scientific books!
Scholar: Professor Gonzalez is undoubtedly a scientist. He's done good work in the past – in the field of Astronomy, not biology or evolution – and he will probably do more good scientific work in the future if he doesn't follow the course of other creationists/IDists and cease almost all scientific publishing and other scientific work as soon as he gets involved in ID. But he's a rank amateur at biology and the book he's written isn't a scientific work by any stretch of the imagination. It's essentially a 21st century update on William Paley's "Natural Theology". Both "The Privileged Planet" and "Natural Theology" are compendia of anything that their authors didn't understand or which struck them as "gee whiz", although Paley was circumspect enough not to advance solar eclipses as evidence for God. (Think of the faith of a putative Jovian believer! Jupiter can have up to four eclipses at once!)
As for professor Behe, I don't believe that he's ever done work of the caliber of Professor Gonzalez's astronomy work, which has been featured in Scientific American, among other magazines. Professor Behe's pre-ID biological work was rather undistinguished and I believe that he's only published one scientific paper since he became an ID advocate and that paper can most charitably be described as pathetic. Whether Professor Gonzalez will follow the same path, I don't know.
Streetperson: (a little less sure of himself): That's nice. But I have another question. What do you think of this statement?
"My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious; many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood."
Scholar: The part about the vast majority of modern evolutionary biologists being atheists is probably true. The vast majority of ALL modern scientists are atheists. The prominent scientists who deny any conflict between science and religion are technically correct in the sense that they don't conflict if you don't press too hard and a majority of the world's Christian denominations have, in fact, made their peace with both evolution and science in general. For instance, the Catholic church accounts for about half of all Christians world wide and it has made its peace with science and evolution, although they were a little too late to keep Galileo from ending his life under house arrest for, essentially, knowing more about how the solar system works than the church hierarchy. All of the less crazed Protestant denominations have also made their peace with religion and science, so the claim that there's no conflict between science and religion is correct, assuming that you're not talking about any of the more off the wall religions and no religion presses the issue too hard. Unfortunately, the minority of Christians who can't adapt their religions to science seem to insist on forcing their religious view on the nation's schoolchildren. That's rather dishonest, don't you think?
Streetperson (defiantly): Never mind that! What about this statement?
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. "
Scholar: That's actually true of all science, not just evolution. For instance, God, gods or the supernatural in general was once necessary to explain everything – how the universe came to be, how we humans came to be, where rain comes from, what thunder and lightning are, what causes disease, why crops sometimes fail, etc. One by one, science has shot just about all of these down. Rain is caused by the sun evaporating water, which rises until it cools enough to condense, at which time it forms droplets and falls as rain. Thunder is caused by the explosive heating of air by lightning and lightning in turn is a very large electrical spark. Most diseases are caused by infectious agents, such as bacteria and viruses, but others are caused by lack of some vital dietary material, such as vitamin C, inborn genetic defects, etc. Crops generally fail because of similar infectious agents as well as from lack of rain, lack of fertilizer, etc. Darwin was merely the last straw when he figured out the essentials of how humans came to exist. I think about the only significant thing left to explain is the origin of the universe and the cosmologists are working on that. But it was Darwin who really put God out of work when he found out how evolution works.
Streetperson: But these two statements come from one of your colleagues at Cornell University – William Provine. Have you or any of your other Cornell colleagues signed a public petition distancing yourself from these views?
Scholar: No, why should we? Both statements are essentially correct. We might point out that science and SOME religions aren't compatible, but what else would we correct? Ok, if we were really, really truthful, we'd get up a petition pointing out that religions of all kind are essentially superfluous as far as explaining anything useful, but nobody wants to antagonize the bullies who run modern American religion. So sue us.
Comment by DataDoc — October 27, 2005 @ 7:49 am
October 27th, 2005 at 8:01 am
This is too easy:
Scholar: Professor Gonzalez is undoubtedly a scientist. He's done good work in the past "“ in the field of Astronomy, not biology or evolution "“ and he will probably do more good scientific work in the future if he doesn't follow the course of other creationists/IDists and cease almost all scientific publishing and other scientific work as soon as he gets involved in ID. But he's a rank amateur at biology and the book he's written isn't a scientific work by any stretch of the imagination. It's essentially a 21st century update on William Paley's "Natural Theology". Both "The Privileged Planet" and "Natural Theology" are compendia of anything that their authors didn't understand or which struck them as "gee whiz", although Paley was circumspect enough not to advance solar eclipses as evidence for God. (Think of the faith of a putative Jovian believer! Jupiter can have up to four eclipses at once!)
Streetperson (dope slaps the scholar): Gonzalez is an astro-biologist. He was part of a team of scientists hired by NASA to figure out if there is life "out there". His book The Privileged Planet is based on that research as well as the scientific research of other scientists. The ONLY arguments against it to data have been religiously (anti- religion) motivated. Not one scientist has been able to find any scientific data to refute their inference.
Scholar:
As for professor Behe, I don't believe that he's ever done work of the caliber of Professor Gonzalez's astronomy work, which has been featured in Scientific American, among other magazines. Professor Behe's pre-ID biological work was rather undistinguished and I believe that he's only published one scientific paper since he became an ID advocate and that paper can most charitably be described as pathetic. Whether Professor Gonzalez will follow the same path, I don't know.
Streetperson:Seeing that you botched the explanation of Gonzalez why should anyone believe you about Dr. Behe? What is your data to support your claims?
Also I read an article by a layperson that demonstrates that ID is scientific. It blows away anything that the anti-IDists have ever said against ID. It is obvious to this streetperson that you (the Scholar) are ID ignorant.
Why ID is scientific
Comment by Joe G — October 27, 2005 @ 8:01 am
October 27th, 2005 at 8:16 am
(Jumping in in the middle of the conversation.)
Scholar: No, but Behe and Gonzalez trade on their university affiliations to add weight to their opinions. If the schools did nothing to counter this, people might well think we're endorsing their rather silly books.
Streetperson: Do you have any evidence that this impression exists out here on the streets?
Scholar: I don't know. However, let me explain why I just called those books "silly"…
Streetperson: Never mind. I read Panda's Thumb daily. I've already heard your points. However, I have another question. What do you think of this statement?
"My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious; many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood."
Scholar: [Gives a long talk, ending with:] Unfortunately, the minority of Christians who can't adapt their religions to science seem to insist on forcing their religious view on the nation's schoolchildren. That's rather dishonest, don't you think?
Streetperson: Sure, but so is hiding the atheistic implications of evolution, as Provine accuses scientists of doing. Anyhoo, what about this statement?
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
Scholar: That's actually true of all science, not just evolution. For instance, God, gods or the supernatural in general was once necessary to explain everything "“ how the universe came to be, how we humans came to be, where rain comes from, what thunder and lightning are, what causes disease, why crops sometimes fail, etc. One by one, science has shot just about all of these down. Rain is caused by the sun evaporating water, which rises until it cools enough to condense, at which time it forms droplets and falls as rain.
Streetperson: Wow, is that how rain is made? My momma always told me it was da' angels crying. 'Them scienticians sure have found out a lot of purty thangs.
Anyway, you came here wanting to tell me that evolution and religion didn't conflict, and now you're telling me that evolution and the water cycle means that 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. Which religion isn't contradicted by one or more of these statements?
Comment by Krauze — October 27, 2005 @ 8:16 am
October 27th, 2005 at 9:26 am
Bravo! I agree completely with Mike Gene's summation. I suspect this is exactly what's going on and "everyone" knows it. The atheistic implications of Evolution taken in pure darwinian terms is unavoidable.
Comment by Plump-DJ — October 27, 2005 @ 9:26 am
October 27th, 2005 at 10:18 am
Scholar: I'm here to explain that ID is religiously motivated and that science and evolution do not conflict with religion.
Streetperson: Why did you mention "science" and "evolution" separately? Are there 3 categories- Science, evolution and religion? And is it that some IDists may be religiously motivated, not ID?
Scholar: Look, I am the scholar sent here to explain…
Streetperson interrupting the Scolar: What are the options to our existence?
Scholar: I am not here to discuss. I am here by authority to explain…
Jack Nicholson: Then go sell crazy somewhere else. We don't open for the dogmatic whackos until 9AM.
Comment by Joe G — October 27, 2005 @ 10:18 am
October 27th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Scholar: I'm here to explain that ID is religiously motivated and that science and evolution do not conflict with religion.
Rock: It's also plain to me that for most IDers and IDs' critics the religious motivation ("ID is religiously motivated") is the compelling one. However, is the idea of explaining "that science and evolution do not conflict with religion" religiously or scientifically motivated? ID is basically the application of an inferential method, and one that's quite general and doesn't depend in anyway upon what motivates its application. W/o any religious motivation whatsoever I can apply Dembski's method to determining if a candidate enzyme fits a given substrate, e.g.. Plainly there is a scientific motive for doing so. (Less obvious to me is what the religious motivation for doing so would be.) But what possible scientific motivation would I have for showing that science and evolution do not conflict with religion? I can think of scientific motives for not actively seeking or attempting such a reconciliation, the most obvious being to maintain the integrity of scientific knowledge that has been hard-won, often only through conflict with religion. What is the scientific motivation for even attempting to explain how science and evolution do not conflict with religion? Seems like all you are motivated to do (whatever your motivations may be) is to "explain away" an evident fact: Science and evolution do conflict with religion. Ya wanna know what?"”Your motives really are irrelevant, because the fact is that science and evolution do conflict with religion and no amount of "˜splainin's gonna change that fact. Nonetheless, your motives, whatever they may be, are of more than casual academic interest. We are certainly more than interested in self-delusional thinking and why persons are motivated to share, to convince others, of their delusions. Science, like any other human endeavor, is susceptible to human psychoneuroses (Pathologies?) and these can even be spread like a contagion. We must always be aware of that and certainly have more than a passing scientific interest in understanding the phenomenon.
Speaking of delusions, and not altogether off-topic. Many people, including many scientists, believe that science and religion are actually two different "ways of thinking," literally; absolutely irreconcilable and necessarily conflicting. The idea that there are two groups of people, "scientists" and "religionists" who don't just think different thoughts but actually think differently is a extraordinary claim and one that can be addressed scientifically. (I assume so. Scientists often make the statement as if it were a matter of fact.) I say this is an extraordinary claim, because the claim is really not equivalent to saying, e.g., that Liberals and Conservatives "think differently." Does anyone seriously argue that Democrats and Republicans reach different conclusions via fundamentally different thought processes, or by simply thinking about the same things, via the same thought processes, differently?
As an extraordinary claim it requires extraordinary evidence to support. Where is it? It's no where that I've been able to determine! It is so casually and widely assumed, yet there is not an iota of data to support it.
People think different thoughts. They don't think differently. Indeed, the only data supporting the thesis is clinical. Some people suffer from "pathologies" of thought, often traceable to brain chemistry. These people do appear to "think differently," literally.
What some people are saying, including scientists, and some more explicitly than others, is that religious thinking is pathological! If you are religious you are mentally disturbed! Pathological, and clinically so.
I do sincerely believe that some people, maybe more than I would like to admit, do indeed see these issues as not merely "science vs. religion," but in terms of "good vs. evil," and even "sanity vs, insanity"!
Or am I just bit nutty about that? LOL
Comment by Rock — October 27, 2005 @ 3:18 pm
October 27th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
DJ,
Actually, I don't agree that the atheistic implications of Evolution taken in pure darwinian terms are unavoidable. I think Provine is all wet. But that's another argument for another day.
My focus is sociological. The community that trips over itself to sign decrees and petitions distancing themselves from ID is the same community that has no problem with the rhetoric of fellow colleagues like Dawkins and Provine. What's that all about?
As I long ago warned, the only ones who can really hurt science are the scientists themselves. And it sure looks like more and more are allowing the ID movement to turn them into political animals. This is just a tiny example – when you start signing decrees and petitions about X, one wonders why you stubbornly refuse to sign a petition about Y.
To battle against ID, more and more people in academia are abandoning the high ground and becoming the very thing they hate. And they don't see it.
Comment by MikeGene — October 27, 2005 @ 9:53 pm
October 28th, 2005 at 5:11 am
In one of those rare cases, I actually agree with Mike Gene here (specifically, the response to DJ, though not the hypothetical dialogue drama in the OP) that evolution is not unavoidably atheistic. It deals mainly with processes, not with origins after all. It is the IDists who are now making claims to 'understand' the origins of things beyond which science itself cannot answer.
The above statement, though it may be reflective of Mike's need for 'freedom of belief,' so that his belief in universal evolution can be integrated with his belief that the world 'looks designed' is in contrast to certain scholars of public understanding and scientific popularity who see 'evolution' as inherently atheistic. There is an obvious fetish for Dawkins, Provine and Dennett here, and who can blame the pseudonymous Mike Gene for that? However, since C. Darwin was not an atheist and Asa Gray was not an atheist, nor was A. Wallace or C. Lyell, and since there are many religious persons today who accept evolutionary theories, though he is not one of them Mike is taking a middle ground that is open to evidence from both streetperson and scholar. This does go further than most scholarly dogmatists in the name of science, reason and progress – i.e. those who premdominantly support evolutionary universalism – to submit to a compromise. Yet it also doesn't necessarily accept the fanaticism of certain IDists would promote YEC, apologetic pro-American religion when they are not speaking about 'pure science' through the other side of their mouths.
Where Mike gets his desire for sociological knowledge is hard to understand. People at Telic Thoughts may like to know more about it since it is assumed (obvious that) Mike is not a trained sociologist but a natural scientist. Why sociology is so important when the most important or effective IDists claim ID must be accepted as a natural science is an interesting dilemma that likely holds Mike Gene on its horns.
It's about American academia and the strange obsession with evolutionary theory, Darwin, Spencer, Malthus, and the newer evolutionists in that country. If Mike Gene was still living in Canada it is doubtful that his views would be so politically charged against the statements of university institutions and their representatives. Surely it is important to distinguish good scholarship that does research, makes tests and draws conclusions based on them to an ideologically motivated made-in-America apologetic movement of individuals who are partly anti-evolution, partly pro-religious revitalization and a partly fanatical enough to suggest they have found THE BRIDGE between science and philosophy, universally applicable and acceptable to everyone.
But 'intelligent design' is not a replacement or acceptable alternative to evolutionary theories. Mike Gene demonstrates this personally in claiming to be an 'intelligent design evolutionist,' which many people view as a contradiction of terms. Therefore, Mike is living as both scholar and streetperson at the same time caught between two paradigms. I wonder if he will be open to what comes next to explain transition and transformation more accurately and politically neutrally than the current IDM expression of intelligent design?
At least Mike Gene is not a YEC, head-in-the-sand Dembski or Johnson-follower who'd rather live in anti-reality than admit he cannot prove God's existence with statistics, irreducability or pseudo-philosophy. The scholar in the pretend dialogue would likely admit that too; while the streetperson in America has little ground to judge the science if for no other reason than that ideology is running thick and heavy in that country, a place that can't positively judge who should judge the fate of the nation. Extremists on both sides are grinning with glee.
Arago
Comment by g arago — October 28, 2005 @ 5:11 am
October 28th, 2005 at 5:16 am
'Beyond which science itself can answer.' (Am I really being affected by learning a language that approves of double-negatives?)
Comment by g arago — October 28, 2005 @ 5:16 am
October 28th, 2005 at 6:37 am
Krauze: "Scholar: No, but Behe and Gonzalez trade on their university affiliations to add weight to their opinions. If the schools did nothing to counter this, people might well think we're endorsing their rather silly books.
Streetperson: Do you have any evidence that this impression exists out here on the streets?"
DataDoc: What do you want me to do? Catalog all the references to PROFESSOR Behe of LeHigh university and PROFESSOR Gonzalez of Iowa State University? Or the fact that Behe is a BIOLOGIST at LeHigh university?
I'd say that a large number of Americans probably think that these men are representative of their universities. I'm certain that the DI would love them to take that impression home. They and other ID enthusiasts certainly spend enough time, money and effort trying to spread that impression. Personally, if I had any association with either school, I'd welcome a disclaimer signed by other people at the school saying that they're spouting non-science.
Krauze: "Streetperson: Sure, but so is hiding the atheistic implications of evolution, as Provine accuses scientists of doing."
DataDoc: Don't you mean the atheistic implications of evolution and the rest of science? In fact, I think that accurate knowledge of the world in general has overwhelming atheistic implications. There just doesn't seem to be any great need for Gods, there's no good evidence that they exist and, borrowing an idea from Dembski, the odds that anything as complex as a God, even one as unintelligent as a human being, exist are worse than astronomical. Heck, just the new knowledge we've gained over the last fifty years of how the brain works is a stunning argument against God. If He didn't evolve, how DID all that CSI come to exist? As RBH says, run the Designer through Dembski's Explanatory Filter and it indicates that he's designed. The more superior to a human being any putative God is claimed to be, the less likely he is to exist. Dembski may post cute computer games saying, "Who designed the designer," but those games don't answer the question of where the Designer comes from and ID has no answer either.
And who says scientists are "hiding" the implications? Surely you've heard of Dawkins, who is a scientist. Is he hiding the implications of science regarding religion? You've given us two quotes from Provine – he's a professor of ecology and evolutionary ecology. Isn't he a scientist too?
As for the rest of the scientific pack, I wish they would start pushing the news a little harder, but in a world where religious fanatics put a price on the head of novelists, hijack airliners and fly them into skyscrapers, cut people's heads off for belonging to the "wrong" religion, blow up trains in Spain and England and dictate who can and can't be nominated to the Supreme Court, I can't say that I really blame them for laying low.
This is nothing new, of course. I read a biography of Darwin several years ago that mentioned that either while Darwin was a student or just a few years before (I can't remember which), a student at his college was hanged for giving a speech advocating atheism. No wonder he waited twenty years before publishing his theory!
Comment by DataDoc — October 28, 2005 @ 6:37 am
October 28th, 2005 at 6:40 am
Krauze: Anyhoo, what about this statement?
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
DataDoc: That's the message of science and accurate knowledge about the world in general, except for number 5.
1: It's almost certainly true that there are no gods worth having. You can call the universe god if you want to or invent some tiny little god who operates secretly, without ever being observed, but frankly, if you want a real god, you're going to have to be satisfied with a God who operates in such a way that it looks like he's not there and everything is being done by matter and the laws of the universe.
2: There is no real chance of life after death. Damn! I don't like that. Tough! The evidence indicates that there isn't.
3: No ultimate foundation for ethics exists. This isn't really a loss at all. It merely means that the Bible, which positively allows Southern style slavery and which claims that God Himself orders the murder of innocent women and children is not an ultimate foundation for ethics. That's fine with me. It also means that the Koran isn't the ultimate foundation for ethics either, which probably pleases you just as much as it pleases me. Ditto for all the other holy books and holy preachers. They're all just men and their opinions should be given no more weight than any other man's.
4: No ultimate meaning in life exists. Good! Here in Wisconsin, I'm familiar with lots of animals whose lives DO have an ultimate meaning. You see them grazing along the highway. Their purpose in life is to provide milk twice a day, to have their male babies taken away, killed and turned into veal and to have their daughters and themselves killed and turned into hamburgers when they get too old to give milk. I'm GLAD that I'm just here, without any cosmic meaning to my life, thank you, and I don't have a whole lot of respect with people who can't live with that knowledge.
5: "Human free will is nonexistent" is one of those shibboleths that the religiously (and philosophically) afflicted like to spread around as if they were saying something. The foundation of this belief appears to be defining "free will" as meaning "not influenced by anything in this universe". It's frequently accompanied by the belief that without "free will", every nuance of every thought and deed that we will ever have is somehow predetermined.
If you dump the theology and bad philosophy and pay more attention to science, you'll quickly realize that this is impossible. Pre-determining the future, if it were possible, would necessarily involve knowing the exact position and velocity of every particle in the universe at one specified time. From that, the future position of every particle in the universe could, in theory, be calculated. But that dream/nightmare died when Heisenberg discovered that we can NEVER know the exact position and the exact velocity of ANY particle, let alone all of them. In fact, the only way our thoughts could be predetermined would be if their was a God who was omniscient. An omniscient God would, by the definition of omniscience, know every thought we will ever have, in exquisite detail, and he would know that before we were even born. Now THERE'S a lack of free will!
I have a question for you and Mike. If science does say that God's unemployed and there's no evidence that he exists – - – what should we do about it? Cover it up? Lie? Just not mention it? Try to change the universe so God has something to do?
Comment by DataDoc — October 28, 2005 @ 6:40 am
October 28th, 2005 at 6:41 am
Krauze: Which religion isn't contradicted by one or more of these statements?
DataDoc: The Catholic church and the liberal protestants for starters. Religious that claim that God set up the earth to run the way it does and who very seldom interferes with its running in general. But they have to be very careful not to look at the world too closely or wonder why God designed such a terrible world. Or why he designed it to look just like no Gods are present.
Again, what about it? Are you asking us to lie to cover that fact up?
Joe G: Streetperson: Why did you mention "science" and "evolution" separately?
DataDoc: Joe, when you are reduced to seizing on figures of speech to "reply" to a critic, your cause is lost. You may change my statement to "science in general and evolution in particular" if it helps you parse the sentence. Sorry for calling Gonzalez an astronomer. He's an astro-biologist. I stand by all other criticism of his book. It's the 21st century equivalent of "Natural Theology" and carries about as much weight. It may contain scientific FACTS, but so does "Natural Theology" and none of the facts in either book supports the book's conclusions.
DataDoc: Rock, who cares about Dembski's method of seeing if an enzyme fits its substrate? Assuming he found a way, big deal, there must be hundreds of ways to do it. How does his method support or refute ID or evolution?
When people say that science and religion have two different ways of thinking, they mean that science restricts itself to what it can observe, which is the material world, and it builds its theories on that. Religion, on the other hand, is free to use anything at all, including things that apparently don't exist, to advance itself. That's not an extraordinary claim, it's part of the ground rules for both science and religion.
Mike Gene: Actually, I don't agree that the atheistic implications of Evolution taken in pure darwinian terms are unavoidable. I think Provine is all wet. But that's another argument for another day.
DataDoc: Exactly! You can always gin up some kind of religion that won't conflict with science. I mentioned a god who builds a universe just like this one and then sits back and doesn't interfere with it often enough to be detected. The problem is that if you think about it, you have to conclude that God not only built a pretty nasty universe, but he built one that seems to run itself according to natural laws without requiring God to do anything and which contains no evidence that God exists worth remarking on.
Comment by DataDoc — October 28, 2005 @ 6:41 am
October 28th, 2005 at 7:56 am
Joe G: Streetperson: Why did you mention "science" and "evolution" separately?
DataDoc: Joe, when you are reduced to seizing on figures of speech to "reply" to a critic, your cause is lost.
Then it is a good thing that is not what I was doing. However it should be noted that is all the anti-ID mob can do.
DataDoc:
You may change my statement to "science in general and evolution in particular" if it helps you parse the sentence.
It wasn't your statement.
DataDoc:
Sorry for calling Gonzalez an astronomer. He's an astro-biologist. I stand by all other criticism of his book. It's the 21st century equivalent of "Natural Theology" and carries about as much weight. It may contain scientific FACTS, but so does "Natural Theology" and none of the facts in either book supports the book's conclusions.
Then one has to wonder if you read the book (doubtful) or if you understood it if you did read it. Then one has to wonder why not one scientist has come out with a refutation of the inference. The only type of refutation comes in the same sorry form yours does- totally lacking in scientific merit.
DataDoc:
As RBH says, run the Designer through Dembski's Explanatory Filter and it indicates that he's designed.
RBH doesn't know what he is talking about. Just how can we run the designer through the EF? We can't because the designer has not been observed and cannot be studied. We need data in order to run something through the EF.
The more people like you, RBH and Aacobb post the more I realize there is a real requirement to teach ID. Education is the only way to cure this rampant ID ignorance.
Comment by Joe G — October 28, 2005 @ 7:56 am
October 28th, 2005 at 9:25 am
MikeGene does initiate an interesting issue-
Which side will have the easier position when it comes to "convincing" the general public?
Would the parents in Dover have complained had they been properly informed about ID?
Comment by Joe G — October 28, 2005 @ 9:25 am
October 28th, 2005 at 10:14 am
To DataDoc.
You write..
"Human free will is nonexistent" is one of those shibboleths that the religiously (and philosophically) afflicted like to spread around as if they were saying something. The foundation of this belief appears to be defining "free will" as meaning "not influenced by anything in this universe". It's frequently accompanied by the belief that without "free will", every nuance of every thought and deed that we will ever have is somehow predetermined.
You know it's funny you say that. If all that exists is matter, energy, space and time and the laws of physics then every thought in your head, every choice you've ever made lacks any sort of independance.
When you come to accept the theory of evolution it's not because you had any say in the matter rather it's because you were determind in every single way to make that choice. Equally, if someone rejects the theory of evolution it's not because they had any say in the matter, rather that belief was determined, every step of the way. That's naturalism for you.
If you and I are as much trapped in this deterministic universe as a rock that rolls down a hill, or a planet that orbits with every second of it's existence determined by prior causes then this "naturalistic cosmology" destroys any meaningful concept of knowedge or free will.
Comment by Plump-DJ — October 28, 2005 @ 10:14 am
October 28th, 2005 at 10:47 am
I know "theology has come to terms with a Darwinian universe" but that hardly detracts from the obvious atheological implications. Pain and suffering caused by natural forces has atheological implications, it does not however make it so, it just lends support to atheism. If atheism were true, what sort of universe would you expect?
What irks me is that people like Provine and Dawkins utter words like "blind", "purposeless" and "undirected" and claim it is a "scientific" conclusion. Yet I wonder, are these terms drawn from the evidence or data or merely philosophical presuppositions superimposed on the data? I believe the main source of "scientific evidence" they have to support their atheiological interpretation of Evolution is actually "bad design" arguments?
Comment by Plump-DJ — October 28, 2005 @ 10:47 am
October 28th, 2005 at 11:23 am
DataDoc:
But they have to be very careful not to look at the world too closely
Close up or far away, the only way to deny the design inference is by living in denial. Or as Aacobb sez you are blind to the obvious.
DataDoc:
or wonder why God designed such a terrible world.
Who said the world we now observe is the designed world? Educated people understand that what we now observe is the result of many processes acting over many years.
DataDoc:
Or why he designed it to look just like no Gods are present.
If that were so we wouldn't have this design inference thing. The reason for the design inference is because it most certainly looks like the world and the universe were the product of design. Even Aacobb realizes that…
Comment by Joe G — October 28, 2005 @ 11:23 am
October 28th, 2005 at 11:44 am
DataDoc: When people say that science and religion have two different ways of thinking, they mean that science restricts itself to what it can observe, which is the material world, and it builds its theories on that. Religion, on the other hand, is free to use anything at all, including things that apparently don't exist, to advance itself. That's not an extraordinary claim, it's part of the ground rules for both science and religion.
On DataDoc's "theory" of science a scientist would never utter the word "If." LOL Scientists do not restrict themselves to what they can observe and often feel "free to use anything at all, including things that apparently don't exist," to advance science. I don't know what they teach second graders about science anymore, DataDoc, but your teachers lied to you. Scientists, just like religionists, just like everyone, use their imagination to explore the real world. Let's see you, or anyone else, advance science any other way. Is that insane?! LOL
Unwittingly, of course, DataDoc provided his own counterfactual: "Pre-determining the future, if it were possible, would necessarily involve knowing the exact position and velocity of every particle in the universe at one specified time. From that, the future position of every particle in the universe could, in theory, be calculated."
Throughout much of the 19th century physicists (and scientists or "natural philosophers" generally) took that very idea quite seriously. On a question related to probabilistic reasoning Laplace asked us to "imagine an Intelligence" that was capable of doing just what you said, ascertaining the exact position, etc., and thereby able to know the state and predict the future of the universe with unerring precision. Very influential idea in the history of science and philosophy. (Still commonly believed.) Similarly many other scientists have invoked such "supernatural" beings, forces, and even devices: James Clerk Maxwell, e.g. Even Charles Darwin (?!). Computer science is full of such "beings" and "devices," from "Merlins" to "Zeno machines."
One of my favorite examples is:
"Let us now suppose a Being with penetration sufficient to perceive differences in the outer and innermost organization quite imperceptible to man, and with forethought extending over future centuries to watch with unerring care and select for any object the offspring of an organism produced under the foregoing circumstances; I can see no conceivable reason
why he should not form a new race (or several were he to separate the stock of the original organism and work on several islands) adapted to new ends. As we assume his discrimination, and his forethought, and his steadiness
of object, to be incomparably greater than those qualities in man, so we may suppose the beauty and complications of the adaptations of the new races and their differences from the original stock to be greater than in the domestic races produced by man's agency."
I won't say who wrote that (as if it isn't obvious). A very highly respected, even revered scientist. But is that crazy or what?! Let me ask the more religiously inclined correspondents what, or maybe whom, they think is being described here? Who is this "Being" we are asked to "suppose" exists?
Comment by Rock — October 28, 2005 @ 11:44 am
October 28th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
And who says scientists are "hiding" the implications? Surely you've heard of Dawkins, who is a scientist. Is he hiding the implications of science regarding religion? You've given us two quotes from Provine…
As for the rest of the scientific pack, I wish they would start pushing the news a little harder, but in a world where religious fanatics put a price on the head of novelists, hijack airliners and fly them into skyscrapers, cut people's heads off for belonging to the "wrong" religion, blow up trains in Spain and England and dictate who can and can't be nominated to the Supreme Court, I can't say that I really blame them for laying low.
That was a degenerate and ignorant bit of propaganda. It's the Christian charity workers that get their heads cut off. It's a young Christian boy in the Sudan who has spikes driven through his feet into a tree that is left to die there for no other reason than that he was Christian. Are there Darwinians who have had similar experiences to the same extent, thus justifying the supposed "laying low" out of fear? How fearful are they? They do seem scared about a suppposed end of science, but in a paranoid and phobic way.
As long as you're talking about how good Darwinism is compared to "religion" though, let's note a few historical facts about the struggle between good and evil:
(The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
By William Shirer :1071)
I suppose they were "just animals" anyway according to Darwinists. And besides, he said something about God having something to do with the physical/political world, which is a Great Blasphemy against Mommy Nature's natural selections that will bring about the end of civilization and science according to half-wits.
Comment by mynym — October 28, 2005 @ 6:00 pm
October 28th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
You don't have to let that last comment through if you don't want to. I just get tired of the propagandistic methods being used by Darwinists who are also progressives so I threw some back. As Karl Kraus said before the Nazis came to power, "Progress will make purses of human skin."
Comment by mynym — October 28, 2005 @ 6:13 pm
October 28th, 2005 at 11:05 pm
DataDoc:
DataDoc doesn't understand how science works. While he demands that science provide evidence for God's existence, Eugenie Scott tells us that is not possible: "Whether God created is of course, not a scientific question, because science is restricted to explaining natural phenomena using only natural processes." Furthermore, she notes that scientific explanations deals only with proximate, never ultimate causes. Sorry DataDoc, according to the National Center for Science Education, science can make no judgment about God's employment status.
But what type of "evidence" does DataDoc want? Well, above he told us:
I see. If God existed, he would be miraculously causing the water to fall from the sky, bringing lightening into existence ex nihilo, and supernaturally poofing all those nasty diseases into existence. In other words, according to DataDoc Theology, the existence of God would entail a world without natural laws; a world that could not be comprehended through science. C'mon people "“ a God worth having is one who poofs lightening into existence.
I'm sorry DataDoc, but I find this to be a pathetic argument for the non-existence of God.
Comment by MikeGene — October 28, 2005 @ 11:05 pm
October 28th, 2005 at 11:14 pm
G. arago:
There is nothing hard to understand about it. I am a product of the ID critics. For years, I have argued with hundreds of them and have noted a pattern. Most critics posture as if they are Objective Judges, caring only about "the evidence" as they hand out their judgments. An understanding of human nature will tell you this is an illusion. When things happen that allow this illusion to break through, I point them out. What makes it fun is that no one else is pointing it out. Not even the social scientists.
Comment by MikeGene — October 28, 2005 @ 11:14 pm
October 29th, 2005 at 9:12 am
Blogworthies LXXIV
Blogworthies: A weekly round-up of noteworthy entries from a variety of weblogs on a variety of topics.
Trackback by The Blog from the Core — October 29, 2005 @ 9:12 am
October 29th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
DataDoc:
How many scientific papers has Dawkins published since publicizing his selfish gene theory in the popular science literature?
Comment by MikeGene — October 29, 2005 @ 2:14 pm