Patterico's Pontifications

8/3/2005

Evolution and God

Filed under: Education — Patterico @ 6:58 am



There has been a lot of hoop-de-do over President Bush’s remarks on Intelligent Design. I don’t like discussing “Intelligent Design” because people can’t seem to agree as to what it really means. So let’s just stick to evolution and God.

When I was in 8th grade, my science teacher taught our class evolution. She said: “I don’t want to step on anybody’s toes here, but creationism isn’t science. Evolution is, and that’s what I’ll be teaching. Your parents can teach you creationism at home if they want to.”

I thought she was just right, and that’s what I’d want a teacher telling my child in 8th grade science.

On the other hand, when I was in college, I had a teaching assistant in our evolution class who told us that, if we simply learned enough about science, we would understand that there is no God. A couple of us in the class challenged the guy. Couldn’t a philosophically sound argument be constructed for the existence of God that is consistent with one’s scientific observations of the world? His answer was that if we thought that, we just didn’t know enough science. Once we learned as much science as he knew, we would understand.

I thought that guy was full of crap.

Plenty of scientists are religious. Evolutionary theory needn’t be inconsistent with a theory that posits the existence of an intelligent Creator. (Again, don’t comment and tell me that I am defending Intelligent Design, since I don’t know what it is and don’t much care.)

So let’s teach science in science class, and philosophy in philosophy class. And let’s not have science teachers foisting on students their philosophical opinions about the origins of life.

P.S. Jeff Goldstein cautions readers to look at what Bush actually said.

146 Responses to “Evolution and God”

  1. ” Evolutionary theory needn’t be inconsistent with a theory that posits the existence of an intelligent Creator.”

    I think you mean “belief that posits a creator” not a “theory.” At least not in the same sense of “theory” that we have “evolutionary theory.”

    actus (cd484e)

  2. […] Patterico has a thoroughly decent piece on the issue here. An excerpt: […]

    Balloon Juice (c62e7c)

  3. patterico – I suggest that you take a look at http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com, and read Joe Carter’s many fine discussions of why the treating evolutionism as science and ID as philosophy does withstand scrutiny.

    actus – I’d suggest you do the same, but your comment shows that you’re unlikely to benefit.

    eddie haskell (8fd1a1)

  4. Trust me you aren’t anywhere near ID.

    There’s a big difference between saying “evolution does not disallow the existance or participation of some God” and “evolution is impossible without God’s plan and active involvement.”

    Even the mildest form of ID translated to economics would say “free markets cannot establish economic order. Order cannot arise from chaos. There needs to be central planning and control at every point of choice.”

    Which is to say, nonsense.

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  5. Of course, they do TEACH that kind of economics in schools today….

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  6. “actus – I’d suggest you do the same, but your comment shows that you’re unlikely to benefit.”

    Can you give one? because I just see a blog with a lot of stuff on it.

    actus (cd484e)

  7. actus – Here’s the link: http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/cat_science_intelligent_design.html. Or go to the homepage, scroll down to the list of Categories in the left margin, and click on Science (Intelligent Design).

    Joe is a lot smarter than I am, so I think his stuff is worth a read.

    eddie haskell (8fd1a1)

  8. The guy doesn’t do a very good job of addressing a basic critique: that the question of whether there is an intelligent designer is not a scientific question. It requires proving, scientifically, that there is a god. I think that is impossible.

    actus (cd484e)

  9. Intelligent Design may, in fact, be the order of the universe. But it ain’t science.

    “If it cannot be expressed in numbers, it’s not science. It’s opinion.” – Robert A Heinlein

    Andrew (a0661e)

  10. Kevin Murphy writes:

    Even the mildest form of ID translated to economics would say “free markets cannot establish economic order. Order cannot arise from chaos. There needs to be central planning and control at every point of choice.”

    I’m not sure I buy that analogy. Free markets do indeed establish economic order, but this is not really an example of order arising from chaos. Most of the individual transactions that make up the market are anything but chaotic; indeed, they are carefully thought out, much more thoroughly at the individual level than they ever could be by any centralized authority. That’s about decentralized intelligent design; it doesn’t refute the basic ideal that requires some form of intelligence to be involved.

    Most ID proponents are monotheistic, but the basic idea needn’t be. Picture the universe as a cosmic wiki, which millions of gods edit every day.

    Xrlq (6c76c4)

  11. xrlq–

    One of the reasons I brought up that analogy is that so many branches of science have examples this kind of order-from-chaos mechanism. Economics, too.

    While the free market exists as the result of individual preferences it would work just fine if many, most, or even all of those preferences were not based on intelligence. There are some who would argue there is no intelligence in the market today.

    Natural selection works on the accumulation of small natural preferences. A wiki, indeed. BUt not one that needs an editor.

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  12. Reasoning by analogy doesn’t serve well when thinkigng about ID. That ID is plausible and internally consistent doesn’t qualify it as being amenable to scientific inquiry. Any more than are other ideas pertaining to what Bhudda, Jesus, or Mohammed said, and what they imply.

    On the other hand, the converse of ID can withstand scientific scrutiny, e.g.:

    “Identify a biological structure that appears to be satisfactorily explained by ID. Is there an alternative explanation, reliant on natural processes alone, that accounts for this structure at least as well as ID?”

    In every case that I’m aware of, the answer to that query is “yes.” This includes all the examples discussed by Michael Behe in “Darwin’s Black Box.”

    People commonly underestimate the explanatory power of the passage of time, and generations. The effects of the actions of the many gene families involved in patterning and signalling are similarly underappreciated.

    Note that I’m not claiming here that ID is wrong, but that it is (1) not amenable to rigorous inquiry, and (2) not necessary.

    AMac (b6037f)

  13. Kevin, I disagree. The reason free markets work better than centrally planned ones is precisely because there is far more distributed intelligence out there than any one central authority can hope to amass. If individual market actors behaved randomly, we’d all be better off taking marching orders from a benevolent dictator.

    Of course, these analogies only get you so far. Centrally planned economics requires a few human beings to arrogantly assume they know what’s best for everyone else. ID assumes a central authority that is vastly superior to all humans, possibly even omniscient, so the arguments against a central human authority don’t really hold. I have little doubt that a command-and-control economy would work better than the free market, iff the individual doing the commanding and controlling were an omniscient, benevolent God. If it’s a mere mortal who mistakes himself for God, results may vary.

    Xrlq (5ffe06)

  14. Patterico:
    “I thought that guy was full of crap.”
    Yes, he might have been; he was certainly full of himself. However, he may only have been doing what many a believer does.
    A belief in a creator, in and of itself, is logically indistinguishable from non-belief, all the way back to the moment of creation, which will probably always be subject to some uncertainty. The friction comes about when we discuss the nature of God, and many people conflate a belief in God with belief in whatever their religion (or the one they are arguing against) says about it. If you accept evolution, most of the belief systems of organized religion look a little shaky, even if you still believe in a creator.

    Rick (04f1e7)

  15. actus – I knew that it wouldn’t help you.

    Andrew – I guess Heinlein’s statement is itself just an opinion, right? And what numbers express evolutionary theory?

    eddie haskell (8fd1a1)

  16. Another example of ‘from Chaos, Order’ is the field of Evolutionary Programming.

    The basic premise is: “What if we made programs that were completely random yet syntactically valid, made millions of them, took the ‘best’ and let them make it to the next generation, and had a mechanism for programs to swap code?”

    If you play with this for a very short while you can see the Order develop. You also see occasional dramatic leaps in how well the pool of programs performs.

    Al (00c56b)

  17. “actus – I knew that it wouldn’t help you.”

    But you didn’t know it was because the guy is incorrect.

    actus (cd484e)

  18. I think a better argument against intelligent design than free markets is the DNC. I am a believer in not only intelligent design but creation. But if you wanted to argue against either or both, the argument that “If there were a God there would not be a DNC” would get my attention.

    Lew Clark (fccceb)

  19. Wow. Its amazing to me how angry some get over a few offhand comments from Bush like these.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  20. Al

    Maybe I’m missing something but doesn’t What if we made programs that were completely random yet syntactically valid actually support a intelligent designer/creator? The initial programs had to be made and done in valid manner.

    All I see that GW did in his statement was say (1) there’s a debate (2) people ought to be allowed to hear all sides

    Sure, too vague in his leaving aside the context — science class v philosophy class — but I don’t read a heck of a lot into it and certainly the vapors over it are over-wrought at best. IMO, of course.

    Darleen (f20213)

  21. yikes… I apologize for not properly closing a bold tag.

    Darleen (f20213)

  22. Patterico, you mention in your post that there is a degree of confusion on what ID is. This explanation works for me:

    Intelligent design holds that the complexity of nature cannot be explained by the incremental evolutionary changes of Darwinian evolution. Pointing to so-called units of irreducible complexity, the champions of intelligent design suggest that there are elements of nature that are too perfect, too complex, to be anything other than the product of special creation by a divine intelligence.

    The greatest philosophical problem associated with intelligent design resides in how it treats uncertainty – how it addresses science’s incomplete understanding of nature. The illogical sequence that demands that because modern science does not fully understand the origins of complex systems the only possible process of formation for such systems is divine design turns the essential and necessary driving force of ignorance against science.

    Holding such a view of a complex structure is an intellectual “give-up.” Such have always been the arguments of those who would slow science’s progress “we can’t know, therefore we shouldn’t ask.”

    Pigilito (a443bd)

  23. “Wow. Its amazing to me how angry some get over a few offhand comments from Bush like these. ”

    It really shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. One which a lot of people have but which we shouldn’t have in a president.

    Maybe he can use his european style vacation to sort this stuff out.

    actus (cd484e)

  24. actus – No, I knew it wouldn’t help you because (1) you wouldn’t read Joe’s numerous postings, (2) you would be incapable of seeing that the naturlaistic assumption that underlies Darwinism is itself non-scientific and self defeating, and (3) you would retreat to the “it’s not science” circularity.

    And I was right.

    eddie haskell (8fd1a1)

  25. Both evolution and ID rely on faith as a foundation. Assume the Big Bang–where did the stuff come from? Everything has a natural beginning in our universe. Anything without a beginning would be supernatural.

    And evolution cannot be explained by numbers, either. It is predominantly inferred by a pattern of simplicity to complexity, with the assumption that time resulted in the increased complexity. Yet no one has ever seen or proven that one simple thing becomes a more complex other thing.

    There are scientists on both sides of this issue. Surprising to me, the committed evolutionists seem afraid to consider the challenges to evolution, seemingly for fear of where it might lead them.

    ManlyDad (af1233)

  26. ” (1) you wouldn’t read Joe’s numerous postings”

    I’m certainly not going to go fishing for the one point that would settle this. You seem so certain that I got it wrong that I would imagine you would be able to point me to the source of the certainty.

    “you would be incapable of seeing that the naturlaistic assumption that underlies Darwinism is itself non-scientific and self defeating”

    Its not really an assumption, but a hypothesis. One which is testable. Thus scientific. The dude does not posit how a supernatural creator can be put into a testable hypothesis.

    Again, please give me a specific article that explains where he describes why ID is science, not belief.

    Also clarify what it is about “its not science” that is circular. Its actually quite clear to me. Or do you think that evolution isn’t science either?

    actus (cd484e)

  27. actus

    Just what misunderstanding do you think that GW has?

    Understand, as long as evolutionists say things like “the fossil records shows THIS and THIS which SUGGESTS this” they are on scientific ground … but the moment the same person (as Patterico points out above) says “evolution proves there is no god/intelligent designer/creator” s/he has ceased being a “scientist” as is just as fundie in his/her a-theism and any theist.

    Darleen (f20213)

  28. “Just what misunderstanding do you think that GW has?”

    He thinks there’s a debate between evolution and ID that’s worth presenting to kids. There isn’t. There is science, and there is religion, and really no debate between the two to present to kids.

    actus (cd484e)

  29. ManlyDad wrote:

    Both evolution and ID rely on faith as a foundation.

    No. Working from an evolutionary (neo-Darwinist synthesis) perspective, biologists try to understand living and fossil phenomena with naturalistic explanations. The strength of any scientific exercise lies in the testability (falsifiability) of its conclusions.

    How does one falsify the proposition, “the complexity seen in X is due to the unseen hand of an intelligent designer”?

    And evolution cannot be explained by numbers, either.

    You are correct in that evolution and its sister sciences genetics and developmental biology are largely qualitative. But each is becoming progressively more reliant on quantitative methods.

    Yet no one has ever seen or proven that one simple thing becomes a more complex other thing.

    No one has ever seen anything that happened over a century ago–that’s the bane of every historical science, and history itself. Evolution is a process that takes place over eons.

    There are scientists on both sides of this issue.

    True, but I’ve yet to meet a practicing biologist who believes in creationism or ID. They aren’t particularly common.

    the committed evolutionists seem afraid to consider the challenges to evolution, seemingly for fear of where it might lead them.

    Far from being afraid, most scientists would love to be feted as the next visionary iconoclast; discrediting paradigms is the way to that white-tie reception in Stockholm. ID would suffice for many–if it could somehow be turned into a scientific insight that led to useful or interesting predictions. Like creationism, up to now it’s turned out to be sterile.

    I’m all in favor of teaching SD–just, please, include it in the Philosophy curriculm. Maybe we can make room by dropping Marxism?

    AMac (b6037f)

  30. actus

    The minute the biology teacher, intentially or not, teaches that evolution “proves” everything “just happened” without intelligence or design, s/he has wandered beyond science. And it is that attitude …sometimes borne of the hubris of “I’m the child-education professional, I know better than the parent” … that allows for this to, indeed, become a debate.

    I don’t know how much interaction you’ve had with public schools – administrators and teachers — but way too many of them are as wedded to their beliefs as any flat-earther. And they look down on parents as annoyances at best.

    Darleen (f20213)

  31. Even the mildest form of ID translated to economics would say “free markets cannot establish economic order. Order cannot arise from chaos. There needs to be central planning and control at every point of choice.

    Central planning and control? You mean like some sort of an invisible hand? 😉

    Jody (7e3b5f)

  32. “The minute the biology teacher, intentially or not, teaches that evolution “proves” everything “just happened” without intelligence or design, s/he has wandered beyond science.”

    If that’s true, its not a problem with evolution, but with teachers. One which is not corrected by introducing more mythology into science class, but actually less. As for the science, there really isn’t a debate. With mythology, as you can imagine, there is.

    actus (cd484e)

  33. Even the mildest form of ID translated to economics would say “free markets cannot establish economic order. Order cannot arise from chaos. There needs to be central planning and control at every point of choice.”

    Totally false analogy. Free markets are the result of the actions of INTELLIGENCE, not randomness. It’s not centrally organized but it’s not random or chaos either. For an example of ID look up “Michael Behe”, “clotting cascade”, “irreducible complexity” on a search engine.

    Gerald A (add20f)

  34. The guy doesn’t do a very good job of addressing a basic critique: that the question of whether there is an intelligent designer is not a scientific question. It requires proving, scientifically, that there is a god. I think that is impossible.

    Not true. Francis Crick, one of the co-discovers of DNA, believes ID accounts for life on earth and he’s an atheist. He believes aliens in space ships seeded life here millions of years ago. He draws that conclusion because of what he sees as insurmountable obstacles at the molecular level to evolution by random processes. ID is simply about attempting to demonstrate that randomness cannot account for life forms.

    Gerald A (fe1f90)

  35. As for the science, there really isn’t a debate

    Obviously there is, since we are discussing it right now.

    And the debate is not just about “science” but how the enthusiasm/hubris or whatever the motivations behind how evolution has oozed out of the biology class and made it into other educational arenas which has resulted in an attitude towards the religious that can be summed up as: “if one believes in God, one is just as dumb as a rock”

    Darleen (f20213)

  36. Sheesh, someone else indulging in whine

    Pretty much I give the alleyway where the “evolutionists” and the “intelligent designer/creator” rumble a wide berth. What I have to say on the subject just annoys them both and I see no percentage in getting shot at from all…

    Darleen's Place (034170)

  37. “Obviously there is, since we are discussing it right now.”

    There isn’t a scientific debate. You’ll notice we’re not discussing the science, but the mythology. You’ll notice no-one has a claim that ID is science.

    “Not true. Francis Crick, one of the co-discovers of DNA, believes ID accounts for life on earth and he’s an atheist. He believes aliens in space ships seeded life here millions of years ago”

    Where did the aliens come from?

    actus (cd484e)

  38. Francis Crick, one of the co-discovers of DNA, believes ID accounts for life on earth….

    Aliens seeding life through bacteria or other simple forms of life–what I recall Crick as believing–is not what ID teaches.

    Irreducibly complex elements found in relatively advanced organisms is central to ID proponents.

    Pigilito (f4e62f)

  39. Where did the aliens come from?

    Good question. But what’s your point?

    Gerald A (bdfba2)

  40. Suppose you could rewind the videotape of the universe to the very beginning and then play it back. Suppose the tape showed a sequence of events that was physically possible but statistically impossible (like your typical Hollywood action/adventure thriller, with a 20 minute high speed car chase going 90 mph the wrong way on a crowded interstate). The ID crowd would say, “This tends to suggest that there was a script-writer.” The traditional Darwinist would say, “The statistical possibility of any event in the past is 1.0.”

    If I understand the current “debate,” the ID people seem to be arguing that any “videotape” we could play would be at LEAST as improbable as the Hollywood thriller. That seems to be a scientific claim. Am I missing something?

    Scott W. Somerville (49dea0)

  41. “Good question. But what’s your point?”

    That saying aliens did it is not quite what the ID’ers say. And its not a very smart account of life to say that some other life caused it. We’re still left with figuring out the source of life. Its like this story:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

    Crick may believe that. But I don’t think he believes it in the way the ID’ers believe in their creator. ID’ers want a supernatural creator.

    actus (cd484e)

  42. There really isn’t a debate within biology about whether evolution takes place. See for yourself; visit a university research biology setting and start up a discussion. Happy hours are often Friday afternoons. Folks will talk, but it won’t be a more-technical version of the ideas being batted around here. Evolutionary theory is the driving force behind the vibrant subdisciplines of modern biology (e.g. molecular biology, genetics, developmental biology, ecology, paleontology, microbiology).

    That said, there are continuing debates about how evolutionary processes take place, and about which of them are most important in any given setting. It’s a lively field of inquiry. There’s lots that understood only poorly, and important things that are barely understood at all. This is the practice of science as a process of inquiry. And that’s what it is, a process, not a declamation of The Right Answers.

    I don’t see the logical connection between working on evolutionary problems and necessarily subscribing to atheist beliefs. Call that hubristic and I’ll agree.

    Refer to Brown University biologist/author Ken Miller’s webpage on evolution for a reasoned and informed discussion of the ev/ED issues that have been raised in this thread.

    AMac (b6037f)

  43. Good question. But what’s your point?

    That all theories of ID will ultimately lead to theistic conclusions. If we’re so complex that we couldn’t have come about by chance, anything smart enough to have created us on purpose is more complex still.

    Xrlq (816c74)

  44. And its not a very smart account of life to say that some other life caused it. We’re still left with figuring out the source of life.

    You’re treating ID and by implication evolution, as a philosophy rather than a science, which is in fact what creationists claim evolution is.

    From a strictly scientfic standpoint, evolution only purports to account for life here on earth, not life generally. It can’t say anything about possible life forms elsewhere. Darwinists haven’t looked at any fossils from Klingon. Likewise Crick, from a scientific standpoint, as opposed to a philosophical, wouldn’t have to say anything about the source of the alien life forms.

    Gerald A (bdfba2)

  45. “You’re treating ID and by implication evolution, as a philosophy rather than a science, which is in fact what creationists claim evolution is.”

    I don’t see the implication, when I rather explicitly have drawn a line between the mythology of ID/creationism and the science of evolution.

    “From a strictly scientfic standpoint, evolution only purports to account for life here on earth, not life generally.”

    I don’t think evolution (1) purports to account for life, or (2) purports that it only takes place on earth.

    actus (cd484e)

  46. And its not a very smart account of life to say that some other life caused it. We’re still left with figuring out the source of life.

    Another problem with your argument is that Darwinism in fact doesn’t say anything about the ultimate source of life. It begins the story after some extremely simple life form already was in existence. Evolution scientifically is silent on where that life form came from. When creationists talk about THAT problem with evolution theory evos always point out they don’t know what they’re talking about because evolution doesn’t address that issue.

    Gerald A (bdfba2)

  47. “Evolution scientifically is silent on where that life form came from.”

    You’re contradicting yourself, because just now you said evolution purports to account for life here on earth.

    actus (cd484e)

  48. I don’t see the implication, when I rather explicitly have drawn a line between the mythology of ID/creationism and the science of evolution.

    You’re claiming the alien theory would have to account for the ultimate source of life. Why should it have to do that when evolution doesn’t do that?

    Gerald A (bdfba2)

  49. You’re contradicting yourself, because just now you said evolution purports to account for life here on earth.

    I erred there. I should have said it doesn’t account for life generally, it just takes as a given that it originally came into existence by means unknowh. Just like Crick’s aliens.

    Gerald A (bdfba2)

  50. “You’re claiming the alien theory would have to account for the ultimate source of life.”

    Because the alien theory is not like ID/Creationism.

    “Why should it have to do that when evolution doesn’t do that?”

    Because that’s how ID/Creationism is different than evolution.

    “Just like Crick’s alien”

    Crick’s aliens are a scientific hypothesis: someone can design a test and falsify that. ID/creationism’s search for a supernatural creator is not that.

    actus (cd484e)

  51. The Gipper had a way of putting things in a straightforward fashion, intelligible to everyone. He said, “Sometimes when I’m faced with an unbeliever, an atheist, I am tempted to invite him to the greatest gourmet dinner that one could ever serve, and when we finished eating that magnificent dinner, to ask him if he believes there’s a cook.”

    Evidence of design infers a designer. And what grand design there is in the universe and within each of us.

    That’s not a scientific argument, of course, but it is a logical one.

    And certainly ID is not scientifically provable, but a lots of evidence sure point that way. Evolutionists should at least would be open to address the challenges to their evidence. Evolutionists skipped the recent Kansas Board of Education debates, apparently so as not to give credence to the ID side. But their absence makes it appear they are uncomfortable presenting their side, or don’t want to address the problems brought up by the ID side.

    Bottom line: much of America believes or at least allows for ID. Whether it is from a religious perspective or not, don’t they have the right to have their children at least exposed to it? Give them both sides and let them make up their own minds.

    ManlyDad (af1233)

  52. Allegiance to the idea of Creationism is the weirdest shibboleth of the Christian Right I know of (unless it’s allegiance to the idea that human being begins at conception). By now, can’t we just acknowledge that religion is just ideology? Religion has nothing to do with morality or spirituality, which should be its primary possessions; instead, it is an organizational scheme by which we are aligned against each other on a civilizational level. I don’t have any problem aligning myself with the Judeo-Christian ideology so long as it behaves itself and doesn’t presume to question my motivations or teach me horseshit like Creationism. And even if it does, I am certain that it won’t turn on me like Islam would and does against its own “heretics.” At least, at this point in History, I have no fear of a return to witch-hunts and counter-reformations from the Christian world. Which is why I will stay aligned with the religion-ideology that not only teaches but manifests the rights that individuals have to their own liberation and salvation. That’s a hell of a lot more than you’ll ever get from the ideology of submission and oppression.

    Toby Petzold (454378)

  53. That said (whatever it all means), shouldn’t citizens be permitted to choose what they would like taught in their tax-supported schools? Even here on the liberal left coast, we can opt our children out of anything we don’t want our them exposed to. I took my children out of experimental reading programs and co-ed sex education. You like them, stay in–no harm.

    My daughters have learned both evolution and creation theories. You don’t like ID, stay out. Is that bad?

    ManlyDad (af1233)

  54. More specifically, the analogy between economics and evolution fails because the causes in economics are teleological rather than mechanical. In an economy, individual elements act deliberately in order to produce desired outcomes rather than acting mindlessly in response to mechanical forces. Naturalistic systems are by definition not teleological.

    Actus, if you really held naturalistism as assumption rather than a hypothesis then you would be much more open to non-naturalistic hypotheses such as ID. But you don’t act like it. You act like naturalism is an unquestioned faith that you hold as dogmatically as anyone holds any other religious views.

    And the naturalistic assumption is not testable. No metaphysical statement about the nature of ultimate causes is testable.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  55. actus – Doc Rampage said it well.

    What you will never (apparently) understand is that naturalism/materialism is itself a belief that, like theism, proceeds from an assumption. In the case of naturalist/materialists, the assumption is that there is nothing other than matter, which always existed. It’s as easy for me to ask you “Where did matter come from?” as it is for you to ask, “Who created the Creator?”

    Sorry if you can’t get all this boiled down to a bumper sticker. But, just so you won’t have to do all that tiresome reading, I will pass along the challenge that Joe Carter posed to people who like the “testable” argument: Assume that you are presented with one pair of a given species of animals, and told that one was the product of evolution and the other created in a lab. Could you tell which was which, and what test would you employ to do so?

    eddie haskell (8fd1a1)

  56. wow, this is certainly an interesting subject. and something that causes such reaction in people.

    i believe in creation, let’s start with that. but i also believe that evolution was part of the creationary process.

    the problem i see is that it would be nearly impossible to incorporate creationism into the classroom without offending people who either didn’t believe in it or believe in another story (other religions, etc.). unfortunately that is something that has to be considered. and also, i’d rather not have schools mandating how children see the facts behind creationism anyway. that’s for parents/churches to teach and individuals to evaluate.

    i just wish the whole thing wasn’t so heavily dealt with in schools period. there’s so much more out there in the world to discover and learn…

    Sarcomical (304139)

  57. Well, here we go again.

    There is nothing incompatible between evolution and ID.

    Did anyone read that? Here, I’ll add another trivial bit of wisdom:

    ID is not creationism–it doesn’t even presuppose a religious subject matter

    Evolution deals with the adaptation of living organisms to their environment by genetics. ID asks the question if the complexity of our environment (and ourselves) can be explained by our known scientific relationships. It is a tag applied to a fundamental question.

    From now on, to make that point, I will write intelligent design as I?D. I?D is a fundamental question that spans science and philosophy. All thinking people should make a study of I?D. Those who do not are saddly accepting ignorance and myth over scientific inquirey.

    It seems to me that this is the small point that Bush was making. Evolution does not answer the questions of I?D, in fact, in my opinion, genetic adaptation supports the need to study I?D.

    Cavaet: if we are ignorant of the questions and science involved, we make all that much room for the exploitation of charletans and frauds. We need to develop a solid study of this area so that we can at least agree upon the questions that should be asked.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  58. Kevin,

    Order does arise from chaos–that’s in part why chaotic systems are so interesting.

    Those that suggest that XYZ cannot be described by deterministic relationships should cover chaos theory as part of thier explanations. Another fundamental question is, “What is random?”

    Anyway, if evolution is taught within its proper context, there is reason to bring in I?D. I?D requires a graduate education or the equivalent to discuss intelligently.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  59. … there is no reason …

    Sorry.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  60. “That said (whatever it all means), shouldn’t citizens be permitted to choose what they would like taught in their tax-supported schools?”

    Sure. And we can tell them they’re wrong when they call their religion science. We can also tell them its illegal to have tax money teach their religious views.

    “Actus, if you really held naturalistism as assumption rather than a hypothesis then you would be much more open to non-naturalistic hypotheses such as ID.”

    I am very open to it. But i’m not open to calling it science. I’m not even open to calling it a hypothesis, which supposes that it can be tested, because I think there is no way to test for god. Its just what science is. Its not really the assumption of science, more like the way its done.

    “Could you tell which was which, and what test would you employ to do so?”

    I wouldn’t be able to claim which was which. Thankfully, there is more than just those two animals out there to test from. Testability does not mean any given data point can be classified.

    actus (a5f574)

  61. Actus,

    I?D is science. That is all it is.

    There are some things that science has yet to explain in the state of what we can measure.

    Intelligence is a meta rule for organizing elements, it is not necessarily a claim of existence. And, for that matter if tou think of it, what gives us intelligence!?

    That is, how are we intelligent as something distinct from whatever fundamental interactions you prefer? If you accept that we can determine, intelligence–that we are intelligent–it seems to me that you have already given up on the argument against intelligence.

    (This is one of those logical slam dunk moments). Enjoy.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  62. What a great discussion. If only our high school and college students could engage in this. Regrettably, because of PC and “church-state” limitations, they are totally blind to it. That’s what the Kansas Board of Education was trying to open up. If it’s okay for us, why not for our students?

    There is much SCIENCE behind ID. This can be seen in truly open debates. You’ll tend to find that strict evolutionists hold to a *philosophical* barrier that refuses to acknowledge the possibility of other explanations, only because “that couldn’t be.”

    And it’s only recent history (last 40 years) that the church-state restriction has been presumed. (Not that ID is religious–I posit that it is science.) The Founding Fathers budgeted funds to evangelize the Indians, etc.

    Let our children learn science! Keep their minds open!

    Rick Wahler (b0f23e)

  63. “I?D is science. That is all it is.”

    How? It’s not testable. There’s no way to test whether a supernatural creator made things, other than to go “wow gee I can’t think of any other way that happened.” ID points to facts. But that’s not what make science.

    “There are some things that science has yet to explain in the state of what we can measure.”

    Whereas ID gives us the cop-out: An intelligent creator made what we can’t yet explain.

    “There is much SCIENCE behind ID. This can be seen in truly open debates. ”

    They certainly use facts. But not much science.

    actus (a5f574)

  64. Actus,

    Have you read any of my posts? I gave a more proper definition of I?D.

    In my opinion, anything else by that name is a fraud. See if you agree.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  65. “Have you read any of my posts? I gave a more proper definition of I?D.”

    Is ID concerned with naturalistic or supernatural explanations?

    actus (a5f574)

  66. I?D: The study of complexity throughout all scopes and focused on the question of whether or not known scientific relations are sufficient descriptors of that complexity. If not, is there a pattern in that complexity that is not characterized.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  67. “I?D: The study of complexity throughout all scopes and focused on the question of whether or not known scientific relations are sufficient descriptors of that complexity.”

    How does that tell us whether there is intelligence or not, rather than whether our scientific relations are lacking?

    actus (a5f574)

  68. “Define intelligence”

    How does ID do it?

    actus (a5f574)

  69. I love your Blog Patterico. This is a good use of my time today, as usual.

    Bob’s Theorem (that’s me) is that God knows his origins. The rest of us don’t know our origins, of our own knowledge, separate from belief. Even Frick’s aliens may not know their origins, yet they could be responsible for Intelligently Designing the irreducibly complex portions of our evolved and naturally selected bodies.

    ID requests to be taken as a valid scientific theory with evidence to suggest its truth. Evolutionary Theory requests the same thing except it has a bigger box of evidence. The main reasons for the evolutionary theorists’ adverse reaction to ID are, I think, threefold:

    1) They really think we are too dumb to be trusted with thinking, and will misuse any bits of new knowledge we may get to reject all of evolutionary theory.

    2). They’re afraid of their peers, and are victims of the sick, dead weight, of collegial PC.

    3) Many do not understand, and thus fear, that religious faith will corrupt faith in the utility of science.

    Once more; you have a neat Blog.

    RJN (6fdd4c)

  70. Come on actus, how do you define intelligence?

    You’ve been arguing for a while now on this topic. You must have a workin definition of it better than, “I know it when I see it”.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  71. “Come on actus, how do you define intelligence?”

    I’m not looking for it, so I don’t define it. How does ID define it? A Turing test? There’s really no reason to be mysterious about this.

    I have been treating ID as a search for supernatural explanations, so I’ve been focusing on the supernatural part. You tell me its about intelligence, natural or supernatural. Fine. Tell me how.

    actus (a5f574)

  72. How can you argue against (much less argue at all) if you can’t even define the concept of intellgence?

    Go ahead and pull up a dictionary example you like if thats what you need.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  73. actus must be still looking up “intelligence” in the dictionary.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  74. Paul,

    I think your definition of ID (“ID asks the question if the complexity of our environment (and ourselves) can be explained by our known scientific relationships”, comment 58) is incorrect.

    ID holds that in many life forms there are elements that exhibit an irreducible complexity that only can be explained through the intervention of an Intelligent Designer.

    The science part of ID seems to be limited to collecting examples of these elements and coming up with mathematical proofs (admittedly beyond my ability to understand) “proving” that nothing other than an Intelligent Designer could have brought these elements about.

    pigilito (6cc896)

  75. Hi piglito,

    The fundamental question is, “Why?”

    Life is one facet, the cosmos another, our place in the cosmos, our ability to think, thought itself, etc. How do we approach these questions?

    Well, there is ignorant faith, revealed faith, discovered faith, and then there is rational inquiry. I?D for whatever anyone else wants to call it, cannot include elements of faith. As pointed out earlier, that approach is not one that ought to be used in a secular academic environment.

    There is a big leap from noticing that we cannot explain out environment to seizing on the idea that there is an Intelligent Designer. This gap cannot be spanned by logic alone. So, if this is what someone is trying to push as I?D, I would group them with the charletans and frauds. We do not know enough to to know even how much more we would have to know to make such a claim.

    Now, if they were speaking to a community of faith and trying to explain what science can and cannot tell us, that is another matter. There is no argument over whether I?D is a legitimate topic for faith communities.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  76. Hi Paul,

    Thanks for your clarification, but the conventional definition of ID is pretty much what I quoted.

    Your questions, thoughts, and arguments are quite interesting, and I am in agreement with some of them. However, I prefer to stick to the question of whether ID has a place in science.

    Given that the only way to observe an Intelligent Designer in the act of placing an intelligently designed unit in an organism (scientific method requires repeated observations of an such a happening), would be to see a sudden massive evolutionary change to an organism in the lab, there seems to no way for IDers to prove their hypothesis. Thus it falls outside the realm of what ought to be taught.

    Dembski’s elaborate mathematical “proofs” that incremental modifications have been successfully challenged, and are no more than window dressing.

    Sorry, I realize my comment has merely recapitualed what I and others have said again and again. I wanted to make my position in the overall discussion clear.

    pigilito (6cc896)

  77. It would be a shame if the question of the eons was reframed by zealots into a referendum on their misunderstandings of evolution.

    If we accept that assault, we are to blame. It would be a betrayal of the gift of rationality itself.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  78. Sorry, but I need to repeat this point more clearly:

    It is an absurdity for a person to “intelligently” analyze I?D as an existence question when that person himself is the product of these processes.

    Objectivity is impossible. Either you are intelligent or you are not. If you hold that you are intelligent, case closed, QED, inexplicable intelligence exists (and this is a statement of faith–a fundamental axiom of logic).

    If you do not believe you are intelligent, then, well, OK, to each fool his own. You can be safely ignored.

    It is more fruitful to proceed to try to understand what we might understand, to appreciate what we do not, and to keep an open mind in this respect. That is what I call I?D. It is not a referendum on the existence of a creator–it is an examination of our understanding in the face of our observations.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  79. Where is the scientific basis for excluding God? It does not, and it does not bother too, either. Yet somehow overzealous atheists read into science the rejection of God.

    The framework or paradigm of science is that it does NOT seek to investigate God. Yet I have seen online proposed class lessons on such topics that, the subsidiary conclusion is God does not exist.

    Of Intelligent Design, I have not really grasped it, and while critics say it is creationism in disguise, I think it is more scientific and does not seek to bend creation in 4000 years span of time.

    Its too early in the day to say that since creationism is out with Edward and Anguillard, the US Supreme Court case on that, that the same would follow suit on ID, or any other new things that could come up.

    Yi-Ling (0ba7e6)

  80. I was tickled 🙂 by the comparison of ID with centrally planned economies. My comments.

    1. What ticks with free market is the self drive for gain from effort put in, where such personal gain is absent supposedly in centrally planned eco. Gee I work hard because it is for me !

    2. ID deals with unseen sub atomic level the wave and particle theories of stuff we see in physical world.

    $ green buck is also at one level, paper, and thus made of molecules atoms etc wave particle. But the focus is at the physical level while ID I think focusses at the less physical level, with appearance as physical items.

    Yi-Ling (0ba7e6)

  81. “How can you argue against (much less argue at all) if you can’t even define the concept of intellgence?”

    Because I was arguing against its search for the supernatural. You tell me that’s wrong. Tell me then how it defines intelligence. This is a very mysterious “science” if it doesn’t define itself. How does it go about proving that things are due to a creator?

    actus (a5f574)

  82. Supernatural has many assumptions. I used to do quite a bit of meditation when young and so quickly from there picked up healing arts, using cosmic energy. Its a force that anyone can pick up with training.

    Much of the world as we see it as real is by our eyes. In meditation it is seen otherwise. The Tao of Physics has drawn parallels between quantum physics nuclear physics with eastern understanding of such forces.

    I have also come across newer fields of pschology that has penetrated deeper into such subtler studies.

    I believe given time, centuries to come, the understanding will deepen, the western and eastern knowledge will cross fertilise, and science itself will deepen into deeper levels … like the wave particle idea, and with that, much of our knowledge of supernatural and natural will close the gap.

    Yi-Ling (0ba7e6)

  83. Actus,

    Please read my comments–I’ve already repeated myself enough here.

    Obtuseness does not a conversation make.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  84. In my twenties my understanding of God, came from one well known author in psychology, whose name eludes me right now, but he said, “spirituality is the unfolding of the deeper spiritual understanding” or something like that. In my teens God was one I prayed to for all the good things in life. In thirties, I leaned to non theistic worldview, and thus there is no God, but I was then very religious too as a non theistic Buddhist. In forties, I merged God in my non theistic worldview, but instead of an eternal life after death, still found the cycle of rebirth and death more deeply entrenched. I even wrote poems of these metaphysical ideas.

    So when I read ID and God and creator, I see it as a worldview of theistic that seeks to wrestle with the science, a field of human knowledge that sprung from Europe and carried here. 🙂

    Yi-Ling (0ba7e6)

  85. “Please read my comments–I’ve already repeated myself enough here.”

    You said that there are things that scientific relations can’t explain. Does that mean an intelligence created them, or that we need more scientific relations? It doesn’t tell us which one of these is the answer.

    “Obtuseness does not a conversation make”

    Dude, you’re the one asking me to define the terms of your research programme!

    actus (cd484e)

  86. 1. Anything dealing with GOd and Creator arouses passions.

    2. Can you imagine that Islam has weighed in to?

    “EVOLUTION AND ISLAM” – read and laugh.

    http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/6/12/931685.html

    NOTE: this site is not safe for workplace.

    David (03f14c)

  87. 2 of 3 points made about evolutinary biologists, from RJN’s 9:56pm comment:

    1) They really think we are too dumb to be trusted with thinking, and will misuse any bits of new knowledge we may get to reject all of evolutionary theory.

    2). They’re afraid of their peers, and are victims of the sick, dead weight, of collegial PC.

    Often enough, some specialty knowledge or experience–usually relating to legal custom or practice–forms a crucial foundation to an argument Patterico is constructing in a post. Since IANAL, I rarely comment on these points. I often don’t know enough about the subject to hold a firm opinion; I’d rather sit back and learn.

    Everybody, and that includes everybody here, of course, is entitled to their own opinions about evolution, ID, and creationism. And their own beliefs about the secret motivations of biologists, for that matter.

    Law is not the only area in which some level of mastery of facts and theories is needed to change opinions into informed opinions. The material is freely available in textbooks, journal articles, and on the web. I’d again mention biologist Ken Miller’s home page as one jumping-off point for moving beyond speculation.

    AMac (b6037f)

  88. I now see why so many of the regular commenters here do not engage actus. My bad.

    eddie haskell (8fd1a1)

  89. Kevin, I disagree. The reason free markets work better than centrally planned ones is precisely because there is far more distributed intelligence out there than any one central authority can hope to amass. If individual market actors behaved randomly, we’d all be better off taking marching orders from a benevolent dictator.

    Intelligence isn’t necessary, just preference. Consider dog food.

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  90. Dear Mr. Patterico:

    Creationism is not merely bad science, it is also bad theology. Most Christians interpret the Bible in a manner that allows for biological evolution. The belief that a full commitment to the concept of “biblical inerrancy” requires agreement with any specific scientific theory is confined to a small set of American Christian churches that reformulated their theology during the “second great awakening” in the early 1800s. These churches claim to interpret literally the inerrant Bible, but their theology and liturgical practices are heavily influenced by their specific history. The most obvious case of history overriding scripture is the use of individual servings of grape juice for communion, which is not consistent with Scripture. However, it makes sense in the historical context.

    The Catholic Church (about half of current Christians) explicitly rejects the position that biological evolution is contrary to Scripture. Here is an extract from the Catholic on-line library discussing this issue. (Full text @ http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp)

    The controversy surrounding evolution touches on our most central beliefs about the world and ourselves. The Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth” (Ps. 33:6).

    Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. The Church has a more definite teaching on human evolution: it allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36

    Catholics should weigh the evidence by examining biblical and scientific evidence. “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

    The Catholic Church teaches that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

    As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

    Bob (dc0466)

  91. Bob,

    I understand that RC says human can evolve from pre existing matter while the soul is created by God. That allows for human to have evolved from the proverbial proteins of the prebiotic soup. That means the common ancestor from which man and ape came, is the ancestor of man.

    I pause and did once ponder, how that really fits. How can the “common ancestor” for man and ape, be the earlier form of man in evolution, while the soul of man is created by God. PAUSE.

    1. Was man’s soul created by God at each stage?
    2. Did man’s soul also evolve as his physical form evolve from protein of prebiotic soup to common ancestor to man as we are now?
    3. In this physical evolution that RC recognises, at what stage did God create man’s soul?
    4. If we take the early man and current man, is the soul created anew each time when a physical feature is added or removed?

    I ask this pertinent question because I have also on my own covered the grounds you covered above, but thinking deeper of it, I have not been able to answer the above questions satisfactorily, nor do I think the RC has answered it satisfactorily either. The answers as you have given above, satisfy the first tussle between science and RC, but it does not go to the root of the matter.

    I did take the Rite of Christian Initiation [ RCIA] for a year and some other bible courses, and did get baptised as a RC, and I consider myself a Buddhist in outlook and inner world view but like the RC involvement with world affairs, like science and economics.

    Yi-Ling (7de178)

  92. “You said that there are things that scientific relations can’t explain. Does that mean an intelligence created them, or that we need more scientific relations? It doesn’t tell us which one of these is the answer.”

    Don’t know.

    “Dude, you’re the one asking me to define the terms of your research programme!

    Still waiting on you to come up with a definition of intelligence that you are willing to work with. This is a conversation, not a lecture.

    Paul Deignan (0e3fb4)

  93. I’ve looked through 94 comments here and there is VERY little evidence that the defenders of Darwinism are LISTENING to the people who are trying to explain the goal of “Intelligent Design” to them.

    Here’s the shortest question I can ask that might get a Darwinist’s attention:

    “If we could scientifically and precisely calculate the odds of life arising on Earth by chance in the last 4.5 billion years, would you care?”

    Scott W. Somerville (49dea0)

  94. Dear Yi-Ling

    You raise interesting points that may not have answers. The most important point of my post was not to try to lecture that there are definite answers to all the questions raised here. My intent was to illustrate that the claims of creationists are inconsistent within their own framework, reflect a minority view that is rejected by most Christians, and that as a result, an arguement against evolution is not even a rhetorical arguement in favour of creationism.

    I will try to answer your questions. My answers have no authority behind them.

    1. Was man’s soul created by God at each stage?
    Man’s soul was created once.
    2. Did man’s soul also evolve as his physical form evolve from protein of prebiotic soup to common ancestor to man as we are now?
    No. Only Man has a soul. It was created perfectly, one time.
    3. In this physical evolution that RC recognises, at what stage did God create man’s soul?
    I don’t know.
    4. If we take the early man and current man, is the soul created anew each time when a physical feature is added or removed?
    A soul is created for each human being. I do not think the concept of qualitatively different souls has a meaning.

    Bob (dc0466)

  95. It seems that it boils down to how you treat irreducibility.

    When complex phenomenon can no longer be reduced, do you call it God? A person’s answer to this question would seem to place him/her you in this debate.

    Even if science permits further reduction, God is still just beyond the frontier of the known. That is why scientific discovery of phenomena may seem to threaten faith, but as long as there is an unknown, there will be an essential function to faith – essential, at least, as science itself.

    I would posit that the Intelligence that is the be all/end all underlying all the phenomenon that we set out to know through science lies in the realm of faith and not science AS WE DEFINE IT.

    But there’s no reason to get multidisciplinary with students. They’d probably be more receptive than all of the entrenched adults out there.

    biwah (f5ca22)

  96. “Still waiting on you to come up with a definition of intelligence that you are willing to work with. This is a conversation, not a lecture.”

    Why should I come up with the definition of the program you are touting. I don’t know what your definition is. If you want, I’ll borrow from Alan Turing, and say the Turing test. Is that what you say? I think its not going to work very well, but I don’t know of any better ones. Do the proponents of ID have any better ones?

    “I’ve looked through 94 comments here and there is VERY little evidence that the defenders of Darwinism are LISTENING to the people who are trying to explain the goal of “Intelligent Design” to them.”

    I’ve been begging one guy to tell me how he defines intelligence, but he seems to think its not the responsibility of those who argue for intelligent design to give one. Seems to think its up to me to come up with one.

    actus (cd484e)

  97. Scott (10:42am):

    “there is VERY little evidence that the defenders of Darwinism are LISTENING to the people who are trying to explain the goal of “Intelligent Design” to them.

    Accepting ID as useful, or as a scientific framework for inquiry is not the same as understanding the goal of ID. The one does not follow from the other.

    Here’s the shortest question I can ask that might get a Darwinist’s attention: “If we could scientifically and precisely calculate the odds of life arising on Earth by chance in the last 4.5 billion years, would you care?”

    Yes. How you did the calculations would be as interesting as the odds ratio itself. And it would be a fun springboard for figuring out the chance that life arose independently on other planets.

    But the exercise is neither here nor there as far as the reality of historical evolutionary processes from the pre-Cambrian onward, or as far as the evolutionary processes that are currently being observed in nature and exploited in the lab (e.g. by the biotechnology industry).

    This thread is a friendly forum for debate (thanks Patterico!), but not a substitute for serious study of biology.

    AMac (b6037f)

  98. Dear Scott

    I agree that there seems to be a lot of talking past each other. I will try to respond directly.

    I will comment on your question from the perspective of a very devout Christian who thinks that creationism (or ID or directed eveloution or whatever) is silly.

    “If we could scientifically and precisely calculate the odds of life arising on Earth by chance in the last 4.5 billion years, would you care?”

    Been there, done that, got the T shirt. The scientific and precise odds of any past event is unity. Do you care?
    Consider a lottery. I have a 0.01% chance of winning a small prize, but only a 0.0001% chance of winning a large prize. If I were to win a large prize, would this be a stronger arguement for creationism than if I were to win a small prize, or is question misconcieved?

    Return question. If we could scientifically and precisely demonstrate that creationism is incompatible with mature biblical interpretation, would you care? Why or why not?

    Bob (dc0466)

  99. “Do you care?
    Consider a lottery. I have a 0.01% chance of winning a small prize, but only a 0.0001% chance of winning a large prize. If I were to win a large prize, would this be a stronger arguement for creationism than if I were to win a small prize, or is question misconcieved?”

    God wants you to be a winner.

    actus (cd484e)

  100. “Why should I come up with the definition of the program you are touting. I don’t know what your definition is. If you want, I’ll borrow from Alan Turing, and say the Turing test. Is that what you say? I think its not going to work very well, but I don’t know of any better ones. Do the proponents of ID have any better ones?”

    Because if you do not have a working definition of what “intelligence” means to you, you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

    The Turing test as an indication of intelligence? Perhaps if trying to decide if a computer has intelligence. Of course, if I ran across a computer, I would probably first infer that some intelligence is involved by simply considering its construction. How would I decide? How could I make a decision? How can I consider what I observe and know that it is a thought? How do I know I exist?

    What do you need to assume in order to answer the question, “What is intelligence?”

    How can you discuss intelligent design without a reference for understanding the concept of intelligence. No one can assume they know your reference, you must tell them.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  101. “Because if you do not have a working definition of what “intelligence” means to you, you have nothing to contribute to the conversation.”

    Then lets have what ID proponents use as a working definition. Because if they don’t, they have nothing to contribute.

    “How can you discuss intelligent design without a reference for understanding the concept of intelligence. ”

    A good question, that I would like the intelligent design people to answer. My claim is that there really isn’t a way to tell whether something is due to an intelligent design or due to a natural process we don’t yet understand. But please, tell me more about how you find intelligence.

    actus (cd484e)

  102. “Then lets have what ID proponents use as a working definition. Because if they don’t, they have nothing to contribute.”

    End of discussion. You could find this information using Google.

    Paul Deignan (664c74)

  103. “End of discussion. You could find this information using Google.”

    I google intelligent design. I get lots of talk about intelligent sources of design, about inferring design, about chance, but no real way to show design, or really to show that it is due to intelligence — super natural or not. If its so easy to find, please give it to me. If you have something in mind, please give it to me. I don’t understand why this is so mysterious.

    Earlier you said this was a conversation. Well, we’ve gotten to the point where I am asking you to tell me something you know, and which I don’t know. Would you like to converse further, or stop?

    actus (cd484e)

  104. I don’t have the opportunity to check in on Patterico for 48 hrs and look what I’ve missed!!!

    A few things. First, I would like to offer my understanding of the claims of the various players:
    Part I.
    1. “Evolutionists”- people who acknowledge the reality of natural selection
    a. “theistic evolutionists”- people who believe there is a God and ascribe to God the perogative to do creation by whatever mechanism so chosen. If in a Jewish, Christian, or Muslim context would understand Genesis either allegorically or in another way as consistent with “evolution” (i.e., the “Days of Creation” in Genesis would better be understood and translated as the ‘epochs’ or ‘periods of time’)
    b. “microevolutionist”- one who acknowledges natural selection exists, such as a bacterium developing reisitance to an antibiotic and that new variation of the bacterium becomes the dominant strain, or that finches can develop into different species of finches. But these folks do not grant that observable “microevolution” necessarily “proves” “macroevolution”, that finches came from something that was not a bird.
    c. “Evolutionist”- as generally used, refers to a person who thinks all life forms arose originally from non-living material and over time random changes developed in the now living material caused the living entities to vary somewhat, and as these entities interacted with their environment, some flourished to some degree and others vanished. Over time all living things we now see arose from this process. While there are many who hold the view of “theistic evolutionists” as above, the majority in the scientific community probably are of the opinion that mention of God is unnecessary at least, and many would say is an argument against the existence of God. (“God” is a nice concept to invoke when you don’t have anything better, once you have something better, why retain it). Furthermore, some, like Jacques Monod, would say that evolution through natural selection is a cruel process to use to create biological diversity, and any “God” that would chose such a method would hardly be called loving and trustworthy, as those who would be “theistic evolutionists” would claim.

    Part II, next

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  105. 1. Was man’s soul created by God at each stage?
    Man’s soul was created once.
    2. Did man’s soul also evolve as his physical form evolve from protein of prebiotic soup to common ancestor to man as we are now?
    No. Only Man has a soul. It was created perfectly, one time.
    3. In this physical evolution that RC recognises, at what stage did God create man’s soul?
    I don’t know.
    4. If we take the early man and current man, is the soul created anew each time when a physical feature is added or removed?
    A soul is created for each human being. I do not think the concept of qualitatively different souls has a meaning.

    “theistic evolutionists”- people who believe there is a God and ascribe to God the perogative to do creation by whatever mechanism so chosen…

    From Bob and Philly, MD

    So the cutting edge and cutting point, is the point along physical evolution somewhere, best guess, between “common ancestor” of ape and man, and man today, that, “man” came into being with all the physical features for “man”, and that is when “soul” of “man” is breathed into the “man”. So just before that, the less than man, would have no “man soul” as we understand soul, but would have some “?” as animals have ???

    Yi-Ling (27a846)

  106. Part II

    2. “Intelligent Design Proponents”- People who don’t believe “macroevolution” is the best rational explanation of biological diversity. (That is, they object to the idea that random changes in non-living chemicals lead to “early” living organisms, and that random changes in those organisms gave rise to various other organisms, some which thrived and others that didn’t, and over time gave rise to all of the biological diversity we now see.) “ID” proponents who are scientifically inclined typically have no problem accepting “microevolution”.

    ID folks claim their ideas are science just as much as (macro)evolutionists. The evolutionists observe microevolutionary events, look at the fossil record, look at genomes and such, and suggest that macroevolution adequately explains the origins of all living things. The ID folks look at the same information, and looking at probability theory, thermodynamics, and other appeals to rational argument, and come to the conclusion that the theory of the macroevolutionists (that random events and time resulted in all biological diversity) is not satisfactory, that some element of design, not just random events, had to be involved. (As noted previously in the thread, Francis Crick is an ID proponent in one way in that he doesn’t believe all life on earth developed from inorganic matter. Whether his approach is simply begging the question, or if he believes some “simpler” kind of life arose elsewhere that came and gave us our complexity I do not know).

    As to whether ID can be science or not because of the ability to be tested, the argument is that lots of scientific inquiry is based on observable phenomena that doesn’t lend itself to controlled experiments. All of Cosmology would not be considered science if one demanded the ability to replicate events as a prerequisite. Theories can be made whether the Universe is expanding or contracting or staying the same size. Whether the Universe is developing in an ongoing path, or whether there will be a cycle. No one is able to reproduce these realities, rather they look at infomation that can be measured and draw conclusions. I.e., we see a “red shift”, so we know we are in a universe that is expanding. Other observations and calculations are made and it is decided that the facts best fit a universe that had a beginning and has been expanding ever since. (I do not know how many of you are aware that the physics people say that 98% of the matter in the universe, the “stuff” of the universe, is something they call “dark matter”, because we can’t see it. But because of what various math equations say and how things work that we can see, it must be there. Is that science, saying that 98% of the “weight” of the universe is from stuff we can’t see???)

    So, the claim that the ID people have is that what they are doing is science, and the issue is do the relevent facts better support ID or macroevolution. AMac claims that all of Behe’s claims of “irreproducible complexity” can be explained through macroevolutionary events/arguments, and that “the reality of historical evolutionary processes from the pre-Cambrian onward” is irrefutably in support of macroevolution. All of these claims have to do with the evaluation of observable phenomena, and is the stuff of “science”. One may claim that the evidence against ID is so strong that to teach it in science class is like teaching the moon is possibly made of cheese, but the claim is a factual argument.

    More in Part III (If anyone is interested).

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  107. Part III

    So What…
    (any direct response to Y-ling will come after the general discussion)

    A. My personal experiences, etc.
    1. As a student in college I took the 4 course overview of biology that was standard for biochem, molecular biology, genetics majors, premeds, and the like. The third of the 4 classes included “evolution”. One day, as I sat in the back of a large lecture hall with two buddies, the professor was discussing the adaptations of the various finches on the Galapagos Islands. She spoke of how the various finches had evolved into species not seen elsewhere, taking up different niches in the ecosystem (eg, the “woodpecker finch”, etc). She then made a comment to the effect, “Why would God make the Galapagos Islands with only all of these unusual types of finches, rather than the usual birds?” We looked at each other, none of us being particularly religious or of anti-evolution bent, and came to the conclusion that, “He did it because He thought it would be funny to hear someone say something as stupid as you just did!” (Besides, many, if not most, ID adherents would have no problem with several different species of finches arising over time in an isolated environment. It’s the idea that the finches and the tortoises had a common ancester at some point that is the issue.) Somehow, that did not seem to be an overwhelming argument for macroevolution being a more rational belief than a belief in ID of some form.
    2. We all learned in school years ago that the perfect illustration of evolution was the Pepper Moth in England (you do remember, don’t you?). This was the smallish black and white patterned moth shown sitting on the trunk of a tree. The story was that the moth was more common in it’s light version or dark version depending on when and where it was in relation to the amount of soot being produced by the local factories/power plants, etc. The more soot, the darker stained would be tree trunks, and the dark form of the moth would be more common because it was better protected by it’s camoflage on the tree trunk. Well, a few things with this:
    a. some claim it is not in the normal behavior of the moth to sit on the tree trunk, it would rather be on a smaller branch far from the trunk, amidst the leaves…so, pictures of moth on the tree trunk were not typical for the moth, but likely “staged” (inaccurately), and the entire line of reasoning was questionable [Now, if you Google this topic, you will be amazed at the amount that can be written about this moth and who is right in this debate.]
    b. It doesn’t make a difference in the discussion of ID “vs” evolution. Again, the ID proponent has no problem with this drift of an organism, (except the question of whether we were lied to or not when we were little).

    B. The Big “So What”- this is the part that belongs in philosophy class. What are the implications (possible/necessary?) of these differing theories?
    -if evolution is deemed a better explanation than ID, does that suggest/prove that belief in God is irrational?
    -if evolution is deemed a better explanation, that “The cosmos is all there is” as Carl Sagan would say, what does that do, if anything, to ethics, the arts, etc.? Is the ethical thing to do measured by whether it improves the chances of my survival over others? Are “more capable” people of greater value than others? Is the success of a particular artist or writer merely a function of the serendipity of “gene compatibility” between different humans?

    None of those questions am I going to even consider addressing… (and all were relieved, who were still reading…)

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  108. Addendum:

    For the last 20 years I have worked as a physician taking care of people with HIV infection as a moderate to a large percentage of my practice. My colleagues and I, despite of what all may say, are not very impressed with the idea of evolution. Billions of those little viruses are present in each person, always dividing, always mutating, billions upon billions of opportunities for a new viral particle to be produced that has “evolved” into something that will have an advantage over the other viral particles. No one thinks seriously that there is a chance for that HIV virus to evolve to something that can be exhaled from the lungs and caught by breathing it in.

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  109. I lifted this from today’s David Limbaugh column

    But no amount of protest and name-calling from the scientific community will change the fact that ID proponents are not pseudo-scientists. You might be surprised to learn that over 400 scientists from all disciplines have signed onto a list of those expressing skepticism “of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” And that list is growing, despite the persecution of some signers since they signed it.

    There is a zero tolerance mindset among many scientists when it comes to anything remotely theistic.

    RJN (c20609)

  110. Philly,

    1. There is one scientist working with this, who has been sidelined with grants etc who does not think HIV is cause of AIDS. Have you come across this scientist in CA? If you have not and are interested, I shall get his name and website and you can check. The gist is that HIV is harmless, but the reporting of death is that if this harmless HIV is present, then death is due to HIV than any other reason.

    2. Noted your intent to debunk the science of evolution. Its an area like ID, that, if I wished to research a subject that could be of real and great value to all of us, it is ID. However preparing to sit for the Bar here, with my experience of past 20 years outside here, in law, gives me less time to pursue this spiritually motivated research in the mundane world, that I did once seriously contemplate to pursue to postgraduate level. If I intended a more spiritual pursuit than mundane pursuit, I would research ID all the way up and down. It’s not just the subject, it is that this is the cornerstone research that would have big and immense implications for us and our future generation and thus worthy of scientific and analytical quest. In this context, yes, I can understand your strong and benevolent need to debate this point of evolution versus ID before tackling my question of when the soul infuses into the critter / common ancestor of man/ape, or the divide thereafter. In spirit I am with you, on your quest, but practicalities prevent me. 🙂

    Yi-Ling (47effd)

  111. Yi-Ling, Thank you for your comments. The one scientist that I am most familiar with who has claimed that HIV is harmless and an “innocent bystander” is a fellow named Duesberg who has (had) the credentials of being a molecular biologist or such with an academic appointment at Berkley. His arguments were appealing to someone who didn’t know better (“No one has proved Koch’s postulates to be true with HIV”), but in the context of basic irrefutable knowledge of HIV they were nonsense claims. I heard him lecture in person years ago. He said some things that were just outrageous and should have been charged for practicing medicine without a license, giving specific advice to various people in the audience.

    To try to give an analagous situation, one of his claims had the following kind of logic:
    Gasoline is a flammable liquid. You don’t want to put gasoline in your car, because your car might catch on fire.

    If you have time some day and want to read a little about ID I would suggest the book Darwin’s Black Box, By Michael Behe (although earlier in the thread one person did not think much of it), and any one of a number of books by Phillip Johnson (who actually was a law professor- he approaches it from sort of an “evidenciary” (sp?) argument.

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  112. It is my considered view that the difference between the RC and Protestant-Evangelical Christian approach to science, is “organization”. RC has the resources to fund their priesthood in science disciplines to Ph.D etc and fund their work like the pontifical [ two] astronomical observatories run by RC cosmologists in Rome and US, and also they set up the Pontifical Academy of Science where mainstream scientists advise the papacy on science. Thus it is that recent encyclicals have dealt with evolution as Bob mentioned.

    I think ID has the support of the Protestant than RC. I have yet to see any encyclicals on ID from the magisterium of the papacy. That’s not to say it is not in the pipeline, but to pass through the mill of investigation by the magisterium, is a long process, I am told by RC scholars.

    I am not clear to what extent ID must necessarily exclude evolution or they can really co-exist and overlap.

    So going back to the RC theistic evolution, where it is not just physical matter but non physical soul [ though Buddhism have no concept of soul in its philosophy, but it deals with aggregates of consciousness ], at what point, in the evolution leading to what we label man, that , the critter is infused with soul at or after fertilization. Since RC accepts significant parts of evolution [ the precise parts are not clearly outlined in the encyclical], but overlays it with “soul” which science does not handle, the pertinent question is, at what stage would RC say that, soul would infuse the critter which is labeled man. Looking at it through this pin hole, begs the question, whether there is qualitative or quantitative difference of “??” in the progression, of infusion of critters, in the line which divides the critter as “not yet man” versus “yes this is man”.

    Yi-Ling (ffd853)

  113. I’ve been begging one guy to tell me how he defines intelligence, but he seems to think its not the responsibility of those who argue for intelligent design to give one. Seems to think its up to me to come up with one.

    I have scant knowledge of ID, though a subject worth researching, but from the RC point, the issue of evolution versus creation can be summed up in these 2 documents of 1950 and 1996. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM [ 1950]
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM [ 1996]

    RC recognizes there are many theories of evolution and works with it, but does not wish to lose sight of the spiritual purpose of man’s life and dignity of his life as a special creation of God. This leads to the fine point of matter and spirit, and in so far as if it is thought that matter creates the spirit, RC rejects that.

    Yi-Ling (ffd853)

  114. I would say, Yi-Ling, that among Protestant Christians things on Bioethics, science and religion, including ID, etc., are typically addressed by individuals who are trying to understand how their beliefs about the world, God, and their area of study, all “fit together”. Obviously, one can be more or less able and willing to evaluate such things with intellectually honesty. In that sense, the molecular biologist who is a Christian and the molecular biologist who is an atheist, or Buddhist, or whatever belief in questions of “the ultimate reality” are doing the same thing, unless they actively or by default so compartmentalize their life that they avoid such inquiry. Groups of people spontaneously form various organizations to share ideas on their specific interests.

    This is a central issue that underlies much discussion and debate in US society, but often is not discussed. There are a great many people who think that there is a concept of truth and belief in the “nature of things” that we all can share (a “vanilla” view of the world, if you will) that is neutral to religion. Then, just as with a dish of vanilla ice cream, you can add whatever “flavor of religion” you want on top, if you choose to, but your “topping” is merely an issue of preference, and “keep it to yourself”. The problem is, however, that vanilla is actually a flavor of preference itself. There is no basic “common neutral ice cream” we all agree upon, and their is no “common neutral view of reality” that we all can share in a public classroom. This is the philosophical point that Phillip Johnson and others would make. The person who is committed to the idea that you can explain the world and all in it without reference to an external source has that as a basic view of things, and interprets experience and observation “through that lens”. If the person is intellectually honest, they may come to the conclusion that their assumed hypothesis needs to be questioned as well, just as one who voices belief in a Personal Diety or a “Life Force” that is not easily measured may face things that cause one to reconsider the basic premise.

    So, when one gets to everyday issues of life this can come to bear in significant ways. Does one not steal because somebody said not to who is bigger than you and can punish you? If so, then perhaps when you become big and powerful yourself you can steal because no one is going to punish you. (Such as a corporate CEO). Or do you not steal because our genes have been selected for the “don’t steal” gene, because people working together with trust “do better” in the long run and are “naturally selected”. Or does one not steal because their is a mystical sense in all creatures that becons them to behave in such a way. Or, does one not steal because they recognize they are being held accountable (and liable for “punishment”) for all of their actions public and private by one who is also loving and encourages what is best?

    The reality is most of us don’t think that reflectively most of the time.

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  115. Gee, Philly,…..

    Yi-Ling (7a1960)

  116. Groups of people spontaneously form various organizations to share ideas on their specific interests.

    No doubt. But look at this level of “funding” and “organization” http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VO.html . This is not about who is better, but about comparing the methodology of enquiry given the financial resources and hierarchical organization. Compare a protestant Christian who wants to be a scientist, he has to be self funded or get scholarship while RC funds their priests for 2 degrees, one theology and another of their choice, science, etc. Thus it is common for RC priest to have 1 or 2 Ph.D. in sciences. I do note that spontaneous organization of Jesus early disciples and Paul, blazed new roads for mankind….

    For ID to really take off, it requires funding, and if all the Protestant Churches pooled their tithes and contributed to it, it would surpass the funding of the RC for its priesthood to enter the science discipline as a vocation, equal to a pastoral vocation.

    Yi-Ling (7a1960)

  117. MD in Philly wrote:

    AMac claims that all of Behe’s claims of “irreproducible complexity” can be explained through macroevolutionary events/arguments, and that “the reality of historical evolutionary processes from the pre-Cambrian onward” is irrefutably in support of macroevolution.

    Thanks for considering and thoughtfully parsing what I wrote. Let me expand by saying that any honest Darwinist will say that there are many aspects of evolution that are not understood. This is true of every cutting-edge area in science–it’s what science is. I worked on the mechanics of cell division in vertebrates 15 to 10 years ago, boy was there ever a lot we didn’t understand! In the light of what’s known today, all of my work is antique. But I assure you that there are still all sorts of things that aren’t understood about this very basic process of mitosis–how one cell organizes itself into two daughter cells.

    Other examples: what’s not known about galaxy formation. About black holes in the center of galaxies. About the composition of moons and gas giants of the outer solar system. About the optical behavior of silicon for microelectronics. About the particles/waves/entities/strings that make up quarks…

    A formal possibility in each case is that our explanatory power has reached its limits, and the mysteries we are contemplating are best explained as the result of intervention by an intelligent designer.

    It may be true.

    But, while possibly true, the claim in each case is not compatible with the processes of science, or with the philosophical underpinnings of scientific inquiry. Hence my position: by all means, teach ID, creationism, Turtle Island origin myths, the Akkadian flood story. Just don’t mistakenly sell them to students as science.

    If you insist on doing so, then please also insist on teaching ID-variant explanations of mitosis, galaxy formation, black holes, the composition of gas giants, the optical behavior of Si, and the makeup of quarks.

    ID is no more and no less powerful and valid an explanation for these phenomena, as it is for evolutionary history.

    [Sorry I prob. won’t be able to respond further, due to being away from my computer.]

    AMac (b6037f)

  118. Thank you AMac for the dialogue.

    I had time to read Dr. Miller’s article on the flagellum. I will agree with him that I am unsure of the methods by which Dembski calculates the probabilities involved, but neither am I convinced by by Dr. Miller. (For example, if we are to calculate probabilities of an individual amino acid substitution, would we really not need to look at the probability of certain changes in the nucleic acid sequence, taking into account the probabilities of concurrent changes in the 3 base sequence that would again alter the amino acid that is inserted- but this is nit picking details that are beyond me).

    It appears to me that Dr. Miller’s argument is about as convincing as my professor’s second-guessing God’s intentions on the Galapagos Islands. The fact that a piece of cellular machinery is not irreducibly complex is simply a challenge to the particular example, and not a very meaningful one. So, being a biochemist and not a biologist, Behe did not know that in the “elegance of biologic structure” the flagellum was actually a structure (for one purpose) which was based on a previous structure having a different purpose. The fact that a complex of proteins act as a flagellum when attached to another functional group that is embedded in the cell membrane does not give evidence to the claim that the bacterium evolved from inorganic materials, the TTSS evolved from other subunits that may or may not have had particular function, and that somehow the additional protein components evolved either independently (functional to a degree or not) and then joined the TTSS component, or that segments were added piecemeal to the TTSS until the functional flagellum was formed. All he has done is to say that while Behe thought a specific complex entity had irreducible complexity, his knowledge of biology was inadequate to realize that a subunit of his example was actually a distinct entity. Very crudely, it would be like looking at a car engine and thinking it was irreducibly complex, when in actuality you can take a peice out of it that is a water pump and another piece that is a refigeration unit and another piece is actually a generator.

    The claim that Intelligent Design is not science (even if bad science) is equivalent to my saying that theories of the origins of life on this planet are not science. The conditions are not known so as to be replicated (only guessed at), nothing has been observed on the order of spontaneous molecular organization that carries coded information that can act as a blueprint for something “living”. Likewise theories on the origin of the universe are not science, because likewise, it can never be directly observed, let alone repeated under controlled conditions to verify findings.

    Others have already discussed “ID-variant” explanations of other phenomena. The “hydrogen bond”, for example. Where would we be if water did not have that curious property. If the gravitational constant were just a tad different either matter would not coalesce enough to form galaxies or everything would have turned into what ever one gets when all matter collapses into a Black Hole. Einstein spoke of the “design” of the universe from the perspective of a physicist, Dawkins speaks of life as looking as if it was designed, but of course that can’t be, because he refuses to even acknowledge such a possibility.

    For another view of the interface of science and religion, from the physicist/quantum chemist perspective, try this:

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  119. MD in Philly, you’d be fun to talk to/debate with at length (but I have only 10 cyber-cafe minutes). Thanks for following up Miller’s links; his book goes into matter in greater detail (obviously); most libraries seem to have a copy.

    You hit the nail on the head with your comment

    All [Miller] has done is to say that while Behe thought a specific complex entity had irreducible complexity, his knowledge of biology was inadequate to realize that a subunit of his example was actually a distinct entity…

    That’s why ID isn’t tenable as a scientific program; it provides reasons to not formulate testable reductionist hypotheses. Why bother if the structure under question is irreducibly complex?

    You, unlike perhaps many of the earlier commenters, appreciate that this is _not_ a statement of truth. I don’t _know_ that ID is “false” and I don’t know how such an assertion could be framed in scientific terms.

    The essay on the anthropic principal is indeed interesting and makes for fun cosmological speculation. Miller btw heads in the same direction in the concluding chapter of his book.

    AMac (f19d45)

  120. AMac,
    Thank you for taking time to comment. Indeed, I think a longer discussion sitting in a comfortable chair with a cup of coffee or a beer (or whatever) would be enjoyable, and preferable to stolen moments on a blog (even one as excellent as this one!).

    At the moment we will need to part amicably in disagreement. I don’t think Behe’s idea of irreducible complexity prevents scientific inquiry. If it could be shown that rudimentary structures performed a TTSS-like function that over time became an improved TTSS unit, or if it can be shown that an organism conserved useless proteins that one day found a purpose, those would be a observations arguing against it.

    The author of the paper I linked to has a book titled, “Science and Christianity, Conflict or Coherence?” No slight intended against Professor Behe, but Professor Schaefer seems to have a quite impressive reputation in his field of Theoretical Chemistry.

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  121. Last year when some of us spent 1-2 months discussing evolution and creationism and ID and philosophy of science, on the internet, another forum, I had then found myself downloading and reading stuff on ID as well as critiques of evolution as taught in high school, amounting to about some few hundred pages. That was really skimping the surface and without an in depth knowledge of the science discipline, it is hard to truly grasp the issues and penetrate them. What fascinated me more was the papers and reports that challenged the school curriculum and particularly critiqued them and suggested alternatives or options. It seemed to me the critique was piecemeal and at ends which were vulnerable to critique. Whether this critique was motivated by ID proponents or even with non ID proponents, is not so clear as the critique seems to me to be just plain old good critique of the weak areas or grey areas. These are being litigated because some oppose the suggestions put forward and passed at the school board. When these critique come to the daylight of open court trial, we will soon come to understand the issues better than merely agree to disagree, for a decision has to be made one way or the other. These issues impact the high school science curriculum and a decision needs to be made. I have noticed ID proponents have even suggested some changes to high school science curriculum and these are then debated in some high schools over some of the 50 states.

    I like to share the view of one well known philosopher of science, maybe better known across the Atlantic, Karl Popper. He viewed evolution not just a science but also a metaphysical research program, and while he did consider evolution as a theory and a fact, he did also see it as a metaphysical research program. Seen that way especially the latter, as a metaphysical research program, one would deduce that it is imperative for this aspect of evolution to be clearly sounded out as a metaphysical research program, too, so that competing metaphysical research program can be suggested to students in high school, less the kind of hard sciences, in other areas, devoid of metaphysical research program, is similarly ascribed to evolution. It should not be 🙂

    Yi-Ling (e650be)

  122. Georgia | Kansas | Maryland | Missouri | Montana | Ohio | Pennsylvania

    7 pending or possible court cases , to be decided one way or the other

    Georgia
    In the ongoing controversy surrounding the content of its science curriculum, the Georgia Education Board proposed new guidelines for the science education curriculum that remove the word “evolution,” and also omitted references to the age of the earth, the process of natural selection, human impact on the environment, and the Big Bang and age of the universe. Although the Big Bang and the “e-word” were restored, it is unclear if the other content will be restored in the final draft. Changes are to take effect in May, 2004. In 2002 the Cobb County, Georgia, school board approved a policy that asserted that “discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the species.” In adopting its policy the Board specifically denied that it should be interpreted “to promote or require the teaching of creationism.” In August, 2002 parents of Cobb County school children sued the Cobb County Board of Education to have “disclaimer stickers” removed from science textbooks. The stickers caution that the books contain information about evolution. The stickers state, in part: “Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.”
    Updated 2/3/2005
    Read the text of the proposed policy, a letter from the Georgia Academy of Science, and related articles.

    Kansas
    In August 1999, the Kansas Board of Education acted to eliminate macroevolution and Big Bang cosmology from the State’s science education standards. In 2001, the board voted to adopt new standards that reinstated the study of evolution, the origins of life and the cosmos. During the 2004 election cycle four members of the Board who support the reinstated standards will be up for reelection. This section contains the Kansas Standards, news reports and commentary on the School Board’s action and statements by national science organizations.
    Updated 2/25/2005
    Read institutional statements and related articles.

    Maryland
    The Charles County Board of Education is in the process of adopting a new policy to guide curriculum development. Prior to the fall election in a brainstorming session the board developed a nearly 100-item long list of “goals” that included distribution of Bibles to students, censoring school reading lists of books containing “immorality or foul language,” and eliminating science books that are “biased toward evolution” but including videos and textbooks that promote creationism. The school board has stated that the list was not necessarily intended to be enacted as policy. Meanwhile, school officials in Cecil County are preparing to vote on the adoption of a new high school biology textbook. Some board members have criticized the way evolution is currently taught in science classes, urging the board members to adopt a textbook that teaches criticisms to the theory of evolution.
    Updated 2/9/2005
    Read related articles

    Missouri
    The Missouri General Assembly has introduced a bill requiring equal time be given to evolution and intelligent design in science classes. House Bill 911 includes a long list of proposed idiosyncratic definitions of terms and concepts such as “analogous naturalistic process,” “biological intelligent design,” “destiny,” and “extrapolated radiometric data.”
    Updated 2/17/2004
    Read the proposed curricula and related articles.

    Montana
    In December of 2003 a “town meeting” was called in Darby, Montana, to discuss the possibility of including elements of Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of the public schools. More than 200 students, parents and community members attended the presentation by Intelligent Design advocates, launching a community-wide debate over the inclusion of anti-evolution hypotheses in the science curriculum. The school board subsequently approved a science curriculum that includes “alternate theories of origin,” including Intelligent Design. In response, concerned parents, with the support of the newly formed Ravalli County Citizens for Science, have threatened to sue Darby county school officials for the inclusion of religious materials in the curriculum. The Darby, Montana dispute provides an interesting case-study in Intelligent Design initiatives taking place at a grass-roots, rather than state level.
    Updated 7/7/2004
    Read related articles and listen to related stories on NPR.

    Ohio
    The State School Board of Ohio voted 13-4 on February 10, 2004 expressing its intent to adopt lesson plans for 10th grade science classes that indirectly encourage teaching Intelligent Design theory while offering views about evolution that some scientists say are inaccurate. The point of dispute in the lesson plans is a section that purports to be a “critical analysis of evolution,” which encourages students to consider arguments for and against evolution. Three web sites that advocate intelligent design are included in the plan’s list of “Technology Connections.” In 2002 the State of Ohio approved new science education standards for the public schools. During the approval process Intelligent Design theory advocates lobbied unsuccessfully for alternative theories to evolution to be included in the standards. The board approved science standards that included the disclaimer that the standards do not “mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.” The present controversy appears to reflect efforts by Intelligent Design advocates to accomplish at the level of curriculum what they were unable to accomplish with respect to the standards.
    Updated 10/19/2004
    Read the proposed curricula and related articles.

    Pennsylvania
    The Dover Area School Board in Dover, Pennsylvania has recently positioned itself in the forefront of the Intelligent Design controversy by becoming the first school district to require the teaching of Intelligent Design. In June of 2004, school board member William Buckingham rejected a biology textbook saying it was “laced with Darwinism.” He subsequently recommended the textbook “Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins” as a supplemental textbook. “Of Pandas” advocates Intelligent Design as a viable scientific alternative to the contemporary theory of evolution. The board held several meetings with teachers beginning as early as May 2004 to discuss science education standards. Dover-area teachers say they were directed to develop a curriculum that would include a critique of evolution and allow competing theories to be presented. Shortly after an agreement was reached by board members and educators allowing for “Of Pandas” to be available as a supplemental text, but not a part of the lesson plan, the board voted to require Intelligent Design to be taught in all high school biology courses.
    Updated 1/12/2005
    Read related stories, Pennsylvania’s academic science standards and the Dover Area School Board Science Curriculum Guide.

    Yi-Ling (bda9bd)

  123. For those who wish their scientific views heard by any of the courts in any of the 7 abovementioned pending or likely cases when and if filed, there is a way for your scientific view to be heard. You file as a friend of the court to provide your expert knowledge to assist the court . You file as amicus curiae. You file as a friend of the court. You can support any side . Depending on whether the local court rules or federal rules require you to engage an attorney qualified to practice in the court where the case is to be heard whether at first instance or later on appeal. If you do not need to engage an attorney, you can then prepare your written argument and file it in the court yourself, and you could call the court clerk on the filing requirements and small administrative court fee for filing. Filing requirements would be like paper size, margin, size of letters, and number of words or characters.

    An amicus brief could also look into the social implications, beyond the issues raised in the court case, between the parties.

    Yi-Ling (ef36e0)

  124. I’ve been away from this for a week, so I don’t know if anyone will care about the STATISTICAL issue. I know that the stock response to any statistical critique of Darwinism is “the statistical probability of any past event is 1.0,” but I think this misses some important points.

    Let me introduce one new concept to this long thread: the “multiverse.” Serious physicists have suggested that despite our perception that we live on a single timeline, EVERY quantum possibility ACTUALLY occurs. Under this physics hypothesis, each quantum choice leads to a “split” in the timeline, resulting in countless infinities of different timelines. All of these make up the “multiverse.”

    If there really were a multiverse, then the whole ID debate would be over. In a multiverse, every possibility is actual. The reason WE exist, in a multiverse, is that EVERY physically possible timeline exists.

    If we were trying to answer a physics question (“Is there one timeline, or many?”), the statistical evidence against intelligent life would be fully admissible. If the odds are a googleplex to one against intelligent life, then the odds are a googleplex to one in favor of a multiverse.

    So… here’s the question. Is it “scientific” to hypothesize that there are countless invisible universese, and to produce statistical evidence in support of that hypothesis?

    Scott W. Somerville (49dea0)

  125. There is a chapter in the book “Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?” by Professor Henry Schaefer (Theoretical/Physical Chemistry, Univ. of Georgia) where he talks about what is a scientific theory and is one a good one or not, drawing inspiration from Stephen Hawking.

    To the degree one can put forth a hypothesis about “multiverse”, and then put forth ways to test it, to use it to predict findings we have not yet made, then one would certainly affect the arguments from probability about Intelligent Design, but then again, probability is not the only argument for ID.

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  126. [ 41] If I understand the current “debate,” the ID people seem to be arguing that any “videotape” we could play would be at LEAST as improbable as the Hollywood thriller. That seems to be a scientific claim. Am I missing something?

    [ 95] “If we could scientifically and precisely calculate the odds of life arising on Earth by chance in the last 4.5 billion years, would you care?”

    41 and 95 suggests that ID proponents do not lean to or accept current Big Bang hypothesis 15 billion years ago or creation of earth 4.5 billion years ago or origin of life on earth. I am not sufficiently read into ID to say they definitely accept current scientific hypothesis of theory of evolution of universe, earth, and origin of life on earth. However I lean to thinking that the current ID batch differ starkedly from the earlier creationist batch, the latter- whose views were heard in US Supreme Court Edward v. Anguillard, where many Noble Prize scientists submitted a common amicus brief that is available on line.

    I think the current divide is less between physical evolution, but more between whether it is physical alone or spiritual as well, and whether the spiritual plays a larger part and is the predecessor to the physical. The fine line of whether matter or spirit first seems to be the religionists concern, for it is spirit that, confers special dignity to man, above all other earthly creatures and vegetation.

    Science has her paradigm that does not pretend to investigate spiritual, and focuses on matter and physical. So it is not the proper place for science to draw ancillary concepts in her hypothesis of theory of evolution of universe, earth, and origin of life on earth, that therefore there is no God and there is no necessity for God in this equations, however God is conceived to the religionists. Such ancillary concepts are yet drawn and put into some model on line science lesson plans for high school kids, alas! That is where Popper’s notion of evolution as a metaphysical research program has to be evaluated such that inappropriate ancillary concepts are not drawn, and maybe, even caution should be made that the reason why it is inappropriate to draw such ancillary concepts, and if any are to be drawn, it can yield as many ancillary concepts as there are stars in the sky at night !

    Yi Ling (e5a2f6)

  127. [ 127] Is it “scientific” to hypothesize that there are countless invisible universese (sic) , and to produce statistical evidence in support of that hypothesis?

    It’s a question of paradigms. I like my Buddhism where the elite monks live in the forest and pursue meditation as the main discipline of their religious vocation. I like my Catholicism where elite priest work in astronomical observatories and pursue a science career in cosmology as an expression of the their religious vocation, or priests who attend meetings at World Trade Organisation [WTO] to represent the small state, the Vatican, who has “observer” status in the WTO. I once deeply wished the meditating monks would pursue secular disciplines of studies too, as their observations and findings in meditation would yield insights to current science disciplines.

    Science is not a neutral word or concept. It has its set parameters. It honestly lists out its parameters. These parameters by their very nature limit the nature of the enquiry, ANY scientific enquiry. It therefore shuts out some observations based on her current parameters unless she [ science] widens her parameters. The advances that have been made have been made based on the limited parameters. There is no current move to widen her parameters, nor would there be financial support for it in the near future. The reach of speculation of countless invisible universes would be akin to philosophical enquiries and an example is the Big Bang Philosophy website, where Jean Pierre Burri speculates a double or multiple universe reached by logical reasoning.

    Yi Ling (e5a2f6)

  128. Some years back, I asked a Roman Catholic priest, a Jesuit, who is a cosmologist, in one of the Vatican’s astronomical observatories, whether there was any Big Bang or multiple Big Bangs, prior to the known Big Bang of 15 billion years ago.

    I now have a few minutes to answer your questions about cosmology and about multiple Big Bangs. We really do not know if there were other Big Bangs before the one that took place about 15 billion years ago. The reason we do not know, is because there is absolute no possibility of detecting any signals which would give us information about times earlier than the Big Bang from which our observable universe issued. All information about other Big Bangs earlier (if indeed there were any) was wiped out before our Big Bang, and information about possible Big Bangs elsewhere in reality — outside our universe — is simply not accessible.

    Most cosmologists and specialists in this area of science, however, do now feel that it is somewhat unlikely that our observable universe suffered Big Bangs before the one we know happened. This because the entropy density, or measure of disorder, in our observable universe would probably be higher than it actually is, if other Big Bangs had been part of our history; and even more because it now seems that our universe will expand for ever and not collapse. Evidence is emerging that it does not possess enough matter to slow the expansion rate and induce collapse… in fact the expansion may be gently accelerating! That means it is very hard to imagine how there could have been enough matter and energy have earlier Big Bangs and collapses, if there is not enough now. Finally, we really do not know how the Big Bang itself was initiated — it could not have been just a single explosion as we normally think of that, and it could not have occurred within a pre-existing space. It itself generated space and time — and in a sense was a manifold of many events taking place simultaneously.

    From this you can see that there is not likely to be an evidence any time soon for earlier Big Bangs. If there is, it would create a real revolution in cosmology. At present it is very difficult to imagine what evidence would demonstrate this — what to look for.

    From a theoretical point of view, it is easy to see that Big Bangs in completely different observable universes could occur. However, it is clear that if they did, there is no scientific possibility — as we presently understand that — of every detecting them, or detecting the universes in which they occurred.

    What I have given you here is the standard answer most in the cosmological community would give you. I hope it helps a little bit!

    Yi Ling (36be8b)

  129. While I find the principal concept within the parameters of science, but NOT the associated concept : http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/coacerv.html

    PRINCIPAL CONCEPT: Under suitable conditions, life-like structures can form naturally from relatively simple materials.

    ASSOCIATED CONCEPTS: The origin of life on earth need not have required supernatural forces.

    Is “The origin of life on earth need not have required supernatural forces” appropriately an associated science concept ?

    Yi Ling (5ce151)

  130. Old story : creation science * This is the defence launched by 72 Nobel laureates http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html against creation science. The part that requires greater differentiation is their [ “By Requiring that Evolution Be Taught as a “Theory” While Permitting Other Scientific Hypotheses and Theories to Be Presented “As Proven Scientific Fact,” the Act Demonstrates an Impermissible Preference for a Particular Religious Belief” ].

    New story: ID ?

    For those interested in putting forward their science views, they can submit their amicus brief, to the lower courts where the cases [ ID] are working their way up. In many lower courts, the amicus brief need not be prepared by an attorney nor need it be submitted by an attorney. If you check on the net, you will find all sorts of technical amicus brief by various technical academic people. It is primarily at the level of the US Supreme Court, that such amicus brief need to be filed by US Supreme Court qualified attorneys.

    Yi Ling (07fb87)

  131. Yi Ling,

    I wish I had the energy and time you have to pursue some things, but I don’t.

    Your comments above about “Principle” and “Associated” Concepts are very pertinent.

    If you haven’t read Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, I would recommend it. The argument is that materialism is a belief on par with theism. They are both truth claims which are beyond the ability to “Prove”. When some biologists look at the data, with a materialist mindset, they propose life arose from inanimate chemicals because they really have no other option. Someone who does not have a materialist presupposition looks at the data and says, I can’t believe that chemicals somehow became organized into information carrying structures that reproduced and developed into “higher organisms”.

    The question as to the age of the earth/universe is one that the ID proponents usually don’t make a priority, other than to say that they use the oldest estimates in claculating if “the universe has been around long enough for life to have developed from random chance.

    Stricly speaking, ID does not involve theology, other than not presupposing materialism. As said previously, most ID people that I am aware of would say that “reality” is “reality”, there is no hard division between physical and spiritual, and in fact they are trying to reconcile rational understanding of both. In general, ID folks are not interested in persisting in belief contrary to observed/”proven” fact, but rather would claim to look at scientific inquiry without an underlying faith claim as to the nature of reality.

    I hope that is intelligible, and not just spinning words.

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  132. rather would claim to look at scientific inquiry without an underlying faith claim as to the nature of reality.

    Yes, it is the presupposition that underlie the metaphysical research program, that obscures the way we should interpret data or reality. It overlaps with science of biology, evolution, origin of life, origin of universe…

    Yes, MD from Philly, time is money and we often do not have that item to spare. My contribution here on this subject is of subject visited some years ago, and thus took little time to regurgitate them or locate them.

    But I did want to stress one point, that, those who genuinely think they can contribute to the development of the high school science syllabus, there is a way, and that is submitting their scientific-social-philosophical brief.

    Yi Ling (06bdad)

  133. I keep trying to frame what I see as the essence of the Intelligent Design hypothesis in a way that a doctrinaire materialist can understand. Here’s a fresh attempt:

    “Physicists and computer scientists are working to build ‘quantum computers’ which would use ‘entangled qbits’ (‘quantum bits’) to solve problems that cannot be tackled by conventional computers. One way of understanding the concept of quantum computing is to envision a single computer in THIS timeline operating in parellel with countless identical computers in parallel universes. If the theorists are right, quantum computing promises an unimaginable new level of computing power.

    “If a working quantum computer can be built, however, it raises a new possibility. The small number of entangled particles that give the quantum computer its power are analogous to the ENORMOUS number of entangled particles in a universe prior to any quantum ‘observation.’ In other words, if we can build a little quantum computer, we have taken the first step to proving we are part of a BIG quantum computer.

    “The computational power of a quantum computer the size of this universe is simply incalculable. All the particles in such a ‘computer’ would continue to be ‘entangled’ until ‘decoherence’ occurred, which seems to require an ‘observer.’ Physicist John Wheeler (who coined the term ‘black hole’) argues that our universe expanded as a sphere of quantum possibilities until INTELLIGENCE became one of the possibilities, which then caused the entangled particles to decohere into the universe we observe. (This is called the “Participatory Anthropic Principle” theory. See http://website.lineone.net/~kwelos/anthropism.htm)

    “Suppose Wheeler was right. Would this kind of universe-wide quantum computer which yields intelligent life as its output be considered ‘intelligent’ or not?”

    Scott W. Somerville (49dea0)

  134. Scott,

    I must say that your line of discussion is not within my strengths to comment on. One thing I will say:
    – there are folks who consider the possibility of making computers out of biological-like systems. One example is the “shortest route to hit multiple points” problem. The idea is that a strand of DNA may be the ideal “chip” for this kind of calculation, in part reflecting the reality that DNA is an incredible system for storing information. The “ID” people would point at this and say, “If you found an IBM ThinkPad in the backyard, you would not conclude it spontaneously came together from inorganic atomes. Why conclude that an entity that is far more complex developed by random chance?”

    Yi Ling- I appreciate your thoughts and suggestions. At the moment my ID discussions are basically with newspapers and blog discussions, i haven’t gotten into efforts with school boards.

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  135. At the moment my ID discussions are basically with newspapers and blog discussions, i haven’t gotten into efforts with school boards.

    You have the “wherewithal” to get into the efforts with the court cases in some of the states, where school boards have decided on the ID issue. That is where it counts. It counts in 2 ways.

    1. 1st way, is the impact of the court decision, makes the decision for the school board or state. It affects the high school kids. That is at the lower court level. If it goes higher, and if it is crafted to go to the US Supreme Ct as did Edwards v Aguillard, then, the impact is really felt.

    2. 2nd way, is the capture of high school kids mind. Many of us are concerned with a materialistic outlook, if science, is used as an avenue unwittingly or wittingly to teach ancillary concepts of the kind discussed above. These are formative years , early pre adult years, and thus, teaching or imbibing ancillary concepts under the cloak of science, can affect formative adult years. The battle then is waged at the high school science syllabus in each of those eight states.

    Consider.

    Yi Ling (0be8fa)

  136. MD, I appreciate your humility, but the question I have framed really isn’t supposed to need any expertise to answer. I’ll try the short version.

    “Physicist John Wheeler suggests the entire universe is a cosmic quantum computer that is programmed to yield an intelligent ‘observer.’ Would it be fair to call this hypothetical cosmic computer a kind of ‘intelligent design’?”

    Scott W. Somerville (49dea0)

  137. Scott,

    I’m not sure I’m tracking with you, but I would offer the following:

    -if: the results of a/the “Big Bang” was a “cosmic quantum computer” that dwarfed the most sophisticated supercomputer

    -and: purposeful computation and the design and manufacture of a device that does such has never been observed to spontaneously assemble, but is always the result of conscious effort, whether by a human or by a computer designed by a human

    -then: it would seem implausible that the greatest computational device ever observed came about without volitional design.

    In some ways, this is all a version of the “A Watch Implies a Watchmaker” (by Paley ?) argument for God’s existence.

    As alluded to in Patterico’s original post of the subject, the issue of Evolution and “Intelligent Design” is intertwined with the question of the existence of (a) God. BUT, the issue as presented by ID proponents is to clarify the discussion in an important way. It is (generally) given that Darwin’s theory of evolution, the development of all biological life through the mechanism of natural selection working on organisms and their random spontaneous changes (mutations) is established scientific FACT. (No matter what the philosophers and theologians say). The ID people are saying, “Wait a minute. After over a century since Darwin, findings have not been as anticipated. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that Darwin’s theories do not give a plausible explanation.” That is the claim. It is a scientific claim. Any scientific theory that can give better answers than the ID theory and the Darwinian theory would eclipse the ID people on their own terms.

    I appreciate and agree with many of your thoughts Yi Ling. But while legal action often has it’s place, that would not necessarily mean a victory in public understanding. (In addition, there are other battles that I ponder waging, especially in the bioethics arena, as you would expect).

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  138. Why should anyone care???

    Back to Patterico’s original post:

    On the other hand, when I was in college, I had a teaching assistant in our evolution class who told us that, if we simply learned enough about science, we would understand that there is no God. … Once we learned as much science as he knew, we would understand.

    Plenty of scientists are religious. Evolutionary theory needn’t be inconsistent with a theory that posits the existence of an intelligent Creator. (Again, don’t comment and tell me that I am defending Intelligent Design, since I don’t know what it is and don’t much care.)

    So let’s teach science in science class, and philosophy in philosophy class. And let’s not have science teachers foisting on students their philosophical opinions about the origins of life.

    The situation is there are many scientists who do claim that it is FACT that inanimate chemicals organized into “simple” living organisms, and all life evolved from those early life forms. This “fact” has implications that human life is nothing more than biochemical and electrical impulses, and nothing different from other life. Furthermore, since this great mystery is explainable through natural processes, any belief dependent on things beyond the measurable, or “touchable”, is irrational.

    (While some theists state “God can use evolution as a mechanism if He wants to”, there are “Darwinists” who see that as a farce, that “survival of the fittest” is hardly something that is consistent with the existence of a “loving, omnipotent God” that the religionists want.)

    The Intelligent Design people say that indeed the Darwinists/science teachers are foisting their philosophical opinions about the origins of life on their students. It has not been shown that life on earth arose from non-living chemicals. It is a “scientific” assumption that we can explain “All that there is or was or will be” through observable “natural” processes. If one assumes you must be able to explain life only through observable phenomenon, that is what one tries to do, even if the facts “do not add up”. The ID folk would say, “Don’t assume anything to begin with, look at the data”. If scientific observation fails to find mechanisms for chemicals giving rise to living organisms and then develop into increasingly complicated organisms, then say so. It doesn’t prove there is a “God”, but it’s intellectually honest.

    I would suggest for anyone wishing a better explaination than mine, try Phillip Johnson’s “Darwin on Trial”, or any of his other books. Johnson was (I don’t beleive he still is, but I could be wrong) a professor at the Law School at Berkley.

    PS: When I was in college and assumed “evolution” was true, a professor stated, “Besides, if there was a God who created the world, why would He put only different kinds of Finches on the Galapagos Islands, and not typical birds?” My two classmates and myself (none of us particluarly religious at the time) looked at each other and muttered, “Because He wanted to hear if somebody would say something as stupid and illogical as that.

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  139. MD, the “quantum cosmic computer” hypothesis doesn’t involve any complexity. Wheeler’s basic claim is that the particles in any closed system without an “observer” are “entangled,” and stay that way until an “observation” occurs. The whole universe is a closed system, and before there was intelligence in it, it was a closed system without any observer. Wheeler literally argues that intelligent life “observed itself into existence.”

    I know it sounds surreal, but it’s pretty straightforward (for quantum physics).

    So the question is NOT whether some intelligence built a complicated machine which then built organic life. It is whether OUR intelligence billions of years after the Big Bang caused a set of superimposed quantum possibilities to “collapse” into the actual universe we observe.

    Scott W. Somerville (49dea0)

  140. Evolution and God

    When you do stupid things, you are supposed to die. But when you don’t, do you screw up the gene pool? Is the evolution process screwed up then? Did God mean it this way? Maybe if you like this talk, you’ll like Bruce Almighty!

    [4:40, 1096 KB, MP3]

    Reality Talk Show (1903f8)

  141. I am in total agreement with you on this one – keep up the good work;)

    Atoms for Peace (09762d)

  142. I love that you are putting yourself out there. Not alot of people do that these days. I totally agree with everything you had to say. Thank you for making this website.

    A Catholic Woman (877511)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1406 secs.