Comments

Entry: Intelligent Design: Good Religion, Bad Science Thursday, December 23, 2004

Intelligent design is the latest euphemism for Creationism -- the religious view of the origin of life -- with a veneer of science. It's being touted as an "alternative view" to evolution. No matter what you call it, however, it's the same sort of bad science as "runaway global warming caused by human industry." Neither is based on solid evidence. In both cases, at some point, you stop doing science and start preaching faith.

Science is all about proof and testing. Scientific method entails coming up with a hypothesis to explain an event or process, then testing that hypothesis to see whether it works. If it does, it becomes a theory -- a working explanation with the weight of evidence to support it. If you cannot disprove a theory, you may have discovered a fact. If the hypothesis can be disproved, it must be discarded and a new explanation postulated, and so on. Faith, by definition, is a belief in something that cannot be proved. If you CAN prove it, then you destroy it -- it becomes fact. There's no longer any merit or moral benefit to belief in it, any more than there's a moral benefit to belief in gravity, or spiritual merit to the belief that airplanes can fly.

This is the main difference between evolution and intelligent design. One can be tested by scientific method, while the other relies upon a premise that's impossible to prove as an essential component of its structure. Intelligent design is not science. It's religion; it's philosophy. One is asked to assume the existence of God -- something that cannot be proven -- as a given, in order to accept the hypothesis. If anything, intelligent design is an improvement on religious teachings, bringing them more in line with modern science.

Science, properly done, is like millions of people putting together a massive, massive jigsaw puzzle when no one's quite sure what the end product should look like. Some pieces, like the corners, are fairly obvious. From those you can work along the edges and make intelligent guesses towards the middle. Sometimes you get several pieces that seem to fit together, but you're not sure where in the overall puzzle they should go. Sometimes you put pieces down where you think they belong, only to move them as you work closer to them and find that they don't fit quite where you first thought. Sometimes the work of others forces your pieces to move or break apart, or vice-versa. Naturally, there are people who want to interpret the pattern the pieces are forming to push their own view of the overall design. The pieces themselves, though, are unchanged by all this -- they are exactly what they are.

Proponents of intelligent design demand that it be given equal time in the classroom with evolution, which is solidly based on good science. The Dover school district in Pennsylvania, for instance, has mandated that it be so taught. Should children learn that sensationalist non-science is the same as real science? Teachers with a left-wing agenda cause children enough harm when they "teach" that American industry is causing global warming, even going so far as to bring second graders to New York City to march in a protest against oil drilling and logging. (It's rather ironic that they traveled in buses and made paper signs to do this.) We should be striving to teach children how to do proper science in search of the truth (whatever it is), not pushing any kind of faith-based bad science on them in schools. At best, it should be mentioned, but not taught. "Some people believe that human industry causes more warming of the Earth than the system can handle, but that cannot be proven," would be perfectly accurate. So would, "Some people believe that the complexity of Nature requires a Creator to have designed it, but that cannot be proven." Should astronomy students be taught astrology, on the basis that "Some people think everything we do is controlled by the movements of the stars and planets?"

Creationists like to point out the astronomer Fred Hoyle's calculation that the odds of a cell spontaneously assembling by chance are 10 to the 40,000th power to one, but that's exceptionally misleading. DNA never assembled spontaneously or by chance alone, but by the laws of physics, chemistry and biology operating over billions of years under intense competition. Nevertheless, this is often the primary "reason" given to discount evolution and scientific method in favor of teaching "science" based on faith.

Evolution is something we can see by its everyday results. Put simply, evolution means, "that which works, prospers." Proof of artificial selection is everywhere, from dogs to horses to flowers -- all of which are bred to our specifications, and breed true. It's human evolution by natural selection that some people object to, as they feel it objectifies and denigrates human beings. Quite the contrary -- the idea that our intelligence and self-awareness have caused us to become among the most successful (certainly the most powerful) forms of life on Earth is awe-inspiring and uplifting. The concept that we arose from the smallest and simplest forms of life, over a mind-numbing span of time and against all the odds, is humbling. Was it chance, was it designed, or is intelligence the ultimate survival tool, inevitable given the competition for resources? We can't know the answer for certain until we have the chance to study other worlds, and any life we may find on them.

Any person who wishes to can choose to believe that the hand of God guided the evolution of mankind. The fact that it can neither be proved nor disproved is what makes it good religion, bad science, and something that should be taught in philosophy, not science classes.

62 comments


	Sally December 23, 2004 12:54 AM PST Joe, you are one of the smartest people I know. I really enjoyed reading this latest entry. It reinforced my personal religious beliefs and gave me a new (postitive) way to think about evolutionists. Thanks!


	JM December 23, 2004 07:39 AM PST I knew that you would surely get what I was trying to say. Some people might think I was putting religion down. Thanks. :)


	Psychic Ferret December 23, 2004 08:33 AM PST Some other supporters of ID - although I definitely wouldn't call this religion. http://www.light-science.com/raelianmovement.html


	Jamie December 23, 2004 09:12 AM PST An old friend of mine had a unique perspective. She theorized that God had made each of the planets one at a time and got better at it with each successive attempt. But, she wondered if were we one of the "Uh-oh, back to the drawing board" planets? You know, one of the ones he messed up on and decided to start over again someplace else. To me, people need to be aware of the basis of thought behind both evolution and "intelligent design" (creationism), although I don't think that the latter should be taught in public schools. It should be left up to the children's parents. But, when teaching about evolution, it should also be stressed that evolution is a theory, not absolute fact.


	Eric December 23, 2004 01:40 PM PST Um... to say that global waming is bad scienc just leads me to believe you have been fooled by the media. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86#more-86 The scientific consensious is that global warming is real and has been agrivagetd by human activity and industry. The only people that will tell you otherwise are selling something.


	JM December 23, 2004 01:56 PM PST >The scientific consensious is that >global warming is real You see? That's a religious statement. There IS no scientific concensus, defined as "a conclusion reached by the group as a whole." You BELIEVE in runaway global warming, therefore all the scientists who don't are heretics whose opinions don't count. The truth is that there is warming and there is cooling, both are perfectly normal, and mankind seems to have had no real effect at all. We're well within the tolerances of the system as demonstrated by historical data.


	Tania December 23, 2004 04:53 PM PST Exactly! Hey...I like you :)


	Downtown Lad December 23, 2004 06:08 PM PST Hey - Let them teach this if they want to. If they want to raise their kids as morons who don't believe in science, I don't really care anymore. Their loss.


	JM December 23, 2004 06:39 PM PST >Hey...I like you :) I'm just glad you didn't say, "I treasure your friendship." I know what THAT means! ;)


	tom trinko December 23, 2004 11:25 PM PST Evolution isn't scientific. Why? Because you can't perform an experiment on what happened in the past. What we can experimentally verify is that at present mutation and adaption occur. Even then though we're having a hard time seeing how speciation--major changes--occur. In addition many intelligent people are concerned about the irreducibly complex problem. Some biological systems require many mutations, none of which are useful by themselves and hence shouldn't lead to greater probability of survival, in order to come into being. No current evolutionary theory--note it's a theory not a proven fact like the law of gravity--actually explains in detail how the biological systems we currently view could have been formed. The impossibility of experimenting on the past causes biologists to invoke Ocams Razor--when confronted with multiple possible explinations choose the simplest--to say that evolution must account for everything. But Ocams(sp) Razor is a philosophical construct, like faith, not a provable assertion. In fact though we know that in dealing with people Ocams Razor usually doesn't work so that if man is created in Gods image it's not unreasonable to assume that Ocams Razor might not work with Gods creation if God did in fact create everything. I personally believe that God set up the show and then knew what would evolve but like belief in creationism or evolution in the past that's not science.


	tom trinko December 23, 2004 11:30 PM PST Sorry but i forgot one thing. If evolution were just science your argument about discussing creationism in philosophy class would be valid. The problem is that evolution is used to "debunk" religion. It's very common for atheists to say that there's no need for God and in fact God can't exist because of evolution. That sort of thought is often broached in "scientific" textbooks on evolution. So long as evolution is misused in such a way people of faith will demand equal time in science class to refute the unscientific conclusions people derive from evolution.


	JM December 24, 2004 06:02 AM PST >Evolution isn't scientific. Why? >Because you can't perform an >experiment on what happened in >the past. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Evolution is based on good science, with mountains of supporting evidence. The evidence for evolution is everywhere. Go to a museum. Visit a dog or horse breeder and ask how they select for or against certain traits. >Ocams Razor might not work with >Gods creation if God did in fact >create everything. You've just proven everything I said to be correct. Occam's Razor means that the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is probably the correct explanation. When you bring something that cannot be tested into the equation, you are no longer doing science or using logic to back your assertions. You've made a leap of faith. You're right: IF God did create everything then chemistry, geology, archaeology, astronomy and physics are pretty much bunk, along with evolution. However, that's religion and philosophy, not science... unless you have verifiable proof that God did create the world, and didn't just start the ball rolling to follow the laws of those sciences on its own. >The problem is that evolution is >used to "debunk" religion. That doesn't debunk evolution. Remember my analogy of the jigsaw puzzle. The pieces (facts) are unaffected by the uses to which they're put. No fact can possibly debunk a religion that depends on faith, not proof. God has nothing to fear from science. Who do you think set up the rules by which science operates?


	JM December 24, 2004 06:07 AM PST >people of faith will demand equal >time in science class That's the problem in a nutshell. Faith is faith, and science is science. One depends on proof, the other does not -- CAN not. The proper place to discuss faith is in philosophy classes, not science.


	seneca December 24, 2004 12:56 PM PST Merry christmas cavalierx, not all the unreligious people are bad persons, i am not religious. I respet others beliefs.


	seneca December 24, 2004 12:58 PM PST I think its possible to find an equilibrium, possible and necessary.


	JM December 24, 2004 01:04 PM PST >not all the unreligious people are >bad persons They'd better not be. I'm agnostic myself. :)


	Mannning December 24, 2004 03:29 PM PST It seems that most scientists reject ID out of hand because it smells of Creationism. Some scientists seem to make an attempt to debunk and destroy the ID Theory. This ID movement, if you will, is in its infancy, and does not have the 100 years of massive scientific support that Evolution Theory enjoys. From the heat of the retorts to ID concepts, one might think the Emperor is being told he has no clothes... I am personally delighted with the attempts by IDers to apply scientific methods to prove the Evolution Theory suspect if not wrong. It is a valid thing to do for science in general, and at the cutting edges of science, such attacks must be countered effectively for a pet theory to survive. This is so, so long as the leap to Creationism is in check. Can any true scientist object to having pet THEORIES subjected to original and scientifically valid tests? Or are defense mechanisms getting in the way?


	Mannning December 24, 2004 08:10 PM PST A clarification: it is my understanding that ID does not yet evoke belief in God or theism. Certainly the ID intent is to do so, once the attacks on the theory of evolution are successful. So the focus now seems to me to be finding a sufficient proof that evolution does not hold. In this attempt I have seen some original argumentation, and some retorts that sound like sneers, not responsible scientific replys. After some stage of the give and take, I cannot follow the arguments, since I am not a biologist. But I do love to see this give and take!


	J D December 25, 2004 01:03 PM PST Our author's comments in the paragraph on "Good science" is excellent advice. It suggests that science does not have a point of view, but is interested only in truth. As CSI's Grissom would say, "just follow the facts." Unfortunately, in the case of the creation controversy, the facts touch on philosophical issues. Human nature, being what is, means that we are loathe to interpet any empirical fact in a light that will challenge our belief system. For most of us, the position of a Biblical Literalist is clearly based on a belief. While I find their position to be somewhat out of touch, at least they have the intellectual honesty admit that it is faith based. Not always so with the naturalists. In most discussions, they tend to climb on their intellectual high horse and look down their nose at anyone that calls evolutionary theory into question. Intellegent Design is a theory, "irrreducible complexity" appears to be an embarrassing fact to the evolutionary camp. hence a broah attack on this line of inquiry. I suspect that our author has violated his own commandment as he, by various statements has asserted that evolution as an integrative unifying principal is a fact. Natural selection operates, but to extrapolate beyond that point is to take a leap of faith.


	JM December 25, 2004 03:02 PM PST >Intellegent Design is a theory I submit that it is a hypothesis; it cannot be a theory since it cannot ever be tested. >"irrreducible complexity" appears >to be an embarrassing fact to the >evolutionary camp I think it borders on hubris to say that because we don't yet understand it, it can't BE understood.


	J D December 25, 2004 03:31 PM PST Re:Theory vs hypothesis. Split hairs all you like, the issue is this: is Darwinist evolution fact of belief? You stepped on very thin ice if you are suggesting that evolutionary "theory" offers only answers that can be tested You further implied your "faith" that the questions posed by irreducible complexity will eventually be answered. I tend to agree with you but I'm honest enough to admit that it is a belief, not a statement of empirical fact You've got faith, Brother


	Sally December 25, 2004 05:25 PM PST >God has nothing to fear from science. Who do you think set up the rules by which science operates? What was that about you being agnostic?? ;-) Merry Christmas!


	J D December 25, 2004 09:19 PM PST Re: What was that about you being agnostic?? ;-) Merry Christmas! If you were referring to me, I offer my apologies, as my faith in the existence of a Creator is absolute. From my point of view, "all roads of inquiry lead to trancendance." From my perspective, a naturalist view that the physical universe is a closed system, with no outside cause just takes more faith than I have. Having worked that out in my mind, I can afford deal comfortably with the facts as I encounter them.


	JM December 25, 2004 09:21 PM PST >if you are suggesting that >evolutionary "theory" offers only >answers that can be tested Occam's Razor. Intelligent Design requires a Designer, the existence of which cannot be confirmed or even tested. You have to assume the existence of a Designer in order for the design to be deliberate. Evolution is a far simpler explanation, therefore, the likeliest one.


	JM December 25, 2004 09:27 PM PST >>Who do you think set up the >>rules by which science operates? >What was that about you being >agnostic?? Oh, I am. IF there is a God, that's probably his doing. But that's still an "if."


	J D December 25, 2004 09:41 PM PST While ID does in fact offer the hypothesis that "God did it," It also poses the question "How could evolution do it." The classic model of natural selection, and survival of the fittest just doesn't hold up in face of irreducible complexity. I'm not here to argue that ID is a fact, but it does offer some formidable problems for evolutionary Darwinism. While many of the problems with evolution may ultimately be answered, I reassert my belief that at this stage of our knowledge, it remains a very interesting but debatable theory A belief system.


	tom trinko December 25, 2004 09:47 PM PST JM some thoughts on your comments: 1) Occams Razor is a philosophical construct not a scientific fact. If you invoke it you've left science behind. We do that as we try and formultate experiments to eliminate the need for the use of non-scientific things like Occams razor. Any argument that depends on Occams Razor is no more soundly grounded in science than is one that invokes God. 2) What you see in museums isn't science .It's a bunch of stuff. In science you need to be able to perform experiments. To give you an example some physicists postulated that the values of certain fundamental constents varied with time. No one took them too seriously until some cosomological evidence--where we can see back in time--seemed to indicate it was possible. Subsiquent analysis indicated that the first data was invalid. Issue resolved for now. To scientifically prove that evolution happened in the past you'd have to basically watch it. Now the mistake people make is that all of the fossils etc they see convince them that evoltion is the most reasonable explination, as opposed to either God guiding evolution or God just making the whole world fossils and all. That's fine and not unreasonable but it's not science. Science only has a edge on truth when experiments, repeatable experiments, are involved.


	tom trinko December 25, 2004 10:01 PM PST Mea Culpa! I forgot to wish you all a Holy, healthy, and happy Christmas! I think the key point is that evolution as currently taught in society is not science, it is philosophy. Because we cannot conduct an experiment to prove that evolution occurred in the past belief that natural selection led to the current biosphere is a matter of faith. This is especially clear when we relaize that there are some very fundamental aspects of the current biosphere that biologists have no idea how they could have occurred. Even the question of speciation is an open one as of now. But natural selection is scientifically established and natural selection is the only part of evolutionary theory that has a non-philosopcial dimension, ie is usable in the real world. We use it to get better cows etc. The debatable part of evolution is purely useful in philosophical discussions. Unfortunetly that's not how it's taught. I'd be fine if you could synopsize it by the following: Science shows that natural selection occurs now. We believe we understand how new types of animals may be able to arise from natural selection. Scientitst tend to believe that the simplest assumption is that natural selection occurred in the past and that lead to the animals we see today. On the other hand there is no scientific proof for that. Other people believe that God either created all life forms or guided their evolution. That position also lacks any scientific evidence. Each of us needs to evaluate these philosopies if we want to determine what we believe. However we can all agree that natural selection is an on-going activity albeit at a simpler level then what evolution would require.


	J D December 25, 2004 11:27 PM PST My purpose in joining this fray was to bring some sanity to the debate. Since the issues raised occur at a juncture of science and philosophy, it is difficult to maintain an objective forum. At one end of this spectrum are the Atheists. Make no mistake, theirs is a belief system, not unlike their polar opposites, the Biblical Literalists.. They differ only on details. Both are soundly committed to a belief system. Between these polar opposites are the rest of us, who, to a great degree, prefer to approach these questions with an open mind. For most of ue, no matter where this inquiry leads, it will not damage our faith. The problem is that we have allowed the proponents of the polar extremes seem to define the debate. Proponents on the far right are easily spotted since they routinely dismiss what most of us consider to be empirical fact. The naturalists are a little more sophisticated, but they routinely offer hypothesis and theory as fact by declaration or by implication. Their forte is to hide behind the fa�ade of being �scientific.� As I have said before, science is not about a point of view, only truth. The dogma of evolutionary Darwinism has been a major stumbling block to the pursuit of truth, both in the classroom and in research.


	JM December 26, 2004 04:04 AM PST >Occams Razor is a philosophical >construct not a scientific fact. If >you invoke it you've left science >behind. Logic has nothing to do with science? That's a new on on me.


	JM December 26, 2004 04:17 AM PST >Because we cannot conduct an >experiment to prove that >evolution occurred in the past Logic again. It occurs now by artificial selection, therefore (since the laws of nature are assumed to be the same now as then) it occured in the past by natural selection. The fossil records clearly show changes over time. At the moment, there is no better SCIENTIFIC explanation than evolution. When you have one, let me know.


	tom trinko December 26, 2004 04:26 PM PST Logic isn't science. Logic, in the context JM is using it, not a rigours mathmatical version, is a human construct and can vary from person to person. To say that because natural selection works now and hence it works in the past may be logical to you, and even to me, but it's not "scientific". That is other individuals find the thought that complex biological systems randomly formed, especially when we have no scientific explination of how that could occur, is illogical. Similarly in an Asian society it would be logical for the individual to sacrifice for society while in a Western society it would be considered more logical for society to bend to allow indivual indiosyncracies(sp). Kirk was right, there's more to life than this type of logic. Occams razor isn't logic. It's just a simplifying assumption. We know that Occams razor doesn't work in human relations, people often do things in far from the simplest way otherwise murder mysteries wouldn't work for example. But even in nature it doesn't work. Occams razor would tend to rule out quarks, after all protons and neutrons being single entities is simpler. Similarly simplicity doesn't lead us to gluons or curved space time. In both cases experiments lead us to those non-simple conclusions. The value of science is that it removes, when done properly, the subjective from an issue. When we do an experiment it doesn't matter if George W or Jesse Jackson does the experiment they'll get the same result. Logic, as JM uses it, provides no such objective analysis. So while you may want to assign the name science to your reasoning it's not scientific nor is the capable of removing human biases. That doesn't mean it's bad or wrong just that it's not necessarilly objectively true. As for a better scientific explination than evolution i'll just point out that since evolution can't be scientifically verified it isn't a "scientific" fact. It's a theory which may or may not be true. The fact that many accept it on faith because it seems reasonable to them doesn't give it any more scientific weight than the fact that many people believe that Bill of Rights is good makes the Bill of Rights scientific. One of the problems in our society is that secularists fail to realize that many of the axioms, unprovable assertions, they use are logically at least as weakly based as the axioms that faith based people use. Faith based people believe the historical record of God's interactions with people and find that to be very logical. That faith based system is logically consistent. The secularist approach however has a problem with first principles. By definition the existence of anything has to violate the physical law of causality which means the current secularist world view is n't closed from a logical perspective. The faith based system invokes something outside of our physical reality which allows for the violation of causality. While that is viewed as perhaps the ultimate deux ex machina by secularistss it does lead to a closed logical system. There is no equivalent out for the current secularist world view. hope this post helps you if you've been having trouble falling asleep. :)


	Monique December 26, 2004 07:57 PM PST "Logic isn't science." (followed by drivel about societies unrelated to science.) "Occams razor isn't logic." (followed by more drivel about human relationships unrelated to science.) "the fact that many people believe that Bill of Rights is good makes the Bill of Rights scientific" Holy cow, Cav... can't you keep uneducated idiots with ten mile long posts full of nothing off your comments section? I had to scroll past all that stuff. How can these crazies think that trying to equate hard science and sociology is going to do anything but make people laugh? Of COURSE logic doesn't have anything to do with human relationships! LOL!


	Psychic Ferret December 26, 2004 10:26 PM PST Good reading on the subject: http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html


	JM December 27, 2004 07:44 AM PST Excellent article, Ferret. Thanks for the link.


	tom trinko December 27, 2004 01:36 PM PST Monique: No offense but do you always personally attack those you don't agree with? I've got a BS in Physics from Cal Tech and a Ph.D. in Physics from UW Madison. I know quite a bit about science and how it works. Perhaps if you reread the thread you'll see that JM and I disagree because we disagree on what is science. I posted the "drivel" to better delininate what is and isn't science. Have a great New Year!


	Psychic Ferret December 27, 2004 02:52 PM PST Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work. -- James Randi Read the above quote and you will understand why ID is not science - it does not examine evidence nor is it subject to correction. It presents a form of Theology wrapped in a thin veneer of Science.


	tom trinko December 27, 2004 10:18 PM PST Ferret: I don't know if you were referring to me but I haven't said that ID is science. What I've said is that the question of what happened in the past--either via ID or Evolution--is not scientific because you can't do experiments. That doesn't mean we can't try our best to see what's reasonable, that's what philosiphers do every day. My only concern is that evolutionary theory not be given the imprematur of "science". Evolution in the past can't be established by objective scientific methodology so while it might be right and it might be reasonable--I personally believe God set things up so evolution worked--it is not scientifically--ie read without human bias--proven. By the way Randi's defintion of science is flawed since depending upon what one considers evidence it could be applied to religion or network programming neither of which I think any of us would consider science.


	Monique December 28, 2004 03:31 AM PST "By the way Randi's defintion of science is flawed since depending upon what one considers evidence it could be applied to religion or network programming neither of which I think any of us would consider science." There you go again, posting drivel like that. Science is science, facts are facts, intelligent design is neither one, while evolution is good science. If you know a simpler theory that fits all the facts, please post it and stop wasting space with your red herrings. Why don't you just admit that ID is religion thinly disguised as science, instead of throwing out all your garbage to obscure the truth?


	Psychic Ferret December 28, 2004 09:39 AM PST Tom:<p> <i>"I don't know if you were referring to me but I haven't said that ID is science. What I've said is that the question of what happened in the past--either via ID or Evolution--is not scientific because you can't do experiments."</i><p> This is true - ID is not science. At the risk of repeating myself, it is theology wrapped in a veneer of science. It is also true that we cannot perform experiments on phenomenon which occurred in the past, but we can observe the results in the fossil record. In this sense, other sciences such as geology and biology can corroborate the evolutionary theory (It may not be correct, but it is the best theory we have given the evidence that we can observe). There is no support for ID from the other branches of science, only support from scripture. I won't even dignify the people who propose that the designers referenced in ID are some advanced alien species.<p> <i>"That doesn't mean we can't try our best to see what's reasonable, that's what philosiphers do every day."</i><p> But philosophy is also not science - It is an attempt to explain the human condition. At best, this puts it into the 'soft' science category because it also is not testable nor falsifiable.<p> <i>"My only concern is that evolutionary theory not be given the imprematur of "science"."</i><p> See my first paragraph about support from other branches of science.<p> <i>"Evolution in the past can't be established by objective scientific methodology so while it might be right and it might be reasonable--I personally believe God set things up so evolution worked--it is not scientifically--ie read without human bias--proven."</i><p> I agree with the first half of your statement, but the second half shows its religious bias. And religion should not be taught in a science class.<p> <i>"By the way Randi's defintion of science is flawed since depending upon what one considers evidence it could be applied to religion or network programming neither of which I think any of us would consider science."</i><p> This statement does not make sense, as religion is based around faith, not evidence. I'm not sure what to make of the network programming "evidence" part of it.<p>


	Psychic Ferret December 28, 2004 09:40 AM PST OK Cav, you need to switch to a blog that understands HTML tags.


	JM December 28, 2004 09:53 AM PST Re HTML: I know; Blogdrive said they're working on that. As for Tom here, he seems to have a thing for confusing "hard" and "soft" science... which is the problem, really, with ID.


	Angrydog December 28, 2004 12:59 PM PST >>As for Tom here, he seems to have a thing for confusing "hard" and "soft" science... which is the problem, really, with ID.<< That's an easy one! "Soft" science would be Exlax and "Hard" science would be Viagra! Problem Solved!


	tom trinko December 28, 2004 07:37 PM PST JM: There is no such thing as "soft"science. Unless you use the scientific method it's not science. That doesn't mean it's not good but it does mean that it's based on human reasoning not unbiased experiments. Remember very very smart people have thought that a lot of things that turned out to be true, such as special or general relativity, were dumb and similarly many very smart people have believed things that turned out to not be true. Without experiments and the scientific method we'd still think Aristotle knew what he was talking about. Ferret: Biology and fossils don't corroboarte evolution. Evolution is a way to explain those fossils. Evolution is a philosophical concept with no supporting experiments. You're free to use your personal philosophy to determine that evolution makes more sense than ID but that's all it is, your personal philosophy. The situation is the same for ID. Bottom Line: Unless there are experiments then it's not science. You agree that there are no experiments so we agree that Evolution isn't science. Other than the issue of irreducibly complex systems which is still an open question we agree that Evolution is the simplest explination for the fossil record. But I hope we also agree that simplest is not the same as correct. We also agree that religion shouldn't be taught in science class. I hope we agree that unproven theories which have potential impact, such as global warming--should be presented with caveats so that students know the various sides of the issue. Since evolution in the past, as opposed to natural selection, isn't science if it's going to be presented in science class then competing philosophies should be presented as well. Evidence for religion consists of things like miracles, rising from the dead, observables like that. Such things do occur and provide evidence with varying levels of credibility. After all the Bible is, to those who believe it to be historically accurate, evidence.


	JM December 28, 2004 09:28 PM PST >There is no such thing >as "soft"science. Except for psychology, sociology and anything else granted an "-ology" that doesn't involve right or wrong answers. >Unless there are experiments >then it's not science. Well, it seems that astronomy's just been relegated to the sc-fi section. Bummer. >Evolution isn't science. Evolution IS science. Sorry. >issue of irreducibly complex >systems That's just a pseudo-scientific label for, "we don't understand it yet, so it must be aliens/God/whatever." I assume you just can't see the sheer arrogance of that kind of thinking. Youre actually saying that because we don't CURRENTLY understand it, it can't BE understood. >Since evolution in the past, as >opposed to natural selection, isn't >science if it's going to be >presented in science class then >competing philosophies should be >presented as well. One more time: evolution is science -- mechanisms which can clearly be demonstrated to work in the present are assumed in the absence of contrary evidence to have worked the exact same way in the past. The laws of physics, chemistry and biology are assumed to be unchanged. Philosophy, on the other hand, should not be taught in science classes. Are we clear on this point yet? Good.


	Psychic Ferret December 29, 2004 11:42 AM PST Tom: "Biology and fossils don't corroboarte evolution. Evolution is a way to explain those fossils. Evolution is a philosophical concept with no supporting experiments. You're free to use your personal philosophy to determine that evolution makes more sense than ID but that's all it is, your personal philosophy. The situation is the same for ID." Evolution is not a philosophical concept, it is a scientific theory. Like any theory, it must be modified as new data is acquired. There have been some recently anamolies discovered that may change the theory of gravity, and that has been around for 300 years. We have only been exploring evolution for 100. Science is about pursuing knowledge, ID is about defeatism. It states, 'God created this, we cannot understand it. Now lets move on.' "Bottom Line: Unless there are experiments then it's not science. You agree that there are no experiments so we agree that Evolution isn't science." Evolution is a theory, not a discrete science, such as biology or geology. You even state this in the second sentence of your first paragraph. But it is a scientific theory, not a dogmatic concept like ID. "Other than the issue of irreducibly complex systems which is still an open question we agree that Evolution is the simplest explination for the fossil record. But I hope we also agree that simplest is not the same as correct." 'Irreducibly Complex' systems - one of my favorite components of ID. When I was in school, we were taught that the smallest atomic structures were the protons, neutrons and electrons that made up atoms. They were 'Irreducibly Complex' - but that theory has been modified by new data. That's one of the many problems with ID, it gives up rather than continuing to look for new information, which is the ultimate purpose of science. "We also agree that religion shouldn't be taught in science class." Correct - there are separate theology classes for that. "I hope we agree that unproven theories which have potential impact, such as global warming--should be presented with caveats so that students know the various sides of the issue." All theories remain unproven, which is why they are theories. A theory that is proven (or 'accepted') by the bulk of the scientific community is considered factual. Most of the Darwin/evolution naysayers come from a Christian background, which makes their claims suspect (as in 'they have an agenda to promote'). "Since evolution in the past, as opposed to natural selection, isn't science if it's going to be presented in science class . . ." Evolution occurs _through_ natural selection. The full title of Darwin's book is 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' ". . . then competing philosophies should be presented as well." Other than Lamarckism (which was thoroughly discredited long ago), please provide at least 2 theories (besides ID) that should be taught and I will agree. "Evidence for religion consists of things like miracles, rising from the dead, observables like that. Such things do occur and provide evidence with varying levels of credibility." Apocryphal stories do not constitute evidence. Again, please provide documented proof of miraculous occurences, rising from the dead, etc. Such things have only occurred with zero level of credibility. "After all the Bible is, to those who believe it to be historically accurate, evidence." Evidence of what, exactly? The central book of any religion is always held as sacrosanct by the believer. That may make it 'the truth' to the believer, but it does not make it true (ie, historically accurate). (Insert image of ferret bounding off of soap box here).


	Psychic Ferret December 29, 2004 12:00 PM PST Oh, and for the record - I personally believe that the Punctuated Equilibria Evolutionary Theory is correct, not the Phyletic Gradualism that Cav espouses.


	JM December 29, 2004 12:41 PM PST Actually, Ferret, I believe it's a bit of both -- long periods of slow change punctuated, if you will, by instances of rapid change. For instance, the Chicxulub asteroid impact at the K-T boundary surely caused rapid evolution, as so many ecological niches suddenly altered or became empty. When the earth restabilised, a long period of gradual accomodation to the new conditions began. Evolution's always playing "catch-up" after disastrous changes, I believe.


	Psychic Ferret December 29, 2004 12:46 PM PST Then you're in the P-E camp as well. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibria Punctuated equilibria is a theory of evolution which postulates that changes such as speciation can occur relatively quickly, with long periods of little change�equilibria �in between. PS - Wikipedia is a fantastic site! Lots and lots of good information to be had. It will definitely be bookmarked for future use.


	Dr. H. December 29, 2004 02:33 PM PST I am a great believer in the scientific method. As a physician and science educator I insist that the scientific method provides the only reliable information from which we make medical decisions and advance therapeutic and diagnostic modalities. But on the questions of origins and evolution science fails us so far. The origin of life can only be explained by the supernatural act of a supreme intelligent being, or the spontaneous generation from non-living molecules and elements. There is no in-between. No conceivable alternative. Take your choice and you have demonstrated an act of faith. Only by shrugging and saying �I don�t know and I don�t care� can you claim scientific objectivity. There has been absolutely NO evidence, or even a postulate, as to how life began. Honest scientists from Pasteur until today have recognized this and have gone so far as to propose the theory of �panspermia,� which, of course doesn�t solve the problem. It only puts it out of reach so that we can conveniently put the question aside and proceed blissfully on in our ignorance; which is exactly what we have done. �Evolution is something that we can see by its everyday results.� Really? Perhaps the author is referring to adaptations. Now that is quite another matter from evolution. Yes, we have thousands of varieties of canines, but they are all one species. Between a wolf and a grey hound there is no net increase in genetic information, only different expressions of genes. All the genetic information for the grey hound (or Dalmation, or border collie) is present in the wild canine varieties, i.e., wolves, coyotes, African dogs, etc.); qualities become expressed by natural or intelligent selection, but this is not the same as reptiles suddenly growing feathers and becoming birds. (Have you ever looked at a feather under a microscope? It is an incredibly beautiful thing.) The vast adaptive capacity of many organisms speaks only of the great majesty and power of the Designer, but does nothing to advance the position of the evolutionist. Evolutionists to date have been unable to convincingly show a single case in which new genetic information �evolved� by mutation or any other means. Consider the countless generations of fruit flies bred in high schools and college biology labs over the past 100 years. They�ve been irradiated and poisoned millions of times in countless ways, producing varieties with white eyes, some with wrinkled wings, even some with extra wings. Now leave an over-ripe banana out this summer. Trap a few of the little buggers swarming around and examine closely. I�ll save you some time and tell you that they�ll be exactly the same as drawings and descriptions from 200 years ago. There has been no gain in genetic information. Virtually every mutation ever observed resulted in a net loss of information and was detrimental or neutral to the organism. From the earliest elements that we could call life, there would have to already have evolved RNA or DNA. All known life depends on this. These are highly complex molecules, their structure and information content analogous to a modern library building and all the books inside. Biologist can not even guess at how this came about without calling upon a great deal of faith, and a paucity of evidence. I believe that any belief system regarding origins and evolution/creation requires immense faith. I will readily admit my bias. I wish those holding opposing views would honestly admit theirs. The pursuit of truth should always trump ideology and this begins with honesty and integrity in science. As for Ocams Razor, intelligent design does indeed assume a designer, but materialistic origin of life assumes an impossibility. Take your choice, but don�t call one religion and the other science.


	JM December 29, 2004 08:44 PM PST Not understanding the mechanism and claiming that it can't BE understood are two vastly different things.


	tom trinko December 29, 2004 10:08 PM PST JM: Evolution isn't science because it's not testable. When you say "One more time: evolution is science -- mechanisms which can clearly be demonstrated to work in the present are assumed in the absence of contrary evidence to have worked the exact same way in the past. The laws of physics, chemistry and biology are assumed to be unchanged." You're invoking philosophy not science. Why should the laws of nature be the same in the past as now? While it seems plausible it's not testable. Further reputable scientists have proposed that the laws of physics have changed over time. I guess the problem is that you use a overly broad definition of science, one that includes studies which are based on human opinions rather than objective facts. By the way Astronomy does do experiments as do sociology and psychology. The problem with using your overly broad definition of science is that it gives opinions, evolution happened in the past, the same weight as facts, apples dropped on earth will always fall down unless there's one heck of an updraft. The final problem with the theory of evolution is that even if you ignore the fact that it's not provable or disprovable by experiment it's a very very very incomplete theory. While it's true we may someday understand how the currently observable processes of natureal selection can produce very complex systems as well as new species we currently don't have viable explinations today. To be honest evolutio is like nuclear winter. Scientists know that evolutions foundations are mostly philosophical but they like the non-scientific uses of the theory so they keep their mouths shut. Finally since evolution is currently a non-testable theory which can neither be proved nor disproved by experiment calling it science as opposed to philosophy is rather bizarre. Unfortunelty it appears that you are unwilling to realize that your assumptions--laws now are the laws yesterday, we will figure out how to fill in the gaping holes in the theory someday, Ocams razor--are no different in nature than the assumptions made by the ID folk--and as I've said ID isn't science either.


	tom trinko December 29, 2004 10:40 PM PST Ferret: "Evolution is not a philosophical concept, it is a scientific theory. Like any theory, it must be modified as new data is acquired. There have been some recently anamolies discovered that may change the theory of gravity, and that has been around for 300 years. We have only been exploring evolution for 100. Science is about pursuing knowledge, ID is about defeatism. It states, 'God created this, we cannot understand it. Now lets move on.'" I'm not defending ID as science. However if you want to define science as "Science is about pursuing knowledge" then theology which is pursuing knowledge about God is science. Bottom line no experiments then it's not science. Evolution in the past isn't testable so anyones opinion caries the same weight. " But it is a scientific theory, not a dogmatic concept like ID." I'm not defending ID. "'Irreducibly Complex' systems - one of my favorite components of ID. When I was in school, we were taught that the smallest atomic structures were the protons, neutrons and electrons that made up atoms. They were 'Irreducibly Complex' - but that theory has been modified by new data. That's one of the many problems with ID, it gives up rather than continuing to look for new information, which is the ultimate purpose of science." I think you're missing the problem with irreducibly complex biological systems. If a certain biological function requires multiple mutations which are not themselves beneficial to survival According to evolutionary theory the probability of the function arising is very very very low. That's nothing like quarks and protons etc. ""We also agree that religion shouldn't be taught in science class."" "Correct - there are separate theology classes for that." Not in public schools. The alternatives and/or problems with evolution aren't ever presented to the student which is one of the reasons people are upset about the issue. "All theories remain unproven, which is why they are theories. A theory that is proven (or 'accepted') by the bulk of the scientific community is considered factual. Most of the Darwin/evolution naysayers come from a Christian background, which makes their claims suspect (as in 'they have an agenda to promote')." Not sure where you got that. Science isn't by consensus, that's politics and philosophy. If you don't want to distinguish between "proven" and "accepted" then we'll never agree. Given that you can't get NSF funding unless you support evolution why do you assume that the scientific community doesn't have an agenda? Seems rather silly to assume that scientists are above the religious an political issues of the day. That's why experiments are critical. Experiments show the truth no matter what the political or religious beliefs of the scientists may be. That's why without experiments you don't have real science. "Evolution occurs _through_ natural selection. The full title of Darwin's book is 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'" Thats a theory which is unprovable and hence not science. As i said before if all that was taught was that natural selection occurs today we wouldn't be having this debate and there wouldn't be people complaining "Other than Lamarckism (which was thoroughly discredited long ago), please provide at least 2 theories (besides ID) that should be taught and I will agree." There are a plethora of potential theories which are as untestable as evolution including ID, Creationism , Aliens, etc. What you're really saying is that I need to produce untestable philosophical theories that you personally find credible. But that's not science. "Apocryphal stories do not constitute evidence. Again, please provide documented proof of miraculous occurences, rising from the dead, etc. Such things have only occurred with zero level of credibility." Men are sent to the death chamber with far less evidence than we have for miracles or Jesus rising from the dead. If you're going to say that eye witness testimony isn't evidence then why should we allow belief in evolution based on peoples opinions not what they've seen with their own two eyes. The problem here is that you fail to realize that your assumptions about the world are no more objectively valid than the assumptions of someone who's religious. You can't prove that Ocams razor works--in fact it can be shown to fail most of the time-- you can't show objectively why the physical laws haven't changed with time--it just doesn't seem right to you-- you can't show objectively why you should reject eyewitness testimony of miracles--it doesn't seem reasonable-- etc. This is a common secularist problem They assume that their axioms, unprovable assertions, are correct and that the axioms of people of faith are false. ""After all the Bible is, to those who believe it to be historically accurate, evidence."" "Evidence of what, exactly? The central book of any religion is always held as sacrosanct by the believer. That may make it 'the truth' to the believer, but it does not make it true (ie, historically accurate)." Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. My point was that if you believe the Bible then it's evidence. Just as, to use a very liberal interpretation assuming the Bible is partly fiction which i don't believe, the Illiad is evidence for the existence of Troy. I wasn't saying that you should believe the Bible but that theology uses evidence, evidence as valid as any non-experiment based opinion you've cited for evolution. Bottom Line: Assuming there is no God is no more objective than looking at historical evidence and saying there is.


	JM December 29, 2004 10:55 PM PST >Thats a theory which is >unprovable and hence not science. Evolution is perfectly good science, using logic and deduction to explain the facts. If you have a simpler theory that fits the facts, spit it out. Until then, it is the likeliest explanation. That's pretty much the end of the story.


	Christopher Taylor December 30, 2004 01:02 PM PST Next time you write this, try not assuming that naturalistic philosophy explains all reality. You're beginning with the assumption "no theistic creator exists, therefore..." and that's not only bad logic, it's bad science. Look at the evidence and ONLY the evidence, the data, and the material. Apply logic and scientific tools to the evidence and the data. Don't make assumptions before starting about a creator or a lack of one. See where you get then. Get back to me when you can do this.


	JM December 30, 2004 01:06 PM PST >You're beginning with the >assumption "no theistic creator >exists, therefore..." Wrong. You're assuming not only that God exists, but that he had an active role. Get back to me when you can look at the facts logically, without making unprovabe assumptions. If I speculated that aliens created the Earth and designed mankind, would you be so willing to go along with that?


	Van Helsing December 30, 2004 06:41 PM PST There is no conflict between Intelligent Design and evolution until you get to the word "random". Asking me to believe that a living cell just happened by random chance is like firing up a working laptop and saying, no one build this device, it's just a collection of random particles that happened to stick together in this particular configuration. Evolution is great as far as it goes. We can all agree that organisms evolve. But evolution does not explain <i>how</i> they evolve. Okay, the first organism with eyes had reproductive advantages. But where did the eyes come from in the first place? Random mutation? That's supposed to be a scientific explanation? Get serious. As I understand it, all Intelligent Design is saying is that evolution hasn't answered our questions, so it's not time to stop thinking yet. Sounds reasonable to me.


	jeff December 30, 2004 07:29 PM PST Amen. ID is Evolution Lite, it's coopting scientific evidence & seeing God's hand at work. It's not an 'alternative explanation' in any meaningful sense, & verges on predestination.


	JM December 30, 2004 10:40 PM PST >Okay, the first organism with eyes >had reproductive advantages. But >where did the eyes come from in >the first place? Here we go again. Eyes did not suddenly appear one fine morning. If you really want to know how the eye evolved from less-complex cell structures, please enjoy this article: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html


	Big Mike January 2, 2005 11:45 AM PST I am a religious believer, a church going, Bush supporting, professor teaching at a Catholic university. ID is badly mistaken and harmful to traditionalists in religion and culture. ID is both invertebrate and Hydra headed, I will not break its back here, because it hasnt any , but I will remove one head for educational purposes: A book called "the Fortunate Planet" and the crowd at the Templeton Foundation (whom I have found to be very nice people) have been peddling the next ID fall back position, "the universe is fine tuned for life" which proves that money can't buy brains: "Fine tuning" is not fine but infinitely coarse. It cannot be tested because it applies equally well to every imaginable set of contingent circumstances. Consider a line with the contingent set of facts characterizing our universe represented as a point in the middle. As we move left, let the circumstances of the universe make life more difficult with the end of the line the point where life becomes impossible, as we move to the right life becomes easier, ending at the point where death disappears. If the world were more hostile to life, that would prove an intelligently designed universe (Look, people are constantly being eaten by sea monsters and crushed by meteors the size of Mount Everest! The odds of this are 7533287532567644 to 1! Since people do in fact exist, surely this proves an intelligent designer!) You can make life incrementally harder by moving further to the left. The number of possible increments is infinite. If the world were more conducive to life, that would also prove an intelligently designed universe (Look, people live to be 900 years old and reproduce effortlessly! The odds of this are 97645689765406324 to 1! Since people do in fact exist, surely this must prove an intelligent designer!). You can make life incrementally easier by moving further to the right. The number of possible increments is infinite. Fine tuning "explains" every possible point on the line which means that it is impervious to empirical data which means that it cannot be falsified which means that it is an exercise in self deception. The intelligent designer personally intervened in my kitchen this afternoon. I said to Seana "Look, honey, it's a miracle!! We had precisely the right amount of lemons and water and sugar in the refrigerator to make exactly (no more no less) the amount of lemonade (gasp) that we do in fact have! The chances of this happening are 2674366343676 to 1. Consider well the astounding fact that if we had no water or one more lemon or just a pinch less sugar, our lemonade would be very different or perhaps even impossible. Praise God, from whom all tautologies flow. This is junk science and I don't want to worship a Being that finds stupidity flattering. Why are we taking this rubbish seriously? God was doing perfectly well was the final, rather that the miraculous material cause of life. Miracleology is not a possible natural science. I will grant that evolution is merely a theory, not a fact. Gravity is also a mere theory, not a fact. However, if you are forced to bail out of an airplane, are you going to use a parachute or "keep an open mind" and "teach the controversy" to your fellow passengers?


	Big Mike January 3, 2005 04:19 PM PST P.S. As Saint Augustine says "We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers." De Genesi ad litteram, I, 19, 21 and n.39


	NameGI November 9, 2005 03:32 PM PST One fact that trends toward ID is the continuous flow of life-long scientists who are, after years of thought, coming to the ID conclusion. There is no drift in the other direction. Case in point:Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, Lehigh U. states that "evolution alone cannot explain complex biological processes." The list continues to grow of people of science who have held to evolution vs. ID for years who are coming across the line. Where is the line forming on the other side?

Leave a Comment:

Name

Homepage (optional)

Comments