Centerfield

That's a very clearly deist position - i.e., that there is a God, that God created that which is, but that God is not intimately involved with the world or its inhabitants - not so far from my own. The problem that theists will have with that, though, is that it denies the existence of a personal, relatable God, on which more theist religions turn.

See also, Lee Stroebel, The Case for a Creator.

Posted by: Simon at June 10, 2005 04:11 PM

But we can mix and match positions to suit our individual beliefs. I don't rule out the possiblity of miracles, angels, personal conversations with God, or other direct interactions between God and individual people. But I don't rely on miracles to keep the creek from rising, etc.

My cynical take on the issue is this: assume for the moment that Creationism is true, and God created everything 6,000 years ago. Nevertheless, it seems to have pleased God to create the Earth and everything in it in a manner which would cause thinking human beings to create a theory of evolution. He planted all those dinosaur bones, caused the striations on the rocks, radiological decay, you name it. If God went to all that trouble to plant all that evidence, shouldn't we play along with Him? Won't He be mad at us if we don't?

Posted by: PatHMV at June 10, 2005 04:25 PM

And can you think of any other reason for God to post-date his reality checks?

Posted by: Tully at June 10, 2005 05:36 PM

lol, Tully.

Yes, of course, it could be His attempt to test our faith to see if we will succumb to the temptations of science rather than faith. And perhaps the dinosaurs did exist but were destroyed in the flood of Gilgamesh... um, I mean Noah. (Man, I'm in a cynical mood today.)

Posted by: PatHMV at June 10, 2005 05:51 PM

lol.. So God's guilty of entrapment? ;-0

Posted by: Ryan at June 10, 2005 08:28 PM

Actually if you are to take the literalists at their word then God must be a trickster God. I think it was George Carlin who said fossils were put on Earth to (mess) with our minds. God also went through a lot of trouble setting up a lot of galactic fireworks (super novas and the like) with the appearance of being millions of light years away, when in actuality they were created only six thousand years ago.

Posted by: jdeer165 at June 10, 2005 09:15 PM

Stock creationist sermon:

If God (and I'm an agnostic, because I lack the faith and ego to be an atheist) has presented us with all this copious evidence of incredibly complex and ancient natural history, who are we to argue? Is it not up to us to explore that Creation and use the brains and spirit we are given to ponder on that glory?

If God just wanted to test my faith, God could make me sit through endless public meetings. Oh--too late. This gives me copious reason to believe beyond all doubt that God makes mistakes. I mean, just look around you! If nothing else, it will convince you that God has a sense of humor....

And who the hell am I to guess at the reasons and motivations of a Supreme Being anyway?

Posted by: Tully at June 11, 2005 01:30 AM

Ryan, just don't tell him I said so, ok? Shhhhhhh....

Posted by: PatHMV at June 11, 2005 01:49 AM

This relies upon a bit of a strawman. There are Young Earth Creationists (literalists, ie. 6000 year old earth) and there are Old Earth Creationists. There's actually several factions in the OEC camp which have different rationales for why they don't stick to a literal interpretation of the 6000 year model from Genesis.

Of course the OEC's are derided almost as brutally by YEC's as they are by proponents of of evolutionary theory.

Posted by: Kevin at June 11, 2005 09:59 AM

Here's the fatal flaw in any proposition that evolutionary science can fully debunk Creationism: Science can't quantify the supernatural. And if science can't quantify it, it therefore can't dismiss it as a potential causitive agent.

The reality of the situation is that both Creationism and Intelligent Design encompass more than evolutionary theory because they both attempt to speak to the issue of ultimate origins - ie. how life came into existance. Whereas evolutionary theory very specifically covers the issue of what happened AFTER life first came into existance.

Abiogenesis is the correct term for scientific hypothesis of life's purely naturalistic origins. Biogenesis being the term for the theistic explanation expounded by Creationists and IDers.

The relevant point here being science's inherent inability to dismiss the supernatural as a causitive agent. Yes, evolutionary theory has amassed copious data with which to challenge the notion that one or more supernatural agents created complete species in place, post-genesis. But, thus far there is nothing more substantive or demonstrable (compared to either Creationism or ID) than simple ideology coming from the strict naturalists to explain life's genesis.

That's the reality of the situation.

Posted by: Kevin at June 11, 2005 10:26 AM

If creationists would stick to the issue of what provided the first spark of life and set off the evolutionary chain to begin with, there wouldn't be much problem. Unfortunately, that's not what is happening in Georgia, Kansas, Pennslyvania (excellent in-depth article), and elsewhere.

The fundamental premise behind Intelligent Design (the intellectual descendant of creationism) is that life is just "too complex" to have evolved from scratch. I.D. essentially says, we know so much about the physical world today that we know it is impossible for this to have happened except by God's hand. No matter how much it is dressed up with math or biocellular analysis, that's what it comes down to. "I don't know any natural process which could have caused this, so it must have been God." The Greeks didn't know what natural phenomenon causes rain, so they ascribed it to their gods. We know better now, I hope.

Sure, there are still plenty of physical happenings that remain a mystery. And maybe some of those mysteries are a direct result of God's intervention. But "I don't understand how it could have happened" is not proof of God's existence.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 11, 2005 11:16 AM

I am reading “Total Truth” by Nancy Pearcey and he arguments for Intelligent Design agree with Pat’s statement about complexity. She specifically discusses cell complexity, cosmology, and DNA. In the case of the cell she states that not only is it complex, it resembles a machine that was designed by something as opposed to something that evolved from something simpler. It has a certain level of irreducible complexity that is necessary for it to function at all. An example of a mousetrap is given. You can not start with the wooden base and catch a few mice, add a spring and catch more, etc. She claims that natural selection works on tiny random improvements that are incompatible with the nature of a cell.

The fact that “cosmologists have discovered that the universe’s fundamental forces are intricately balanced, as though on a knife-edge” is also discussed. She claims that if gravity was slightly stronger all stars would be red dwarfs, too large to support life. But if it were only slightly weaker, all stars would be blue giants, burning too briefly for life to develop. She quotes Arno Penzias, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan. The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”

She also quotes some of the alternative explanations for intelligent design including Dr. George Greenstein’s argument that “The cosmos does not exist unless observed” thus “the universe brought forth life in order to exist.”

Finally she discuses the genetic code and says that the structure of DNA means information theory can be applied to biology. She then says that information theory says that a message is independent of the medium. She quotes Paul Davies, who I think is an Australian physicist, “trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won’t work because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.”

I started reading this book because of a recommendation of a friend of my wife’s who is a minister. I had always thought Creationism/Intelligent design was nuts, but her book is much more sensible than I was expecting. I admit that I do not know enough to determine if her arguments have any validity, but at least superficially they seem reasonable enough to warrant a serious response by evolutionists. They definitely do not seem any less scientific than the argument that the cosmos brought forth life in order to exist.

Posted by: ROA at June 11, 2005 02:00 PM

ROA,

Read the New Yorker article I cited (it's the Pennsylvania link) in my last comment. Part of it particularly debunks the "irreducible complexity" argument and the mouse trap analogy.

The I.D. argument is nothing more than "I don't see how nature could have produced this from scratch, so it must have been God." That's not any kind of theory, much less proof of anything.

Interesting that Keith used the phrase "abiogenesis" or "spontaneous generation". Until about 1668 AD, it was commonly believed that maggots and flies spontaneously generated out of meat. Why? There were no microscopes and most thinkers of the time could not imagine how maggots might have been born out of the meat other than by spontaneous generation. Francesco Redi added to the body of scientific knowledge by demonstrating that no flies arose on meat which were covered by wire screens that kept flies out.

As the microscope was invented and bacteria were discovered, abiogenesis theorists decided that maybe higher forms of life were bred only by their own kind, but these new microbe thingies kept spontaneously generating under suitable conditions from inorganic matter. Ultimately, Lazzaro Spallanzani proved that microbes were present in the air and could be killed by boiling water, and then Louis Pasteur pretty much finally established to the satisfaction but all of a few holdouts that all organisms on earth today arise only from pre-existing living organisms.

The point is that scientific advancements took something which once had no other explanation than "God did it" and gave it a definitive, provable explanation. That there are some things we haven't discovered yet is not prove that there are things left to discover, but it is also not prove that there are not. Intelligent Design presupposes that we have nothing left to discover which would provide a non-miraculous explanation for the bacterium's flagellum or the other claimed examples of "irreducible complexity".

I have no problem believing that God set off the Big Bang. The nature of the Big Bang pretty much removes all possibility that we could ever scientifically discover what happened before. God set the ground rules, fine. But that's not all that I.D. is about. It takes no scientific-sounding analysis to put God in charge of the Big Bang. I.D. insists on explaining much, much more recent phenomena, phenomena which we are still learning new things about, in the hands of God rather than natural processes.

"I don't understand (yet) how it could have happened" is not proof of God's existence.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 11, 2005 02:49 PM

Good thing we pay no attention at all to the state school board in Kansas. It still gives me a laugh, how seriously the media and the ID folks take the argument, and how little it actually means in Kansas schools. Home rule has its good points.

Posted by: Tully at June 11, 2005 04:01 PM

Tully, I'm glad your local school boards have more sense than the state board. I fear that's not always the case, and I worry about the creationism and ID folks slipping in under the radar on the local level elsewhere.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 11, 2005 04:25 PM

AS a moderate "centrist" democrat and a person who has no problem with science or scientists, but I have a problem with "scientism" or the belif that science is God. I for one believe that religious faith is a personal matter, but also believe that if all these so-called self-professed Christians lived there faith instead of talking about it our country would be in a better state. Also, I happen to believe in the theory of "Intelligent Design". I know I'm probally going to get alot of stinging replies to that, but as a moderate I believe in keeping all options open

Posted by: Paul at June 11, 2005 04:26 PM

Paul, in your view, what is the "Intelligent Design" theory? Do you believe God created the first bacterial cells directly, for example? As ROA correctly noted, the physical laws of the universe are pretty tightly balanced... extremely minor variations in physical constants (such as the speed of light) would produce universes that don't survive long, that stay lumped in giant masses which could never produce life, etc. My personal belief is that God created the universe and laid the ground rules (the laws of physics) in such a way that life was an inevitable result. He created life, just not as directly as the I.D. people propose. And from a faith perspective, once you give up on a literal interpretation of Genesis, there is no Biblical reason to demand the hand of God at one point over another.

Believing that God set the Big Bang in motion is a far cry from reaching in with the Heavenly equivalent of tweezers and pipettes and shoving proteins together in order to produce the first bacteria. If that's what you mean by "Intelligent Design", there is no proof for it. That theory relies entirely on faith.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 11, 2005 04:51 PM

The author of the New Yorker piece is biased in favor of evolutionary theory.

A good example would be at the end of the 7th paragraph ID claims are juxtaposed with " what biologists suppose it can." Thus neatly restricting "biologists" to those who accept evolutionary theory.

I think his choice of words is more indicative of a certain blindness to his personal bias than it is to an overt attempt to craft a misleading article. Nevertheless it's not an objective article for obvious reasons. If the author's personal bias allowed him to juxtapose in favor of proponents of evolutionary theory, what other parts of the same article might be similarly juxtaposed?

Personally, I think evolutionary theory and ID inhabit flip sides of the same coin. If ID can be reduced to the assertion, "Poof, god did it" then so too can evolutionary theory be just as justifiably reduced to the assertion, "Poof, time did it." One need only read the New Yorker article to see that very premise used to support evolutionary theory.

Posted by: Kevin at June 11, 2005 05:19 PM

In the chapter after her discussion about Intelligent Design Ms. Pearcey discusses how the concepts of Darwinism have led to a naturalistic worldview, which is what I think her real concern is. Social Darwinism on steroids you could say. Examples included the book “The natural History of rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion” by Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer. They make the claim rape is not a pathology, biologically speaking. It is an evolutionary adaptation for maximizing reproductive success. When one of the authors appeared on NPR and was criticized for the book he said: the logic is inescapable – If evolution is true, then “every feature of every living things, including humans, has an underlying evolutionary background. That’s not a debatable matter.”

Another example concerns infanticide. Steven Pinker wrote an article in the NY Times stating that because infanticide has been practiced and accepted in most cultures throughout our history, its sheer ubiquity means that it must have been preserved by natural selection – which in turn means that it must have an adaptive function. In fact, Darwin stated, “Murder of infants has prevailed on the largest scale throughout the world, and has met with no reproach. Infanticide, especially of females, has been thought to be good for the tribe.”

Now I happen to believe that the evidence supporting evolution is stronger than the evidence supporting Intelligent Design, but it is a long way from being detailed enough to support statements like those I just mentioned. I think one of the main concerns of the Creationism/ID folks is that a theory that is far from being complete is being used to cultural behavior they condemn.

The real question seems to be how do you reconcile scientific evidence supporting evolution with cultural standards that don’t accept rape and infanticide?

Posted by: ROA at June 11, 2005 06:09 PM

Kevin,

Except that evolutionary theory does NOT simply say "poof, time did it." It says time did it, AND HERE'S HOW. I.D. doesn't do that second part. Evolution theory doesn't purport to have every single answer yet. But it continues to seek for them, and it finds new ones pretty regularly.

As I said, and you have not refuted, the entire premise of I.D. is that we KNOW that no natural explanation can explain the development of, for example, the bacteria's flagella (cited in the New Yorker article), therefore God must have done it. The history of science is the history of finding new understandings of things we didn't previously understand. I.D. declares that scientific development has stopped and will never develop sufficiently to explain what I.D. claims is currently unexplained.

As for bias by the New Yorker, sometimes people are biased against something because it is wrong.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 11, 2005 06:33 PM

I'm with ROA on this. Clearly evolutionary theory has the more cogent, detailed, comprehensive explanation of the available data. But, it's not the foregone conclussion that it is sometimes misrepresented to be. And then there is the flaw I mentioned earlier.

Lacking the ability to quantify the supernatural, evolutionary theory will never, ever be able to fully eliminate every other possible explanation for the same exact data.

Evolutionary theory doesn't have to explicitely say, "poof, time did it." It's logically implied. If the supernatural didn't do it - and TOE can't quantify the supernatural - what else could possibly be used to explain the evolutionary model but the passage of vast epochs of time? Even Gould et al's Punctuated Equilibria, despite positing relatively hyperspeed evolution, still requires vast epochs of time.

Posted by: Kevin at June 11, 2005 07:06 PM

ROA,

First, the theory of evolution does not declare that every aspect of human behavior has an evolutionary basis. We have evolved extraordinarily complex brains, which enable us to act in a manner generally indistinguishable from the exercise of free will. There are, to be sure, biological imperatives, to eat, to reproduce, but that does not mean that every aspect of human behavior derives from our genes. And evolution is all about genes, nothing else. Non-genetic human behavior may or may not be determined by Social Darwinism, but that's a very different thing.

Your rape example is in the field of evolutionary psychology. Although it can offer some helpful insights, it is not a fully-accepted branch of science, and has ample critics. The authors of the theory you cite are wrong to say that: the logic is inescapable – If evolution is true, then 'every feature of every living things, including humans, has an underlying evolutionary background. That’s not a debatable matter.'" That's a very debatable matter. A great many features of living things, including humans, are determined not by genetics alone but by interactions between genetics and environment. Our ancestors 200 years ago were shorter than we are today, on average, not because we have different genes but because we have better food.

As Thornhill and Palmer themselves note, even if rape is an evolutionary adaptation, that does not mean it is an adaptation that enhances survival (reproduction) today. The conditions in which we evolved were, of course, very different than the conditions in which we live today. Moreover, even if it is an evolutionary adaptation, that does not mean that it was ever culturally accepted, and certainly not that it was ever universally practiced.

Many genetic adaptions provide very selective advantages. Sickle cell anemia carriers, for example, are more likely to survive infection with malaria. But having full-blown sickle cell anemia (2 copies of the sickle cell mutation instead of 1) reduces your chances of reproducing your genes. On the whole, populations evolving in areas where malaria is endemic (e.g., sub-Saharan Africa) will do survive better with the sickle cell gene than without, even some part of the population is killed early as a result of that gene.

In terms of reproductive strategies, we can just look at the population of men out there today. There are manly men, girly men, ladies' men and mama's boys. There are the bad boys (women date these) and the nice boys (women marry these). All employ different evolutionary strategies for mating; all offer different advantages to women seeking a mate. Bad boys spread their seed far and wide, but don't stick around to make sure their genes grow up. They tend to appear very healthy (from an evolutionary standpoint, this seems to mean they have very symmetrical bodies and faces) and so attract women who want strong genes who can survive on their own, without much help from dad other than being named "Sue". Nice boys stick with one woman, but invest a lot of time and effort to entice her to stay faithful. Women choose them because they want help to insure their babies grow to reproductive age. Occasionally, both men and women will slip out of character and choose another reproductive strategy without letting their mate know, trying to get the best of both worlds. If everybody practiced the same strategy, society would probably collapse. We need both rebels and geeks to make the world go round, thinking men and muscle men. Some evolutionary strategies may work for individuals only if practiced on a very small scale, so evolution would result in them occuring very rarely.

That's the natural, scientific explanation for why evolution may evolve behavior that society generally condemns. The other explanation is that we are not animals, but humans. Unlike animals, we have been blessed by God with free will and the ability to rise above our evolutionary origins. That we are descended from apes does not mean we are apes. God has given us his commandments to teach us how to live with each other (the greatest of which is to love your neighbor as yourself). To the extent we have animal natures, these commandments show us how to rise above them.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 11, 2005 07:23 PM

Kevin,

In evolution, time is not a CAUSE of change. In ID, miracles are the cause of change. Evolution explains what happens over a period of time to cause change. Time itself has nothing to do with evolution. It takes time to happen, but it is not a cause.

The cause of evolution is changing conditions and advantageous mutations and adaptations (adaptations meaning new genes derived as a result of the mixing of genes through sexual reproduction). An unchanging ecosystem which remained the same, unchanging, forever, would generally not produce much in the way of evolution. But when major climactic changes occur (droughts, comet strikes, world-wide volcanic activity, etc.), conditions change. Creatures that were adapted to living in fresh water might need to adapt to salt water. Creatures that evolved to horde precious water in the desert might have to adjust to survival in areas where water is plentiful. Algae that thrived on lots of sunlight might have to be replaced with algae that could eke by with less sunlight. And on and on. It's not the passage of time that caused evolution, it's the changing conditions.

Evolution can help us understand, step by step, how those changes occured. We may not know every step in every chain, but we learn more every day. ID simply says that anything currently unexplainable must be because of God.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 11, 2005 07:34 PM

Lol, guys! I've got Pat on record as agreeing with the New Yorker. Yay! ;-)

I once heard the ID/Evolutionary dispute summed up this way; "Evolution offers evidence but no proof: ID offers proof but no evidence."

I agree that what the anti-evolutionary crowd hates isn't science itself, it's their fear that evolution leads to 'moral decay". Supposedly, if you think you came from apes rather from angels, then you will act like an ape instead of an angel.

The problem with this theory is that the literal Genesis version has been believed for thousands of years, and there is no proof that the ID folk behaved any more spiritually than the new fangled Evolutionary people. In fact, the theory of creation has often been used to back everything from slavery (slaves were said to be condemned to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, on the basis of their descent from Ham) to the wiping out of species (because God gave humanity dominion over the earth) to the repression of women (Adam's rib, dontcha know?).

If the ID folks want to compete on scientific grounds, that would be fine, but they don't. They want to be the cowbird in the nest, crowding out evolutionary theory, not because they think it unscientific, but because they think it's evil.

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 11, 2005 07:38 PM

Now Jean, although creationism is wrong, that proof comes not from its misuse (though I appreciate the Adam's Rib reference ;), as the theory of evolution and other "scientific" methods have also been used to justify slavery and racism. For the gross misuse of science to justify such evils, I highly recommend Ever Since Darwin by Stephen Jay Gould. From misbegotten "intelligence tests" to packing more BBs into skulls to induce the "right" result for brain capacities, if there's a false "scientific" method to "prove" racist theories, Gould exposes it.

What mystifies me a bit about ID (unless it is purely an effort to eventually bring back literal creationism) is that, once you give up on a literal reading of Genesis, it really doesn't matter exactly at what point you put God in the process; there's no more biblical support for putting him way back at the beginning of the big bang than for the first spark of protoplasmic life on earth. You need not give up your faith to believe in evolution all the way back to primordial soup.

Now, some scientists go overboard, I think, in becoming antagonistic to religion. And, like so many things, this starts a vicious cycle, with religion becoming more hostile to science, which reacts by being still more hostile to religion, and on and on, over and over. It doesn't have to be that way. They are not mutually exclusive.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 11, 2005 09:10 PM

Pat,

I recognize that I oversimplified and that time isn't a causitive agent of anything... except maybe for the calender industry. Allele change is the causitive agent. There are a variety of contributing factors which don't necessarily hold true in all situations. Puctuated Equilibria would again be a classic example of this.

One of the things that most bothers me about how this whole creation v. evolution debate is almost always framed is that gross misrepresentations abound on both sides in the framing process. Prejudicial language and strawmen are part and parcel of the ongoing war of words. For example, how many people understand that neither Creationism nor ID reject evolution at all? The sole point of contention between the two sides is over the scope and scale of what allele change over time can accomplish. Which is why some Creationists refer to "micro"evolution and "macro"evolution to distinguish between the two sides.

I do have to disagree that "time itself has nothing to do with evolution." Time has everything to do with evolutionary theory.

Referring back to the New Yorker piece: Orr states, "Repeated over billions of years, this process of incremental improvement should allow for the gradual emergence of organisms that are exquisitely adapted to their environments..."

I rest my case.

Posted by: Kevin at June 11, 2005 09:33 PM

Kevin,

Most of the sites I've been reading which do a very thorough job of debunking creationism are perfectly aware that creationists will accept, or at least claim to accept, "micro evolution". So that's not part of the debate. The debate, and I don't think either side is all that confused, is over "macro" evolution.

One of the problems with ID is that it's hard to pin down exactly what the theory is. Behe's "irreducible complexity" concept is the most specific concept I've been able to find so far, and the most specific example he gives is the bacteria cilia or flagella. Many of the sites I linked to do a pretty thorough job of showing exactly why he's wrong. It says only "I can't explain it myself, so it must be God." That is no different in any way from saying the god Thor caused thunderstorms.

As for time, simply because something takes time to occur does not mean that time causes that thing. Wars take place over time, but they are not caused by time. It takes time for water to boil, but time itself is not the causative factor; the heat of the stove is. To restate what I said before... ID simply says "God caused that". You claimed that evolution says "time caused that". I quite correctly said that evolution says nothing of the sort. Evolution says that incremental adaptation, which happens to take time to occur, causes speciation. ID makes God the causative factor. Evolution does not make time the causative factor.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 11, 2005 10:10 PM

Pat,

Perhaps you missed the entire first paragraph of my reply...

As for Behe... I agree to a point. But, I disagree that anyone has shown exactly why he's wrong. What they've done is to lay out arguments which aren't so complex that they can't be reduced to: it's unlikely that he's right.

Posted by: Kevin at June 11, 2005 10:38 PM

Punctuated equilibrium.

ID says "The universe is too complicated and marvelous to have occured by chance."

Evolution says that we have considerable evidence of change over time, leading to the present day. Prime causation is open.

Posted by: Tully at June 11, 2005 10:46 PM

Kevin,

As I read your post, it seemed what the first paragraph gaveth, the last 3 tooketh away.

You're missing the point of the destruction of Behe's arguments. It's not that it is "unlikely that he is right", it's that there is no actual evidence to support his hypothesis. ID is only a belief. It is not "falsifiable". There is no experiment we could perform, no additional data we could seek out which would definitively establish its truth or falsity. Even if and when we learn more and can more fully explain his bacteria flagellum example, he can pick some other thing he is unable to explain and say "I just don't see how that complexity arose through random evolution."

He is the one promoting the new theory. He must provide evidence to support it. He has no evidence, only argument. And I again point out, his argument is no different from the ancient Greeks attributing thunder to the god Thor.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 11, 2005 11:43 PM

Pat,

The book I have been quoting also discusses incremental evolution and cites examples where she says biologists have exaggerated long term evolutionary effects. Her examples include Darwin’s finches, fruit fly evolution, English peppered moths, and Haeckel’s embryos.

Other concepts concerning ID are cosmology, which you seemed willing to accept, and the DNA information theory concept: “ If you came into the kitchen and saw the Alphabet cereal spilled on the table and it spelled out your name and address, would you think the cat knocked the box over?”

Posted by: ROA at June 12, 2005 01:34 AM

Pat,

Uh....did I miss something? I don't recall ever saying that evolutionary theory couldn't be used for evil ends, or that science and religion were mutually exclusive. (As for Gould, I prefer "The Mismeasure Of Man"; the Kallikaks articles are priceless) I was just saying that those prefer ID usually do so because they THINK evolution leads to evil, even though the fundies have used Genesis to accomplish questionable ends themselves. (but I'm glad you liked the Adam's Rib joke ;-)

As a matter of fact, if you look at Genesis as a metaphor rather than literal truth, it dovetails quite nicely with evolution. God said "Let there be light and there was light." otherwise known as the Big Bang. And so on and so forth through the creation of the lower animals first, then the higher animals, and finally Man (or as I like to say Woman, the peak of Creation ;-)

The only sticking point is that the Bible speaks of days, while evolution speaks of eons. It reminds me of that old joke:

A man asked God "Lord, what is a billion dollars to you?"

And God said "Hardly a penny."

The man asked "Lord, what is a billion years to you?"

And God said "Hardly a second."

So the man said "Oh, Lord, give me a penny."

And God said "In a second."

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 12, 2005 06:55 AM

Jean, lol.

And of course I meant to refer to Mismeasure of Man, not Ever Since Darwin. I'd been using the word Darwin all day and just got carried away, I guess.

I tossed in the evils of misbegotten science just because your post seemed to use misbegotten religion as evidence that creationism was bad. Although I got your reference the first time, on rereading it this morning, I see better that of course you were only using the examples of the misuse of creationism to support your (correct) point that adherence to religion is not a guarantee of good behavior.

Incidentally, not that it directly rebuts any of the scientific arguments, but there is some pretty good evidence out there about the real agenda of the leaders of the I.D. movement. Several years ago, a document created by the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (the leading proponent of I.D.) was discovered on the web. You can read about the document and its source here. The document itself, called the "Wedge Strategy", is available here. Basically, it shows that the leaders of the I.D. movement have a very conscious goal of defeating materialism, the source of which, they claim, is "scientific materialism". They lump Darwin together with Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, and proclaim that they seek "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies".

Now, I've got nothing against trying to wipe out materialism. But as they do on so many issues related to I.D. the authors of this Wedge Strategy lump things together which are just not connected to each other upon closer examination. For example, they often debunk a proposition made by evolutionary psychology, and then claim that undermines the concept of evolution, although as I have previously noted evolutionary psychology is not nearly as accepted in the scientific community as evolution itself is. Likewise, they declare that Darwinism is the cause of greater societal materialism with no evidence to support it. Marx, sure. Freud, maybe. Darwin? Darwinism itself has nothing to do with it. As has been amply noted, there is no inherent conflict between evolution and the idea that man was created in the image of God. And it certainly provides no legitimate basis for humans to act like animals.

You can also read about the goals of a similar organization, the Creation Science Research Center, here. Now try this thought experiment. Take paragraph 7 of that group:

7. The public schools and teachers cannot be mandated to teach about creation in the science classroom, since creation is basically a theological concept. However, it is not allowable to ignore the fact that the concept of divine special creation is one that has been held historically and at present by many scientists. Nor is it permissible to teach or imply that a person in any way violates the canons of science by believing in creation and even conducting his or her scientific thought and research guided by that belief.

Now substitute "the concept of divine special creation" with "the concept that the earth is the center of the universe". See how that sounds. It sounds like what it is, a desparate attempt by religious authorities to panic that scientific discoveries can somehow cause people to lose faith. If we are not the center of the universe, if the earth does not revolve around the sun, then somehow that makes us less special or something. It is a weak faith which relies on such false propositions. It is a weak faith which depends on some kind of physical proof of God's existence or our own special role in the universe.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 12, 2005 10:53 AM

OK, anyone determined to not "believe in" materialism, please turn in your cell phones, computers, antibiotics, credit cards, and car keys at the front desk. (Raffle on Wednesday.)

Posted by: Tully at June 12, 2005 11:57 AM

Lol, you guys! Where can I buy a ticket?

Just joking, of course. Thanks for correcting the record, Pat. You're a good sport. The creationism vs. evolutionism and its effect on society is indeed a fascinating debate, and one that deserves more study.

I believe the creationists are confuising Darwinism with Social Darwinism, unintentionally in some cases, deliberately in many others. And it is true that Social Darwinsim has been used for much evil in the 19th and 20th centuries, the way the Kallikaks' supposed 'study" was used to sterilize many borderline retarded people here in the U.S. and execute many of the same folks in Nazi Germany.

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 12, 2005 12:16 PM

It sounds like what it is, a desparate attempt by religious authorities to panic that scientific discoveries can somehow cause people to lose faith.

Bingo, Pat. I'll go one step farther. Traditional religionists are afraid that their "inerrant" faith will itself evolve, that knowledge seeking will displace authoritarian dogma. Where the concept of infallability underlies the religious authority, the quest for knowledge is a direct threat to the Church. We're not supposed to explore the wonder of Creation and seek out the intricacies of the design after all, no matter how the creationists frame the question. We're supposed to take the word of the Church for it. The power of the clergy relies on that authority, and knowledge-seeking undermines it.

Actually investigating how things might have come about is to challenge the foundation of many dogmas. I find that as insulting as could be. If the Creator did not want us to admire the handiwork, we shouldn't have been granted intelligence. In doing so, we are not going against God, we are going directly against the priests, which they simply cannot abide.

Posted by: Tully at June 12, 2005 01:15 PM

ROA,

I hope the author made clear that Haeckel's embryonic plates were fraudulent. They were debunked shortly after he'd published them. But, it took a very long time for the scientific establishment to accept that fact... seemingly because Hackel's hypothesis seemed to so beautifully fulfill Darwin's theory.

It's interesting to note that the Richardson et al paper in 1997 really takes the same philosophical approach which Agassiz took nearly 130 years before in criticizing Haeckel's dogmatic approach - namely that the differences are important too.

The saga of how the darwinian scientific establishment was loath to place equal emphasis on the objective facts as they did on hypothesis which fit a preconceived notion is an excellent example of the tyranny of reigning paradigms. And it's far from an isolated example. My greatgrandfather, J.E. Mellish, ran afoul of a reigning paradigm in the field of astronomy.

The point here isn't to tear down evolutionary theory. Rather it is to point out that both sides in the Creationism/Evolution debate have been guilty of dogmatic blindess to the facts.

To quote Corliss, "Are there other phenomena that we do not perceive because we know they cannot exist?"

Posted by: Kevin at June 12, 2005 01:49 PM

What's interesting is that the Catholic Church (not universally supportive of science throughout its history) makes the proper distinction. As this article summarizes, the Catholic position is that:

With certain qualifications such as God's ultimate role in man's creation, the direct creation of the human soul by God and man's inherent dignity as a person, the theory of evolution needn't be seen as contrary to Christian revelation.

This is not a new revelation to the Church, though Pope John Paul II made headlines in 1996 evolution was "more than a hypothesis", concluding:

"The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

In fact, Church support for evolution thinking and research goes back at least 50 years to Pope Pius XII, who said in the encyclical Humani generis:

"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, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

The Church learned long ago that science and religion need not be hostile to each other, properly understood. The traditional myth of Galileo is that the Church condemned him because he claimed the earth revolves around the sun. In fact, as the investigative committee established by Pope John Paul II explained, the crux of the Galileo affair was a "tragic mutual incomprehension" between Galileo and the Church.

Prior to the conflict, the Church had in fact encourged the work of other astronomers and Galileo, encouraging the work of Copernicus and sheltering Kepler against persecution by Calvinists. It was Galileo who insisted on intruding into theological issues, demanding that the Church adopt his theories as correct dogma even when they were not in fact fully proven yet.

The Church was entirely willing to stay out of the fight and maintain its position that the Bible need not be given a literal reading on this or other issues of science. This article provides a very good explanation of the whole affair, as well as summarizing the long-standing acceptance by the Catholic Church that the Bible "is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

Posted by: PatHMV at June 12, 2005 02:04 PM

Kevin,

Yes she does state that they were frauds. She also says that the drawings, or similar ones, continue to appear in biology textbooks.

Posted by: ROA at June 12, 2005 04:18 PM

Sure, Pat--and I should have clarified that I'm speaking in the general and not the specific when I capitalize "Church." Catholic doctrine has evolved to try and follow knowledge, to incorporate it rather than excluding it. But it has evolved very damn slowly.

I believe that's some significant historical revisionism in the tale of Galileo as offered in that article, which a Catholic apologia. Galileo was ordered by the Inquisition not to "hold or defend" the view of Copernican heliocentrism. He later got vague permissions from the new pope (and his old friend) Urban VIII to write about heliocentrism, as long as he did not openly support it. And he wrote a book contrasting the two views that pretty much mocked the official church view of geocentrism, and was indeed persecuted by the Church and the Inquisition for it. Threatened with torture, imprisonment, and death on the stake he recanted, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In view of his age and health, the sentence was commuted to house arrest, and he was required to recite penitentiary psalms and decline all social visits. He was also denied medical care. He died four years later, blind and in pain.

It can be claimed that Galileo was prosecuted for disobeying the Inquisition rather than holding to heresy, but there's no doubt that said disobediance consisted of mocking the church doctrine of geocentrism, and espousing the heretical view of heliocentrism.

The threat from the Inquisition of Rome wasn't an empty one, either. Just 33 years earlier Giordano Bruno had suffered exactly that punishment. The cases aren't identical--Bruno's "heresies" were more varied and numerous--but Galileo was well aware of Bruno and his fate, having once beaten him out for an academic position.

The Inquisition gave a small measure of mercy to Bruno. After nailing his tongue to his jaw to prevent him from speaking, they tied a bag of gunpowder around his neck before lighting up the stake pyre, in order to shorten his suffering.

Posted by: Tully at June 12, 2005 04:30 PM

Tully,

I knew you weren't talking about the Catholic Church, but just wanted to toss that apologia out there. I realize that the document I cite and the papal investigation on which it is based is something of an apologia, but I think the crux of the Church's defense is not what he ultimately was convicted of, which was clearly wrong (as John Paul II admitted), but what really led up to it. I think the Church is basically saying that Galileo was demanding that the Church itself adopt his theory (only a theory at that time) and proclaim it to be true. The Church claims that its official resistance to Galileo (as opposed to the resistance offered by individual Catholics or Catholic factions) was simply that it wanted to stay out of the fray, but Galileo insisted that the Church become involved, and went out of his way to antagonize the Pope toward the end of the conflict. Look for the bit about comets and the Jesuits toward the end of the article, I thought it was interesting, though I don't profess to have an independent evaluation of the claims myself.

--Patrick

Posted by: PatHMV at June 12, 2005 04:54 PM

Oh, there's no doubt that Galileo challenged the very limits of Church authority by playing nitpickery with the 1616 ruling, or that he was mocking the cardinals who proclaimed geocentrism as divine truth. And that was his true crime. But there's also no doubt that those cardinals ruled the Church and (more importantly) controlled the Inquisition of Rome. And that the stake (and all the tortures that preceded it) was very very real.

The RC Church has come a long way since the Middle Ages. So has seperation of powers.

Posted by: Tully at June 12, 2005 05:19 PM

Tully brings up an interesting point. Turn it around and look at it another way...

Geocentrism was clearly believed by the vast majority in Galileo's day. Did the beliefs of that overwhelming majority make it so?

No, of course not. So why do we want to rest our laurels on what the majority believe today? Have we really achieved such a degree of perfection that we can arrogantly proclaim ourselves to possess the pinnacle of knowledge? Didn't the vast majority of learned scholars in Galileo's day believe that they too possessed the pinnacle of knowledge?

As a logical proposition, what the majority believe is irrelevant to the ultimate reality. What is, is. What was, was. Period. There is one reality. Neither my wishes nor my desires nor even my most fervant beliefs have the power to alter reality. What is, is. What was, was. Period.

Posted by: Kevin at June 12, 2005 05:49 PM

Kevin, I'm not sure where you're coming from. I have never said that creationism or ID was bunk simply because the vast majority of scientists support it. Indeed, it is ID which tends to support itself with the claim that 300 (maybe 400) scientists have signed off on it. It relies solely on faith. Behe's irreducible complexity is not a scientific theory, no matter how much he claims it is. It is not evolution but ID which claims to have achieved the pinnacle of knowledge. "We have learned so much about biological processes," they claim, "that we know it is impossible for this biological feature (bacteria's cilia, or whatever) to have evolved in nature without a Creator."

Scientists fully acknowledge that some things remain unexplained. And it keeps searching to explain them. ID gives up on any explanation other than the Creator. Without the conclusion that we now know all there is to know, there is no support at all for the "irreducible complexity" claim.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 12, 2005 06:37 PM

Tully,

You mean the problem was that Galileo didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition?

Posted by: PatHMV at June 12, 2005 06:38 PM

Ouch, Pat! Now that was BAAAAD....

(in a good way;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 12, 2005 07:04 PM

Pat,

First of all, I was making a rhetorical point springing from what Tully had said. It wasn't intended to be a rebuttal of anything anyone has said here. I was just making a point.

Secondly, we both know that ID isn't really even a theory. Maybe some day it will be. But, at present it's little more than a hypothesis.

Just because the hypothesis isn't very well formed doesn't logically imply that those subscribing to it have given up searching for explanations other than that some supernatural being made it so.

My greatgrandfather happened to be a Christian and his personal beliefs about the universe were pretty much inline with what we have been referring to as ID. Which is to say that he didn't come first from a Creationist point of view and then do science. He did science and resolved it all in him mind as the result of a supreme intelligence's handiwork. His lack of proper Darwinistic philosophical presumptions didn't prevent him from searching for a better explanation for the data then the then-dominant paradigm which said that catastrophism simply wasn't possible. His sincere arguments that there were craters on Mars were literally laughed at by his Darwinist peers. Yet who was right?

Posted by: Kevin at June 12, 2005 07:43 PM

Of course not, Pat, he knew they'd be fellow Italians! The Spanish Inquisitioners were all busy chasing Marranos and slaught.., er, "converting" the heathen in the New World.

Posted by: Tully at June 12, 2005 08:14 PM

Kevin,

Are you in favor of requiring the teaching of ID in schools? Of printing disclaimer labels and requiring them to be inserted in biology texts warning that evolution (but no other scientific theory) is "not proven"?

I perfectly happy to leave open the possibility that God had a heavier hand than I currently believe him to have had. But there is not a scintilla of real evidence to support redesigning the science curricula to teach, to school children in public school, about a "Creator".

Posted by: PatHMV at June 12, 2005 09:03 PM

Kevin, on rereading my post I realize it may have come across as a bit harsh. I did not intend it to be. I'm just trying to clarify the debate.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 12, 2005 09:30 PM

Pat, what I would like to see taught in the schools, and it may be for all I know, is a thorough explanation of just what science is, what evidence there is for evolution and what is missing, what alternatives have been proposed (e.g. creationism and ID) and what they lack scientifically.

Posted by: ROA at June 12, 2005 10:20 PM

ROA,

As far as I know, they do teach evolution, and the parts of natural history that evolution hasn't figured out yet. But I don't think they should teach about ID anymore than they should teach about the flat earth theory, though there are still those who adhere to that view.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 12, 2005 10:32 PM

The difference being that there is copious evidence to definitively rebutt Flat Earth, but ID doesn't lend itself to any real physical proof at all. Which is why it isn't science, but theology. Science, however tenuously at times, is capable of testing and replication.

None of which takes away from Kevin's point that doctrinal scientists can be as big an impairment to real science as theologians.

Posted by: Tully at June 12, 2005 10:35 PM

Pat, in this entire thread it was never my intention to debate anything. And I certainly wasn't trying to defend ID. All I was doing was pointing out little things on the periphery of the Cre/Ev debate that bug me. Having spent several years debating Cre/Ev online back in the mid 90's, I've reached a few conclussions about what I think is wrong with both side's tactics and arguments.

To answer your question:

I don't think knowledge or education is furthered any better by the rote memorization of sometimes just flat wrong, albeit current, hypothesis of evolutionary theory than they are by teaching non-science in place of science.

And let's be honest about this. Unless we're willing to say that evolutionary theory has in fact reach the pinnacle of knowledge, then at least some of what is being taught right now is incorrect. I'm not talking about motives. I'll grant that it's all taught with the best of intentions and honesty. But, be that as it may, some of it is wrong. We don't know what right now. Five or ten years from now we'll be able to look back and point to things that were taught as "scientific fact" (how evolutionary scientists with highly advanced degrees have described the theory of evolution to me) but which in fact were wrong. Not the entire theory as a whole... segments of it. Either way, though, some of what is being taught right now is wrong.

The sticker in Kansas I had and have no problem with. In fact I think it would have been a very good thing if even one student had stopped to critically examine the available data instead of just memorizing another chapter for a test. The Kansas sticker didn't seek to introduce the teaching of anything. All it was was a caution to think critically. Egads, what is the world coming to when cautioning students to think critically is considered a bad thing? Who knows? Maybe some exceptionally bright student might even be able to point out a flaw somewhere and end up furthering humanity's knowledge base... IF they learn how to think critically.

As for curriculum... I don't support teaching Creationism of any form as science. I might be okay with an intoduction of ID, depending on the circumstances. What I can definitely say that I would not support would be any effor that seeks to place ID, as it now stands, on equal footing with evolutionary science. It clearly is not on equal footing and teaching it as if it were would be a gross disservice to students. But... at the same time I just as strongly disagree with the dogmatic teaching of evolutionary theory.

Posted by: Kevin at June 13, 2005 12:48 AM

Pat, the reason I mentioned teaching a thorough description of what science consists of is to demonstrate that ID and creationism are not really science. And to end on a sarcastic note: The reasons for teaching creationism and ID are just as valid as the reasons for not mentioning that there may be innate differences between men and women. The people who are so high and mighty about the lack of science in creationism and ID are perfectly willing to accept another invalid premise as long as its politically correct to do so.

Posted by: ROA at June 13, 2005 03:20 AM

Pat, I didn’t mean to imply you or anyone who commented in this thread was “high and mighty…” I have been impressed with your willingness to listen to what everyone says and respond in a very knowledgeable, professional manner.

To change topics, another reason for teaching the principles of science I to show that no theory is ever “proven.”

Posted by: ROA at June 13, 2005 03:34 AM

Well, then, we'll just have to end on a note of general agreement to endorse critical thinking and suspicion of dogma. Thanks to Kevin and ROA for stepping up to the plate for the other side of the discussion, thanks to Jean for appreciating my humble attempts at jokes (and of course contributing her own), and thanks to Tully for letting me sneak in the reference to nobody suspecting the Spanish Inquisition.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 13, 2005 08:40 AM

Why do we have to end? Let the discussion further evolve. WOOOO!!! HOOOO!!! God, I'm funny.

Posted by: WHQ at June 13, 2005 09:35 AM

Because the discussion has reached its highest pinnacle. Any new discussion would be irreducibaly complex and therefore would have to be spontaneously generated. But spontaneous generation would prove the existence of God. And then we would all vanish in a puff of logic. ;)

Posted by: PatHMV at June 13, 2005 09:57 AM

LOL.

Kevin, point of information. The textbook stickers were a Georgia thing, not Kansas. Kansas has home rule. The state board's earlier (and overturned) decision to "de-emphasize" evolution in Kansas textbook selection guidelines was to the best of my knowledge universally ignored by every single school district in Kansas, as is most of what the Kansas BoE does. As will be any decision that seeks to allow non-science subjects to be taught as science in Kansas classrooms.

Kansas school districts are autonomous government bodies, not subject to the whims or orders of other government bodies provided they operate within the laws and Constitution of the state. The state BoE can't tell them what to do. Even the Legislature is somewhat bounded in that regard, by the constitutional seperation of powers.

Posted by: Tully at June 13, 2005 12:04 PM

You're welcome, Pat. You did an excellent job here. And 61 comments--not bad, especially for an idea which we all (basically) agree on!

I haven't read Gould since high school, so thank you for reminding me of my old friends, the Kallikaks. (Note to self; never nickname one's child "Old Horror" or future social scientists will leap to all sorts of embarrassing conclusions. ;-)

If you want another take on Social Darwinism and what it can do to civilization, you can try Bram Djiksta's "Idols of Perversity", which analyzes nineteeth century literature and art. Before everybody groans, I should add there are lots of pictures- gorgeous full color pictures-of vampires, dancing girls, naked nymphs, nearly naked men, etc., so there's something for everybody (though Schmaltz's--oddly apt name, that--picture of Spring should be avoided at all costs).

Now, everybody hurry home before the street lights come on, and look both ways before using the zebra crossing. ;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at June 14, 2005 12:39 AM

Either way, though, some of what is being taught right now is wrong.

And in this, biology is different from other sciences... how? Why single biology out?
Posted by: David Fleck at June 16, 2005 03:35 PM