Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design?
Occasionally a social issue becomes so ubiquitous that almost everyone wants to talk about it — even well-meaning but uninformed pundits. For example, Charles Krauthammer preaches that religious conservatives should stop being so darn, well, religious, and should accept his whitewashed version of religion-friendly Darwinism.1 George Will prophesies that disagreements over Darwin could destroy the future of conservatism.2 Both agree that intelligent design is not science.
It is not evident that either of these critics has read much by the design theorists they rebuke. They appear to have gotten most of their information about intelligent design from other critics of the theory, scholars bent on not only distorting the main arguments of intelligent design but also sometimes seeking to deny the academic freedom of design theorists.
In 2001, Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez’s research on galactic habitable zones appeared on the cover of Scientific American. Dr. Gonzalez’s research demonstrates that our universe, galaxy, and solar system were intelligently designed for advanced life. Although Gonzalez does not teach intelligent design in his classes, he nevertheless believes that “[t]he methods [of intelligent design] are scientific, and they don’t start with a religious assumption.” But a faculty adviser to the campus atheist club circulated a petition condemning Gonzalez’s scientific views as merely “religious faith.” Attacks such as these should be familiar to the conservative minorities on many university campuses; however, the response to intelligent design has shifted from mere private intolerance to public witch hunts. Gonzalez has been denied tenure and clearly is being targeted because of his scientific views.
The University of Idaho, in Moscow, Idaho, is home to Scott Minnich, a soft-spoken microbiologist who runs a lab studying the bacterial flagellum, a microscopic rotary engine that he and other scientists believe was intelligently designed — see “What Is Intelligent Design.”) In 2005, Dr. Minnich testified in favor of intelligent design at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial over the teaching of intelligent design. Apparently threatened by Dr. Minnich’s views, the university president, Tim White, issued an edict proclaiming that “teaching of views that differ from evolution … is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula.” As Gonzaga University law professor David DeWolf asked in an editorial, “Which Moscow is this?” It’s the Moscow where Minnich’s career advancement is in now jeopardized because of his scientific views.
Scientists like Gonzalez and Minnich deserve not only to be understood, but also their cause should be defended. Conservative champions of intellectual freedom should be horrified by the witch hunts of academics seeking to limit academic freedom to investigate or objectively teach intelligent design. Krauthammer’s and Will’s attacks only add fuel to the fire.
By calling evolution “brilliant,” “elegant,” and “divine,” Krauthammer’s defense of Darwin is grounded in emotional arguments and the mirage that a Neo-Darwinism that is thoroughly friendly towards Western theism. While there is no denying the possibility of belief in God and Darwinism, the descriptions of evolution offered by top Darwinists differ greatly from Krauthammer’s sanitized version. For example, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins explains that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” In addition, Krauthammer’s understanding is in direct opposition to the portrayal of evolution in biology textbooks. Says Douglas Futuyma in the textbook Evolutionary Biology:
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”3
Thus when Krauthammer thrashes the Kansas State Board of Education for calling Neo-Darwinian evolution “undirected,” it seems that it is Kansas — not Krauthammer — who has been reading the actual textbooks.
Moreover, by preaching Darwinism, Krauthammer is courting the historical enemies of some of his own conservative causes. Krauthammer once argued that human beings should not be subjected to medical experimentation because of their inherent dignity: “Civilization hangs on the Kantian principle that human beings are to be treated as ends and not means.”4 About 10 years before Krauthammer penned those words, the American Eugenics Society changed its name to the euphemistic “Society for the Study of Social Biology.” This “new” field of sociobiology, has been heavily promoted by the prominent Harvard sociobiologist E.O. Wilson. In an article titled, “The consequences of Charles Darwin’s ‘one long argument,’” Wilson writes in the latest issue of Harvard Magazine:
“Evolution in a pure Darwinian world has no goal or purpose: the exclusive driving force is random mutations sorted out by natural selection from one generation to the next. … However elevated in power over the rest of life, however exalted in self-image, we were descended from animals by the same blind force that created those animals. …”5
This view of “scientific humanism” implies that our alleged undirected evolutionary origin makes us fundamentally undifferentiated from animals. Thus Wilson elsewhere explains that under Neo-Darwinism, “[m]orality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. … [E]thics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.”6
There is no doubt that Darwinists can be extremely moral people. But E.O. Wilson’s brave new world seems very different from visions of religion and morality-friendly Darwinian sugerplums dancing about in Krauthammer’s head.
Incredibly, Krauthammer also suggests that teaching about intelligent design heaps “ridicule to religion.” It’s time for a reality check. Every major Western religion holds that life was designed by intelligence. The Dalai Lama recently affirmed that design is a philosophical truth in Buddhism. How could it possibly denigrate religion to suggest that design is scientifically correct?
At least George Will provides a more pragmatic critique. The largest float in Will’s parade of horribles is the fear that the debate over Darwin threatens to split a political coalition between social and fiscal conservatives. There is no need to accept Will’s false dichotomy. Fiscal conservatives need support from social conservatives at least as much as social conservatives need support from them. But in both cases, the focus should be human freedom, the common patrimony of Western civilization that is unintelligible under Wilson’s scientific humanism. If social conservatives were to have their way, support for Will’s fiscal causes would not suffer.
The debate over biological origins will only threaten conservative coalitions if critics like Will and Krauthammer force a split. But in doing so, they will weaken a coalition between conservatives and the public at large.
Poll data show that teaching the full range of scientific evidence, which both supports and challenges Neo-Darwinism, is an overwhelmingly popular political position. A 2001 Zogby poll found that more than 70% of American adults favor teaching the scientific controversy about Darwinism.7 This is consistent with other polls which show only about 10% of Americans believe that life is the result of purely “undirected” evolutionary processes.8 If George Will thinks that ultimate political ends should be used to force someone’s hand, then I call his bluff: design proponents are more than comfortable to lay our cards of scientific evidence (see “What Is Intelligent Design“) and popular support out on the table.
But ultimately it’s not about the poll data, it’s about the scientific data. Regardless of whether critics like Krauthammer have informed themselves on this issue, and no matter how loudly critics like Will tout that “evolution is a fact,” there is still digital code in our cells and irreducibly complex rotary engines at the micromolecular level.
At the end of the day, the earth still turns, and the living cell shows evidence of design.
1 See Charles Krauthammer, “Phony Theory, False Conflict,” Washington Post, Friday, November 18, 2005, pg. A23.
2 See George Will, “Grand Old Spenders,” Washington Post, Thursday, November 17, 2005; Page A31.
3 Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (1998, 3rd Ed., Sinauer Associates), pg. 5.
4 Quoted in Pammela Winnick “A Jealous God,” pg. 74; Charles Krauthammer “The Using of Baby Fae,” Time, Dec 3, 1984.
5 Edward O. Wilson, “Intelligent Evolution: The consequences of Charles Darwin’s ‘one long argument’” Harvard Magazine, Nov-December, 2005.
6 Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson “The Evolution of Ethics” in Religion and the Natural Sciences, the Range of Engagement, (Harcourt Brace, 1993).
7 See http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/ZogbyFinalReport.pdf
8 See Table 2.2 from Karl W. Giberson & Donald A Yerxa, Species of Origins America’s Search for a Creation Story (Rowman & Littlefield 2002) at page 54. Mr. Luskin is an attorney and published scientist working with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash.This article originally published on humanevents.com.
| More from Casey Luskin
Stumble It!
November 29th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Yes, the onus is on you, because mutation has never been demonstrated to be anything other than random. Evolution is the accepted scientific theory, it will have to be falsified before something else can take its place.
As for Fred Hoyle, he was apparently a fine astronomer but that in no way qualified him to be a biologist. His obsession with his panspermia fantasy caused him to make a basic error when he performed his calculations. He wanted so badly to be right, he forgot that no one was talking about modern, complex cells forming in the oceans billions of years ago. The first biological molecules would have been very simple, perhaps only a few amino acids log. Here are four reasons why his calculations are invalid:
1) The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001);
2) The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life;
3) The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler;
4) The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html
So much for Fred Hoyle’s “blistering observation.”
Carl Sagan calculated that for a simple enzyme to form from amino acids, the odds were more like 20^5 (3,200,000) to one. That would take a long time in a lab, not so long in an ocean.
As for Tipler, he is just another religious apologist, albeit a clever and charming one, distorting science for his own purposes. You’re going to have to show me papers where Hawking, Deutsch, Feynman, etc., say not just that the universe will one day collapse into a singularity, but that they specifically agree with Tipler’s assertions that intelligent races in the far future will know all there is to know, will restore to life everyone who has ever lived, will be able to control the collapse of the universe, and the other frankly crazy claims made by Tipler. Otherwise I will have to assume that they support only the possibility of the collapse into a singularity, which is certainly something physics could predict.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Mike wrote “Paul, I take it from your comment #46 that you’re out of ammo.”
No, I’m just busy…this is not the only thing I do.
Yes, I am quite aware of Sir Fred Hoyle’s metaphor of a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747 and other similar just-so stories on improbability. Hoyle was, after all, primariy an astronomer, not a biologist, and entitled to his opinions.
And the pseudoscientists have certainly had a lot of fun with Crick, haven’t they? “Collaborative research from a gathering of exo-scientists postulate that there are genes from over 20 extraterrestrials civilizations in Human DNA. These exo-scientists have continued the work of Nobel Prize winner Dr. Frances Crick, and other scholars in this area. ” – http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_adn08.htm
Hoyle, Crick and Dawkins (and many others, of course) contributed their part to the peer-reviewed process of science, but then chose, for whatever reason (from arrogance to senility – Anthony Flew, for instance), to wander away from the magesteria of science into the hinterlands. Heck, look at Blaise Pascal, who may have been the smartest human alive for a while – he wandered off into religious mysticism.
Science, unlike religion, is a self-correcting collaborative effort of professionals who do not depend on a charismatic spokesman – they all are part of the process. It doesn’t bother me if a formerly prominent proponent of a branch of science occasionally goes off the deep end into pseudoscience and/or religion. It’s happened before and it will happen again.
But it does surprise and somewhat sadden me to see American Conservatism drifting deeper into religion and now into pseudoscientific mysticism (if some of the material above is an sample). I don’t expect I’ll be seeing anything anytime soon in a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science or the National Academy of Sciences supporting Tipler’s God Point – or intelligent design creationism.
I also worry that you may not take my advice to look ino some actual science, and continue to rely only on the Discovery Institute for “science” information. You are doing yourself and your readers / constituents a disservice. If you haven’t read the Wedge Document yet, look it up – and see if you recognize yourself.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
On the subject of Darwinism, allow me to quote from Dr. Tipler’s latest book, The Physics of Christianity (pp. 126-127, 128.):
Basically, the argument is that a universe that devolved to 100% entropy via the Heat Death would violate the law of unitarity. Therefore, the universe MUST recollapse into a Final Singularity in order to avoid violating this inviolable law of physics.
And the only way to avoid the Heat Death — so far as we know — is through an intelligent agency (eg., via a purposeful large-scale destruction of baryons).
As the Gonzman might say, “Cool Beans.”
November 28th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Paul, I take it from your comment #46 that you’re out of ammo.
BTW – are you familiar with the concept of Directed Panspermia?
As I mentioned above (Comment #8), over 25 years ago, Sir Fred Hoyle pointed up the astronomical odds against evolutionary development of life on earth. As he said, the odds are “about the same as the chance of throwing an uninterrupted sequence of 50,000 sixes with unbiased dice.”
Perhaps you have heard of Francis Crick? He and James Watson won the 1962 Nobel Prize for their discovery of the DNA molecule.
While Crick is an atheist, he also noted the probabilistic difficulties associated evolution, and, like Hoyle, decided that the only way out of the problem was to introduce the idea that extraterrestrials were the initial source of life on earth.
Don’t believe me? Look it up.
Even the patron saint of atheism, Richard Dawkins, has no good answer to the probabilities question, and so has himself invoked the Many-Worlds Interpretation of the universe to explain it all.
So here we have the atheist co-discoverer of DNA calling on extra-terrestrials, and the atheist evolutionary biologist -turned-media-personality calling on Multiple universes to solve their problems! LOL!
Oh, man. That’s rich.
November 28th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Mike, in your comment #44 you said “Obviously God does not have a “gender”.”
In your comment #26 you presented a diagram showing “God the Father” and “All-Presents Singularity (the Son).” On my home planet, the terms “Father” and “Son” imply gender. But these are only metaphors…? Is the billions of years in the future also a metaphor?
November 28th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? A Review
In reading this emotional wrought article by Casey Luskin, I can’t blame George Wills and Charles Kauthammer for not reading more on the subject of Intelligent Design (ID). It doesn’t take a well balanced, open minded, intellectual person long to discover that ID is only a deceiving smoke screen to interject and support western religious beliefs and ideas into the scientific community. Nor can I blame George Wills for calling evolution “brilliant”, “elegant” and “divine”, because it is a brilliant, elegant idea that has scientifically proven itself in many different professional fields time and time again over the years and will continue to do so – just as the theory of relativity has. Are his comments emotionally overstated – hardly, just good conversation giving credit where credit is due.
It is interesting to note, that although Darwin’s theory has been around for years, it is only in recent years that the religious conservatives have taken up arms against it – primarily due to its recent scientific developments. Like the 12th through the 19th century Inquisition that brought death to thousands, ID supportes have lashed out insecurely against it as an attack on their faith. The Inquisition still exists, by the way, but came under a new name in 1965 titled Congress for the Doctrine of the Faith. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who then became Pope, headed it up. Their only real problem is that even though they can call Darwinist’s heretics and atheists, they can’t burn them at the stake anymore. And as time has progressed, the proof of Darwin’s theory has become stronger world wide because of increasingt scintific developments and discoveries and will continue to do so even more. That is the real threat to the conservatisms. Just like global warming, it isn’t going to go away – face up to it and adjust.
I wish I could say the same about ID, but it has yet to offer any real, credible, undisputable proof to back it up outside of a lot of angry rhetoric – it is all assumption and faith based. It requires us to accempt only ignorance for what we do not currently understand. Every proof that the ID community has tried to promote has been found to be flawed. To say that Iowa State University astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez’s research on galactic habitable zones proves that our planetary system was intellectually designed for advanced life is but a foolish statement in itself. Gonzalez is not the only person in this world to have realize our condition. He may be the first to publicly speak out on the subject, but his discovery is nothing new.
This may come as a shock to some people, but life on this planet functions under the laws of thermodynamics. Because of its delicate protoplasmic make-up, life on this planet can only function within certain temperature constrains. Outside of that zone, it will die. It also requires water to exist – the elixir of life as we know it. In addition, all life, large and small, all made from elements in the Periodic Table, and must consume energy (calories) and produce work (movement) and heat (calories) as a by-product to exist. This is a thermodynamic process in itself. It is by chance alone that the earth is in the right position, the right temperature, the right orbit, with a star like our sun for life to exist here. But this condition is probably not the only one.
By some accounts, there are currently an estimated 200 billion stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way, and an estimated 150 billion galaxies in the universe. If we assume our galaxy to be average in size, then we can estimate that there is about 30 X 10 to the 21st power stars in the universe. If the conditions on earth, including our sun, are such as to support life as we know it are, say, one chance in 5 billion, then we can estimate that there are probably approximately 6 X 10 to the 12th power stars with planets in the universe capable of supporting life – if I did the math right. What life is like in these other star systems and planets similar to earth, we can not say. Life there could be of an entirely different chemical make-up and it probably is some places. Shall we say that the intelligent designer is playing around with these planets too? If our ID character did create the human form and the other species of life that have filled this planet, he/she obviously has done a lousy job, made a number of mistakes, bad choices and has had to keep redoing things. He/she obviously did away with the dinosaurs. Remember the great flood? If you check around, you will find he/she also made a several bad choices with the physical design of the human body. That could mean we are on the extinction list. A number of people, these days, think he/she is most likely the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that would explain a lot.
David C. Harmer
Colorado Springs, CO
November 28th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Now you are just being nasty. Obviously God does not have a “gender”. The use of Christian narratives to describe God and His “Son” is metaphorical — though it represents an extremely apt metaphor.
But using Michael Behe to smear Tipler is intellectually bankrupt, and a clear sign that you are simply out of ideas.
I feel like doing an in-zone Macarena dance.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:29 am
If the “laws of physics” can identify the gender of God and God’s child – not in the past or the present, but billions of years in the future – the laws of physics have changed.
This reminds me of Michael Behe’s testimony in the Dover trial that for intelligent design creationism to be recognized as science, the definition of science would have have to be so changed that astrology would also be definable as science. It looks like this movement is further underway than I had realized.
November 28th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Who is “quote mining” now?
If all you have left are a few scrap quotes from Tipler’s critics — all of whom are his professional inferiors — then you have already lost the argument.
Many people do not like Tipler’s findings because the OPT offends their faith in a purposeless universe. Unfortunately for those people, Frank Tipler followed the evidence to the conclusion: God is a predictable outcome of the laws of physics.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Mike wrote: “…I can infer it on the basis of the Omega Point Theory.”
The more I look into the Omega Point Theory, the more it resembles the ravings of Timothy Leary extolling the wonders of LSD.
Here are some quotes from a Google search:
“Poppycock!” and “Tipler does not even believe his theory himself, at least not yet. He tells us…that so far there is no evidence in its favor but theoretical beauty.” – Chet Raymo, Ph.D., physics – http://www.sciencemusings.com/musingsarchive/2007_02_25_musings.html
“Sounds like total garbage to me” and “asked to reduce his “Omega Point” theory to one sentence, Tipler replied: “God, who is a personal being who created the universe out of nothing, exists, loves us, and will one day resurrect us all to live in heaven forever.” – http://physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-130610.html (Does this sound more like science or religion?)
Tipler “states that the Omega Point Theory merely proves the two things that every religion shares—that God exists and that He will grant immortality to us.” – http://shamuswrites.com/tag/physics/ (Does this sound more like science or religion?)
Mike, if this kind of religious mysticism is your new direction for a conservative website, you may have a problem.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Squiggy, which branch of biological science is your doctorate in? Or do you just have faith in creationism?
November 28th, 2007 at 4:57 am
Paul Burnett said,
Sorry, Squiggy – as I have said before, I am not a biologist.
And yet you have so much absolute faith in evolution.
Whichever mechanism you subscribe to – intelligent design creationism or evolution – it took a while (and probably a few false starts) before the step from simple to more complicated life took place.
Not really. Ever heard of the “Cambrian Explosion”? Earth goes from a planet of bacteria, to a planet full of fully-formed life in, and I quote – “five to ten million years”. And guess what the margin of error is? Somewhere around five to ten million years.
So, a few hundred million years ago the earth literally overnight (in geologic terms) became full, and they weren’t “missing links”, or “primitive”. There was every animal alive today, and every animal that has since become extinct (yes, including dinosaurs).
If evolution were true, then the “tree of life” would look like an inverted triangle. Instead it’s a right-side-up triangle, with the variety of life shrinking year after year. Just ask any “environmentalist”.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
I can’t prove it… but I can infer it on the basis of the Omega Point Theory.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Mike writes: “…the entire causal chain of reality that exists between the First and Last Cause is necessarily under the influence of an Immanent Intelligence.”
Can you prove that? Or are you accepting it on faith?
November 27th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
GalapagosPete said, (#31)
That’s true. BUT… if you accept the possibility that Tipler’s OPT could be true, then all bets about the origin and purpose of the universe must be called-in.
Why? Because — as anyone who knows even a little bit about quantum theory can tell you — the future effects the past.
If Tipler is correct — and (contrary to your assertion that Tipler is alone) well-known scientists think his theory is sound — then the beings in the far future who will engineer the entire universe for intelligent purposes can be seen as the progenitors of God.
Under the OPT, as the universe undergoes a controlled-collapse into the Final Singularity, God will necessarily be CREATED in the process.
Now, religious-minded people might be inclined to jump out of their collective seats on reading that God could be created, for then He would not be God.
But let’s not forget that in quantum mechanics, Past and Future are interchangeable quantities.
In this way, I could credibly argue that God — that omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent Being — is transcendent of space and time, and could thus be said to have Called Himself into Being.
Under the OPT, God is indeed the self-creating First and Last Cause – the Alpha and the Omega as described in the Bible.
Thus, the entire causal chain of reality that exists between the First and Last Cause is necessarily under the influence of an Immanent Intelligence.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
GalapagosPete said (#15),
You are saying here that the onus is on me to falsify “natural” evolution as the best solution. Fair enough, if you assume that there is such a thing as truly “random” mutation that has no teleology associated with it at any point along the causal line.
I am simply not willing to concede the point that there is no teleology.
I think my point in comment #14 above shows that Immanent Design is possible. And if you accept the Many World Interpretation of the universe (as I do), then that which is possible is also True.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
VERY interesting article by Paul Davies just published — miraculously — in the New York Times:
Taking Science on Faith
The classic definition of human knowledge is that knowledge is a subset of that which is both empirically true and that which is believed to be true.
Science is emphatically not an exploration of truth; rather, science is a search for knowledge. I should think Thomas Kuhn made that point quite well in his Structures of Scientific Revolutions.
Science is a human endeavor, and thus cannot be seen as objectively true outside of its human context.
November 27th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Sorry, Squiggy – as I have said before, I am not a biologist. But I do recall after one-celled life appeared, it was a billion years or so before multi-cellular life appeared. Whichever mechanism you subscribe to – intelligent design creationism or evolution – it took a while (and probably a few false starts) before the step from simple to more complicated life took place.
November 27th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Paul Burnett said,
Squiggy, I am not a biologist, but a quick Google search shows there is a nematode worm, C. elegans, which has 959 cells. And there is something called Trichoplax that has a few thousand cells. And then there’s us, with many trillions of cells.
And even your logic should be able to grasp the postulate that very small / soft multicellular organisms don’t fossilize very well.
No, bacteria don’t fossilize very well. But we’ve found many, many of them. Do another google search and you can find it for yourself. Is there something special that makes a single-cell organism fossilize, but not a six-celled creature?
Besides, if a one-celled creature became a two-celled creature, it would be because somehow it gave it a survival advantage. Yet it didn’t survive, nor did it’s supposed twelve-celled superiors survive. Any possible thoughts on this?
November 27th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Tipler’s speculation is interesting, it’s entertaining, and I’d like to have a beer with the guy sometime, but using physics to predict the actions of hypothetical, non-human life forms billions of years in the future? Physics cannot predict behavior. It’s not intended to. And since I haven’t heard about any scientists going along with him, I’d say it’s not a generally-accepted hypothesis. Maybe in 15 or 20 million years.
As for the basic, fine-tuning anthropic principle, all it says is that, because this part of the universe/galaxy/solar system was such that it was possible for us to evolve from the basic constituents of life, we ended up doing so. There is nothing in the principle that says this fine-tuning was done for our benefit. There is nothing in that principle that says it is impossible for other forms of life to evolve in different conditions. Here it was us. Elsewhere, maybe someone else.
Now that I’ve answered you, perhaps you can take a moment to answer my questions in comment #15 about how ID is useful.
November 26th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Mike, you wrote above “I have been downloading and listing to podcast interviews with various professional scientists around the world who have decided to speak out about their interpretation Intelligent Design. There seem to be a lot of these “design advocates” in the professional and academic worlds…” Podcasts may be nice, but how about websites?
Have you looked at the Lehigh University website at http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm ? The _entire_ Department of Biological Sciences – every other actual biologist except Michael Behe – has spoken about _their_ interpretation of intelligent design. Or will you only give credence to Michael Behe’s interpretation?
The American Association for the Advancement of Science has issued a statement on their interpretation of intelligent design – have you read it? The National Academy of Sciences has issued a statement on their interpretation of intelligent design – have you read it? The National Association of Biology Teachers has a statement on their interpretation of intelligent design – have you read it? The American Astronomical Society has a statement on their interpretation of intelligent design – have you read it? These are actual science organizations – please read what they have to say about intelligent design.
Or are you relying solely on the interpretations of the extreme minority of dissenting scientists presented to you by the Discovery Institute?
November 26th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Squiggy, I am not a biologist, but a quick Google search shows there is a nematode worm, C. elegans, which has 959 cells. And there is something called Trichoplax that has a few thousand cells. And then there’s us, with many trillions of cells.
And even your logic should be able to grasp the postulate that very small / soft multicellular organisms don’t fossilize very well.
And why is it that you don’t have any comment on Michael Behe’s comment about random mutations?
November 26th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Mike quoted Tipler as saying: “…the universe is Trinitarian, and…Christianityoffers a good description of the universe.”
So Tipler’s _math_ says God the Father – not God the Mother – and the Son – not the Daughter. Math about the end of the Universe that specifies the _gender_ of the gods? I’m sorry, that’s purest speculation, not math, no matter how many poly-syllabic terms are used. And we can’t prove Tipler is wrong for billions of years…cute. This is worse than poker or genealogy: “Prove I’m wrong.” Pure science fiction – or religious fantasy.
And if you think you are getting “the other side of the debate” from a pro-ID website, you have been sorely (and craftily) misled. Please look at the actual other side, such as Barbara Forrest’s paper (above) for the real scoop. Otherwise you will just be getting one side of the pseudo-debate.
November 26th, 2007 at 4:40 am
Paul Burnett said,
You lose your bet, Squiggy.
Really? Because I was once a one-celled creature that explains why there are no two or three-celled creatures? Talk about side-stepping the question. That’s so typical for someone who has no good answer.
The fact is – if everything living today originated from a single-celled organism that appeared billions of years ago, there would be all manner of bacteria, from two-celled creatures, to 37-celled creatures, to 888-celled creatures up to todays present worms (with their few billion or so cells). There would be something in between. Or so logic would postulate.
The bet still stands.
November 25th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Tipler’s model for the universe is Trinitarian, and he has developed an argument that Christianity — a Melioristic religion with a Tri-une God at its center — offers a good description of the universe. This does not preclude OPT’s application to any other religion on earth, but I think he makes some good points about the value of Christianity as a folk-interpretation of his theory….
Here is a graphic that I saved from Dr. Tipler’s article, The Omega Point and Christianity:
Thus, the multiverse begins with the Big Bang, which is identified in Christian terms as the Holy Spirit. The Big Crunch represents the final establishment of God’s Kingdom: the Singularity. In Tipler’s model, Life is God’s sacred Progenitor. This Progenitor – and its outcome – can be seen as Christ, the Body and Host of the material world.
If you would like to learn more about Tipler’s concept, I would recommend reading his book, published earlier this year, The Physics of Christianity. Be warned, though, that while it is aimed at a general audience, the book is heavy-going for someone who does not have at least a basic orientation in cosmology and quantum physics.
Finally, I appreciate your warning regarding ID. But so far I would have to say that the people who are advocating for Intelligent Design appear to me to be sincere and serious people.
Over the past few months, for instance, I have been downloading and listing to podcast interviews with various professional scientists around the world who have decided to speak out about their interpretation Intelligent Design. There seem to be a lot of these “design advocates” in the professional and academic worlds, and most of them appear to be credible and above-board. Many of them have stellar academic and professional backgrounds (eg., Dr. Lyle Jensen).
This is in contrast to the often hysterical responses evident on the other side of the debate.
http://www.idthefuture.com/2007/07/classroom_conundrum_an_intervi.html
http://www.idthefuture.com/2007/03/asking_hard_questions_about_da.html
http://www.idthefuture.com/2007/06/failed_predictions_and_common_4.html
http://www.idthefuture.com/2007/03/why_is_intelligent_design_such.html
November 25th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Mike, I think I read that Isaac Asmov story in the 1950’s – “Multivac” goes into hyperspace and after the universe ends says “Let there be light.” Or it might have been in Fred Pohl’s Heechee stories.
But seriously, all of this Omega Point thing is predicted to take place some distant time in the future – it is not in effect now, and it certainly was not in effect either in 4004 BC or billions of years in the past whenthe earth was actually created. And while Tipler may have “…confirmed his personal affiliation with Christianity…” I am somewhat dubious that his or any other mathematician’s calculations can differentiate between Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah versus The Flying Spaghetti Monster versus Wotan/Odin versus Zeus/Jupiter versus any of the other thousands of gods that humans have come up with in the past few thousand years.
And Mike, if you are indeed “relatively new to this whole concept of “Intelligent Design”,” I would urgently recommend that you seriously consider some of my comments above and the links I have offered, particularly (if nothing else) Barbara Forrest’s paper. Please take an occasional look at http://www.pandasthumb.org/ or the NCSE or TalkOrigins or other actual science websites.
Just for the record: Intelligent design creationism is not science, but a parody of science; it is not a scientific theory, but a pseudoscience, a burlesque of scientific theory using sciency-sounding language to impress the rubes. Don’t let them fool you.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Honestly, I am relatively new to this whole concept of “Intelligent Design”, but I am quite familiar with the Anthropic Principle, and I have read all three of Tipler’s popular books, and a couple of his articles as well.
Yes, Tipler’s Omega Point Theory is very particular. It requires that the universe recollapse into a Final Singularity sometime in the far future.
According to Tipler, there is an imbalance in the ratio of baryons and anti-baryons in the universe that began shortly after the Big Bang. This imbalance of baryons over anti-baryons has created a condition in which the universe appears to be headed toward an open-ended “heat death” rather than a recollapse. (Actually, the universe is within 1% of having a flat spatial topology.)
Tipler’s idea is that, at some point in the not-too-distant-future, intelligent beings (like us or our posterity) will construct devices (such as a baryon rocket) that will make use of — and destroy — the surplus of baryons in the universe. (This will of course require the use of self-replicating baryon-eating machines [ie., von Neumann probes] that will be let loose on the universe like a virus of sorts.)
Once this process of baryon-destruction reaches a critical mass, the universe will be able to recollapse on its own, and thus avoid the heat death associated with 100% entropy.
This recollapse will then be engineered in such a way that an infinite amount of energy will be made available for use by intelligent beings. The event horizon associated with this Final Singularity will NEVER CLOSE from the point of view of the inhabitants of the universe. Thus, there will be an infinite amount of energy, time, and information processing ability for these beings.
Tipler thinks — and I agree — that the universal principle of Meliorism will cause these intelligent beings to “resurrect” every sentient being that has ever existed in the past — including us.
Tipler says that, while these beings may not know of our particular existence, they will be able to calculate with absolute precision every possible condition of the universe under which a sentient being was able to exist.
This may seem extraordinary — and you may rightly ask why such beings would ever care a fig about the possible existence of any individual sentient being who lived for a flash in the backwater arm of some distant galaxy.
Tipler argues that, if you have an unlimited, INFINITE amount of energy, time and information processing power at your disposal, the real question would be why would you NOT do such a thing.
I could go on… but I will conclude here by saying that Tipler has confirmed his personal affiliation with Christianity, and has argued that his theory is a good fit for the Christian world-view.
How does this fit with religious fundamentalism? I don’t really know, and I don’t claim to represent religious fundamentalists. All I can say is that the Omega Point Theory is a remarkable idea this is consistent with Christianity, and probably most other religions as well.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Mike – I forgot: Here’s a link to an MP3 podcast, “Why Intelligent Design is Stupid,” by the British scientist Steve Jones, who in 1997 was awarded the Royal Society’s Michael Faraday Prize – the UK’s foremost award for communicating science to the public.
http://www.hayfestival.com/archive/details_110.aspx
November 25th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Mike, do you suppose Brandon Carter, Frank Tipler or John Barrow are aware that their work is being quoted as supporting intelligent design creationism?
And as Tipler’s Omega Point Theory is being touted as a mathematical proof for the existence of God, does it mathematically prove the existence of the creator God of Genesis, or a more generic “creative principle” and not necessarily Jehovah / Yahweh?
(after briefly consulting Google) Tipler’s “Omega Point” is only acheivable in the far future of the universe – not anywhere near the present time! The “Omega Point” doesn’t exist yet, and won’t for a few billion years. Tipler himself writes “The Omega Point Theory is a viable scientific theory of the future of the physical universe…” So are you saying God won’t exist for a few billion years? That does not seem like it would give aid and comfort to the right wing fundamentalists who support intelligent design creationism.
As for your comment “Fortunately for Tipler, he is a tenured professor at Tulane, and therefore immune from witch-hunts.” Are you aware if Tulane has published a statement similar to the one Lehigh University has published about Michael Behe?
“The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”
(http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm)
November 25th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Paul, the Anthropic Principle is a well accepted principle in cosmology. Your dismissal of this well-established theoretical concept as “stupid” is clear evidence that you just don’t know what you are talking about.
The term “Anthropic Principle” was first coined by the Australian theoretical physicist Brandon Carter in the 1970s.
Frank Tipler and his colleague, astronomer John Barrow (now at Cambridge University), developed the concept in their classic work, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press, 1986).
The book as been republished many times, has been translated into many languages, and was a required text in physics departments across the world long before the rise of “Intelligent Design” arguments.
Tipler later went on to develop his Omega Point Theory, which is itself a mathematical proof for the existence of God.
As I mentioned earlier, Tipler’s theory has been acknowledged by both Stephen Hawking (who holds Issac Newton’s seat at Cambridge), and David Deutsch of Oxford University. (Deutsch is a Paul Dirac award winner for his development of quantum computers.) While it’s true that neither Hawking or Deutsch particularly like Tipler’s conclusion that God is the natural outcome of the Omega Point Theory, both of these men have confirmed that the theory itself is solid and represents an significant contribution to the fields of cosmology and theoretical physics.
Fortunately for Tipler, he is a tenured professor at Tulane, and therefore immune from witch-hunts.
Perhaps you might be interested in listening to a podcast interview with Professor Tipler, in which he discusses his background (he’s a protege of famed physicist John Wheeler), and his research on The Anthropic Principle and the Omega Point Theory.
November 25th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Mike LaSalle illustrates the “Argument from pesonal incredulity” as: “…these “natural processes” of which you speak are themselves so unlikely as to be practically impossible…” That’s just another way of saying “With my mortally limited level of knowledge and technology, I cannot imagine how such a thing could be possible, therefore it is impossible.”
That’s an even worse cop-out than “Goddidit.” Using this form of intellectual laziness is a variant of the logical fallacy known as “argument from ignorance” in that one person’s inability to wrap their mind around a given concept is offered as “evidence” to convince another person to also remain ignorant.
The “anthropic principle” is no more logical then the medieval churchman who announced how wonderful God was because He had put this nice big river right next to our fair city, and put the ocean right next to our fair city so the fishermen’s and traders’ boats could access it more easily. The “anthropic principle” simply states that humans are somehow significant to the laws of physics of the entire universe. This is as geocentrically arrogant and ignorant as saying “The earth feels solid under my feet, therefore the sun goes around the earth – as any fool can plainly see.” (This is just another example of “Goddidit – we can all quit and go home and rejoice in our ignorance.”)
An illustration of the stupidity of the “anthropic principle” of astronomical improbability is available any time you play cards. There can be 2,598,960 different poker hands (any five cards randomly drawn from a deck of 52 cards), each of them equally likely. So the chances of you getting the hand you have just been dealt is one in 2,598,960 – and most people would agree that one chance in 2,598,960 is “astronomically improbable.” Does that mean that the hand of five cards you have in front of you is not there, just because it’s astronomically improbable?
November 25th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
GalapagosPete said,
Well, Pete, I would be careful about using the term “natural processes” as though such things were a Sunday walk through the park, because these “natural processes” of which you speak are themselves so unlikely as to be practically impossible to have occurred in the first instance.
In my opinion, as in cosmology, the Anthropic Principle offers the only reasonable solution to the problem associated with the astronomical improbabilities of evolution.
November 25th, 2007 at 11:15 am
You lose your bet, Squiggy. Random mutations were discussed extensively by intelligent design creationism’s Saint Michael Behe during the Dover Trial (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial for a summary of the shattering defeat of intelligent design creationism). Saint Michael stated (under oath) “…the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection…” (See the October 19, 205, PM part 1 transcript at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html )
When presented with a bibliographical list and a stack of literature (58 items!) refuting his statement, Saint Michael blithely responded “I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful.” As one press report put it, “Behe was reduced to rhetorically dismissing works he obviously knew nothing about.” (http://www.nwarktimes.com/story.php?paper=adg§ion=Editorial&storyid=137348) Another journalist reported ““It was the high point of the trial. Anyone who studies that cross examination would realize that Professor Behe’s work is bankrupt.” (http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0306/feature1.html) This moment is one of the more important parts of the Dover trial where Behe exemplified intelligent design creationism and helped the judge make his decision. (It is a classic example of the typical creationist “Goddidit – we can all quit and go home and rejoice in our ignorance.” response.)
And that’s just one tiny part of science that disproves the classic creationist claim that all mutations are random and harmful. Fortunately, beneficial mutations do occur, though they are very rare. One of the reasons creationists cannot understand how a beneficial mutation could express itself is there is so little time since 4004 BC for it to happen. But in the actual time span of life on earth, beneficial mutations have added up (and here we are).
Your laughable comment ” if we came from a single-cell organism…how come there are no leftovers? I.e., how come there are no two or three-celled creatures?” reminds me of the classic sophomoric creationist question, “If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” Possible responses include “If God created Adam from dust, why is there still dust?” or “If my ancestors came from Europe, why are there still people in Europe?”
Squiggy, YOU were once a one-celled organism, and (briefly) you were a 2-, 4- 8- and 16-celled organism. Plant pollen grains are two- or three-celled organisms, and plants go through early developmental stages with a few cells. But most animals quickly multiply in the multi-cellular organisms we are familiar with.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:15 am
What evidence do you have that billions of years of evolution cannot produce structures so complex as to have the appearance of design?
How about the fact that no random mutation ever observed has been positive? Somehow cancer (or any other extraordinary change from the norm) just never seems to “add” to the viability of any organism.
Well, maybe a bacteria seems to pass that standard. But somehow they just never become “more complex”. Tell me something – if we came from a single-cell organism (that grew in complexity and added other cells and grew into the multi-cellular creatures that exist today), how come there are no leftovers? I.e., how come there are no two or three-celled creatures? Shouldn’t there be at least one of these somewhere????????????
P.S. Betcha I don’t get an answer.
November 25th, 2007 at 7:06 am
Mike LaSalle mentioned: “…genome-researcher Craig Venter’s recent claim that he has created (or will soon create) “life” from a lab-developed chromosome.”
Venter’s “creation” won’t be a synthetic organism, as it will rely on the molecular machinery and cellular environment taken from natural cells, not “otherwise non-living chemicals.” And I’m sure Venter would be horrified to find that you have designated him as an “Intelligent Designer,” thereby proving the truth of intelligent design creationism. Dr. Venter has no more “created life” than did Dr. Frankenstein.
Mike then claims that “Frank Tipler of Tulane University, has developed a mathematical model called the Omega Point Theory…mathematically demonstrat(ing) a means by which the universe may eventually recollapse into a massive singularity…he has also suggested that life in the far future may be able to engineer this natural collapse for Intelligent purposes.”
Somehow Mike sems to think that the sciency-sounding possibility of someday destroying the entire Universe (which doesn’t sound very intelligent…?), maybe because the word “intelligent” appears in the story, “proves” intelligent design creationism! Mike, that’s a stretch, and I hope you are smart enough to see that. Does Frank Tipler know that you have invoked his name in “proving” the existence of intelligent design creationism?
To paraphrase, in light of the salient fact that Mike has made a logic leap from “engineering the collapse of the Universe” to “re-engineering the universe for Intelligent Purposes” (in the vastly distantly future) it is woefully unreasonable to think that this has anything to do with “proving” the existence of intelligent design creationism today.
Quote-mining articles about actual scientific speculations, looking for the words “intelligent” and “design,” and then assembling a pseudoscientific “proof” that looks good to the uninitiated is typical of the non-science of intelligent design creationism. Sorry, Mike, but neither one of your proofs of ID fly.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Mike, In what respect is ID “useful” as an explanation for certain features in nature? Where does science go from there?
And for that matter, which features? If “certain” features are the result of an intelligence, then aren’t all of them? If not, where do you draw the line? At what point is a feature too complex to have evolved? What evidence do you have that billions of years of evolution cannot produce structures so complex as to have the appearance of design? Simply saying that there are things the theory of evolution does not explain is not the same as saying that it will not explain them at some time in the future. Historically, this has been the case. We have no explanation now, but we do later on.
Unless you can prove evolution cannot have created complex structures, design is not a better explanation, or even as good, because evolution depends on natural processes, and while we know there are natural processes, we do not know that there exists an intelligence capable of doing what you assert.
November 24th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Naturally, Paul, I do not agree with your charge that this is an “argument from ignorance.” (Actually, for that matter, what is Punctuated Equilibrium but an Argument from Ignorance? Since Darwinists don’t have a good response to Fred Hoyle’s blistering observation, they invented Punctuated Equilibrium to cover their collective… bets.)
On the issue of whether “Intelligent Design” is a viable consideration in developing a Theory of Everything, allow me to quickly review two independent areas of scientific research that, taken together, make the case for ID as a worthy area of research.
The first item is genome-researcher Craig Venter’s recent claim that he has created (or will soon create) “life” from a lab-developed chromosome.
Assuming the claim is true, you and I can agree that an intelligent agency (in this case, Venter and his laboratory) caused life to be created from otherwise non-living chemicals.
Therefore the claim that Intelligent Design is impossible is demonstrably and factually untrue.
Another well-known scientist, Frank Tipler of Tulane University, has developed a mathematical model called the Omega Point Theory that describes the universe as a “three-sphere”. That is, Tipler has mathematically demonstrated a means by which the universe may eventually recollapse into a massive singularity — known as the Big Crunch.
Not only has Tipler provided a credible argument for this model, he has also suggested that life in the far future may be able to engineer this natural collapse for Intelligent purposes.
Tipler’s professional peers — luminaries like Stephen Hawking and David Deutsch (among others) — ACKNOWLEDGE that the Omega Point Theory is a credible theory, and that Tipler’s mathematical proofs are SOUND AND CONSISTENT. (Oxford professor Deutsch devoted a good part of chapter 14 of his book, The Fabric of Reality, to discussing Tipler’s theory. Deutsch doesn’t think Tipler has discovered God, but he does acknowledge that the OPT itself is entirely viable. see http://www.geocities.com/theophysics/deutsch-ends-of-the-universe.html)
So…. on one hand, we have a recent demonstration that the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of LIFE is possible… as we ourselves have done it.
On the other hand, we have a peer-reviewed scientist who has demonstrated a means by which life in the far future could re-engineer the entire universe for Intelligent Purposes.
In light of these salient facts, it is willfully unreasonable to dismiss ID as mere Argument from Ignorance.
November 24th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Mike LaSalle said “…Intelligent Design (is) a useful explanation for certain features that we observe in nature.”
That’s the classic logical fallacy known as “argument from ignorance.” What you’re saying is that with our current level of knowledge and technology, we can’t figure out (yet) how some feature of nature works, so Intelligent Design provides a useful explanation. Science has failed us, so let’s just call it a miracle (”Goddidit”) and we can all stop looking and go home and rejoice in our ignorance.
A hundred years ago or a thousand years ago or ten thousand years ago, there were a lot more miracles – because we didn’t understand anything about physics or chemistry or astronomy or geology or biology or any other science and “Goddidit” was, in our species’ ignorance, the only possible answer to a host of questions.
Now we know how rainbows work – they aren’t miracles. Now we know how stars work – they aren’t miracles. Now we know (or at least some of us know) that the earth goes around the sun, not that the sun goes around the earth – that’s not a miracle.
And the concept of Intelligent Design cannot be falsified, because at any point a hypothesis can be changed to say a new sub-component was discovered that could only be made by the Intelligent Designer. Intelligent design creationists can always fall back to smaller and smaller miracles. (Look up “God of the gaps.”)
Unfortunately, miracles aren’t science – unless you loosen the definition of “science” so much that astrology can be a science, as Michael Behe admitted under oath in a Federal court is a goal of intelligent desin creationism.
November 24th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Well, Paul, since modern Popperian Epistemology is now the gold standard for testing Big Theories like evolution, how is it that establishment science can so easily dismiss the concept of Intelligent Design as a useful explanation for certain features that we observe in nature?
For example, in order to explain the daunting improbabilities associated with the rise of a complex biosphere as we see today, Evolutionary Biology has proposed that evolution occurs under a regime of short, intense bursts of change called “punctuated equilibrium”.
Punctuated Equilibrium is a wonderful theory — and it may even be true — but how can you ever falsify such a theory? The answer is that you can’t — any more than you can falsify the concept of the Multiverse, or indeed, the concept of Intelligent Design.
And BTW – I hope you’re not suggesting (#11) that “only atheists produce good science.” You and I both know such a claim would be patently false.
November 24th, 2007 at 10:10 am
Squiggy said: “…evolution is their religion, and humanity is their deity.”
I know it’s terribly difficult for some religious people to imagine there may be another paradigm in which to think about the world than in religious terms, but that makes about as much sense as saying “Fixing car engines is their religion, and Chilton’s is their Bible, and Henry Ford is their deity.”
Just as lawyers think if you argue (about either side) of any question long enough, you will prevail, anti-evolutionists simply don’t understand how science works.
Even though they are surrounded by the effects of scientific progress at every hand and live longer / healthier / happier lives because of science, they understand science no more than a fish understands water.
Squiggy, if you don’t like evolution because you think it has had a bad effect on morality, be intellectually honest enough to say so. But don’t just say “evolution is a religion” – that just proves you don’t understand evelution _or_ religion.
November 24th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Wiggy said: Scientists have no agenda, no reason to push evolution as dogma. They simply follow the evidence to the truth. They don’t care what truth it might be or what consequences that truth might hold for society.
Boy, are you wearing rose-colored glasses. You’ve obviously never heard Dawkins speak. If you listen to any of these hard-core evolutionists, and even mention God, you’ll find out how little “agenda” they have. To them, evolution is their religion, and humanity is their deity.
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:37 am
Casey, do you deny that on July 14, 2005. Jon Buell, the President of FTE, denied (under oath!) to Judge Jones that FTE is a Christian organization? Even though its IRS exemption says it is? And its state charter says it is? (The transcript is a public document.) Can you understand how Judge Jones came to understand that Jon Buell was lying? And how that might have influenced his decision about what he was dealing with?
If, as you claim, “Intelligent design is a science,” why have the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences and the National Association of Biology Teachers and the American Astronomical Society and essentially every other actual science organization in the United States published a position paper saying it isn’t? Why is it that essentially all the organizations that support intelligent design creationism are religious organizations and right-wing political organizations, but no actual science organizations? Is there any other branch of science that claims it is being suppressed by a vast liberal conspiracy?
I am very well aware that “pre-Edwards drafts of the Pandas textbook used the term “intelligent design”.” Can you put an exact date on the curious Pandas textbook draft term “cdesign proponentsists” for us?
And yes, I know that “Phillip Johnson did not invent intelligent design.” I’m surprised you didn’t mention William Paley (again). The evolution of “creationism” to “creation science” to “intelligent design” is much more credibly and lucidly explained in Barbara Forrest’s paper, “Understanding the intelligent design creationist movement: Its true nature and goals,” at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/US/630_understanding_the_intelligent_6_7_2007.asp than in any self-serving publication of the Discovery Institute.
And I had a lovely Thanksgiving with my 90-year-old mother and my dear wife and my children who are in town. I trust yours was a happy one also. Among the many things for which we gave thanks was that we live in a nation where we can agree to disagree about things like this without resorting to armed violence, as is the norm in so many other nations.
November 23rd, 2007 at 11:23 am
Wiggy, this is a false argument, repeated endlessly by people who have a knee-jerk reaction to the very concept of Intelligent Design.
For my part, I do not believe the Earth is 10,000 years old. In fact, I am certain — based on mountains of evidence — that the Earth is about 4 billion years old, and that the universe itself is probably between 13 and 14 billion years old.
So far as evolution is concerned, I also think there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that life evolved on this planet over a period of 3.5 billion years.
The question is not whether life evolved, but how life evolved.
The famed British astronomer Fred Hoyle made the point succinctly in his 1982 Omni lecture, “Evolution from Space“:
The point is, without the liberal employment of the Anthropic Principle to explain it, the mathematical odds of getting a full-blown biosphere on planet Earth as we observe today is simply — well — astronomical.
“The odds…” wrote Hoyle, are “about the same as the chance of throwing an uninterrupted sequence of 50,000 sixes with unbiased dice.”
Modern Darwinists, on the other hand, seem to have a death-grip on the idea that random mutation and natural selection is the best solution to account for all of this complexity — even in the absence of any solid evidence to support that conclusion.
The credulity of scientists and the media over this issue is remarkable.
Allow me to provide a recent example of this sort of thing….
Oliver Curry, an “evolutionary theorist” from the London School of Economics, has asserted that within the next 100,000 years, humanity will split into two separate species. Dr. Curry’s “theory” has been widely reported in the media, and — to my knowledge — has not been seriously questioned or confronted by Darwin-advocates.
100,000 years to a new species of human?
Humm. Let’s think about this. Notwithstanding the inevitability of the Technological Singularity that is about to swallow all of humanity in about 30 years, Dr. Curry’s claims appear facially incorrect even to a non-expert like me.
Let’s assume that you get a new generation of human being every 20 years. That’s 5 generations in 100 years, 50 generations in 1000 years, and 5000 generations in 100,000 years.
In short, Dr. Curry is proposing — and the mass media is reporting — that you can get a new species of human being within 5000 generations.
But if that’s true, then why haven’t we EVER observed speciation of any kind within the natural world? Surely we have bred and observed far in excess of 5000 generations of bacteria in the laboratory? Yet no laboratory in the world has ever produced a new species of bacteria, let alone a new specie of insect, mouse, or even dog.
Something is wrong with this picture. And breathless charges of “creationism” reflexively leveled against Darwin-doubters is not a satisfactory response to those who question the party-line.
November 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 am
Mr. Burnett’s behavior is saddening: I spent my Thanksgiving celebrating life with my family; I guess he spent his Thanksgiving attacking the religious beliefs of other people. I shouldn’t have to defend the sincerity of my own beliefs, but I suppose I will make 4 quick points in reply to Mr. Burnett’s false assertions:
(1) I have always fully and openly acknowledged my personal views about identity of the designer: I am a Christian and I believe the designer is the God of the Bible, but this is my personal religious view and not a conclusion of intelligent design. Intelligent design is a science, and I don’t see how science can tell us precisely who the designer is, and my views on the identity of the designer come from sources of knowledge outside of science, and therefore outside of intelligent design (i.e. from religion, philosophy, history, etc).
I explain this issue in great detail at http://www.discovery.org/a/4306 where I explain that intelligent design takes a scientific approach and therefore does not try to address religious questions about the identity of the designer. The data may indicate that life was designed, but as I explain, “while biological structures may be scientifically explained via intelligent design, the structures themselves have no way of directly telling us whether the designer is Yahweh, Buddha, Yoda, or some other type of intelligent agency.”
It’s interesting that Mr. Burnett calls intelligent design “blasphemy,” but I think Mr. Burnett needs to re-read my article, which rebuts his assertion quite forcefully:
“It’s time for a reality check. Every major Western religion holds that life was designed by intelligence. The Dalai Lama recently affirmed that design is a philosophical truth in Buddhism. How could it possibly denigrate religion to suggest that design is scientifically correct?”
It’s thus quite odd that Mr. Burnett asserts ID that proponents “refus[e] to acknowledge His part or even mention His [the designer's] existence.” My comments above refute Mr. Burnett’s false assertions. Phillip Johnson also refutes Mr. Burnett’s false assertions, as Johnson writes, “[M]y personal view is that I identify the designer of life with the God of the Bible, although intelligent design theory as such does not entail that.” (http://www.discovery.org/a/3914) Again, I would encourage those interested in this topic to read:
http://www.discovery.org/a/4306
which rebut Mr. Burnett’s false assertions with many examples.
(2) Contrary to Mr. Burnett’s suggestions, Phillip Johnson did not invent intelligent design. The inventions here are the false Darwinian urban legends that (1) Phillip Johnson invented intelligent design, or (2) that intelligent design originated after the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling. I address the first Darwinian urban legend at:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_4.html
…and the second is refuted by 2 simple observations:
(a) pre-Edwards drafts of the Pandas textbook used the term “intelligent design” and
(b) other scientists used the term “intelligent design” before Edwards, such as the non-religious cosmologist Fred Hoyle who wrote in 1982 (5 years before the Edwards ruling): “one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design.”
(See http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/what_is_wrong_with_sobers_atta.html for details refuting this 2nd Darwinian urban legend.)
(3) FTE was indeed denied the right to participate in the Kitzmiller trial. Judge Jones denied FTE’s motion to intervene and become a party to the case, which would have allowed them to make arguments directly before the court, stating as follows: “Pending before the Court is a Motion to Intervene (“the Motion”) (doc. 61) filed by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics (“FTE” or “Applicants”) (doc. 61) on May 23, 2005. We will deny the Motion for the reasons that follow…” (Judge Jones’s Memorandum and Order, July 27, 2005.)
(4) I am a lawyer, but being a lawyer does not negate the fact that I hold a graduate degree in science, and took a dozen or so courses dealing with evolutionary biology while completing my science studies at the university. Of course everything I write represents my own opinion, so it’s most unfortunate that Mr. Burnett suggests otherwise. I don’t know if I’ll have time to post anything more here, but I wish a happy Thanksgiving to all, including Mr. Burnett.
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 am
Mike, you demonstrate that personal criticism is part of the arsenal of discussion by your #3 comment, in defiance of your #2.
That apart, we can get bogged down in determining what is science and what isn’t. Science is a method, a form of discipline that directs us down particular avenues of thinking and observing. It is predominantly externally directed. Whereas what we understand and believe is internally generated. Both have credence, in my mind.
One only has to look at the evidence (scientifically, if you wish – at least pre-scientific taxonomology) to observe the outputs of peoples across cultures and across ages/eons which posit matters that we have only very recently made scientific disciplines from. Genesis, for example seems to describe aspects of the void and sequential development of the Universe from ‘let there be light’ onwards, that modern cosmology and physics is only just getting to confirmatory grips with.
Science may well be a more precise, tool-driven method of enquiry and explanation, but to dismiss the clearly insightful imagination of cultures going back to pre-written history in favour of scientific experimental modes is to dismiss exploration of what seems to be the knowlege of insight that seems to be inherent in our very nature.
The ‘background’ microwave radiation left over from the Big Bang is a worthy phenomenon to investigate, for sure, but it may not be the only evidence of origins that is available to us. The left over may well be imprinted on our mental architecture/sensitivity too, in a quite different way, and ID may well find that a more fruitful path to take than beating on about the specific traditional religious explanations of biblical folk, themselves a small part of the rich tapestry of humanity.
Humanity senses God, whatever God is, in comprehensive and coherent ways. From inside. It has since the beginning of recorded time. Maybe it is a human coping strategy. Or an evolutionarily useful concept. But then again, maybe not. It may be the route to go down to find what is at the bottom of the whole question of our place in nature; the old, fundemental questions of what we are doing here and where did we come from, that science is just as much in the dark about, and replete with inadequate explanation.
Meanwhile Luskin does us all a service in pointing out the utter hypocrisy and political gerrymandering of careers and Institutions that goes on in defiance of Truth-seeking.
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:53 am
I think people need to get some perspective on this issue. Which one of these scenarios seems more likely?
a) There is a massive global conspiracy being orchestrated by most of the scientists and universities in the world to suppress the truth that there is evidence to show that the universe was created by a god/designer/agent/intelligence or…
b) Religious people, offended by the science which shows that the biblical story of Adam & Eve is not literally true, and angered by the law prohibiting the teaching of creationism in schools, have jumped behind the idea of intelligent design because is represents a way for them to prevent their children from accepting evolution.
To me, the first scenario is was wacky as the 9/11 conspiracy theories and the moon landing hoax theories. Scientists have no agenda, no reason to push evolution as dogma. They simply follow the evidence to the truth. They don’t care what truth it might be or what consequences that truth might hold for society.
The second scenario, on the other hand, is more believable. People who push intelligent design have a very big agenda, and every reason to hang on to it, however irrationally. Intelligent design, for them, is the only hope for the justification of their faith. They see the truth of evolution at the destruction of their god. For them it is a religious issue, not a scientific one. How many non-religious ID supporters have you met?
Denial of biology is one thing, but to hold on the the belief that the story of creation is real, one must deny all the other sciences also. Geology, cosmology, and physics all contradice the biblical account of creation. Will people deny them all?
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
[...] Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [...]
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:17 pm
BTW – the mere fact that Judge Jones was a Bush appointee does not negate the charge that he is a classic judicial activist who has become a virtual barker for his own rather melodramatic production of Inherit the Wind.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Caution: This kind of language is provocative and obviously intended to smear the author rather than address the topic of the article.
Let’s try to stick to the subject and refrain from personal attacks and invective.
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Casey Luskin finds it incredible “…that teaching about intelligent design heaps “ridicule to religion.”"
It’s more than just ridicule. Removing the Designer from His creation, and refusing to acknowledge His part or even mention His existence is blasphemy. When Phillip Johnson and his associates attempted to get around the US Supreme Court’s prohibition of teaching “Creation Science” in public schools by inventing the Godless “Intelligent Design,” they did the same thing as Peter, denying Christ.
Casey Luskin has also recently written (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/design_of_life.html) that the “Foundation for Thought and Ethics” (FTE) was “…denied) the right to appear before the (Federal)court to defend the book (”Of Pandas and People”).” But that is not true.
The FTE did have its day in court on July 14, 2005. Jon Buell, the President of FTE, denied (under oath!) three times, like Peter, denied Christ. Jon Buell denied that the IRS exemption for his Christian organization was true; he denied his state charter as a Christian organization was true – and he denied that Intelligent Design was religion.
But Judge Jones (appointed by President Bush) ruled that “We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” Casey is a lawyer, but the judge’s decision was different than what his masters at the Discovery Institute want hims to say.