Re: Mischaracterization of ID?
- From: "Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:37:36 -0600
"Cleombrotus" <CSUnger@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1132850175.224074.176710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Having just joined this forum on a related matter (cf. Principle of
> Falsifiabiltiy), I have had the occasion to read various comments
> concerning the debate/controversy surrounding the ID/ ToE question.
>
> I am not a scientist nor am I at all conversant in the minutia of the
> science behind each of the positions, but it appears to me that the
> Evolutionists in here are involved in gross distortions and
> mischaracterization of what constitutes Intelligent Design. I shouldn't
> even have to mention the puerile namecalling and ad hominems
> accompanying every thread in here on the part of the Evolutionists,
> which, to my mind, say more about those who engage in such methods than
> it does about their intended targets. One does not have to be an
> accredited scientist or even a science undergraduate to recognize bad
> arguments when one sees one and what I see here is plainly more bad
> argument than anything resembling reasoned discourse.
>
Can you point out some of these bad arguments, and why you think they are
bad?
>
> Admittedly, I am a convinced Theist and remain highly sceptical of any
> of the claims of natural selection being behind the current state of
> biological affairs and as such I am biased in favor of the ID position,
> but from what little reading I have done of the works of those who are
> purported to be at the vanguard of the "movement", ID is less about
> creationism as it is an attempt to, using scientific methodology alone,
> falsify the Theory of Evolution, which is strictly a scientific matter
> and not a Theological one.
>
Okay, you *do* realize, do you not, that you've started by admitting that
you understand neither the arguments and evidence for the theory of
evolution, nor those offered against it, but are convinced that ID is based
purely on science, and that the arguments against intelligent design are
"bad arguments?" That is, you've admitted that you have no particular
grounds other than your own bias for your opinions on this subject?
>
> It appears to me that where the hang-up occurs (that is, for those who
> are the honest sceptics and not the Darwinian true-believers) is in
> overlooking the fact that by definition, if the Theory of Evolution is
> falsified and discredited that leaves only one logical alternative to
> the explanation of origins.
>
The "theory of evolution" is (ignoring a vast amount of detail, and
quibbling over that detail) common descent with modification, and adaption
by natural selection. Other possibilities include but are not limited to:
separate origins and descent with modification, or mechanisms other than
natural selection for descent with modification (combine those last two, and
you get some version of Lamarckianism), or life existing eternally and
neither being created nor changing (Aristotle's view, and hard to reconcile
with a limited age of the Earth). Of course, there are a host of rival
"design" or "creation" accounts: one can have common descent with
modification by intelligent intervention (a view suggested by Phillip
Johnson), or progressive separate creations (Hugh Ross's idea), or recent
separate creations (classic YECism), or really ancient separate creations
(Hindu creationism). One can mix and match almost to one's heart's content.
Note that "origins" is unclear here; the origin of the universe, of the
Earth, of life, of species and of adaptions are five separate questions.
The theory of evolution is supposed to address only the last two, and not
all evolutionists accept that the last two have quite the same explanation.
>
> If the true believers can disallow the ID position from even being
> considered, their sinecure is, well, secure. At least in their own
> minds. That appears to me, to be the motivating factor behind those who
> are attempting to portray the ID position as a disguised attempt to
> force religion or Creationism into the public school curriculums.
>
What threats to the "sinecures" of biologists does ID pose? Even
evolutionary biologists generally study actual, real-time aspects of
evolution and natural selection that few ID proponents deny exist to be
studied. Developmental biologists, taxonomists, zoologists and botanists
.... few of these people are going to lose their jobs if "design" is taken
seriously. John Harshman can switch from studying the phylogeny of birds
(unless one subscribes to a version of ID that allows "intelligently guided"
evolution) to studying the design principles used to design and create them.
Indeed, anyone capable of actually formulating a proper theory of biological
design (as yet, the Discovery Institute admits it has none) will win fame,
funding (a lot of the government is quite favorable to ID), and probably a
Nobel prize (and sinecure to go with it).
The trouble with considering the ID position is finding anything that can
actually be considered. The ID proponents at the Discovery Institute
carefully refrain from offering any testable implications of design, or
testable hypotheses about the Designer(s). Indeed, their position is that
identifying "design" tells us nothing about the designer -- as though Isaac
Newton had suggested that "gravity" explains why apples fall to Earth, and
the moon does not, without bothering to tell us anything about how "gravity"
was supposed to work! ID "science" consists in its entirety of finding
alleged gaps in current evolutionary theory, and arguing that where we find
a gap, we should invoke a Designer. We should not ask how this Designer is
supposed to work, or what His design philosophy might be, or what His goals
might be, or how "design" makes these features of nature more explicable
than evolution does (what exactly was the Designer trying to accomplish with
bacterial flagella?).
Of course, it is trivially easy to demonstrate, where attempts have been
made to introduce ID in some form into public schools, that those doing this
are creationists and are doing it for creationist motives. Comments (when
revising a science curriculum) that "Someone died on a cross 2000 years ago,
and its time someone took a stand for Him" are sort of a giveaway. Even
the professional ID advocates endlessly repeat charges having to do with the
alleged *social* and *political* drawbacks of "Darwinism," rather than with
its scientific deficiencies, and how ID will revolutionize society (as
people realize that, rather than being products of blind chance and blind
necessity, they are the crafted products of some intelligence of unknown
motives, unknown desires, and unknown methods, which may or may not still
exist and may or may not have the slightest interest in their moral,
physical, and spiritual welfare).
>
> The charge that it is "Creationism in disguise" and should be
> disallowed on that basis, is a strawman of the weakest order but since
> we have accepted the previous mischaracterization of the entire
> "separation of church and state" issue long ago, I suspect that, in
> most cases, they will be successful in this attempt also.
>
"Creationism in disguise" is quite accurate (and it's not even a very good
disguise), although I agree it's not really the best reason to oppose ID.
But the constitution contains no prohibition against teaching lies and
vacuous pseudoscience in science classes, so attacking ID as creationism is
the obvious legal strategy. But ID ought to be opposed because it turns the
scientific method on its head. Rather than advance some testable hypotheses
about how a designer might work, and how a designed biosphere might differ
empirically from a nondesigned biosphere, ID seeks to make its case by
ruling out natural causes and leaving ID as all that's left.
This cannot work, of course. To rule out even "neoDarwinian" explanations,
one would need to consider every possible evolutionary pathway from every
possible precursor structure, and consider also all the possible alternative
solutions that might be found but were not. To rule out, additionally,
*all* nonteleological processes, one would need to know all the laws of
nature and all the possible ways in which they could interact. In short, to
honestly make the case for ID the way ID proponents want to, one would need
to be an omniscient designer oneself.
To make the best of this hopeless task, ID proponents resort to various
tactics. The requirement (if one hopes to make the case for ID by
eliminating "Darwinist" explanations) to show that mutation and natural
selection cannot produce some outcome, is evaded, and replaced by a demand
that a "Darwinian" explanation be provided (in a level of detail that can be
raised to whatever level has not yet been met); the failure to meet such a
demand is treated, quite illogically, as proof that no such explanation is
possible. Evidence is systematically ignored or misrepresented, or both.
ID has nothing in common with a typical scientific theory; its only
conceivable value is as a "god of the gaps" apologetic for creationism.
>
> However, on the bright side, the mere fact that a controversy has been
> raised on the subject, is drawing the attention of large segments of
> the student body regardless and that can only be good for all.
>
I do not think that follows. If a large and well-funded movement were to
get students interested in and talking about holocaust denial, and if school
boards all over the country were demanding that history classes teach the
evidence for and against the idea that the Nazis murdered six million Jews,
I don't think that that could be "only good." If geocentrist creationists
were as numerous and well-organized as evolution deniers, would a
controversy over whether the Earth orbited the sun, or the other way around,
be "only good for all?"
>
> Let us just hope that it is not too little too late.
>
It's too much, too late.
-- Steven J.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Mischaracterization of ID?
- From: anon1
- Re: Mischaracterization of ID?
- References:
- Mischaracterization of ID?
- From: Cleombrotus
- Mischaracterization of ID?
- Prev by Date: Re: Sean Pitman: definitions wanted
- Next by Date: Re: To pre-empt the creationists I mine the following tasty quotefrom the real Richard Dawkins
- Previous by thread: Re: Mischaracterization of ID?
- Next by thread: Re: Mischaracterization of ID?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
