Websnark

Comment from: bono posted at December 20, 2005 7:22 PM

I fail to see how you could ever prove intelligent design. The very ambiguous nature of religion makes it impossible for believers to pin down the truth of their beliefs. If an experiment (e.g., do bad things happen to bad people?) fails, an alternate explanation of God's abilities/status is created (e.g., God can't help everyone at all times, ergo bad things sometimes happen to bad people).

Comment from: Joseph White posted at December 20, 2005 7:29 PM

My view of things is that evolution is too elegant for God not to use. A lot of people I know were surprised to discover that in addition to having a degree in molecular biology--and working on another in physics--I am very religious. They have problems squaring that circle. How can you be a scientist and believe in God? is the question. Very easily, from my point of view. I see the Universe as being like a house. Science can tell us what the house is made of, it can tell us how the house was built, but it cannot tell us why the house was built, or who built it. Only religion--or in the broader sense, metaphysics--can do that.

Comment from: Egarwaen posted at December 20, 2005 7:52 PM

My view of things is that evolution is too elegant for God not to use.

Yup. Exactly. Speaking as a computer scientist, I consider the apparent natural development of the universe to be evidence that there's someone behind the scenes pulling the strings. Because really, if I had unlimited power and infinite time, that's how I'd like to build software. The whole thing's far too bloody elegant and comprehensible.

More interestingly, the problem of God's existence seems to be undecidable. Which, of course, means that the whole religion thing ultimately comes down to faith.

Apparently, there's a reason why I like Schlock so much.

Comment from: Tyler Martin posted at December 20, 2005 7:55 PM

In before the lock!

Comment from: Prophet of Cod posted at December 20, 2005 7:56 PM

I agree with Joseph's standpoint. I am not religious myself, but I have a deep respect for anyone who is, even to the extent of standing up for them to my friends who may not agree with them.

Science fails miserably when it comes to explaining the past beyond recordable history. As was pointed out, all we have are theories. Now, even among theories there are (what I consider) "good" theories and "speculative" theories.

A good theory is gravity. The Theory of Gravity tells us how fast something will fall (factoring out air resistance and other forces). We can observe it, test it, and use every day experiments to prove its continued veracity.

A speculative theory is the Big Bang. We have evidence which seem to point to the universe having a certain age, and to have been formed in a certain way, but it seems every year we have new evidence which contradicts old evidence, or requires us to redetermine the way the Universe was created (age of certain celestial bodies, speed at which galaxies are moving, etc). In many ways, the Big Bang is a guess as to what happened that we seem to have the best evidence for so far. However, I suspect that theory will change repeatedly over the next few decades as more and more evidence emerges which causes us to reconsider the origins of the Universe.

Comment from: Darth Paradox posted at December 20, 2005 7:57 PM

Well said, Joseph.

I'm a computer programmer. The product of my work is a product of (hopefully) intelligent design, in the non-capitalized sense. And yet, my creations can be said to evolve from their original, primitive form into a form best suited to their tasks, and they will evolve again when their requirements change. Of course, the changes involved in that evolution are a direct product of my actions. But we have genetic algorithms now - programs that are written by starting with a huge number of copies of a few atomic pieces, and a framework that will automatically cause them to mutate and evolve towards suitability in a given environment.

A belief in a creator is not mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution. But, as Joseph points out, what the original motivation of the creator was/is is not a topic for biological science, and how the requirements for a program came about are outside the realm of computer science. (The analogy breaks down a little, here - the requirements of a program are of paramount importance in the field of software engineering, and where software engineering stops and computer science starts is a difficult line to identify indeed. But the original point stands.)

Comment from: John posted at December 20, 2005 7:59 PM

no one has yet developed any kind of experiment that can measure, demonstrate or derive it.

And you can get a chimpanzee from a lizard in the lab?

Comment from: Darth Paradox posted at December 20, 2005 8:02 PM

Also, Cod-prophet, I look forward to the day - as Howard points out - that we can engage in experimental astronomy and astrophysics.

Fun times to be had by all.

Comment from: quentin mcalmott posted at December 20, 2005 8:12 PM

I think it would help if people who were against intelligent design being taught in science classrooms (as I am) would not yell about how wrong it is, and simply state "it's a philosophical theory, not a scientific theory." That way, feelings don't get hurt, and you're not saying their belief is invalid.

Comment from: Darth Paradox posted at December 20, 2005 8:13 PM

Also. This entry appears to be posted in the "Fan Art!" category. It's an artfully done essay for all us evolution fans, sure, but I suspect it's misclassified all the same.

Comment from: Tangent posted at December 20, 2005 8:23 PM

I believe in intelligent design. I believe that some greater intelligence designed evolution, relativity, and all of the laws of the universe... and then set it all in motion to see what would happen. *grin*

Sounds like the perfect definition of "intelligent design" to me. Just because some people don't like the idea of having their ancestors having been mice-like critters doesn't lessen the fact that our ancestors WERE in fact critters, and not Adam and Eve. Besides, do you really want to be the product of tens of thousands of years of incest? I mean... we started out with TWO people, one of whom was formed out of the other, so in essence we're all of Adam's blood... and are the most inbred species in existance in that case.

Though that might explain some of humanity... ;)

Robert A. Howard

Comment from: kirabug posted at December 20, 2005 8:27 PM

And you can get a chimpanzee from a lizard in the lab?

I can probably get from a lizard to a chimp, but I need five to ten million years... will you sit up with me while we try it?

Comment from: J Ryan Beattie posted at December 20, 2005 8:30 PM

Different thing, John. See, evolution is falsifiable. If we found out, for example, that the Earth was only six thousand years old, or that one species cannot change into another, then evolution would be disproved. There is no way to disprove intelligent design, because it makes no claims that can be tested.

Since we have fairly concrete evidence that the Earth is much, much older than that, and have witnessed speciation, we continue to use evolution as a viable theory.

This is why the ID folks are so adamant about "irreducible complexity." If this were true, it would show that evolution was false, and we would need a new theory. However, in virtually every case they're brought forward, we have shown that the structure wasn't nearly as irreducible as the IDeologists claimed.

Like Howard says, it's bad religion. They lie about their motives and most of their proponants have repeated twisted and made up facts to suit their purpose. If you're looking to religion for moral guidance, I'd think twice before looking to them.

Comment from: J Ryan Beattie posted at December 20, 2005 8:33 PM

Also, getting a lizard to a chimp in a lab would not be evidence for or against evolution. Give us another few hundred years, and we'll probably have the technology to do that. It wouldn't tell us anything, though, except that we could muck with their genes really well.

Now, if we could observe the lizard changing into an apelike species over the course of many thousands of generations? That would be something. Alas, we brief mortals have only so much time on this Earth.

Comment from: Tyck posted at December 20, 2005 8:33 PM

And you can get a chimpanzee from a lizard in the lab?

Seriously, is this meant to be a flame or a point of argument or what? If it's an argument, please clarify..I need to know just what literature needs to be bought in here to address it. If it's a flame..for Frith's sake, we just had a lecture about civility. You don't want to disappoint Eric again, do you? I can't take those hurt-puppy eyes any more..

Comment from: Joe Zabel posted at December 20, 2005 8:37 PM

The whole problem with intelligent design is, who designed the designer? If you assume that the universe and living creatures could not have come about all on their own, you must also logically assume that a supreme being could not have come into existence on its own.

I prefer the alternative-- to judge the evidence at hand and seek more evidence. We know very little about the origin of the universe, or how the properties of the universe really work; but we're learning more each year by use of the scientific method. Now's not the time to give up.

Comment from: JEisenberg posted at December 20, 2005 8:39 PM

Actually, Robert, evolution presupposes quite a bit of inbreeding.

From my understanding of modern natural history (based largely on Steven Jay Gould's essays at my general bio classes in college), new species form when a very small group of individuals breaks off from another community by moving or changing behavior. Genetically, it is very difficult to get more than one small mutation or change in gene frequency in each generation.

Although a literal Adam and Eve are not required by biology, there certainly would have been much hooking up between first cousins or closer in such a community.

Joseph Eisenberg

Comment from: Pyrthas posted at December 20, 2005 8:39 PM

While evolution may be an elegant solution--and I certainly value elegance a great deal (probably in large part because I do a fair amount of work in formal logic and formal semantics)--I'm not sure that I see why it would have the same value for an omnipotent, omniscient being. That is, as nice as elegance is, it seems to me to always take a backseat to effectiveness.

As for proving it, it isn't clear to me that we really need a proof; good reasons for or against it would still be interesting, even if they didn't completely settle the issue. And, since we seem to be sharing our professions, I'm a philosopher (but I don't work in anything quite as juicy as philosophy of religion), and feel obligated to point out that while this is definitely a legitimate philosophical position (indeed, I'm not quite sure what an illegitimate position would look like), it doesn't follow that it's any good. A bad philosophical position would be one with strong arguments against it. A good one would be one with strong arguments for it. Of course, this doesn't automatically imply that you ought to not hold any bad philosophical positions; there could very well be reasons to believe things even if you don't have any reason to think that it's true (faith seems like a plausible candidate here).

I'm not saying that intelligent design *is* bad. I'm just saying that to say that it's a good philosophical theory (which I don't think that anybody's said yet, so this shouldn't be taken as being directed at anyone in particular) is going to still require adducing reasons to think that it's true. You don't get out of giving reasons by jumping to philosophy; the reasons just take slightly different forms. Unless you're using "philosophical" in some other way. I can't quite tell here. (Usually, I just assume that people don't mean it in the more technical sense in which it gets used in academia, but here I got the impression that maybe it was being used in such a way.)

Comment from: Denyer posted at December 20, 2005 8:39 PM

you're not saying their belief is invalid.

Anything not adherent to specific dogma is typically considered challenge by anyone who in seriousness gives credit to literal creationism.

Personally, I'll pretend respect when equal time is set aside for promulgation of the world being created by a bundle of intelligent spaghetti last Thursday, and I tend to think that we're puddles.

Comment from: Glaser posted at December 20, 2005 8:45 PM

I have no problem with belief in God - I do believe in God - nor do I have any problem with belief in Intelligent Design.

But it's just that. Belief. Intelligent Design is not scientific - it does not accurately explain any natural phenomenon based on a series of experiments and observation - so it's not scientific, which means it should stop pretending to be part of science.

Obviously that relates most to education: we shouldn't teach Intelligent Design is science class because it isn't science. If you believe in Intelligent Design and you have children, I strongly urge you to teach them that as part of your faith, but keep it as part of your faith, because that's what it is.

Comment from: Tyck posted at December 20, 2005 8:57 PM

While evolution may be an elegant solution--and I certainly value elegance a great deal (probably in large part because I do a fair amount of work in formal logic and formal semantics)--I'm not sure that I see why it would have the same value for an omnipotent, omniscient being. That is, as nice as elegance is, it seems to me to always take a backseat to effectiveness.

Depends on what personality you want to assign to deity-of-choice. If the Creator is the sort of being to be a good engineer or similar, He'd likely value a robust, self-correcting, effective thing like evolution. On the other hand, He could be an obsessive micro-manager..in which case, miracles all the way. If we must have a god, I'd like to think of him as not being a smeghead.

Comment from: Tyck posted at December 20, 2005 8:59 PM

*forehead slap* And here we have that forethought thing coming up to bite my ass. I was intending humor; I would like to apologize for the somewhat inflammatory tones of my last post.

Comment from: VetEpiGirl posted at December 20, 2005 9:13 PM

I'm just curious -- no offense meant -- how many of the above comments are from biologists? I've seen references to computer science, physics, and philosophy; there's even a reference to Stephen Jay Gould (of whom it was commented by Jared Diamond that 'he writes like someone who's been asleep in class for the last 20 years'), but nothing more pertinent to the topic at hand.

As a biologist, my reaction is that evolution vs. intelligent design should be decided by, um, biologists. It is our field. You might want to make correlations with physics or geology, but that really doesn't work. Science is not science is not science.

My opinion: evolution is a fact. We watch evolution on an annual basis; anybody get a flu vaccine recently? Wonder why you need a new one each year? Medical professionals cannot deny evolution. Microevolution.

Macroevolution, monkeys from lizards (not the generally accepted pathway, but I digress), is a theory. That doesn't mean it's right--theories get out of hand if you're not careful. The theory of evolution has been used to support racism and genocide. Religion has done crappy things, too. Neither is perfect. Neither should be taught as the only possible answer. We don't have the only possible answer to . . . anything . . . in biology. It's too complex.

I agree that ID shouldn't be taught as science, and I believe in ID. My worry is the reaction that goes a step too far. For example, my high school biology teacher told me that nothing in the Bible was true. If we're going to keep religion out of science education, can we be sure that we've done a complete job?

Comment from: John posted at December 20, 2005 9:17 PM

I can probably get from a lizard to a chimp, but I need five to ten million years... will you sit up with me while we try it?

Ergo, you can't do it in a laboratory. Evolution can't be proven through observational science, because it's supposedly too slow to be observable. Funny, that.

Since we have fairly concrete evidence that the Earth is much, much older than that,

And you can demonstrate the accuracy of those dating techniques through experimental, observational science?

Hope you brought a good book. Or library.

Either belief is a philosophical approach, folks. You think evolution fits the facts, but creationists think their belief fits them too. And neither one can be observed or studied scientifically.

I'm tired of evolutionists claiming special evidentiary status for their creation story.

Comment from: Luggage posted at December 20, 2005 9:19 PM

Yeah, it's a pity we can't observe all those germs outpacing antibiotics in labs.

Comment from: Tyck posted at December 20, 2005 9:31 PM

Either belief is a philosophical approach, folks. You think evolution fits the facts, but creationists think their belief fits them too. And neither one can be observed or studied scientifically.

Except..evolution can be. The basic mechanisms are observable fact. Individuals within a specie are different. That's observable. Mutations happen. That's observable. Identical environmental influences affect individuals in different ways. That's observable. Parents pass on traits to children. Observable. The theory of evolution simply takes the observable facts and uses them to draw the conclusion that speciation happened (and happens) as described by..er, the theory of evolution.

And since it's been bought up, evolution is in no way a creation story. It describes the change of existing creatures. Origins- either biologic or geologic- is a different field of science.

PS. I think micro and macro evolution is an extremely artificial division. 'Macro' evolution is simply the end result of 'micro' evolution that is allowed to continue operating.

Comment from: Pyrthas posted at December 20, 2005 9:45 PM

Depends on what personality you want to assign to deity-of-choice. If the Creator is the sort of being to be a good engineer or similar, He'd likely value a robust, self-correcting, effective thing like evolution. On the other hand, He could be an obsessive micro-manager..in which case, miracles all the way. If we must have a god, I'd like to think of him as not being a smeghead.

Well, I'd at least want an explanation of why something designed by an omniscient, omnipotent being needs to be self-correcting. (Of course, this says nothing about religions that don't posit an omniscient, omnipotent deity.)

Comment from: Weboggle posted at December 20, 2005 9:47 PM

Just to amplify on what VetEpiGirl said:

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, just as gravity is, and as many other subjects of scientific study are. The fact of evolution encompasses descent with modification, genetics, the fossil record, the geographic distributions of animal populations, and other readily observable facts out there in the world. Theories of evolution are the explanations that unify and extrapolate these facts. Darwin's theory, natural selection, was the best explanation of its time. It has been developed, buttressed, trimmed, supplemented, and otherwise tweaked to produce other theories leading down to the present day consensus, which is the best explanation we have today.

Creationists, whatever they wish to call themselves, tend to ignore or downplay the fact of evolution as much as they can, and play on the areas where the theory is still developing, as though this were some sort of weakness. I'm very wary of the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" that VetEpiGirl used, because I usually encounter them in the context of creationist attempts to build an imaginary wall between the fact and the theory. It is as though we called erosion, vulcanism, drift, and related day-to-day observables "microgeology" and the reshaping of mountain ranges and continents "macrogeology", then tried to argue that the former couldn't lead to the latter.

Comment from: Tyck posted at December 20, 2005 9:57 PM

Well, I'd at least want an explanation of why something designed by an omniscient, omnipotent being needs to be self-correcting. (Of course, this says nothing about religions that don't posit an omniscient, omnipotent deity.)

This is a bit out of my field of expertise (which is..ah, none, really..), but I'll give it a shot. Assume a perfect being. Does it necessarily follow that everything that being causes must also be perfect? Or does that being simply have the capacity to cause a perfect happening if it so desires?

Here's another question..does the Creator have the capacity for boredom? If he does (and the Old Testament, at least in my reading, indicates the God of Abraham can get bored), there would be great value in a self-randomizing process like evolution. I mean, we have the duck-billed platypus. It isn't anybody's example of perfection, but it is very amusing.

Comment from: J Ryan Beattie posted at December 20, 2005 10:08 PM

Again, John, that proves nothing. It has nothing to do with evolution. You've tossed out a straw man. Just because someone jumped at it does not make you right. The fact that the crows haven't noticed it's not a real person doesn't help a scarecrow breathe, with all due respect to kirabug. See, we have seen evolution. Like Luggage said, we've seen microbial creatures evolve resistance to antibiotics. We've seen fruit flies speciate. We have observed it. The idea that we've never seen it happen is another lie told by the creationists.

From an evolutionary standpoint, the difference between these seemingly small changes and apparently large change of a lizard to a chimpanzee is only a matter of degree. No more, no less. Natural selection is a fact. It isn't a theory. Mutations are a fact. We can see both in action. Given enough time, they will produce new and different species.

Fossil records support this. Genetics support this. Everything we've found in paleontology and biology supports this. There is a truly profound amount of evidence for evolution. Sure there are gaps. But we have enough evidence that, if it were wrong, we should have found something contradictory by now. We haven't. That's why the more fanatical followers of ID have to make up "facts" like irreducible complexity.

Actually, in some ways, young-Earth creationism is more scientific than ID. At least it's falsifiable. Once you realize that the universe is much, much older than six thousand years, it becomes falsified. ID is a step backward, a retreat. They're being careful not to make any claims that can be attacked on a scientific basis. You can't prove them wrong if they won't claim anything meaningful.

As an aside, genetic evidence points to a genetic bottleneck in the human race some seventy-thousand years ago, with all humans alive today descended from fewer than ten thousand individuals of that time.

Comment from: Egarwaen posted at December 20, 2005 10:08 PM

I'm just curious -- no offense meant -- how many of the above comments are from biologists?

Joe White is. Also, I think John's the only one here actually arguing against evolution. The rest of us seem to be either pure evolutionists, or evolution-in-science-ists who also happen to believe in a God who is not, as Tyck so elegantly put it, a smeghead.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 20, 2005 10:10 PM

A few things I like to note:

First, I know quite a few people who believe God caused evolution. It's not that radical of a theory.

Second, evolution has been observed to have concrete evidence behind it. It might be only a theory, but it's an incredibly solid one. So it has that going for it.

Finally, as to why God would make evolution happen... my personal belief is that God is unscrutable. You can figure out some of the things God does, but you can't figure them all out, and you can almost never figure out why. So as for why God would choose evolution over ex nihilo creation? If any of us were God, we could answer that.

The most we have are the clues left to us. And unless God really likes playing practical jokes (and I'm not ruling that one out), the hints look to point towards evolution.

Comment from: Egarwaen posted at December 20, 2005 10:12 PM

Here's another question..does the Creator have the capacity for boredom? If he does (and the Old Testament, at least in my reading, indicates the God of Abraham can get bored), there would be great value in a self-randomizing process like evolution. I mean, we have the duck-billed platypus. It isn't anybody's example of perfection, but it is very amusing.

It's also possible that said Creator simply holds elegance in a very high regard. Or can (and wants to) be surprised. This second seems to have a lot of evidence to support it in most major religions, I should add. For one, it's a wonderful explanation for why It seems to have gone out of Its way to allow us free will.

Comment from: J Ryan Beattie posted at December 20, 2005 10:20 PM

In a dynamic system, there is no such thing as perfection. What is perfect in one time and place will be imperfect in another. Assume that the deity doesn't wish a static creation. A self-correcting mechanism will be likely to keep species within acceptible parameters.

This, of course, assumes that life is actually the goal of said deity. It could be we're an unavoidable side-effect.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 20, 2005 10:20 PM

My reaction to Tayler's newspost was to add The answers may be in The Book, but we're expected to show our work to my sigquote queue.

Comment from: Tyck posted at December 20, 2005 10:22 PM

And unless God really likes playing practical jokes

Aside from the hands-off god (the one who winds up the universe like a clock and then watches it go in satisfaction), this is my favorite choice for modifying the Creator so It meets the logical challenges that the Classical God (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) fails. As Dogbert once said, "God has a sense of humor? Of course! It explains everything!" The answer to the question of "Why would God do that?" changes from "God is ineffable." to "God found it entertaining." That's much more comprehensible, and for me, a little comforting.

But then, I've always been attracted more to humanized gods ala Greece than the perfect being of Abrahamic monotheism.

Comment from: alschroeder posted at December 20, 2005 10:22 PM

I believe in Intelligent Design from a cosmological and physics point of view. The various "coincidences" inherent in the various flavors of the anthropic principle are too much for me to swallow.

I explained exactly what I believed, and why I believe it, in "Tea Leaves and What Al Believes" at [url]http://www.novanotes.com/jan2003/jan292003.htm[/url]. I think it's a good case.

But biology? Given the immense time frames for evolution to happen, and the undoubted fact of mutation, God would have to make an ongoing miracle to make Evolution NOT happen. (Although DNA and RNA, which are absolutely necessary for terran biology, are so complex that their occurence is at last something to wonder at. Chemicals combining in nebulae? Clay as a precursor to DNA? There are all sorts of theories.)

So...biological evidence of Intelligent Design? I don't see it. Cosmological or astronomical evidence? Slightly in favor of IT, in my opinion. And I realize it is only my opinion.

Comment from: alschroeder posted at December 20, 2005 10:23 PM

Uh, make that http://www.novanotes.com/jan2003/jan292003.htm.

Comment from: Egarwaen posted at December 20, 2005 10:29 PM

But then, I've always been attracted more to humanized gods ala Greece than the perfect being of Abrahamic monotheism.

Interestingly, Abrahamic monotheism and Greece weren't static in that respect. The God of Abraham keeps bouncing back and forth between being a close and human God (the sort of fellow you can wrestle with) and a distant and inhuman one (the kind that lights bushes on fire - if only he'd do that now, not that I'm trying to incite a political flamewar or anything... ;) ). Likewise, I seem to remember from my Classics courses that the Greek gods weren't always seen as being human and nearby. For at least a while, those gods were seen as allegories for a more distant and inhuman diety.

Religion's a funny thing. Everyone likes to pretend it's static, but it's far from it.

Comment from: Howard Tayler posted at December 20, 2005 10:31 PM

The best arguments I've seen in FAVOR of ID (and I've had a few emailed to me today) are actually arguments in favor of Catastrophism. Current discourse on evolution leans heavily towards "gradualism" with "punctuated equilibrium." Things happen slowly, and every few hundred million years we get hit by a rock.

Catastrophism says that things happen slowly, but that there may be FREQUENT catastrophic changes which leave little (if any) trace. We see holes in the fossil record, and it MIGHT be because for a few million years the strata we're looking at got eroded and all the information was lost. It might ALSO be because there were NOT a few million years there, and the jump in fossil appearance was caused by some hitherto unknown outside factor.

Some proponents of ID claim that it's Catastrophism, and that the Creationists jumped aboard because God is the Ultimate Catastrophe. That's fine... but ID goes ON to SUGGEST that the catastrophic events might be a Higher Power, and THAT's the point at which it becomes untestable.

Catastrophism sounds cool, and also sounds a LOT more like science than ID does. It seeks to find testable, theoretical answers to questions like "how did we end up with fossils for animals so large that, according to simple principles of mechanical engineering, they couldn't have survived in Earth's gravity?" We've never observed a significant change in the Gravitational Constant. If it DID change, well... I might not have any trouble at all getting those replicator-bots onto the roof.

Comment from: J Ryan Beattie posted at December 20, 2005 10:34 PM

My interpretation of the implications of the anthropic principle as regards evolution is simply that life is going to evolve to take advantage of local conditions. If the universe worked a different way, life would evolve as something that would be uniquely able to take advantage of it--and completely unsuitable for life in this particular universe.

To me, the anthropic principle is putting the cart before the horse. The universe isn't adapted to us. Life simply adapted to the universe.

Comment from: Weboggle posted at December 20, 2005 10:41 PM

Uh-oh, you haven't by any chance been getting email from Ted Holden have you Howard? If Catastrophism interests you, I highly recommend a visit to the Talk.Origins Catastrophism FAQs

Comment from: kirabug posted at December 20, 2005 10:44 PM

The fact that the crows haven't noticed it's not a real person doesn't help a scarecrow breathe, with all due respect to kirabug.

Oh, no offense taken :) I just thought it was really funny that, while that scale of evolution as it's understood by laymen like myself took millions of years, John seemed to think we should be able to do it in the lab in about 20 minutes or so - or at least in our lifetimes.

I live with evolution in action. Many of the current signs point to the Cystic Fibrosis mutations being a population's attempt to protect itself from cholera. Unfortunately, getting two mutations results in the disease my husband lives with. The theory of evolution IMHO is elegant, but also IMHO, the practice is a bitch.

Comment from: Egarwaen posted at December 20, 2005 10:44 PM

If the universe worked a different way, life would evolve as something that would be uniquely able to take advantage of it--and completely unsuitable for life in this particular universe.

The anthropic principle is a very weak argument. You can't prove it either way, with logic or empiricism. Any test I can think of would yield answers that fit both theories. I think it's largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Comment from: Howard Tayler posted at December 20, 2005 10:46 PM

No email from Ted, Weboggle. Just a spot of my own digging around through books and blogs and science news over the last four years or so, plus a short spate of emails defending ID on a few genuinely scientific points.

Oh, and Eric -- for the record, yes, I agree with your parenthetical closing paragraph.

Comment from: Tyck posted at December 20, 2005 10:51 PM

To me, the anthropic principle is putting the cart before the horse. The universe isn't adapted to us. Life simply adapted to the universe.

If the universe were not hospitable to life in some region of it, we would not be here to formulate the anthropic principle. It is attractive, but fallacious, to go from this undeniably true statement and say that the universe must therefore be here so that we can be here.

Although Terry Pratchett tells us that basically everybody really believes in the Very Strong Anthropic Principle, which states that the universe exists so that I can exist. All the rest of you are just along for the ride.

Comment from: Weboggle posted at December 20, 2005 10:57 PM

Understood. This topic just pushes all of my buttons from my days as a talk.origins lurker, and makes me expect to see all the same participants swing 'round.

...oh, and my Tagon pin from Linucon 2004 is now staring at me accusingly for not reading your post at Schlock Mercenary before commenting here. I now realize that my first comment above is entirely redundant. Sorry about that, folks.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 20, 2005 11:00 PM

I do have to disagree with the idea that perfection is, by default, static. We have defined perfection as static. But what if God defined perfection as fluid and amorphous? That theory fits in with all the religions I know of - that mankind is fallible and capable of making a mistake on that level.

The funny thing about God is, when a human talks about God, they have strip out all preconceived notions of everything to be able to avoid tripping up on the details. And that abandonment is nearly impossible to do.

Comment from: Arachnid posted at December 20, 2005 11:12 PM

And you can get a chimpanzee from a lizard in the lab?

OK, I'll bite.

First, chimpanzees did not evolve from lizards. Evolution does not claim they did. Some very long time ago, chimpanzees and lizards had a common ancestor - most likely something marine. This branched off at some point into warm-blooded creatures (like chimpanzees) and cold-blooded creatures (like lizards). Since warm-blooded vs cold-blooded, and mammalian vs reptile are fairly fundamental differences, I can't see that any evolutionary pressure could force one to turn into the other - the creatures in question are simply too complex to undergo that sort of fundamental change. For the distant ancestor, this was much simpler, of course.

Second, just because you can't demonstrate long-term macroevolution in the lab doesn't make it a bad theory. Microevolution can and has been observed, and as others have pointed out, all the required components of macro-evolution have been observed. More importantly, direct observation is not required of a theory to make it sound - all that's required is that the theory make predictions, which are provable and falsifiable. Evolution does that - one example is the predicted (and confirmed) presence of intermediate creatures in the fossil record.

Evolution isn't alone in this regard - theories like relativity and quantum physics can't be directly observed in the strictest sense. All we can do is conduct experiments that the theory predicts the outcomes of.

Comment from: Luggage posted at December 20, 2005 11:28 PM

I dislike debates on evolution, mainly because it eventually leads to anthromorphism of a theory which is almost mathematical in it's simplicity.

It's like graphing a function, and while f(3) may be greater than f(2), saying that it's "better" or that's "perfection" is rather silly.

Comment from: William_G posted at December 21, 2005 12:01 AM

ID is creationism. It doesnt belong in a classroom, it never did. And I'm glad parents are smart enough to not want religion forced upon their kids, and are willing to go to court over it.

Take that, religious reich.

Comment from: Denyer posted at December 21, 2005 12:13 AM

I'm glad parents are smart enough to not want religion forced upon their kids, and are willing to go to court over it.

That is what it comes down to, yes... in the US there's an ideological separation of state and religion. It's being upheld. (And science isn't a religion so long as it operates from a default of challenging findings and looking for gaps in knowledge rather than standing pat.)

Of course, in the UK we don't have that mandated separation, but in some ways I think it works out for the best: kids are exposed to lots of different faiths and creeds, and learn to spot the similarities/differences. That seems a little lacking in US education.

Comment from: William_G posted at December 21, 2005 12:33 AM

I agree, there should be a comparative religious studies course made available to all students.

But even then, you can't really eliminate the biases of the teachers. Their belief in whatever invisible man in the sky they think is there, will always get preferential treatment.

Comment from: Escushion posted at December 21, 2005 1:14 AM

Wow, over 50 comments and no one's being catty. I think your "We need to talk" post had a good effect, Eric.

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion as I'm pretty set, except for this: I would enjoy the existence of a chimpanlizard.

Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at December 21, 2005 1:23 AM

"I'm just curious -- no offense meant -- how many of the above comments are from biologists? I've seen references to computer science, physics, and philosophy; there's even a reference to Stephen Jay Gould (of whom it was commented by Jared Diamond that 'he writes like someone who's been asleep in class for the last 20 years'), but nothing more pertinent to the topic at hand.

As a biologist, my reaction is that evolution vs. intelligent design should be decided by, um, biologists. It is our field. You might want to make correlations with physics or geology, but that really doesn't work. Science is not science is not science."

While I know I can't prove it on this board, I hope the graduate work in molecular biology proves my worthyness to comment on this subject (yes, I have degrees in biology and philosophy, and yes, I'm unemployed, feel free to make a "coffee shop employment" joke). While I agree that people with actual training in the field at hand are best trained to address the subject, I would not limit it to biologists. This is a discussion about schools. Education experts should be consulted. If ID is in fact a philosophical or religious viewpoint, then experts in those fields should have their views presented. Of course, all of this highlights just how many interests are involved besides science, and how unscientific this is.

Just a few things I'd like to point out:

1)Any perceived flaw in evolution does not add credence to Intelligent design.: In the past century, the perihelion of Venus proved that Newton's mechanics had a major flaw in it's equations. This was enough to cast Newtonian physics into doubt. This, in and of itself, added no credence to that other theory positted by that Einstein fellow. That Einstein appeared to be right was a completely seperate fact (one that has come into alot of scrutiny in the past half century). Every time I see a creationist (I'm sorry, Intelligent Design proponent) try to justify the teaching of ID by claiming some flaw in the theory of evolution, I simply have to laugh. The (supposed) flaw in someone else's theory does not prove your alternative.

2) Every example put forth to me as examples of "flaws" in evolution are easily shot down. The most obvious example is that of the eye. ID proponents seem to love this example. I have no idea why, because it seems to chop their argument into peices. They claim that the eye is simply too complex to have evolved in small, random mutations, and that each small mutation would not result in an effect that would give the creature acquiring the mutation a selective advantage. This seems to fail because A) the eye has apparently evolved several times in several different ways. B) No one can seem to come up with a scheme where an incremental increase in visual differentiation was not an advantage. C) there are several (still non-extinct) examples of differing eye evolutions that are existant at differing points of ocean light levels (where differing visual ability would have different levels of selective advantage) and D) the (human) eye being a horribly unintelligently designed construct, with the light photon passing through not just the blood vessels over the retina, but three nerve cell layers before it hits the rod and cone receptors (when any even remotely intelligent designer would have the receptor closest to the signal, and nerves and blood vessels BEHIND them).

3) None of these concepts that I understand as a biologist compare in any way to the outrage I feel as a philosophy major. I am genuinely pissed off that 99.99999% of the people claiming that evolution must be wrong do so because their pastor or family says it must be so. They have no idea of the philosophical arguments of Darwin's time that supposedly put evolution against God's design (the Theory of Teleology, which I bet less than 1% of ID purponents could even recognize).

Comment from: J Ryan Beattie posted at December 21, 2005 1:39 AM

Not my point, 32. I was arguing against the notion that a perfect entity would make perfect life that wouldn't need a self-correcting mechanism like evolution. When I said nothing in a dynamic world can be perfect, I was talking purely in the context of life. I was not saying that perfection is static. Simply that no particular form can be perfect in every situation. Conditions will change, and a lifeform will no longer be best suited to the paradigm, and thus will be imperfect. It will either adapt or die. Then, once life has settled into the new conditions, the world will change again.

There's nothing wrong or imperfect with the dynamic world we live in. But because the world is dynamic, and constantly changing, life has to change with it. Picking a form and sticking with it is a sure recipe for evolution. Even the best-designed species like sharks or scorpions will change somewhat.

Comment from: J Ryan Beattie posted at December 21, 2005 1:42 AM

Sure recipe for extinction, rather.

Comment from: DocN posted at December 21, 2005 1:52 AM

[quote]The whole problem with intelligent design is, who designed the designer?[/quote]

-And the answer to that, of course, is that it's turtles all the way down.

Doc.

Comment from: Matt Blackwell posted at December 21, 2005 1:59 AM

Just a side note:

I find it amusing that Howard's treatise on why he doesn't believe in the Intelligent Design hypothesis has resulted in Google Ads listing nothing but ads for ID websites.

(Yes, yes. I know google does this type of thing all of the time. But I still find it funny.)

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 21, 2005 2:19 AM

Every example put forth to me as examples of "flaws" in evolution are easily shot down. The most obvious example is that of the eye. ID proponents seem to love this example. I have no idea why, because it seems to chop their argument into peices [...] the (human) eye being a horribly unintelligently designed construct, with the light photon passing through not just the blood vessels over the retina, but three nerve cell layers before it hits the rod and cone receptors (when any even remotely intelligent designer would have the receptor closest to the signal, and nerves and blood vessels BEHIND them).

Well argued. However, while agreeing with you that a flaw in one argument doesn't constitute a validation of an opposing argument, I have to say that the discussions by ID proponents I've read along these lines put me in mind of Larry Gonick's observation in The Cartoon History of the Universe that no one is sure what a half-evolved wing is good for. Anyone know, have they figured that one out yet?

Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at December 21, 2005 2:22 AM

Perfect timing, Escushion. put up a "no one's been catty yet" post just before I finish my catty post. Cut me down like a charm.

Seriously. Good job. Cuts me down to size at the same rate it does anyone else about to be catty.

Comment from: ormond_sacker posted at December 21, 2005 3:04 AM

Paul G:
The way I've heard the theory, there's a number of instances of critters that use spreadable flaps of skin to help regulate their internal temperatures (elephant ears, lizard neck ruffs, etc.). And then from there, there are currently species of lizard, snake, and squirrel that use those spreadable flaps to glide from tree to tree to ground quickly. And then from there...

Comment from: gwalla posted at December 21, 2005 3:16 AM

I can probably get from a lizard to a chimp, but I need five to ten million years... will you sit up with me while we try it?

Ergo, you can't do it in a laboratory. Evolution can't be proven through observational science, because it's supposedly too slow to be observable. Funny, that.

Bzzzt. Logic failure. You asked if you can get from a lizard to a chimp in a laboratory. The answer to that is obvious. However, it's also completely irrelevant. The relevant question is whether you can get from one species to another species in the lab. And te answer to that is: yes. Speciation can be observed in the lab. You just need an initial species with short life spans and a high reproductive rate. Think of it as macroevolution on fast-forward.

I have to say that the discussions by ID proponents I've read along these lines put me in mind of Larry Gonick's observation in The Cartoon History of the Universe that no one is sure what a half-evolved wing is good for. Anyone know, have they figured that one out yet?

It doesn't have to be good for anything. It just has to not be significantly selected against for long enough for further mutations to turn it into a wing. Think of a claw with webbed fingers. The webbing may not be good for anything, but it doesn't hurt anything either: at worst it requires slightly more caloric intake (to support the additional tissue), which may not even be significant.

On the other hand, I'm fond of Science Made Stupid's hypothetical transitional form between wingless and winged dinosaurs, the one-winged dinosaur, perfectly suited for pursuing prey around and around tree trunks...

Comment from: JEisenberg posted at December 21, 2005 3:21 AM

Wings:

Natural History Magazine had an essay about the evolution of insect wings in the 1990's (by Gould of course). Sadly, I don't know how to search the text of their back issues online.

My alma mater has a nice summary of the theories about the evolution of flight in vertebrates (specifically, dinos and birds): http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html
None of the hyposthesis listed is widely supported at the present, but it does show the possibility of a logical explanation.

Joseph Eisenberg
For those wondering:
BA, Molecular and Cell Biology, UC Berkeley, 2003
MD, UC San Diego, (2008)

Comment from: miyaa posted at December 21, 2005 3:23 AM

Paul: Gonick...now there's a cartoonist that fits this subject! I have volumes one and two and I really should pick up volume three. His first is the best, and as I recall, he answered the half-wing question by suggesting that they were evolved into bat-wings for gliding. Otherwise, they'd become bug shields. (If only Gonick had a webcomic, what snarks would Eric tell.) Volume One is the best of the series.

As for thinking about God, I have two thoughts about it. If my new-found Catholic beliefs are correct, God is considered beyond time and space, and thus "static" (because he is timeless and is infinite). I mean, he created time and space before he created the heavens and the earth. Since he is something like the penultimate Timelord, he knows what is going to happen at every point in time, and thus knows exactly how things are going to go. The reason we give God such humanistic characteristics is that we don't know how to adequately express God's disposition. Theologians suggest that how we see God's showing us displeasure is just our trying to grasp some part of the infinite to our own finite senses. Of course, all of this discussion hinges on whether or not there is a God in the first place, but that's not here or there.

Having said that, I also believe God is a gambling god, or some RPG player/DM. After all, wasn't it said that no only God plays with dice, but the dice are loaded? He's probably planning a session for the next In Homine game.

I think what is left out of most Intelligent Design talks is that for the most part, the proponents of Intelligent Design stem from the more Fundamentalists Christian sect that takes the words of the Bible more literally than figuratively, more as a very straight-forward history and non-fiction literature book than that of a cacophony of genres that the Bible can be viewed as. So they take an essentially philosophical theory and try to turn it into a scientific certainity, like putting a square peg in a round hole. And they do this abandoning both the science and the religion for the sake of religious truth. Einstein once said something to effect that science without religion is souless, while religion without science is immoral. Or something like that.

(These ID guys are probably the same guys that quibble over whether or not companies and people should or should not say Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays or think Christmas is in trouble because there's more of an emphasis on other religious holidays that just happen to occur. Arguing that Kwanza shouldn't be a holiday is like arguing that Esperanto isn't really a language because it was made up in the 1960's. So what?)

Comment from: Tarrsk posted at December 21, 2005 3:29 AM

Great post, Howard. I think that it should be pointed out, however, that the "intelligent design" movement being criticized here is the one espoused by Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute, centered around the concept of "irreducible complexity." I've seen a few people arguing in favor of theistic evolution (that is, that God uses evolution as a mechanism for creation) while erroneously referring to it as ID. These people are correct in stating that no scientist can argue convincing against theistic evolution, as biology does not attempt to explain the "purpose" of any particular adaptation, only the mechanism through which it occurred. However, this is NOT the ID that is getting people riled up, and it is NOT the ID that the Dover trial was about.

Paul: Current theory, as I understand it, suggests that insect wings originally emerged as aids for swimming in aquatic species. The modern stonefly is the closest extant species to these progenitors, and uses its wings in short hops out of the water (IIRC). The idea is that proto-wings originally propelled insects through the water more quickly, and those insects who popped out of the water gained a fitness advantage that led to the evolution of true flight.

Birds are a different story. As any kid who loves dinosaurs knows, paleontologists currently lean towards small dromaeosaurs as being the ancestors of modern birds. Feathers evolved prior to wings, modified scales that helped in thermoregulation. Presumably, expansion of feather size allowed gliding similar to what is seen in modern flying squirrels, again leading to the development of wings and flight.

Comment from: coldcut posted at December 21, 2005 4:12 AM

For me the thing that bugs me the most about intelligent design is that generally in the course arguing for it, the average ID proponent tends to get about 3-4 major scientific principles dead wrong. Tends to say something about the idea that it doesn't undercut overall scientific understanding.

Comment from: Chris "Slarti" Pinard posted at December 21, 2005 6:54 AM

Man, all these comments so far, and no one's made an MC Hawking reference? For shame. :-)

Comment from: Doc posted at December 21, 2005 7:52 AM

Oddly I've had this conversation a couple of times over the last few days but I'm a scientist and work among scientists so it's nice to see a wider variety of opinions.
My biggest objection to ID (and I think this is true for many scientists and people who understand science) isn't whether it's right or wrong (hell I think one of the reasons it's so hard to get IDers and creationists to be quiet for five minutes at a time is that scientists generally won't definitively say the IDers are wrong and evolution is right, just that there is a decent amount of evidence one way and not much the other) is that it further perverts what the public thinks of as science. I'm further convinced most people don't understand that something isn't science just because someone says so, that it has to be testable and more importantly tested independantly and so on and so forth and then when people in a position of trust (and anyone associated with someone's religion needs to realise they are in a whole mess of trust) tells them otherwise their appreciation and respect for science goes down because they don't realise how much work legitimate scientists put into their work before they go trumpeting it to the world.
Anyway thats my tangential rant.

Comment from: The Weasel King posted at December 21, 2005 7:57 AM

Sheesh, "John" there is giving a bad rep to people named John. Dude: You're embarassing me. Please at least TRY to make a coherent argument, here.



> Ergo, you can't do it in a laboratory.



No, we can't turn a lizard into a chimp in a laboratory. We can cause speciation in things that have a much faster breeding rate, though, in a lab, and we've explicitly enforced evolution through selective breeding in, say, DOGS for about ten thousand years.



> Evolution can't be proven through observational

> science, because it's supposedly too slow to be

> observable.



Evolution can, and has, been demonstrated to happen in a lab.

That evolution has happened in the past can, and has, been demonstrated.

HUMAN evolution is too slow to observe happening directly, since human history is a tiny blink of an eye in geological terms.



> and you can demonstrate the accuracy of those

> dating techniques through experimental,

> observational science?



Absolutely. Especially when all the different techniques give the same answers when conducted independently by different people who don't know the "right" answer.



Would you like to make some kind of SPECIFIC argument, here? Maybe back up some of your assertions with actual facts that can be addressed?



> You think evolution fits the facts, but

> creationists think their belief fits them too.



Yes, but creationists are wrong. Their version requires an omnipotent entity with a vested interest in lying to them.



That's not science.



> And neither one can be observed or studied

> scientifically.



Of course, and that's why the last 150 years of study, tests, and confirmation across many independant lines, along with massive advances in the biological sciences, didn't happen.



Not one bit of it!



How's your life working out without antibiotics?
Cholera and Smallpox getting you down?



> I'm tired of evolutionists claiming special

> evidentiary status for their creation story.



It's funny how that happens, when the evidence is there and supports the theory of evolution.



I'll make, to you, the exact same challenge I make to every creationist: Pick your best points. Find the things you think that evolution answers the least correctly, the places you have the biggest doubts, the spots where you think the theory is least supported by the facts. Write 'em out. Give specifics, and I'll explain them as best I can.



Don't forget, if you *actually* find a hole in evolution that makes it *not* the most solid, tested, and reliable theory in science, you'll win a Nobel prize for sure, and have as much fame and fortune as you could possibly desire.



Not interested in discussing it? Think there's somebody else who does it better than you, and you can't do it justice? Link 'em, show me *their* strongest, and I'll address that for you.



No?



Tell you what. Here's a challenge for you to put your body where your mouth is: How about you refuse medical treatment that's predicated on evolution working. Go get a flu shot from three years ago, see how well that protects you from this year's variant. Get TB, and take medication that worked in, say, 1940. See how that goes for you.



Not willing to do that, because it won't work and you'll get sick? See, you DO believe in evolution.



Eric:



> Evolution is a theory, by that definition.

> Gravity is a theory, by that definition.

> Relativity is a theory by that definition. None

> of them are facts,



Yes and no.



The theory of gravity says that objects are attracted to each other by a force in relation to their mass and the square of the distance between them, and that this happens because mass curves space-time like a lead weight on a rubber sheet.



The FACT of gravity is that things fall, and masses pull on each other. That's not a theory - disproving the theory of gravity won't suddenly cause us to float. It's a fact that gravity happens, and the theory of gravity tries to tell us WHY gravity happens.



The theory of relativity is that the speed of light is constant across all frames of reference, and consequently time and space dilate.



The FACTS of relativity are that we can't explain the behaviours of light without it - light (and anything else moving close to the speed of light) doesn't act like Newton's laws say it should, and relativity appears to match these facts, and so tell us WHY light doesn't behave that way.



The theory of evolution says that species change over generations due to reproduction, mutation, and selection, and that individuals more adapted to their environment breed more, and so the things that make them more fit are passed on to their children.



The FACT of evolution is that creatures do change over generations, and speciation does occur among separated populations. These are observable and reproducible - and the theory of evolution is our explanation of WHY the fact of evolution happens.



(The fact that we can artificially induce evolution by applying selective pressure to a breeding population is just gravy. Even better, we can do it in *machines* - evolutionary program algorithms are insanely cool.)



It is, like I said earlier, the single most complete, most predictive, and thus most tested theory in science. It's the foundation of biology, in a very real sense: EVERYTHING we do in biology stems from how strong evolution is, and the lack of a single scientific alternative HYPOTHESIS, let alone a theory. Sure, God *could* be causing evolution, and it very well might be that natural selection does nothing and it's all God just making choices - but the evidence says, then, that God's decisions match natural selection perfectly, and since "a miracle happens here" isn't science, evolution is still the only scientifically valid explanation anyone has ever been able to find.

Comment from: The Weasel King posted at December 21, 2005 7:58 AM

... Bah.

The preview shows no line breaks, so I added them.
the preview then showed the post looking good.

Then I hit post, and all those line breaks that didn't show in the preview came back.

Sorry about the atrocious formatting.

PS: Eric, your comment preview is broken.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at December 21, 2005 8:23 AM

"I'm smarter than you!"

"No, I'M smarter than YOU!"

"No... I AM SMARTER THAN YOU."

"... well you're dumber than me."

That sums up my opinion on the debate between Evolution and ID.

Comment from: Paragon_Kobold posted at December 21, 2005 9:02 AM

Is that also your opinion on ALL OTHER debates?

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at December 21, 2005 9:15 AM

No. On some debates it's more a case of

"You're not smarter than me!"

"Well you're not smarter than me, either!"

Comment from: Scarybug posted at December 21, 2005 9:22 AM

I'm going to reinforce Luggage's point. Too many laymen anthropomorphize evolution. Too many people who accept it don't really understand it. People who say things like "less evolved" and "more evolved" don't understand evolution. People who say "a species is trying to adapt to x by developing y" might understand it, but they're speaking as if they don't.

Naturual Selection doesn't have a goal. It is just the natural result of a few simple situations.

1) A replicator that does not always replicate exactly
2) not all replicators can replicate again for some reason. (death, competition for resources, mates.
3) The differences in replicators make some more likely to replicate again than others

In ANY situation like that, you get natural selection. Biology is the best example.

THAT is demonstratable
It is also the entire basis for all modern biology, and nothing we know about biology makes sense without it. If Nat Sel doesn't happen, most of our moder medicine is just a fluke.

Intelligent Design, Deism, and Athiesm are philosphies. You can pit them against each other
in a philosophy class, but they have no bearing on science because they make no testable predictions.

And more than philosophy, Intelligent Design is a wedge issue created and designed by creationists to make it look like there's some reasonable debate to be had about the veracity of evolutionary theroy.

Looks like it worked.

Comment from: Escushion posted at December 21, 2005 9:23 AM

"Perfect timing, Escushion. put up a "no one's been catty yet" post just before I finish my catty post. Cut me down like a charm.

Seriously. Good job. Cuts me down to size at the same rate it does anyone else about to be catty."

I try :).

I can't decide whether this is better or not than webcomics drama.

Comment from: Pseudowolf posted at December 21, 2005 9:39 AM

I see the Universe as being like a house. Science can tell us what the house is made of, it can tell us how the house was built, but it cannot tell us why the house was built, or who built it.

Ooh, I like that analogy!

As for the discussion at hand, I have my own beliefs as to how one can reconcile the Genesis account of creation, from beginning to Adam, with the discoveries of modern-day science. However, I have neither the scientific education nor the writing abilities. Fortunately, I don't need to because someone has already written a book about it. It's called "Genesis and the Big Bang" and is written by physicist Gerald L. Schroeder. I would recommend the book to anyone interested in the Creation vs. Evolution debate, because it takes the unconventional Creation *and* Evolution approach and backs it up with scientific discoveries.

It may not be perfect, and I'm sure some folks with more scientific knowledge than me will find points to disagree on, but it's a good read for both layman and doctorate, in my opinion.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at December 21, 2005 9:40 AM

I feel the need to expand on my opinion of debates in general.

9 times out of 10, debates begin as a heated but civilized discussion between two or more parties who disagree over a topic and seek to convince others that their position is the correct one to take.

After a debate has gone on for a certain period of time without any resolution, 10 times out of 10 debates turn into a bunch of guys claiming that no, *they* have the largest penis in the room.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Under most circumstances.

ID v. Evolution reached the "cock threshold" quite some time ago.

Comment from: UrsulaV posted at December 21, 2005 10:00 AM

This topic can get me from zero to frothing in about five seconds, but I'll try to stay calm for love of Eric.

I figure that you can believe any weird-ass thing you want--gods, demons, pink fluffy unicorns, Cosmic Warglechickens--right up to the point where it collides with observable reality. At that point, observable reality wins, and the holder of that belief, if they try to claim their belief trumps reality, needs to jump off the roof screaming "I believe I can fly!" a few times in order to get a solid grounding in weird-ass ideas vs. reality.

Case in point. I believe in an afterlife of some sort. I freely admit that there is no evidence for one whatsoever. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to twist facts to try to support my belief in an afterlife, and because I WANT to believe, I should examine any purported evidence of an afterlife with excruciating savagery.

I would not even begin to dream of arguing that my belief in an afterlife should be taught in a science class just 'cos I really really believe it. And if ever the day comes that an afterlife is disproven, either conclusively, or through sheer weight of absurdity, it falls to me as a rational being to say "Well, guess I was wrong," and let that belief go. Because reality is real. My beliefs may not be.

Comment from: alschroeder posted at December 21, 2005 10:15 AM

JRyan: about the anthropic coincidences...

With all due respect, I don't think the implications of the anthropic principle dictate that life, especially intelligent life (which is all it addresses) will develop in any universe no matter what the constants are. Many variations will result in a universe that quickly recollapses after a Big Bang or which expands so quickly that stars and galaxies don't form. It's hard to imagine life or intelligent life evolving without a constant outside power source of some kind.

Of course, I cannot rule it out completely. But that's really an "argument from ignorance" from the OPPOSITE direction. I might as well say I can't rule out invisible flying pink hippos in that alternate reality causing intelligent life to form. No, I can't rule it out, but...

Let's just say that in most cases, variations in the intitial constants would create a universe that is either lifeless or would not have any complex life by any plausible mechanism we can envision...while agreeing that our imagination might fall woefully short of the reality.

Fair to all? It's something I've given a good deal of study to, and corresponded with George F.R. Ellis with, who's co-written with Hawking.

However, I am in complete agreement with most here about biology vis-a-vis evolution. And I echo C.S. Lewis, "Any problems I might have with evolution are NOT theological". I applaud the overturning of the "ID" being given as an alternative to evolution in textbooks.

Follow the truth, regardless of where it leads you, and you can't go wrong.

---Al

Comment from: Ceejamon posted at December 21, 2005 10:33 AM

I'm a Christian. I voted for Bush, and I listen to Rush Limbaugh several times a week.

And I'm totally opposed to teaching intelligent design in schools. That's just retarded.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 21, 2005 10:33 AM

because I WANT to believe, I should examine any purported evidence of an afterlife with excruciating savagery

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was such an effective debunker of charlatan mediums (media?) and psychics because he was searching for the one who wasn't a fake.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at December 21, 2005 10:48 AM

Houdini was sort of a similar case, if I recall. At least, he was initially very interested in the "Spiritualist" movement in his day (those folks who had seances to converse with the dead) and then spent a great deal of time debunking them.

Comment from: shane posted at December 21, 2005 10:56 AM

Howdy all, longtime reader, first time snark-er. Typically I try to avoid the debate between evolution and intelligent design like a cliche, but there are some interesting claims here and I think it would help the discussion if we clarify the various questions and claims that have been presented.

First, I think the primary question at stake is this: Did God (or some other being, the flying spaghetti monster, etc.) guide the process of evolution, or not? The secondary question waiting in the wings is what we should teach secondary school students.

VetEpiGirl has suggested that the the first question ought to be decided by biologists, and Scarybug seems to answer in the negative for the biologists. ("Natural Selection doesn't have a goal."). Now, it seems to me that these two comments, though they are quite important to the another part of the debate about evolution, miss the point of the first question. These comments are concerned with the evidence for the theory of the evolution of species, but they are not relevant to the discussion of whether or not the process was 'guided' by some intelligence.

By and large, modern science looks at nature as purposeless. As a methodological point about how scientists ought to perform experiments, perhaps this is a helpful rule of thumb, but this position is not without its opponents. But even if the methodological assumption of agnosticism is valid, a methodological assumption ought not to be made a metaphysical principle. Even if the processes of evolution are explainable in terms of the laws of nature, (i.e. not requiring any miraculous interventions), this still does not imply that scientists have proved that there is no purpose or 'guidance' expressed in the process. ("God is not necessary to explain X; therefore God does not exist," is not a valid argument.) My claim is that the theist biologist and the nontheist biologist are in the same epistemic boat, when they are thinking about whether the process of evolution was divinely guided or not. Because they are both biologists, they both have access to the same relevant data, both would also presumably subscribe to the same theoretical explanation of the processes of evolution. But the crucial question is not about data or explanatory paradigms, it is about the theological significance of that paradigm. As scientists, they are empirical researchers and they propose various theoriest to make sense of the empirical data they find. But data is weasely; it can always support more than one interpretation. (In the evocative jargon of philosophy of science, one says that theories are always underdetermined by their supporting data.)

In other words, scientists' assumption that God doesn't interefere with the entities they are studying does not justify the belief that God doesn't exist. Just because you didn't find a gap in the explanations of why some physical process occurs does not mean that God doesn't have anything to do with it. When a scientist tells you that God does not exist, she is no longer speaking as a scientist, but rather as theologian offering her own interpretation of certain data. (For a great example of differing theological interpretations of the exact same data by four prominent scientists read this. For an example of a scientist who is really fundamentalist in reverse, making all sorts of ridiculous non-scientific claims in the name of Science, read E. O. Wilson's Consilience.)

Note that Steve Pinker's arguments in the piece linked above might persuade one that there is no God, but note carefully that those are not scientific arguments, they are theological arguments--namely that the world is bloody and cruel, so it is better to believe that it is all the product of blind chance rather than a sadistic deity. (Note also that I think Pinker's interpretation is wrong--he's a much better neuroscientist than theologian, in my opinion, but responding to the problem of evil is beyond the purview of this blog comment.)

So, if my distinction between when scientists are speaking as scientists and when they are speaking as theologians stands, I think we can turn attention to the second question I proposed at the begining: What should we teach our kids in school? I answer that we ought to teach children science. We should teach them what scientists say when the scientists are speaking as scientists, but not what the scientists say when they are speaking as theologians. I don't think schools should teach that evolution is guided by God (or the flying spaghetti monster, etc.), but I don't think they should be told that evolution happens without divine guidance either. We shouldn't teach children either of these things, because neither of them are scientific--they are theological interpetations of the science. We should teach children the relevant data, and explain the theoretical paradigms which the majority of scientists believe and then leave it up to churches, synagogues, pasta aficionados, etc. to persaude the children that their particular theological interpretations of science are the correct ones.

Comment from: Ghastly posted at December 21, 2005 11:06 AM

I want my god damned fembot maid. I'll wait for the freaking flying car if they just give me a robot that looks cute in a frilly french maid uniform and does windows too.

Comment from: shane posted at December 21, 2005 11:14 AM

Sorry to post a second comment after such a ridiculously long one, but I should have mentioned UrsulaV's statement earlier. She says that she believes in an afterlife, but feels intellectually dishonest for doing so, presumably because she only wants to have a belief if she has some sort of evidence to justify that belief. In general this is a good policy, I'd want damn good evidence that I could walk on water before I jumped out of a boat in Lake Michegan, for example. But about certain sorts of beliefs, which include belief in the afterlife, and the existence of God, there simply is no relevant evidence. Before somebody flames me for saying that it is okay to believe in something without justification for it, I'd like to make two observations. 1.) It is a lot harder to say exactly what 'justification' is than most people think. 2.) there are all sorts of things that you ought to believe which you would never be justified in believing, for example, that your parents love you. Couldn't it be the case that they secretly despise you and simply act like they love you because they don't want you to feel bad? Or, in another case, justify your belief that the real world exists outside your mind. What if you are dreaming, or just a brain in a vat somewhere which is being fed electrical impulses in just the right way to make you think you are a real person with a real body. I think it is possible to argue against these positions, but it is quite a bit harder than you might think. But, even if you don't have a justification for your belief that you have a body and are not just a brain in a vat doesn't mean that you shouldn't act like you are a normal person with a normal body.

Comment from: Escushion posted at December 21, 2005 11:32 AM

I feel that those bits of "evidence" for the existence/non-existence of a deity are really a matter of perspective and are okay either way as long as you're not forcing yours on anyone. Something a skeptic would see as a strange occurence a believer would see as a miracle. There's no reason each can't see it their own way. Personally I feel a person should view it in whichever way best suits them; they shouldn't force themselves into a skeptical view if they feel pulled toward a believing view, nor should they force themselves to see something as a miracle when they very clearly see it as a random occurence.

Comment from: UrsulaV posted at December 21, 2005 11:53 AM

Actually, Shane, what I said was that it would be intellectually dishonest to twist facts to try and prove an afterlife. I don't actually feel intellectually dishonest for holding this belief in the first place, mostly because my belief is so tenuous and I make no effort to claim it's logical or based on evidence. (In short, I am at least intellectually honest about how weak and wishful my belief is!)

I'm fine with illogical beliefs as a security blanket, as long as you don't put the blanket over your head.

Comment from: Cadete posted at December 21, 2005 11:56 AM

You know, you guys are way too fast. Eric posted this today and now I have a gigantic thread to dwell into.

Just to add my two cents (Euro cents, not dollar. They're worth more that way :)).
I think one of the problems in this kind of debates lies in the scientific method. You come up with an alternative hipothesys (Ha) to counter a nule, or already held, hipothesys (H0). Then you use the data you've collected using a rigorous experiment and compare it with the expected results if H0 is true. I won't go into the collection of data as that is way too big for me to discuss with my meager knowledge but we'll assume that all scientists know what they are doing and that they have taken a representative sample of the population at study, etc...
If the data collected is enough to say that H0 doesn't fit the data, you can reject it (allways with a error margin) and then test your Ha and reject it or not, depending on the data.
The problem is that, while rejecting a hipothesys is a strong decision (you have enough data to say it doesn't fit), keeping a hipothesys is a weak one (the existing data doesn't go against the hipothesys, but it may not be all the data available). Thus it is easier to prove that something isn't true than to prove it is and debates ensue.
Of course, this also helps in the development of new theories that can sustain more and better tests without being rejected, even with a very narrow margin of error. That's how scientific theories advance.

P.S.: The "a" and "0" next to the "H" should be very small, but I don't know how to do that.

P.P.S.: I think I've gone off a tangent here and slipped a bit off topic, but I'm sure some of you will be able to use my post to prove whatever point it was that I was going to make.

Comment from: shane posted at December 21, 2005 11:58 AM

apologies, urusla, i was reading quickly.

shane

Comment from: William_G posted at December 21, 2005 12:09 PM

I listen to Rush Limbaugh several times a week.

Man, I'd have thought shame would have kept most people from admitting this.

I don't think they should be told that evolution happens without divine guidance either.

There's no device for measuring divinity. Nor are there any tests to prove or disprove it. Nor is there a single lick of evidence of divinity to be tested or measured.

Until there is, it should not be mentioned in a biology class in any way, shape, or form.

Keep church out of the classroooms.

Comment from: shane posted at December 21, 2005 12:20 PM

William,

there isn't a single lick of evidence to prove or disprove the other hypothesis (that God doesn't guide evolution) either. Not only is there not any evidence for the 'purposelessness' of nature, I simply can't imagine what in the world could count as evidence. It is simply an assumption, as I said above. But if this is the case, then why should we teach this hypothesis and not the other if neither of them is supported by the evidence?

shane

Comment from: Tovias posted at December 21, 2005 12:25 PM

Here's my take on the subject (as if anyone cares);
For centuries "the Church" or persons with similar beliefs controlled what was in our schools. During that time the deal was Creationism, period. Evolution was heresy. No good citizen would even consider such blasphemous ideas.

Then came the Scope's Monkey trial. Okay, so now we could teach Evolution. Fine. Good theory, kinda makes sense, and sorta explains why Uncle Murry likes bananas so much. Well now times have continued to change and we are left with teaching ONLY Evolution in schools, and no Creationism.
This is what I have issue with. What is the problem with asking "Where did everything come from?" and the answer being, "Well, funny you should ask, you see Timmy, there are many different theories about that..."

I'm starting to form my own negative opinion about intelligent design that "they" stopped calling it "Creationism" since it was such a turn off and starting calling "Intelligent Design" to suck in all of the Sci-Fi geeks.

"Hmmm, Intelligent Design? You mean it's like if we were all created by the Q Continuum? Cool count me in..." I don't think so.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 21, 2005 12:29 PM

C'mon guys, get it right.

It's an invisible pink unicorn, not any other mammal.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at December 21, 2005 12:37 PM

there isn't a single lick of evidence to prove or disprove the other hypothesis (that God doesn't guide evolution) either. Not only is there not any evidence for the 'purposelessness' of nature, I simply can't imagine what in the world could count as evidence. It is simply an assumption, as I said above. But if this is the case, then why should we teach this hypothesis and not the other if neither of them is supported by the evidence?

We shouldn't.

"There is no intellect guiding evolution" is as much a statement of philosophy as "God created the Earth exactly as it is now five minutes ago, including all of your memories and the very debate we're having now." Absent any means to measure -- and there is no means of measuring an omnipotence who might choose an ordered chaos as a mechanism for ineffable reasons -- it's a nonscientific position.

Yes, I know some scientists believe that they're showing divine nonexistence, but that doesn't make such a thing scientific. It's their belief. I commend them their beliefs. I commend them their faith. I'm envious of it, actually -- I'm an agnostic, unwilling to state that there is or is not a God. I have a certain envy for people who capital-B Believe, as that becomes a rock they can build their world view on, and that is, in my opinion, enviable.

However, omnipotence and ineffability trump... well, everything else. You cannot disprove God, because you cannot disprove that an all powerful, all knowing being, capable of a magnitude of micromanagement beyond human comprehension didn't want things to be exactly as they are. Make someone powerful enough and smart enough, and we just don't have a clue.

Science -- particularly biology -- should teach science. The mechanism of microevolution should be taught, because it's been demonstrated. The evolution that we have shown -- for example, of diseases that have become resistant to antibiotics -- should be shown. The ongoing research into the evolution of the species of the world (including Man) should be taught, and the gaps in the record and in our knowledge should be taught. As Howard said, in the original essay I referenced, we should be working, so that we can show our work, and build on it.

We should not be letting assumptions that cannot be supported shape our curriculum. Not Spaghetti Monsters, not Yaweh, not giant cows licking salt patches....

...and not atheism, either.

We have two entire disciplines for that discussion. One is called Philosophy. The other is called Theology. Over here in Science, let's talk about what we know, what we think we know, what we're trying to know, and how you too can bridge the gap between them all.

Comment from: William_G posted at December 21, 2005 12:45 PM

there isn't a single lick of evidence to prove or disprove the other hypothesis (that God doesn't guide evolution) either

This is a faith argument, not a science argument. It doesn't belong. Sorry.

Comment from: Cadete posted at December 21, 2005 12:48 PM

[quote]It's an invisible pink unicorn, not any other mammal.[/quote]

I wonder if it produces PFP (Pink Fluorescent Protein)? If it does and it is different from GFP (Green Fluorescent Protein) maybe we can use it as a marker in those organisms where MFp doesn't work...

Allright guys, I'm off to hunt a pink unicorn, who's coming?

Comment from: Cadete posted at December 21, 2005 12:54 PM

Where you see "MFp" it should read "GFP". I blame the new keyboard and the lack of an edit function.

Comment from: shane posted at December 21, 2005 12:57 PM

Tovias,

there actually are relevant differences between creationism and intelligent design. First, people who call themselves 'creationists' think that evolution is a false theory and that the earth is 6000 years old because they claim that the bible says so. Duane Gish is a creationist.

by contrast, most intelligent design advocates would argue that the earth is probably millions of years old and that evolution is the mechanism by which God created everything. The crucial claim of the ID movement is that the processes of evolution are simply too complex to have arisen spontaneously, or by chance. Creationism is out-and-out denial of the explanatory power of science, ID is an attempt to say that science alone is insufficient. In my experience, real creationists and ID people don't get along very well. William Dembski is an advocate of Intelligent Design.

Note that there is also a third position, different from either of these two, called theistic evolution, (which is the position I have been defending.) God created the world. Evolution is one of the mechanisms he used to do it, but there is no need to postulate 'gaps' in our theories which could only be explained through God's creative power.

These distinctions are seldom brought out in media coverage of these issues, but they are real nonetheless.

shane

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 21, 2005 12:57 PM

Allright guys, I'm off to hunt a pink unicorn, who's coming?

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 21, 2005 12:59 PM

[That ought to have been:]

Allright guys, I'm off to hunt a pink unicorn, who's coming?

Sorry. I don't retain the requisite baiting condition.

Comment from: shane posted at December 21, 2005 1:01 PM

eric, i think we agree. You have said precisely what I was trying to say in my earlier post, neither of these statements "God guides evolution," "God does not guide evolution" is a scientific statement, ergo we ought not to teach them in public schools.

to william, if there is some evidence you have that will count as proof that evolution is purposeless, I would very much like to see it. I don't know of any. But I don't know why this would make what i've said a 'faith' argument.

Comment from: Howard Tayler posted at December 21, 2005 1:05 PM

Shane's making a common mistake here. With scientific method, artifacts in the data supporting one theory do not necessarily support a competing theory.

Problems with gradualism and abiogenesis are not strengths for catastrophism and creationism.

As has been mentioned before, with science a theory has to be falsifiable in order to be accepted. You have to be able to define conditions under which your theory is DISproven before it's considered testable. Intelligent Design does not meet this requirement, therefore it is not science.

That doesn't mean God didn't create the Earth. It means we can't use science to prove that He didn't.

Comment from: shane posted at December 21, 2005 1:23 PM

howard, please read my first comment before my response to william. It seems like you and eric think that I am saying something that i'm not. On the contrary, I agree with you two; what I'm saying is that the scientific evidence does not disprove theism or atheism. I'm not an advocate of intelligent design, as it turns out.

My first post was the most important: it's longish so here is the conclusion: "I don't think schools should teach that evolution is guided by God (or the flying spaghetti monster, etc.), but I don't think they should be told that evolution happens without divine guidance either. We shouldn't teach children either of these things, because neither of them are scientific--they are theological interpetations of the science."

I'll agree that falsifiability is a key idea in philosophy of science, and perhaps this is the fatal flaw of the ID movement. (For more on the scientific status of ID, click here.)

but, I would also like to point out that there are all sorts of beliefs one might have which are not in principle falsifiable, but which we still feel justified in believing. I may not think up a good experiment to prove that I am not really a brain in a vat on neptune, but I still believe that I am not in fact a brain in a vat and i feel justified in that belief.

howard says, "artifacts in the data supporting one theory do not necessarily support a competing theory." I'm not sure I undestand what you mean here, could you please explain?

shane

Comment from: thok posted at December 21, 2005 1:35 PM

However, omnipotence and ineffability trump... well, everything else. You cannot disprove God, because you cannot disprove that an all powerful, all knowing being, capable of a magnitude of micromanagement beyond human comprehension didn't want things to be exactly as they are. Make someone powerful enough and smart enough, and we just don't have a clue.

Hidden in this statement is the source of the one real philosophical/theological complaint about the scientific method: we are assuming that the universe follows an organized and understandable set of rules that we can deduce from observation and experiment.

Fundamentally, the debate about creationism/ID and evolution is a debate about whether we have the ability to understand the universe or if it's merely the whim of something (divine being, cosmic pool, etc.) beyond our understanding.

Once we accept that there are rules, evolution becomes the best game in town. But it's a separate question if there are any rules to follow.

(Incidentally, I do strongly believe in the scientific method and it's consequences-I like my TV, computer, vaccinations, and all those other fancy gizmos I get to use. I also don't want my universe to be Calvinball.)

Comment from: shane posted at December 21, 2005 1:53 PM

howard,

i understand your sentence now. the word 'artifact' threw me off. I thought you were denying the underdetermination thesis at first (good article on underdetermination by the philosopher of science Psillos available here.

shane

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at December 21, 2005 1:57 PM

Well, Cadete, there's good news and bad news about that. Good news is, the Invisible Pink Unicorn does have Pink Fluorescent Protein. The bad news is, the protein is also invisible. So it would be really difficult to use it as a coloring agent.

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at December 21, 2005 2:32 PM

the one real philosophical/theological complaint about the scientific method: we are assuming that the universe follows an organized and understandable set of rules that we can deduce from observation and experiment.

In the introduction to a collection of horror stories he and Martin Greenburg edited, Isaac Asimov professed that the scientific method was his religion because it was the view of the universe which he accepted on faith as being true.

Comment from: Shaenon posted at December 21, 2005 2:46 PM

The 139-page opinion of the district court of Pennsylvania in the case of the Dover School Board vs. Everyone Else in Dover does a fantastic, thorough job of explaining why ID is not science. (Okay, 139 pages sounds long, but it's a hell of a page-turner.) Short answer: Science, as it's been understood since the 17th century, involves explaining natural phenomenon ONLY through physical tests and observations. It does not include supernatural explanations, because supernatural events, by definition, cannot be physically tested. ID is based on the idea that a supernatural force created life, and that this force and life itself cannot be explained through conventional means. Ergo, it's not scientific. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant; if it can't be tested, it ain't science. (The few laboratory experiments proposed in ID literature are experiments designed to disprove evolution, not prove ID, and have not actually been performed by anyone, anyway.)

What really concerns me is not the veracity of evolution vs. ID, but the fact that a majority of Americans seem confused about the difference. People can't be expected to understand everything about current genetic and evolutionary theory, because it's pretty complicated, but supposedly educated adults ought to understand basic stuff like what a scientific theory is (and why "theory" in this context doesn't mean "unfounded guess"), how scientific ideas are developed and tested, and why "it's just magic, so we can't understand it" is not a scientific statement. The level of science education in this country is dismal, particularly at the high-school level, and apparently has been for decades.

Comment from: Montykins posted at December 21, 2005 2:55 PM

Then came the Scope's Monkey trial. Okay, so now we could teach Evolution.

Actually, the Scopes Monkey Trial was won by the anti-evolution side. It wasn't until 1968's Epperson v. Arkansas that teaching evolution in schools became legal. (And then Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987 made teaching creationism illegal, which is what made the decision in the Dover case fairly inevitable)

Comment from: Plaid Phantom posted at December 21, 2005 2:57 PM

2) not all replicators can replicate again for some reason.(death, competition for resources, mates.

...American military teams using ancient technology to send diruption waves across the galaxy...

...

What?

Comment from: Pooga posted at December 21, 2005 3:51 PM

For centuries "the Church" or persons with similar beliefs controlled what was in our schools. During that time the deal was Creationism, period. Evolution was heresy. No good citizen would even consider such blasphemous ideas.

To be fair, for the vast majority of that time no one had come up with a theory of evolution. It wasn't so much that evolution was heresy, it just wasn't around to even be considered as an idea.

Then came the Scope's Monkey trial. Okay, so now we could teach Evolution. Fine. Good theory, kinda makes sense, and sorta explains why Uncle Murry likes bananas so much.

I know this is largely a glib oversimplification, but there's so much bad history in there that it sets my teeth on edge.

First of all, even Darwin's theory on evolution was an expansion and refinement on evolutionary theories that had come before, and that was published somewhere about the 1850s. The Scopes Trial was in the 1920s. Evolution was making inroads for a long time before Scopes. Second, as Montykins pointed out, the law against teaching evolution was upheld in the Scopes trial, as were other subsequent anti-evolution laws up until 1968.

Actually, by the 1920s Darwinian evolution was sufferring from a few decades of being supplanted by theories that more closely resembled theistic or guided evolution. It's really not surprising. A lot of the hard biological evidence for evolutionary theory really didn't start showing up until about the middle of the 20th century. And when you consider that some of the biggest supporters of Darwinian evolution at the turn of the century were also big proponents of eugenics, it's not surprising that a lot of otherwise very intelligent people were dismissive of evolution. But it took the involvement of religious leaders to turn what was essentially a non-issue in the scientific community into a hot-button, law-passing political issue.

Well now times have continued to change and we are left with teaching ONLY Evolution in schools, and no Creationism. This is what I have issue with. What is the problem with asking "Where did everything come from?" and the answer being, "Well, funny you should ask, you see Timmy, there are many different theories about that..."

As has been pointed out, that is a perfectly valid question. For a theology class. Biology, physics and other "hard" sciences examine the rules under which the universe runs. Theories on where those rules come from are where philosphers and theologians earn their bread and butter. Evolution is a theory developed to explain the observed facts of the biological part of the universe. It gets tweaked and refined from time to time, and still has some places where details need to be nailed down, but as of yet no one has put forward a competing falsifiable theory that also fits the facts.

Sorry. Got off on a bit of a tangent there. I only meant to clarify the timeline on some of the historical bits. I didn't intend to essentially repeat what has already been said here (and more eloquently) by others.

Comment from: Egarwaen posted at December 21, 2005 3:58 PM

In other words, scientists' assumption that God doesn't interefere with the entities they are studying does not justify the belief that God doesn't exist.

Thank you. You have no idea how hard it is to find a philosopher who actually understands this. Most that I've encountered - all atheists who pride themselves on their rationality - seem to conclude that, because scientists assume that nature is... Well, scientific, that scientists have proven that nature is scientific.

Comment from: jpcardier posted at December 21, 2005 4:19 PM

"In other words, scientists' assumption that God doesn't interefere with the entities they are studying does not justify the belief that God doesn't exist."

Here's the short way to answer "Science Disproves God", speaking as an agnostic:

Using Science to prove or disprove the existence or abilities of God is as equally useful as using Monopoly to prove or disprove the existence or abilities of Parker Brothers.

I'm sure you can extend the analogy from there. The long answer is well, much longer...

Comment from: Montykins posted at December 21, 2005 4:40 PM

Using Science to prove or disprove the existence or abilities of God is as equally useful as using Monopoly to prove or disprove the existence or abilities of Parker Brothers.

Heck, I work for a Hasbro subsidiary, and I'm not sure Parker Brothers really exists.

Comment from: abb3w posted at December 21, 2005 5:02 PM

As a computer scientist, I take evolution as proof that god is also a computer geek at heart. It's such an elegant and LAZY way to populate a world once you create it... with a result full of "good enough" hacks, stuff kludged in from one project to another, and minor bugs. And the occasional duckbilled platypus.

Comment from: shane posted at December 21, 2005 5:10 PM

You are welcome Egarwaen. Also, a big thank you to all of the other snarkoleptics who have participated in this fascinating conversation. We have had more than a hundred comments with no flames, no blantant aggression and no name calling. This is a performative refutation of atheism! (I jest, but just slightly.)

In my opinion, the real philosophical gem to be found in all of this--that little bit of wonderment that leads to philosophy--arises when we consider why the universe should be mathematizable? Why is the universe understandable (at least partially) or scientifically describable? (Read more at wikipedia.) If anything is, this is the hidden trace of a creator's hand. But, of course, God always seems to hide himself in mysteries rather than compelling people to believe.

As a christian theologian, I believe that even in his most explicit revelations of himself, God is never clearly present or unambiguously recognized. Kierkegaard, the philosopher of divine hiddenness par excellence, warns his readers not to think that they would have recognized God in the man Jesus. Faith was always necessary to recognize him as the incarnate God, even if you were sitting there talking to him and watching him raise the dead. To speak truly of God's hiddenness, one must be a poet, not a philosopher, so I direct the inquisivite reader to Gerard Manley Hopkins's poem, "Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore". Link.

Again, many kudos to all who have participated in this conversation.

shane

Comment from: Joseph White posted at December 21, 2005 5:15 PM

What always amuses me about the claim that "science" is atheistic is that if you look at the historical and philosophical roots of science, you discover that science and the philosophy of science are both deeply rooted in the Christian tradition. The ancient Greeks came up with many good theories about the way the universe operates, but they never came close to what we today call science; their ideas were good, but they did not look at the universe as something that could be explained in a systematic way. The ancient Greeks were, of course, polytheistic. Today, we (by and large) assume that the universe is orderly and makes sense. In a polytheistic worldview, there is absolutely no reason to believe that, because you have all these competing personalities (Zeus, Ares, Demeter, etc.) that affect and manipulate nature according to their own whims. There are no "rules." Likewise, (and I would like any Muslims to kindly correct me if I am mistaken) there is no separation between Allah and his Creation. There is God, and all things must submit to God. It is only in the Judeo-christian tradition that we see the idea of God being separate from his Creation. God is supernatural and eternal, the Universe is natural and temporal. We also see the assumption that humanity was "made in God's image," i.e. like God in certain fundamental respects, such as the fact that humanity, among all creatures (except Spock), is ration. This implies that God is rational. Therefore, we have under Christianity and Judaism the believe in a rational God who has created a Universe separate from himself, that follows certain natural laws that God has determined. The earliest "scientists"--and I use that term very loosely--believed that by rationally looking at the universe and comprehending it, they could move themselves spiritually closer to God. The notion that the great minds of science were atheistic renegades is ridiculous. Nicholas Copernicus was a Roman Catholic priest.
I do not intend to denigrate anyone's belief system. I believe in belief; I consider it very important. Without it, the Universe would be a very sterile and dead place. But I also believe that it is only the Judeo-Christian tradition that has the necessary elements to produce the philosophical outlook necessary for science.

Comment from: Grumblin posted at December 21, 2005 5:25 PM

W00f... Long read...

hmmm I saw one interesting statement by Shane that shows how easy it is to slip into scientific fallacy:

"there isn't a single lick of evidence to prove or disprove the other hypothesis (that God doesn't guide evolution) either."

you see, a scientist, especially a biologist, would never go out and prove that "god does not guide evolution".

You can only conduct such a negative proof experiment in a biological setting if you have actually quantified "god" , so that you can run equal tests with and without "god" factor added.

Since "god" isn't quantifiable (either because of ineffable dodgyness of said being or because of simply being a mushroom-induced hallucination helpful in keeping priests into a well-filled larder. add sugar to taste), "god" cannot be used in such an experiment.

Working in a science where any definite statement will bite you in the ass , given that if you do, the next day a critter will be found that does things contrary to your theories, biologists tend to be habitually careful in making sweeping statements like "god does (not) influence process X" to begin with.
Generally speaking Popular Science Journalists are much better in that kind of Lies-To-Children.

As far as "no evidence that random processes affect "evolution" " is concerned, I simply point out things like entropy, environment, the various forms of mutation itself and a charming principle called "emergent systems".
Evolution is not driven by a single engine, but by a complex of very simple and quite random processes, which have been thoroughly documented over the past century or so.

But that never seems to have stopped the Philosophers. Maybe that's why, at least here in this little nook of Europe, philosphy is classed as an Art, and not a Science.

Comment from: Tyck posted at December 21, 2005 5:53 PM

What always amuses me about the claim that "science" is atheistic is that if you look at the historical and philosophical roots of science, you discover that science and the philosophy of science are both deeply rooted in the Christian tradition. The ancient Greeks came up with many good theories about the way the universe operates, but they never came close to what we today call science...

...But I also believe that it is only the Judeo-Christian tradition that has the necessary elements to produce the philosophical outlook necessary for science.

Those Greeks referenced weren't thinking scientifically? They may not have carried out the full process of test-revise-test, but they looked pretty scientific when I learned about them. They largely did assume there were rules to the world; they didn't figure out what those rules are (because, as it turned out, they were looking for the wrong rules), but this does not mean the thoughts were unscientific. Take the four elements theory: Everything in the universe is composed of four primal things in differing quantities. This is a scientific hypothesis: you can test it. You can try to break an item down into its primal components. You can attempt to use the primal components to build something from scratch. Given the means, it'd be easy to determine whether or not the universe was in fact made of Fire, Earth, Air, and Water.

I really have to take exception to the implication that rational thought began with the people of Israel. Every other place on Earth that developed architecture disagrees with that idea.

Comment from: Freak posted at December 21, 2005 5:59 PM

Wasn't the Scopes trial primarily a publicity stunt? (According to a documentary I watched a few months ago, a mining town that had run out of ore came up with the idea to get reporters into the town; Scopes volunteered to be sued, and felt almost ignored in the late stages.)

And the law only applied within the state of Tennessee during the 1920-1968 interval.

(And what was HT's "Evolution isn't moving towards anything. It's moving away." exactly?)

Comment from: Tyck posted at December 21, 2005 6:09 PM

(And what was HT's "Evolution isn't moving towards anything. It's moving away." exactly?)

I haven't encountered this one, but it sounds like the quote-ee is stating that the only goal evolution has is moving away from whatever currently is, not leading to any specific end. (disclaimer: assuming whatever currently is, is less than perfect.)

Comment from: shane posted at December 21, 2005 6:28 PM

Grumblin,

this one comment of mine, which several different people have commented on, is my response to someone else's objection. I am simply pointing out that there is no evidence which proves or disproves that God guides the process of evolution. the more important statements were in the posts before that one, ("When a scientist tells you that God does not exist, she is no longer speaking as a scientist, but rather as theologian offering her own interpretation of certain data.")

Now your objection seems to be this: God isn't quantifiable, ergo he can't be part of an experiment. Ok--i'm fine with that. I think you are wrong, however, to claim that, "biologists tend to be habitually careful in making sweeping statements like 'god does (not) influence process X' to begin with." Scientists do seem to me to make statements like that all the time, even though, as I have argued, they are not speaking as scientists. Moreover, God's noninterference really is a working assumption of the natural sciences. How could I formulate a physical law about how fast things fall, if I try to quantify what would happen if God decides to make the ball fall up? Likewise, you ignore God in your biological experiments, because, really, if God starts messing around with your specimens, then you can't have any confidence in your data--so you assume that he doesn't mess around with your data, and your assumption seems pretty well justified.

I am calling this working assumption of God's noninterference 'methodological atheism', but perhaps that is not quite right. It may be called 'methodological naturalism', (wikipedia article here.) Perhaps this is a helpful assumption, perhaps not. But this assumption does not, by itself, justify a jump to what the wikipedia article calls 'ontological naturalism'. That is one of the points that I am trying to make.

I am also perfectly willing to grant that there are emergent systems and neat things like spontaneously self-assembling lipid membranes. **stretching mind back to high school biology lesson for hopefully correct example** It is not 'randomness' that I have a problem with, it is the assumption that because we can trace a chain of causes, that therefore God is not involved in that chain of causes.