Is Evolutionary Theory Undermined by Creationist Claims?

[byronm]

T Do you really want to kick off your discussion with them by completely insulting their intelligence?

If stating scientific fact is insulting their intelligence then there really is no debate is there?

Playing victim solves nothing and isn't debate. If you're victimized by scientific facts then there is nothing we can debate logically anyway.

Yes, it sucks schools have failed, yes it sucks people don't get evolution, yes it sucks science is almost an elementary skill unless you become passionate about it on your own. However continuing to appease those elementary views as having any relevence is what keeps this debate alive. The book should be shut, the door should be closed. Creationism isn't science and we already caught them trying to re-brand it as science by clever marketing.

 

[Nan]

If stating scientific fact is insulting their intelligence then there really is no debate is there?

Playing victim solves nothing and isn't debate. If you're victimized by scientific facts then there is nothing we can debate logically anyway.

Yes, it sucks schools have failed, yes it sucks people don't get evolution, yes it sucks science is almost an elementary skill unless you become passionate about it on your own. However continuing to appease those elementary views as having any relevence is what keeps this debate alive. The book should be shut, the door should be closed. Creationism isn't science and we already caught them trying to re-brand it as science by clever marketing.

Indeed and bravo! Gawd save us from marketing gurus!

 

[wofsy]

What I am saying is wrong is your previous post where you said that punctuated equilibrium is "a near impossibility" (without a designer), and now in this last post where you say that it "defies statistics."

Punctuated equilibrium does not contradict evolution; it is an accepted explanation of some speciation events and is a part of the larger theory of evolution. Biologists do not look upon Darwin as a god; his views are not sacrosanct. He didn't know about genes. He didn't know about DNA. He didn't have access to huge number of fossils found after his death. The fossil record shows that speciation sometimes occurs rapidly while some species remain more-or-less unchanged for a long, long time. (Note well: Rapid is used here in a geological sense, where 100,000 years is a blink of an eye.)

Punctuated equilibrium does not require a designer and it does not defy statistics. What makes you think it does?

I didn't say that I think that it does. I just think that it has been used to question the standard model of evolution and asks the question of what really happens.

I know that biologists have thought about this.

By the way, just so you'll know where I am coming from - I have graduate credits in the theory of evolution and am currently working on research on the origins of human bipedalism.

 

[aPhilosopher]

A lot of rapid speciation after a major extinction event can be explained by genetic drift. It is difficult to explain quickly but you can google it pretty easy. There is a pretty complete set of lecture notes out there that addresses the statistics of genetic drift and inbreeding. The quick story though is that genetic drift applies to small populations much more than large ones. So if a large population is split into small ones by a major extinction event, then genetic drift will carry their evolution in separate directions. Gene flow works against evolution in a large and stable population so if there is no selection pressure strong enough to overcome it and the population has reached a local maxima, then evolution is essentially stopped until the equilibrium is 'puncuated' by a change in the environment.

 

[muppet]

The vast majority of Americans have only a high school level education or less. When I was in High School I was taught that evolution was animals changing to adapt to their environment. Imagine my shock when later on I learned that this explanation was so over simplified as to pretty much be dead wrong. Now this is what people apparently learn in school but then outside of school hear instead from creationists/IDers that evolution (in an equally over simplified fashion) actually means random mutations haphazardly led from "pond scum to primates".

My housemate and I agreed that we didn't really understand evolution until we read books by Richard Dawkins, and I think you just put your finger on why. I'd forgotten how it was presented in school: "Polar bears have white fur so they are camoflaged in the snow" etc.

So how many people out there that believe ID may be possible do you think are actually creationists or believe anything even very similar to creationists?

First, I'd re-emphasise that the protagonists of ID are creationists without exception to the best of my knowledge. As for people unfortunate enough to have come across their material, see below.

I myself am pretty sure that the average creationist will likely just call them selves one.

You'd really hope so, wouldn't you? The thing is that they *KNOW* that ID is not a scientific theory in any conventional or even meaningful sense of the term. The strategy that they've been pursuing is to try and dress creationism up as science. By bandying about phrases like "irreducible complexity"- claims which, if true, would indeed be the death of evolution- it opens a wide variety of propaganda options to them. Rather than fighting a losing battle in the faith vs science dichotomy, they can construct a facade of intellectual substance to hide their real motivation. They can fight to have it taught alongside evolution in biology classrooms. They can protest that intellectual freedom is being stifled by people's refusal to publish their papers in journals.

So instead do you think that just maybe there are a lot of people out there who were never properly taught what evolution is (most of which are religious) and now, not knowing what to think, just figure that ID is quite possible? And if this is correct do you think that calling ID just another word for believing silly things like the world is 6000 years old and flat and that man was sculpted from mud is really going to endear you to any of these people who believe ID is possible? I mean we're not talking about religious fanatics here, we're talking about people whom you may be able to bring around and educate on the matter. Do you really want to kick off your discussion with them by completely insulting their intelligence?

Well if we're not talking about religous fanatics, then exposing ID as what it is- creationism in fancy dress- with reference to the catalogued deceptions of the proponents of ID and the overwhelming rejection of ID by the scientific community should bring someone's consideration of it to a fairly abrupt end. My introduction to ID was just such a case- my aunt gave me a video she'd been given which didn't mention religion explicitly, began with Michael Behe in his labcoat, etc etc. If someone who's not fairly scientifically literate is told that there's scientific evidence that might disprove evolution, it's fairly reasonable for them to consider seriously that it might be wrong. (My aunt, for the record, is a senior hospital pharmacist- so perhaps even "fairly scientifically literate" doesn't quite cut it! Perhaps "naturally sceptical and familiar with pure science specifically" might be nearer the mark ) I don't think it's necessary to insult someone's intelligence to explain to them that they've been lied to.

 

[wofsy]

A lot of rapid speciation after a major extinction event can be explained by genetic drift. It is difficult to explain quickly but you can google it pretty easy. There is a pretty complete set of lecture notes out there that addresses the statistics of genetic drift and inbreeding. The quick story though is that genetic drift applies to small populations much more than large ones. So if a large population is split into small ones by a major extinction event, then genetic drift will carry their evolution in separate directions. Gene flow works against evolution in a large and stable population so if there is no selection pressure strong enough to overcome it and the population has reached a local maxima, then evolution is essentially stopped until the equilibrium is 'puncuated' by a change in the environment.

great explanation. So rather than mutation per se - random flows of already existing gene frequencies cause genetic diversification of small separate - originally identical groups . Because these groups are separated the drifts can not be homogenized through interbreeding and therby persist. Did I get that right?

 

[D H]

So rather than mutation per se - random flows of already existing gene frequencies cause genetic diversification of small separate - originally identical groups . Because these groups are separated the drifts can not be homogenized through interbreeding and therby persist. Did I get that right?

Somewhat. Mutations are still needed to get big changes. Genetic drift pertains to the alleles already present in a population. A population split into isolated sub-populations can drift in different directions via genetic drift. A small population not particularly attuned to its environment is susceptible to change by genetic drift and by mutation. Large, stable populations are much less susceptible to change, either by genetic drift or by mutation. Even mutations that one would think would be beneficial are selected against in a large population.

For more on genetic drift google the term "ring species".

 

[aPhilosopher]

great explanation. So rather than mutation per se - random flows of already existing gene frequencies cause genetic diversification of small separate - originally identical groups . Because these groups are separated the drifts can not be homogenized through interbreeding and therby persist. Did I get that right?

That's a pretty good synopsis. In addition, whatever changes to the environment caused the population reduction probably did so in a non-homogeneous manner so that the environment changed one way across one part of the species range and differently in another part. Remember that the environment has to be taken to include other organisms as well for this discussion. Strictly speaking, we should be talking about individual genes, in which case, the environment includes other genes as well. So then you get the sort of slow gradual evolution leading to distinct species. 100,000 years is the blink of an eye in geological terms but is enough time for serious evolution to occur as well. Every new bit of evidence indicates that it happens faster than is commonly believed. The example of the finches that I gave you is a good example of that. They reversed the size of the sexes in 15-30 generations. That's a small change, granted, but multiply that by 3000 and you are starting to get the idea.

 

[arunma]

I believe t was stated to show that history existed before religious groups tried to destroy it in an effort to instill their ideologies of the beginning. If all those books, scrolls and papers weren't destroyed not only would we be that much wiser (some estimate up to 10,000 years wiser in technology) we probably wouldn't be having the debates between truth and fiction.

As I stated earlier: non-religious groups have done the same thing. And might I also remind you that most of the genocides of the twentieth century have been performed by non-religious or religiously-ambiguous groups (in fact creationists capitalize on this to suggest that secularism results in mass murder). Clearly the point here is to show that religions have an established pattern of erasing historical records. And that point is very poorly made. I'm surprised that this line of reasoning is being taken seriously on a forum populated by scientists. Haven't we all been trained to make correlations based on observed data rather than emotional appeals?

History doesn't lie, and if you don't learn from it, you're doomed to repeat it. The KKK still exists, the KKK is still predominantly republican. However none of which have any bearing with ID or Evolution other then the fact i wish humanity could evolve to not be so racists, stupid and biased ;)

I mentioned the KKK and Republicans soley to illustrate the poor logic being employed here. Do you think it's reasonable to say that Republicans are racist?

That is what they are. The truth hurts. Why should scientists even give them the light of day when the institutions pushing Creationism are doing so by re-writing the very definition of science and creating wedge issues NOT to spread fact but to spread fear and the wrath of god into people so if they are religious they HAVE to believe in ID.

Everyone here, myself included, agrees with you that creationism and ID shouldn't see the light of day in legitimate science. It's demonstrated itself to be unfalsifiable and pseudoscientific. I would not make any attempt to defend creationism or even to suggest that it be taken seriously. What I've said is that scientists shouldn't be appealing to ridicule the way creationists do (e.g. see the "pond scum" comment made by an earlier poster).

That is the problem with ID. Again, i would seriously love to see a scientist or a research group studying ID who isn't biased and being funded by extreme Christian fundamentalists groups who want to prove Genesis as fact. Every group i can find has been subpoenaed in court to handle a creationist case to sustain the often mentioned cases of schools trying to implement that dreaded Pandas book. I have YET to see an ID people published as a scientific process/paper/test/research that is breaking down the truths of evolution.

You're right, ID isn't a legitimate scientific theory. It has a purely religious motivation. And as you yourself are aware, most creationists try to tell people that in order to be obedient to God you must believe in creation science, and that "secular science" is morally bankrupt and is performed by atheists who hate God. So why give them ammunition? Respect religious peoples' beliefs as you demonstrate the truth of modern biological and astrophysical theories, and strip the creationist proponents of the ability to say that you have an ungodly and demonic motivation. As you yourself said, creationists are winning in public opinion polls because they strike the fear of God into the public in spite of their very poorly constructed arguments.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Honestly, if the fact of the matter insults them then they're not looking at it from a scientific process but that of a personal belief. Sometimes the truth hurts. Should science be based on belief systems or the scientific process?

If stating scientific fact is insulting their intelligence then there really is no debate is there?

Playing victim solves nothing and isn't debate. If you're victimized by scientific facts then there is nothing we can debate logically anyway.

Yes, it sucks schools have failed, yes it sucks people don't get evolution, yes it sucks science is almost an elementary skill unless you become passionate about it on your own. However continuing to appease those elementary views as having any relevence is what keeps this debate alive. The book should be shut, the door should be closed. Creationism isn't science and we already caught them trying to re-brand it as science by clever marketing.

What keeps the debate alive is not being willing to educate. One must engage those one wishes to educate. You are not very engaging when you are insulting people's ideas and beliefs. One can definitely discuss and inform without being blunt and dismissive.

If scientists can not find it within themselves to be properly engaging educators of the masses then they ought to remove themselves from the issue and quit complaining that people won't listen. Their arrogance, lack of patience, and condescending attitudes only hurt the cause.

Well if we're not talking about religous fanatics, then exposing ID as what it is- creationism in fancy dress- with reference to the catalogued deceptions of the proponents of ID and the overwhelming rejection of ID by the scientific community should bring someone's consideration of it to a fairly abrupt end. My introduction to ID was just such a case- my aunt gave me a video she'd been given which didn't mention religion explicitly, began with Michael Behe in his labcoat, etc etc. If someone who's not fairly scientifically literate is told that there's scientific evidence that might disprove evolution, it's fairly reasonable for them to consider seriously that it might be wrong. (My aunt, for the record, is a senior hospital pharmacist- so perhaps even "fairly scientifically literate" doesn't quite cut it! Perhaps "naturally sceptical and familiar with pure science specifically" might be nearer the mark ) I don't think it's necessary to insult someone's intelligence to explain to them that they've been lied to.

You can certainly educate people in a polite and engaging manner. That is what I am advocating. Many people though who are pro-evolution, as we can see here in this thread even, have no patience and are not very polite or engaging about their opinions. Also telling someone that they have been lied to is not very engaging. It implies that they have been duped due to a lack of intelligence. Some people, such as your aunt, may take this ok, especially coming from someone they trust, but a significant number of people do not. If you state that its just a rebranded creationism and attack its source this is just a sort of ad hominem, it does not directly tackle the issue of what is being proposed. While not everyone is capable of seeing fallacious arguments for what they are people tend to notice them rather quickly when they are feeling defensive.

So if you are going to make an argument it ought to be proper, polite, and engaging. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and possibly hurting your own cause.

 

[DaveC426913]

What keeps the debate alive is not being willing to educate. One must engage those one wishes to educate. You are not very engaging when you are insulting people's ideas and beliefs. One can definitely discuss and inform without being blunt and dismissive.

If scientists can not find it within themselves to be properly engaging educators of the masses then they ought to remove themselves from the issue and quit complaining that people won't listen. Their arrogance, lack of patience, and condescending attitudes only hurt the cause.




You can certainly educate people in a polite and engaging manner. That is what I am advocating. Many people though who are pro-evolution, as we can see here in this thread even, have no patience and are not very polite or engaging about their opinions. Also telling someone that they have been lied to is not very engaging. It implies that they have been duped due to a lack of intelligence. Some people, such as your aunt, may take this ok, especially coming from someone they trust, but a significant number of people do not. If you state that its just a rebranded creationism and attack its source this is just a sort of ad hominem, it does not directly tackle the issue of what is being proposed. While not everyone is capable of seeing fallacious arguments for what they are people tend to notice them rather quickly when they are feeling defensive.

So if you are going to make an argument it ought to be proper, polite, and engaging. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and possibly hurting your own cause.

Thank you. I've always felt the need to respect the people we're trying to enlighten. I am continually dismayed to see an abundance of emotive dismissal and derision coming from we who as a agroup claim to be the rational and logical ones.

It is good to hear someone else say it.

 

[muppet]

Also telling someone that they have been lied to is not very engaging. It implies that they have been duped due to a lack of intelligence.

I really don't think it's intrinsically offensive to the listener to call ID proponents liars. Consider the following 3 statements:
1. I have a grandmother in Liverpool who is blind.
2. I have an aunt in London who has cancer.
3. I have a cousin in Bristol who has eczema.
One of those statements is false. How are you supposed to know which one?

When an ID proponent calling himself Dr Hovind tells you that there are no transitional fossils and an evolutionist calling himself Dr Miller states that there are, there's no way around the fact that one of them isn't right. EITHER Dr Miller is lying about the existence of fossils or "Dr" Hovind is lying about the non-existence of fossils or somehow, despite arguing with evolutionists for a living, no-one has ever told "Dr" Hovind of the existence of transitional fossils. (I suppose, if you really, really wanted to, you could claim that paelentologists have been collectively lying to Dr Miller, along with everyone else, but the nature of his claim is such that you can't say he's ignorant of the non-existence of such fossils). I'd suggest that it's really much less offensive for someone to be the victim of a deception than to have bought into a dumb argument.

If you state that its just a rebranded creationism and attack its source this is just a sort of ad hominem, it does not directly tackle the issue of what is being proposed...

It is important that people understand that it has no scientific basis whatsoever. I couldn't agree more that it's important to explain why. The only reason I mentioned the personal disingenuity of some of the more prominent IDers was because you said you figured an out-and-out creationist would identify themselves as such, and I lamented that we weren't dealing with honest people. Ideally, of course it's best to make the arguments that the evolution of the bacterial flagellar motor has arisen from other much simpler systems that have been cobbled together from doing other jobs; that the "irreducibly complex" blood clotting system in humans has been found with one fewer component in dolphins and wales, and with four fewer components in puffer fish, and that Darwin predicted the existence of an intermediate between birds and dinosaurs before Archaeopterix was discovered, and that palaentolgists know perfectly well that C-14 dating isn't a reliable way to assess the age of anything more than a few thousand years old, and that you can see evolution happening in systems like bacteria today, and that... etc.

However, when people are being told things by different people that directly contradict each other, I think it's necessary to explain honestly why the conflict arises. Theoretically anyone can go and find the evidence for all of this stuff, but in practice I'd guess that I wouldn't be able to read a professional biologist's paper on the topic, and I'll never have access to a lab or an archaeological dig. People who want to accquire a broad picture of how the world works sooner or later have to put their trust in someone; it takes at least 6 years from beginning university to getting a PhD in the UK, and usually more like 8. You simply can't know it all.

So if you are going to make an argument it ought to be proper, polite, and engaging. Otherwise you are just wasting your time and possibly hurting your own cause.

I agree entirely that you shouldn't insult the listener's intelligence, and that it's easy to come across as negative, arrogant or vitriolic when you're speaking about a proposal that is essentially devoid of all merit, apart perhaps from by some aesthetic criteria. I'm also fully aware that sentences like that one are derisive, but I don't think it's an overstatement, and the truthfulness of ID is not something that we're discussing here, so I don't see any harm in it.

To my mind, the absolute textbook demonstration of how to treat the topic can be found here. It's the lecture by Ken Miller that I've already alluded to repeatedly in this thread. The lecture is an hour long with another hour of Q and A, but if you've got the time it's fantastic stuff. He is himself religious, so he's not an atheistic tub-thumper. He has an excellent sense of humour and a great way of communicating the evidence; he doesn't come across as arrogant or condescending. But he's absolutely unequivocal about the strength of the case for evolution, about the weakness of ID, and about the disingenuity of the proponents of ID.

 

[Daneel_Olivaw]

To my mind, the absolute textbook demonstration of how to treat the topic can be found here.

Due to the very slow internet here, I can't really watch that huge YouTube video. Did somebody upload it after splitting it into several smaller parts? I couldn't find it. It maybe asking too much, but would it be possible for you to upload it in several parts. That way, it would be possible for me to watch it.

 

[byronm]

Thank you. I've always felt the need to respect the people we're trying to enlighten. I am continually dismayed to see an abundance of emotive dismissal and derision coming from we who as a agroup claim to be the rational and logical ones.

I originally wrote a wall of text response to this, but i'll just keep it short(er) ;)

Those who believe in creationism are already "enlightened" and thus will refuse any evidence to the contrary as they are delusional in the sense that they purposely and willfully refuse any evidence to the contrary to their personal beliefs.

Also, i take great disgust in the statement "claim to be the rational and logical ones" because more often then not that is the very counter argument against us. In modern day politics you lose if you're considered intellectual because intellectualism is now demonized, i certainly hope the science community doesn't appeal to that nonsense.

If people can't accept facts and be critical enough of their own beliefs to incorporate those facts, its not my fault or my job to further embellish them to appease their willful ignorance.

I would love to debate creationism if it was so simple as to enlighten someone with fact however the simple truth of the matter is creationism is about accepting the truths as Christianity presents them, not through the scientific process.

*I* think its rather sad that as adults, the ones using science to convey a message have to appease those who appeal merely on an emotional level.

And no, i don't just call them a-holes when i start out conversations, so I'm not sure why there is so much response here as to why we should appeal to them when they have no concern to appeal to us?

 

[byronm]

Oddly enough i just came across this today on reddit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html

Seriously, i hope they're just hyping the movie and there is no truth to no distributors picking it up in the US.

HOwever that 39% figure of people "believing" in evolution is disturbing..

 

[wildman]

A lot of anti-evolutionists argue from the idea of intelligent design - an idea that has been revived I think from pre-Darwinian beliefs. What do you think of the arguments from intelligent design?

My brother, a molecular biologist, told me an early evolutionist's sarcastic argument against intelligent design. When JBS Haldane was asked what he thought of God's role in creation he responded, "I think he had an inordinate preoccupation with beetles."

We don't know the mind of God, maybe he does like beetles.

 

[DaveC426913]

When an ID proponent calling himself Dr Hovind tells you that there are no transitional fossils and an evolutionist calling himself Dr Miller states that there are, there's no way around the fact that one of them isn't right. EITHER Dr Miller is lying about the existence of fossils or "Dr" Hovind is lying about the non-existence of fossils

"Only a Sith speaks in absolutes."
The options are not so black & white. The fossil evidence is open to interpretation (i.e. grey area), and they have interpreted it differently. It would appear Dr. Hovind does not see the fossils as transitional.

Those who believe in creationism are already "enlightened" and thus will refuse any evidence to the contrary

Agreed, but this isn't about them, it's about "our" philosophy toward them. "We" see them as in-the-dark science-wise, and our goal would be to illuminate that darkness with facts and logic.

Also, i take great disgust in the statement "claim to be the rational and logical ones" because more often then not that is the very counter argument against us. In modern day politics you lose if you're considered intellectual because intellectualism is now demonized, i certainly hope the science community doesn't appeal to that nonsense.

I'm confused. You are disgusted at my comment about us being rational and logical becasue other people are trying to besmirch these virtues? Are you saying you have accepted their judgement of logic and rationalism as demonized?

i'm not sure why there is so much response here as to why we should appeal to them when they have no concern to appeal to us?

For the same reason that we don't scream at our children when they scream at us?

If "our way" truly is more enlightened, then we must be enlightened. To do otherwise is to accept Creationists as equal opponents (us vs. them) on a level playing field. It's not anti-this versus pro-this; it's ignorance versus education. Right?

 

[arunma]

If "our way" truly is more enlightened, then we must be enlightened. To do otherwise is to accept Creationists as equal opponents (us vs. them) on a level playing field. It's not anti-this versus pro-this; it's ignorance versus education. Right?

I think you've put it quite well.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I originally wrote a wall of text response to this, but i'll just keep it short(er) ;)

Those who believe in creationism are already "enlightened" and thus will refuse any evidence to the contrary as they are delusional in the sense that they purposely and willfully refuse any evidence to the contrary to their personal beliefs.

Also, i take great disgust in the statement "claim to be the rational and logical ones" because more often then not that is the very counter argument against us. In modern day politics you lose if you're considered intellectual because intellectualism is now demonized, i certainly hope the science community doesn't appeal to that nonsense.

If people can't accept facts and be critical enough of their own beliefs to incorporate those facts, its not my fault or my job to further embellish them to appease their willful ignorance.

I would love to debate creationism if it was so simple as to enlighten someone with fact however the simple truth of the matter is creationism is about accepting the truths as Christianity presents them, not through the scientific process.

*I* think its rather sad that as adults, the ones using science to convey a message have to appease those who appeal merely on an emotional level.

And no, i don't just call them a-holes when i start out conversations, so I'm not sure why there is so much response here as to why we should appeal to them when they have no concern to appeal to us?

You're still equating ID with creationism and religious fanaticism.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
A Gallup poll shows that apparently approximately 9% of people believe in naturalistic evolution, 47% believe in biblical creation, and 40% believe that evolution has occurred but guided by the hand of god.
That's nearly half of the population who believe that evolution is true but at least 40% likely give credence to the idea that ID is possibly true as well and they are not creationists.
No one is talking about appeasing any one, I have no idea where you are getting that, we are talking about these 40% (or more) who can be spoken to and possibly swayed so long as you are not insulting their beliefs or calling them the little deluded dupes of creationist conspirators and liars. Its not 'appeasement' to be polite and truly attempt to educate without resorting to ridicule and improper or dismissive arguments.

 

[muppet]

Before we go any further, I'd like a brief pause to share this:

Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind"(no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.

I promise you that I've not edited that in the least detail
Daneel_Olivaw: I'm afraid I have precisely zero knowledge of editing videos, but I've started working on it. At present I appear to be suffering from codec issues...

DaveC: I take the point about interpreting the evidence, but when articles such as http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=100 imply that a fully functional organism cannot be a transitional form, I'd suggest that that amounts to a misrepresentation of the claims of evolution.
Again, I'd re-iterate that I agree entirely that when speaking to people who have been presented with these ideas and take them seriously, that we shouldn't insult them, but present them with the rational arguments and evidence that make the case for evolution so overwhelming. I'd like return to your earlier comment:

I am continually dismayed to see an abundance of emotive dismissal and derision coming from we who as a agroup claim to be the rational and logical ones.

If I understand what you're saying here, you're making a point about how to persuade people ID/creationism/however they repackage it next is wrong. As you've implicitly characterised creationism as ignorant, I'd infer that you've no problem with people being derisive about it per se. My own take on this would be that by and large people -at least within a community such as this one- don't simply state that "ur gods not reel and ur unbeleivably dumb go [insert profanity here]". (YouTube would of course be an altogether different kettle of fish.) However, statements such as the one that evoboy made above are likely to get a fairly curt response. I don't think the responses can be reduced to "emotive dismissal and derision", but they might well contain it. I think there's two reasons for this:
1)These arguments have been refuted so many times that it's both tedious to repeat the exercise and maddening that someone who has heard it refuted has continued to promulgate it.
2)It's irritating to hear people make with confidence assertions that they evidently don't understand, and such statements lower our opinion of the speaker. I'd like to think that a statement "I've heard that ..." would have elicited a more patient response.
Whilst neither of these factors alters the fact that the understanding of science has not been promoted to the fullest extent in these circumstances, I'd suggest that these go some way to accounting for why reasonable people lose their rag over this issue. Your thoughts?

 

[muppet]

You're still equating ID with creationism and religious fanaticism.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
A Gallup poll shows that apparently approximately 9% of people believe in naturalistic evolution, 47% believe in biblical creation, and 40% believe that evolution has occurred but guided by the hand of god.
That's nearly half of the population who believe that evolution is true but at least 40% likely give credence to the idea that ID is possibly true as well and they are not creationists.
No one is talking about appeasing any one, I have no idea where you are getting that, we are talking about these 40% (or more) who can be spoken to and possibly swayed so long as you are not insulting their beliefs or calling them the little deluded dupes of creationist conspirators and liars. Its not 'appeasement' to be polite and truly attempt to educate without resorting to ridicule and improper or dismissive arguments.

This post suggests that we might perhaps be talking at cross purposes. When I use the phrase ID I use it to mean a fairly specific set of propositions, as formulated in the books by Michael Behe in which the term was coined. As already discussed, it is well documented that this is creationism packaged as science. An integral feature of this set of propositions is the idea of "irreducible complexity", which explicitly asserts that structures exist in nature which could not have arisen by evolution. Consequently, the 40% who consider that God might have had some role in evolution couldn't be considered as believing that ID in this sense might be true.

If, however, by "intelligent design", you mean the literal meaning of the phrase in the most general sense rather than the special set of propositions I've been talking about, then of course that does have the potential to be quite far removed from creationism. Similar arguments abound in physics, along the lines of "if the charge of the proton/gravitational constant/initial rate of inflation were slightly different then atoms/planets could never have formed", and I've no particular hostility to them.

 

[wildman]

This post suggests that we might perhaps be talking at cross purposes. When I use the phrase ID I use it to mean a fairly specific set of propositions, as formulated in the books by Michael Behe in which the term was coined. As already discussed, it is well documented that this is creationism packaged as science. An integral feature of this set of propositions is the idea of "irreducible complexity", which explicitly asserts that structures exist in nature which could not have arisen by evolution. Consequently, the 40% who consider that God might have had some role in evolution couldn't be considered as believing that ID in this sense might be true.

If, however, by "intelligent design", you mean the literal meaning of the phrase in the most general sense rather than the special set of propositions I've been talking about, then of course that does have the potential to be quite far removed from creationism. Similar arguments abound in physics, along the lines of "if the charge of the proton/gravitational constant/initial rate of inflation were slightly different then atoms/planets could never have formed", and I've no particular hostility to them.

Evolution is a mathematical model built on stochastic processes. It is no different from physics or any other science in that respect. The math IS the science. The rest is experimental or observational evidence to back up the model. Period.

Whether God (or little green men) guided the process or not makes no difference to the model. This means that creationism (or ID) which is consistent with the evidence and the model is consistent with science.

The reason we use stochastic math here (or Quantum Physics as far as that goes) is that the underlying deterministic processes (if there are any) are not knowable. We can't know them. As such, arguments about the underlying processes are equivalent to the Medieval discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They are meaningless.

The 40% who believe in the model but feel that God may have a hand in the underlying stochastic processes believe in the science. They are just as valid in their beliefs as are anyone else

 

[muppet]

Sorry, does the above post make it sound like I don't think they are?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This post suggests that we might perhaps be talking at cross purposes. When I use the phrase ID I use it to mean a fairly specific set of propositions, as formulated in the books by Michael Behe in which the term was coined. As already discussed, it is well documented that this is creationism packaged as science. An integral feature of this set of propositions is the idea of "irreducible complexity", which explicitly asserts that structures exist in nature which could not have arisen by evolution. Consequently, the 40% who consider that God might have had some role in evolution couldn't be considered as believing that ID in this sense might be true.

If, however, by "intelligent design", you mean the literal meaning of the phrase in the most general sense rather than the special set of propositions I've been talking about, then of course that does have the potential to be quite far removed from creationism. Similar arguments abound in physics, along the lines of "if the charge of the proton/gravitational constant/initial rate of inflation were slightly different then atoms/planets could never have formed", and I've no particular hostility to them.

I've already tried multiple times in this thread to point out the fact that ID (in general) is nothing new and has many interpretations of meaning just like any other philosophical or religious idea. People hearing about this discussion over intelligent design and catching a youtube video or news article here and there often think that it is interesting and that these people may have a point. I have heard plenty of relatively intelligent religious individuals say that they think ID is possible and that scientists may not have the whole story on evolution. And these are the people who are turned off by the evolutionists position when they blow off ID (something these people have decided to believe is possible) as nothing but ridiculous non-science (read: something that only fools take seriously). Then the IDers pull the "arrogant closed minded scientists" card and there you go, an incredibly large subsection of the population has been made to not trust what scientists have to say. I am absolutely flabberghasted that so many intelligent people can not see this happening and continue to spout ridicule and anti-religious comments as if this is supposed to help somehow. You'll even notice that a rather significant percentage of people in this thread seem to think that if a person has begun to think that ID is plausible they are obviously lost to ignorance and not worth wasting your breath on.

 

[Evo]

I've already tried multiple times in this thread to point out the fact that ID (in general) is nothing new and has many interpretations of meaning just like any other philosophical or religious idea.

Intelligent Design, as it is popularly used today, is the religious creation of Charles Thaxton and Stephen C. Meyer in June 1988. Since Intelligent Design was created in order to challenge the teaching of evolution in schools and disguise religion as science, we need to make it clear that the term "Intelligent Design", for reasons of keeping everyone on the same topic, refers to this attempt at undermining the teaching of science in schools in favor of teaching religion. See "The Wedge" document if you are not aware of this.

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"[2] and to "affirm the reality of God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Because "Intelligent Design" is part of Christian religion, we do not allow discussion of their religious beliefs. Discussion of ID falls under the religious discussion guidelines. It's not science. It's sad that people are being duped into thinking it is.

 

[muppet]

It's unfortunate that the term has been used for creationists to hide behind, as I think the resulting confusion transcends some mere lexical ambiguity. The thing is that because they've tried to characterise it as science, it's important to explain that it isn't and why it isn't, because the fact that it isn't is part of the ideas fundamental structural weakness in a rational argument. (Where I'm again referring to ID in the Beheian sense -yes, I did just make the word "Beheian" up.)

To clear things up a bit, is it worthwhile introducing some terminology to differentiate between the different things we're talking about? I can identify 3 categories into which ideas, together with their sources, fall:
Box 1: Good old-fashioned honest bible-bashing creationism. Hovind et al.
Box 2: "Intelligent Design", as a specific doctrine making particular reference to irreducible complexity. Creationism in disguise.
Box 3: A sense of theistic involvement in natural processes which themselves can be formulated independently of religious or metaphysical entities.
Feel free to give names to these ideas if you think it will help, I'm just labelling.

The problem as I see it, then, is to explain to people who are open to ideas that they consider might reside in Box 3 that the subject matter of box 2 is a quite separate beast that requires special treatment, and is equivalent in substance if not in style to the material in box 1. Agreed?

Edit: thanks Evo, it's nice to know I'm not the only person who has been automatically associating ID with that particular movement!

 

[ViewsofMars]

I've already tried multiple times in this thread to point out the fact that ID (in general) is nothing new and has many interpretations of meaning just like any other philosophical or religious idea. People hearing about this discussion over intelligent design and catching a youtube video or news article here and there often think that it is interesting and that these people may have a point. I have heard plenty of relatively intelligent religious individuals say that they think ID is possible and that scientists may not have the whole story on evolution. And these are the people who are turned off by the evolutionists position when they blow off ID (something these people have decided to believe is possible) as nothing but ridiculous non-science (read: something that only fools take seriously). Then the IDers pull the "arrogant closed minded scientists" card and there you go, an incredibly large subsection of the population has been made to not trust what scientists have to say. I am absolutely flabberghasted that so many intelligent people can not see this happening and continue to spout ridicule and anti-religious comments as if this is supposed to help somehow. You'll even notice that a rather significant percentage of people in this thread seem to think that if a person has begun to think that ID is plausible they are obviously lost to ignorance and not worth wasting your breath on.

I have to agree with what Evo wrote (reference msg.175) I've debated with proponents of the Intelligent Design movement on the ARN board before the Dover trial along with many great scientists. I've debated with them (I.D. folk) since 2003 on many websites. The current year is September 2009. Whatever proponents of ID may think is still not based on science. I can't begin to tell you the ill-mannered treatment that I experienced from them. I'd like to forget the past and move forward with hope they would simply face the truth that they have been defeated, but unfortunately this isn't the case. Please let's not forget the grief they have caused the scientific community and tax payers. (You may like to review some of my earlier posts.) By the way, evolution isn't a story. Evolution is a theory and fact.

I will tell you this much, as a woman, I've been poked fun of by many so-called men that were proponents of ID. And least I forget to mention the Young Earther's and the list of others. I guess they figured a hetrosexual woman wasn't capable of battle. At this point in my life, I'm taking a long deserved break. :)

 

[D H]

If "our way" truly is more enlightened, then we must be enlightened. To do otherwise is to accept Creationists as equal opponents (us vs. them) on a level playing field. It's not anti-this versus pro-this; it's ignorance versus education. Right?

Unfortunately, wrong. The vast majority of creationists are merely repeating garbage they have heard from people they respect. Those people who most creationists respect who dole out this garbage do not play on an even playing field. They are adept at every fallacy known to the ancient world plus some new ones. If people like Behe, Hovind, Hannity, Limbaugh, Colter et al were selling a commercial product they would be put in jail. They are not in jail only because the fact that their arguments are religious in nature gives them a get out of jail free card. (Which doesn't always work. You can write to Hovind at the Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield South Carolina for details.)

The garbage I am talking about is garbage like "if we evolved from monkeys (sic), then why are there still monkeys around", which I have heard come out of the mouths of Sannity, Limbaugh, and others (yes, I listen to conservative radio sometimes[/size] ).

Garbage like this (kudos, muppet):

Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind"(no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.

This is of course utter garbage. Scientists have now found lots and lots of "transitionary species". (This ignores the fact that every species dead and alive is a "transitionary species".) The problem is that every time a paleobiologist finds a transitionary species, creationists chime in that this proves nothing. In fact, there are now two more transitionary species that must be found.

The options are not so black & white. The fossil evidence is open to interpretation (i.e. grey area), and they have interpreted it differently.

There are people out there who believe the Earth is flat. They have zero credibility. The fossil evidence is no more open to interpretation than is the evidence of planetary orbits. Sure, biologists will argue about nuances of evolution, just as physicists argue about the nuances of gravity. That does not mean evolution is not a fact. Saying that it isn't, that there is some gray, is akin to saying that the Earth and Sun do not attract one another gravitationally.

 

[wildman]

Sorry, does the above post make it sound like I don't think they are?

I was trying to back up what you said.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Intelligent Design, as it is popularly used today, is the religious creation of Charles Thaxton and Stephen C. Meyer in June 1988. Since Intelligent Design was created in order to challenge the teaching of evolution in schools and disguise religion as science, we need to make it clear that the term "Intelligent Design", for reasons of keeping everyone on the same topic, refers to this attempt at undermining the teaching of science in schools in favor of teaching religion. See "The Wedge" document if you are not aware of this.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Because "Intelligent Design" is part of Christian religion, we do not allow discussion of their religious beliefs. Discussion of ID falls under the religious discussion guidelines. It's not science. It's sad that people are being duped into thinking it is.

I have to agree with what Evo wrote (reference msg.175) I've debated with proponents of the Intelligent Design movement on the ARN board before the Dover trial along with many great scientists. I've debated with them (I.D. folk) since 2003 on many websites. The current year is September 2009. Whatever proponents of ID may think is still not based on science. I can't begin to tell you the ill-mannered treatment that I experienced from them. I'd like to forget the past and move forward with hope they would simply face the truth that they have been defeated, but unfortunately this isn't the case. Please let's not forget the grief they have caused the scientific community and tax payers. (You may like to review some of my earlier posts.) By the way, evolution isn't a story. Evolution is a theory and fact.

I will tell you this much, as a woman, I've been poked fun of by many so-called men that were proponents of ID. And least I forget to mention the Young Earther's and the list of others. I guess they figured a hetrosexual woman wasn't capable of battle. At this point in my life, I'm taking a long deserved break. :)

Sorry, I guess I'm just delusional or being duped by highly intelligent conspirators of the religious right. Its obvious to me now that the family, friends, and random acquaintances I've discussed ID with were really plants or hallucinations who were hiding from me the immensely popular fact that everyone knows ID is just Creationism Lite^TM.



Seriously, if the vast majority of people here have no desire to realize that the vast majority of people out there don't know these things and have thoughts and ideas of their own but rather just want to use these threads as an excuse to bash on other people's ideas and beliefs then we should just lock them all and have done with it since I'm pretty sure its against forum guidelines.

To hell then with actually discussing how to effectively try to educate the people in our lives who are confused about evolution.

 

[Cyrus]

I really don't think it's intrinsically offensive to the listener to call ID proponents liars. Consider the following 3 statements:
1. I have a grandmother in Liverpool who is blind.
2. I have an aunt in London who has cancer.
3. I have a cousin in Bristol who has eczema.
One of those statements is false. How are you supposed to know which one?

When an ID proponent calling himself Dr Hovind tells you that there are no transitional fossils and an evolutionist calling himself Dr Miller states that there are, there's no way around the fact that one of them isn't right. EITHER Dr Miller is lying about the existence of fossils or "Dr" Hovind is lying about the non-existence of fossils or somehow, despite arguing with evolutionists for a living, no-one has ever told "Dr" Hovind of the existence of transitional fossils. (I suppose, if you really, really wanted to, you could claim that paelentologists have been collectively lying to Dr Miller, along with everyone else, but the nature of his claim is such that you can't say he's ignorant of the non-existence of such fossils). I'd suggest that it's really much less offensive for someone to be the victim of a deception than to have bought into a dumb argument.


It is important that people understand that it has no scientific basis whatsoever. I couldn't agree more that it's important to explain why. The only reason I mentioned the personal disingenuity of some of the more prominent IDers was because you said you figured an out-and-out creationist would identify themselves as such, and I lamented that we weren't dealing with honest people. Ideally, of course it's best to make the arguments that the evolution of the bacterial flagellar motor has arisen from other much simpler systems that have been cobbled together from doing other jobs; that the "irreducibly complex" blood clotting system in humans has been found with one fewer component in dolphins and wales, and with four fewer components in puffer fish, and that Darwin predicted the existence of an intermediate between birds and dinosaurs before Archaeopterix was discovered, and that palaentolgists know perfectly well that C-14 dating isn't a reliable way to assess the age of anything more than a few thousand years old, and that you can see evolution happening in systems like bacteria today, and that... etc.

However, when people are being told things by different people that directly contradict each other, I think it's necessary to explain honestly why the conflict arises. Theoretically anyone can go and find the evidence for all of this stuff, but in practice I'd guess that I wouldn't be able to read a professional biologist's paper on the topic, and I'll never have access to a lab or an archaeological dig. People who want to accquire a broad picture of how the world works sooner or later have to put their trust in someone; it takes at least 6 years from beginning university to getting a PhD in the UK, and usually more like 8. You simply can't know it all.


I agree entirely that you shouldn't insult the listener's intelligence, and that it's easy to come across as negative, arrogant or vitriolic when you're speaking about a proposal that is essentially devoid of all merit, apart perhaps from by some aesthetic criteria. I'm also fully aware that sentences like that one are derisive, but I don't think it's an overstatement, and the truthfulness of ID is not something that we're discussing here, so I don't see any harm in it.

To my mind, the absolute textbook demonstration of how to treat the topic can be found here. It's the lecture by Ken Miller that I've already alluded to repeatedly in this thread. The lecture is an hour long with another hour of Q and A, but if you've got the time it's fantastic stuff. He is himself religious, so he's not an atheistic tub-thumper. He has an excellent sense of humour and a great way of communicating the evidence; he doesn't come across as arrogant or condescending. But he's absolutely unequivocal about the strength of the case for evolution, about the weakness of ID, and about the disingenuity of the proponents of ID.

Very good video. Watched it all today. Thanks for the link.

 

[Cyrus]

Evolution is a mathematical model built on stochastic processes. It is no different from physics or any other science in that respect. The math IS the science. The rest is experimental or observational evidence to back up the model. Period.

Whether God (or little green men) guided the process or not makes no difference to the model. This means that creationism (or ID) which is consistent with the evidence and the model is consistent with science.

You were good until you got to this sentence. ID is not consistent with the evidence, and hence not consistent with the science.

 

[muppet]

Sorry, I guess I'm just delusional or being duped by highly intelligent conspirators of the religious right. Its obvious to me now that the family, friends, and random acquaintances I've discussed ID with were really plants or hallucinations who were hiding from me the immensely popular fact that everyone knows ID is just Creationism Lite^TM.

Seriously, if the vast majority of people here have no desire to realize that the vast majority of people out there don't know these things and have thoughts and ideas of their own but rather just want to use these threads as an excuse to bash on other people's ideas and beliefs then we should just lock them all and have done with it since I'm pretty sure its against forum guidelines.

To hell then with actually discussing how to effectively try to educate the people in our lives who are confused about evolution.

Please see my previous post #176, it's just as applicable to this. I really think we're arguing over the meaning of words here.

 

[Daneel_Olivaw]

Daneel_Olivaw: I'm afraid I have precisely zero knowledge of editing videos, but I've started working on it. At present I appear to be suffering from codec issues...

Thanks a lot for trying. :)
Please let me know if you succeed (or have you given up?). I really wanted to see that video. :(

 

[muppet]

Daneel...: It might take me a while I'm afraid!

TheStatutoryApe: There's one further point I'd like to make explicit. Whilst no-one is denying that the people with whom you are personally accquainted are not "Diet^TM[/size] Creationists", the very terminology of ID comes from a particular movement that are known to be closet creationists with a catalogued history of deception. Compare these quotes taken from the Centre for Science and Culture:

3.Is intelligent design based on the bible? No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization.
4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. ... Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

with these taken from the aforementioned Wedge document:

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civillisation was built. ... This cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science... this materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture... Discovery institute's Center for the renewal of science and culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. ... the theory of intelligent design (ID) promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

To read that document is to become hostile to the ID movement. The Discovery Institute's own response to the publication can be found here.

 

[WhoWee]

The only non-evolution (specific) argument that holds water (in the context of this debate) is maybe Earth is an alien petri dish. It eliminates the relevance of the timeline, keeps the door open for other possibilities and doesn't challenge faith/belief (entirely).

 

[Nan]

The only non-evolution (specific) argument that holds water (in the context of this debate) is maybe Earth is an alien petri dish. It eliminates the relevance of the timeline, keeps the door open for other possibilities and doesn't challenge faith/belief (entirely).

Are you referring to the theory of Panspermia?

In the context of education, for all the debate, the tried and true methods of scientific discovery is how we will discover the truths we cannot know...yet. I think open minds are vastly important. Reclassifying ID as a science fails to meet the criteria/standards currently used in the scientific method. This is the issue. It isn't meant to hurt feelings, insult or do otherwise but merely point out that we risk much by altering those standards that, to date, have proven over time and with diligence, to serve well.

 

[muppet]

The only non-evolution (specific) argument that holds water (in the context of this debate) is maybe Earth is an alien petri dish. It eliminates the relevance of the timeline, keeps the door open for other possibilities and doesn't challenge faith/belief (entirely).

There's a sense in which this is preferable to the standard contentions of ID, which is that aliens could be described within the framework of methodological naturalism. Theoretically, we could turn our scientific analysis and apply it to aliens in a way that we couldn't to an unspecified "designer".

That being said, I don't think it's a good idea to entertain the topic, and certainly wouldn't describe the idea as "holding water". For one thing, it suggests that "intelligent design" -taken at face value- is in fact a viable proposition, wheras all the evidence thus far points to the contrary. It's important to emphasise that the appearance of design in nature is wholly illusory to the best of our knowledge, and that the theory of evolution is just as damming of the idea that we're the lab rats of little green men as it is of religiously motivated design theories. Otherwise, you're selling evolution short.

 

[byronm]

You're still equating ID with creationism and religious fanaticism.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
A Gallup poll shows that apparently approximately 9% of people believe in naturalistic evolution, 47% believe in biblical creation, and 40% believe that evolution has occurred but guided by the hand of god.
That's nearly half of the population who believe that evolution is true but at least 40% likely give credence to the idea that ID is possibly true as well and they are not creationists.
No one is talking about appeasing any one, I have no idea where you are getting that, we are talking about these 40% (or more) who can be spoken to and possibly swayed so long as you are not insulting their beliefs or calling them the little deluded dupes of creationist conspirators and liars. Its not 'appeasement' to be polite and truly attempt to educate without resorting to ridicule and improper or dismissive arguments.

I beg to differ, it is appeasement. What you speak of is the result of the wedge issue, not the result of science or scientific theory. You are appealing to emotional poling and not facts and thus it continues to support my argument that ID is Creationism and Creationism is someones faith in how they have to justify their belief through pseudoscience.

I'm not meaning to rub this concept into anyones face by any means. However this issue is entirely fabricated by the emotional debates of creationists and not through factual evidence as described through the scientific process.

If its not an appeasement to ones emotional needs, what is ID then and how is it not based upon ones faith or beliefs in something greater?

In fact, I'm willing to say that faith in and of itself is 100% behind the controversy of evolution and it is an appeasement to faith to accept, acknowledge or even appease creationists.

Edit: not that having faith is bad in and of itself though ;)

 

[byronm]

That being said, I don't think it's a good idea to entertain the topic, and certainly wouldn't describe the idea as "holding water". For one thing, it suggests that "intelligent design" -taken at face value- is in fact a viable proposition, wheras all the evidence thus far points to the contrary. It's important to emphasise that the appearance of design in nature is wholly illusory to the best of our knowledge, and that the theory of evolution is just as damming of the idea that we're the lab rats of little green men as it is of religiously motivated design theories. Otherwise, you're selling evolution short.

Isn't that the irony of it all? I'd rather think I'm an evolved monkey then a lab rat with a granted free will meant to sin.

However that statement proves the point I'm trying to make in that no matter how you polish a turd, its still a turd. ID is creationism with turtle wax on it. It still stinks of the same bias towards faith than fact.

 

[muppet]

I really think that TheStatutoryApe and DaveC have made an important point about how we should deal with open-minded people have come across these ideas, perhaps second or third hand. Namely, that whilst someone in possession of the facts knows what ID, in its original inception, is- a religiously motivated deliberate attempt to derail well-established scientific consensus without an adequate empirical or theoretical basis, promulgated by people who are quite prepared to prevaricate and muddle the issue with hackneyed caricatures of the philosophy of science- someone unfamiliar with the "substance" of the ideas or their originators might well have their own idea about what ID means, which might be quite different from the ID familiar to those who've argued with its most prominent proponents. They will also, upon going to the Discovery Institute's website, read explicit claims that ID is not religiously motivated.

There's then a very real risk that such a person will perceive someone like me as baldly asserting that "Anyone who challenges scientific orthodoxy is a Bible-bashing fruitcake". This is, as has already been pointed out, the very image that ID proponents use to deflect criticism without answering its substance. Not only is the assertion incorrect, it portrays our scientific understanding as a dogma that is shielded from scrutiny by labelling all criticisms of it as "delusional" a priori.

The topic of debate, really, is how to avoid this pitfall without "appeasing" ID, which is a posteriori a half-baked idea. For me, the important thing is to clarify the situation and separate out the many different issues- religion vs atheism, methodological naturalism as distinct from philosophical naturalism, the evidence for evolution vs the failures of ID proponents to demonstrate irreducible complexity, etc.-and be clear about which ones are under discussion at any given time. Once these ambiguities have been cleared up, it's apparent just how empty of content the idea is.

 

[byronm]

I really think that TheStatutoryApe and DaveC have made an important point about how we should deal with open-minded people have come across these ideas, perhaps second or third hand.

I agree.. However, when i debate an open minded person there is usually a sense of enthusiasm when presented with facts and a whole-heartedly and candidly acceptance of evolution. As with any science when you discover the body of knowledge and recognize the beauty of that knowledge its highly enlightening to an open minded person.

My issues with Intelligent Design/Creationism are not with open minded people. If someone assumes intellectualism is elitism then they're FAR from open minded and to me categorically in the lost cause column of not just science but often times humanity itself. (just my 2 cents) - those are the type of proponents we're usually up against.

When Carl Segan said "We are made of star stuff" millions of open minded people probably cried and millions were more could feel the enlightenment in their heart. Its not only sad, its CRAZY we can't convey science in that very same enlightening approach to our children because creationists have decided to create a political issue out of it.

Some great higher education teachers and college teachers keep up that humanistic approach of teaching the value of science but more often than not, they're preaching to the choir much like we are here :)

The topic of debate, really, is how to avoid this pitfall without "appeasing" ID, which is a posteriori a half-baked idea. For me, the important thing is to clarify the situation and separate out the many different issues- religion vs atheism, methodological naturalism as distinct from philosophical naturalism, the evidence for evolution vs the failures of ID proponents to demonstrate irreducible complexity, etc.-and be clear about which ones are under discussion at any given time. Once these ambiguities have been cleared up, it's apparent just how empty of content the idea is.

Great way of putting in.. in fact your whole comment was spot on, just using bigger words than i would ever used ;)

 

[Daneel_Olivaw]

Daneel...: It might take me a while I'm afraid!

No worries; take your time. :)

I'm really enjoying the discussion/debate here.

 

[Hurkyl]

portrays our scientific understanding as a dogma that is shielded from scrutiny by labelling all criticisms of it as "delusional" a priori.

I submit that every time you cite "religious motivation" as a reason for rejecting ID without even considering the topic, then you are portraying science as dogmatic.

 

[wofsy]

I submit that every time you cite "religious motivation" as a reason for rejecting ID without even considering the topic, then you are portraying science as dogmatic.

Well put. Thank you for saying it.

 

[byronm]

I submit that every time you cite "religious motivation" as a reason for rejecting ID without even considering the topic, then you are portraying science as dogmatic.

That statement makes me want to barf. Seriously.

Stephen C. Meyer once said:

"Intelligent design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority."

That got his paper published at one point, however the publisher quickly retracted the paper.

From Wikipedia:

In August of 2004, Meyer's article "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, making it the first article in support of intelligent design to be published in a peer reviewed journal. [5] Shortly thereafter, the journal's publisher released a statement retracting the article, stating it had not met the journal's scientific standards and had not been properly peer reviewed. [6] The statement also endorsed American Association for the Advancement of Science's resolution that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID.

Oddly enough Mr Meyer is considered a "Philosopher of Science" which last time i checked is:
"Philosophy of science focuses on metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects of science."

Have any other papers been published in any esteemed journal? not that I'm aware of.

Anyway, this Mr Meyer is also an "esteemed associate" of the Discovery Institute that created the "Wedge Strategy" and also published the Books that were recently banned from Dover PA schools because court records found that the books in their original publishing were worded creationism but edits over the years have shown search & replace from creationism to Intelligent Design.

Beyond this damning evidence and circle of deceit the fact is that the Discovery Institute isn't promoting science but rather the idea of controversy over the science and is thus creating an issue out of a non issue. There *IS* no controversy over evolution if you exclude theological beliefs and that is the problem i have with the above statement.

More importantly, science isn't dogmatic Science is not moral, science is not religious, political or based upon opinions or beliefs.

Evolution has withstood 150 years of trials and still holds true as FACT and you call that fact being dogmatic? puhhhhleeease

What you suggest is akin to hating me because I'm smart and calling me out of dogmas you, yourself can't get over and once again re-writing the very definition of science to fit your agenda.

Now with all that said, its in no way shape or form an attack on you but facts that are readily available, been tried in court and have made many a science fan feel the same way as me. disgusted :)

 

[ideasrule]

I submit that every time you cite "religious motivation" as a reason for rejecting ID without even considering the topic, then you are portraying science as dogmatic.

If any religion has ever turned out to be right on even one issue, much less right more often than science, I might just agree you. But that's beside the point. The ID'ers themselves agree that religion shouldn't interfere with science by claiming ID is not religiously motivated. If ID is in fact religiously-motivated, that means the ID'ers are lying to achieve an ulterior motive. Although lying and having an ignoble goal (spreading religion) can't automatically destroy ID, it certainly destroys the credibility of the liar.

 

[wofsy]

That statement makes me want to barf. Seriously.

More importantly, science isn't dogmatic Science is not moral, science is not religious, political or based upon opinions or beliefs.

What you suggest is akin to hating me because I'm smart and calling me out of dogmas you, yourself can't get over and once again re-writing the very definition of science to fit your agenda.

Now with all that said, its in no way shape or form an attack on you but facts that are readily available, been tried in court and have made many a science fan feel the same way as me. disgusted :)

He is just saying that any rejection of ideas by insinuation or by defaming those whose propose them is dogmatic. The only non-dogmatic way to deal with ideas is to discuss them objectively - scientifically.

Further, while science by definition does not adopt dogmas, scientists and the scientific community certainly can from time to time and can make "scientific" assertions that lead to politics, social policy, and prejudice. The Eugenics movement is a prime example.

 

[muppet]

I submit that every time you cite "religious motivation" as a reason for rejecting ID without even considering the topic, then you are portraying science as dogmatic.

I hoped I'd been clear on this point, but evidently not. I do think, however, that you'll find I've never actually cited religious motivation as a reason to dismiss it summarily, although I can see that you might have inferred this from my repeatedly saying that ID was religiously motivated. Let me state now explicitly that I think religion was probably one of the driving forces behind the development of science proper in the 16th century, in a spirit of illuminating the greater glory of God's creation; thus, some people would consider that science itself was religiously motivated!

The reason I have repeatedly characterised ID as "religiously motivated" is rather to emphasise that the majority of its backers have not been persuaded by evidence in favour of the theory, but rather have clung to the theory in spite of the evidence against it, because they consider their moral and metaphysical worldview to be threatened by evolution. This, I submit, is the reason that arguments that have been considered, on their scientific content, and rejected, on the evidence, repeatedly, continue to surface. I have in mind the particular example of proposed irreducible complexity in the bacterial flagellar motor.

Let me now make the distinction that whilst religious motivation is not a reason to reject something, clinging to an idea that accepted scientific practice would otherwise discard categorically is irrational and an obstacle to scientific process. Similarly, I'd reaffirm the central role played by methodological naturalism- science should always seek an explanation of a phenomena that can described entirely without reference to "supernatural" causes; this is not anti-religious, but is necessary to ensure that we further our understanding of the material world around us to the fullest possible extent by directing our scrutiny solely upon it. This point is, I trust, uncontroversial. This stands in contrast to philosophical naturalism, which asserts that such supernatural entities do not exist. (This is a position to which I additionally adhere, but one I believe that should never be introduced into discussions about science, which simply doesn't- due to methodological naturalism- have any tools with which to address the question, any more than it can address moral or aesthetic questions).

 

[muppet]

He is just saying that any rejection of ideas by insinuation or by defaming those whose propose them is dogmatic. The only non-dogmatic way to deal with ideas is to discuss them objectively - scientifically.

Further, while science by definition does not adopt dogmas, scientists and the scientific community certainly can from time to time and can make "scientific" assertions that lead to politics, social policy, and prejudice. The Eugenics movement is a prime example.

Seconded.