[W]hen you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth...
The Sign of the Four, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
It doesn't matter that they're calling it "Intelligent Design" now. Creationism is the same thing it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: a hollow hypothesis striving frantically to stave off its own extinction. Although creationism responds to environmental pressures by adapting in hopes of survival -- adding "science" in its guise as "creation science" or "scientific creationism", or even dropping "creation" entirely along with the identity of the creator in "intelligent design" -- the evolution of creationism cannot disguise that it is a wholly negative enterprise.
The idea is simple enough. First, establish creationism (in whatever form) as the only alternative to evolution. Second, destroy evolution. Third, proclaim the sole survivor as victor. Unfortunately for the creationists, proving a negative is as difficult as they have always said it is (as when they criticize those who believe God does not exist). William Dembski has his explanatory filter, which purports to detect the presence of purposeful design. The only problem with Dembski's EF is that it doesn't work, since he can't give any examples of its use (although it does seem to suggest that God was intelligently designed). Not to worry, Dembski's still working on it. At least he's a trained mathematician, which means he can throw in fancy symbols whenever he needs to distract the unwary.
Michael Behe has his irreducible complexity, which means that some biological mechanisms cannot be functional if even a single component is missing. This is difficult to prove, as you might imagine, but assume Behe is correct for a second. What he misses, however, is that while the reduced mechanism might no longer be able to perform the task it was executing, it might be perfectly capable of performing some other useful task. Behe has failed to come to grips with natural selection's unapologetic opportunism, taking whatever is close at hand and shaping it in response to environmental influences. Remember that this was a gambit, by the way. We assumed Behe had demonstrated an irreducibly complex biological mechanism, but he really hasn't. His showcase arguments about bacterial flagella and the blood-clotting sequence have been picked apart by biologists with more imagination that he has.
While nature supposedly abhors a vacuum, creationism is desperate to create one that will suck it into the mainstream. Since creationism has no explanatory power ("God did it" is not an explanation), its proponents must carry the battle to the enemy in a war against science and the scientific method. While scientific controversies are settled in a contest of facts and observations, the "controversy" over evolution versus creation is a political dispute between creationist propaganda and scientific research. In the long term, science has a good record of ousting superstition. I just wish I were more confident about the near term.
Posts
7 comments:
This whole creationism movement scares me. I shuddered when I read of the senator in Florida who was trying to make it so you could sue professors (seeing as I'm becoming one myself) for saying anything that would offend a student.
Your essay is wonderful!
Thanks for the nice words, lynx.
Math professors may have a little easier than biology and anthropology professors. So far no one has tried to sue anyone in my department for denying the biblical value of pi = 3 (as implied in 1 Kings 7:23).
You mean there aren't any Fundamentalist Ancient Pythagoreans getting upset about imperfect numbers and killing off members who keep finding odd results? You lucky professor you.
Hmmmm.
I've always thought Holmes' rule to well describe what Darwin did -- eliminate everything that is impossible (giraffe ancestors wishing longer necks, a benevolent creator making parasites to eat out the brains of living bugs), and whatever remains (common ancestry), no matter how improbable, is the truth.
Although, now that you mention it, yes, the creationists (including IDists) do want the thing that remains to be ID.
Kevin, there are two key difficulties with your characterization of the ID fight.
First, evolution is not loaded with "oodles" of speculation. There is no mechanism for Darwinian evolution that has not been observed in action in real time, there is no process that is not confirmed. As for "intelligent design," there is no speculation at all as to an alternative theory; there is nothing ID posits other than 'this stuff is so complex I just cannot believe someone didn't design it.' ID has real science behind it. Dembski's work is summarized neatly in that Sidney Harris cartoon where the board is filled with equations on one side, and on the other, but in the middle is a little note: "And then a miracle occurs." One scientist points to it and says to the other, "I think you need to be a little more specific here."
One of my great pleasures at gatherings of IDists is to ask them to see photos of their ID labs. They get flustered. They come up with reasons why they don't have lab work. They suggest maybe someone else at some other place may actually have such a lab. But there are no photos. There are no labs. There are no ID field observations. There is no science in ID.
Thanks for comment, Kevin. While I would say that Ed overstates his case by diminishing the role of speculation in the science of evolution (speculation is, after all, one of the motive forces behind the construction of useful hypotheses), you are doing a marvelous job of missing the point. Of course Darwin acknowledged that his theory was highly speculative at the time of its formulation: It was a profound synthesis of much observation—both personal and historical—and he was eager to point out where new information was needed to establish its viability. Darwin's great hopes for the validation of his theory have since been realized, which is why there is essentially no controversy in the science community about the basic truth of evolution. Thus you contribute nothing to the argument by citing Denton and Davies to the effect that Darwin was tentative and used the subjunctive in Origins: Point stipulated.
As you noted, evolutionist Lewontin "famously" engaged in hyperbole by writing statements now used by creationists such as yourself to make the point that all evolutionists must be materialists as doctrinaire as Lewontin. That ignores the essential truth that Lewontin's use of "we" and "us" in no way binds the larger scientific community, which is obvious when we see that many scientists are religious people, but do not resort to their faith when describing and explaining observed phenomena. Divine intervention has no explanatory power.
Your final paragraph is particularly weak. Ed's failure to notice the role of speculation in evolutionary science neither affirms nor refutes his statement that ID is science-free. Answer Ed's challenge to find an "ID lab" somewhere and then you'll have something.
Thanks for your comment, Kevin. I am glad to have your prediction about the imminence of an ID-based research laboratory. Could you clarify what you mean when you say one will be coming to my neighborhood "soon"?
As for the rest of your observations, geez, you are such a typical creationist. You have two things to say and you state them both as unsupported assertions. What evidence do you have that many scientists are champing at the bit to head in the direction of ID but are cowed by the Darwin gestapo? Any? You offer none.
You also offer a statement relative to my claim about religious belief among scientists as if you are contradicting me, when you are doing nothing of the kind. I said "many" scientists are religious people and that is true. I did not say "most", because "most" would not be true. If you want to quibble, go ahead, but even one-fifth of a large number is "many", and that's sufficient to show that religious faith and evolution are not incompatible. QED.
OK Zeno, let's pick this up once again.
You said: "Thanks for your comment, Kevin. I am glad to have your prediction about the imminence of an ID-based research laboratory. Could you clarify what you mean when you say one will be coming to my neighborhood "soon"?"
Well, I think we're almost to the point where Biologic is going to roll out some sort of public announcement in the Spring of 2008, so stay tuned. Don't know what all they will have to say, but, we shall see.
You said: "As for the rest of your observations, geez, you are such a typical creationist. You have two things to say and you state them both as unsupported assertions. What evidence do you have that many scientists are champing at the bit to head in the direction of ID but are cowed by the Darwin gestapo? Any? You offer none."
OK, I can understand your reluctance to accept my comments based on face value, so, just for you, I went to work and am going to be publishing a book early in 2008 called "Slaughter of the Dissidents", where you will find a bunch of case studies of scientists and educators who have make the MISTAKE of letting it be known that they favor some ID arguments - and paid for it dearly. The rest of the scientific and academic community it taking note of this and many simply won't take that risk. Oh, and there's even a movie coming out in (April, as it stands at the moment...) 2008 called "Expelled" starring Ben Stein, of all people. It picks up this issue as well, so, be on the lookout for it.
Should be PLENTY of reasons you can mine from these sources to support my "unspoorted assertions". And, by making this comment, you put me in the same category as Duane Gish and his Bullfrog episode (just goodgle on that). Unlike Duane, I don't like or stand for unsupported assertions from any quarter - even if it's from a friend (which Duane is). I like hard evidence to support an idea, not speculation and extrapolation.
Finally, regarding your comments about the religious beliefs of scientists, you said: "many scientists are religious people, but do not resort to their faith when describing and explaining observed phenomena. Divine intervention has no explanatory power."
Divine Intervention (?? I prefer to call it "Intelligent Agency" to keep the discussion 'scientific') may be detected if there is evidence of design that cannot be explained by known natural processes - which is exactly one of the talking points for ID.
My comment on your remark is this: I agree. AND, there are at least some aspects of the Design argument that have merit and do not rely on "faith" based assumptions.
Post a Comment