Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.66
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
RE: virus:The Woodstock of Evolution
« on: 2005-07-26 15:02:40 » |
 |
[Blunderov] Amongst other fascinating lectures, Michael Shermer addresses
ID.
(My current take on this is that ID is a massive category error. When we
discover a pattern 'in' the universe, what we have really discovered is a
useful way of explaining the universe to ourselves. It does not follow that
the universe must therefore be attempting to explain itself to us. We might
just as well claim that, because we can speak of the moon, the moon must be
made of English.)
Best Regards.
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00020722-64FD-12BC-A0E48341
4B7FFE87
The World Summit on Evolution, held in the Galapagos Islands, revealed a
science rich in history and tradition, data and theory, as well as
controversy and debate
By Michael Shermer
<snip>
...I was slated as the keynote entertainment for Saturday night, and gave a
lecture on Intelligent Design creationism. Since I certainly did not need to
explain evolution to this eminent group, I focused instead on the IDers own
works, beginning with their intellectual leader (these are slides from my
Powerpoint presentation):
"Intelligent design is a strictly scientific theory devoid of religious
commitments. Whereas the creator underlying scientific creationism conforms
to a strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible, the designer underlying
intelligent design need not even be a deity." --William Dembski, The Design
Revolution, 2003
Baloney. (I used a stronger descriptor this evening.) The fact is that
virtually all Intelligent Design creationists are Evangelical Christians who
privately believe that ID and God are one and the same. There is nothing
wrong with that, but if they would at least be honest about it I would
respect them more. In point of fact, this is just a public faƧade
constructed for public school consumption. In other venues they are
forthright. For example:
"Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed
as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish
that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious
consideration." --William Dembski, "Intelligent Design's Contribution to the
Debate over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris," 2005
"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic,
thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of
God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the
truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced
to Jesus.'" --Phillip Johnson, "Missionary Man." Church & State magazine,
1999
As I also demonstrated in my talk, IDers are disingenuous about their
"science." They are not doing science and they know it. To wit:
"Because of ID's outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the
scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind." --William Dembski,
"Research and Progress in Intelligent Design," 2002 conference on
Intelligent Design
"We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a
theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right
now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such
as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'--but, as yet, no
general theory of biological design." --Dr. Paul Nelson. "The Measure of
Design." Touchstone magazine, 2004.
To drive home the point, I show that even Christian biologists have no use
for ID, as in this observation from Dr. Lee Anne Chaney, Professor of
Biology at the Christian-based Whitworth College, from their house
publication Whitworth Today, 1995:
"As a Christian, part of my belief system is that God is ultimately
responsible. But as a biologist, I need to look at the evidence.
Scientifically speaking, I don't think intelligent design is very helpful
because it does not provide things that are refutable--there is no way in
the world you can show it's not true. Drawing inferences about the deity
does not seem to me to be the function of science because it's very
subjective."
I then summarized the cognitive style of ID thusly:
1. X looks designed
2. I can't think of how X was designed naturally
3. Therefore X was designed supernaturally
This is the old "God of the Gaps" argument: wherever there is a gap in
scientific knowledge, God is invoked as the causal agent. This is comparable
to the "Plane problem" of Isaac Newton's time: the planets all lie in a
plane (the plane of the ecliptic). Newton found this arrangement to be so
improbable that he invoked God as an explanation in Principia Mathematica:
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
Why don't IDers use this argument any more? Because astronomers have filled
that gap with a natural explanation.
I also summarized ID in practice thusly:
1. Scientists do not accept ID as science
2. Therefore ID is not taught in public school science classes
3. I think ID is science
4. Therefore I will lobby the government to force teachers to teach ID as
science
This is what I call the "God of the Government" argument: if you can't
convince teachers to teach your idea based on its own merits, ask the
government to force teachers to teach it. By analogy, in the early 1990s, I
published a series of articles applying chaos and complexity theory to
history. It is, of sorts, a theory of history, and I had high hopes that
historians would adopt my theory, put it to practice, and perhaps even teach
it to their students. They haven't. Maybe I didn't communicate my theory
very clearly. Maybe my theory is wrong. Should I go to my congressman to
complain? Should I lobby school board members to force history teachers to
teach my theory of history? See how absurd this sounds? I particularly like
this approach to ID because most IDers are Christians, most Christians are
politically conservative, and most conservatives are in favor of small
government. In fact, I close my lecture with an analogy between natural
selection in nature and the invisible hand in the economy, where both
produce design complexity without a top-down designer. Since most
conservatives understand and support the workings of free markets, they
should intuitively embrace the analogy... </snip>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Author
Logged
