…we’ve got the Utah state legislature discussing evolution. The state senate has passed a bill that would require teachers to say that evolution is just one theory of the origin of human life. It should be fun to watch this debate (the one in Utah, I mean, not the inevitable “anybody who doesn’t believe in evolution is stupid” debates that break out on M*).
The Millennial Star
I read the bill from another link and I don’t have a problem with it. i think it sounds good to me. I believe in evolution. I also believe in creationism (if that’s even a word). I think it’s all true and it all should be taught.
Well, the carbon dating system has been revamped a few times, right? Science is not exact. Ultimately, what is?
The bottom line for me is they’re all theories which certain people can claim are certain. Teach them all as theories.
Anyone who doesn’t believe in evolution is stupid. 🙂
Aaron B
annegb wrote:
The bottom line is that the term “theory” has a significantly different meaning to science than it does to other disciplines…and as long as religion, philosophy, etc do not undergo the level of rigorous verification, skepticism, peer-reviewed authentication of results…all under the process of discovery known as the scientific method…then “theories” of religion or philosophy have _no_ place in science curriculum.
And any pseudo-scientific attempt to claim knowledge of anything…including the non-existence of god…that equally does not pass the test of scientific methods and proof, has no place in science curriculum.
Though scientists may say that there is no proof of god…in particular, no proof of the type of god promoted by religious dogma…they would over-reach to claim that there is no god.
Actually, I think the primary problem most religious fundamentalists have with science is not the occasional claim to atheism, but the pervasive and factual claim that there is no proof…no scientific proof.
There is no scientific proof, and incorporating religious views into science will not change this fact…it will only destroy science.
Live with it people. 🙂
Anyone who believes in evolution is stupid.
OK, ok, evolution is such a broad term that means different things to different people. In the political relm or to the layman it means something different than to a scientist.
As for scientific proof, all we have for evolution is observed phenomena and a proposed explaination for that observed phenomena. The same proof exists for God. Statistical proof is still proof. If you find ruins of a lost civilization it is proof that intelligent life existed, not that winds and glaciers carved walls and buildings.
When you find the most complex computer program ever written it seems that one very viable explaination is someone wrote that program.
Naturally what you’re referring to here is the Watchmaker Analogy…a standard argument for intelligent design. Though initially appealing to the mind, it has been suffinciently refuted as a valid arguement.
The essence of science is the reliance on observable phenomena, this is true. This, however, is _not_ the essence of religion and therefore another reason not to mix the two.
I’m not sure what you mean by “statistical proof” with regards to religous faith…unless you’re referring to the sheer number of people who believe. That is in fact statistical evidence of something, but it’s quite a jump to accept it as evidence of anything specific about god.
Heli says: As for scientific proof, all we have for evolution is observed phenomena and a proposed explaination for that observed phenomena.
That’s all the proof we have for anything. We observe a yellow circle traverse the sky every day; our proposed explanation is that the earth is orbiting the sun. The credibility of a theory is determined by the quantity of observed phenomena that are explained by it and the quantity of potential but unobserved phenomena that would falsify it.
Heli says: Statistical proof is still proof.
Show me the numbers.
How many times has the carbon dating system been changed since it was founded? I honestly want to know.
Wasn’t Einstein’s theory of relativity proven wrong?
I don’t see how you can call the study of something factual when the facts keep changing.
I go with Henry Eyring when he said, “in the long run, it doesn’t matter how God did it, He did it.”
Anne,
A science true to it’s own principles will always change because it is first and foremost about discovery and learning…the willingness to change is a virtue of science. However, it does not change its views as drastically and readily as you suggest. Einstein’s theories have been largely substantiated, broadly revised and built upon, and only minimally refuted…there is however the very real possibility, if not inevitability, that a new theory/paradigm will arise that replaces his theories entirely. But our current understanding is never the less the best and most verifiable theories on many subjects that we have at this time. Science readily admits this in its quest to find the truth.
Only poor religion (and poor science I might add) claims a truly absolutist knowledge of the facts. I admire the uncertainty in the Henry Eyring quote.
annegb, right vs. wrong is a false dichotomy when it comes to scientific theories. The question is how accurately and how broadly the theory predicts reality. Relativity has a more accurate and broader applicability than classical mechanics, but classical mechanics is still very useful, and is still taught to all freshman physics students. Likewise, it’s likely that someday a broader theory will subsume relativity, but that doesn’t mean that relativity will be discarded.
Come on Will, no matter what numbers I showed you, you would say they were wrong because they represent speculation. And because the scientific community takes decades to believe a new theory its very difficult to make headway. The scientific community is not open minded, not that the religious community necessarily is.
How long did it take before Einstein’s theories were given credence? Decades.
Oh, and we have actual pictures of the earth and the sun from space that comfirm the Earth orbits the sun and that the earth’s rotation is responsible for night and day and that the tilt of the earth in its orbit is responsible for the seasons. These are more than just obscure phenomena that we observe and try to describe.
Evolution is much closer to soft sciences like psychology, I hope I’m not offending any psychologists here. We dig up a scull that may be a deformed human and claim its the missing link. We’ve never found any similar skulls and apparently this evolution that occurs over millenia took just one person to make the jump from one species to another.
Oh and Watt, Einstein was “sufficiently refuted” when he presented his ideas, as were many of the theories we believe today.
Statistical models have been used to show the probability that the evolutionary model created the steps argued by scientists during the time frames they are suggested to have occurred based on the times when discovered remains were alleged to have lived and the explaination for that observed phenomena falls short. Simply stated we can’t explain why things happened the way they did without the likelyhood that extraneous forces effected the evolutionary process. And yes I mean effected, not affected.
From a historic perspective we have numerous eyewitness accounts of mans interaction with a superior being or beings. We have no evidence to the contrary. Science is often happy to accept eyewitness accounts when they refer to historic supernova or observable phenomena that will not re-occur.
Really I’m not trying to prove something, just hoping you’ll keep an open mind (unlike someone else who posts on M*).
Heli wrote:
That’s fine…now I see that you equate the process of developing and presenting scientific theories as equivalent to the process that ID has undergone, I see you bias. So, the skepticism over ID is the same as that given to Einstein’s theories? And because Einstein’s theories have proven resistant to intial skepticism over time, this is what we should expect from ID?
Just want to be clear about what you’re saying here…
Heli: OK, ok, evolution is such a broad term that means different things to different people. In the political relm or to the layman it means something different than to a scientist.
Which is a good reason to teach it in school. Instead we have people who don’t know science determining what is taught as science. Not exactly a good way to improve science education.
Heli: Evolution is much closer to soft sciences like psychology
I strongly disagree there. I think Evolution is very similar to some of the claims about stellar evolution that Einstein was involved in. I think in particular the discovery and analysis of DNA provided many ways to better understand (and establish) evolution.
But I’m not too interested in an other defend evolution debate. It’s about as established as science can get folks. You may not like it, but propose a better alternative if you don’t like it. Thus far no one has.
Heli, your advice to keep an open mind is well taken. I always try to remain open to new viable theories. ID isn’t one of them.
Almost, I actually believe that ID is experiencing more resistance than Einstein because the scientific community has become more defensive about our knowledge base and due to politics and the modern funding regime as compared with the funding system in the early 20th century.
What bothers me is the discussion of ID as if it is a settled issue. There is not evidence I hear over and over. Not only that but I’ve read many who are unwilling to examine any evidence of ID. When scientists resort to name calling and ad hom arguments (I’m not saying that anyone here did) it usually is a sign that they don’t know how to address the assertions made and will instead attack those making assertions. I’ve read a number of articles asserting reasons why ID is valid or questioning evolution only to see responses only targeting the credentials of the one asserting the idea.
(Wasen’t Einstein working in the post office, or was it a print shop, when he developed the Theory of Relativity?)
I’ve read articles about quasars that appear to emmit artificial signals that could not come from a natural source, but I never hear a discussion of this type of issue on the national stage.
I don’t want to prolong this, but many geneticists have compared DNA to an incredibly complex computer program. The most viable explaination for the similarities between the DNA of all life is that it had a source. If evolution really occurred as argued there would not be such similiarities between the eyes, bone structure, and initial growth stages of almost all life.
You want some serious statistical evidence? Take a look at the Duckbill Platipus, if thats not evidence of a God with a sense of humor, I don’t know what is.
Heli: If evolution really occurred as argued there would not be such similiarities between the eyes, bone structure, and initial growth stages of almost all life.
I don’t understand that argument at all.
Heli — The stupidity of stupid people who believe in evolution is stupider than the stupidity of the stupid people who don’t believe in evolution. Got it? 🙂
Aaron B
Er … I think I said that backwards, or something.
(Clearly, yours truly is one humanoid that is suffering from a few random mutations which are probably not destined to improve the genetic fitness of the species). 🙁
Aaron B
Heli wrote:
Okay, just wanted to be clear.
The scientific community is not defensive about the ID “knowledge” base”, but your assertion that ID has “knowledge base” equivalent to that of science. If adherents to ID consider this an ad hominem attack, I think this is natural…but nevertheless inaccurate.
Good luck with your movement and good luck proving that the Duckbill Platipus is proof of God’s comedic qualities rather than natural adaptation.
When I said “our” knowledge base I was referring to the scientific communities, not the ID community of which I’m not a part.
If you have a more viable theory about the Platipus please promulgate it. I guess the short stumpy legs allow it to stay low to the ground so that natural predators keep jumping over it when they go to pounce. The beakish looking apparati on its face allows it to peck like a bird. Hehe, I’m just having fun with the serious scientists.
And thank you for your well wishing. I’m certain with support from people like yourself we’ll have ID in schools in no time. Though the damage it will cause by dening children of a solid foundation of evolution to build on can not be estimated at this time. Heaven knows that hair dresser will suffer because she may not completely believe in sexual selection and will give better hairstyles to less attractive people foiling the delicate balance evolution is based on.
Heli, if the defense for bad science teaching is that most people aren’t scientists, then I’m not buying it. The issue ends up being that good science teaching prepares people to understand public issues tied to science – things ranging from genetically modified crops to funding for research. Further the people who become scientists come out of that education. Already there are significant worries that Asia in particular is doing such a better job of science education that it may well in future years affect our ability to compete. Recall that much of our wealth comes from a trickle down from basic scientific research. It is research that ultimately drives new products. You can have those new products here, providing wealth and jobs for your kids or in China.
Ultimately though, one would hope that education is about truth and what we can establish. Unfortunately ID supporters often don’t seem to worry about what can be established scientifically. Indeed science is denigrated. And I do find that deeply troubling. (Not that all ID supporters do this, but a surprisingly large number unfortunately do)
Heli wrote:
Okay…it’s one of the more profound examples of evolutionary principles:
From wikipedia:
How about if they focus on evolution in class and occassionally mention the idea of God and ID? What would be the big deal if that occurred?
I had a high School biology teacher who was a evangelical. He taught evolution right out of the text and then let the class discuss creationism if we wanted to. It was a great combo.
Sure, no problem…as long as you’re willing to discuss other non-scientific theories as well…but then, you’d be increasingly moving away from science.
It would be like asking the missionaries to occasionally encourage discussion of the viability of other faiths as legitimate alternatives to the restored gospel…a great combo, but no longer the realm or purpose of missionary work.
Bob, whose God should be discussed?
As far as discussing ID, I’m all for it, as long as the mainstream scientific view of it is taught.
I guess I am not seeing what the big deal is. If they teach the widely accepted theories of evolution as the “accepted scientific answer to the origins of life” and then ocassionaly throw in a bone on ID to make it interesting and relevant.
I guess I am saying lets not be so dogmatic about High School biology. Plus its fun to debate evolution vs creationism in class. I did it in HS in AP biology at a public school in Chicago and it was very fun and we learned a lot from examining both positions.
None of this has to do with suppressing classroom discussion. It has to do with education standards set by the state.
As an analogy, it is one thing for a history class to bat around the question of whether men actually went to the moon or whether the holocaust actually occured. It is another for the state to mandate that students be told some historians don’t believe such things occured.
Back in science, it is one thing for a science class to bat around the question of whether HIV causes AIDS, it is another for the state to mandate that students be told that some scientists and physicians question the causal connection between HIV and AIDS.
These are not made up examples; there are people who seriously hold the views expressed above.
Clark,
Genetically Modified Crops are a good example of the scientific debate dilemma. You have the “scientists” on both sides of the issue looking at the same information and coming to different conclusions. Both sides charaterize the other side as disingenuous for obvious reasons. Companies like Syngenta and Dow need to sell products to farmers that increase yeilds or farms won’t pay more for the transgenic crops that billions have been spent researching. There is a vested interest behind the companies research and the same goes for those involved in evolution.
If they prove something they’re more likely to get a new grant. Again, I’m not saying that they are wrong, but they have interests in promulgating their position. Those scientists who oppose GMOs because we don’t know the long term effects or the effects we can’t predict aren’t wrong either, just a little more apocolyptic. Like the global warming group, maybe we are shifting temperatures around the planet, but a volcano can do more in a month than we do in twenty years.
How does ID play into this. First, knowing the type of people involved in research, its a lot like the group think we see in other branches of the intellectual community. Universities suffer from intellectual stagnation because the won’t tolerate the market place of ideas. I haven’t seen any real research into ID because the scientists are so quick to dismiss the idea because of its religious origin.
Aw, c’mon Geoff, can’t I at least say that “people who don’t believe in evolution are stupid” once? Oops! I guess I just did. 😉
Just for the record my stance ( as found here in comments 61-64 )is that the position that ‘evolution is false’ is stupid not that the people who believe it are. If everybody who believed in stupid positions were stupid, then we would all be stupid at which point the label looses all its meaning since it includes everybody. The difference is quite important.
Getting back on track, I would love to here what those other ‘scientific’ theories regarding the origin of both life and the human species are. I’ve certainly never heard one, but I guess that’s just how deep the conspiracy runs. ;-p The fact is that there are no other scientific theories regarding these things. That’s what makes Buttar’s bill so transparent in its intent.
Here is what I wrote over at BTimes:
The problem is there are scientists of some form which disagree with pretty much every theory. However there are three questions which should be answered with regards to this: 1) are the disagreeing scientists qualified to count as scientists in this particular field? (mathematicians don’t count in evolutionary debates) 2) what are their reasons for disagreeing? (motives don’t count) and 3) how many are there which satisfy the other two questions.
There really are scientists which are a part of the flat-earth society. Should we attach disclaimers to geography and astronomy? According to such a bill, can we really teach anything at all in science since it seeks only confimation and disconfirmation rather than absolute proof?
The biggest problem with Buttars’ bill is that there really isn’t any disagreement with regards to the fact of evolutioin though there is lots regarding mechanism and path. Contrary to popular belief, science thriving on disagreement and uncertainty. This isn’t an excuse for us to invent disagreement and uncertainty when there is none. It is this which Buttars is trying to do. We have no reason at all to believe that humans didn’t evolve from earlier (not lesser) primates, though there are motives a plenty. We have no reason at all to believe that evolution isn’t a fact.
Buttars is right in that we shouldn’t overstate our confidence in certain scientifc theories, but this is simply not happening WITHIN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY regarding evolution. By his same reasoning, we shouldn’t overstate any disagreement or uncertainty either, but this is exactly what he is trying to do.
That is what is wrong with what he is doing.
Along with the later “qualifier” if it can even be called such:
Sure there is lots of arguing regarding both the mechanisms and paths of evolution but there is no serious debate whatsoever regarding the fact of evolutiion. Buttars’ bill is trying to take the disagreement and uncertainty regarding mechanisms and paths and apply it to the actual fact, something which simply can’t be done.
This idea of science being denigrated is the very concept that is disturbing. Science is not religion, even though to some it is their religion and they defend it as such. You can be sacreligious but not sacscientific. Science facts are not sacred and do not suffer from a cynical inquiry.
The hour my 8th grade science teacher spent on 6 different possible methods of creaton commenly held throughout the world (this was the advanced science class) did not stop me from going on to the AP classes.
We give lip service to keeping an open mind because we only trust the group think that comes up with the variations on theories that are “widely accepted.” No one lost a step to the Chinese because we debate or discuss various views.
And get serious, we are graduating more foreign post graduate degrees than US citizens in the hard sciences and there aren’t even jobs for those we do educate. How are we going to compete in this technology age if we can’t even employ those Doctorates we are putting into the marketplace now? We don’t have a shortage of hard science majors, we have a shortage of jobs for those who graduate in hard sciences.
We reward MBAs, Lawyers, and MDs when a Phd takes as long and is arguably harder depending on the discipline. The inventor/scientists that discovers how to imbue a transgenic trait in soybeans gets a small bonus to his 50k job while the MBA on the executive board gets 2 million more in stock options or stock value.
You haven’t seen any real research from the scientific community into ID because religion is beyond the realm of scientific endevour. It is the ID folks that claim otherwise: that ID is an example of a “scientific approach” to religious precepts. Science should be commended for its unwillingness to jump to such conclusions.
Don’t get me wrong…science is all about discovery, and if observable evidence of god can be discovered, science is a great tool for the purpose. But to start from the unobservable assumption that god created all and then work backwards is just as likely to fail as to start from the unobservable assumption that there is no god.
What Science does is to start with the observable evidence and work from there, trying to avoid as many assumptions as possible.
In the mean time, religion does a fine job of helping us deal with the unknown.
There really should be no conflict between the two, and in fact, the conflict seems to arise when one or the other over-reaches. This is what ID does when it takes religious “truths” and seek frames them in the language of science.
Heat baby, heat…combustion is coming. 🙂
I’ll tell you where I think that evolutionists are stepping over the line, when they refuse to let schools teach ID as philosophy.
Here are a couple of links:
A New Twist in Intelligent Design in Public Schools
Philosophy of Intelligent Design syllabus
Intelligent Design as Philosophy Fails
Kern County school agrees to stop teaching ‘intelligent design’
Creationism Falls From Kern County School Curriculum
Attorney: AU Intimidated El Tejon Schools Into Dropping Intelligent Design
Now clearly the course description shows that that class was going to be a joke, not worth of credit as science or philosophy, but I’m uncomfortable with the violent overreaction by the evolutionists. I don’t think that that particular class should have been offered to anybody, let alone high-schoolers, but I do think that ID should be discussed in some sort of philosophy of science class or another. Then again, they already do discuss it in Phil of Bio and Phil of Science classes offered at least at UC Davis.
I don’t think that it is right to keep ID completely out of all educational curriculum just so long as it is rightfully presented as non-science and in a logical, rigorous and irreligious manner. That particular class would have been stupid (yes, stupid), but that doesn’t mean that the idea behind it of teaching ID in a philosophy class was.
Heli, nobody is saying that we shouldn’t discuss or debate various views. But how long should a view be discussed after it’s been analyzed and found to be fundamentally vacuous?
Jeff
People who blindly accept evolution as the end all theory of the origin of the species are as stupid.
And as for your strawman, no one is suggesting we don’t teach evolution. And clearly no one is teaching we diminish the field of genetics which pretty much everyone agrees with. Evolution and genetics make for a terrific comparision in this debate. Genetics involves studying DNA and significant advances in medicine and knowledge about human nature has been the reward of genetics. The study of the origin of the species does not contribute to science, but rather the philosophy of science. Where did we come from is an interesting question, but what are we made of infinitely more benefitial as far as scientific discoveries are concerned. You may argue that the one followed the other, but actually the reason we study genetics today is almost exclusively due to the medical field and advances in computers and instruments that allow us to see the protiens DNA is made up of.
If we derived from Chimps or from the dust of the earth, we are here.
Heli,
Now it just sounds like you are tying to fight. Of course anybody who blindly accepts anything is probably stupid. A further point worth making, however, is that if a theory has no evidence for and therefore no reasons, but only motives for adopting it, can it really be adopted by any way other than blindly? This is exactly the position which IDers find themselves in.
Furthermore, nobody believes that life originated by evolution in the strict sense. In order for something to evolve there must be replicators and replicators seem to imply life. Evolution explains the origin of individual species, not the origin of life. So yes, anybody who believes that evolution explains the origin of life is stupid, but then so is anybody who even thinks that science even claims that in the first place. Again, this is far more incriminating to creationists than evolutionists.
What strawman? My account was simply me offering my personal conviction, not any kind of argument against anything at all. I don’t understnad how a story not intended as a argument of any kind can be considered a strawman.
“The study of the origin of the species does not contribute to science.” Wrong. Both the origin of species as well as the recently developing field of lifes origins are a part of science. Listen to these lectures if you have any doubt on that matter.
. . . but actually the reason we study genetics today is almost exclusively due to the medical field and advances in computers and instruments that allow us to see the protiens DNA is made up of.
Every Biologist who read this just cringed a mightily cringed cringe. Heli, I don’t think you should stop discussing biology and evolution, but for the sake of maintaining credibility I might suggest that you not say things you’re not sure about. DNA is not made up of proteins.
I don’t think you have to be a biologist before you can scrutinize evolution from a religious point of view. You can argue, for example, that the scriptures and prophets clearly teach that there was no death before the Fall and that, therefore, evolution can’t have happened as scientists believe it did. But before you scrutinize evolution from a scientific perspective, you should really know your stuff. You don’t have to know everything, but if you don’t have a firm grasp of the Central Dogma, nothing you say carries any weight.
Heli, the issue isn’t having an open mind. I think we should. The issue is whether something is a scientific theory. ID isn’t. You seem of the mind that scientists simply reject ID out of pride or closed mindedness. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s not confusing scientific thinking with the kind of discussions that go on in say an English class. There is a level of rigor and empirical evidence required for science that ID simply doesn’t meet.
To claim that the study of the origin of species doesn’t contribute to science but only to the philosophy of science simply is a fundamentally misbegotten claim. Science’s value does not consist in immediate technological benefits.
All we are saying is that what ought be taught in science class is science. I’m not sure what’s the problem with that. Now I’m frankly deeply cynical about the ability of many high school teachers to do that. Many are excellent, many not so much. But watering down the course curriculum isn’t going to help matters by blurring the distinction between religion and science.
Excellent (IMO) discussion of ID at http://www.lewrockwell.com/chernikov/chernikov19.html
“…..In brief, the design argument for the existence of God tries to deduce the existence and properties of the divine intelligence. The design inference, on the other hand, is a general algorithm for detecting the effects of intelligent causes without any presuppositions as to what kind of causes they are. While Darwinism in effect rules out an intelligent cause behind biological organisms a priori, ID neither requires it nor eliminates it from consideration in this way. Rather, it lets the evidence of biology decide whether the design inference in any given case is fitting. We can describe the Darwinian problem as follows: there is a contradiction between its contention that science cannot test the proposition that biological features are designed and its explanation of the appearance of design in biology not as actual design but as the product of natural selection and random variation. If it is able to claim that the design of all biological structures is only apparent, then it must do so according to some set of rules. The correctness of Darwinism therefore depends on the existence of a reliable way of detecting design……”
Ed,
That’s a one-sided arguement…here’s an article from Natural History magazine where the same ID arguements are presented by its proponents, but with a rebuttal from proponents of evolution:
Intelligent Design?
Not an independant 3rd party…though, on this subject, I doubt there is one…but at least both sides are represented.
Here’s Orson Scott Card on the issue:
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/060116creation.html
Thanks for the lively discussion today, everyone. I’m sure the debate is just getting warmed up.
A small devotional based on the subject of this post can be found on my blog under: Dear Mr. Fantasy.
Obviously, the crusader should get the credit. 🙂
Tom,
Sorry, you are completely right about DNA not being made up of protiens. I was thinking of Protien Synthesis (RNA mapping on proteins). DNA is made up of sugar phosphate polymers and acids. Its been 10 years since I was tested on these things so maybe my memory isn’t perfect.
As for being sure of things before I write them, sometimes I am, but if I were to use that as my guide I wouldn’t be able to debate things I haven’t spent hours researching recently. (I have spent a significant amount of time researching these issuse, but mostly it was years ago-though I will read up on new events in journals).
Clark, my contention is that if the current explaination of observed phenomena is lacking in areas we disclose that and even go so far as to say some offer ID as an answer to the potential shortcommings. ID does not oppose genetics or natural selection or any other hard aspect of science, but inter species evolution is a contentions point for a number of reasons, both scientific, religious, and philosophical. Many evolutionists equate the evidence supporting theories of the evolution of man on the same level as the evidence for DNA. But its like comparing psychology to mechanical engineering IMHO.
To say that we don’t know how macro-evolution occurs is not to say that ID is a scientific alternative. Ultimately, that’s the point. Now if the ID proponents could develop it so it is a scientific alternative, that’s fine. Thus far they’ve not done so. Further I think that more and more ciricumstantial evidence is accumulating suggesting that ID is wrong in this regard.
I just don’t have a problem with this. As a parent, an uneducated person, I would have no problem with a science teacher saying there are lots of theories. You decide.
The problem is no one has defined the term “stupid” yet.
It seems to me the problem is that many proponents of ID accept evolution, and are very smart. But it’s still a bad idea to teach in schools, IMHO. But it sure doesn’t help the debate when people like Aaron Brown throw around terms like “stupid.”
I think Card’s essay is one of the better ones, because he shows why ID is not really Creationism, yet still a bad idea.
Ivan,
I don’t think Card shows that ID is bad idea so much as he demonstrates how the “Darwinists” are somewhat hypocritical in their stance against it. They claim that ID is not a real science and yet persist in assuming that the “gaps” in organic evolution will only be understood by further scientific inquiry. How can they know such a thing?
I don’t think Card’s article is perfect, but it does come down against ID. I like it because it’s more nuanced than most anti-Id arguments, which tend to dismiss it as dressed up Creationism.
Card shows that ID can’t be refuted with the same arguments used to refute Creationism – but he still feels it needs to be refuted.
Just so you know I was joking when I used the term stupid. I don’t think anyone is stupid, nor do I think ideas are stupid. My main point is that we don’t have enough information to “KNOW” the answer to most of these questions. Its the reason I don’t think ID is so harmful because we don’t know and our degree of certainty is clearly overstated by those who oppose ID (again only with respect to macro evolution).
I should admit that there isn’t much evidence of ID. That quasars are potentially artificial is probably the best potential piece of hard evidence and that is debatable. The statistical evidence seems pretty strong (it was strong enough for Einstein). The probability of specific events in the long chain of events that are required to effectively coalesce into what we have here on earth is so extremely improbable that outside forces must be at work.
heli –
i wasn’t thinking of you – I thought your use of “stupid” was a tounge-in-cheek response to Aaron Brown’s rather unkind initial comment.
I don’t like ID or Creationism myself, but my father is a big fan of Creationism. My father is also a brilliant man – he’s just not scientifically adept. His main interests are in Physcial Education, Landscaping and Ancient History. To say he is “stupid” as Aaron Brown (basically) did is unkind, simplistic and – well, stupid.
[yes – I know Aaron Brown put a smiley face after his comment – but in this case, to my mind, it doesn’t ameliorate the intended insult]
Ivan, when the blog article references “the inevitable ‘anybody who doesn’t believe in evolution is stupid’ debates that break out on M*,” it’s guaranteed that someone will make the obvious smart-alec comment. Aaron was kind enough to get it out of the way early in the thread.
will –
ah, okay.
I feel better about it now. I was probably being too sensitive.
Sorry, Aaron.
I agree that ID isn’t science and doesn’t belong in a science classroom, but I’m even more uncomfortable with ID for religious reasons. It seems imprudent to insist upon a God of the gaps, in part because those gaps are constantly being filled in. I’m uneasy making the alleged unexplainability of a natural phenomenon an argument for God. For one thing, I can’t see how we can know that something is unexplainable. At best, we can know that we haven’t yet explanained it. And as formerly unexplained phenomena are explained, do we really want to have to keep moving our appeal to God further and further back into the constantly retreating realm of our own ignorance? I think that from a religious perspective it’s important to believe in a God who’s more than shorthand for “what we can’t figure out,” and I think there are better bases for belief in God than our unanswered questions about the natural world.
Whoa,
That’s a great comment, Eve. Just a little quibble though–
Not all “designers” are decidedly religious–and I’m talking about those that are really “in the know,” those that are true scientists. Some honestly feel that there is no way to make sense of the complexity without ID. Inasmuch as there is disagreement over how well the “gaps” are being filled, it seems to me that there ought to be a little room for the possibility of design–if for no other reason than to respect the opinion of scientists who have come to that conclusion after working just as hard as anyone else on the subject.
That said, I think you’re comment is brilliant and worthy of study–especially by those who are quick to jump on the ID bandwagon because of their religion.
Why, thank you, Jack. That’s very kind.
I’m not up on the ID debate (oh, the hazards of jumping in anyway!), so I’m not familiar with the scientists you mention who feel it’s necessary to invoke ID to account for certain complexities, but it seems to me that there’s an issue of level of analysis (maybe Aristotle’s four causes are relevant here–is there an Aristotelean in the house?). As a believer, I accept that at the most general level of analysis, God is responsible for everything, but if my physics teacher asks me why an object is accelerating through the earth’s atmosphere at a particular rate, and I answer that God made it that way, my physics teacher is justified in giving me a zero. It’s not that what I have said is false–God _did_ make it that way–it’s just that I’m not engaging in the level of analysis physics requires. So it’s true that we can run up the ladder of generality and invoke God, but at that point, we’ve abandoned the natural explanations in which science deals.
It’s a fascinating question whether something is so utterly (and more important, so permanently) inexplicable in natural terms that we’re forced up the ladder to the supernatural level, but I just don’t see how we can ever know that a phenomenon will (or won’t) remain naturally inexplicable, and our projection that we won’t ever understand something simply because we don’t now seems a flimsy and ever-retreating basis for an appeal to God. For the same reason, I’m also not sure how we’d ever recognize the limits of naturalistic explanation, even if we did encounter them.
Anyone else see that old eighties comedy _The Dream Team_, with Michael Keaton and Christopher Lloyd? In one scene a mental patient rhetorically asks another character if he knows why a particular work of art is “a brilliant use of negative space” and then answers his own question, “Because that’s the way God wants it!” Same issue, I think. It’s a funny and unexpected answer because although it’s true in the most general sense, it’s not the level of anaylsis appropriate to attributing meaning to art.
Jack, can you name an ID proponent who isn’t religious?
will,
I’m the king of vagueness. Let me say it this way–
I don’t think all scientists who are proponents of ID are *motivated* purely by religion in their research.
Eve,
I like you’re art example. But, I think there needs to be a little room for that which we can*not* quantify–the “aha.” We simply cannot identify all the reasons why something is beautiful–let alone why something *is.* That’s why I think this whole debate has less to do with “science” and more to do with educational philosophy. I’m all for teaching evolution as a hard science, but let’s not assume that philosophy can have no say when dealing with the abstract. And that’s what (honest) ID is focused on: that which is “irreducible” or “abstract.”
For skepticism about evolution from an irreligious angle, try Fred Reed. He’s sort of a poor man’s Hunter S. Thompson who lives in Mexico because he can’t stand life in America.
will #57-
Paul Davies is one. http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/pdavies.html
But this is also before ID got hijacked in the last few years by Creationists. Not that I am taking a stand on this issue, I just wanted to answer your question.
Jack, I completely agree that something always escapes our categories of analysis–maybe what you call the “a-ha!” moment–in art, and also in our experience of the natural world, which I find suffused with beauty and spiritual significance. And I think it’s very appropriate and meaningful to contemplate the spiritual significance of the natural world; there’s much in LDS scripture and doctrine that leads us to that kinds of contemplation. But science is something else. It’s the work of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena, and it’s deliberately reductive (as any explanatory scheme inevitably is). It brackets questions of ultimate meaning, dealing only in falsifiables. Claims about creation and God, while spiritually very significant, aren’t falsifiable; they aren’t science. That’s why I don’t think ID has any place in a science classroom.
A philosophy classroom, on the other hand, would be a great place to hash out the questions and issues ID raises.
John,
That’s an hilarious essay by Fred Reed. (though a someone who knows more about these things may not think so–I’m no scientist)
Eve: “A philosophy classroom, on the other hand, would be a great place to hash out the questions and issues ID raises.”
Yes. As long as science recognizes its limitations and is open to tough philosophical questions that challenge scientific theories–which theories must, of necessity, reach beyond the available data in order to make sense of the lot of it. The question of consciousness comes to mind. (bad pun) It seems only reasonable that theoretical assumptions regarding the origin of consciousness may be challenged by questions arising from the “softer” sciences–psychology, sociology, philosophy, etc.
I think science is much more open to attack on the hard problem of consciousness than it is on evolution. There’s also debate about the existence of dark matter and then the issue of string theory and others. So I’d actually favor a philosophy class. However (and this is where I think some are being naive in this) any such philosophy class would end up having to discuss atheism as well and the epistemic basis for religion. I’m not sure the religious people who want this sort of thing would be comfortable with getting in a fair fashion.
Which isn’t to say I don’t think religion can hold up – it can. But it will involve a lot more critical analysis of religion than I think most religious people want in school.
Clark,
That’s a good point about having to discuss atheism. But don’t you think some of that concern might be mitigated by discussing the grey areas of scientific theories as well?
I think there are far fewer grey areas in science than most religious people would be comfortable with if the evidence for all sides (including philosophical arguments) is acknowledged. I do think there are problems with physicalism, of course and naturalism seems so problematic a term it is almost meaningless.
The problem is that if you start discussing religion amongst teenagers and ask the obvious question of “where’s the evidence” then I think you might incur far more doubt than you prevent. And my sense is that the worry about evolution is primarily a misbegotten fear that evolution leads people to atheism. I think that a discussion of the epistemological issues does this much more. If one does this with a combined sense of tact and turn towards spiritual experiences, as I think we in the church do with our missionary work, then this is less of an issue. However given the very nature of teaching, I just doubt that will happen.
I actually feel rather strongly that the big problem for religion is that it is, by its nature, primarily dogmatic. It needn’t be, of course. But the way it is taught to youth typically is. That’s why, I think, so many people experience doubt when they get to college and first experience alternative views.
The movement against evolution is attempting to fend this off in high school but by bringing the topic up I earnestly think will simply be raising the issues in a fashion most teenagers are ill prepared for by their religious education.
Clark,
I don’t know. It seems to me that we’re having that problem anyway because of the prevalence of science and the utter lack of religion in the classroom. I remember–the first vocalized prayer I ever offered was in asking God if evolution was true or false. I was only twelve years old and greatly concerned at the apparent contradictions between my religion and what I was being taught in school. As I look back, it seems to me that I may have been less burdened had I been taught that science cannot pinpoint a first cause for existence any better than religion can.
Jack,
Just a suggestion, but would things have been better for you as a 12 year old if religion hadn’t tried to make competing claims with science? That is, what if religion just acknowledged that it cannot pinpoint a first cause for existence and let science make its own claims.
Trailer Trash,
Your suggestion is well taken, though it doesn’t account for how science has a tendency to delegitimize all inquiries that are not done scientifically–albeit, unwittingly most of the time. Science has become the great arbiter of morality in our “enlightened” day and age. We are only responsible to those things that are provable by scientific methods. “Values” are now determined by science, by studies, by statistical analysis. (which, by the way, I believe is a good thing some of the time)
So, with the understanding that these issues are much more complex than the way I’m presenting them, let me just say that science doesn’t merely “make its own claims.” It has a way of indirectly making claims about everything scientific or “un” because of the moral division that arises from it.
Here is a great article regarding that philosophy class which I mentioned above.
Your suggestion is well taken, though it doesn’t account for how science has a tendency to delegitimize all inquiries that are not done scientifically–albeit, unwittingly most of the time.
I think that does happen sometimes inappropriately. i.e. a descent into what is called scientism – the idea that one can only know scientifically. Clearly that’s wrong. However for areas where science can know I think that the “delegitimizing” is often appropriate.
That article troubles me, Jeffrey. The writer suggests that those trying to push the “philosophy class” (which apparently would have been nothing more than a venue for discussing ID) did not have the best interest of the students in mind. And yet, regardless of whatever befuddlement of bad motives there may have been in extablishing the class, it has been removed from the curriculum thereby leaving the students without the opportunity for exposure to descenting opinions. That’s down-right fascist, if you ask me. Once again, we see science claiming the moral highroad which, according to science, can only be claimed scientifically.
Jack,
In fact the article clearly states that the reason why that particular class was cut was not because it discussed ID, but because it discussed in an uninformed and overly biased way. If the class really was just a venue for discussing ID (something which high school minds simply aren’t mature enough to really deal with) then I would have been against it just as much as you are. But that’s not what the class really was. It a course which amounted to propoganda, pure and simple, taught by a pastor’s wife who had no qualifications in science, philosophy or teaching. I can’t think of clearer case of fraudulent academics than this. Let people be taught about the philosophical underpinnings of ID by all means, for it is that way that people will see how it is not science at all. But lets make sure that its done in the right way.
Clark,
I’m thinking that “scientism” isn’t neccessarily a bad thing. To the degree that one believes that the method of science can be applied to all fields of study, which is the defintion, it seems to me that scientism is okay.
What we probably don’t want to accept is the idea, as you stated, that science is the _only_ way to study certain fields. I can even live with the idea the science is the best way we know of…but if one were to claim that it is the only way…well, I’d have to agree that such a view is lacking objectivity.
What do you think?
High school minds aren’t mature enough for this stuff? Darwin was 22 when he shipped out on the Beagle. Quit infantalizing.
Jeffery,
Oh yes, I agree that it should be done right. But I have to ask: where’s the replacement then? Bring in the qualified teacher if qualifications are truely at the heart of the matter.
Darwin was a highly qualified ‘naturalist’ (what we would now call a paleontologist) by the time he got shipped out on the Beagle. He had to beat out a number of other applicants to get that highly sought posiiton. He was the equivalent of a Grad student at the time and a highly qualified one at the time.
Anyone who thinks that high school students are anything like Darwin in that regard is simply ignorant.
Most high school minds are NOT prepared to deal with the philosophical intricacies involved in a philosophy course which would really do justice to ID. The ideal text book for such a course, in my opinion, would be “Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics” by Pennock. To think that any ol’ high schooler without any pre-req’s could handle that kind of material is simply laughable to my mind. If it were offered as an honors course of sorts, that might be different, but that course in El Tejon was certainly NOT an honors class.
Jack,
That also answers your question regarding a replacement. A qualified teacher will have teaching credentials. He/she will be well aware of the relevant philosophical issues. They will also have a firm understanding of the reigning theory, neo-Darwinism. If all these requirements are met, let the course be taught by all means.
Another good resource would be Dembski and Ruse’s “Debating Design.” A wider spectrum of theories are covered including ID, neo-Darwinism, evolutionary creationism and self-organizing complexity theory. However, those pieces are even more difficult to the unprepared mind, and it doesn’t cover issues of epistemology, metaphysics and other philosophical issues. Perhaps the both could be used together.
It is easy to underestimate kids–I agree with that. On the other hand, debates about science must be grounded in the facts on the ground, so to speak. As a high school student I had only the vaguest idea about how life works on a molecular level. I might have understood the general outlines of the arguments, but I wonder if I would have had the knowledge base to understand where the rubber meets the road (something I still strive for–even with graduate education in the life sciences.) This same problem is what makes public discussion of this topic difficult.
That’s the thing with evolution, everybody thinks they understand it when they almost never do. Here is a good rule of thumb: “If you think that the neodarwinian theory of evolution is simple, you don’t understand it.” This is the main reason why posts on evolution at the more highly frequented blogs always get about 100 comments, because a lot of people keep saying things about subjects they simply don’t understand. This is why the philosophy of “design” class would be so great, if only to get people to have some idea of what they are talking about on all sides of the divide.
I believe that philosophy course like this shouldn’t be taught until college not because high school student are stupid or “infants” but rather because the issues are so complex. Anybody who feels that I’m simly infantalizing high school students in this position simply doesn’t have any understanding of the issues which really are involved. It is exactly such a person which should be enrolled in that class or read one of those books. I guarantee that if they really do try to understand what they are reading, they will have a lot more to contribute to these discussions.
Until then it seems almost hopeless to reason with such people on this issue. Responding to their arguments, it seems at times, only accomplishes the misinformation from spreading to others. I mean honestly, how many times do we really have to hear the following statements in these threads:
Evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics
Evolution is only a theory
Evolution makes no falsifiable predictions
Carbon dating isn’t reliable
There is no evidence for evolution
Evolution is like a hurricane producing a car out of junk yard parts
And so on
Anybody who actually thinks any one of these things needs to pick up a book and read it. Plain and simple. While I don’t think that everybody ought to understand these issues, I do think that if somebody is going to actually accuse others of being totally wrong, they should at least understand what it is that these people are supposed to be wrong about. If you are interested enough to follow threads which are 100 comments long then there is no excuse for being so misinformed. Seriously, go read a book which is actually ABOUT evolution rather than about how it is wrong or how it can be harmonized with the Bible.
At one point I had read pretty much all of the material from the ID guys and considered myself a well established IDer. I thought that their arguments were all quite good and that evolution really wasn’t plausible at all. This was because I didn’t understand evolution at all. Once I finally got around to reading a book about it, I realized how misinformed I had been by the material which I had been reading. It wasn’t that the books were lying to me at all, its simply that I took those books to be fair explanations of evolution which in reality they were not, nor even claimed to be. I stopped being an IDer and have never looked back since. Religion can be harmonized with evolution, but ID is not the path. Then again, ID is a lot better than some of the other positions which masquerade as ID if only because the enemy of their enemy is considered their friend. (ID is almost as contrary to Gensis as neodarwinism is.)
In case anybody didn’t get my main point, it is this: READ A BOOK and stop acting like you understand what you are talking about. While you might understand ID quite well, ID is not evolution and it would be serious mistake to think that understanding onen implies an understanding of the other.
Jeffery,
The point of this discussion has more to do with one’s philosophy of education (I think) and how that ought to shape one’s thinking as to what ought to be allowed in the class room.
I, for one, am a know-nothing when it comes to evolution. I tend to side with those who want it taught has a hard science because it seems to me that there is enough agreement among the experts to warrant it. However, the first thing that comes to my mind when you suggest (in so many words) that by reading a book one will become informed and therefore less inclined to side with the IDers, is: what about Behe? What about Dembski? Have they not read the “books?” And if they have, are they simply morons? Or are they so completely blinded by a religious agenda that they can’t see straight? Both, plus a whole bunch of other IDers, have a big fat P-H-D attached to their names–just like the reputable neo-darwinists.
So how can I, by reading a book or two on the subject, realistically learn enough to stand my ground against those who have studied biology, chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology, molecular biology, etc., etc., etc., for practically the whole of their lives? It seems to me that when there are enough “qualified” people with a unified descenting opinion that that opinion ought to be given voice (without necessarily establishing it as “fact” or even theory) in the educational arena.
This reminds of the big fiasco during the nineties over the “repression” of memory. The whole world of psychology was up in arms because of competing “theories” on the subject. It appears now (with a fair amount of hind sight) that a significant amount of research tends to debunk repression–especially that associated with sexual abuse. However, as much as I tend to agree with the results of that research, I cannot turn the blind eye to those qualified folks who insist that some repression/amnesia does occure. I cannot say that they’re all a bunch of mystical weird-os (regardless of the fact that they too are decorated with graduate degrees) because they have a descenting opinion.
What is one to do?
Jack,
After I had done my little rant I realized how far my comment fell from the original topic. Rather than losing all that information, I posted it anyways, thinking that the thread was almost dead anyways. Reviving it in a different form didn’t seem like too much of an indiscretion.
“when you suggest (in so many words) that by reading a book one will become informed and therefore less inclined to side with the IDers”
I never said that. I only said that once I read some other books I became informed and therefore less inclined to side with the IDers. It may be different for other people. Your entire comment is based upon a (perhaps intentional) misreading of my statement. I was simply trying to establish that anybody who thinks that any ol’ shmoe of a high schooler is prepared to deal with the philosophical underpinnings of the ID/evolution debate simply doesn’t understand one side or the another very well at all and needs to read a book about that side. (Though this is aimed at self-proclaimed IDers, this shouldn’t be limited to them.)
That said, Behe is a molcular biologist. Dembski is a mathematician. While they certainly seem rather well informed on the matter, let’s not make the mistake of calling them authorities on the neoDarwinian synthesis. Also, to suggest that these men aren’t at least a little blinded by their religious bias to any degree whatsoever is simply untenable in my mind. They are striving for a particular conclusion which they reached before hand. Either that or they are jumping from little evidence (actually no positive evidence) to a huge conclusion by a gross multiplication of entities. While I don’t think they are bad people for this, I think that they are bad scientists for this, and let’s face it, they are trying to pass of scientists in this context.
“It seems to me that when there are enough “qualified” people with a unified descenting opinion that that opinion ought to be given voice (without necessarily establishing it as “fact” or even theory) in the educational arena.”
I totally agree. The thing is that we already DO do this. There are lots of philosophy of science courses which to a certain extent deal with ID and evolution at most universities (Mine has about 3 or 4). Additionally, the problems which the IDers raise ARE addressed by those who are qualified at the graduate level. These issues are not swept under the rug like the public seems to think. They only think that because they have not taken the time to look into the issue deep enough and assume that these issues should be taught to high schoolers.
It should also be mentioned that there is a difference between teaching ID and teaching about ID. By all means teach the latter (as we already do) but not the former, at least not supported by tax dollars.
Jeffery,
OK, I admit my tendency to misread. But in the larger context of this discussion, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that highschoolers, by and large, have the knowledge base to deal with these issues. I *do* think some are implying that young people have the *capacity* to *learn* such knowledge. I tend to agree with that implication–though I’m doubtful of such happening on a large scale because of the workings (wrenches and all) of public school. Therefore, because of limitations in the educational system (not so much because the students are too young to comprehend such things) I agree that such an in depth debate could be problematic.
Nevertheless, I think even highschoolers ought to be made aware of the fact that qualified folks (and I’m sorry, but some proponents of ID are ten times more qualified than the average highschool life science teacher) where was I? Oh yes–that some qualified folks disagree with certain aspects of neo-darwinism.
RE, religious agendas–I wasn’t suggesting that Behe and others are in no way influenced by their personal philosophies. (or Darwinists, for that matter!) What I was trying to get at is: it’s too simplistic a notion to pin their difference of opinion solely on a religious bent. They’ve read the books–more books than I (and most hichschool teachers) will ever read on the subject. It simply boils down to a classic case of not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Jack,
Of course qualified people disagree with SOME aspects of neodarwinism. All neodarwinists do that. There are lots of disagreements regarding mechanism and path, but this should not be taken as any kind of doubt as to the actual fact of evolution.
Jeffrey Gilliam, I’m glad you were aware of how comment #79 shifted the frame of the debate. I was feeling like responding in an overblown way about humanity not needing any stinking Science Lords to oversee it.
More seriously, one point of science I would like to bring into this. A good theory of macroscopic phenomena doesn’t depend on the microscopic details. Classical thermodynamics doesn’t give a hoot about molecules and doesn’t need to. I remember on my first visit to my department at Johns Hopkins finding “Nature is a continuum” written on a board in one student office. For 98% of fluid dynamics, it may as well be. Jared wrote “As a high school student I had only the vaguest idea about how life works on a molecular level.” This is not especially relevant. Did Darwin use any principles from chemistry to develop an understanding of evolution? Mendel didn’t need chromosomes or DNA to understand genes.
John (#74), I think that’s a good point, except that there’s a big difference between 15 and 22. At 22 my dad was well into his PhD thesis. (Since he was a convert and thus didn’t have the delay of a mission) It’s an interesting point and if I had time I might make a post about it. So you really did get me thinking. My Dad was in college at 17 and my Mom at 16. I think that the way our high school educational system is set up tends to coddle kids too much. I think kids are capable of much more at that age. But judging by even the Freshman I taught in honors philosophy classes modern High Schools leave them very ill prepared for really thinking about issues. Given that the kids in that six credit honors class were likely the cream of the crop, I’d hate to imagine what the typical High School student is like.
As I said, perhaps the topic of a future post.
Jack (#71), the content of a philosophy class on ID would bother me. Especially if it only gave one side of things. I’m not really opposed to a philosophy class, although I think if done fairly it wouldn’t exactly endear itself to those pushing for the class. As I think I mentioned in one of these threads.
Watt (#73), I think Scientism was pretty much a dismal failure. It has two effects. One, to water down science and end up bringing in a lot of pseudo-science. To a degree we’ve not entirely recovered. (Some might joke that evolutionary psychology is a hold out) The reason for this is that if science is all that is respected people merely couch speculation in science-like language and assertions. This, in my opinion, hurts science. The second effect is to devalue the fact we can know in many areas. You say that so long as alternatives are open its not a problem. But the problem is science can’t answer most questions people have. Excluding the speculations of evolutionary psychologists, science can’t say much about good or evil – things that I think most people want answers about. They can’t tell you when you are in love. One could go on.
Jeffrey (#79), I’m not sure it need only be taught in University. However I admit I have no faith that the typical High School teacher could adequately teach it. There are some great teachers out there. I’ve even had a few. But I think most teachers are ill educated themselves and lack the confidence and skill to be able to teach difficult subjects. However I see this less as an issue with the students than simply the world of public education. But I suspect a private school could do a good job on the subject if it was a good school.
John, a lot of macro level theories can be done really well phenomenologically, like classic thermodynamics. Although I’d argue it’s also extremely easier to understand when it’s connected to the micro-level. When my Dad was down we were talking about thermodynamics. His undergraduate class was purely phenomenological. (i.e. done the 19th century way) He didn’t get statistical mechanics mixed with thermo until grad school. He said he only really understood thermodynamics when it was attached to something “real.” i.e. concepts like entropy “meant something.” That’s what that micro-level does.
I think this is true of evolution as well. Once DNA was discovered I think evolution became much more intelligible. Once computers were around and we could model emergence and we started focusing in on information theory, then it simply makes tremendously more sense. I could see in the late 19th century the difficulty of accepting evolution. Once that connection to physics and mathematics and objects became possible, it became tremendously more believable.
Clark,
I think I should make it clear that what I object to the most is *silence* on the subject of ID. I think it would be over-kill to dedicate an entire course to the study of design (and maybe that’s not what you’re really implying when you express your concern about a philosophy class)
That said, wouldn’t it seem illusive or almost exclusive, even, to not touch on it during the course of a semester or two–especially where philosophy seems to have such a strong anthropological component?
While I also agree that ID should be taught in some form in schools, I guess the question is “what is ID?” As I intimated in my comments about Behe, positive theories seem very slow in coming. Instead their main thesis is that another theory isn’t good enough. Thus, it would seem that the basic content of ID can be addressed without ever mentioning ID at all. This would seem to be a major problem for the movement.
John (Re: 84),
In the context of ID I think it (molecular scale) is relevant because, for example, Michael Behe’s arguments are all at the molecular level. His book takes us through the immune system, flagella, and so forth. While the concept of irreducible complexity can be understood without reference to the molecular world, any serious evaluation of it must eventually go to the molecular scale. In terms of popular understanding ID has an advantage in that it easily uses analogies to man-made objects–mouse traps, trucks, motors, and Mount Rushmore. Showing why the analogies are faulty is more difficult because it requires specific counter-examples which take us to the molecular scale–at least that’s how I see it.
I also see Behe’s move to the molecular level as an attempted escape from the fossil record. Without “molecular fossils” finding any kind of evolutionary paths will be VERY difficult to say the least. I think that this is his rock of refuge.
I agree Jeffrey, which is why I still tend to see it as a God of the gaps sort of argument ultimately.