Begging the Question
In the recent Republican debates, John McCain was asked if he believed in evolution. McCain answered that he did, but that he also saw the hand of God when looking at something like the Grand Canyon. Asked a controversial question, he answered in the middle, which is not unexpected. But when the question was addressed to the candidate pool in general, three hopefuls (Brownback, Huckabee and Tancredo) indicated they did not accept evolution.
And then the interviewer moved on. No follow-up, nothing.
Which left me nearly screaming at my computer screen. Three candidates indicate that they reject an established scientific theory, and no one asked them to elaborate. Why do they reject evolution? Is it because the Bible is literal truth? Do they think evolution is just a fairy tale made up by atheists? Do they reject the “micro-evolution” of germs as well, or just speciation? Given that science is central to issues ranging from flu vaccines to global warming, it would seem worthwhile to ask a few questions exploring their view of science and scientists.
If I were the moderator, I would have asked a few follow up questions along those lines.
If you were moderating one of the debates, what would you ask? Not just about evolution, but about anything. What questions would you raise given the chance?
Be Brave. Be Human. Question the answers.
May 9th, 2007 04:08
Ask a question? I’d be drop-jawed in boggled amazement. Speechless.
I don’t think I’ve ever met a Creationist — unless those child-faced ‘elders’ in white shirts and dark ties who knock on the doors of safely affluent Australian suburbs to fulfill their quota of ‘missionary’ work are Creationists.
What can you ask? I guess I could find some curiosity about HOW they reconcile their view with the science-based culture they live in. Part of me wants to say, ‘OK, if you reject scientific evidence, you should also reject the fruits of that same science — no cars, no electricity, no medicine. Go back to Elizabethian technology.’
Are the Amish creationist? scurries off to check it out…
I guess they are… well, the Conservative Mennonites are. And Old Order Amish are even more conservative than them.
Creation is the explanation of the origin and existence of all things, including the material universe, the spiritual cosmos, and those beings which by freewill rebelled against God and chose an attitude and condition of evil. The origin of the material universe was not a process of natural or theistic evolution.
At least they eschew many of the fruits of science - though I think they use the medical ones.
BTW. My own personal Mennonite is at the liberal end of the spectrum.
Brian, I agree that the moderator should have focused some attention on this aspect of their beliefs. If only to leave the viewers better informed.
I wonder whether we have any Creationists in Australian politics? Hmmm… religion doesn’t enter into political life much here.
May 9th, 2007 08:15
Personally, I could give a hoot if they believe in evolution or not. They can believe anything they want; the question is whether they would apply their own beliefs to their office. If I was that reporter, I’d start asking questions like “Do you feel evolution should continue to be taught in schools? Do you think Creationism or Intelligent Design should be taught along side?” or even “How does your personal belief in that area affect your platform for presidency?” or something more eloquent (I’m only 1/2 way through my first cup of coffee).
May 9th, 2007 09:30
Brian,
Great catch. I did not see the debate, but did see that very question asked on the Daily SHow with John Stewart and was amazed that 3 candidates would actually admit they don’t believe in scientifically supported theory just to cow-tow to the creationists in the republican party.
You bring up a great point on how Chris Mathews never followed up. It just shows that journalists today are only looking for sound bites, not any in depth investigation or questioning of why someone does or says anything. It is as if the bite itself is newsworthy, not the thought or anaylsis that went into why they have that position. Very sad. How I long for real and deep understanding.
May 9th, 2007 09:52
Hi Brian-
Intriguing post. I think I’d like to follow up like Elena would, with how that belief would impact public policy. Can one really hold deep beliefs and not apply them? I’m not sure. I remember John Kerry stating that he was personally against abortion but not willing to force those beliefs on others, so that essentially made him pro-choice. I don’t know if that came from a real conviction or if it was just a way of trying to appeal to more people.
I don’t think it’s fair to assume that Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo are taking that stand to appeal to the very conservative Republican base. It’s possible, but not certain. I’m not familiar with the other two candidates, but Huckabee has a strong Baptist background; he went to seminary and was a pastor. That doesn’t mean he rejects evolution, but it raises the possibility that he has had this belief for a long time.
In any event, it was an eye-opening moment that just begged for follow-through. I don’t know enough about fundamentalist Christianity to compose the questions, but there are very likely other areas that should be examined, now that evolution has been discussed. I think it’s fair to ask a candidate about ANY core beliefs he or she holds, whether about religion, economics, sociology… It’s part of what comprises a person and could surely impact decisions.
Susan
May 9th, 2007 12:05
I am going to avoid the creationist portion of the topic. It is more nuanced than can be discussed here, and would be off-scope based on the intent of Brian’s post.
Questions I would ask:
1) On what issues or principles do you disagree with your party’s line? Why?
2) In what areas do you believe the two main political parties are too similar? What is the real choice between them?
3) What qualifications should a citizen have for running for elected office at the national level? (Looking for knowledge of constitution, applicable law, etc.)
4) Current election policy is geared toward the two main political parties in general, and to incumbents in particular. What proposals do you have to level the playing field so that the voting public has a true, equitable choice in candidates that is not cash-centric?
5) What relevance do you find in polls, and why?
Rick
May 11th, 2007 02:12
Good questions - thoughtful. If answered with some care, you’d actually find out something.
You need a good interviewer who will put some pressure on the pollies when they wriggle out of answering the actual question and keep addressing the question they wanted you to ask, instead. At the very least, their wriggling should be made more obvious.
May 21st, 2007 15:26
To be fair, the moderators in a debate aren’t supposed to inject themselves into the debate. However horrible the questions are, they are supposed to be a reflection of what people want to know and not an in-depth interview.
Getting all nitty-gritty about what “brand” of creationism (Intelligent Design, adaptation-but-not-evolution, etc.) they adhere to isn’t really appropriate for a debate.
However, as people have pointed about above, there is no application for this question. Why does it matter? If it does, ask the applied question (”What would you like to see taught in schools?”)
My assumption is that they asked the question because they believed that to answer anything but “the (ever-changing) theory of evolution must be obeyed!” would be sufficiently embarrassing to the candidate.
But I’m just a right-wing wacko, so I might not understand the nuances here.
Dan
May 22nd, 2007 00:37
Actually, I would have found getting into the nitty-gritty useful. What was interesting about the question is that it wasn’t political per se, but rather was about scientific knowledge. The candidates were asked whether they accepted a well established scientific theory. For the three candidates that said they disagreed with evolution, with no further follow up the assumption is that they are probably literal bible adherents who believe the universe is only a few thousand years old. They may or may not hold such a world-view, but we don’t get the chance to hear more.
The incident is indicative of how trivial the debates are. For me, I would be less concerned about what they say their policy will be, and more concerned about how they approach policy an governance.
May 23rd, 2007 09:58
If you think Evolution vs. Creation vs. ID isn’t political, you haven’t tried to get a grant lately.
Dan
May 23rd, 2007 11:41
All grants are political. Even in my field (physics). Anything involving tax money is political by default.
Equating evolution with creationism or ID is a false comparison. Evolution is the only scientific theory currently in place. It has survived the test of a thousand cuts we call peer review, and now stands as the foundation of the biological sciences.
Interestingly, it actually started as a crazy idea which was easily discarded. 150 years ago it had huge flaws. There was no known mechanism for inheritance for example. That didn’t come until the 1950s with the discovery of DNA. Before that, all you had was the “appearance” of change from the fossil records and in the selective breeding of animals. Add to this the fact that the timeline of evolution would have to be on the order of millions of years (we now know a few billion) despite the fact that well established physics at the time held that the sun could only have been burning for about 10,000 years.
People forget that the Biblical idea of young earth creationism actually fit our understanding of solar physics until the 1900s. It wasn’t until the discovery of nuclear physics that we had a mechanism for stars to burn for the billions of years necessary to allow evolution to occur. Young earth creationism had its scientific chance and was found lacking.
Intelligent Design doesn’t even meet the standards of a scientific model. It makes no testable predictions, but simply posits that where there are gaps in understanding, some intelligence (God, space aliens, hyper-intelligent shades of the color blue) must have intervened. By proposing ID its framers get to cast evolution (and science in general) as “anti-religion” and anti-God. ID proponents strive to make evolution political when in fact evolution is simply the theory which best matches the data.
May 25th, 2007 15:35
To be fair, inter-species evolution (as opposed to intra-species adaptation) has it’s own problems to explain. In fact, it defies other scientific laws.
Such as the inability to explain how life got more complex with time, not less (entropy).
Or how exactly zero “inter-species” have been discovered - either alive or in the fossil record.
Or how we had to come up with untestable theories to account for vast, quick changes in the fossil record that are impossible with “standard” evolution.
My point is not to argue here. Just to further the understanding that they are *all* theories and *all* unprovable (as we can’t recreate the experiment).
Evolution is an attempt to explain scientifically how we have come to where we are. It is the best that the scientific community has come up with for a purely natural explanation of our origins. The honest among them will admit to its flaws.
However, no matter how many obvious holes are poked in the theory by detractors, evolutionists adhere to the theory as if their life depended on it. And defend it to the death. And attempt to punish doubters.
It’s almost like it isn’t science any more. It smells a lot more like religion, does it not?
Dan
May 26th, 2007 11:13
Dan,
You bring up several points I want to address. Not in an adversarial way, but to clarify a few issues, because your comments reiterate several misconceptions which many people have about science in general and evolution in particular.
To begin with, if you take nothing else from this comment, take this: evolution does not violate the laws of physics.
Thermodynamics states that within any system the TOTAL entropy cannot decrease. However it says nothing about a local entropy decrease. A local decrease in entropy is a fact you depend on every day. For example, a refrigerator decreases the entropy within it (makes it colder). It does so at the cost of creating more heat than it extracts from the fridge. So a refrigerator in total increases the entropy of the universe, but it also creates a local region of reduced entropy.
Life is like the inside of the refrigerator. The sun produces a huge amount of heat entropy, but also creates huge amounts of useful solar power. Life uses this solar power to create and maintain the increased complexity we see around us. When you count the earth and sun as a complete package, the net entropy increases.
Now let’s talk about scientific proof. In an absolute sense, proof is only for mathematics and vodka. (perhaps the latter is in an Absolut sense?)
A common misconception is that scientific proof requires repeatable experiments. This is not the case. Scientific proof is actually driven by a confluence of evidence. This confluence can be found through repeatable experiments, but it can also be found through gathered evidence. For example, we can demonstrate the force of gravity here on earth by conducting a repeatable experiment, producing a confluence of evidence for gravity. We can then look to the heavens and see the planets moving around the sun in a way which is consistent with gravity. We can therefore infer that planetary orbits are driven by gravity (as opposed to “celestial spheres”) because there is a confluence of evidence to support such a conclusion. Evolution works in exactly the same way.
Just as a side note, your assertion that inter-species evolution has not been seen is incorrect. Speciation has been recreated in the lab numerous times. It has been shown in fruit flies by both isolation in separate environments and by isolation by food source. In both cases after several generations each group refuses to breed with the other, thus producing separate species. Repeatable evidence for speciation is just as strong as, say, repeatable evidence for general relativity, which is pretty strong indeed.
Another common misconception is that a scientific model must be flawless or else it must be rejected. This is why evolution opponents often try to hold up a small point which is not explained in the model and then declare they have disproved evolution. That is not how science works at all. A scientific model is accepted based upon its successes, not rejected on its shortcomings. If evolution opponents want to unseat evolution, all they need to do is present a better theory. Intelligent Design’s argument for a god of the gaps is never going to cut it.
Regarding your comment about persecuting nay-sayers, this does occur. Even in physics, many supporters of string theory (which has of yet no solid evidence to support it) has taken on an almost religious zeal. This has resulted in the physics community at large attacking them for being unscientific. Quite simply, string theory advocates are being told to put up or shut up. In science, religious zeal loses in the end.
One last point. Saying evolution is “just a theory” is like saying Hank Aaron was “just a ball player.”
Brian
May 30th, 2007 16:32
To be clear, I’m not saying evolution is “disproven”. Just incomplete. As I said, it is the best fully-natural explanation to come up yet in the scientific community.
In the areas where I have pointed out weaknesses (call them unexplained areas if you wish), my point wasn’t to get into an in-depth argument (ie. Can you point to any evidence that a fruit fly has become anything other than another variety of fruit fly? Perhaps a housefly?).
Mt point was just to point out that there are weaknesses in the theory and it isn’t worthy of a defense that would shut down any discourse.
Intelligent Design doesn’t work as an alternative because avowed evolutionists refuse the premise, not because there isn’t similar “evidence” for it. If you accept the premise, you have to accept it as a possibility.
I don’t have any problem with anyone not accepting the premise, either.
However, what I do have a problem with is a supposedly scientific community unwilling to have a discussion (or permit anyone else to discuss) alternate theories, however wacky they may be.
I’m pretty sure that the “We all came from the Great Skunk” theory would die a quick death on its own.
So, why is it that the evolution community is so opposed to anyone questioning any part of evolution to the point of proposing laws and punishments for doing so?
Dan
May 30th, 2007 17:05
Hi Dan-
I feel really out of it here. For those of us not in the know (if there are indeed any others besides me), could you please go into more detail on this sentence: “So, why is it that the evolution community is so opposed to anyone questioning any part of evolution to the point of proposing laws and punishments for doing so?”
I’m lost.
Thanks.
Susan
May 30th, 2007 22:32
Dan,
I will tread carefully here, because some of what I hear from you have connotations you may not intend, and I am sure some of what I say will have connotations for you as well. So I will start off by stating what I interpret your points to be, and then give my response. If I misinterpret what you have said, please correct me.
Also, I know this is a long comment, but bear with me, I do want to continue this conversation.
Your statement of “weakness in the theory” sounds to me like the usual “evolution is just a theory” comment, which is often used by ID proponents to imply that evolution is just an idea that can be easily discarded, and the evidence for it is not solid.
This generally causes scientists to bristle because evolution is a not just a theory, it is a foundational theory. Modern biology is built on its foundation in the way that physics was built on Newtonian mechanics. This doesn’t mean that evolution is perfect and can never be replaced or encompassed by something better, but it does mean that evidence for the replacement model would need to be compelling at the highest level.
Anyone who could provide such evidence would earn a Nobel prize in a heartbeat.
That being said, it is true that there is incompleteness in any theory. There is incompleteness in basic physics, but no one lobbies to have “gravity is just a theory” stickers placed on physics books.
The second point you make, if I understand you correctly, is that ID is not accepted because (secular) evolutionists won’t accept its foundational premise. Furthermore, if one does accept the premise then the evidence for ID is compelling. Let us explore this then.
Here is how I understand intelligent design. It is based on the teleological premise that a design requires a designer. Stated more generally, that evidence of an intelligent cause may be assumed if no clear undirected process can be determined. The usual evidence cited is that of “irreducible complexity.”
Assuming I understand ID correctly, let me outline some general points as to why I think ID fails.
Let us assume for the moment that we accept this premise.
This intelligence can theoretically take two forms. Either it is bounded by natural phenomena (e.g. space aliens) or it is unbounded by natural phenomena (i.e. god).
If we assume the space aliens, then their appearance has three possible causes: natural phenomena (evolution), intelligent intervention via space aliens, or intelligent intervention via god.
If these space aliens appeared via evolution, then ID (more generally the teleological argument) fails because it means that evolution can produce intelligence without an intelligent cause.
If our space aliens appeared via other space aliens, then we go back to our three choices (nature, space aliens, god) and choose all over again. It cannot be space aliens backward to infinity, so it must be god. This means the principle of intelligent design can be restated as such:
This also gives us a basic property for god:
We should be able to take these as the fundamental tenets of ID if my logic isn’t faulty. Please correct me if I am wrong.
If this is the fundamental principle for ID, then there is a ton of evidence for it. Every phenomena we don’t fully understand is now explained by by “god is the cause.”
It sounds great, but there are several difficulties:
Since our ID tenet is now a fundamental premise, it cannot be invalidated. Our god is not proven to be true, but rather is assumed to be true.
This assumption gives us no new knowledge. Rather, we have simply invoked that where knowledge is lacking, god is the cause.
Here is what I conclude from this: Intelligent Design makes no predictions and contributes no new understanding of the world. It is simply a way to invoke a “god of the gaps.” Whereas traditional science provides all the knowledge we have on natural phenomena, and where knowledge is lacking simply remains silent.
What am I missing here?
May 31st, 2007 08:40
Just a little time this morning, so I’ll try to make it quick.. (ha!)
Susan - In the U.S. there are laws being proposed to punish teachers who mention ID (or, for that matter, anything other than evolution) in a classroom. There are rules being created to drive anyone in a scientific position of any sort who doesn’t adhere to evolution out of their job. These are what I was referring to.
Brian - I want to start by saying I really appreciate your tone and attempt to be clear.
When I say that there is weakness in the theory I mean that evidence continues to amass that requires either a “we don’t know” answer or a changing of the theory to match observed facts.
A good example is Punctuated Evolution. Because many species appear and disappear in a geologically short amount of time (as was discovered - if I remember correctly - about 20 years ago), the theory had to change to say that “something happened” that caused species to die out suddenly and appear more quickly than evolution could account for.
There is only conjecture as to what the “something” is (because we haven’t found any evidence of it other than the quick disappearance / appearance of species), but the theory had to be changed because it could not explain this phenomena.
Yes, it’s a foundational theory just as Newtonian mechanics is for physics. But scientists act as though the world would change if the theory turned out to be false. If evolution turned out to be a poor explanation, biology would still work the same way (just as it did before the theory).
If Newtonian physics turned out to be an incorrect explanation, force, mass, acceleration, etc. would all still operate the same way, just as they did before the theory. I’m not suggesting that it is wrong, just that it wouldn’t change anything if it were.
You are basically correct in that, in ID, God causes things to happen in ways in which we don’t understand. Much like the Big Bang, for which there is absolutely no evidence other than our existence and a need to explain a natural source of things.
That doesn’t mean, however, that scientific enquiry stops. Since you brought up Newton, he was a Christian who was fascinated by creation and led him to explore and explain it more, even though he thought that God set it all up. Ditto Einstein.
As I mentioned somewhere else, prior to excluding God from science, all scientists assumed there was a God since without an unchanging set of rules to the universe, they couldn’t experiment. An unchanging God governing the universe would, they thought, be the only way to assure those rules.
Dan
May 31st, 2007 10:58
Hi Dan-
Thanks for filling me in. Do you have any more info on those sanctions. Since education is a particular interest of mine, I’m especially interested in laws concerning teachers.
If not, I’ll just search the net….
Thanks
Susan
May 31st, 2007 13:25
Dan
This is a good conversation. Again, I’ll start with clarifying and move from there.
You mention that evidence is growing that there is a “weakness in the theory” of evolution. What I hear in a phrase such as this is the implication that evolution would need to be completely discarded. It is actually a lot more subtle than that.
Contrary to common opinion, scientists actually like when they find evidence which counters the prevailing theory. Confirming our theories is what most of us spend most of our time on, but contrary evidence is exciting! It means we have a chance to gain a deeper understanding of the world.
Another problem I have with the “weakness in the theory” phrase is the idea that new evidence somehow makes a theory less applicable. This is actually not true. Let me give you an example from physics.
The motion of the planets has been described by increasingly more powerful models. They started off with general descriptions of motion. Circular orbits, etc. These descriptions culminated in Kepler’s laws. Kepler’s laws were a set of three rules which accurately describe the motion of the planets. Kepler’s laws were revolutionary for their day. It described the motions of not only the planets, but also the moons of Jupiter with pinpoint accuracy. The “weakness” of Kepler’s laws is that they are simply a set of rules. There is no cause or mechanism for them, they just work.
So then along comes Newton, and his theory of gravity. Now gravity is based on the principle that all masses are attracted to each other in a specific way. Newton’s gravity works on apples and cannon balls, etc. so this is a powerful new theory. It also provides a mechanism for Kepler’s laws. Newton’s theory also went beyond Kepler’s, because it could explain things Kepler couldn’t, such as why Mercury’s orbit would precess (shift) over time. So Newton replaces Kepler. But the important thing to remember is that Kepler still works just as well today as it did then.
So now Newton is king, but there are still problems. For example, Mercury’s orbit actually precesses faster than it should under Newton’s laws. One way to fix this is to add an extra term to Newton’s gravity. This matches perfectly, but there is no reason why that term should be there. Then along comes Einstein. He comes up with general relativity. This new theory describes gravity not as a force but as a curvature of space and time. When GR is applied to Mercury’s orbit, it matches perfectly. It also goes further to explain things such how light is refracted near a large mass, which Newton couldn’t even touch.
So now Newton has been replaced by Einstein. But Newton still works just as well as it always did. In fact Newton works so well that we still use it to calculate the paths of space probes and such. In fact we still teach Newton’s gravity in basic physics even though we know it is simply an approximation to Einstein.
The same progression holds in evolution. Darwin proposed the principle of natural selection, which worked really well. But like Kepler he didn’t have any mechanism for inherited variation. Then genetics is discovered, and now we have a mechanism. Natural selection still works as well as it did in Darwin’s day, but genetics takes evolution further.
You mentioned punctuated evolution. I assume you mean punctuated equilibrium, which is a model to account for rapid (on a geological scale) speciation, so let me talk about that for a bit.
You used the phrase “…caused species to die out suddenly and appear more quickly than evolution could account for.” What I hear from this is the implication that evolution has a “speed limit”, and that the fossil record indicates a violation of this speed limit. This is actually not the case. There is no known “speed limit” to evolutionary change. Also, what looks like “overnight” in the fossil record is merely overnight on a geological scale. This is still huge compared to the lifetime of individuals within a species. A common misconception is that “punctuated evolution” stands opposed to gradualism, that we must choose between one or the other. In fact, punctuated equilibrium is simply a special case of gradualism.
You mentioned that there is no evidence to support rapid speciation, but this is incorrect. Punctuated equilibrium matches the fossil record very well, and it has a clear mechanism in genetic drift. The key is that we see rapid speciation in the fossil record, but this is coupled to long periods of little apparent change. In large populations genetic drift allows for a diversity of mutations. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and spread. Since there is little pressure on the species via natural selection this period of equilibrium produces a wealth of beneficial diversity. Then when pressures shift and the species is thrown out of equilibrium, natural selection comes into play big time, and any small advantage is crucial. Over a relatively small number of generations, these advantages concentrate within the population, which results in relatively rapid speciation.
Rapid speciation is not a challenge to evolution. In fact our understanding of genetics indicates yields rapid speciation as a prediction of neo-Darwinism.
Now on to intelligent design. I have a lot of questions.
How is ID in any way scientific? It makes no predictions, it provides no new knowledge, and it cannot be proved or disproved.
If we agree that ID invokes a supernatural intelligence (god), then what god do we teach? Christian? Muslim? Hindu? Do we let individual teachers discuss their personal faith? Do atheist teachers get to proselytize as well? Do we turn our biology classes into a comparative religion class?
Intelligent design is based on an “argument from ignorance”. Not that ID advocates are ignorant, but simply “we don’t know X, so we may assume God.” That means to teach ID we would have to spend a lot of time discussing what we DON’T know about evolution, rather than spend time on what we DO know. Isn’t that simply a way to promote ignorance? I mean, if I were to spend equal time in an introductory physics course toward teaching concepts in physics and toward teaching the gaps (three-body problem, origin of mass, quantum indeterminacy), my students would leave the class 1) not understanding anything about basic physics, and 2) thinking physics is a tenuous science full of unproven ideas and wild speculation.
Isn’t ID really, really, really bad theology? As it is framed, ID posits itself as theistic science, calling out traditional science as atheistic. To begin with, as you point out, lots of historical scientists were very religious. Even today more than half of scientists are religious. There are many who see the God of their faith as “the meaning behind the mechanism.” But by standing opposed to traditional science, ID promotes making a choice between science and faith. As teenager in high school asked to choose between science (iPods, cars, good paying job) validated by what we know, and faith validated by ignorance, what would most choose?
Do you think the promotion of ID is actually promoting atheism?
I understand the desire many have to discourage the secularism of America. But it seems to me that atheism likes to claim science as the proof of its validity, and promoters of intelligent design are so very eager to agree with them. They hand science over to the atheists, and leave for themselves a weak shadow god of ignorance, responding meekly “well, you can’t explain
the cause of the seasons,the motion of the planets,the origin of species, the cause of the big bang, so it is still possible for God to exist.”It seems to me that rather than trying to wedge ID into a biology class, we should have panels of scientists and religious leaders to discuss the connections and contradictions between religion and science. Invite parents, teachers and students and actually talk about the issues outside of the science classroom. It would promote understanding rather than confusion and ignorance.
I’d sign up to be on such a panel in a heartbeat.
May 31st, 2007 20:18
Cool. And I’d come listen to it!
Susan
May 31st, 2007 23:43
Hey there,
Just like to echo Susan here. Thanks to you both for doing this. I’m getting a great deal out of reading this and thinking about it.
-Grant
June 1st, 2007 02:37
Yes, thanks Dan and Brian for carrying this exchange forward.
So many rich points here. Particularly potent for me is the thought ‘whose God?’ because it causes me to acknowledge again that we only think we know what God is. An omnipotent creator is beyond our understanding, so it is a bit puzzling to hear God-followers going on as though they know what God does, or did.
Some nice cross-flows between various threads of exchange happening right now.
I’m especially enjoying the knowledge that Brian is bringing as it does actually help to untangle some of the crossed-wires. The Kepler - Newton - Einstein progression is nicely put. It really is true that ‘we stand on the shoulders of giants’ as Newton, I think, said.
June 1st, 2007 09:48
Hi Gillian-
You said, “we only think we know what God is.” Conincidentally, that really hit home this morning. Seemingly out of the blue (but I know there was 6-year-old logic there), my daughter asked me, “But what if there is no God?” followed by a comment that one of her friends doesn’t believe in God.
That lead to a discussion of faith and the beliefs of others. I hope it helped her…it made me think a lot…
Susan
June 1st, 2007 11:08
What I didn’t (and still don’t) want to get into is a specific discussion of why evolution is weak (I could show you why the theory is, in fact, unscientific) or why ID is better (which I don’t necessarily believe, either).
My point is that we should teach the facts that we know and can prove. There are exactly zero examples of inter-species species in the fossil record, for instance, so why are we teaching that one animal type comes from another? Why not say, “Our genetic material and apes is 99% alike, so we *think* that we came from them. On the other hand, our genetic material and fish are 97% alike, so we just don’t know.”
Why do we still today present the “evolving man” in schools (you know - the picture that shows apes turning into “cavemen” into modern day man) when we only have fossil examples of 3 out of 7 stages in the development (and the other 4 were fraud such as Piltdown Man)?
To answer your question, no I am not suggesting teaching either science OR religion. Like many on the evolution side, you’re assuming that I have the real intent of supplanting evolution with ID in the school. In reality, I just want the schools to teach the facts that we have as facts and present the theories as theories.
I agree with your panel idea, but there really aren’t any contradictions between religion and science. There are accepted facts (we have these fossils, we know that genetic material works like this, the layers of earth appear like this, etc.) and then different interpretations of those facts.
One group says that dinosaurs were killed by a big meteor, one group says it was the great flood, and yet another says that they were present on Noah’s Ark. But the facts that all of them agree on are that dinosaurs existed, this is approximately what they looked like (although we really know nothing about skin color, textures, etc.), and they all died in pretty short order.
If we’re going to teach the verifiable facts, let’s teach them. But if we’re going to teach theories (which I have no problem with), let’s teach multiple theories. Contrary to popular believe, a teacher doesn’t have to have all the answers. Some of the questions are just as good.
Dan
June 1st, 2007 19:15
Hi Dan,
Sounds good… though I think you’d need to explore in fine detail the nuances and variations around the concept of ‘proof’.
For example, if you accept 99% common material as sufficient proof that two things are related, surely you’d accept 97% as almost equally sufficient proof of relationship?
Then there’s the issue that proof often involves subtleties like consistencies between multiple strands of evidence, not just straight linear ‘if-then’ sequences.
I believe that there are at least two areas of study regarding proof, each of which has developed systematic frameworks that are applied to practical real-life activities. One is the Philosophy of Science and the other is Law. In law different levels of proof, or certainty, are required for different situations.
Here’s what Wikipedia says…
The standard of proof is the level of proof required in a legal action to convince the court that a given proposition is true. The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition. Typically, most countries have two levels of proof: the balance of probabilities (BOP), called the preponderance of evidence in the U.S., (which is the lowest level, generally thought to be greater than 50%, although numeric approximations are controversial) and beyond a reasonable doubt (which is the highest level, but defies numeric approximation).
I don’t think that the school system should be required to teach ALL theories — especially not theories that have very poor bodies of evidence to support them. When a theory has very little evidence to support it, it should be regarded as an unsubstantiated belief system. And isn’t this really what is being compared here: a theory with a widely accepted strong body of evidence versus an unsubstantiated belief system?
June 2nd, 2007 03:24
Daniel,
Actually, I would very much like to learn more about the ID side of things. Why is ID better? How is evolution unscientific? I’ve been doing a whole lot of writing about what scientists mean by evolution, about what data we have, and why our theories are solid. I’d like to turn the tables and ask for you to expand on your side of things. Teach me!
I’ll give you my thoughts on your points, and then await eagerly for info on ID.
You stated “There are exactly zero examples of inter-species species in the fossil record…” I’m not clear as to your meaning. There are lots of examples of transitional or intermediate forms. Archaeopteryx is perhaps the most famous example of a transitional form. It is transitional between dinosaurs and birds. It has features such as a bony tail and teeth, found in dinosaurs but not birds, and it has feathers and primitive wings common to birds. The Platypus is perhaps the best known intermediate form. It is venomous and egg-laying, common to reptiles, but is also warm-blooded and nurses its young, common to mammals.
If this isn’t what you mean, please correct me.
You also stated “Our genetic material and apes is 99% alike, so we *think* that we came from them. On the other hand, our genetic material and fish are 97% alike, so we just don’t know.”
Actually we DON’T think we came from apes. We think the great apes (including humans) have a common ancestor. Chimpanzees share DNA most in common with humans, and are our closest relatives. But we did not evolve from chimps. We are cousins separated by about 3 -5 million years. That we have less DNA in common with modern fish actually confirms evolution, since we would expect our common ancestor with fish to be much further back in time. We even share about 60% DNA in common with bananas, and they are plants! DNA studies have been a powerful validation of evolutionary theory. It doesn’t place evolution in doubt at all.
Regarding the evolution picture, it is an icon of evolution. It is what people think of when they hear evolution. In the same way, atoms are commonly represented as a ping-pong ball nucleus with electrons looping around it in little trails. They are both about equally accurate representations, which is to say they are not accurate at all.
Don’t get me started on what is taught in schools. Suffice it to say, we could do a lot better.
You also said “I just want the schools to teach the facts that we have as facts and present the theories as theories.”
Just to let you know, sentences like this make scientists want to rip their hair out. (I have a clump in my hand right now!) Let me tell you why, and please, please, PLEASE help spread the word on this.
In science, we have a general hierarchy toward creating a theory, which goes something like this:
Ideas: wild speculation that might agree with evidence.
Hypothesis: a testable idea.
Model: a collection of hypotheses formed into a logical framework. Usually partially confirmed by evidence.
Theory: A well-validated model. Scientific fact.
The problem with your statement is that for the general population a “theory” is just an idea. For scientists, though, a theory is scientific fact. In science there are competing models, but not competing theories. Sometimes models are referred to as theories (e.g. string theory), but I’ll ignore that for clarity.
That being said, I would like to hear more on what you think constitutes fact, and what constitutes theory.
I’m serious about the forum idea. We need to increase knowledge, not decrease it.
June 4th, 2007 18:41
Brian,
Let me address our specific issues here and then we can jump to your other post to discuss evolution. Then, here, we can discuss ID. Fair enough?
And I know this is going to be a little long, so I’ll separate out the sections for ease of reading.
—–
To generalize a little, evolution is unscientific because the proof today uses itself as a presupposition.
Let me use some of our examples as…well…examples.
Evolutionary theory from the beginning (good ‘ol Darwin himself) has postulated that, if true, we would see a number of links between different species (then meaning different animal types - cow, ant, human - and not different types of the same animal - peppered moth carbonaria vs. typica) either currently living or in the fossil record.
Many scientists think of the Archaeopteryx and Platypus when this type of link is mentioned. However, these are “just” animals with characteristics different than what we’d expect to find (because they mix features of our divisions of life) as opposed to a clear link between two different animals.
However, given the thousands of species in existence today (and we keep discovering more), Darwin’s original thoughts about evolution are still true: there should be overwhelming evidence (either living or dead) that shows these “intermediary species”.
In fact, there would have been many intermediary species between two different animal types (say, for instance, a fish and a lizard - that’s what fish turned into, right?) So, between that fish and that lizard, there would have been a lot of species over a long period of time that led from one beneficial genetic mutation to another.
Now, multiply those all those intermediary types by the number of species that evolved from other species and, even if the weaker of these species died out, we should have overwhelming evidence of all / many / some of those intermediary species.
This overwhelming evidence doesn’t exist. In fact, very little evidence exists. Normally (in other fields / investigations), that would encourage a scientist to come up with another model or, as you say, modify the evolutionary model to accommodate the data.
Instead, many defend the evolutionary model and explain away the lack of evidence.
It’s as though, after it was unable to be replicated, scientists demanded that room-temperature Cold Fusion is possible despite the evidence. You’d laugh them out of the room on that.
Because of the attachment to the model, scientists presuppose evolution and then do testing / investigations. That presupposition is unscientific.
—–
The evolution picture. Again, my point about the evolution picture is that it appears to present one thing, but it really presents another.
What it appears to show is the steady evolution of man from the “common ancestor” to our current state illustrated in (if I remember correctly) 7 steps.
The problem is that we only have fossil evidence of 3 steps. The other 4 pictures are actually what many scientists believed the steps to be based on falsified fossils (as I mentioned, Piltdown man was one of those).
So, we have learned that there is no real fossil evidence of those 4 pictures because of fraud, but we really liked the picture so we kept it.
If you asked most adults what that picture represents, they would most likely say that these are the stages of man that hard-working scientists discovered fossils for and then drew the picture.
To continue to use this picture to teach evolution in this manner is irresponsible.
—–
The hair thing. Sorry about that. If scientists would get with the program, we could replace that hair. For now, you’ll have to stick with Rogaine.
I’ll try to be more careful with my terminology to keep from exacerbating the problem.
Is this why the archetypal scientist is bald?
—–
Okay, on to ID.
First, I realize that I’ll never convince you on this, so that isn’t my goal. Just an explanation why there are a number of people (including - GASP! - some scientists) who like it better as a theory.
The (shortened) reasons, as I understand it, are as follows:
1) Order - Random chance does not explain the amazing order of all corners of the universe from the atomic level on up to the motion of planets.
Order, they say, is always the result of an intelligence acting on nature.
2) Increasing Complexity of DNA (life) - Though mutations foster adaptation, they say, the DNA involved doesn’t become more complex.
More specifically, it is against all rules of nature for the DNA to become more complex. So, as a result, a specifically extra-natural source must act on the DNA to make it more complex and “evolve” it upwards.
More importantly, ID folks looked at the raw data that continues to pour in and saw that it didn’t fit into the (otherwise reliable) natural laws that scientists have developed over centuries to explain the universe.
As a result, they created a model (see? a model - not a theory!) that explained the data that they collected, not attempted to defend their worldview.
That is what makes it better. They did not start with their model as a presupposition.
Dan
June 5th, 2007 01:07
Dan,
Fair enough. I’ll ask questions about ID here, and address comments on evolution on the other post.
So, one argument for ID is that order must be the result of an intelligence acting on nature?
Is there anything specific that ID says about this intelligence? What physical evidence is there to support it?
Is the existence of this intelligence purely a philosophical assertion, or is there physical evidence to invalidate other views of how order might arise (e.g. shunyata–mutually dependent arising– found in Buddhism, the unmoved mover of Greek philosophy, etc.)? If the latter, what is this evidence?
You state that life is driven toward complexity. If I understand you correctly, the implication is that evolution has a goal (toward humans?). Evolution asserts no such thing. Is this “goal” of life an assertion of ID?
You state that DNA does not become more complex. Could you be more specific on this? What do you mean by complexity? The only meaning that makes sense to me stems from bioinformatics, which would be genome size. This does increase (and decrease), but this doesn’t correlate to organism complexity (for example, the largest known genome is that of the amoeba)
More information on what you mean by complexity would be most helpful. Also, if you could outline which rules of nature prohibit an increase in this complexity, I would be most interested.
You state that ID researchers derived a model from gathered data, which would make it a retrodiction model. Does the model make any predictions? Specifically, does it predict any effect (not lack of effect) which evolution does not?
Can ID be invalidated? If so, what type of hypothetical evidence would lead ID advocates to reject their model?
You state that evolution suffers from a presupposition bias, whereas intelligent design does not. Given that evolution advocates hold views on supernatural causation ranging from atheistic materialism to traditional Judeo-Christian theism, what do you presume this bias is?
Are there any advocates of ID who are not Christians?
If not, would that not indicate that ID suffers from presupposition bias at least as great as evolution advocates?
Brian
June 5th, 2007 20:49
Let me answer your questions that I can off hand and then I’ve got to look up the answers to some others. I remember a lot, but I’m not quite an encyclopedia yet.
1) ID as a model does not specifically mention anything about the intelligence other than it must be, of obvious need, “extra-natural”. Any conclusion beyond that would be based on supposition and not evidence.
Yes, I’m sure many of the proponents of ID have a specific intelligence in mind, but the model itself doesn’t prescribe a specific intelligence.
2) I didn’t mean to suggest that life was driving in any specific direction and, to my knowledge, neither does ID. There is no specific “goal” of evolution with ID as far as I know.
For complexity, I was referring to the increasing complexity of animal that is explained in evolution from the amoeba upward to the much more complex forms of life, such as human, chimpanzee, etc.
3) As to prediction, ID has no stance that I’m aware of. The closest thing to a prediction is that specific forms of life will continue to adapt, but that evolving from one major species to the next appears to be over.
The prediction differenced between ID and evolution is that evolution (as I understand it) is a constant process, so even now genetic mutations are making humans into the next evolutionary step whereas in ID, we’re going to stay the same ‘ol humans (though we’ll adapt to our environment) unless the non-specific intelligence changes us.
4) Can ID be invalidated? Yes. Off the top of my head:
If it could be shown that the universe is not, in fact, an unusually orderly place, that would be one way. If every carbon atom didn’t act like every other carbon atom. If the universe were a much more random place and not quite so reliable.
If evidence could be found for the tens- or hundreds-of-thousands of intermediary species that we were supposed to find, that would at least put a serious dent in the model, if not do it in entirely. It’s more of a proof of evolution and, by extension, a negative proof of ID.
I suppose disproving any “extra-natural” intelligence would do the trick, but given the non-specific nature of the intelligence, that would be tough.
Those are the ones that come to mind. I’m sure there are others.
5) The presupposition isn’t that there is no God. The presupposition is that everything formed by evolution. Evidence that doesn’t match the presupposition is ignored or shoehorned.
6) Yes, there are advocates of ID who are not Christians. The ones that I’m familiar with are Jews. If you’re throwing them in the same camp, the answer is I don’t know. Are there adherents of evolution who are Wiccan? How is one to know?
7) Taking your presupposition of “all IDers are Christians” for the moment, to answer your question with your own information, no that does not mean they have a presupposition bias at least as big as evolutionists.
Since they are drawing their conclusions based on the data and not conforming their data to their presuppositions about the existence of God, they are not attempting to prove anything in particular.
As you have mentioned, using ID as a proof of God is actually not to their benefit. ID actually creates potential problems for Christians if you’re assuming a perfect God and the “trial-and-error”ness of ID or evolution.
You also seem to think that I’m pushing ID (which I’m not) or equating believing in evolution with unbelief in God (which I don’t). It seems also that you’re assuming that I’m defending ID in order to prove the existence of God (which I’m also not).
My personal belief is that my God could have created the earth in any of these ways - evolution, ID, spontaneous generation, or out of bubblegum wrappers.
It doesn’t matter to me what you or anyone else believes regarding how we got here. I can get along with anyone.
Until we start indoctrinating children in schools with “we think it’s like this” or “we don’t know” dressed up as fact. And then professors and scientists who are foolish enough to question evolution and/or suggest that God had a hand in it (in any way) are removed, demoted, and fired.
That is my only problem. Creating a “groupthink” situation where to consider any alternative is a punishable act.
Personally, I think you and I would be able to come to an agreement on what to teach in schools. And that we shouldn’t get rid of scientists because of their beliefs.
Unfortunately, those who are running the schools at all levels disagree.
Dan
June 6th, 2007 03:40
Dan,
Let me start by getting a few things out of the way. Just to be clear, I am not trying to force you into defending ID, nor am I assuming your non-acceptance of evolution is religiously driven, or that you are attempting to prove God’s existence. To my mind, my goal is two-fold: First, to provide you with information regarding evolution, and why most scientists feel it is valid. Second, to learn more about intelligent design and how it differs from evolutionary theory.
I don’t require that you accept evolution, nor am I looking for you to prove ID. But I do hope we can learn from each other.
On to the points:
1) So, ID proposes a supernatural intelligence, but does not place any conditions on the nature of this intelligence. This really confuses me, because “intelligence” is a psychological term which is determined by abilities reasoning, abstract thought, ability to learn, etc. Intelligence is driven by behavior. If there are no necessary characteristics to this “intelligence”, what makes it intelligent?
2) So by complexity you mean physiological complexity? As in single cell vs. multi-cell vs. specialized organs, etc? What physical rules forbid an increase in physiological complexity?
3) If I understand your point, evolution and ID both accept adaptive variation, but while evolution asserts this variation is not limited to a specific range, ID asserts variation is limited to within “major species”. What do you mean by “major species”? In biology there are simply species which are grouped into genus, genus are grouped into families, families into orders, etc.
Where does “major species” fit into the biological taxonomy, and what mechanism does ID propose to limit variation within these major species?
4) None of the examples you list are falsification tests. Let me explain.
a) If the universe were not as ordered as it is: This is not an invalidation test because it argues for a valid observation to become invalid. For example: I propose that the sun moves around the earth because the sun appears to move around the earth. This would be falsified if the sun did not appear to move around the earth. It is a tautological argument, not a test of the hypothesis.
b) More “intermediary species”. I’ll talk about this more on the evolution side of things, but we don’t seem to have any agreement on what these “intermediary species” are. If they aren’t transitional fossils or intermediate forms (as you argue they are not), then evolutionary theory neither predicts nor requires them. Evolutionary theory predicts transitional fossils and intermediate forms.
c) Disproving supernaturalism. The supernatural intelligence is unspecified, so there is no way to falsify it.
If you have other examples, I would be eager to learn what they are. Specifically I would be most interested in a predictive test which could be performed in the lab. (Evolution has made such predictions, and they have been confirmed, but I’ll discuss that on the other post).
For now, however, I would have to conclude that ID cannot be falsified. If you can be more specific on 3), perhaps that will change.
5) So scientists who accept evolution are incapable of objectivity, even to the point of burying and manipulating data to maintain their shoddy theory? Do you realize how incredibly offensive your assertion is?
Because of 5) I don’t have any comments for 6 and 7. Clearly the objectivity of ID advocates greatly surpasses my own.
So here is my understanding of intelligent design at this point:
1) Because we see order in the universe, there must exist a supernatural but unspecified intelligence.
2) Adaptive variation occurs exactly as predicted by evolution, but is limited to within “major species”. The mechanism for this limitation is unspecified.
3) Members of one “major species” can be transformed into another “major species” by the unspecified intelligence via unspecified supernatural means.
4) No testable predictions are made, and the model cannot be falsified.
Surely this isn’t all there is. Everything is so vague and…unspecified.
I would like to address your comments on “groupthink” and “indoctrinating children”, but I think we first need to talk about your point 5. What gives you such a low opinion of me, and of scientists in general?
June 7th, 2007 22:06
Okay, let me take it all in order:
1) What I read into your question was more an identity than characteristics. Obviously, the intelligence would have to be both knowledgable about and abile to manipulate genetics. Those actions would demonstrate the intelligence.
2) After research, it turns out I was right. Entropy is the law that increasing complexity violates. All natural systems on the earth are moving towards increasing entropy. Evolution requires that life is moving the other direction on the entropy scale.
From your earlier comment that life is an open system, that is true, but undirected energy that is present in our open system only increases the rate of entropy.
3) The reason I speak about major species is that the way we assign species has changed. I refer to the “old” definition of a species.
The “new” definition takes factors other than the biological into account. For instance, an animal living in one habitat is labeled as a separate species from the identical animal that has a different habitat.
Thus, while the animal is the same, a new species is created for the “Northwestern Two-Square-Foot-Area Slimy Snail” in order to qualify it for the Endangered Species Act.
I am, in fact, looking for an overwhelming amount of fossil or living evidence of a clear path between two “old” species. So, given the fast geological time (but slow in our time) there should be overwhelming evidence of the genetic mutations between one family and the next.
4) There probably aren’t (yet) any predictive tests that people have come up with. Of course, that was the case for over a hundred years with evolution, so I’m assuming you’re going to cut ID a little slack here.
5) Actually, I think that most scientists are very smart about this. I suppose it’s no different than it’s ever been, but the “powers that be” in the scientific community are just the same as the Catholic Church for Gallileo and the Royal Academy for the Sciences for Columbus.
That is, there is a doctrine and anyone who goes against it will be punished (ridiculed, removed from position, etc.) Hence, since “evolutionary theory” is the specific field of very few scientists’, they don’t risk their careers suggesting anything uncomplimentary to evolution when the upside is very small.
Conversely, there has been a train of scientists who have falsified their data in favor of evolution (various fossils of stages of man, peppered moth, etc.) And the scientific community believed and promoted every one of these frauds.
Instead of increasing rigor and proof, the scientific has issues a collective “oops” and continued about their business.
So, I don’t have a negative opinion of the majority of scientists (including yourself) as they aren’t the ones attempting to shut up anyone proposing alternative theories by any means possible.
However, there is something to be said about those who are standing by idly while your colleagues are drummed out of their profession. You may not agree with them, but do they deserve to be made a pariah?
As to everything so vague and unspecified, it is often that way with science, is it not?
Dan
June 8th, 2007 06:15
Okay, going through your list.
1) Your definition is presupposing intelligence. When you say this intelligence “would have to be both knowledgable about and abile to manipulate genetics” you have already assumed an intelligence. Complex effects do not automatically require intelligence. For example, women can create very complex biological systems we call babies without having any knowledge of genetics. If you want to call this supernatural thing an intelligence, you need to be very precise about what this supernatural thing does, and how it does it.
Let’s be really precise here. What are the absolute minimum conditions on the claim for ID?
a) A supernatural thing (or things) must exist. This is required from the basic assumption that naturalism fails. Or more precisely, that natural effects (abiogenesis, speciation) can have supernatural causes.
b) There must be a process by which supernatural “things” can affect the natural world. Otherwise it wouldn’t be possible to have a supernatural cause.
Hypothesis: A supernatural thing (or things) couples to the natural world to produce two effects: 1) the limiting of evolution to variation to within “major species”, and 2) the spontaneous generation of all “major species”.
Notice I have not presupposed intelligence here, yet still allow for the ID claim.
This leads to several major questions regarding this “intelligence”.
What is the mechanism by which new major species appear? This is a crucial one, since it affects areas of science outside evolution. Do they pop into existence fully formed? Are atoms from mud spontaneously rearranged into a new creature?
What prevents adaptive variation from producing new “major species” over time? It isn’t thermodynamics (see part 2), so what is it?
What are the characteristics of the connection between natural and supernatural quantities? How do they interact?
How are supernatural quantities described and quantified? ID proponents absolutely need this one before they can call it an intelligence.
Have ID researchers made ANY progress on questions such as these? I’m really serious. If you don’t know of any answers to these questions, I would love it if you could track down someone who does. If these questions can’t be answered, then calling the supernatural thing “intelligence” is either a misleading label, or presupposing a conclusion without evidence to support it.
Poking holes in evolution isn’t enough. ID advocates need to pin down the basic metaphysics of their idea before they will ever be taken seriously by most scientists.
2) No, you are still wrong. Entropy does not forbid evolution. To say “…undirected energy that is present in our open system only increases the rate of entropy.” is a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics. If that were the case, then living things would not grow, develop or reproduce. All of this is driven by the “undirected energy” of sunlight. Life is an engine that creates order from disorder.
Evolution only requires three things:
a) life grows and reproduces (which it does)
b) genes undergo random mutations (which they do)
c) natural selection, which yields adaptation (which even ID proponents agree occurs)
None of these violate any law of physics, including thermodynamics. I’m not sure where you got your research, but your sources are seriously mistaken. Thermodynamics does not forbid increasing complexity (or more properly a local decrease in entropy). What it says is the overall entropy cannot decrease, therefore any local decrease in entropy must be balanced by an equal or greater increase in entropy elsewhere.
If you really want me to walk you through the details of thermodynamics, I will. But I’d rather stay on topic.
3) Species used to be classified purely by their physical characteristics. Now they are classified by their genome as well, hence the finer delineation. Genetics is actually a better guide. Even with the old definition, however, the appearance of the “nylon bug” counts as a separate species. Its ancestor consumed carbohydrates as a food source, but dies if only provided nylon to eat. The nylon bug eats nylon products, but dies if given only carbohydrates as a food source. You don’t need any genetics to tell them apart. They are distinct species by their physical characteristics alone, because the food of one is toxic to the other. This is speciation even by the “old species” rules. Plus it has been replicated in the lab.
If we just use physical taxonomy, then the nylon bug disproves the fundamental tenet of ID, namely that new species can’t arise from old ones. These are physically VERY different species, and they arise through a SINGLE mutation and natural selection.
However if you reject this evidence as not being a new “major species”, then you cannot claim your definition to be the “old” method of determining species by physical characteristics. You would need to clearly define what constitutes a “major species”. Specifically, a clear method of taxonomy. This is of vital importance, because this “major species” definition is the central distinguishing point between evolution and ID. In evolution, the only mechanism is adaptive variation. The formal taxonomy are just labels. They are not physical limits to adaptation within a species. But ID proposes that there ARE limits to adaptation. So it is incumbent on ID proponents to clearly define what they mean by “major species”, and to clearly demonstrate the mechanism for why adaptation is limited to within species.
Vagueness doesn’t cut it. Precision is what is needed.
There actually is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution. Milliions of bits of information, ranging from fossils to genetic maps to experiments in the lab. Fossil evidence shows a progression of development which corresponds to taxonomy. The genetic evidence is so strong that we now know that within the ape family orangotans come from the oldest branch, gorillas from the next, and chimpanzees and humans were the last to go their separate ways. We have extracted DNA from hominid fossils, and we now know, for example, that we and Homo neanderthalensis share a common ancestor, Homo heidelbergensis. We have seen speciation occur in the lab countless times.
This is not a shaky theory on the edge of collapse. It is solid. It is fact, like the existence of atoms.
What you seem to be asking for is a fossil from every generation. Every minutia perfectly preserved. A continuous unbroken line of change laid out in the fossil record. It doesn’t work that way. Fossilization is not a common thing. Bury your pet goldfish in the back yard and you don’t get a fossil, you get compost. Of all the creatures which have ever lived on our small planet, the vast majority of them have left no trace. We are lucky to have as many fossils as we do.
4) Actually, I’m not going to cut ID any slack at all. Darwin’s theory made predictions on what we would see from day one. It predicted we should see adaptation within species. It predicted transitional fossils and intermediate forms. It required that a mechanism for mutation be found. When DNA was discovered, it predicted that genetic drift would correlate with taxonomic variation. All of this has been confirmed over and over in the field and in the lab. ID proponents saw a “gap” in the evidence, and so proposed a supernatural intelligence to explain it. They do not specify the nature of this intelligence, nor how it can be quantified or observed, nor how it interacts with the natural world, nor how it creates new species, nor any prediction by which their model can be confirmed or falsified.
5) Ah, it is a conspiracy.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if I understand ID correctly, ID is in complete agreement with evolution regarding adaptive variation (within major species). This means that the two differ only on speciation (and abiogenesis if you throw that in as well).
This means our two competing ideas are as follows:
Evolution: Adaptive variation occurs through genetic variation and natural selection. The variety of life we see today is the result of such adaptive variations applied over billions of years.
ID: Adaptive variation occurs through genetic variation and natural selection. This variation is limited to within “major species” by a supernatural process. This supernatural process also creates new “major species” over the course of geological history.
Now, evolution advocates have a wealth of evidence via genetics, the fossil record, etc. to support their claim. ID proponents, if I understand correctly, claim this evidence is insufficient. As far as I can tell, the “gaps” are the only evidence they have to support their claim.
So let me step back and see if I can summarize intelligent design in a neutral way:
The assumption of cause and effect usually works. It works to great precision for physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, etc. It even works to accurately describe adaptive variation within species via natural selection. We can even trace back the fossil record and see what appears to be an evolutionary progression. But fossils don’t exist for every minor change. There are gaps in the fossil record. Most scientists, seeing that cause and effect works so well in every other field of science, presuppose that naturalism works for speciation as well. But a few scientists looked at the gaps objectively, and came to the conclusion that the gaps mean new major species cannot possibly occur by natural means. Instead, they conclude that all major species of life are created by a supernatural intelligence. They don’t know anything about this intelligence, or how it interacts with the natural world to create new species. But they know clearly that it is an intelligent entity capable of creating life by supernatural means. The only reason this intelligent design is not the dominant theory of science is because there is a cabal of scientific elite which suppresses any dissent from being heard. Evolution must be protected at all costs.
Seriously, it sounds like tinfoil hat time.
Largely because there don’t seem to be any answers to the questions at the top of this comment. As far as I can tell, there is nothing remotely specific or quantified in ID. If I were to teach a class on intelligent design, what would I teach? I keep hearing a lot of arguments that evolution must be wrong. But that isn’t teaching intelligent design. I don’t teach physics by poking holes in Aristotle’s earth-centered cosmology.
Is there ANYTHING specific or quantifiable about intelligent design? Anything at all?
Actually, no. It is the exact opposite of vague and unspecified. It is rigorously precise. This is why I have been asking for precise definitions regarding ID. Vague terms like “major species” or an undefined “intelligence” don’t cut it in the world of science. Science demands that evidence be confirmable, that theories be supported by evidence.