Evolution is true like Newtonian physics is true; it's true to a certain degree. Intelligent design, while being so vague as to not necessarily mean very much, is still true to a certain degree. The arguments on both sides are not real, because both evolution and intelligence are inherent in the design.
You can't have evolution without some intelligence, and you can't have intelligence without implied evolution. Remember the most basic article of faith: this is not all that we are.
Just because religion has been used to control and manipulate a large cross-section of humanity for eons does not mean it's not at all valid, and similarly, just because Science has been hijacked in favor of continuous "research" does not mean that Science can't answer our questions. But quantum physics should at least give you a clue that Science and Spirituality are eventually the same thing. And that this physical sensational dimension is not all there is.
Unintelligent Design
Lost amid all the recent discussions of intelligent design -- including Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's decision this past Friday to sign a bill that allows teachers in his state to "supplement" classes on evolution with talk of creationism -- is one simple basic fact. The human species isn't intelligently designed.
When you get right down to it, from an engineering perspective, the design of the human mind (and for the matter the human body) is a bit of mess.
Take, for instance, human memory, and the trouble we often have in remembering even the most basic facts -- where did we put our keys? Where did we park our car? Because our brains so often blur our memories together. Human eyewitness testimony is often no match for even a low-rent survelllance camera, and memory can fail even in life-or-death circumstances. (6% of all skydiving fatalities, for instance, are from divers that forgot to pull their ripcords),
Our troubles with memory in turn lead to an unending litany of problems that the psychologist Timothy Wilson collectively refers to as "mental contamination", in which irrelevant information frequently, ranging from the physical attractiveness of political candidates to random numbers on a roulette wheel, subconsciously cloud human judgments. If an ugly child throws an ice-filled snowballs, for instance, we judge that child to be delinquent, but when an especially attractive child does the same thing, we excuse him, saying he's just "having a bad day." A study published earlier this month showed that people's moral judgments are more severe when made in a disgusting, soiled pizza-box filled office than when in an office that is neat as a pin; another, which appeared just last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that voters are more likely to favor school policies if the balloting takes place in a school than if it takes place in an apartment building. We may aspire, as Aristotle thought, to be "the rational animal", but in reality the flotsam and jetsam of barely conscious memory frequently intercedes.
At this point, 30 years after the Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman and his late collaborator Amos Tversky started documenting a rash of fallacies in human reasoning, the idea that the human mind would be "perfect in His image" is as outdated (and narcissistic) as the idea that the solar system would revolve around the planet earth.
Imperfections riddle the body as well; the human spine supports 70% of our body weight with a single column, where four might have distributed the load better (greatly reducing the incidence of debilitating back pain), and the human retina is effectively installed backwards, with its array of outgoing neural fibers coming out of the front rather than the back, saddling us with an entirely needless blindspot.
The only theory that can really make sense of these needless imperfections is Darwin's theory of natural selection, which holds that humans (and all other life forms) evolve through a blind process known as descent-with-modification, in which new life forms represent random modifications of earlier life forms -- with no central overseer to guide the process. Such a random process can, over time, lead populations of creatures to become more adapted to their environment, but it is also vulnerable to getting stuck, in the sort of good-enough-but-not-perfect solutions that mathematicians call local maxima.
A local maximum is like a moderately high peak in a rugged mountain range that is filled with other peaks, some of which are considerably higher; a peak at the top of the treeline, when there are plenty of snow-capped peaks that loom considerably higher. The process of natural selection is vulnerable to such limits for two reasons: it is blind, and it generally takes only small steps; as such, it can easily get stuck on low-lying peaks that are impressive but well short of the highest possible mountaintop, designs that are "good enough for government work" but far from perfect.
Darwin gives a natural explanation that indicates poorly-designed features should be common in biology. The theory of intelligent design, in contrast, has a serious problem explaining such phenomena: an intelligent designer that could perceive the whole landscape could just pick us up and move us to higher ground. That this has never happened is clear testament both to the wisdom of the theory of natural selection and the implausibility of intelligent design.
The problem with the Lousiana law is not just that it seeks to mix church and state, a situation that the Constitution's framers rightly sought to avoid, but that it is predicated on the assumption that creationists have a reasonable theory with which to counter evolution with - where in truth they simply don't.
-- Gary Marcus, Professor of Psychology at New York University, is the author of Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have been following the creationism shouting match for several years now and I have to admit that I am disappointed. There is not a single argument here that would be new. Not a single idea about creationism has been advanced. Nobody has even tried to inform themselves about the facts of science, but the same fiction is being presented over and over and over again.
Would it be more harmful to expose our kids to this than to violence on tv and in video games? Hardly. The smart kids can figure out by themselves what the difference between science and religion is. I know I have when I was eight. And the others will need religion while they are stacking stuff at Walmart to deal with the hopelessness of their existence.
"There is not a single argument here that would be new."
If you want a new argument, why not try asking for one? Ask and you shall receive.
"Nobody has even tried to inform themselves about the facts of science" .. and you know this how?
The basic premise of the article here is that we shouldn't postulate an intelligent designer because the basic design of lifeforms, ourselves included, is demonstrably unintelligent. As "proof" we are given supposedly better alternatives, eg. four spinal columns instead of just one. But these alternatives are for the most part so ludicrous that they demonstrate only a lack of intelligence on the part of their (human) designer. As such, they serve only to demonstrate the superiority of natural designs over designs which are unquestionably the work of a human (and supposedly intelligent) designer.
The only alternative designs which have some merit are those which take their inspiration from nature, e.g. the claim that the human retina is back to front, based on comparison with the retina of a squid; but while the retina of a squid is undoubtedly the right way round (for a squid), the same design would not work for most vertebrates, which need eyes which can rotate rapidly in their sockets.
If I raise points like this repeatedly, it's because no so-called scientist has addressed them, nor will they, ever. Addressing them would require thinking outside the box.
Nice. I'm sure all the walmart employees will appreciate your disparaging comments and elitism.
"I know I have when I was eight?" I'm proud of you for figuring out the difference between religion and science when you were 8. its probably because you skipped grammar class.
A-hole.
You seem to have noticed that I am not a native speaker. Good for you. I sure hope for you that your German is better than my English. If not, the expletive might just have misfired and exposed you as a rather small soul.
My elitism is the result of a solid education resulting in a PhD. If I had kids, I would make sure they get one, too. Not because it's absolutely necessary but because it's fun. You see, the people who decide not to spend their lives stacking boxes can have fun with knowledge. That was my point. And you have brought it home in a very graphic way. Thank you.
Intelligent Design is like Compassionate Conservatism. IT DOES NOT EXIST it is marketing, Just like the little yellow ball at Wal Mart it isn't real, its marketing.
WHAT!!! The little yellow ball at wallyworld isn't REAL????? I suppose now you're going to tell me that Santa Claus isn't real, too!!!
Out of the people on here who deny evolution, I wonder if even one of them has actually read Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man."
When I talk to people who deny evolution, 9 times out of 10 they can't even properly DEFINE it. How can you deny Darwin if you don't even really know what it is he's talking about?
they also don't know what a scientific theory is...
they don't even know what ID actually is...
and their clueless about the vast amount of evidence for evolution that has emerged since Darwin.
maybe they had half a clue in 1954 when they got their high school education... but things change, especially in science...
When you have god on your side you can deny anything and everything. Ask any pro lifer how they can support war?
The ratio of disorder to order everywhere suggests the Designer is either drunk or was long ago consigned to the cuckoo farm. Look at the periodic table. That's order? Look into the night sky. That's order? Look at a tree. Any engineer who designed the average tree would get fired on the first day on the job.
The periodic table is a very good example of order. Not one made by a designer but one enforced by non-relativistic quantum mechanics.
The night sky is an enormously ordered system. It reveals the working of physics on fifty or sixty orders of magnitude. Again not a phenomenon I would call disordered.
And trees are absolutely amazing feats of biomechanics and genetics. A tree genome is larger than the human genome. Poplar trees seem to have 45,000 genes in comparison to 30,000 in humans.
There is plenty of order in the universe, even though no designer is needed.
And yet if you look at all the systems created, you will find that, although there is some order, there is also a seriously questionable set up. The stars in the sky, just thrown up there in a band across the sky. The periodic table, as set up, makes no sense to most people who look at it for the first time. And a tree, while amazingly complex (just like all other life!) is a mishmash that just shouldn't work!
Not sure if it has been mentioned already, but here it goes:
Okay schoolchildren in LA here's the answer key to all tests/exames/questions from the teacher:
Because God says so.
God did it.
Because of God.
Use appropriately.
Gary Marcus said:
"The only theory that can really make sense of these needless imperfections is Darwin's theory of natural selection, which holds that humans (and all other life forms) evolve through a blind process known as descent-with-modification, in which new life forms represent random modifications of earlier life forms -- with no central overseer to guide the process. Such a random process can, over time, lead populations of creatures to become more adapted to their environment, but is also vulnerable to getting stuck, in the sort of good-enough-but-not-perfect solutions that mathematicians call local maxima."
This statement is bogus, as Darwin's theory is perfectly capable of describing a guided process of descent-with-modification, in which new life forms represent modifications of earlier life forms that is being loosely guided by some central physical need. Such a non-random "process can, over time, lead populations of creatures to become more adapted to their environment, but is also vulnerable to getting stuck, in the sort of good-enough-but-not-perfect solutions that mathematicians call local maxima."
The author's assertion reflects the consensus of "neodarwinian" opinion that scientists like, Lynn Marguils call "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology", who... "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin - having mistaken him... Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection), is a complete funk."
-Lynn Margulis
The bottom line is this, that there is too many people that are ignorant, and instead of spending their valuable time and energy acquiring knowledge, they put it into the *ART* of sophistry to support their antiquated philosophical sophism's.
They believe by using syllogism, obfuscations and conflating apples with oranges they can bring cogent argument to the table, when the reality is that these are sieve arguments, *they cannot hold water. *Period* !
Good luck with that.
actually your statement is bogus... Lynn Marguils' statement is refering to a competition-centric viewpoint, as opposed to a (her) symbiotic/parasitic view... I don't actually see a competition-centric fiew expressed in the authors article, and in particular the quote you are using.
and actually, nothing is "being loosely guided by some central physical need"... it's about reproduction... if I reproduce, my genes get passed on, including any "modification"... if my genes had a modification that made it less likely for me to reproduce... not passed on...
Nice catch. It's amazing how often the work of reputable scientists is misrepresented to back up a bogus argument.
Just as an aside, I can't help but chuckle at the way purveyors of ID and Creationism are thoroughly aware of what an incredibly effective tool the scientific method is for learning about the universe. They certainly spend enough time and effort trying to co-opt it to back up their own insupportable position.
No, my statement is not bogus. Margulis "symbiotic/parasitic view" is only the basis for her and Lovelock's Gaia theory which recognizes "higher purpose" in nature, in the form of self-regulated systems. They aren't aware of it, (not that it's necessary to the point), but this also extends to define the "homeostatic" conditions that are common to the Goldilocks Engima, as well, so her observation has far-reaching scientific implications that get squelched at the mere mention of words like, "higher purpose in nature".
You also don't seem to know the difference between possible science, accepted assumptions, and what "actually is" KNOWN.
"Actually, nothing is "being loosely guided by some central physical need".
No, you do not know this, and Darwin's theory does NOT prohibit it.
But try to prove ID!! Even though evolution does not state whether or not there is a designer, in order to prove that you would need to transcend our entire existence!
My point, as always, was that the zeal to beat-back religious fanatics is commonly just as detrimental to plausible scientific solutions that get rejected due to reaction-ism, simply because they might, on the surface, "look" a little too much like godidit.
Which often makes the debate more political than any would admit.
If you can teach religion in my science class, then I can teach science in your religion class. Roll on gene sequencing tutorials in Sunday School!
I'm a big fan of science but you have to wonder why many discoveries are not widely published, since the public would without doubt, consider these to be the most important and exciting discoveries ever to be known to man.
The University of Virginia has for years worked with and validated memories of individuals and children who've recalled past lives. You don't have to just believe this, you can look at the data yourself and decide for yourself. So why is this data not discussed or even suppressed in our schools I ask?
At the University of Arizona, they have for years studied and validated psychic phenomena, including psychic mediumship, remote viewing and survival of consciousness after death. Why is it that publicly-funded research which validates psychic abilities and survival of the spirit not made public? Why does the public have to go to alternative publications and journals to find this data when it should be taught widely on every corner of the planet and through the media? Seriously, what could be more important for humans to know than the scientific fact that we exist after body-death and that the earth we leave behind us is the earth we inherit?
If you want to change people, hearts and the course of this planet, then make these discoveries widely known.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA&feature=related
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/
http://veritas.arizona.edu/
And here I thought all the charlatans were at Duke. The disease seems to be spreading.
Dr. Chopra is that you using that RasingAwareness moniker? You had better cut-that-out. How many times have I told ya that you are using improper cause and effect science.
Didn't you read that link I sent you, about social science and the link to Professor Philp G, Zimbarbo's work so you clould learn how to conduct proper research. Pseudo Science is not where it's at. Jeeesh!
Dap,
I'm in touch with my inner soul. I've tapped into the cosmic consciousness; my mind is expanding man. I'm taking astral journeys through the universe. I'm one with the cosmosssss. Billions and Billions of stars... lol. Agape.
that's great and all, but it doesn't support christianity... when people are hooked on religion, they will believe anything, and ignore the most important things... therefore... easy to manipulate... you don't inform the people you want to enslave.
I think the people that are "hooked" on religion might argue that they believe in (not ignore) the most important things.
They just have different "important things" than you do.
So why would an intelligent designer create humans minds that question intelligent design?
So that you'll learn to have faith.... Bwahahahahaha!
his one tickled me so much I almost broke a gut, LMAO.
for those that don't question to have a frame of reference to know how much better they are... like the christians say, evil exists to allow for a higher level of good, for good to arise out of that evil...
Posted June 30, 2008 | 06:08 PM (EST)