It's certainly not news that absolutely crazy things are regularly uttered in defense of creationism. For example, Christine O'Donnell's claim that evolution is a myth, with her supposed evidence being her question, "Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?" has, thanks to Bill Maher, received widespread attention.
The fact is, though, that while such bizarre opinions by extremists like O'Donnell shed a great deal of light on their intellectual prowess, those statements have little to teach us about creationism itself. To really learn about creationism, we have to turn to the creationists themselves rather than their supporters.
When we do just that, two things are immediately apparent. First, many of the statements written by leading creationists are so absolutely clear that there's no danger in anyone misinterpreting their intent. Second, the positions staked out by these creationist luminaries are so incredibly extreme that readers can't help but understand the radical agenda that's being promoted while recognizing that such an agenda, if broadly adopted, would do great damage to both religion and science.
There's a rich and varied history of this sort of creationist inanity. For instance, the Reverend T.T. Martin, the founder of The Anti-Evolution League, wrote the following in his 1923 book Hell and the High School:
The German soldiers who killed Belgian and French children with poisoned candy were angels compared with the teachers and textbook writers who corrupted the souls of children with false teaching and thereby sentenced them to eternal death.
And in 1977 the Creation Science Research Center laid a host of problems directly at the feet of evolution when, in their publication, The Creation Report, they asserted that the teaching of evolution has led to "the moral decay of spiritual values which contributes to the destruction of mental health and ... the prevalence of divorce, abortion, and rampant venereal disease."
Similarly, in 1998, the Discovery Institute, one of the best funded creationist advocacy groups in the world, helped everyone understand their intent in a document they called "The Wedge." Promoting the virtues of intelligent design, they noted that "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
But I don't want to focus on those statements today. Rather, I want to highlight more recent creationist statements that, while being no less dangerous, are less political. In particular, I want to focus your attention on two assertions demonstrating how creationists view the role of scientific experimentation and data acquisition in shaping creationism.
My first example comes from the newly opened, United-Kingdom-based Centre for Intelligent Design. A paragraph from an article in The Guardian nicely explains the impetus for the Centre's creation:
The Centre for Intelligent Design features a video introduction from Dr Alastair Noble, who has argued that ID should not be excluded from the study of origins. He says, among other things, that he is part of a network of people who are "dissatisfied with the pervading Darwinian explanation of origins and are attracted to the much more credible position of intelligent design" and criticise the "strident strain of science" that says the only acceptable explanations are those depending on "physical and materialistic processes".
Like the Discovery Institute before them, the Centre for Intelligent Design rails against science's insistence that it focus on materialistic rather than supernatural processes. Both want a wholesale redefinition of science.
But let's go a step deeper than the Centre's introductory video and see what they have to say about future work and what they conclude about scientific investigation. In the portion of their web page entitled "Intelligent Design is Science," they make the following, most extraordinary claim:
In one sense, research work that supports ID is not the central issue. ID is essentially an interpretation of the data that already exists. There is not much point in gathering more information if you already have enough on which to base your hypothesis.
Since every scientist understands that science proceeds by disproof rather than proof, that any future study might provide compelling data that will demand a reinterpretation of existing scientific ideas, you won't find them saying, "There is not much point in gathering more information" about anything other than concepts that have been conclusively disproven.
Let me turn to my second example because philosophically, it takes the Centre's statements to its logical conclusion, even though temporally it was made before the Centre was incorporated. Last year Phi Kappa Phi Forum focused its spring issue on the question of origins. I was honored to have been invited to write an essay for the issue on the importance of evolution. The piece immediately following mine was written by two staff members from Answers in Genesis, the group that has brought us the $27 million creation-museum-cum-theme-park outside Cincinnati.
Georgia Purdom and Jason Lisle make an astounding admission in a sidebar to their article. The title to the sidebar was "Rationally Resolving the Debate," and I believe that their first two paragraphs absolutely do resolve any lingering debate about the nature of creationism while demonstrating its distance from science. I take issue with the title, however, because there is nothing rational about their position. Here's what they had to say, so decide for yourself:
Evolutionists and creationists have a different ultimate standard by which they evaluate and interpret physical evidence such as stars, fossils, and DNA.
The biblical creationist takes the Bible as the ultimate standard -- an approach which the Bible itself endorses (Proverbs 1:7, Hebrews 6:13). The evolutionist embraces a competing philosophy instead such as naturalism (the belief that natural causes and laws can explain all phenomena) or empiricism (the belief that experience, especially the senses, is the source of all knowledge).
The Bible is the ultimate standard for evaluating scientific claims? Such an assertion from what is probably the world's largest creationist organization doesn't even need a scientific rebuttal. All by itself, it has accomplished what no scientist could possibly do as convincingly: it has removed all forms of creationism from the scientific enterprise.
Creationists themselves regularly make statements of this sort that deserve wider attention. Please share your favorite creationist embarrassment in the comments section below. To be fair, please provide the full quotation along with a citation. Let's let creationists speak for themselves, and let's let their own words destroy their pseudoscientific position.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
This is your brain.
This is your brain on religion.
Any questions?
Since the comments moved from (surprise!) evolution to abiogenesis, I recommend to those who actually respect science and are interested in the topic to check out this review by Robert Hazen:
http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/paper.php?doi=10.1387/ijdb.092936rh
And to those who have been good science advocates in this thread, bravo! Arguing on the internet only goes so far, though - if you can, support the National Center for Science Education, the premier evolution education advocacy group in the United States.
http://ncse.com/
Ask yourself, if "evolution is far from being proven, and its gets farther all the time" (or any of numerous other comments that have been posted here), why does the overwhelming majority of worldwide professional scientists in these fields, in well over one million peer-reviewed publications, disagree? Do any of you have any data or argument that the scientific world is unaware of? Think again!
When Ptolemy I of Egypt (323-283BC) grew frustrated at the degree of effort required to learn geometry, he asked his tutor Euclid if there was an easier route. Euclid replied, "There is no royal road to geometry." The same lesson applies today.
I can completely understand if some are not willing to go the effort to learn the full scope of technical detail behind modern evolutionary theory. Fine. But don't you think that it is then highly inappropriate to make such sweeping dismissals of the field?
No loss there.
Bye!
Your world-view is tragically outdated. Get with the times.
No, we can refrain from positing miracles, but incremental design activities in biology are far from that. The evidence of design is far from illusionary. It's just that an agenda based position requires its exclusion. Predictions are fine, Darwin's in particular. But a strict adherence to a faulty one, just because it is considered etched in stone (or sediment layers), is untennable, and is not the way that science is done.
ID may be verified, falsified, or neither, but as viable consideration, it fits the evidence. And if a personal acceptance would lead to a religious alliance, the second would not invalidate the first. Just so the first is not BASED on the second.
The principle args against a theistic view throughout history (David Hume, Kant and Richard Dawkins come to mind) may seem valid on many fronts. But remember who scribbled down those scriptural accounts. Religion may be inspired by an overseer, but is seen via the 'man filter.'
To summarize, ID is a viable alternate hypothesis to chance and natural causation (even though selected upon from chance mutations). Take your pick.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
There may well be papers that could be presented for peer review, but are withheld due to career threats or fear of losing tenure, or simply due to the refusal of PNAS to accept them for peer review.
Perhaps so, by violating scientific methodologies in citing scripture as 'the ultimate standard to do science. But in that sidebar I think they were referring to Biblical scripture as their source of spiritual strengh and enlighenment. If so, that would not constitute a breach of science.
Religious scientists, lets say Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins would never attribute a natural phenomenon to angels or demons, but would assess it on its materialistic merits. Nor would they consult scripture for the answer to a puzzling experimental outcome. Having read and listened to lectures from both, I would classify them as TEs, or theistic evolutionists. As such, they hold both materialistic and theistic views.
So what then are IDsts? It's widely held that they inhabit a 'big tent' of varying beliefs. True, but the same is true in the scientist's camp. But personal beliefs need not denigrate or act as a detriment to the way science is practiced. If there is anything that is truly harmful, it would be the imposition of restraints to what is investigatively persued. Is astrology a threat? No, since it is based on planetary movements and can be shown to be non-scientific.
So accolades to the new Centre for Intelligent Design, and perhaps to the emergence of a new enlightenment across the pond!
Cheers
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/
Hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed research papers from around the world specifically document evidence for evolution. None - not one - refute it. I encourage people to search it for themselves - don't take my word for it. If evolution is not a valid scientific theory, then 1) there is a decades-long global conspiracy to suppress the publication of any evidence against evolution or 2) the world's scientific community is incompetent. Which is it?
Follow-up question for the conspiracy theorists: why don't the Discovery Institute et al. post their rejected papers on line for all to see? If they have compelling evidence and arguments and feel they are being given short shrift, why not show the world? Unless you believe the "Darwinists" control every posting on the internet....
Some species are unchanged for over 100 million years. And its not like they've just got it all going on, i.e. one can site numerous potential feature improvements that could increase their survival rate. Why hasn't natural selection and random mutations done its thing to add these improvements and "evolve" them. Fair to say that species undergo Darwinian evolution - except when they don't?
A staple of science is its predictive value. Does Darwinian evolution have that? Meaning the ability to predict how/if species will evolve - even assuming a specified environment? Or is it pretty much that maybe the genes to evolve will show up via natural selection and mutations - and maybe they won't?
"Darwinian evolution" has been refuted, resulting in the subsequent development of the currently accepted evolutionary synthesis hypothesis.
Some species are unchanged for over 100 million years. And its not like they've just got it all going on, i.e. one can site numerous potential feature improvements that could increase their survival rate.
Then please do so.
A staple of science is its predictive value.
You are correct.
Meaning the ability to predict how/if species will evolve - even assuming a specified environment?
Predictability refers to an ability to logically derive expected observations prior to actual measurement within a specific scope, which includes accurate estimation of as-yet unkown observations of consequences of future events. Your assertion is based upon a limited understanding of predictability.
"In one sense, research work that supports ID is not the central issue. ID is essentially an interpretation of the data that already exists. There is not much point in gathering more information if you already have enough on which to base your hypothesis."
In this brief piece (#11), Alastair makes several other points, concluding with that one. He appears to mean that there is sufficient supporting data to establish design (or intervention at certain points) as a viable hypothesis. There is MORE than enough. But I'm sure he didn't mean that collecting and assessing data should cease!
Disproofs (or failures to verify) do essentially falsify. One hundred plus years of drosophila experiments have not produced a 'novel' species alteration, just alapatric alterations. Speciation, yes, according to rules the Mayr and Dobzhansky have established, but no 'hopeful monsters' have been offed.
Evolution is factual regarding observed outcomes. But it has failed (so far) to empirically demonstrate natural causation as the sole source of novelty. So if not natural, then what? Non-natural, or intelligently directed. Method? Gene tweaking, which actually has been empirically demonstrated.
ID and NDE analyze the same data, but differ in their interpretations. At this point, ID wins hands down.
Please describe the specific physical processes invoked by "ID" as explanatory mechanisms for observed phenomena.
The problem in the past has been the dearth of researchers willing to do research based on teleological predictions, not to mention that absolutely NO funding is allowed for that research. This is stated in PRINT, in NAS, AAAS, NSF and NIH funding guidelines.
There is a material (relevant and consequential) bias in force in the science community regarding ID. I would ask that anyone with a few million who is willing to fund this work to step forward.
I'll even push for an extension of the tax cuts for ya!
Not really. DI and this new UK enterprise are actually railing for objective science. Natural science is quite naturally based on natural processes. But there is more to scientific inquiry than natural phenomenon. One example is SETI, the 'search for intelligent life'. Would that constitute science, or merely a social endeavor?
It has long been classified as science, based on its exploratory foundation, and methods used to extract data. Intelligent design as a pursuit is not only science, but an even more viable scientific endeavor. The odds of detecting a week signal emanated millions of years ago is skant. So even given the extreme effor to detect alien signals (200 nights to peruse the entire sky with a plethora of antennae), there have been no verified detections. And yet the costly experiment goes on.
Would it stifle science if intelligent signals were detected? A 'cosmic fossil record' would be simply data from the distant past, but would make world headlines.
Although an historical forensic perusal, ID has much more to support it. Like other forensics, we must 'deduce' the evidence of prior teleology from the data. Interestingly, the exact same conundrum exists for undirected evolution. What are claimed to be verifications do not come close to the purported stepwise incremental postulate to explain what's out there.
Then please describe the specific nature of the scientific methodology in which these organizations engage.
Intelligent design as a pursuit is not only science, but an even more viable scientific endeavor.
Please describe the specific processes proposed by "Intelligent design" as explanatory mechanisms for observed events.
Although an historical forensic perusal, ID has much more to support it.
Please substantiate this assertion. Describe the processes of "Intelligent Design", and reference evidence of the occurrence of these processes.
Interestingly, the exact same conundrum exists for undirected evolution. What are claimed to be verifications do not come close to the purported stepwise incremental postulate to explain what's out there.
Please substantiate this assertion.
To a large extent, DI is not involved in actual research. Their function is largely political, as is the NCSE. But when not at each other's throats, they both research the emerging data from other laboratories, and then publicly expound (publish online, lecture) on the evidences favoring their epistemological positions.
They do fund the Biologic Institute, however, an ID research group. Regarding the UK group, too soon to tell.
"Please describe the specific processes proposed by "Intelligent design" as explanatory mechanisms for observed events."
Establishing 'design inferences' using mathematical probabilities (for and against), establishing algorithms (an emerging endeavor), and falsifying random mutations as a source of novelty by parallel experiments. If all of these fail, they claim to be willing to side with the current synthesis. Same for me.
" ... Describe the processes of "Intelligent Design", and reference evidence of the occurrence of these processes."
The hypothesis I hold to is intervention by gene manipulation (genetic engineering) to aid in the process of radical speciation, i.e. land mammals to cetacea, avian flight feathers (not proto feathers, a totally different construct), as well as underlying muscular and metabolic support.
"Please substantiate [the] assertion [that NDE and ID both suffer similar restraints (historical and forensic limitations)]."
It's simply that neither sets of processes can be replicated empirically.
You don't seem to know what science actually is given you question about SETI constituting science. It most certainly is science. They posited a hypothesis (that alien worlds with intelligent life are sending out radio signals we could receive), gathered data to test their hypothesis ( the nights of scanning for radio waves) and once data is collected then analyzing the data and refining their hypothesis. So of course it is science. That is is taking a long time and costing a lot of money or even that it's chance of finding signal is so slim does not mean that it is not science. It may not be worth the effort to many but it is still science.
I never said it wasn't. Instead, I said that if SETI, the search for cosmic intelligence is science, then so is ID. This refutes the oft mentioned claim that science can ONLY embrace materialistic, or non-teleologic investigations.
The realm of science includes ALL that is extant in the cosmos, and consciousness/ intelligence is most probably endemic throughout. Or are we, and all other observable life unique to only this one planet, merely one grain of sand on vast cosmic sand dunes? If you believe that, you may be in for a surprise.
We are certainly not alone in the cosmos.
Ha! Ha! Ha! (LOL!!!)
They're here!!!
Ha! Ha! Ha! (LOL Again!!!)
"What Causes Evolution?
The theories that scientists have advanced to explain the causes of evolution have been of two very different kinds. [in other words they don't have a clue, but do have "theories"] One set of theories is based on the postulate of an internal directive force that lies within organisms themselves. Supporters of these theories maintain that the principal task of evolutionists is to discover and define such a force or 'evolutionary urge.'" p. 25, Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity
All these "scientific" "factual" "rational" etc. books are loaded with non-sayings. i.e. After you read them you have no more factual information than you had before, but you do have a lot of pure speculation without proof or evidence.
So, where does this "evolutionary urge" come from? What "urge" caused Cell One? What "urge" caused two cells to want to work together? Did they go out to coffee together and come up with a plan? Did Cell One decide to divide and make Cell Two, or did that happen by accident, I mean "evolutionary urge" also? What caused the division, or the Cell Two on its own? What did they eat in the meantime before coffee?
"USA Today. February 2000. Red-faced scientists today were forced to admit that archaeoraptor, which editors of National Geographic magazine had announced in the July 1999 issue as the 'missing link' between dinosaurs and birds, turned out to be a clever forgery by a Chinese smuggler."
Isn't the scientific method one of falsifying xxx? Guess that one ain't "gonna fly".
What was the title of this "special".
It was all about the discovery in China of a "bird-dinosaur" fossil. Finally proof that birds came from dinosaurs!!! Then.... "USA Today. February 2000. Red-faced scientists today were forced to admit that archaeoraptor, which editors of National Geographic magazine had announced in the July 1999 issue as the 'missing link' between dinosaurs and birds, turned out to be a clever forgery by a Chinese smuggler."
"Archaeoraptor", which was a composite of two legitimate transitional fossils likely created by a Chinese fossil hunter who may not have been aware that the two segments were not of the same organism, was featured only in National Geographic before peer review readily revealed the specimen to be a composite. As such, your statement regarding a "PBS special" documenting the claimed discovery could not have occurred. For what reason are you lying?
Evolution is caused by the observed process imperfect replication combined with the observed fact that heritable traits influence successful reproductive probability.
So, where does this "evolutionary urge" come from? What "urge" caused Cell One? What "urge" caused two cells to want to work together?
Your inquiry presumes that Mr. Dembski's claim that such an "urge" has been postulated is valid, however I am aware of no biologist who actually postulates such an "urge". Consequently, the inquiry is founded upon an evidently unsupported premise.
No one quoted a Mr. Dembski.
The quote is from a book on evolution not from a creationist book.
I suggest you begin to read a bit more in your own books on evolution where all kinds of quotes like this come from. Evolutionists are their own worst enemies. No one needs to quote creationists or their books. Here is what the author of the book believes: "I believe, therefore, that the facts presented here are correct and that the interpretations are in accord with opinions of the best-informed experts in these fields. Nearly all biologists accept evolution as the only valid explanation for the origin of the millions of animals, plants,..." p. xii, ibid
So, your comment is invalid. Thanks.