Casey Luskin recently published a post titled "It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover" at Evolution News and Views. It is a rehashing of some perceived problems with Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the 2005 case in which Intelligent Design (ID) was declared a form of creationism and therefore unsuitable for the science classroom. In his post Luskin declared, "Rumors of ID's death are greatly exaggerated."
This remark seems to be aimed at bloggers like Jason Rosenhouse, who, in a Science Blogs post in November, declared ID dead:
In the nineties and early 2000s, ID seemed to be producing one novel argument after another... it was [then] possible to wonder seriously if ID was a serious intellectual movement, or just another fad that would die out on its own. That verdict is now in. ID is dead.
Rosenhouse is right. ID has no future. His arguments -- that over the last few years ID proponents have given us nothing new, that it is mired in the past, that it has merely been recycling its arguments -- are all convincing. He rightly points out the scientific weaknesses of ID while simultaneously shining a light on the strengths and recent successes of evolution.
In sum, Rosenhouse does an admirable job dismantling ID from a scientific point of view. But there are other perspectives from which the folly of ID is evident. One of them takes us back to a Christian astronomer who worked at the dawn of the scientific revolution.
In October 1604 Johannes Kepler was living in Prague and was deeply into his work on Mars that would later reveal the planets' elliptical orbits. He was sidetracked from this study to comment on a new star, or nova, that appeared that month a few degrees north of Scorpius. In his short work De stella nova, published in 1606, he wondered what could have caused such an event. He considered a number of possibilities, but on this question his own astronomical theory was silent.
He began to consider special creation: a deliberate, separate act of God unconnected with any other natural event, direct and special tinkering by the divine hand. But in the end he withdrew from that conclusion, writing "before we come to [special] creation, which puts an end to all discussion, I think we should try everything else." Over 400 years ago, Kepler understood that to claim special creation is to put an end to scientific inquiry.
Kepler did not reject special creation because he put limits on God. Nor did his rejection flow from a desire to push God out of his work. Instead, it sprung from his conviction that God's creation is not founded in obscurity, darkness, and confusion. He believed, in a way that far outstripped his contemporaries, in the comprehensibility of God's creation, because it was God's creation. Kepler's fundamental axiom may be stated:
The universe has been designed; therefore it must be comprehensible.
Jump forward now to 1996, arguably the heyday of ID. That is the year Michael Behe came face-to-face with his own difficult scientific problem: the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, a tail-like rotor that aids in cellular locomotion. The complexity of the flagellum led Behe to conclude that it could not have evolved through any of the standard mechanisms of evolution.
Whether or not this is true is not important for my purpose. What is important is that, unlike Kepler, Behe went on to claim special creation. He had the flagellum in mind when he wrote in Darwin's Black Box, "It is a shock to us... to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed." Behe has led us to the fundamental axiom of ID, a sharp contrast to that of Kepler:
The universe is incomprehensible; therefore it must have been designed.
Although ID supporters do not name God as the designer in their official work, they are no less cagey about their Christian commitments than Kepler was about his. Yet they have opted for the path Kepler rejected, and, in so doing, "put an end to all discussion." That Kepler refused that road out of reverence for God is a tremendous irony.
Kepler reminds us that religious people do not need to shrink from science and its naturalistic methods, because they more than others have a rich tradition in which to locate these things, a context that allows them to take science seriously but not too seriously, and a strong bulwark against the lull of materialism.
For a person of faith, ID is not just an unnecessary choice; it is a harmful one. It reduces God to a kind of holy tinkerer. It locates the divine in places of ignorance and obscurity. And this gives it a defensive and fearful spirit that is out of place in Christian faith and theology.
Looking upon the new star in September 1604, could Kepler have envisioned stellar evolution, mass-transfer binary stars, and explosive carbon fusion? No, and so he remained silent. His humility, his belief in the richness of creation, and his expansive faith allowed him to admit ignorance while leaving the door of causal science wide open.
ID denies its proponents that freedom. Having opted to close the door on science, they steal from themselves the opportunity to see nature more deeply. In so doing they dig in their heels, refusing to be drawn, Kepler-style, closer to the creator God they all believe in. This is the great irony of ID.
Because ID is established in scientific ignorance, it cannot last. It is passing even now. And its religiously-motivated rejection by Kepler 400 years ago suggests that the seeds of its demise were planted even then. In this long view, it may be that ID never even managed to arrive.
Follow Paul Wallace on Twitter: www.twitter.com/psnt_net
Evolution reduces God to an unnecessary worthless fairy.
Theres a famous Evolution Scientist named Walter Veith. I have never heard a conversion story like that in my life. Its like no other. Professor Walter Veith is now a champion of creation and has his own Jesus Ministry. This guy was a staunch athiest and now on fire for the Lord. Youtube Evolutionalist to creationalist. You aint Never seen a Brilliant Evolutionalist conversion like this.
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/10/31/dark-fantasy-world-walter-veith
=============
Veith, it goes without saying, is trading in a world of fantasy and myth that has considerably less logic than a Dan Brown novel and a great deal more creepiness. There is, however, something mesmeric in his performance. If nothing else, he knows how to play the chords of apocalyptic menace with a campy but bravura showmanship. And he seems to know exactly what he is doing. Veith repeatedly states in his performances that he is not telling his listeners what to believe but is simply presenting them with the “facts” so that they can make informed judgments for themselves. But these claims are also simply part of the show. Veith is by every indication a religious confidence man who has carved out his own niche market by convincing sadly credulous listeners to suspend their critical judgment just long enough to become convinced that what he is saying is not only entirely plausible but is in fact the very height of reason.
=============
Belief in intelligent design is not rejection of evolution, made clear in the 1990s.
Perhaps ID is a "God of the gaps" argument (God serves as a thesis to fill gaps in scientific knowledge), but ID people (at least of the 1990s) reject that argument as well, but actually do have to do some work to do so.
What they claim is that evolutionary theory -by itself- cannot account for the complexity and development of life. They use information theory to support this claim -- which argues that beyond a certain threshold ration of signal to noise one has to accept the postulate of an intelligent agent behind the "signal." Now this claim may be scientifically questionable, but it is a scientific claim, and one subject to scientific criteria.
ID theory, by its willingness to accept evolutionary theory, is not in any way, shape, or form "Creationism" as it existed in the 70s and 80s. Creationists were fundamentalists who insisted on a literal seven day creation (which Christians throughout history have not insisted upon) and who would not accept any version of evolutionary theory.
ID theory has more in common with Aristotle and Kant than Jerry Falwell.
ID may be dead, but I hope it's dead for the right reasons -- because it's specifically scientific claims have been repudiated by scientific argument. But I hope it's not because of bad
ID creationism isn't a rejection of evolution per se, it's an attempt to get creationism into schools, THEN reject evolution.
ID clowns do reject the idea that ID creationism is a god-of-the-gaps appeal, but they A) they don't provide much of a case for it and B) the entirety of their work is aimed at creating gaps.
ID proponents (creationists) don't just claim that there are problems with the theory of evolution, that is the entirety of their work. Seriously, Luskin publishes lists of Intelligent Design contributions to science every once in a while. It's all either attempts to disprove evolution with flawed science, or attempts to reinforce their previous flawed science with more flawed science, which draws from the previous flawed science.
ID "theory"(it's not a scientific theory), by it's willingness to "accept" evolutionary theory, is like an ugly person walking really close to an attractive person in hopes of using them to get into the night club. Only the night club is a school. And ID is still ugly.
ID has more in common with a preacher handing out invitations for a free party outside a school than it does with Kant, Aristotle, or Falwell.
I don't feel ID is dead. I really don't think this particular form of aggressive ignorance is on the decline.
Evolution will not survive this decade!
Your claim that it is on shaky ground is an absurd one, and a blatantly dishonest one too, as your bizarre interpretation of recent science has been patiently pointed out to you. Again:
1. The relative complexity of an ancient dormant bacteria simply shows evolution was a few million years more rapid than we might have guessed but as you know, the five authors of the paper you tout strenuously disagree that the discovery casts doubt on evolution.
2. There is no evidence radiometric dating of zircons is an unreliable way of measuring the age of a sample. More to the point, evolutionary theory doesn't depend on zircons.
3. The older the specimen, the simpler the organism. The first organisms on earth were extremely primitive - basically not more than large molecules.
4. How radically a species changes over time depends on natural selection. Species that are well adapted to a much wider variety of environments don't change as much as the highly specialized ones. This is why we see, for instance, cockroaches and sharks, little changed from prehistoric times and why we see humans and birds very different from their relatively recent ancestors.
I hope this alleviates your confusion with respect to the science.
1. "simply shows evolution was a few million years more rapid " Moving the bar is not evidence and does not make evolution true. The evidence is clear, life started out complex.
2. Evolution requires the fossil record and the dates placed on them by radio metric dating of the strata. In fact, the only thing still holding up the "millions of years"dates is the dating method. But science proves they are wrong. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/11/earths-time-capsules-may-be-flaw-1.html
3. The fact is the the older specimen are proving to be more complex and having greater variation. Fact: NO old "primitive" organism has ever been found.
4. "Species that are well adapted to a much wider variety of environments don't change as much" Again science destroys this argument.
Problem with your idea:
a. No evidence that natural selection can be turned off or have NO impact (for millions of years)
b. If there is no natural selection, You must now prove that genetic drift, which must occur and results in less variation, had NO impact on the population (for millions of years) and scientifically define a "large" population.
c. Theoretically; Only random mating can keep a population in genetic equilibrium. So now evolutionist must scientifically prove random mating in all species and for millions of years.
None of these items have ever been observed, so you can not claim evolution is true.
What really ought to be declared dead is Darwin's theory of unintelligent design (UD). While natural selection helps to explain microevolution, it also prevents major evolutionary change from occurring by eliminating useless transitional stages. It thus better explains natural history - stasis and lack of evolutionary change at higher taxon-levels (e.g. phyla and classes) - than any other known natural process.
What is the value of a theory of UD if it constantly relies upon unpredictable and unrepeatable random variations to account for the biological origin of anything and everything? Chance is the capricious god of unintelligent design. It is the origin of a specious theory.
There isn't actually a boundary between microevolution and macroevolution. That's a fallacy. Macroevolution is microevolution plus time. There's no such thing as "major evolutionary changes" the way you're describing them. Evolution isn't like a Vegas magic act, it's like growing old. A wing doesn't appear in a flash and a puff of smoke, and hair doesn't go grey all at the same time.
I find it intriguing that you say evolution explains microevolution and natural history (for the wrong reasons, but c'est la vie) and yet you see no value in the theory. The fact of the matter is that there isn't a problem with the theory of evolution and there certainly isn't a better option. Evolution works. It's far from dead.
The rational/material world that Science works in is a subset of a bigger world of truth and meaning.
Every theory begins with an assumption, then logic to a conclusion. That argument must then be tested in reality to determine soundness. Finally, the conclusion is made meaningful.
The assumption and the meaning of a theory is not an issue of Science. They are beyond Science. Science can only deal with the logic and the testing — the rational/material 'world'. When a person intuits assumptions and evaluates meaning, they are not acting as a Scientist. They are engaging their spiritual components — something outside the reach of Science.
This is where 'Scientists' act like Prophets. They don their lab coat and BS degree and then start philosophizing to make sense out of their work — which Science can't do. It can't make meaning of anything, only show logical relationships and empirical evidence to support or deny them.
i mean seriously, gravity? some magical, undefinable force that makes everything happen? the whole think smacks of Faith.
which i'm personally not opposed it. ;)
Is this the point where creation myths - some more absurd than others if you study them literally - insert themselves into a science class, which is founded on dispelling myths?
You've detected design in this very post you're reading.
Archeologists detect design in the artifacts they find.
The identification of Stonehenge as a man-made, rather than natural, structure? Design detection.
S.E.T.I.? An attempt at design detection throughout the cosmos.
Detectives? They detect design (murder, arson, etc.) from natural occurrences on an everyday basis.
If we landed on a distant planet and discovered an abandoned city, we'd undoubtedly detect design, with little-to-no objection.
Bottom line: I.D. is a positive claim (the origin of life was produced by intelligence) based on positive evidence (what was required for the origin of life is exactly what we know to be produced by intelligence and nothing else). Paul Wallace's ignorance of these facts does not constitute a valid rebuttal.
(Part 2 of 3)
Buried artifacts are not capable of reproduction.
Stonehenge is not capable of reproduction.
Radio signals in space aren't living creatures... Or are they?
Et cetera, et cetera.
ID creationists seem to think that exceptions are abhorrent to science, that because we know of many non-biological things that are complex and designed, all complex things must be designed. This is the logical equivalent of intentionally vomiting on yourself. It is unsightly, embarrassing for observers, and if you keep it up long enough, it really starts to stink.
Here are some points to consider: We know of many objects which are simple, yet were also designed. Bricks. Fence posts. Ball bearings. Does it follow that all simple things are designed?
We know of many more complex biological systems than manmade biological systems. That means that complexity from human design is the exception, not the rule. Human design is the only provable form of design. Does that mean that design is an anomaly?
Things which are known to be designed and known to be complex do not reproduce (except copy machines, admittedly). Things which reproduce are generally complex. Reproduction provides a viable explanation for for biological complexity. The mechanism for non-biological complexity, and the mechanism for biological complexity are known.
ID makes the assertion that evolution doesn't work based on bad science, then it provides an implausible alternative where none is necessary or warranted.
It is therefore reasonable to believe that the origins of order in things we have not witnessed or measured are also birthed from an intelligent designer.
Anyway, the great Casey Luskin has thoroughly demolished this article: Huffington Post Attacks Intelligent Design by Citing ID Advocate Johannes Kepler (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/paul_wallace_at054751.html)
Some of his points:
•I.D. doesn't oppose "natural laws," in fact, the fine-tuning of said laws (cosmological I.D.) is one of I.D.'s strongest arguments. What's odd is that many I.D. proponents reject the fine-tuning of these laws, and yet, at the same time, use them as the sole creators of life.
•Natural laws are necessary but insufficient for life's existence. Life couldn't exist without those finely-tuned natural laws, true, but those laws, in and of themselves, can't explain life. Likewise, this post couldn't exist without the Internet, yet the Internet, in and of itself, doesn't explain this post. That's simple enough to grasp, I would think.
The physical laws and constants of this universe are not fine-tuned. There is no reason at all to suspect that. The ground doesn't rise up to support your feet. Gravity doesn't lift you up when you jump. The fine-tuning argument is just one of the many reasons why ID is not science, or respected by the scientific community.
In email exchanges, he waffled, evaded, and flatly refused to address serious questions regarding his claims, which became more and more outlandish. As these problems and resulting requests for explanation grew, he claimed various personal issues prevent his responses, repeatedly promising to address apparent inconsistencies, and even blaming me for the length and number of questions, despite the fact they all related to questionable justifications he raised.
He has removed himself from the realm of opinions which should be considered.
Quite frankly, having read both Paul Wallace's article above and Casey Luskin's rebuttal, it's obvious to me which one is presenting to more coherent opinion. Luskin's opinion is based on excellent logic and facts, whereas Paul Wallace's hit piece has little substance. Everything Mr. Wallace claims is demonstrably wrong.
lucy0808:
"There is no mythology of rationalism. The mythologies are those by the thousands upon thousands of religions and the 10,000s of gods.
The proof is in the pudding. The efforts of science as a methodology, peer review, institution of professional scientists and publications over time have put forward the greatest amount of utility that out species have ever seen."
The mythology of rationalism is that we are rational deciders that have conscious control over our life decisions; that the "I" in the mind is running the show. No one is arguing with the usefulness of science, but it is still only a tool. It produces the nuclear bomb in response to the organisms need for territorial security, or it produces a nuclear reactor in response to the organism's need for physical security. Rationalism is not science but anti-science; a rejection of what science can tell us about the nature of our being.
Most of science has nothing to do with nuclear bombs. Almost everything around us outside of art (art still, too by materials produced by it) is produced by science and almost all of that has nothing to do with nuclearweapons.
Yes, it is a shame that these exist and political systems should be used to reduce them in number. Science does not drive the existance of bombs.It is political systems and the powerful that want them.If we as a people have a will to remove them in the world, they will be removed. We don't.
If by this you mean to imply that "people" are capable of willing something else on a global scale, then I would say this is the fallacy of rationalism. "People" are not rational deciders. If you doubt this read "Descartes Error" by Antonio Damasio. Every life form competes with it's own for the available resources in one way or the other. "We" are only the protagonists that the brain creates in the mind, and "we" are not in charge. That's what science says is happening.
You can buy into the idea that the world is not a peaceful place because people just decide to make it otherwise, and if they were "rational" they wouldn't, but then you have only entered the land of human hubris that makes everyone wrong that doesn't agree with your story. The story is just what your brain makes up to put you on top. It's not what's happening.
Life inside the mechanism is irrational. If peace is what you are about, stand for it and enroll people in it. You won't attain it but you might make a difference. Making other other people wrong does the opposite.
Dan Jighter:
"No. You at the very least need premises in addition to logic, otherwise you just relate a bunch of propositions without reaching any real conclusions."
Exactly. The premise is irrational, so we are caught in a circularity. Logic cannot supply it's own premise, but since the premise is in the biological regulation of the living organism (and the experience of the agent deciding is only part of the mechanism), then reason itself is a myth.
"Athymhormia and Disorders of Motivation in Basal Ganglia Disease" Michel Habib, M.D.
You might look this up. Specific damage to the basal ganglia (part of the limbic system) can create a pathology called athymhormia. What happens is that the patient becomes totally inert and unmotivated, sitting motionless forever, unless stimulated externally. Although flat emotionally the patient can still move and cognate when stimulated. When asked what they are thinking in their inert state, they respond that they have no thoughts at all. In other words we are not animated by our thoughts and the experience of self in our thoughts, but by the limbic driver; the biological organism. That is the PREMISE of "reason".
From another angle, in awake brain surgery experiments, a specific location of the brain is stimulated creating the experience in the subject of the self wanting to move a toe or the self wanting to open the mouth and speak. Again the source of the PREMISE is not conscious or rational.