Just how logical is it to introduce the idea of an intelligent creator into the scientific inquiry in the first place? Hell with the complaint that it’s being “tossed out without a single bit of evidence to the contrary.” The real complaint is over why it’s being inserted without a single bit of evidence to support it.
(I know, I know, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” But what the hell IS [evidence of absence]?)
I’d guess that a list of the things that you don’t know the first thing about would fill a very thick book.[/moody]
Now, you’re just off in Wonderland. This discussion is about the subject of Intelligent Design, as defined by the folks in Kansas who are proposing to debate its worthiness to be included in the public school curriculum, vs. evolutionary theory. If when you use the term Intelligent Design, you’re talking about something wholly seperate, then your entire participation in this thread amounts to nothing more than a hijack. Just in case you’re willing to be a part of this discussion, here’s an update: As far as anyone knows (in the context of this discussion), Intelligent Design is nothing more than a political agenda. If it’s a scientific theory nobody has yet offered an explanation of what the theory is.
I agree with the above, to a limited extent, except that I cannot see how one could distinguish something designed by intelligent beings more-or-less like us (IOW, bound by the limits of nature), and some supernatural being, without it being glaringly obvious, for the simple reason that it is unnatural and unphysical. Since people already claim disignoid organisms are evidence of supernatural ID, there’s little stopping them from making the same claim about bona fide disigned organisms, and the nature of the debate will not change. One simply cannot make rational, predictive statements about a supernatural intelligence within a scientific framework, because these putative gods can do literally anything, even to the point of concealing their influence so completely as to be utterly undetectable by physical beings. The type of ID you’re describing is either just a minor extension of Neo-Darwinian Evolution to accomodate things like genetic engineering, when organims have evolved that level of technology, or it’s yet another brand of superstition.
I myself modify bacteria, sometimes yeast, and often mamallian cells at the genomic or episomal level as part of my job. The difference between unaltered microorganisms and cells microorganisms and their engineered counterparts is the difference between Landscape Arch in Utah and l’Arc de Triomphe. The former could have (and all evidence suggests, did) develop by natural processes (erosion, deposition, compression, further erosion), and the latter is constructed of elements, arranged in such a way, that no other plausible explanation but design can account for its incredible improbability by any other conceivable process.
All ID “theorists” have contributed to this debate have been spurious claims that purported designed structures are, like l’Arc de Triomphe, too improbable to have been evolved. Their problem isn’t evoking probability, they’re problem is they’re wrong about what they’ve applied that principle to. Oh, and the fact they’re not motivated by scientific integrity and scepticism, but by a disingenuous back-door policy to getting creationism into schools again.
Prasie be to The Great green Arkelseizure! Someone gets it!
Science and Religion, both as separate branches of the same tree, delve into First Causes, for which both have hypothesis (I’ll stop slinging around the flexibly defined term “theory” if I can). Never heard a kid ask you questions delving into Infinite Regression of Causes? Pretty soon, you’ll get to a question like, “Well, who made God?” Or, if you go the scientific route, and can get the kid to understand, the kid will ask, “Well, if there was nothing before the Big Bang, where’d all this stuff come from?”
Since the ultimate First Cause isn’t known, I don’t see how anyone can rule out one method of advancing human knowledge and understanding over another.
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of High School, myself, but you’re right, there is an age at which we don’t need to throw too much apparently contradictory stuff at kids, hoping they’ll sort it out for themsleves.
Well, we have a check-and-balance for that in public schools: concerned parents and citizens.
Because Science is a philosophy, a mode of thinking, more than an assemblage of Laws, Theories, and Hypothesis; those are derived from a philosophically scientific mindset. Creationism (or ID, I’m using the terms interchangeably to denote the mythological/religious origin of the universe, Earth, and life) is a hypothesis arrived at by a different philosophy.
As science is not the last word, nor should it ever set itself up as the last word, I see no harm in exposing kids, say, at the Jr. High level, to Creationism.
Because, while there are many great science teachers out there, there are also a bunch who are wonky fools with an agenda. Many would use their podiums as pulpits, to set “Science!” up as the final arbiter of Truth and The Sole Source of Knowledge, and to shoot down any other competing schools-of-thought. You can bet that these nitwits aren’t going to give any sort of time to any other modes of thinking, or encourage a town-square discussion.
Creationism is not “arrived at” by any process at all. It’s a starting point. A preconception. It has no relationship to scientific methd of any kind.
And science is not a “philosophy” but a method of discovery. You still seem to be conflating evolution with the origin of the universe or of life. One has nothing to do with the other. You might as well claim that we shouldn’t teach physics because we don’t know how the universe began. The conflation is just as ignorant.
Also, the “first cause” argument is bullshit, just so you know.
Oh no! He used my own words against me! I’m trapped! Trapped, I tells ya!
Really, though, why should a science teacher give any time to any other mode of thinking? It’s called “science class” for a reason. Would you be upset if the math teacher didn’t give equal time to numerology? Or if the orchestra teacher didn’t give equal time to jazz bands? Or if the English teacher didn’t give equal time to French? In that last case wouldn’t you just say that the kid would be better off taking French class?
If the science teacher wants to explore the differences between Creationism and evolution as an exercise in critical thinking, then more power to him. But to prevent him from propping up science as ultimate truth by forcing him to give equal time and credence to a faerie tale? That’s just stupid.
Reread previous post, and apply some thought to it.
Hoprsepuckey; without the Scientific Philosophy (mindset), science doesn’t get beyond, “Why does the sun move across the sky? Because the God Apollo pulls it across in his chariot.”
The Scientific mindset says, “Uh-huh. Well, do you see a God-driven chariot, with little ropes leading to the Sun? Thought not. Let’s come up with a hypothesis verifiable to our senses and instruments.”
No, I’m not; since Creationism/ID deals with not only the beginning of existence as well as the origin of life, there’s some overlap between Creationism/ID and Evolution. Since science, in its variety of disciplines, also deals with the beginning of existence (Big Bang, etc.,) science classes in general may also overlap Creationism/ID.
Why would the research, by whatever means, into First Cause be “bullshit?”
Aren’t hundreds of scientists around the world at this moment formulating hypothesis and testing them in regards to where the Universe was before the Big Bang (or competing theories)?
My point is that the ID movement could actually have the respect of the scientific community if they dropped the whole supernatural entity angle altogether. Oh sure, they say the “creator” doesn’t have to be God, but we all know that’s not what they’re playing at. There are conceivably practical applications for being able to distinguish “intelligent design” from “natural design” (one possibility: determing if some hypothetical super-virus ravaging the populace is natural or man-made; and if man-made, who made it…?), yet I have not seen anything by any ID proponent even mentioning this aspect; their entire MO (and reason for being) is simply to attack evolution from a metaphysical standpoint - a standpoint which has nothing to do with science! Their purpose is not to provide methods and practices for identifying intelligent design, but to dazzle with technobabble about information and “specified complexity”, and ultimately sneak a dressed-up form of creationism into schools.
From my point of view, ID, in and of itself, is not crap. The version that is being foisted upon the public currently, is.
I’m certainly not advocating superstition. I also think that genetic engineering, if anything, is more an extension of artificial selection than anything else. Soon (relatively speaking, of course), we will be able to forgo the breeding for selected traits altogether, and simply create the traits we wish in the lab. Such will still fall within the technical definition of evolution, but the mechanisms themselves will fall outside the realm of traditional “natural” mechanisms.
Of course that’s the case, but that’s also the argument that current IDers use to claim that all life is designed. As such, I don’t think “it’s blatently obvious” works as a method for distinguishing natural design from intelligent design. If there are fundamental differences in organization between naturally-occurring and genetically-modified cells, then there must be methods and pricinciples which can be used to distinguish the two. That is what I am advocating as the focus for a truly scientific field of Intelligent Design. Later, if (my version of) IDers want to go looking for God’s Own Trademark in the natural world, have at it. They probably won’t be able to find anything, but at least they’ll have some working principles to start from, rather than starting out with “God did it, let’s find clues!” At that point they may well be diverging from the path of science (since even if they did find evidence of design in “natural” organisms, a supernatural entity need not be necessarily responsible), but again, in my opinion, the search for intelligent design, in and of itself, need not be unscientific.
Scoff at eating the dirt yes. Scoff at dirt itself? No. That’s a subtle distinction completely missed by this thread.
Evolution is NOT a better theory. Evolution explains only a certain aspect of creation. As long as you put it in any type of opposing relationship, your ignorance is assured, because they are not in conflict in any way, whatsoever. Putting them on the same scale and trying to balance it, is what is ignorant.
What is worth more on the open market? A pound of laser or an inch of time?
If it is the ‘creationists’ that are creating these arbitrary distinctions how come people are indulging them?
I think that the people trying to fuck with the Kansas schoolboard are whackjobs. I have no problem agreeing to that. I’m just sick of the implicit superiority that people on the evolution side think that they have, when they really don’t. There are some legitimate questions in this debate, even if there are assholes on both sides of it.
I had a similar conversation with another doper (Apos perhaps, but I don’t trust my memory), suggesting a similar dissatisfaction with improbability as the only guide. My only difficulty is there’s no evidence a better principle can be applied. There doesn’t appear to be a better clue than wild divergence. The more subtle the divergences, the less certainty one can have that an organism was designed. I can’t see any reason why even humans cannot, in principle, cobble together and engineer synthetic microorganisms that are so convincingly natural-seeming that they can’t be distinguished from their designoid counterparts. I’m also not aware of anything special about the way living organisms are “put together” that provides the gold-standard for evolution by natural selection except for what can be gleaned from comparative genomics and statistics. Life is the way it is because, as far as we can tell, it’s the way that it is. Maybe it could have been completely different. Maybe in some places it is.
Everything about molecular biology suggests, as far as we can tell, that if life arose more than once on Earth, some bottleneck narrowed down the contenders to the point that every living creature is descended from a common ancestor. Our paradigm for life is that ancestor and all its descendants. We currently have no other example. In general, living creatures are so similar in the basic manner in which they evolve that, I think, we are limited to an n of 1 for all practical purposes when discussing “life”. Every single creature on Earth is a DNA replicating machine, fundamentally alike. Studies about the nature of life are, hence, overwhelmingly skewed toward that paradigm. I’m not confident deeper principles can be discovered from what is, really, such limited data. Ergo, I think all we’ve got to go on in practical terms is a degree of divergence from this paradigm, which is nothing more than statistical analyses of sequence alignments and comparitive gene structure.
I certainly hope I’m wrong about the above, but I’m not sanguine about the prospect of us having anything more to go on. I’m guessing if we found an extraterrestrial organism that truly was in no way related to terrestrial life, unless we had all kinds of its relatives to compare it to, we would have no means of determinining for certain if it was designed or not.
Loopydude, I just want to say that your post is an island of intelligence(if you’ll pardon the expression) in a sea of petty vitriol from both sides. I myself had a snarky earlier post, that I now regret. Keep up the good work.
Numerology as a “science” could be mentioned, sure, as one of the foundations of modern mathematics; actually teaching the methods and techniques of numerology? No.
None of my schools had an orchestra, (just your garden-variety marching-type band) so I really didn’t get introduced to Jazz until I was in the Army; still, our band did play and practice a variety of musical styles, including “Big Band,” and some stuff that might loosely be considered “Jazz,” in addition to traditional marching-band-style tunes.
And French and English are two different disciplines under the general heading of “Language Studies,” or perhaps “Literature*.” Just as Math, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics are all different disciplines all under the general heading of “Science.” As such, separate classes should be devoted to them as the comlexity level of the instruction rises.
But, again, I never said that Creationism/ID get equal time. Never, ever, anywhere, in this thread, or another, or in any space/time coordinate prior to my ever having heard of the Straight Dope. I’m not, nor have I tried, to make an “all things being equal/relativistic” argument in this thread. I have not tried to establish a scientific validity of Creationism/ID, at all, much less as being “equal” to Evolution, or other hypothesis and theories as to the origin of the universe.
I have simply stated that Creationism/ID not be entirely removed from science curricula, and have stated reasons why, and have stated several examples (actually, I just posted pretty much the same example twice) of all that I think need be said about it. If one hour of class-time gets devoted to a discussion between teacher and students of Creationism/ID, and its relative merits vs. Evolution/Big Bang by the Scientific Method & Principles, I don’t see how that is poisoning Science, or corrupting our youth with mumbo-jumbo
I actually think that mentioning Creationism/ID in a science class, and giving it a fair shake via accepted scientific principles, will do more to undermine it in the minds of the people than editing it out of existence via our classrooms and school boards. I think the more that people try to excise it, denounce it, ridicule it, and act so condescendingly smug and superior toward it, the more people will reject “intellectualism” and science in favor of “other venues” such as mystic approaches to life (numerology, astrology), religion, faith healing,etc.,etc…
That way lay the Dark Ages (a few twists-and-turns aside), and I’d rather not go down that road; I happen to like antibiotics, flush toilets, and frozen pizza. And saying “God(s) Did It!” gets me none of those.
Finch: *My point is that the ID movement could actually have the respect of the scientific community if they dropped the whole supernatural entity angle altogether. Oh sure, they say the “creator” doesn’t have to be God, but we all know that’s not what they’re playing at. *
This loophole is why I’m kind of surprised that so many creationists embrace the “intelligent design” movement so enthusiastically. After all, even if we learn to scientifically identify the influence of intelligence in producing organisms, as opposed to sheer natural selection, that would tell us nothing about the intelligent designer’s goodness or benevolence or any of the other qualities that creationists generally attribute to God.
In other words, solid evidence for ID, if we found it, could just as easily imply a creator who is intelligent and also malevolent, rather than kind and loving. A universe created by Satan rather than God, so to speak. If creationists really thought about the fact that ID would support that hypothesis just as readily as any other hypothesis about an intelligent creator, I’d think it would make them a little nervous.
To further clarify, I’m not suggesting that there is a way to distinguish “wild-type” organisms from designer ones. What I am suggesting is that the search for such would render the Intelligent Design movement at least somewhat scientifically respectable, even if that search may be ultimately futile.
In other words, ID could have been made scientific merely by implicating humans as the designer whose handiwork we wish to divine (heh…).
Instead, they focus on attacking evolution via erroneous assumptions about what is, or is not, probable, and concluding, based on those improbabilities, that God must be at work. That’s faulty logic, and places their “theories” firmly in the “non-scientific” bucket.
Beyond all that, I do agree with you that there most likely is no useful way to identify even our own designs (short of genetic markers placed specifically for that purpose).
I do thank you for your kind words, but to be fair, I’m plenty capable of snark and vitriol if the mood takes me, and am probably one of the worst examples of equanimity to be found in this forum. To paraphrase Rick James, caffeine is a hell of a drug. (No, I’m not making excuses…)
But, really, pricklyness has little to do one way or the other with the tenability or cogency of one’s position, and the Pit is the place where neither mood nor logic is suppressed, for better or worse. No need to lose sleep over it, IMO. Just take note of your failings, ask yourself if you can do better, and act accordingly, knowing you’ll slip up without fail on your quest for Zen-like imperturbability!
(No, I’m not making excuses…)