Comment #27022

Posted by Mike Walker on April 28, 2005 12:16 AM (e) (s)

Well, the obvious retort from the other side is not that they are “Intelligent and Educated” but that they are “Indoctrinated”. That’s what creationists and the DI tends to moan and gripe about.

Comment #27026

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 28, 2005 12:40 AM (e) (s)

Support for Darwin Increases with Level of Education

Ah yes.  Did you know that support for Watson and Crick also increases with education level?  As well as support for black people, women and gays.

How do you like those rutabegas?

But it ain’t foolproof as I learned to my dismay last year, when a fresh attorney in the big city upon hearing the word “DNA” in a conversation, unwisely blurted: “You don’t believe that stuff, do you?”

Such are the oddities one encounters in the United States when one mingles with contemporary graduates of so-called “liberal arts” colleges.

Comment #27029

Posted by Alex Merz on April 28, 2005 01:17 AM (e) (s)

Well, GWW, having graduated from a liberal arts college that consistently competes with Caltech (and consistently beats MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, CMU, et al.) for the rank of #1 in per-biology-major yield of life science PhDs  (nearly 20%), I gotta say that I have no idea which liberal arts colleges you are talking about. Not my alma mater, that’s for sure. Williams, maybe? Swarthmore? Oberlin? U. Minnesota, Morris? [;-)]

Comment #27030

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 28, 2005 02:38 AM (e) (s)

UC San Diego -> Harvard Law! ;)

I didn’t mean to dis liberal arts colleges.  I loved college and grad school was fun too (for the first few years). 

What’s amazing to me about those numbers in Dave’s post is not that 80% of people who stop after high school (or earlier) have no concept of geologic time scales, it’s that 35% of college postgrads are able to keep themselves deluded about basic scientific facts.

There’s no doubt in my mind that the reason for this is that, in this country, bizarre nonsensical beliefs are coddled as long as they are associated with Christianity.  And I’m not talking about mystical beliefs, the stuff that many of us carry around in our hearts and souls.  I’m talking about stuff that is just plain wrong.

For example, I’d bet $100 that same 35% of postgrads believes that scientific evidence supports the efficacy of distant prayer on human healing.

I understand that it’s hard to “let go” sometimes.  I remember very well the difficult emotions that churned through me the day I discovered wrapped presents in my parents’ closet that were tagged “From Santa.”  It was disturbing, to say the least.

By comparison, the transformation from the religion my parents had indoctrinated me into my present state was much more gradual (perhaps a few giant steps were made under the influence in college).

But it does surprise me that when it comes to spiritually irrelevant facts (e.g., the non-existence of telekinetic powers, ESP, communicating with the dead, creationism) that adults with a quarter century or more of education still won’t “let go.”

Comment #27031

Posted by NDT on April 28, 2005 02:51 AM (e) (s)

Typically, Mummert completely misrepresented the theory of evolution. “They [scientists] say there is no creator, no order”, according to Mummert. But of course that’s not what scientists are saying at all.

Comment #27032

Posted by Randall Wald on April 28, 2005 03:49 AM (e) (s)

Off-topic, but in reply to Alex, I’m a current undergrad bio major at Caltech, and am pleasantly surprised to hear that we’ve got a better bio-PhD-per-bio-BS ratio than MIT, Harvard, et all. It’s especially surprising because biology is barely considered a science here; physics and chemistry are sciences, but biology is often viewed as a linear combination of stamp-collecting and pipetting.

Comment #27033

Posted by tom on April 28, 2005 04:48 AM (e) (s)

But..ah…God teaches creation…so..if God was there over the evolutionary process..then he’s a liar, in which case he isn’t God, because God is perfect.
Unless of course it was Buddah, but he can’t speak so no one knows where he stands.

Comment #27034

Posted by PaulP on April 28, 2005 05:01 AM (e) (s)

Randall Wald wrote

biology is often viewed as a linear combination of stamp-collecting and pipetting

Aaahh, another entry for “1001 uses of a pipette”

Comment #27038

Posted by Paul Flocken on April 28, 2005 06:20 AM (e) (s)

Comment #27022
Posted by Mike Walker on April 28, 2005 12:16 AM

Well, the obvious retort from the other side is not that they are “Intelligent and Educated” but that they are “Indoctrinated”. That’s what creationists and the DI tends to moan and gripe about.

And we all know that, because religious indoctrination pretty much starts in the cradle and teens are very well indoctrinated indeed by the time they become teens, what is happening in higher educaiton is really DE-INDOCTRINATION.
Sincerely, Paul

Comment #27039

Posted by Paul Flocken on April 28, 2005 06:58 AM (e) (s)

If creationist don’t like the whole indoctrination thing maybe they would be willing to cut a deal.  If they agree to give up indoctrination as a tool for oh, say…two thousand years, science will agree too.  Oh that’s right, science educates, not indoctrinates, so we don’t lose anything there.
Sincerely, Paul

Comment #27042

Posted by Paul Flocken on April 28, 2005 07:34 AM (e) (s)

Does Theistic Evolution Make Sense?…Joseph D. Renick…IDnet-NM…Jan 2, 2005
While there are varying viewpoints among theistic evolutionists as to whether or not this process is directed or not, evolutionists, because of their philosophical commitment to Naturalism, insist as a matter of dogma that the process of evolution is undirected and without purpose.  In addition, they hold that the origin of the first living organism occurred as a result of natural causes and was not the work of a transcendent creator.

Scientists insist that evolution was undirected because there is no evidence to the contrary.  Philosophy has nothing to do with it.  Likewise, no evidence for a transcendent creator.  NO EVIDENCE.  What is it about those two little words that the fundies just don’t get?

When Darwin first published “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, it was the scientists, not the clergy that challenged his theory.

Wouldn’t Bishop Wilberforce, please correct me if I’m wrong here, have been a member of the clergy?  A very powerful and prominent member of the clergy?  And hell, some of the scientists WERE members of the clergy.  Strike two.

The break between science and religious authority following the dispute between Galileo and the Roman Church in the early 1600’s convinced the churches of Darwin’s day that they would do well to accommodate his theory rather than repeat the error of the Roman Church.

This may very well be true of the Roman Church(references?), but it is not true of protestant, certainly not Anglican(see above), sects.  Strike three.  New Batter.  What?  They only have Mr. Renick?

The credibility of theistic evolution as a hybridized theological-scientific theory of origins rests solidly on a single factor[emphasis mine] - the existence of convincing scientific evidence that shows that the universal common ancestry descent model of evolution is a reliable description of the history of life.  But the only directly observable evidence[emphasis mine] from which the history of life might be reconstructed is the fossil record.

Well that’s it.  All the geneticists and molecular bioligists can just go home now.  They’ve had a good laugh at everyone’s expense.  Since Mr. Renick can’t SEE DNA, well it just doesn’t exist and it’s bearing on the interconnectedness of all living things is equally nonexistent.  And that is just one example of evidence over and above the fossil record in support of evolution.  Strike onefour.

And the well documented features of the fossil record…sudden appearance of fully formed complex animal life, no apparent ancestors, little or no change during tenure on earth, followed by - in the vast majority of cases - extinction… stand hard against universal common ancestry descent.

Standard misrepresentations, deceptions, and outright lies.  Strike five.

From the beginning.

Theistic evolution is an attempt to reconcile Christian belief in a Creator with Darwin’s theory of evolution. The rationale for such an undertaking is simple. If Darwin’s theory is true, as science says, and if Creation is true, as the scriptures say, then those who in their own minds can synthesize Genesis and Darwin into a coherent account of biological origins must believe that they have discovered a higher truth…This transaction between Genesis and Darwin is worth examining…

And back to the end

…Theistic evolution does not make sense because there is no convincing evidence for either the “fact” of evolution or its hypothesized mechanism, natural selection.  The question then arises: Why would anyone knowingly compromise foundational aspects of their faith to accommodate an unproven model of the history of live and the speculative hypothesis portrayed as its mechanism - especially one with obvious anti-religious implications?…Those who hold to theistic evolution are urged to objectively re-examine the evidence and then re-evaluate the legitimacy of theistic evolution as an explanation for the history of life.

This is very interesting, as Renick is attacking his fellow religionists rather than evolutionists.  Could a schism be conceivably possible?  Would is help the cause of rationalism?
Sincerely, Paul

Comment #27043

Posted by Evolvin\' Apeman on April 28, 2005 07:46 AM (e) (s)

[Some people just don’t get it. When you break Rule 6 here, you are not welcome back. I can keep adding further IP addresses to be banned easy enough. — WRE]

Comment #27044

Posted by Jim Wynne on April 28, 2005 08:40 AM (e) (s)

Paul Flocken wrote:

Scientists insist that evolution was undirected because there is no evidence to the contrary.

Are you sure this is what you meant to say? I think it would be more accurate to say that science has no opinion as to whether evolution was directed because the “evidence” for direction is not accessible to the scientific method. The unsupported assertions of scientists (and preachers) are irrelevant.

Comment #27045

Posted by SeanD on April 28, 2005 08:43 AM (e) (s)

This is a little off topic, though it does reference a quote from the post above— I wonder what IDists take ‘philosophical naturalism’ to be.  The way they use the term bears little resemblance to how it seems to be used in contermporary philosophy, where it denotes, roughly, a methodological attitude *in philosophy* which regards philosophy and science as in some sense importantly continuous— that is, philosophy is distinguished less by having a unique method than by the particular questions it addresses  (not to say that philosophy is regarded as ‘a science,’ per se).  Insofar as scientists might have opinions about the role of philosophy, they could be naturalists or not— but its hard to see why this would affect their views on evolution, though presumably a naturalistically inclined philosopher would be more likely to accept evolution (though neither would most non-naturalists deny it).  If we read ‘philosophical naturalism’ among scientists as an opinion towards their own discipline and its methods, as a belief that, say, the methods of biological science are the best way to learn about the biological world, then it would seem that any serious biologist would have to be a naturalist in this sense. 

By ‘philosophical naturalism’ do IDists/creationists just mean atheism/agnosticism (or perhaps, more reasonably, some methodological version thereof- but methodological principles in the sciences are prboably not  really ‘philosophical’ in any perjorative sense)?  Or some sort of materialism/physicalism (as opposed to dualism, vitalism, etc…)?  Obviously, accepting evolution as a  good empirical theory in biology (and hence likely to be true or close to true) doesn’t require commitment to either one (as, of course, witnessed by the existence of theistic evolutionists, which include such theological dunces as the entire Catholic Church hiearchy). 

This is just one of the many ways that ID advocates reveal their ignorance not only of science, but also of some basic philosophical issues (the other which always bothers the hell out of me is the ‘evolution is not falsiable, and so not science’ argument— even if the antecedenct is true, the consquequent doeesn’t follow.  Falsifiability hasn’t been regarded as a straightforwardly necessary condition for ‘sciencehood’ by hardly anyone since the 1950s when W.V.O. Quine published a blistering attack on the doctrine in his famous ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism.’  Note that the ‘good guys’ fall into a similar trap sometimes as well, by arguing using the same strategy that ID is not a science.  A long history of attempts to demarcate science from ‘pseudo-science’ have, I think, at least strongly suggested that we’re better off regarding disciplines like ID and astrology as *really unsucceful sciences* rather than as simply ‘non-scientific’).

Comment #27046

Posted by Paul Flocken on April 28, 2005 08:54 AM (e) (s)

Comment #27044
Posted by Jim Wynne on April 28, 2005 08:40 AM

Are you sure this is what you meant to say? I think it would be more accurate to say that science has no opinion as to whether evolution was directed because the “evidence” for direction is not accessible to the scientific method. The unsupported assertions of scientists (and preachers) are irrelevant.

I would like to think that evidence is, by definition, accessible to the scientific method.  Or, expressed negatively, that which is not accessible to the scientific method is not evidence, hence no contrary evidence to undirectedness.  But lacking a rigorous examination of that, your formulation is the more accurate statement.  Thanks.
Sincerely, Paul

Comment #27047

Posted by Paul Flocken on April 28, 2005 09:08 AM (e) (s)

SeanD,
You are correct about ‘philosophical naturalism’.  It is one of those codewords that creationists use that are only supposed to be understood by other creationists because it has a definition only creationists apply to it.

To return to the topic I so blithely ignored, since this posting of Mr. Thomas obliquely addresses the problem of teenagers not having enough of the right tools to rigorously analyze creationist quackery, this is a good place to bring up Sir ToeJam’s attempt at an ngo.  Is it a go or will it fail at conception.  It is an excellant place to show our anger will drive us to act.
Sincerely, Paul

Comment #27048

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 28, 2005 09:13 AM (e) (s)

Some version of E. Apeman said: 

Correction, higher education has increasingly become an indoctrination process for liberalism, which has its roots in Darwinism.

Spoken like someone who has never seen a graduate school! 

Conservatives dominate graduate education in the U.S., especially in business schools (where MBAs are granted, if you didn’t realize it), law schools, medical schools, and engineering.  There are a handful of famous, liberal thinkers on university faculties, compared to the thousands of faculty members, most of whom are no more liberal than your grandmother (if your grandmother is liberal, perhaps you should pay more attention to her reasons). 

Darwinism?  In business school?  In engineering?  In software design and “systems analysis?”  That’s rich. 

Darwinism plays too small a role in biology, too small a role in medicine, and no discernible role in any other facet of higher education.

This is of course the problem with “knowledge puffs up” that  supports your arrogant attitude.  I’m just waiting for you guys to propose a voting system where years of education are used to weight a citizen’s vote.  You “alphas” really out to read Huxley’s “Brave New World”

The liberal myth that “education” will somehow solve societies problems continues.  Consider your efforts to be as successful as Moore’s propoganda piece was in preventing Bush’s re-election.

Education is much cheaper than ignorance.  Moore was right, of course.  Too bad his delivery cemented so many otherwise good Americans into thinking that Bush had told the truth about Iraq.  Of course, most Americans supported Lyndon Johnson and the escalation of the Vietnam war, at first.  God help us that Iraq doesn’t take a similar course from here on in!

Knowledge is the glory of God, American theologians used to say.  If there is a god, that’s certainly true (I’m a believer).  So when the IDolators rail against education, it is one more means by which we can discern their Pharisaic philosophy and departure from the path of righteousness, American patriotism, and the common sense which once was prized by common folk who aspire for their own children to get educations better than their own.

Contrarianism is entertaining when backed by thought, but simple dissention otherwise, a sowing of strife for no yield.

Comment #27049

Posted by Paul Flocken on April 28, 2005 09:19 AM (e) (s)

evolving-apeman,
I notice you did not disagree with my assertian that religious indoctrination begins in the cradle.  In my bookstore, there are religious picture board books(that means no words, apeman) specifically for the one to three age range.  And they are quite doctrinaire on creationist subjects.  Is it right or wrong to expose(far to weak a word in my opinion) children to such brainwashing before they are barely capable of thinking, let alone critical thinking.  Setting aside a name for it, what goes on in the universities of this country at least has adults as the object.  They are quite capable of deciding for themselves if the education is worth it.
insincerely,

Comment #27051

Posted by RPM on April 28, 2005 09:44 AM (e) (s)

Off-topic, but in reply to Alex, I’m a current undergrad bio major at Caltech, and am pleasantly surprised to hear that we’ve got a better bio-PhD-per-bio-BS ratio than MIT, Harvard, et all. It’s especially surprising because biology is barely considered a science here; physics and chemistry are sciences, but biology is often viewed as a linear combination of stamp-collecting and pipetting.

Among geneticists, CalTech has a very nice reputation as the 2nd home of Drosophila genetics (after Morgan’s lab moved from Columbia).  While modern genetics got its start in NYC, it really took hold in Pasadena.  One of the most important figures of the Modern Synthesis, Th. Dobzhansky, got his start at CalTech (before, ironically, moving to New York), and you could very well argue that CalTech was one of most important institutions in giving rise to modern evolutionary theory.

Comment #27052

Posted by Keanus on April 28, 2005 09:59 AM (e) (s)

The stats on education level and acceptance of evolution don’t surprise me in the least. Of all college graduates, a non-trivial portion are graduates of fundamentalist colleges where evolution is often taught as the standard doctrine of atheists and agnotics. Of the rest I suspect that fewer than a third have studied any biology in college, much less a second year course on evolution or, god forbid, a course on the relationship between science and religion. After all look at the bozo in the Whitehouse. He went to Yale, earned gentleman C’s, never took a course in biology, and yet has the gall to say in his ignorance that “the jury’s still out on evolution.”

The results also are consistent with an anecdotal observation of mine. I volunteer five to six hours a week at a local Planned Parenthood clinic escorting patients through screaming and physically obstructionist pickets. My fellow escorts and I all have at least four years of college. Through talking with the few pickets who are civil, I’ve learned that at best one in five is a college graduate and many of the rest high school dropouts. But that doesn’t stop them from screaming that abortion causes breast cancer, is more risky than a full term pregnancy, that Planned Parenthood spreads diseases, that PP is a money machine, and other factually incorrect nonsense. The  escorts uniformly accept evolution; I’ve never asked the pickets about evolution, but I expect most reject it. I suspect that statistically education is a key distinction in differentiating those on the two sides of both issues.

Of course, the folks at the DI have the “education” but they’re the statistical anomalies found in any large population. Education isn’t all one needs. One also needs some common sense and dose of wisdom.

Keanus

Comment #27055

Posted by Moses on April 28, 2005 10:20 AM (e) (s)

“What’s amazing to me about those numbers in Dave’s post is not that 80% of people who stop after high school (or earlier) have no concept of geologic time scales, it’s that 35% of college postgrads are able to keep themselves deluded about basic scientific facts.”

So lets say someone’s got a Masters in Elizabethean Poetry…  That somehow should make this individual aware?  Or they’re a lawyer?  Nothing personal, but a Lawyer is a guy with a bachelors degree that went to a difficult trade school.

Or what about me?  I’m an accountant with a graduate degree in accounting.  And while I know more about US Taxation than probably 99.999% of all Americans, my formal schooling in Biology stopped as a college sophmore, when I took  Oceonography 101 taught from a biological perspective instead of a geological perspective.  My last broad spectrum biology class was in high school, where I discovered in the sex ed unit I knew more about women’s bodies than most HS girls.  (Nothing like Gray’s Anatomy, first read as a 3rd grader when Dad was in Medical School.)

Everything I’ve learned since is either from my wife (PhD) who is a research biologist at a top university; or attributable to my natural,  and rare, desire to learn and grow in my understanding of the “universe as it is, not what someone wishes it to be” as a human.

Comment #27057

Posted by Michael Finley on April 28, 2005 10:30 AM (e) (s)

About levels of education: It’s an interesting statistic, but one that seems hard to make sense of. Many students, myself included, make it through undergrad. without even taking a biology course (I was a philosophy major, and my two science core-requirements were met by chemistry and physics). And I would guess that the percentage of graduate students studying discinplines other than biology is rather high.

Concerning religion and Darwinian evolution: There is no empirical evidence that I know of for the intervention of an intelligence, either in mutation or environment; neither is there empirical evidence against such intervention. What would count as evidence either way? It seems to me that the question of intervention, for or against, is beyond the scope of science.

Comment #27058

Posted by Alex Merz on April 28, 2005 10:36 AM (e) (s)

Evolving Ape-man wrote:

Higher education has increasingly become an indoctrination process for liberalism, which has its roots in Darwinism.

No, it doesn’t. Liberalism as a political philosophy emerged in the late 1700s; the term liberalism was in use by the early 1800s. And Darwin published the Origin in 1859. You are emitting impossible nonsense, as usual.

Comment #27059

Posted by PvM on April 28, 2005 10:39 AM (e) (s)

ID proponents like Johnson and others have done a great disservice to science and faith by their consistent conflation of methodological and philosophical naturalism. Perhaps the end justifies the means ??? but such a conflation is easily exposed and shows the underlying religious foundation of Intelligent Design.

Comment #27060

Posted by Ken Shackleton on April 28, 2005 10:48 AM (e) (s)

Evolving Ape wrote:

This is of course the problem with “knowledge puffs up” that  supports your arrogant attitude.

Is the Apeman actually advocating ignorance as a tool to fight arrogance? If so….then he has this exactly backwards…..the most arrogant and opinionated people that I have ever met have been the ones with the least education.

It has also been my observation that people [even intelligent and  well educated] tend to have the strongest opinions on the subjects in which they possess the least knowledge.

Comment #27061

Posted by Michael Finley on April 28, 2005 11:05 AM (e) (s)

PvM wrote:

ID proponents like Johnson and others have done a great disservice to science and faith by their consistent conflation of methodological and philosophical naturalism.

As I’ve discovered in the recent thread on this topic, there is a tremendous amount of confusion concerning “methodological naturalism.” It seems to me that science is not methodologically naturalistic; indeed, it is not naturalistic at all.

The phrase “methodological naturalism” suggests a methodological commitment to a position that can only be characterized philosophically. Science, I’m told, makes no such commitments and does not engage in philosophy.

Rather, the results of science have found nothing but natural causes. Perhaps this could be called a de facto naturalism, but even that would be incorrect because the conclusion is not in any way supportive of naturalism, i.e., every scientist is (or should be) open to the idea that tomorrow they will have evidence of miracles left and right, but until they do, they correctly adopt a show-me-the-money attitude.

Comment #27065

Posted by Jim Wynne on April 28, 2005 11:30 AM (e) (s)

Ken Shackleton wrote:

Is the Apeman actually advocating ignorance as a tool to fight arrogance?

Not surprising; he is highly qualified in the use of it, and it seems to be the only tool he has.

Comment #27066

Posted by Jim Harrison on April 28, 2005 11:32 AM (e) (s)

Nobody has pointed out the obvious problem with assuming that increased education leads to belief in evolution. Since people with advanced degrees are likely to be more intelligent than others, the statistical correlation between education and evolution may simply reflect the tendency of intelligent people to understand and support evolution.

Comment #27068

Posted by Flint on April 28, 2005 11:35 AM (e) (s)

Finley:

I agree, these terms are tossed around without much attachment to anything. Science presumes (pending evidence to the contrary) that natural, observable effects have natural, observable causes. This is indeed a presumption, a meta-working hypothesis. I would contend that if science were to encounter an effect that did NOT have a natural or observable cause, then science would either guess wrong, or permanently remain in “We don’t know” limbo.

The creationist claim is that science is constructed in such a way as to define the supernatural as impossible and nonexistent, but this is misleading. Better to say that science consists of applying a well-understood method, and the method is incapable of detecting or evaluating unnatural mechanisms if indeed any exist. So the show-me-the-money approach truly does constrain what is recognizable as money. Faith is not money. “The results of science have found nothing but natural causes” because the scientific method is only capable of looking for natural causes. Other causes, if any, lie outside the scope of science.

Comment #27070

Posted by Michael Finley on April 28, 2005 11:53 AM (e) (s)

Flint,

I think your interpretation is too strong. Let’s take a straight-forward example: if tomorrow I encounter a burning-bush in my back-yard, and it starts talking to me, and I invite, friends, neighbors, reporters and scientists over to take a look, and they all verify my findings, and despite years of analysis no natural cause can be found, and…, eventually don’t we have to chalk that one up to a miracle. Must we throw up our hands and leave the matter in “we don’t know” limbo?

Comment #27072

Posted by Jeremy Mohn on April 28, 2005 12:04 PM (e) (s)

GOD ROOLZ DOWN WITH EVOLUTION

Comment #27074

Posted by spencer on April 28, 2005 12:09 PM (e) (s)

Let’s take a straight-forward example: if tomorrow I encounter a burning-bush in my back-yard, and it starts talking to me, and I invite, friends, neighbors, reporters and scientists over to take a look, and they all verify my findings, and despite years of analysis no natural cause can be found, and…, eventually don’t we have to chalk that one up to a miracle. Must we throw up our hands and leave the matter in “we don’t know” limbo?

In my view, yes, we must leave it in “I don’t know” limbo. Because how can we attribute it to a “miracle” if we can’t even verify the existence of a source of miracles?

We can speculate that it may have been a miracle, or believe that it probably was a miracle. But we can never *know* it was, simply because of the vast amount of unknowns the universe still contains.

Comment #27076

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on April 28, 2005 12:17 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Finley:

I think we should leave that question for the moment you encounter that burning bush.

After all, it might never happen, right?

Comment #27077

Posted by Jim Harrison on April 28, 2005 12:19 PM (e) (s)

Scientists don’t have a rule book that tells them what they can and cannot do. As in Common Law, such determinations are made on a case by case basis. The boundary between scientific research and philosophical speculation or mere magic has gradually developed over time much through the actual practice of science and the accumulation of precedents. The methodology reflects what worked. If burning bushes and fairies had turned up, scientific practice would presumably reflect those facts. Since the world is not haunted, the biologists didn’t turn into ghost busters.

At root, the problem the Creationists and ID folks keep bumping their heads against isn’t some complicated issue of epistemology. They are just wrong about the facts. Everything else follows from that.

Comment #27080

Posted by Harq al-Ada on April 28, 2005 12:40 PM (e) (s)

“Human beings have evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.”

This wording does not help things at all.  It makes no distinction between theistic evolutionists and ID beleivers.  A natural consequence is that the IDers will claim that 43% of Americans believe in ID, and only 18% of us are Darwinists.  In fact, they have made this claim.

Comment #27081

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 28, 2005 12:40 PM (e) (s)

Finley

Let’s take a straight-forward example: if tomorrow I encounter a burning-bush in my back-yard, and it starts talking to me, and I invite, friends, neighbors, reporters and scientists over to take a look, and they all verify my findings, and despite years of analysis no natural cause can be found, and…, eventually don’t we have to chalk that one up to a miracle.

Reminds of the Brady Bunch episode where Greg has everyone believing there is a flying saucer patrolling the neighborhood.

You crack me up Finley!  Surely you can come up with a more impressive “miracle” than that one.  DOn’t disappoint me next time.

Comment #27083

Posted by Michael Finley on April 28, 2005 12:44 PM (e) (s)

Aureola Nominee, FCD wrote:

I think we should leave that question for the moment you encounter that burning bush.

After all, it might never happen, right?

My money is on it never happening. But extreme thought experiments are useful for fleshing out theoretical issues. Thus, we can hypothetically ask, “If…, then what might we be inclined to believe?”

It seems to me that, if an observed phenomenon resists all attempts at naturalistic explanation over a lengthy period of time, then it would make sense to consider other logical possibilities. If you tell me that such possibilities are off the table, I’ll ask why. Won’t your answer have to be philosophical?

Comment #27084

Posted by 386sx on April 28, 2005 12:47 PM (e) (s)

Mike Walker wrote:

Well, the obvious retort from the other side is not that they are “Intelligent and Educated” but that they are “Indoctrinated”. That’s what creationists and the DI tends to moan and gripe about.

Maybe, but if the creationists and the DI are right about that then the Intelligent and Educated would have had to have been indoctrinated by the… Intelligent and Educated. It’s Intelligent and Educated all the way down, folks!

Comment #27085

Posted by Michael Finley on April 28, 2005 12:49 PM (e) (s)

Jim,

Before you go painting with a broad brush, perhaps you should reread my comment, especially the sentence “Rather, the results of science have found nothing but natural causes.”

Great White,

Burning-bushes that talk and are not consumed aren’t good enough for you? What do you have in mind?

Comment #27086

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 28, 2005 12:56 PM (e) (s)

Finley

But extreme thought experiments are useful for fleshing out theoretical issues.

What in heck is extreme about a burning bush that talks, Finley?

That’s not much more extreme than a statue which cries blood, if you ask me.  Or a spring whose water “heals” people with “incurable” ailments.

Look at this way: let’s say tomorrow all over the world the sky turns successively purple, green, blue, red and yellow, everyone’s dog starts singing “Blowin in the Wind” in unison, and at high noon over Death Valley a booming voice heard by everyone in the entire world in their native tongue, including deaf people, says “You people aren’t worshipping me hard enough!  Tomorrow start praying or I will destroy you!  Here’s a sample!” and at that moment everyone in Alabama, Ireland and South Africa implodes into a tiny crystal.

You know what?  I’m praying my ass off.  I don’t have to know what it is I’m praying to, but I’ll be praying.  And I’ll be advocating prayer in schools too.

So much for my “commitment” to “philosophical naturalism.”

Comment #27088

Posted by Flint on April 28, 2005 12:58 PM (e) (s)

It seems to me that, if an observed phenomenon resists all attempts at naturalistic explanation over a lengthy period of time, then it would make sense to consider other logical possibilities.

This is a really tough question, at least for me (I’m sure it’s stone simple for GWW). Is a supernatural explanation a “logical possibility” or is it a space-filler, a way of pretending we have an explanation rather than admitting we do not? We may as individuals select whatever explanations satisfy our need to supply one, but I think science as a discipline must consign this to “not explained” until such time as a workable scientific explanation can be established. And a “workable scientific explanation” means one that has proposed tests, some of which have passed and some of which have failed. If your talking, burning bush can’t be subjected to tests, it lies outside the scope of science.

We may have an ace in the hole in this case: if the bush is talking, maybe what it says can suggest some good tests. Maybe we can even question it!

Comment #27089

Posted by qetzal on April 28, 2005 12:59 PM (e) (s)

I think maybe we miss the point when we argue whether science can only consider “natural” causes. I suggest the more useful statement is that science only considers things that are observable, predictable, and verifiable. Observable, in this case, has to be considered broadly, since we frequently infer things that are not directly observable (e.g. macroevolution), from things that are (e.g. the fossil record, genetic relatedness, microevolution).

In that sense, I agree with Micheal Finley. If we observed a burning bush that talked, claimed to be God, and could repeatedly perform verifiable feats that violated physical laws (e.g. temporarily stopping the earth from spinning, instantaneously creating new complex organisms, etc.), we could “scientifically” conclude that God is the best available explanation.

After all, we don’t scientifically dismiss hypothetical alien Intelligent Designers because they are necessarily “unnatural”. (At least, I don’t. Alien Intelligent Designers could in principle be entirely natural.) We object to them because to date, there is nothing observable, predictable, or verifiable about them, directly or indirectly.

No doubt many of us mean essentially that when we talk about “natural” phenomena and causes. But to many others, the term “natural” excludes God and religion by definition. Science is restricted to natural phenomena in the first sense, but not the second.

More proof that science can readily address religious or “supernatural” phenomenon: controlled trials on the efficacy of prayer. There is no inherent impediment to conducting rigorous, controlled, double-blinded studies on the efficacy of prayer. Imagine if well-designed studies had repeatably demonstrated positive effects. Think of the follow up studies you could do! Relative efficacy of Catholic vs. Protestent prayer. Comparative intercessional power of different saints. You could even ask who is stronger - God or Satan! Just have two different groups “pray” for the same patients - Christians pray for patients to get better, and Satanists pray for them to get worse. The possibilities are endless!

;-)

Comment #27091

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 28, 2005 01:11 PM (e) (s)

if an observed phenomenon resists all attempts at naturalistic explanation over a lengthy period of time, then it would make sense to consider other logical possibilities

Only if there is a deadline for “explaining” the “observed phenomenon.”  Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to consider “other logical possibilities” (which include, I’m imagining, “The Gods are playing a game with us” and “The Gods are trying to tell us something” and “My dead aunt Martha is upset that I used her ashes for fertilizer”).

Comment #27092

Posted by Dave Thomas on April 28, 2005 01:12 PM (e) (s)

It’s been my position for a couple of years that science doesn’t automatically rule out consideration of the supernatural, but does require, like qetzal said,

things that are observable, predictable, and verifiable.

Here’s what I said back at last year’s ID Symposium in Albuquerque:

Science does not say that miracles and the supernatural can’t exist - however, they don’t make good scientific hypotheses. A famous Sydney Harris cartoon shows this well: “Then a miracle occurs” appears in the midst of equations on a blackboard, and a scientist says to the writer “I think you should be more explicit here in step 2.” Indeed!… What does science really say? National Academy of Science: “In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from confirmable data - the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science.” NAP, Evolution and the Nature of Science

The Bible Code is an example of a “Miracle” that has been described in sufficient detail - explicitly - to allow for scientific testing. This very elaborate method is supposed to produce hidden messages, but only in the Torah. However, this method can be applied to other, “mundane” texts, and these hold detailed hidden messages also, disproving the claim. Even the word GENERALIZATION , shows a bonafide hidden NAZI as an equidistant letter sequence (ELS).

Cheers, Dave

Comment #27093

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 28, 2005 01:23 PM (e) (s)

You could even ask who is stronger - God or Satan! Just have two different groups “pray” for the same patients - Christians pray for patients to get better, and Satanists pray for them to get worse.

You can ask these questions now and, in fact, our government will give you money to do these experiments.

Let me repeat that: our government will give you money to do these experiments.

Do you find that hard to believe?

I do.  I’ve seen Rosemary’s Baby.  I know the deal.

I propose simply having a computer that generates a billion random numbers an hour and 100 evangelical christians in one room who pray “Even, even, even” for 1 hour.  And another 100 who pray “odd odd odd” for the next hour.

My prediction: no difference in distribution of even and odd numbers when you compare the numbers generated over those two hours.

Let’s have a laugh now and discuss why that experiment “doesn’t prove anything.”  Wait, let me light my pipe first.

Comment #27094

Posted by Jim Wynne on April 28, 2005 01:25 PM (e) (s)

michael finley wrote:

I think your interpretation is too strong. Let’s take a straight-forward example: if tomorrow I encounter a burning-bush in my back-yard, and it starts talking to me, and I invite, friends, neighbors, reporters and scientists over to take a look, and they all verify my findings, and despite years of analysis no natural cause can be found, and…, eventually don’t we have to chalk that one up to a miracle. Must we throw up our hands and leave the matter in “we don’t know” limbo?

How about a real-world example? Suppose it’s 1650, and you believe, like everyone else, in spontaneous generation—you see maggots appear on decaying meat, and with no other explanation available, assume that life has formed from nonliving matter. Despite years of analysis and watching maggots appear, no other answer is forthcoming, at least not definitively until Pasteur’s famous experiments 200 years later. Or should Pasteur have just chalked it up to a miracle?

Comment #27095

Posted by Jim Harrison on April 28, 2005 01:25 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Findley’s like the guy in the coffee bar who’s sure the people in the other booth are talking about him…

If you read Pliny the Elder or any one of a number of Renaissance books on natural history, you’ll find many reports of what one might retrospectively call supernatural phenomena. Such reports tended to dry up later on as the criteria for reliable information became tougher. It certainly wasn’t because David Hume wrote an essay against miracles.

If you do want the miracles to come back, all you have to do is stop examining the evidence critically. The Protestants, most of ‘em anyhow, believed that miracles ceased after the Apostalic Age because they got scruples about promoting superstition among the people and real miracles don’t happen as a matter of fact. Miracles keep happening for Catholics because the hierarchy wants them to and there will never be a shortage of vague stories that can be tarted up into proofs of faith, especially if you have a flexible notion of truth—the  Devil’s Advocate bit is about as credible as the latest Papal investigation into priestly pederasty.

Comment #27096

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 28, 2005 01:28 PM (e) (s)

amazing.

everyone here sees the problem faced; the numbers are very clear.

instead most of the discussion begins to evolve into a debate over the definition of “naturalism”?

where are the movers and shakers here?  This really isn’t a topic for mental masturbation.  It’s a topic to discuss what could be done, imo.

so, for example, nobody has any ideas on how to change the fact that 2/3 of current teenagers don’t believe there is good evidence to support evolutionary theory?

everyone talks here, but nobody wants to actually DO anything.

another example:

Wesley posted a great idea for compiling and comparing data on creationist claims, and asked for volunteers:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi…

anybody bother to even check it out?

There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.
—Isaac Asimov

Comment #27097

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 28, 2005 01:30 PM (e) (s)

Flint

if the bush is talking, maybe what it says can suggest some good tests. Maybe we can even question it!

Ah, metaphysics — where would we be without it?

Comment #27098

Posted by Michael Finley on April 28, 2005 01:32 PM (e) (s)

GWW wrote:

Only if there is a deadline for “explaining” the “observed phenomenon.” Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to consider “other logical possibilities”….

Please justify this statement.

qetzal wrote:

I suggest the more useful statement is that science only considers things that are observable, predictable, and verifiable.

Would prediction be a reasonable expectation of a miracle? It seems to me that prediction requires law-governed regularity. A miracle, on the other hand, is by definition an irregular event contrary to the laws of nature. Aren’t observable and verifiable sufficient?

If, for example, someone has been pronounced dead by several physicians, and has been dead for a couple of days, a miraculous resurrection is a logical possibility (setting aside Flint’s concern for the moment), but how could it be predicted? Nonetheless, if such a resurrection were observed and verified, would it not be an empirical fact, a scientific fact?

Comment #27099

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 28, 2005 01:34 PM (e) (s)

Sir Toejam

so, for example, nobody has any ideas on how to change the fact that 2/3 of current teenagers don’t believe there is good evidence to support evolutionary theory?

everyone talks here, but nobody wants to actually DO anything.

Um, I’m at work right now.  Maybe this weekend?

Comment #27101

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 28, 2005 01:41 PM (e) (s)

that’s exactly the response i expected.

Comment #27102

Posted by Michael Finley on April 28, 2005 01:41 PM (e) (s)

Jim Wynne wrote:

How about a real-world example? Suppose it’s 1650, and you believe, like everyone else, in spontaneous generation — you see maggots appear on decaying meat, and with no other explanation available, assume that life has formed from nonliving matter. Despite years of analysis and watching maggots appear, no other answer is forthcoming, at least not definitively until Pasteur’s famous experiments 200 years later. Or should Pasteur have just chalked it up to a miracle?

O.K., “chalked up,” i.e., “decided in favor of,” was too strong. Rather, other logically possible answers should be placed on the table. Concerning your example, spontaneous generation was on the table, and rightfully so. It’s being on the table, however, should not and did not discourage the pursuit of other possibilities.

I think the same should be true of any persistently unexplainable phenomena.

Comment #27103

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 28, 2005 01:41 PM (e) (s)

I wrote

Only if there is a deadline for “explaining” the “observed phenomenon.” Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense to consider “other logical possibilities”….

and Finley asked me to “justify it.”  I refer Finley to 27094 and 27095 for the answer.

I might include a caveat that it could also “make sense” for one to “consider other logical possibilities” if one is addicted to mental masturbation.

Comment #27105

Posted by Michael Finley on April 28, 2005 01:58 PM (e) (s)

GWW wrote:

I refer Finley to 27094 and 27095 for the answer.

You can, but they don’t provide an answer.

…mental masturbation.

How Freudian of you. Is a topic idle thinking because you say it is, or do you have a criterion of “mental masturbation”?

Comment #27106

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on April 28, 2005 01:59 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Finley:

My money is on it never happening.

At least we agree on this.

But extreme thought experiments are useful for fleshing out theoretical issues. Thus, we can hypothetically ask, “If…, then what might we be inclined to believe?”

Danger: “believing” is a loaded word. Either I have enough data and convincing interpretation to “know” (in the provisional sense of all scientific knowledge) or not. So, we either “know” what caused the strange phenomenon or we don’t.

believing has no part to play in a scientific assessment of the event.

Comment #27108

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 28, 2005 02:05 PM (e) (s)

Finley

I think the same should be true of any persistently unexplainable phenomena.

News flash for Finley: we are all free to believe that anything we don’t understand “just happened.”  And we can even make up silly explanations and pretend to “study” them.

Five thousand alien abductees can’t be wrong, right?  Maybe Sasquatch is really really good at hiding.  Perhaps Nessie can shrink down to the size of a quarter at will.  Maybe Uri Geller is trying to make us believe that he’s a fraud because “we’re not ready.”  Renowned psychic John Edward might be ruling the world with his legion of invisible spirits.

It’s all “on the table” Finley.  For some strange reason, you just lack the imagination to articulate these hypotheses.

Why is that, I wonder?

And did you have a point to make regarding creationism or something?

Comment #27109

Posted by Michael Finley on April 28, 2005 02:13 PM (e) (s)

Aureola Nominee, FCD wrote:

Danger: “believing” is a loaded word. Either I have enough data and convincing interpretation to “know” (in the provisional sense of all scientific knowledge) or not. So, we either “know” what caused the strange phenomenon or we don’t.

I wasn’t being that careful with my language, but my loose expression is consistent with yours.

If we go with the traditional definition of “knowledge” as true, justified belief, then to know is also to believe (Gettier cases notwithstanding). Assuming our “inclinations” are supported by “justification,” my expression amounts to the same.

Comment #27111

Posted by Michael Finley on April 28, 2005 02:21 PM (e) (s)

GWW,

You’re awefully good at disparaging rhetoric, but you should occasionally fill it with something sound. Otherwise it appears to be disagreement for disagreement sake.

Look. Was the belief in spontaneous generation prior to Pasteur a reasonable one? Of course it was.

Comment #27112

Posted by Marek14 on April 28, 2005 02:22 PM (e) (s)

There was some talk about indoctrination of children. The question is, how would it look if the children were NOT indoctrinated? I know, because that’s what happened to me. Nobody in my family talked about religious matters - ever. I think I must have been around 8 when I realized that there is something like religion and that people are adhering to it.

You know what? I’m glad for it. I found out about religion in age when I could make my choice. I’ve chosen atheism, since that was the most logical choice (I was a strange kid). It would be interesting how many people would chose different religions if they were brought up without any.

Isn’t this what it’s all about? Maybe the people who indoctrinate the children do so because they know the kids wouldn’t choose THEIR religion otherwise.

Comment #27113

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on April 28, 2005 02:25 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Finley:

You do a wonderful job of confusing the issue. If we have no explanation for a phenomenon, then we have no explanation for a phenomenon. If we do, then we do.

If we don’t, some of us will jump to unwarranted conclusions and claim that their “belief” is now “justified” by the lack of an explanation.

And we’re back to square one: the lack of a satisfactory natural explanation is not equivalent to the presence of a satusfactory supernatural explanation.

Comment #27115

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on April 28, 2005 02:30 PM (e) (s)

Addendum:

Of course I’m talking about scientific knowledge. Everybody’s perfectly free to believe whatever they feel like believing, even if it is the same ol—same ol’ God of the Gaps.

Comment #27116

Posted by Michael Finley on April 28, 2005 02:36 PM (e) (s)

And we’re back to square one: the lack of a satisfactory natural explanation is not equivalent to the presence of a satisfactory supernatural explanation.

Sigh. I agree.

What I am asserting is the persistent and lengthy absence of a satisfactory natural explanation should suggest the possibility of a non-natural explanation.

What’s more, I’m not even asserting that there are any phenomena lacking natural explanations, but only that if there were, then, etc., etc.

I think one of the problems around here (at least that I’ve encountered) is that everyone immediately jumps ten imagined steps in front of the small point being advocated, and then proceeds to reject the imagined end result - “I think I see where you’re headed, and let me assure you it won’t work!”

Comment #27118

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on April 28, 2005 02:53 PM (e) (s)

Mr. Finley:

I suggets we stick to what we do know, as much as possible. You see, it is my humble opinion that this happens most frequently when people undertake “extreme thought experiments”.

But let me suggest you a very simple and much less extreme thought experiment:

If “supernatural” is defined by elimination, how can we ever conclusively decide that something is indeed of “supernatural” character?

(I was almost writing “supernatural nature”, but I don’t want this to sound too sarcastic.)

Comment #27123

Posted by caerbannog on April 28, 2005 03:14 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley said:
What I am asserting is the persistent and lengthy absence of a satisfactory natural explanation should suggest the possibility of a non-natural explanation.

Of course, there’s no reason to limit this to abiogenesis.

For example, the formation of lightning is still poorly understood, in spite of decades of study.  This persistent and lengthy absence of a satisfactory natural explanation for lightning formation should suggest the possibility of a non-natural explanation (such as the “Thor theory of lightning”).

Comment #27125

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 28, 2005 03:22 PM (e) (s)

Finley

I think one of the problems around here (at least that I’ve encountered) is that everyone immediately jumps ten imagined steps in front of the small point being advocated

We’re just trying to help you articulate your “small points” Finley.

What I am asserting is the persistent and lengthy absence of a satisfactory natural explanation should suggest the possibility of a non-natural explanation.

And I’m asserting that I’m sitting in a chair.

This blog is about evolution Finley, with an emphasis on anti-science creationist drivel designed to compromise the teaching of scientific facts in public schools.

If you were surprised that your comments are interpreted in light of what explanations evolutionary biologists should be testing, perhaps that is because you forgot where you were.  At least, that is a logical possibility that we should consider.  So, the possibility that you suffer from a severe short-term memory issue is now “on the table.”

Happy?  I should think so — “logically” speaking, that is.

Comment #27126

Posted by HPLC_Sean on April 28, 2005 03:26 PM (e) (s)

Sir Toejam said:

so, for example, nobody has any ideas on how to change the fact that 2/3 of current teenagers don’t believe there is good evidence to support evolutionary theory?

Expecting teenagers to have an understanding of evolution is unrealistic. Expecting laypeople to have an understanding of the evidence that supports evolution is a big stretch too. Most people can’t fathom what the Earth was like even 500 years ago, let alone millions or billions of years ago. Most discourses on basic organic chemistry or classic Mendelian genetics, de rigeur topics when chatting about evolution, are met with understandable incomprehension.
I maintain that it is not science’s role to campaign for or against a theory. Theories aren’t subject to popular opinion or referenda, they stand and fall on their merits. I DO think it is science’s role to educate and promote rational skepticism and curiosity in our teenagers. THAT is the raison d’etre of the fight against teaching forms of creationism in schools, but to extend that fight to an “awareness campaign” with the fruitless goal of boosting evolution’s poll numbers is practicing politics, not science.

Comment #27129

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 28, 2005 03:34 PM (e) (s)

When I encounter a burning bush in my back yard, I put it out.  If it refuses to be put out, I look for a fuel source beyond the ordinary.

My experience is that if I don’t put it out, it burns out by itself, generally very quickly.

None of them have spoken yet.  I agree with the poster who urged we not speculate about what to do with the speaking bushes until such time as we encounter them

But am I to understand that some creationists just let their bushes burn?  No wonder California is in such a mess with wildfires in August, especially in those areas where creationists are endemic.

Mad dogs and Englishmen have enough sense to put out burning bushes …

Comment #27130

Posted by Sir_Toejam on April 28, 2005 03:34 PM (e) (s)

“but to extend that fight to an “awareness campaign” with the fruitless goal of boosting evolution’s poll numbers is practicing politics, not science.”

er, you might want to rethink that.  this IS politics. or hadn’t you noticed?

Comment #27134

Posted by Henry J on April 28, 2005 03:46 PM (e) (s)

Re “Expecting laypeople to have an understanding of the evidence that supports evolution is a big stretch too. “

Yeah. In my case at least, I hadn’t paid any real attention to the subject before about 10 years ago, when I got on the internet and found the science forum on the Prodigy BB, where evolution was one of the hot topics.

Henry

Comment #27137

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 28, 2005 03:58 PM (e) (s)

Expecting laypeople to have an understanding of the evidence that supports evolution is a big stretch too

I would be happy if laypeople just understood that when virtually all of the world’s scientists (1) ignore the “research” promoted by the Disclaimery Insitute and (2) state that Dembski, Behe, Wells, Johnson et al. are charlatans with a religious agenda, those scientists are not deluded frauds and liars with an “atheist” agenda.

My impression is that most laypeople already understand this.

It’s our lazy media and our political representatives who fail to understand that it is PERMITTED TO STATE THESE BASIC FACTS.  Indeed, we can easily argue that it is their job to do so and their failure to do their jobs is why the task has ended up in the hands of judges.

Comment #27138

Posted by speedwell on April 28, 2005 04:04 PM (e) (s)

“What I am asserting is the … absence of a … natural explanation should suggest the possibility of a non-natural explanation.”

I don’t understand how the absence of anything can or should suggest the presence of something else.  I’m certainly boggled as to how the absence of something natural should suggest the possibility of something non-natural.

It sounds too much like saying “I have no orange juice, therefore Kool-Aid might possibly exist.”

Comment #27143

Posted by qetzal on April 28, 2005 04:16 PM (e) (s)

HPLC_Sean wrote:

Expecting teenagers to have an understanding of evolution is unrealistic. Expecting laypeople to have an understanding of the evidence that supports evolution is a big stretch too.

If you mean that it’s generally beyond their abilities to even understand, I disagree. However, I think it’s beyond most people’s ability to critically evaluate the evidence on evolution and make reasonably informed conclusions for themselves. For most people, evolution vs. ID/creation is very much a he-said, she-said affair.

I strongly support the idea of teaching rational skepticism. There is way, WAY too much incredulity in our culture, and it has impacts far beyond evolution vs. ID/creation. Rational skepticism and critical thinking skills should be required subjects, beginning around grade 7 or 8. I think that would make a huge difference, and it would be useful for everyone, regardless of final career or level of education.

Given rational skepticism and critical thinking skills, even someone with a weak understanding of evolution and biology could recognize how ridiculous ID/creation claims usually are.

Comment #27146

Posted by Arun on April 28, 2005 04:22 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

What I am asserting is the persistent and lengthy absence of a satisfactory natural explanation should suggest the possibility of a non-natural explanation.

From what is considered to be the first textbook of chemistry ( Libavius, around 1609) to the early 19th century, there was really no satisfactory natural explanation for what caused chemical compounds to form; we really understood the chemical bond only after we understood quantum mechanics.  Non-natural explanations would have led to nowhere.

Science involves a search for natural explanations. Phenomena enter the scope of science when there are effective methods for handling them. If the ID folks can help us get handles on the designer they postulate - where it exists, how it originated (or why it is originless), how it acts, etc. - then ID will enter the realm of science.  We today turn over artifacts to archaelogists; and forensic scientists investigate certain deaths - because there is a postulated human agent, and humans are also natural :)

Comment #27149

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on April 28, 2005 05:28 PM (e) (s)

Mike W writes “Well, the obvious retort from the other side is not that they are “Intelligent and Educated” but that they are “Indoctrinated”. That’s what creationists and the DI tends to moan and gripe about.”

Indeed, thats Weinstein’s first law of creationism…

“Knowledge is Bias”

:-)

Comment #27150

Posted by Stuart Weinstein on April 28, 2005 05:32 PM (e) (s)

Alex writes: Well, GWW, having graduated from a liberal arts college that consistently competes with Caltech (and consistently beats MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, CMU, et al.) for the rank of #1 in per-biology-major yield of life science PhDs  (nearly 20%), I gotta say that I have no idea which liberal arts colleges you are talking about. Not my alma mater, that’s for sure. Williams, maybe? Swarthmore? Oberlin? U. Minnesota, Morris? [;-)]

Were you a science major? Post-Modernism has a large influence on the humanities.

Comment #27154

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 28, 2005 06:17 PM (e) (s)

Concerning religion and Darwinian evolution: There is no empirical evidence that I know of for the intervention of an intelligence, either in mutation or environment; neither is there empirical evidence against such intervention. What would count as evidence either way? It seems to me that the question of intervention, for or against, is beyond the scope of science.

Indeed.  That is precisely why ID isn’t science, and precisely why ID “theory” can’t make any statements about the world that can be tested using the scientific method.

And they are simply lying to us when they claim otherwise.

Comment #27156

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 28, 2005 06:36 PM (e) (s)

What I am asserting is the persistent and lengthy absence of a satisfactory natural explanation should suggest the possibility of a non-natural explanation.

Fine.  All you have to do is PRODUCE a non-natural explanation (whatever the hell THAT means) and show us how to test it using the scientific method.  <shrug>

What seems to be the problem?

Oh, wait —- you want us to listen to your god-of-the-gaps “explanation” and accept it WITHOUT having it be tested in any way, shape or form.  Just on your holy say-so.

Right?

Comment #27157

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 28, 2005 06:40 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley said:
What I am asserting is the persistent and lengthy absence of a satisfactory natural explanation should suggest the possibility of a non-natural explanation.

Of course, there’s no reason to limit this to abiogenesis.

For example, the formation of lightning is still poorly understood, in spite of decades of study.  This persistent and lengthy absence of a satisfactory natural explanation for lightning formation should suggest the possibility of a non-natural explanation (such as the “Thor theory of lightning”).

Indeed.  Let’s take Mikey’s god-of-the-gaps argument (“anything we don’t understand, God — er, I mean An Unknown Intelligence — dunnit!!”) to its logical conclusion.

We don’t know where Amelia Earhart is.  Ergo, the Intelligence must have kidnapped her.

We don’t know where Jimmy Hoffa is, either.  Therefore the Intelligence must have kidnapped him too.

We don’t know how great white sharks breed.  Therefore the Intelligence must be producing them through artificial insemination.

Whaddya think, Mikey?

Comment #27158

Posted by HPLC_Sean on April 28, 2005 06:40 PM (e) (s)

Sir Toejam said:

er, you might want to rethink that.  this IS politics. or hadn’t you noticed?

I’m not too sure what you mean by the word “this”. What are you referring to? I like to think that PT is more of a philosophical discussion forum that clarifies theories on the origins of life than a political crusade.

qetzal said:

If you mean that it’s generally beyond their abilities to even understand, I disagree.

That wasn’t what I meant. I believe that anyone with an open mind and the appetite to understand giants like Darwin, Mendel, Meyr, Watson, Crick, Franklin (I can’t forget poor Rosalind), and Gould could leave a two hour lecture with a good basic grasp of the theory’s major tenets. Unfortunately, people rarely have the patience or interest to sit through this kind of explanation. Besides, it must be pretty enerving for someone of strong faith to be faced with a rational argument refuting that Adam’s rib didn’t literally form Eve.

Comment #27160

Posted by Flint on April 28, 2005 06:58 PM (e) (s)

speedwell:

It sounds too much like saying “I have no orange juice, therefore Kool-Aid might possibly exist.”

No, that’s not what Finley is trying to say. He’s saying “We know all about orange juice, we can’t make this drink match any notion of orange juice we’re aware of, is it possible that this drink is NOT orange juice?” In other words, Finley has proposed a binary model of causality: there are natural causes, and there are supernatural causes (which may not exist). According to this model, these two possibilities are exclusive and exhaustive. There’s nothing else to choose from.

THEN, he attempts to propose an observation which meets certain criteria:
1) It’s fully observable in complete detail.
2) It violates all the natural rules we’re aware of.

Now, is science obliged to ponder this thing for a while (as long as it wishes) only to conclude “beats me”? If science can (due to the very nature of science) gain no better purchase on it, can we properly say that science rules out the supernatural a priori? It seems from this discussion that science