On Tuesday I blogged at my own site briefly on President Bush’s statement that schools should discuss Intelligent Design (ID) along with evolution in schools. I wasn’t going to say much more but the story has been all over the US blogosphere. PZ Myers, an associate professor of biology blogs at Pharyngula. An often commentator on the science wars in the US he has collected a list of blogs who have criticized Bush (yours truly included). What is interesting is that the criticism is decidedly unpartisan. Both right, left and blogs of indeterminate positions have joined in the chorus against Bush’s anti-science remarks.
Not that Bush’s statement has much impact for Australians (unless maybe a whole bunch of American scientists decide to immigrate which is on the cards). There just isn’t the political support for the idea in Australia. Apart from the odd murmuring the notion of ID has not gained any popular momentum. However it is worth looking into the controversy as a good illustration of what science is and what it isn’t.
As a tangent I do suggest reading Stephen Jay Gould’s Evolution as Fact and Theory to clear up a common misconception regarding the word theory. The definition of theory I will be using is the scientific one.
The debate that Bush alludes to is the modern variant of the age old creation versus evolution debate re jigged for the 21st Century. Instead of Genesis as the source, mathematics and information theory are the cornerstones of ID. Neologisms such as “specified complexity” or “irreducible complexity” abound. The key word is complexity. The crux of ID is that life is too complex to have evolved via random process. Therefore life must have had a hand via the mysterious designer who identity, processes and motivations are not to be considered. And this is the worst kept secret of ID. The identity of the designer is God. Not any god but the one favoured by mainstream American protestant congregations.
But is ID science? Not even close. While wanting the imprimatur of science no ID proponent actually does science. That means research, publishing papers and debating the conclusions openly with other scientists (the most common form of ID publishing is a popular book and insistent on structured debates). From a methodological perspective, ID is a sterile idea. It provides no framework for a research program and given it is framed in such a negative manner (current evolutionary theory can’t explain something therefore God a mysterious unnamed designer did it) it is unlikely to provide any useful results.
Some argue that while ID indeed is not a fully fledged scientific theory it is a competing idea and fairness and balance demands its inclusion in the science curriculum. Science is not about fairness or balance. It is about evidence. ID fails miserably on that ground alone. Allowing ID to be taught along side evolution would present an incredibly inaccurate picture of what science is and how its works. If you want scientific credibility then that is achieved by hard work not political gamesmanship.
From a scientific perspective there is no debate. There is simply no compelling evidence against the idea that life on this planet has evolved. ID proponents tend to portray evolution as being something called Darwinism. The implication is evolutionary theory has not changed nor been altered in any form since 1859. Since Darwin’s insight, the modern idea of evolution draws together an overwhelming mass of evidence across a number of disciplines. There is no single piece of evidence that supports evolution. There are multiple strands of inquiry that point to one answer. Evolution is correct.
However, evolutionary theory is not finished. There are anomalies to be resolved. There are incomplete explanations. There is more to be discovered. And there are some real ding-dong battles being fought over evolutionary ideas. Evolution is constantly being criticized and assumptions questioned. It is an exciting, fertile field of research.
But let us return the word “random.” And this is the core of the ID tomfoolery. I can’t source the quote but life is chemistry and chemistry is certainly not random. It is a deterministic process. Given certain conditions certain reactions are going to occur in a most unrandom manner. Life is inevitable as a consequence. The process of evolution is misunderstood (and I will charge that the misunderstanding is deliberate) and random is conflated to be regarded as meaningless. The fact that we are, at this point in time, are able to look back over the history of life on earth and have a good understanding of what has happened is awe inspiring (in scope of knowledge attained and in scope of 4.5 billion years of history).
ID is a narrow minded concept that diminishes the concept of God. God’s omnipotence is reduced to that of your common, everyday demiurge tinkering with bacterial flagellums. It is bad theology and bad science. At least the creationists were honest with their theology and motives.
The fact that Bush feels that ID should be allowed to sup at the same table as science in schools is a sad indictment on the intellectual and political state of affairs in the United States.
And what was someone just saying about anti-enlightenment, fundamentalist theocrats?
Difference is: our backwoods, moon-baying precepts sound like really cool software.
Interesting. I live entirely in my own backwood, baying at the moon I daresay, but this ID thing seems to invite further investigation. And speaking of the Enlightenment, didn’t Voltaire say something sort of kinda similar about a ‘divine clockmaker’? There’s an -ist for that but I can’t remember which one it is.
Rob, with respect, ID doesn’t warrant further investigation. It’s junk science. Cooked up by the religious right because their “creationism is a viable hypothesis” was unsustainable.
Remember your introductory analytical Philosophy class - the ontological argument for the existence of God is actually the hardest to refute. The argument from design can be demolished by a first year undergraduate for full marks on a gimme exam question.
I’m an atheist but people who look to ID to support their religious belief are really barking up the wrong tree. As I noted on my own blog a while ago, the sort of God who does ID is the sort of God who is a petty ‘god of the gaps’, a God who has to cheat on the rules of his own game. I think Catholics probably instinctively understand this demeaningness inherent in ID which is why they are the most pro-evolutionist amongst the Christians.
I seem to recall that St Anselm made quite a good case that the existence of God could be proved empirically. Should we deny him room in the classroom also? And didn’t Voltaire…..possibly the world’s last true polymath….?
rob
voltaire’s opinions on this mean bugger all. no matter how smart he was, he was living in the 18th century and a creature of his times when references to divine watchmakers would have abounded. do you take alchemy seriously because Newton was into it?
I think that’s a bit strong, Jason. You could as well say as much about Montesquieu, Locke or J.S. Mill. Are we in the business of dismissing all thinkers who are not our contemporaries?
Rob
The insights of Montesquieu, Locke and JS Mill were primarily into political science and philosophy and statecraft, for want of a better word. It is bleedingly obvious that the worth of these insights are mostly not technology-dependent. I fail to see how some turn of phrase that Voltaire used centuries ago is relevant to science education. And incidentally Voltaire made his living from words, he was not a polymath on the level of Jefferson or Franklin and thus was even more divorced from the subject matter at hand.
Yes, well, Copernicus and Galileo made some ‘turns of phrases’ that still seem to me to be pretty relevant, Jason, even if they predate Voltaire by some centuries.
they made more than turns of phrases, Rob. they had predictions and observations to back them up.
why don’t you dig up precisely what Voltaire said? I really think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. I would guess that what you think he said doesn’t even support the ID viewpoint anyway - he was a deist and that’s a different thing altogether from a creationist. his reference to a divine clockmaker would, in the context of the times, have been possibly an attempt to veil his atheism as it would’ve been a picture a step away from a personal God towards an impersonal God. i think you’re really barking up the wrong tree enlisting Voltaire on the side of GWB
Rob, St Anselm came up with the ontological argument. As I said in my earlier comment, it’s useful mainly for giving you an enormous headache in first year philosophy before you suddenly see how easy it is to refute.
It underwent a revival in post-analytical philosophy in the 20th century because a number of Wittgenstein’s disciples from Cambridge, Hanscombe in particular, thought it had legs, but it doesn’t.
The design argument is utter rubbish, and far more easily refutable.
Jason is quite correct to say that the “God of the Philosophers” - that is to say, some sort of Demiurge who just gives the whole show a bit of a push - is intellectually inconsistent.
It’s no disrespect to Jason to say that Pascal was the first to make this point - in the 17th century.
Nevertheless, Pascal’s wager was itself a rationalisation.
The Catholic Church has always held that faith is not incompatible with reason. However, this does not mean that faith is reducible to reason, nor that God’s existence is provable.
If it were, there would be no faith.
St Thomas Aquinas coined the phrase “faith seeking reason” - fides quaerens intellectum - but his point was that faith should always strive not to contradict what was knowable by human reason alone - because the same is God given - not that reason should be distorted or thrown out the door because of faith.
Jason is quite right to say that the fundamentals of the Catholic faith ought to predispose people to a belief in evolution. Not to mention - Catholic encouragement of source-criticism of the Biblical text in the papacy of Leo XIII in the late 19th century.
The Catholic position is that nothing in the faith is incompatible with reason. However, man cannot know God or His design by reason alone. Faith comes through the sacraments and the awful grace of God.
St. Paul put it best in the Letter to the Corinthians:
And further on:
The “Intelligent Design” argument is a bizarre Protestant concession to an eracinated understanding of The Enlightenment. No Christian should give it any credence. Having faith does not destroy one’s intellect.
What amazes me is that atheists/agnostics are prepared to give such fundamentalist nonsense credence - presumably only because it suits George W. Bush’s purposes - and they’re not prepared to depart from any party line - no matter how absurd or how irrational.
“i think you‚Äôre really barking up the wrong tree enlisting Voltaire on the side of GWB”
Wasn’t quite clear that I was doing that, Jason.
However, having disgraced myself over on Naomi’s post I’m going to bed now. Ah, the bad dreams we RWDBs have to suffer. Serves us Right (hehehe).
Rob, I thinking you’re confusing the determinist Leibniz with his satirist, Voltaire. If you’ve read Candide, Leibniz = Dr. Pangloss
Wash your mouth out, Jason. Voltaire IS God, or at least a God, of a minor, mischievous pantheon. Of course he was a polymath: philosopher, poet, playwright, novelist, historian and professional smartarse & shit-stirrer. Best of all, he was also a spectacularly successful speculator and investor. Yes, he’s ONE OF US or, as Marky Mark might put it, ONE OF THEM.
He was a deist, but got so far up the church’s nose they refused to allow his body to be buried in church ground.
A sample of his religious commentary:
“God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.”
“One hundred years from my day there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity seeker.”
“If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”
“God is not on the side of the big battalions, but on the side of those who shoot best.”
“Whenever an important event, a revolution, or a calamity turns to the profit of the church, such is always signalised as the Finger of God.”
“As you know, the Inquisition is an admirable and wholly Christian invention to make the pope and the monks more powerful and turn a whole kingdom into hypocrites.”
“Of all religions the Christian is without doubt the one which should inspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.”
“The son of God is the same as the son of man; the son of man is the same as the son of God. God, the father, is the same as Christ, the son; Christ, the son, is the same as God, the father. This language may appear confused to unbelievers, but Christians will readily understand it.”
“Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.”
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.”
“The most genuine and efficacious charity is that which greases the paws of the priests; such charity covers a multitude of sins.”
“Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.”
“A clergyman is one who feels himself called upon to live without working at the expense of the rascals who work to live.”
“Which is more dangerous: fanaticism or atheism? Fanaticism is certainly a thousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion whereas fanaticism does; atheism is opposed to crime and fanaticism causes crimes to be committed.”
I’ll bend a knee to Voltaire, but won’t bow my head to Yahweh. Let us pray.
Rob. You’re just being argumentative. In one thread you think po/mo should be ‘purged’ from schools, I imagine because it is de-stabilising and ‘taken too far’ and doesn’t help students learn much at all… Which I agree with.
And then you come here and say, mildly, ‘well, why not teach an idea that has no scientific basis whatsoever, and present it as a valid alternative to a well-supported scientific theory that has the backing of virtually every scientist in the world, and let’s teach this theory to children in school who by the way can’t understand how to deconstruct the text in English class’.
I’m sure you can see the irony.
I’d say ID is a very po/mo idea, as it seems to say “stuff the evidence! We believe this and it should be taught!”
there are various versions of ID which it seems most ‘informed’ people do not appear to know about.
ID and evolution are different fish. They do not answer the same question.
you can believe in ID and evolution.
ID is completely different from creationism.
There is no facts to back up ANY theory of how the Earth begun because as far as I kmow thee is no time machine around.
Quite some time ago I found there were quite a number of questions evolution couldn’t answer.
My guess is when I attempt this again it will be the same.
I will say this though most of the comments on this have the same amount of knowledge of theology as Charles Darwin had.
He would have been a normal anglican minister in his times.
I’d be interested to hear an ID advocate answer the following question:
“Why did God design some men with hairy backs?”
Homer, we’ve got stacks of time machines. They’re called ‘inquiry’.
I spend my life studying the 1960s and 1970s. Yet, I was born in 1980. How can this be?
Would you suggest Intelligent Forensics, plugging the little gaps in investigation with theological polyfiller? I’m sure a lot of crooks would support you on that one.
I think Homer has been touched by a noodly appendage…
Bacon and eggs represents the most devastaing blow for evolution. How could two different species have evolved to be so tasty together?
I’m thinking of sending this to the discovery institute as evidence of irreducible complexity.
It is highly ironic that critics of ID and creationists share the same problem.
ID and the bible can NEVER explain HOW the Earth was created.
to be honest that has never interested me.
ID attempts to expalin why anf for whom the Earth was created which is why it can live with evolution.
Actually I was only reading this morning why former atheist philsopher Michael Behe has become a supporter of ID.
Unfortunately given his need to prove there is a God means he will probably never find him
Steve is that realted to the salt of the Earth or are you peppering us with more stories
A theological and philosophical question, not a scientific one, Homer.
Liam ,
you clearly haven’t even read anything I have said.
you are like many creationists I have ‘debated’.
Your talk of salt is married to a Lot of nonsense.
Homer: evidence. Theory that best fits evidence.
Homer, Behe is a Catholic Scientist. Are you sure you have the right person?
Homer, I acknowledge that ID is different to creationism. Good, but you haven’t really explained what ID is if it is not creationism or a political maneouvre to discredit evolution.
Of course evolution cannot explain why or for whom the universe exists. That’s like trying to measure distance and speed with a compass. Why in this context is a philosophical, not scientific question.
Last of all before I get on my bike.
Science is wonderfully undemocratic and does not respond to ‘debate’. Living things have evolved over many millions of years, a process understandable with or without God, a process proveable and testable, and that’s all there is to it.
Homer, do you mean Antony Flew?
Steve,
stop abrahamming around.
Irant,
you are right on both counts which means i am the one that flew over the cuckoo’s nest.
liam I said ID & evolution live side by side. What do you think that means?
It’s an extraordinary intervention into the scientific and education system of a country for the president to speak out this way. He is truly a fundy. Thank god for the two term rule over there.
Great post, Irant.
“Some argue that while ID indeed is not a fully fledged scientific theory it is a competing idea and fairness and balance demands its inclusion in the science curriculum. Science is not about fairness or balance. It is about evidence.”
Sums it up for me.
wbb,
Your comment revealed a mistake. I had “conclusion” instead of “inclusion.” Edited my post as well as your comment with the quote to reflect the change back to my intended meaning.
Great post Irant and well said Mark:
“St Thomas Aquinas coined the phrase “faith seeking reason” - fides quaerens intellectum - but his point was that faith should always strive not to contradict what was knowable by human reason alone - because the same is God given -”
My old school motto was “absque deo nihil.” A secularist would have said “absque intellectum nihil” the point being that to a believer they are not mutually exclusive per Aquinas, which leads to a point I have made before:
If human reason is correct that evolution best explains how all living things came to be here, and if a major premise of believers is that the supreme being made all the universe as we know it, why are believers not practising heresy when they say the supreme being’s work through an evolutionary process CANNOT EVER be possible?
In a semantic sense, the ID people are partly correct in that it was an intelligent design but it is through the human reasoned truth of an evolutionary process. Natural selection is the actual “intelligent” self generating engine that drives evolution from the time of the most primitive protozoan or otherwise single celled organism that came out of the primordial “soup”
That ID and creationist contortionists denigrate evolutionary theory, (and originally the latter claimed it to be the work of the devil), is one thing. They are not only exposing their crass ignorance of the scientific method, but they are also contradicting a fundamental premise of their own beliefs.
The dumbing down of American science and religion indeed.
I just find it humourous to hear W talking about ‘Intelligent Design’.
Peter that great old theologian Warfield said when the origin of the species came oout that he saw no contradiction between that and god creating the Earth.
Unfortunately no all in the evolutionary school believe in natural selection.
One interesting lesson I found when I was reading around on the subject was that changes in species are usually occur in a very short sharp period of time which is not all predicted by this theory indeed quite the opposite.
Um, Homer, did you read the Stephen Jay Gould link? He’s a fan of what is called ‘punctuate equilbrium’, which is the rapid change in species/speciation events you described.
There seems to be no conflict with natural selection and rapid speciation, in his reasoning.
“that changes in species are usually occur in a very short sharp period of time which is not all predicted by this theory indeed quite the opposite.”
Homer since when was it incumbent on the theory of evolution to predict changes “in a very short sharp period of time” or over a long period of time? That it happened was the main point.
If the changing environment cannot be predicted, neither can the evolutionary changes. Take for example an asteroid hit sending up a cloud of volcanic ash for years and wiping out the dinosaurs, do you really expect the theory to predict asteroid events as well?
Yes I love the way people can change a theory to fit in with the facts.
you have to make a damn long stech to fit that in with the origin of the species.
gould’s belief wasn’t around when I did my research and I leave to my wife the science teacher for keeping up interest in this subject in our household but I did love the way he attempted to fit it in.
Yes I love the way people can change a theory to fit in with the facts.
So do I, Homer. It’s called “science.”
(among other things)
Actually Homer, I don’t see where I am changing the theory when Darwin’s title in his book is “The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection.” Before you get in too deep, I studied biology under Prof Birch, S.U.–long time ago admittedly.
The part about natural selection is crucial in understanding how living things evolve. I don’t see how people can call themselves evolutionists without bringing in natural selection.
In the case of the dinosaurs, conditions of an asteroid strike made them “less fit” to survive in a changed environment, The smaller mammal or mammal ancestors who did not depend on mountains of grass eating eg brontasaurus flesh would have been “more fit” and survived.
You may be aware of the common story of one species of butterfly in England with equal black and white members but the white ones all disappeared with industrialisation and soot on chimneys which made the white ones much more vulnerable to bird attack. That is natural selection at work —prime example.
So, what facts, what theory have I distorted?
I have no problem with ID being taught in schools. However, IMHO it should be taught in Religious Ed. It’s a belief that many people hold, as is creationism and I think it’s important for kids to get an idea of how other people think and what they believe, before they make up their own minds.
Homer, your choice of word’s betrays how you are view the issue. Gould (along with his oft-forgotten partner Niles Eldredge) came up with a hypothesis based in on the study of the fossil record (Gould - snails. Eldredge - Trilobites). This became known as punctuated equilibrium. It is not an alternate idea to evolutionary though but simply a theory that explains patterns and trends. It is not a “belief” but a theory in the scientific sense of the word and based on observations and data.
The speed of evolution is variable. There is stasis, long observable periods of change and extremely quick change. Even Darwin himself recognized that evolution was not a slow, constant process.
You concepts of theory and how science works are indeed muddled.
As for your contention that a belief that God has guided life can coexist with evolution, I agree. Many scientists subscribe to theistic evolution which argues as such. However what my post talks about the ID movement as it is represented in the United States. This movement is anti-evolution and anti-science. Your loose definition of ID is avoiding the issue. We are talking about a very definite social and political movement.
Well Peter I must admit the short sharp changes I read about weren’t those.
Actually it was in a paper from some atheist who produced examples of problems with evolution.
My impression was that the butterflies took some time to evolve but I am probably wrong.
Off topic somewhat, did anyone hear Howard on the 7:30 report last night describe himself as a “wholly inadequate member of the Christian faith”?
When was the last time any Australian PM openly declared a religious belief? It used to be Politics 101 in Aus not to seem religious, and to avoid all such issues….is this a sign of the Hillsong influence on pollies? Is HOward going for a Jesus vote? Are we changing our views on the irrelevance of personal religion in politics, and going more US-style about it all?
Or does it mean nothing, nothing at all…..
Mindy, you were doing OK until the ”making up of minds” bit. The only way creationism should be taught is if it does not impose an either/or validity when theology and reason can and should be compatible. A scientific fact cannot be equated with a faith based “making up of minds.” In science, x squared by y squared = 0 cannot be thrown in the rubbish bin as an untruth because that formula is absent from religious dogma or whatever religious text.
. Evolutionary theory does not inherently deny creationism but many creationists and I believe most ID people explicitly deny evolutionary theory.
Its not a matter of making up one’s mind on science as against a religiously held belief, you either believe science or mathematic’s exquisite sometimes nuanced difficult to comprehend proofs or you believe in alchemy/witchcraft.
Homer,
There is good reason to believe that speciation can occur rapidly at times, although the fossil record is incomplete which makes it difficult to be sure.
Also the definition of rapid is still pretty slow in this context, rapid change occurs over millions of years rather that 100s of millions.
If evolution has proceeded in bursts this does fall outside the classical darwinian condition of gradual change, but not outside of natural selection or indeed the idea of occasional random mutations causing variation.
There are a number of possibilities; exogenous shocks - meteor strike or other rapid global climatic change, or possibly just due to the nature of a marginally stable complex system producing bursty behaviour. A series of rapid extinctions creating a new set of possibilities for expansion into evolutionary niches.
Unfortunately in Darwins day it was difficult to explain how sudden bursty behaviour could be explained in terms of rules which locally seemed to imply otherwise and would invite the declaration of divine intervention. Now we have any number of models to suggest that bursty behaviour could easily be explained with the basic mechanism of evolution.
ps. Gould has been talking punctuated equilibrium since 1972, how old is your reading?
Now, I never did much good at maths, but I don’t remember that as being either inherently true or untrue.
Luke,
I am not too worried by Howard….yet. There was the Compass episode prior to the last election where all the leaders were open about their religious views. John Anderson worried me far more that Howard. But he has gone.
Luke,
I would agree he is a most inadequate member of the christian faith but the we all are.
Peter
Evolutionary theory does not inherently deny creationism but many creationists and I believe most ID people explicitly deny evolutionary theory
appears to contradict what you wrote earlier.
Evolutionary theory most certainly does deny creationsim and so it should.
It doesn’t with regard to ID. I am wondering how ID people got into the equation.
Does ID deny evolution. No it doesn’t.
Back to that soon Liam–duty calls.
Steve,
I did my reading in mid 80’s.
I am afraaid I didn’t come across much of his stuff.
Hard to appreciate how much harder it was in those pre-WWW days not just to research articles but to locate journals, books etal.
It took a hellva long time however I was single!
Ahem. Popper.
Peter - I could have expressed myself more clearly. What I meant was that students should be exposed to all sides of the debate before choosing the side they want to be on. For any number of reasons a person may choose to believe in evolution/ID/creationism despite what others consider to be good evidence against it.
I have tried and failed to convince my mother’s husband that the world is more than 5000 years old. I found the easiest way was not to go down the path of discussing it, and not to watch documentaries with him because it gets really annoying when he keeps chiming in, saying that it can’t be millions of years old because the world is only 5000 years old.
*takes a deep breath and prepares to be slapped down* IMHO scientists who ‘become’ christian after studying the universe etc is just a symptom of hubris. It’s like, ‘I can’t understand it, therefore it must be the creation of a higher power because if it was science then I would be able to understand what is going on’. It’s a get out of jail free card for not having the scientific knowhow to find out every little detail about life. Get over it.
“Evolutionary theory most certainly does deny creationsim and so it should.”
Homer, that is an untenable statement. That an almighty being set in motion a system and dynamic (which we call evolutionary), that ‘made our world’ of living things is not explicitly denied by evolutionary theory. Its not such a difficult concept to see that creationist beliefs (I’m not talking about literal 7 days biblical stuff) and evolutionary theory are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Some that use evolutionary theory to deny creationism are trying to use science to disprove a supreme being, that’s not possible. Some use creationism as proof that evolutionary theory is bunkum, that’s irrational.
Liam:
The solution to what was meant to be one of several simultaneous equations actually has its simple solution as “truth”. x and y must both = zero.The difficulty in arriving at that solution of truth is my point, equiv, to evol. theory, and should not be cast away because of difficulty in understanding and lack of theological mention.
Most people in my experience who bitterly oppose evol theory, don’t understand its basic concepts fully.
Peter you and I are at odds what evolution and creationism is.
Homer:
Creationism varies from person to person. Evolutionary theory mellows but retains its essential character as a scientific theory that best explains the fossil record and a lot of other stuff. Try what Mark said above re Aquinas, that’s the theological approach, and I agree with it, despite my agnostic beliefs.
You seem have conceptual difficulties, and you haven’t answered the natural selection bit yet, for example do you deny that natural selection is an essential part of evolutionary theory? If you do, there’s not much point continuing.
I reckon that evolution and creationism have to part ways when we start talking about humanity. From an evolutionary perspective mankind is just a random accident, an interesting side effect of billions of years of evolution.
But from a creationist perspective humanity is special. We’re here, created in god’s image, blessed with a soul and so on. If evolution was a mechanism set in motion by god, then it was so that mankind would ineleuctably be produced. But if you accept that, then how far away are you then from some sort of ID? with the dead hand of the creator “steering” evolution in the desired direction.
Agreed Andrew on the ‘part company’ when creationists say that a supreme being ‘breathed” a soul into what was/became human.
As I said above, the ID people are partly, semantically correct in saying there was an “intelligent design” but it was a ‘natural selection’ default design that saw us win out for example over the neanderthals which, if they had a 2-3% higher birth rate would most probably be with us (or already interbred with us) today.
(Please lets not argue if neanderthals had a soul!)
To get to this point, it should make creationists (Mark’s Aquinas variety) and non-believer evolutionists both happy. To the extent that cretinous US leaders want to use ID to oppose evol. theory, they have both a scientific and theological problem, ie dumbing down.
They never heard the saying ” God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform”?
Rob. You‚Äôre just being argumentative. In one thread …And then you come here and say, mildly, ‘well, why not teach…
I’ve missed most of this debate unfortunately but that’s not really what I meant, Kate. I meant that I found the concept quite interesting and worth exploring, at a personal level. Which I do. I expressed myself badly (which I do).
Evolution vs creationism debates have always seemed to me to be almost the definition of pointless. They inevitably end up (as they seem to have done above) as a mish-mash of broad philosophical statements and detailed biology or other life sciences. The philosophers don’t care about the biology, and the biologists don’t understand the philosophy - and I can’t make head or tail of either.
But Mark’s comment was a little gem. I knew we kept you around here for something, coach (oops, done it again - sorry).
Tony,
I reckon you need the Philosophy of Biology blog. Best of both worlds.
Worse than I thought per
http://www.malcomlagauche.com
“Many schools have taken basic science (biology, chemistry, etc.) out of the curriculum because of fear of future lawsuits from creationists and intelligent designists. Millions of kids in the U.S. today can not tell you what oxygen is or its function, or hydrogen or carbon. The Dark Ages are making a comeback.”
fyodor, didn’t Voltaire also say ‘No man can understand why any woman would want to sleep with anyone other than himself’? Let the cat out of the bag there, the bastard. Secret men’s business.
Popper embedded secret keys to the Merovigingian lineage in his text. Just saying… a true Leonardo!