Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution and Global Warming: Some Underexamined Parallels

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Usually when the topics of Anthropogenic Global Warming (or is it climate change now?) and evolutionary theory are contrasted, the focus is on the validity of the scientific claims associated with both. Is the global temperature average really rising? Is man the cause? Did macroevolution really take place? Does evolution proceed by the mechanisms often claimed? Both sides of both subjects pay a lot of attention, almost exclusive attention, to the foundational scientific questions related to both topics.

But there are important parallels between these topics that too often goes largely ignored – ones which shows that in many ways, the actual science is largely moot. In fact, it’s practically a non-issue when you get right down to it. I come at this from a largely TE perspective on the evolutionary front, and someone who until recently was largely content to shrug and say “Sure, I suppose AGW is at least a reasonable conclusion.” (The Climategate fiasco did serve to nudge me into more of a neutral column.)

Below the cut I’ll explain just what I’m talking about, and how Al Gore has accidentally supplied a crystal-clear example “in the field”.

It’s pedantic to point out, but it still must be said: What motivates most people to get others to “accept AGW” or “accept (Darwinian) evolution” has little to nothing to do with knowledge itself, and far more to do with the actions they hope such a belief will prompt. In the AGW case, the point isn’t to teach others some useful, inert fact like “beavers mate for life”, much less to make people have a firmer grasp of science in general – the express hope is that if someone accepts AGW, they will therefore accept and support specific policies ostensibly meant to combat AGW.

Likewise – I trust I’m not really saying anything groundbreaking on this one – what motivates many people to get others to “accept Darwinian evolution” isn’t the hope that some people will now have this particular belief about biology, period. The hope is that the acceptance of Darwinian evolution will detach them from their religious (and therefore, with luck, social and political) beliefs. You don’t have to go that far to find some very prominent biologists and philosophers saying this explicitly. Now, I did say ‘many’ rather than ‘most’ here, because I think there some who have different, even pro-theistic motivations on this topic – but I’m speaking frankly. And frankly, the draw of evolution for many has been its apparent utility as an anti-religion weapon (among other things), and this has been the case for a long time now.

So one parallel between proponents of AGW and proponents of Darwinism is this: While the topics in question are framed as scientific, the purpose of promoting them are social and political. The goal isn’t really “Get people to believe A”, but “Get people to do B and C”. It’s just that they think “If people believe A, then they will do B and C”. Perhaps because they think there’s something about A which makes B and C more reasonable to do, or even necessary to do. The problem is this complicates matters: It’s possible not only for A to be correct or incorrect, but for B or C to not be necessary or reasonable even given A’s truth. In fact, A may be true, and conceivably (in these abstract terms) B and C may be bad ideas or wrong conclusions.

Let’s move from the ABC talk to a real-world example, helpfully provided by Al Gore.

I’m sure many of you recalled the fairly recent news of Al Gore saying he made a mistake by endorsing ethanol subsidies. Gore, one of the most prominent faces of the AGW movement, had previously boosted corn ethanol subsidies for numerous reasons – and corn ethanol was touted as a way to combat AGW. Gore had this to say about his past commitment on the subject:

One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for President.

Let me pause here a moment to point something out. Gore isn’t saying that he believed corn ethanol was a great idea, but he misunderstood the data, ergo he made a mistake. He’s saying that he wanted to be elected president, certain constituents wanted corn ethanol subsidies, and he was willing to sell this as a great thing for the environment and the nation in exchange for their support. Has the word ‘mistake’ come to mean ‘any act which in retrospect a person claims to regret for any reason, even if they knew what they were doing at the time’?

But that’s beside the point. More central is this: Corn ethanol subsidies would be an example of one of those Bs and Cs that are supposed to follow given the truth of A. But Gore just illustrates the fragility of that move: AGW can be true, but a given policy (touted as necessary to ‘address AGW’) can still be a lousy idea. Corn ethanol subsidies are just a great and prominent example. Maybe the Kyoto treaty was a rotten idea regardless of the truth of AGW. Maybe carbon trading is a lousy idea. Maybe prevention is worse than adaptation. Maybe none of the most popular policies are good ideas. And, as it was with Gore and ethanol, maybe they aren’t being promoted for the reasons their proponents claim.

I want to stress that even if someone is skeptical of AGW, these points – points which assume for the sake of argument the truth of AGW – are tremendously important to raise. Again, what motivates most AGW proponents isn’t the data itself, but the policies they attempt to justify in light of the data. But if the data – even if true! – doesn’t justify their policies, that needs to be noted time and again. Part of the strategy is to make people miss that there’s an extra step beyond simply establishing the truth of “A” in the formula “If A, then B and C are necessary/very reasonable”. But the promotion of B and C are the whole point – and if B and C don’t really follow from A, that’s a point ignored at one’s own peril.

Which brings me back to evolution. As I’ve said before, I’m a TE of sorts. I don’t object to the possibility of intelligent design, or front-loading, or even intervention in nature’s past in one way or another. At the same time, I have no particularly strong ire against the mere claim of macro-evolution and so on – really, they seem like potential design strategies to me. But I do find that very popular line that gets drawn – “If evolution is true, then people should be atheists or reject design/guidance/purpose in nature” – to be utter crap. Rhetoric unjustified by the data, even if the data (not the philosophy or metaphysics often smuggled with it) is taken as true. I admit, the more I look at relatively ‘mainstream’ evolutionary science, the more I see teleology, guidance, and purpose – even as its defenders struggle to ignore, downplay, and deny it. Even if AGW is true, current corn ethanol technology as a way to combat it is a pretty bad idea, and even if evolution is true the atheistic and anti-guidance/design conclusions drawn from its truth are largely inane.

Let me end on this note: Notice that I’m not arguing for the truth of AGW or evolution here. I’ve moved into a more neutral column regarding the former, and the truth of the latter isn’t my focus. But I’m trying to point out, for both AGW skeptics and evolution skeptics, that there are more fronts to fight on than simply the topic of whether AGW or evolution is, at the end of the day, true – because the truth of both AGW and evolution aren’t what matters, even to most of their proponents. It’s what follows, the policies and intellectual conclusions they want to sell you on, given their truth. And if what they want doesn’t follow even granting this truth for the sake of argument, you have everything to gain by pointing this out.

Comments
My sentence "I agree that." in #152 should be I agree with that.Pachyaena
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
Bruce, in reference to your comments in #151, I think you're dealing with people who have their minds made up, and believe that their chosen God is THE creator and designer, and would believe that no matter what. Anything that isn't inline with their belief system is not only controversial, but wrong. I'm not trying to sound insulting. I'm just saying what I think. On another note, the more I look at this thread the more I see why ID is considered to be a religious idea by many atheists, scientists, and other people. Some people simply will not separate ID from religious beliefs or a 'God'. Here's something for everyone here to consider: Atheism is sometimes connected to the ToE or other aspects of science by people who are atheists. Atheism is often connected to the ToE or other aspects of science by adherents to ID, creation, religion, or a God. Many atheists don't care one iota about science. They simply don't believe there's a God. Science doesn't depend on atheists or atheism. Some scientists do depend on atheism. Most probably couldn't care less, at least when it comes to their work. ID is often connected to a God or religion by people who adhere to ID. ID is often connected to a God or religion by people who don't adhere to ID, like atheists, many scientists, and other people. Some ID adherents aren't religious. Some ID adherents may be atheists. Many are probably agnostic. Many people are likely undecided about ID. Most people don't have the slightest clue as to what ID, or ID theory, even is. Most people don't have a clue about and don't care about the ToE or ID and would believe whatever a used car or snake oil salesman tells them. Most of humanity is dumber than a rock and always will be. Just watch "Jay Walking" on The Tonight Show and you'll see what I mean. ID theory will never be taken seriously by science until and unless it is completely separated from any Gods or religions, and even then it would be be a tough sale.Pachyaena
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT
Bruce, from what I've seen I'd say that atheism is often conjoined with "Darwinism" but not always. Many atheists don't know much, if anything, about Darwin or the ToE and many don't care. Some people just choose not to be religious or believe in any Gods. There are also a lot of people who believe there's some sort of God but do not like religion and especially what they call 'organized religion', at all. Then too there are people, including some scientists, who think that the ToE is a solid theory and also believe in a God, and/or a religion. And, there are people, including some scientists, who think that some of the ToE is or may be credible, or even solid, but may not or do not think that the entire theory is credible, or solid, and those people may or may not believe there's a God of some sort and may or may not adhere to any religion. The human race is a very mixed bag when it comes to belief systems, or the lack thereof. PZ Meyers, for example, is definitely an atheist and he claims that the ToE and other aspects of science are proof that there's no god or creator or designer and that religious beliefs are bunk. Frankly, I don't think it would matter to PZ if the ToE were right or wrong. He simply hates religions and belief in a God. Even though I consider myself an atheist and non-religious, I think of PZ Meyers as an angry, arrogant, extremist. Atheism is his 'religion', although he likely wouldn't admit it. There are also many religious people who are just as arrogant, angry, and extreme as PZ Meyers, if not more so. When it comes to falsifiability (of anything) it's a matter of opinion (often unfortunately). Like you said: "One’s fundamental view of the world inevitably influences the way we interpret what we see, and indeed what we actually do see." Truth, especially when it concerns Gods or origins or evolution or religious beliefs and many other things, is also a matter of opinion and is often subject to the same kind of influences as falsifiability. You said: "The best we can do is bring our paradigms into conscious awareness so that we can minimize their influence and hopefully be open to changing them when the evidence makes that appropriate." I agree that. Unfortunately the human race is a stubborn lot and most people don't really consider how their world view (or 'belief system') influences the way they perceive evidence. I can't say that I believe there's a creator (or designer) of some sort but I don't think it's impossible. I'm hoping that more research and evidence will provide more answers, one way or another, but I think there will always be disagreements no matter what is found.Pachyaena
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT
Goodness, y' all. I seem to have struck some kind of nerve here. Let me set the record straight. I believe: 1. that Darwinism has been totally discredited by the discoveries in biology over the last 60 years, 2. that ID IS the most reasonable (in fact the only reasonable) explanation for the origin and diversity of life, and 3. that Dembski's explanatory filter is a very reasonable way of determining when the inference to design is warranted, which makes the inference to design falsifiable TO ALL WHO ACCEPT ITS PREMISES. What I question is whether all people who infer design accept the explanatory filter, and if one doesn't, the inference to design is in principle NOT falsifiable, precisely because, as I pointed out above, a designer can design something to appear as though it arose through natural causes. I can't see that this should be particularly controversial, or indeed particularly important in the context of the ID vs. Darwinism debate.Bruce David
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Bruve David, when you state: "However, what’s actually true is that design can never really be falsified because a designer can always make the design look like it was the result of natural causes." ...you carelessly step off into a twist of logic that makes absolutely no sense. Firstly, Design can be immediately falsified by a demonstration that unguided causes can create the observed effects in nature. That has never been done. But to then suggest that Design can't really be falsified "because a designer can always make the design look like it was the result of natural causes” is just too funky for words. If what seems like apparent Design was adequately explained by natural causes, then Design would not even would be proposed - and there would be nothing to falsify. Do you not understand that? And if design existed anyway (conceiled by a clever designer) then it would lead to a false negative - and again there would be nothing to falsify. :) Moreover, why invent situations out of the thin air? Why not just deal with what we actually find: 1) the appearance of design is hardly debatable 2) unguided causes cannot explain the observations, and in some instances can't even address them 3) design can explain the observed effects in nature 3a) without asserting unsupported assumptions, it's the only explanation that can 3b) we even understand why that is.Upright BiPed
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PDT
Bruce David, to give an example, you state; 'However, what’s actually true is that design can never really be falsified because a designer can always make the design look like it was the result of natural causes. A classic case is Newton, after defining his laws of motion, was certain that what he had done was reveal some of the details of God’s design of the Universe. This is a perfectly viable intellectual position, but it is not falsifiable, at least not in the scientific sense.' Yet Bruce, Newton did in fact reveal some details of 'God's design of the Universe' by finding a piece of the 'mathematical order' governing the universe that he totally 'expected' to find from his base Christian perspective of believing the mind of God had made the universe intelligible for humans to understand. And this 'mathematical order', governing the material universe, is not presupposed from the materialistic perspective. As well Bruce, you hinted that perhaps gravity is now found to be a 'natural cause', thus undermining Newton's original confidence for finding a piece of God's design in the universe, but that is not correct. Scientists today are almost as mystified as to the 'natural cause' of Gravity as were Newton and his contemporaries; REPORT OF THE DARK ENERGY TASK FORCE The abstract of the September 2006 Report of the Dark Energy Task Force says: “Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our (materialistic) theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.” http://jdem.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/Decadal_Survey-Dark_Energy_Task_Force_report.pdf Thus Bruce, Newton's awe, as reflected in this statement,,, "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” ??????????? [pantokratòr], or “Universal Ruler”… The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect." Sir Isaac Newton - Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, "Principia" ,,,stand unscathed by any appeal to 'natural causation'.bornagain77
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
Really, Born Again? Don't worry, my feelings aren't hurt in the slightest.Bruce David
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Bruce, I'm strictly concerned with the science, as far as THE SCIENCE ITSELF is concerned evolution has not even proven itself true and refuses to submit to reasonable falsification criteria, though ID does lend itself readily to experimental falsification. And frankly Bruce David, not to hurt your feelings, but after your round with StephenB, I am not impressed in the least with your 'philosophical prowess' in the first place.bornagain77
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Born Again: In the video, Behe is using Dembski's explanatory filter without naming it as such. What he is saying is that he will consider ID to be falsified with respect to the flagellum if a naturalistic explanation for its existence can be demonstrated, so this does not address the point I made.Bruce David
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Here is a podcast: Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00 On this episode of ID the Future, CSC Director of Research Jay Richards interviews Ann Gauger, senior research scientist at Biologic Institute, on a new article she and Dr. Ralph Seelke have in the peer-reviewed journal BIO-Complexity. Working with her co-authors, Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution.bornagain77
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Bruce David, The case with falsifiability as set out with Behe is perfectly scientific, and does not trespass onto philosophy, or 'intellect', directly, which is exactly why I cited the video.,,, (the 'no designer need apply' would hold true as far as the philosophy went concerning the science),,, Here is another experiment that stays perfectly within the bounds of empirical science; i.e. the test dares Darwinism to prove itself true and to, at the same time, falsify ID. Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 here is another test that gets right to the point in daring Darwinism to prove itself true and trying to falsify ID,,, Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness - Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke – 2010 Excerpt: When all of these possibilities are left open by the experimental design, the populations consistently take paths that reduce expression of trpAE49V,D60N, making the path to new (restored) function virtually inaccessible. This demonstrates that the cost of expressing genes that provide weak new functions is a significant constraint on the emergence of new functions. In particular, populations with multiple adaptive paths open to them may be much less likely to take an adaptive path to high fitness if that path requires over-expression. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2/BIO-C.2010.2 Response from Ralph Seelke to David Hillis Regarding Testimony on Bacterial Evolution Before Texas State Board of Education, January 21, 2009 Excerpt: He has done excellent work showing the capabilities of evolution when it can take one step at a time. I have used a different approach to show the difficulties that evolution encounters when it must take two steps at a time. So while similar, our work has important differences, and Dr. Bull’s research has not contradicted or refuted my own. http://www.discovery.org/a/9951bornagain77
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Born Again: I know all about the probabilities. But there is a difference between the statement that Darwinism is false and the statement that ID is true. "I don't know." is a perfectly valid response to the question of how life originated and developed. I'm pretty sure that this is David Berlinski's position, for example I know about Dembski's explanatory filter as well. It makes design falsifiable by default--if you can find a viable naturalistic explanation, then we all agree that design will not be asserted. However, what's actually true is that design can never really be falsified because a designer can always make the design look like it was the result of natural causes. A classic case is Newton, after defining his laws of motion, was certain that what he had done was reveal some of the details of God's design of the Universe. This is a perfectly viable intellectual position, but it is not falsifiable, at least not in the scientific sense.Bruce David
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Bruce David, you stated; 'I think you’ll find that Darwinism as it is actually practiced is every bit as unfalsifiable as ID' ,,, actually Bruce David the one thing that dramatically separates ID from neo-Darwinism, as far as the science itself is concerned, is ID's ability to easily be falsified, whereas Darwinism is notorious for not submitting to reasonable falsification criteria. Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP) - Abel - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes.",,, c?u = Universe = 10^13 reactions/sec X 10^17 secs X 10^78 atoms = 10^108 c?g = Galaxy = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^66 atoms = 10^96 c?s = Solar System = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^55 atoms = 10^85 c?e = Earth = 10^13 X 10^17 X 10^40 atoms = 10^70 http://www.tbiomed.com/content/6/1/27 The Case Against a Darwinian Origin of Protein Folds - Douglas Axe - 2010 Excerpt Pg. 11: "Based on analysis of the genomes of 447 bacterial species, the projected number of different domain structures per species averages 991. Comparing this to the number of pathways by which metabolic processes are carried out, which is around 263 for E. coli, provides a rough figure of three or four new domain folds being needed, on average, for every new metabolic pathway. In order to accomplish this successfully, an evolutionary search would need to be capable of locating sequences that amount to anything from one in 10^159 to one in 10^308 possibilities, something the neo-Darwinian model falls short of by a very wide margin." http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.1 Book Review - Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Excerpt: As early as the 1960s, those who approached the problem of the origin of life from the standpoint of information theory and combinatorics observed that something was terribly amiss. Even if you grant the most generous assumptions: that every elementary particle in the observable universe is a chemical laboratory randomly splicing amino acids into proteins every Planck time for the entire history of the universe, there is a vanishingly small probability that even a single functionally folded protein of 150 amino acids would have been created. Now of course, elementary particles aren't chemical laboratories, nor does peptide synthesis take place where most of the baryonic mass of the universe resides: in stars or interstellar and intergalactic clouds. If you look at the chemistry, it gets even worse—almost indescribably so: the precursor molecules of many of these macromolecular structures cannot form under the same prebiotic conditions—they must be catalysed by enzymes created only by preexisting living cells, and the reactions required to assemble them into the molecules of biology will only go when mediated by other enzymes, assembled in the cell by precisely specified information in the genome. So, it comes down to this: Where did that information come from? The simplest known free living organism (although you may quibble about this, given that it's a parasite) has a genome of 582,970 base pairs, or about one megabit (assuming two bits of information for each nucleotide, of which there are four possibilities). Now, if you go back to the universe of elementary particle Planck time chemical labs and work the numbers, you find that in the finite time our universe has existed, you could have produced about 500 bits of structured, functional information by random search. Yet here we have a minimal information string which is (if you understand combinatorics) so indescribably improbable to have originated by chance that adjectives fail. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/reading_list/indices/book_726.htmlbornagain77
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Pachyaena, I must say that I agree with the last few posts regarding the degree to which atheism and Darwinism are conjoined, and the evidence suggests that this has been true right from the start (with Darwin himself). In fact, if you look objectively at the scientific evidence together with the way in which Darwinism is justified by its proponents, I think you'll find that Darwinism as it is actually practiced is every bit as unfalsifiable as ID. It is my view that it is impossible to do science (or any other search for truth) from a completely neutral position. One's fundamental view of the world inevitably influences the way we interpret what we see, and indeed what we actually do see. The best we can do is bring our paradigms into conscious awareness so that we can minimize their influence and hopefully be open to changing them when the evidence makes that appropriate. It has been my opinion for a long time that the Darwinsim/ID debate is at bottom a religious one (using the word religion in its broadest sense), between atheism and theism. (But theism does NOT equate to Christianity.) It is a debate between those who believe that the world is entirely physical and those who believe in a transcendent creator. And as I see it, the weight of scientific evidence at this point in time is strongly in favor of a creator (ie., a designer), and becomes more so the more we learn about living systems.Bruce David
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
@Pachyaen, Oh! Not again! Nobody knows the truth you say. That is an assertion that you cannot prove. But, even if it's true, you must conclude that you don't know the truth either. But, you are as cocksure as all the other cocksure people you rail against. PU-LEASE Get a GRIP!!! Or, to carry your craziness further, let's say your statement that nobody knows the truth is correct. It then follows that your statement is also incorrect, which means that at least some people must know the truth. It's quite clear you do not know what you are talking about.Brent
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
Pachy:
I can easily see why ID is considered to be a religious idea.
And we can easily see why the theory of evolution is considered to be an atheistic idea:
In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1
The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4
click here for a hint:
‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5
Thank you for your honesty Will Provine. 1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 † 2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 † 3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 † 4- No Free Will (1999) p.123 5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.Joseph
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Pachyaena you state; 'Maybe someday it will all sort itself out. Maybe enough evidence will be found to come to a solid conclusion one way or another.' Yet ID is currently, from WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, the best explanation for the unmatched levels of complex information we find in life. Stephen C. Meyer - The Scientific Basis For Intelligent Design http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4104651/ Thus as far as the science is concerned RIGHT NOW, the most 'solid' conclusion we can make right now is that life is designed! To appeal to 'future discoveries', just in order to maintain a belief in neo-Darwinism is irrational and reveals a philosophical bias. You also stated; 'I think that many religious people will cling to ID and connect it to their religious beliefs, if for no other reason than because they don’t like the ToE or anything to do with Darwin, and/or they want to believe that their god is responsible for creation and design.' Yet interestingly Pachyaena, the Theists doesn't need evolution to be false in order to believe in God, yet the atheist is absolutely dependent on evolution being true to maintain his faith in atheism. So let's adjust this statement of yours to more appropriately reveal the hypocricy of the atheistic worldview therein; 'I think that many 'atheist' people will cling to 'neo-Darwinism' and connect it to their 'irreligious' beliefs, if for no other reason than because they don’t like 'ID' or anything to do with 'God' and/or they want to believe that their 'godless universe' is responsible for 'all appearance of' creation and design.'' as for a reference Pachyaena that this is true just wander over to PZ Myers blog and say anything favorable about ID whatsoever and see what happens to you, of note: When Atheists Are Angry at God Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/01/when-atheists-are-angry-at-god Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5066181/ 'To deny design in life makes science irrational' = Behe - paraphrasebornagain77
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
P: Pardon, but how should we interpret something like this: _______________ >> To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [[From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997. ] >> _______________ Do you not see how relevant is Phil Johnson's reply:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
nor is this exactly new. here is Darwin in an Oct 13, 1880 letter to Aveling, son in law of Karl Marx:
. . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [NB: free-thought is an old self-congratulatory synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism] on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family [NB: especially his wife, Emma], if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.
In short the motive mongering game can run different ways. Far better is to focus on the actual merits of the issue, e.g you may want to start with the remarks here and the onward linked series. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT
"I think that if ID is not meant to be connected to religious beliefs, the ‘leaders’ of the ID ‘movement’ or theory are going to have to do everything they can to make sure that the disconnect is obvious and certain, and they’re going to have to try to get any adherents to ID to stop connecting it to any religious beliefs." Why? Because you don't like religious belief? If indeed there is an designer, why can't it be a supreme deity? Because it's "unscientific"? So is a multiverse, but that doesn't stop people from dreaming. For the record, people should be allowed to draw whatever conclusion they want from the evidence. Lord knows they do that enough already. Just because a few irreligious would have their feathers ruffled doesn't mean those with faith should be thrown under the bus.Sonfaro
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT
Bruce, to this: "There doesn’t really need to be such a conflict." and to the rest of what you said in 128 I say yes. The conflict is way too heated and unproductive. Both 'sides' are often way too stubborn for their own good. Everyone should just be patient, let the research continue, and wait for more information. I think that if ID is not meant to be connected to religious beliefs, the 'leaders' of the ID 'movement' or theory are going to have to do everything they can to make sure that the disconnect is obvious and certain, and they're going to have to try to get any adherents to ID to stop connecting it to any religious beliefs. Frankly I doubt that the disconnection of ID and religion is going to happen on a large scale though. I think that many religious people will cling to ID and connect it to their religious beliefs, if for no other reason than because they don't like the ToE or anything to do with Darwin, and/or they want to believe that their god is responsible for creation and design. Maybe someday it will all sort itself out. Maybe enough evidence will be found to come to a solid conclusion one way or another. In the meantime I think that the disagreements and fights will go on and on. Human ego is involved and that can be a VERY large obstacle. :)Pachyaena
February 18, 2011
February
02
Feb
18
18
2011
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
Pachyaena, To continue responding to your post above (#128), it's true that in the blogs, religion is often present to large degree, but if you read the books and scientific articles you will see that religion is never used as any kind of justification for a conclusion that ID is the "most reasonable explanation". I'm speaking of such authors as Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson, Steven Meyer, William Dembski, Douglas Axe, and others who are scientific professionals.Bruce David
February 17, 2011
February
02
Feb
17
17
2011
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT
To Pachyaena "I know, science doesn’t always do that and that’s one of the things that irks me. Scientists are sometimes just as biased, mistaken, greedy, fraudulent, ignorant, arrogant, or agenda driven as anyone else, but science is usually self correcting, eventually, although it can often take a long time." Science "can" be self correcting. However, it hasn't done such a great job in the last 50 or so years. I'm skeptical. It's hard to believe things within the scientific community will suddenly change without outside stimulli.Sonfaro
February 17, 2011
February
02
Feb
17
17
2011
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
Pachyaena, I figured out that you were responding to #123, actually. With regard to the ID debate, I have often thought that there is way too much sound and fury being generated. Why not just accept that there are two points of view and let the proponents of each side continue to do the science that is appropriate to their perspective. Those who believe in materialistic causes exclusively will continue to try to discover how life evolved from pre-biotic chemicals, and ID folks will do research attempting to delve deeper into the design. There doesn't really need to be such a conflict. There are many fields of science where different workers in the field have different theories. Darwinism itself is such a field (eg., Gould's punctuated equilibrium, or Lynn Margulis' ideas). And you're right, it seems eventually to sort itself out.Bruce David
February 17, 2011
February
02
Feb
17
17
2011
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT
Bruce, I just want to point out that my comments above are in response to your comments in #123.Pachyaena
February 17, 2011
February
02
Feb
17
17
2011
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
Hi Bruce, I think the problem lies in the fact that some people do equate ID with a God and assert that ID and a God are inseparable. Take this website for example. Many of the people who comment here are clearly very religious and obviously think that ID is due to a God, the Christian God. I can easily see why ID is considered to be a religious idea. It's very hard to find a discussion about ID that doesn't include people who tie ID to religious beliefs. I find the concept of ID interesting and think that the irreducible complexity part is the most interesting. The trouble with ID though is that it is virtually impossible to prove. Even if I were to believe that ID is a fact and that it's the only explanation for the complexity of nature, I couldn't prove it. It's one of those things that can be wondered about or even believed but it's not something that can be proven. Of course I realize that 'proof' is often in the eyes of the beholder. To get ID accepted as a scientific theory or to show that it actually occurs (or occurred) will require the complete separation of ID from any religious beliefs, and even if that were to happen it would still be difficult to impossible to get it accepted by science. Science is stubborn and often very slow to accept anything that is challenging to the status quo. Entrenched beliefs or theories, whether scientific or otherwise, are hard to change, even if they're clearly wrong. At this point in time I think that science should admit that ID is possible (without a religious connection). If or when further evidence is found that either proves or disproves ID, science could revise its stance on it. I'll admit that nature does look to be designed (in some ways) but that doesn't mean it is. To convince science it's going to take verifiable, testable evidence, and rightfully so. Science should be skeptical and should only rely on good evidence. I know, science doesn't always do that and that's one of the things that irks me. Scientists are sometimes just as biased, mistaken, greedy, fraudulent, ignorant, arrogant, or agenda driven as anyone else, but science is usually self correcting, eventually, although it can often take a long time.Pachyaena
February 17, 2011
February
02
Feb
17
17
2011
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
Pachyaena, Hear, hear! I agree wholeheartedly. I would like to add this, however. There was a time when I worked in the environmental movement, but eventually I quit. The reason was that it became apparent to me that the fundamental problem was the overall level of consciousness of the human race. I saw it (and still see it) that the problems you allude to, and which are quite serious if we want to continue to live on this planet, will never be solved at the current level of awareness of humanity. What I believe is that we need to become much more aware of each other as fellow human beings and of the planet as a beautiful gift from God, which although resilient, cannot take the levels of abuse to which we subject it forever. We need to see ourselves as one with all humanity and with the planet itself, and we need to learn what truly makes us happy. (It's not more stuff, and it's not being right.) To me what is necessary to accomplish this is a spiritual transformation. And I agree with you that part of that awakening will be for all religions to realize that there are many paths to God, and that theirs is only one of them. For this reason, I do what I can to support the emergence of such an awakening, which is one of the reasons I post to this blog (although I must say that I have yet to experience being very successful!) But every interaction I have I learn from. Little by little.Bruce David
February 17, 2011
February
02
Feb
17
17
2011
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
Pach, you say: "My world view could be described as having an open mind about what actually is and what actually occurs on this planet and everywhere in the universe." And then you say: "We need freedom from antiquated stories written by goat herders and/or fishermen or guys with towels wrapped around their heads. We also need to hold scientists to a higher standard and get rid of the ones who supply us with BS." How can one be open, and then in the same post dismiss the (admittedly incredible) accounts of phenomena written down just because of the writers profession? While you seem convinced you have an open mind, your actions - at least to an outside observer - don't appear that way. - SonfaroSonfaro
February 17, 2011
February
02
Feb
17
17
2011
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
Vitriolic? How? Where? You assume a lot about me, including what my 'world view' is or may be. I haven't brought up any of the things you keep referring to in your links and I've already said that I don't automatically swallow everything that science dishes out. Even if most scientists are wrong about every topic you've brought up, it doesn't mean that anything in religion is true or real. It is ridiculous to assert or imply that because something or even everything in science isn't correct, religion, and especially your chosen religion, must be true and real. No wrong automatically makes some other claim right. I often see mistakes, fraud, poor methods, exaggerated results, guesses, unwarranted inferences, or just plain BS in science, but that doesn't mean that all science is bad and it certainly doesn't mean that any religion is right. As I've said before, I think that a creator or designer in some form are or were possible. There are mysteries, especially at the quantum level, that are extremely complex and difficult to figure out, but science is making some headway. Virtually every day new things are discovered. It may turn out that everything that is currently accepted by many scientists is wrong in some ways, but does it really matter? Whatever is going on at the quantum level or anywhere else is what's going on and there's nothing we can do to change it. We can only look for it and try to understand it. I would be perfectly happy no matter what is found and it would be fine with me if there is or was a creator or designer, or not. I have a strong feeling that no matter how deeply humans look into the small or the large there will always be another step, another question, and things beyond our reach. My world view could be described as having an open mind about what actually is and what actually occurs on this planet and everywhere in the universe. If that reality includes a creator or designer, and if either can be discovered and proven, then I'll accept its or their existence. In the meantime I'd rather wonder than fool myself into believing that I already know. Some scientists think they know and virtually all religious people think they know, but no one knows. No one has evidence or proof of what's behind everything in the universe. It would be interesting to have a time machine and travel into the future to see what mankind has figured out in a hundred years, and a thousand years, and a million years. That is of course if mankind hasn't destroyed itself by then. I think that everyone wonders (at some point on their life) what's behind everything and whether we have an ultimate purpose or not. That fact that religion exists shows that most people want to believe that we do have an ultimate purpose and that we are important to some deity. It's a lot like wanting to be loved by our parents and to feel as though our lives are important and have purpose. For some reason we as a species are very insecure and fearful. We have immense capabilities and power but we're afraid of the Bogeyman and each other. We dwell on negatives and strife, and we recklessly and selfishly lay waste to our only home, the Earth. What the world needs is a common cause and we need to quit fighting over Gods and thousands of versions of religious beliefs. We need freedom from antiquated stories written by goat herders and/or fishermen or guys with towels wrapped around their heads. We also need to hold scientists to a higher standard and get rid of the ones who supply us with BS. And most of all we need to take care of this planet and quit arguing about whether we're ruining it or not. We are, and it's obvious. Religion won't fix it and neither will bad science. Good science may help but it will take more than just that. It really doesn't matter if there's a God or not or if there's a creator or designer or not, and it doesn't or at least shouldn't take a genius to see what's productive or destructive, good or bad, right or wrong for our world. Every minute that humans fight over ridiculous BS and ignore what's important is another minute closer to our doom.Pachyaena
February 17, 2011
February
02
Feb
17
17
2011
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
Pachyaena, I would like to weigh in on one point, at least. It is a common accusation by the Darwinists that ID is just "Science can't explain this, so God must have done it." It really isn't that. Most of the scientists now in the ID camp (Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Douglas Axe, and others) along with myself originally believed in the Darwinian explanation. What changed our minds was that when you look at the machinery of the cell, as well as multicellular organisms, you find that life simply "reeks of design", to quote Michael Behe. I believe that at the bottom of the beliefs of scientists (or people who have a high regard for science) who are proponents of ID is a very strong intuitive response to the machinery of life that "this was clearly designed; there is no way this was not designed." It's really a positive statement, not "God of the gaps" at all. To repeat an oft used analogy, if you can imagine someone stumbling upon Mt. Rushmore, never having heard of it, you know that they would immediately conclude that it was designed. There would be no doubt. It's like that. One looks at the machinery of the cell, for example, subtle, complex beyond anything yet built by humans, containing digital code, error correction, and nanomachines working together with exquisite timing and coordination, and the conclusion is unavoidable: this was engineered. I am not trying to convince you that this is true, by the way. My point is that the characterization of ID as just assigning-it-to-God-because-we-don't-understand it, which I gather from your last comment that you accept, is both inaccurate and unfair. It's a mis-characterization used as a rhetorical device by Darwinists to discredit a legitimate scientific minority view that for some reason they seem to be terribly afraid of.Bruce David
February 17, 2011
February
02
Feb
17
17
2011
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
Pachyaena, interesting that you would accuse me of being blinded my worldview, when I am firmly convinced that it is you that is being deceived by your own worldview. How to settle this??? How to settle this??? I tell you what Pachyaena let's look at the evidence!!! And let the evidence decide who is right!!! Sound fair??? Oh but you don't like what the evidence says right now so you say wait until 'real' evidence comes in??? Sorry to inform you of this, but the demise of your materialistic philosophy started with Hubble's observation of a expanding universe (or was it Einstein's special theory of relativity?) and has only gotten far worse since!!! As far as you dismissing the predictions and railing against me for my faith which I have carefully reasoned through, I guarantee you that I can back up each prediction with peer-review whereas you can't even show a violation of genetic entropy to support your evolutionary worldview! So Pachyaena who is really the one operating on blind faith, even being vitriolic to whomever disagrees with that blind faith, and whom is the one trying his best to be fair in this disagreement? notes; The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html The GS (genetic selection) Principle – David L. Abel – 2009 Excerpt: Stunningly, information has been shown not to increase in the coding regions of DNA with evolution. Mutations do not produce increased information. Mira et al (65) showed that the amount of coding in DNA actually decreases with evolution of bacterial genomes, not increases. This paper parallels Petrov’s papers starting with (66) showing a net DNA loss with Drosophila evolution (67). Konopka (68) found strong evidence against the contention of Subba Rao et al (69, 70) that information increases with mutations. The information content of the coding regions in DNA does not tend to increase with evolution as hypothesized. Konopka also found Shannon complexity not to be a suitable indicator of evolutionary progress over a wide range of evolving genes. Konopka’s work applies Shannon theory to known functional text. Kok et al. (71) also found that information does not increase in DNA with evolution. As with Konopka, this finding is in the context of the change in mere Shannon uncertainty. The latter is a far more forgiving definition of information than that required for prescriptive information (PI) (21, 22, 33, 72). It is all the more significant that mutations do not program increased PI. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces formal function. No increase in Shannon or Prescriptive information occurs in duplication. What the above papers show is that not even variation of the duplication produces new information, not even Shannon “information.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_GS_Principle_The_Genetic_Selection_Principle.html http://www.us.net/life/index.htm Dr. Don Johnson explains the difference between Shannon Information and Prescriptive Information, as well as explaining 'the cybernetic cut', in this following Podcast: Programming of Life - Dr. Donald Johnson interviewed by Casey Luskin - audio podcast http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/11/programming_of_life.htmlbornagain77
February 17, 2011
February
02
Feb
17
17
2011
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7 8 11

Leave a Reply