Where does disbelief in Darwin lead?
| February 13, 2008 | Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design |
A commenter to my article about John McCain supporting the teaching of ID in public schools replies that he won’t vote for McCain because of it. The stated reason is the United States is falling behind other industrialized countries in science literacy.
Piffle! The notion that science literacy in the U.S. is substandard is rooted in the results of science surveys that include questions about evolution. Without doubt a much larger fraction of the US populace doesn’t believe in mud to man evolution than compared to any other industrialized nation. So in those surveys they give the “incorrect” answer to questions about the origin of life. In all other category of science questions Americans score as well as or better than non-Americans. But the weight of the “wrong” answers about evolution pulls down the average and makes it appear a few other countries are doing a better job of science education.
Be that as it may I’m a results oriented guy. Instead of presuming that “poorer” science education leads to poorer scientific output I instead look at what America actually produces in the way of science and engineering. Without question America’s output in science and engineering leads the world. Not just a little but a lot. We don’t steal nuclear technology secrets from China, they steal ours. We don’t use European GPS satellites for navigation, they use ours. The list can go on and on. We put a man on the moon 40 years ago while to this day no one else has. America has almost 3 times the number of Nobel prize winners as the next closest nation. That doesn’t support the notion that disbelief in Darwin is causing any problems. In fact it supports just the opposite. Disbelief in evolution makes a country into a superpower – militarily, economically, and yes even scientifically.
Education in America is working just fine, thank you, judging by the fruits of American science and engineering. Disbelief in Darwinian evolution, if anything, leads to greater technological achievements not lesser. If it isn’t broken, don’t try to fix it.
200 Responses to Where does disbelief in Darwin lead?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
gentlemen,
I’m glad you have both figured me out. Though, thankfully, I’m not a biology professor (shudder at the thought), just a biologist. At least I get my own posters now, so that’s pretty exciting – much better than business cards you know.
If you would be so kind as to peruse the previous posts, you will notice that the one who was trying to discuss both sides and come to a rational conclusion was me, however, you thwarted me at every turn so congratulations. I suppose it comes down to this:
You say must obviously, I say -What do we know for sure at this point and what are the likely possibilities that can be derived from that? I don’t think any conclusion is obviously the right one and I have said as much above.
you say
and I say – Design would require a designer which would be at least unlikely perhaps more so (though, of course we cannot know for sure as probabilities cannot be done on this sort of thing) so why add a middle man when there is no evidence to, why cannot the universe itself be the causeless cause? By your twisted logic, there could never be a causeless cause – now maybe there is and maybe there isn’t, but I’m not willing to settle on one position just yet.
Of course you use the word dogma on me to secure in your own mind a semblance of balanced thought where none seems to exist. Fine. I’m dogmatic, I’m crouching in my dark little corner, hiding from the light. Strange though, I seem to be the only one questioning all sides. Suppose I have a lot of time in that corner to sit and think.
bFast,
It is very likely that physicists do have a much sense of what occurred than me (I should certainly hope so, in fact) and I certainly agree that the universe as we know it and life as we know it seems to be a pretty good fit and may be the only type possible. However, in and of itself, that is not an argument for design. To be circular about it (and somewhat facetious), would not the designer be another form of life, likely different than ours and therefore capable perhaps of living in a different sort of universe… (I repeat, facetious)
I’m not pinning any hopes on alternative universes. Alternative universes may or may not exist, I find it to simply be interesting speculation. As I said, I don’t know how things started or why we are anything at all and I’m not pretending that the answer is obvious.
leo,
Tell me, have you ever read Dr. William Dembski’s Arguments Not To Use? A short quote from the page should clarify what I mean:
Really, do you think IDists are so stupid as to not have thought things through? Don’t patronize us.
The work of Dr. Dembski and other ID scientists have shown time and again the numerous lines of evidence that support ID theory. Are you not familiar with their work? Read their papers and their books. Download their lectures and debates: ID theory is sceince.
Is anyone here interested in Dr. Dembski’s philosophical writings?
They are very interesting, maybe even groundbreaking. Perhaps someone should start a website, devoted to discussing them.
http://www.designinference.com/
I mean, he makes more sense then many of the other theologians I’ve read. Pannenberg for instance.
PannenbergOmega,
Thank you for posting the link. I can’t wait to read them!
Dr. William Dembski is clearly the “Isaac Newton of information theory”; I believe that in time, if his work is as revolutionary in philosophy and theology as it is in information theory, then Dr. Dembski may be the Isaac Newton of theology as well.
My pleasure, chuckhumphry.
If there are more people out there who frequent this website, and are interested in Dembski’s philosophical and religious works. Maybe we can form
a discussion group.
>Dr. Dembski may be the Isaac Newton >of theology
I agree, I think Dembski may be up there with people like Aquinas or Calvin.
They are shaping the future of the church. Maybe.
chuckhumphry,
Did you even read my post?
Let me repeat:
-though, of course we cannot know for sure
-now maybe there is and maybe there isn’t
What I am saying is, it may be more complex, it may be less complex, it may be the same. We don’t know, and apparently have made no effort to attempt to find out.
“They are shaping the future of the church. Maybe.”
Let me elaborate a little on this statement. If we believe (as I do) that God interacts with His creation, then we should all recognize that the nihilistic implications of full fledged Darwinism, are totally incapable of being reconciled with Christian theology. Obviously ID is very much intertwined with the future of Christianity.
PannenbergOmega,
I agree, but I’d go even one step further. ID science may be connected with Christianity, but the Intelligent Design movement – in addition to being an excellent scientific theory with tons of evidence in its favor – is the first step towards the eventual overthrow of the atheistic, nihilistic, amoral culture that surrounds us today.
I agree with you, completely.
Hopefully, and this is a big hope, the movie Expelled will help matters.
It’s not something that is going to change over night thought. There has been about 50 (more or less, this is subject to modification) years of increasing secularization in the USA.
So it may take a generation or two, in my humble opinion, to undo the damage done to our society from social liberalism. This is an optimistic approach to the matter. Things very well might get worse.
Because the universe had a beginning. To suggest that it is the uncaused cause violates the causal principle (which also appears in the Kalam argument) that
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
As David Hume wrote, “But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a cause”.
This principle implies that the uncaused cause is eternal, i.e. without a beginning.
We don’t know that they apply outside any more than we know whether they will apply inside next week.
Nevertheless, since they certainly could be true, it is not unreasonable to consider the implications of ideas such as these.
All this stuff about a cyclical universe and multiverses in a bunch of horse crap. Put forth by the secular-’progressive’ bloc, because they don’t want to believe in God.
“ID science may be connected with Christianity”
I agree with this Chuck. But you don’t need to be a Christian to be an ID theorist.
What I mean is Christianity needs ID, but ID doesn’t necessarily need Christianity.
PannenbergOmega,
Good point.
I’d say that Christianity – to remain relevant in today’s world – is dependent on the continued sucess of Intelligent Design’s influence in politics, ethics, religion, and science.
PannenbergOmega:
ID definitely does not need Christianity. There is nothing I have seen yet in ID that needs a God that seeks relationship with man. Biological ID doesn’t even need a God. Cosmological id certainly requires an intelligent agent that is outside of our universe — as such, in a way there is a requirement of “supernatural”, or at least “superuniversal”, to coin a phraise.
Does Christianity need ID? Well, that depends on how big the ID tent is. I do not see Christianity being steiffled by a single ID event, a the moment of the big bang, that set up a set of laws which, by their nature unfolded into man. This is very much a TE position.
I honestly think that nature calls out for ID. Certainly science is by no means far enought down the road to rule ID out. The fact that the scientific mainstream has written ID off without ever having achieved first life in a test-tube is utterly rediculous.
ID provides encouragement to people of faith because the reality of design in nature is irrefutable. Modernists and lovers of theory have spent the past hundred years relentlessly browbeating believers with the notion that science disproves faith; that believers are naive, deluded, and, worst of all, unscientific. In that sense ID simply confirms what the senses have been telling us all along. The goodness of nature does not comport well with the excessive love of theory seen in Darwin. Nature does not justify the attempt to negate “the good” for the sake of the unifying theory of the survival of the fittest. Life is more complex than our modern philosophers would have us believe.
Hi Bfast,
I honestly, think that much of the criticism ID faces is not to due to the supposed evidence against it.
In fact that is alot of evidence in favor of ID. I think some people actually may want there to be no God,and no purpose in the universe.
Let’s all take a moment to think about what Darwin’s theory is actually saying. It’s crazy.
If it were true, there would be no order or rationality in the world.
Hi allanius,
I agree with you.