Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Architect of the Iraq War Addresses "Intelligent Design"
Yesterday George W. Bush declared that schools should teach "intelligent design" -- the theory that life is so complex that it must have been designed by some outside intelligence, which itself must be pretty complex, but hey, there's no need to account for that. From Knight-Ridder's account:
Bush compared the current debate to earlier disputes over "creationism," a related view that adheres more closely to biblical explanations. As governor of Texas, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution.
On Monday the president said he favors the same approach for intelligent design "so people can understand what the debate is about."
If it's "the debate" that concerns the president, how's this for an educational philosophy: Schools could teach the actual debates that serious scientists have about how evolution works, thus leaving kids immune to the creationist cranks' notion that there is a single, unchanging Darwinian "orthodoxy." At some point, as an intellectual exercise, the instructor could assign a reading in "intelligent design" and have the students write papers explaining what's wrong with it. If parents protest, they can send their kids to another school.
Alternately, an instructor could teach Father Guido Sarducci's theory reconciling evolution and creation. Quoting from faded memory, it went something like this: "Yes, God created man in His own image -- but God evolved too. Here we have a picture of Neanderthal God...this is Cro-Magnon God..."
|8.2.05 @ 12:45PM|#
I used to believe in evolution until I spoke to the most persuasive intelligent-design proponents. And they're right: no way in HELL did they evolve.
|8.2.05 @ 12:47PM|#
I just knew this was coming. Fools like Bush are generally foolish about many things. :(
|8.2.05 @ 12:50PM|#
Jesse Walker,
You might want to tie in this link on the new wave of Bible Courses
in public schools:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/the_bible_as_el.html#more
|8.2.05 @ 12:53PM|#
I propose a very simple test for the theory of ID. If the theory
can pass this test then I'll endorse teaching it:
There are organisms out there that were the products of intelligent
interventions: Selective breeding of animals and plants,
genetically modified food, weaponized viruses, etc. Come up with an
algorithm that can use data on these organisms to determine which
features resulted from intelligent interventions and which features
evolved without intelligent interventions.
If your algorithm works, then you present your theories in science
classes: Use your algorithms to point to organisms (or, more
accurately, features of organisms) that were the result of
intelligent intervention.
Until this theory passes experimental tests it doesn't belong in
science classes.
|8.2.05 @ 12:54PM|#
Gah, as if we needed more evidence that our society and government are screwed up. Who gives a flap what the president thinks about evolution or teaching? We hire him to (theoretically) do a very limited set of tasks; whatever the hell he thinks about religion, evolution, or teaching shouldn't make a bit of difference. I'm sure all his fundie supporters are rubbing their hands in glee over this bone he's thrown them, though.
|8.2.05 @ 12:55PM|#
it shouldn't be such a surprise. didn't the esteemed dr. bush already say something like "the jury's out" on evolution? being the head of a party whose chief purpose seems to be writing their values into law, this is just another logical element of that policy.
|8.2.05 @ 12:56PM|#
The Architect of the Iraq War Addresses "Intelligent
Design"
Isn't calling him the "architect" of the Iraq War giving him too
much credit?
...If credit is the right word.
|8.2.05 @ 12:56PM|#
point to organisms (or, more accurately, features of
organisms) that were the result of intelligent intervention.
My hairstyle.
|8.2.05 @ 12:59PM|#
Intelligent Designs of the Intelligent Designers
Put that on your thong and wear it!
|8.2.05 @ 1:00PM|#
Oh, one other thing: The algorithm should have a low rate of
false positives. For instance, if the algorithm said that
antibiotic resistance in bacteria was the result of design, that
would be a big problem.
To keep the test simple, I picked a phenomenon that has been
observed on human time scales, so that we know for absolute certain
(well, as certain as science can ever be) that antibiotic
resistance is the result of natural selection.
|8.2.05 @ 1:01PM|#
Sigh. Idiocy on top of idiocy. I will confess to being the flavor of libertarian who votes Republican on the grounds that these sorts of things will never become policy. This gives me a headache.
Timothy|8.2.05 @ 1:05PM|#
being the head of a party whose chief purpose seems to be
writing their values into law, this is just another logical element
of that policy.
This is, in fact, what both parties do. Unfortunately both sets of
values seem to hinge firstly on "expanding government" with all
other concerns playing off the bench.
|8.2.05 @ 1:06PM|#
Is anybody here old enough to remember when Sputnik went into
orbit and the leaders of the US had the idea that we needed
scientific competency to retain our military and industrial
edge?
I'm not, but I read about it in my history books, and just think
it's a damned shame how we've devolved since then. I can't even
think of a sarcastic comment to make about it.
nmg|8.2.05 @ 1:08PM|#
Here the proponents of state-run schools finally get a real-life
example of the why they are wrong. State run schools are great when
you are in power and get to impose your own agenda on the system.
Leftists love the public schools.
But now we have Bush pushing an agenda for the schools that the
leftists don't like. Bush's wish is perfectly legitimate. It's not
different than any other ideologue's approach to public
schools.
nmg
|8.2.05 @ 1:09PM|#
Sometimes I think what with China and India cranking out
scientists and engineers and Europe and Korea doing stem cell and
cloning research we can't do here, while we're debating whether to
teach a creation myth in a book written by middle eastern nomads
2000+ years ago . . . we're going to get buried. You want fries
with that? Too stupid to survive.
Then again maybe it's just a version of the "Japan's going to take
over" stuff from 15 years ago. We're such a ludicrously prosperous
country that we can afford silly luxuries like Intelligent
Design.
|8.2.05 @ 1:10PM|#
Brian Marks,
"Who designed the designer?" is always an excellent question to ask
an IDer (or a straight out creationist).
When a creationist or a religionist gets on a discussion of
morality and claims that one needs a God to have a moral universe,
just ask how did God come upon this idea of morality? Or,
alternatively, who created it for God?
drf|8.2.05 @ 1:11PM|#
Thoreau:
your deference to science is like a religion. therefore all you
write will be discounted until you bring back the pelts of 69
terrorists. Smacky will verify...
so there.
|8.2.05 @ 1:11PM|#
I should write a booktitled:
Fifty Simple Things You Can Ask A Theist To Rattle Their
Brains :)
|8.2.05 @ 1:12PM|#
We're such a ludicrously prosperous country that we can
afford silly luxuries like Intelligent Design.
That's like a farmer saying he's so prosperous he can afford silly
luxuries like throwing away his seed corn. Knowledge, science,
innovation--THAT is what made us prosperous.
|8.2.05 @ 1:16PM|#
Jennifer,
See, this is the problem with us paleo-libertarians; we need to
learn to compromise on issues like ID. :)
|8.2.05 @ 1:17PM|#
nmg, last fall when I voted I had no idea Bush, Kerry, and that other guy were running for my local school district board AND trying to become President of the United States.
Vache Folle|8.2.05 @ 1:18PM|#
Keep in mind that the students who will buy into intelligent design and reject evolutionary theory were never going to become scientists or doctors or anything that requires book learning. The guy who takes tickets for the tilt-a-whirl can believe anything he wants about the origins of life and still take your ticket.
|8.2.05 @ 1:18PM|#
After many years and a lot of effort, I see that Bush has finally beaten the Republican out of Jason Ligon. Poor kid.
|8.2.05 @ 1:19PM|#
Well, Hakluyt, that's why I gave up on evolution and became a proponent of DD--Dumbass Design. How's your tailbone these days? Getting much use out of your male nipples? Hope that appendix isn't causing you any problems.
|8.2.05 @ 1:20PM|#
This is, in fact, what both parties do. Unfortunately both
sets of values seem to hinge firstly on "expanding government" with
all other concerns playing off the bench.
right. i meant religious values, really.
|8.2.05 @ 1:20PM|#
Jennifer - well, yeah . . . it's not going to last forever. My current crackpot theory is that the Bushies are a bunch of oil guys. Thus they see prosperity as something that's just sitting there and you can extract it and goof off with the money. The last 5 years have been something of a strip mining operation.
raymond|8.2.05 @ 1:21PM|#
(disclaimer: In the past, I have defended the teaching of
ID.)
The nice thing about a lesson in intelligent design is that it's
going to be very short.
And that the answer to every question on the test will be the
same.
|8.2.05 @ 1:22PM|#
Actually, I can't think of a better way to destroy religion and make it unpalatable for the large majority of Americans than to intetgrate it into government and government run schools.
|8.2.05 @ 1:22PM|#
Will Bush now argue that the the notion that HIV was really created by the CIA should be taught in schools? :)
|8.2.05 @ 1:22PM|#
Keep in mind that the students who will buy into intelligent
design and reject evolutionary theory were never going to become
scientists or doctors or anything that requires book
learning.
unfortunately, that's not true at all. there are plenty of doctors
and lawyers that buy into this stuff.
|8.2.05 @ 1:28PM|#
People who want creationism taught in schools try to work around
breeds of dogs, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and flesh eating
bacteria by saying they're "microevolution" (same species) rather
than "macroevolution" (different species) but this only disproves
the notion that creationism is a red state, and therefore rural,
thing.
Because of their chests are so big (for big turkey breasts) modern
domesticated male turkeys are physically incapable of having sex
naturally. Making turkeys requires artificial insemination. If
taxonomists were consistent about being capable of producing
fertile offspring being the determining factor as to whether 2
animals are the same species, domesticated and wild turkeys would
now be separate species even if there's some chance inseminating a
wild turkey would create a fertilized egg that would live to
adulthood. For the same reason, the only male broiler chickens who
are capable of having sex are those with smaller than average
chicken breasts. Some breeds of pigs and cattle are sometimes
reluctant to have sex when they're in close quarters, which is part
of the reason insemination's now used with them too.
In the last couple thousand years, rice and corn have been changed
so much no one knows what their wild anscestor is, so they each
have their own species.
And yet the farmers of the red states are supposedly the
constituency whose values this sort of thing is supposed to
serve.
|8.2.05 @ 1:35PM|#
Thoreau,
A very creative idea, but I think it is flawed in terms of actual
ability to accomplish anything. You say "determine which features
resulted from intelligent interventions and which features evolved
without intelligent interventions".
I think ID believers would immediately argue the impossibility of
this. I think they'd argue a) that you are presupposing evolution
has occurred, and b) that since everything has been created by
intelligent intervention (design) there is nothing left without
it.
I'm convinced there's no point in talking with these people. As the
saying goes, "Never bother to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your
time and annoys the pig."
I wonder how an ID believer would respond to the following
proposition: There are many Christians who accept evolution; but
let's let all of the Atheists who accept ID decide what gets taught
in schools. If ID has any merit, there must be some atheists out
there willing to believe it. (Hah.)
|8.2.05 @ 1:36PM|#
"Come up with an algorithm that can use data..."
Whoa, whoa, hold on there, Mr. Smartypants. Don't go persecuting
them with your "algorithm" this and your "data" that. God said it,
they believe it, and that's all that matter.
This is as perfect an example of Bush's brilliant manipulation of
his mouth-breathing base as I have ever seen. There is absolutely
nothing the President of the United States can do about teaching
creationism in schools, so he can spout off about it as much as he
wants. He's been handling the Cletuses who vote him with empty
nonsense like this since his first run for Governor, and he plays
them like a fiddle every time. They never catch on, and they keep
coming back for more. Brilliant.
|8.2.05 @ 1:38PM|#
Bush is merely channeling his inner Straussian. :)
We've got to keep the hidden, secret, esoteric, etc. knowledge,
well, hidden. :)
|8.2.05 @ 1:42PM|#
Keep in mind that the students who will buy into intelligent
design and reject evolutionary theory were never going to become
scientists or doctors or anything that requires book
learning.
unfortunately, that's not true at all. there are plenty of doctors
and lawyers that buy into this stuff.
...or a president of the United States.
|8.2.05 @ 1:46PM|#
There is absolutely nothing the President of the United
States can do about teaching creationism in schools, so he can
spout off about it as much as he wants.
Oh, yes he can. Mr. Party-Of-Smaller-Government can have his
Department of Education make the teaching of ID in HS biology
classes a part of the federally-mandated standards of NCLB, or
otherwise inserted into DoE guidelines, with the commensurate
funding carrots and sticks.
k|8.2.05 @ 1:48PM|#
I, for one, welcome our return to magic and mysticism as the
dominating factors guiding our society. These will be the best
years since Reagan devined policy through the use of stargazing and
tarot.
--Keith
|8.2.05 @ 1:50PM|#
Oh, yes he can. Mr. Party-Of-Smaller-Government can have his
Department of Education make the teaching of ID in HS biology
classes a part of the federally-mandated standards of NCLB, or
otherwise inserted into DoE guidelines, with the commensurate
funding carrots and sticks.
he could also use his political influence to try and pass ID
legislation.
|8.2.05 @ 2:05PM|#
If our president wants to teach this then I'm all for it. It is treason to not support the president.
keith|8.2.05 @ 2:07PM|#
Our policy will be directed by John Waters movie
stars?
And a dead one, at that. Does it make any less sense than anything
else that's been going on?
I'd pay -- if not good, then at least a little -- money to see the
look on a foreign leader's face when Bush interrupts a meeting to
say, "Well hold on. Let me ask the disembodied head of my drag
queen advisor. I keep it in this here crystal ball. Heh heh.
crystal ball. Get it?"
-Keith
|8.2.05 @ 2:11PM|#
Isn't this another good reason for separation of education and
state? Politicians appeal to voting blocks, the way Bush has, with
ideas for education that are detrimental to educating. These bad
ideas, if adapted, then have the force of taxpayer
dollars behind them.
Like Jason Ligon, I'm also te flavor of libertarian who votes for
certain Republican because the myths that the Democrats believe
more thoroughly are more likely to be enacted and are more
harmful.
|8.2.05 @ 2:35PM|#
thoreau PhD,
Do you think that the first part of your test could actually be
done? Could we actually:
Come up with an algorithm that can use data on these organisms
to determine which features resulted from intelligent interventions
and which features evolved without intelligent
interventions.
Perhaps a more pertinent question is; are there algorithms of
evolution that can be observed in the features of one natural
organism and than be applied to other natural organisms?
|8.2.05 @ 2:42PM|#
he could also use his political influence to try and pass ID
legislation.
Like he did Social Security reform?
I feel better about this already.
|8.2.05 @ 2:45PM|#
R.C. Dean,
No, more like when he got his bloated, bribery-ridden medicare bill
passed.
|8.2.05 @ 2:46PM|#
Mr. Party-Of-Smaller-Government can have his Department of
Education make the teaching of ID in HS biology classes a part of
the federally-mandated standards of NCLB, or otherwise inserted
into DoE guidelines, with the commensurate funding carrots and
sticks.
I was going to argue that he couldn't but now that I think of it
could be a no lose plan for Bush. The SCOTUS would likely strike
down such a plan, which would add steam to the judicial
tyranny/persecution of the faithful claim that's been made
recently. Or, on the off chance they didn't strike it, ID would be
part of public ed, and the fundy base gets thrown a huge bone.
|8.2.05 @ 2:50PM|#
"If taxonomists were consistent about being capable of producing
fertile offspring being the determining factor as to whether 2
animals are the same species, domesticated and wild turkeys would
now be separate species..."
Mr. Bobo, taxonomists use more than one criteria to distinguish
among the various species, not just the ability to create fertile
offspring.
|8.2.05 @ 2:54PM|#
"I will confess to being the flavor of libertarian who votes
Republican on the grounds that these sorts of things will never
become policy."
I used to be that kind of libertarian. ...But now, I'm concerned
that my support for Republicans will be misconstrued as support for
the president, and we just can't have that.
|8.2.05 @ 2:59PM|#
Thoreau, the problem with an algorithm is that every time we
crunch the numbers, the Flying Spaghetti Monster will touch our
data with His Noodly Appendage.
http://www.venganza.org/
(from which I quote: "What these people don�t understand is that He
built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really
is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on
an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has
decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this
artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of
Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does
not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying
Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly
Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this
can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course
invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease. ")
|8.2.05 @ 3:06PM|#
I really enjoy Richard Dawkins and I recently bought, but have
not yet started to read, the book, Dawkins' God...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1405125381/reasonmagazineA/
...by a guy who has PhDs in both molecular biology and divinity, I
believe. The book is a critique of some of Dawkins' views. Is
anyone familiar with this volume?
|8.2.05 @ 3:12PM|#
Obviously teaching "intelligent design" in a science class is just stupid. But from a tactical standpoint, this is great for libertarians. We should be encouraging the social conservatives to go all out in pushing religious indoctirnation and religious pseudo-science into the public classrooms. Right now the people on the left generally view the libertarian dream of abolishing public education with complete contempt. Once they have to endure their kid recreating Noah's flood in science lab or have little Becky Finkelstein sit through her mandatory Gospel class maybe a few more of them will come over to our side. I'm not naive enough to think that most would, but we should be able to gain at least a little more support.
|8.2.05 @ 3:20PM|#
Thoreau,
Your scientific test seems to assume that intelligent interventions
made by humans would have some kind of similarity to those made by
a putative higher intelligence and some dissimilarity to random
genetic mutations (assuming that these mutations are random and not
the result of some kind of invisible hand). What is your basis for
assuming this similarity and dissimilarity?
Addressing the larger issue, I haven't seen anything that proves
that the starting conditions for evolution were randomly made. I
haven't seen anything that proves that evolutionary genetic
mutations are random and completely pre-determined by laws of
physics we already know about. Just because the mutations happened
slowly over geological time doesn't make them random.
Evolution proves that mutation and survival of the fittest are
mechanisms for change, even change of species. However, this does
not answer or even address whether the mechanisms are ultimately
controlled by an intelligence or, alternatively, a lack of
intelligence.
When I engage atheists on this question, they usually say that
there is no intelligence in the starting conditions of the universe
or in ongoing evolutionary mutations because they haven't seen
independent evidence of the intelligence. Of course, that is not
scientific disproof of ID. Rather, it is just allocating the burden
of proof to your opponents in debate. That ain't science -- that's
lawyer logic!
Neither kids, nor most laypeople, care about the physical
mechanisms of evolution. Rather, they care about how actively some
God creature (if any) is intervening. Science can't answer that
either way. Kids should be taught about science's uncertainty (and
frankly uselessness) on the overarching God question. Too bad GWB
is leading the charge on this issue. He's a idiot.
|8.2.05 @ 3:32PM|#
I haven't seen anything that proves that evolutionary
genetic mutations are random and completely pre-determined by laws
of physics we already know about.
I don't know any evolutionary biologist worth a damn who would
claim for one second that genetic mutations are random, either.
|8.2.05 @ 3:38PM|#
rick barton,
i have an e-mail containing a brief critique of "Dawkins' God".
it's part of a skeptic newsletter run by michael shermer. i went to
his site, but i can't find a link to the archived newletter
anywhere, so i'll just forward you the e-mail.
it's only two pages or so long. if enough people are interested in
seeing it, i'll cut-and-paste it to H&R.
|8.2.05 @ 3:49PM|#
Dave W,
How does God intervene in evolution? Or in anything?
What is the difference between a human with a soul and one without
one? (I mean other than losing the ability to dance)
Why did God create us?
|8.2.05 @ 3:50PM|#
Zach,
Post it. Hell people post silly songs, people post their own silly
manifestos. You might as post it, I am interested.
|8.2.05 @ 3:53PM|#
conversely, doesn't that prove god's uselessness on the
question of science?
No.
However, God seems to have given us very little useful scientific
info from his theologians, qua theologians. This is some evidence
indicating God's uselessness as a science teacher.
At any rate, I am proposing that science classes teach that science
can't even meaningfully experiment one way or the other on the God
question. This is very different than teaching that science favors
God. It is also very different than teaching that science disfavors
God.
What my approach does do is teach kids that there is stuff that
science currently can't observe or know about with any authority.
That is an important lesson in itself, one that I think science
classes currently tend to neglect.
|8.2.05 @ 3:56PM|#
When I engage atheists on this question, they usually say
that there is no intelligence in the starting conditions of the
universe or in ongoing evolutionary mutations because they haven't
seen independent evidence of the intelligence. Of course, that is
not scientific disproof of ID. Rather, it is just allocating the
burden of proof to your opponents in debate. That ain't science --
that's lawyer logic!
actually, it's called occam's razor. of course it can never be
disproved there was an intelligent designer, nor can it be proved.
but since the existence of an intelligent designer is not
necessary to explain evolution, the desire to postulate the
existence of ID anyway is irrational.
it could be that cars have immortal souls. but since it's possible
to understand the way cars work without needing to assume the
existence of their immortal souls, a belief in the immortal souls
of cars is irrational.
|8.2.05 @ 3:57PM|#
How does God intervene in evolution? Or in
anything?
As a matter of reason (small r) and science: I don't know.
As a matter of personal, extra-rational, religious faith: yes, God
intervened in evolution either by setting the starting conditions,
controlling mutations contemporaneously over pre-history, and/or
using time travel to reach back from the future and set the
conditions correctly at some point(s) in the process.
Why did God create us?
Because He loves us. That's a easy one!
|8.2.05 @ 4:00PM|#
haven't seen anything that proves that evolutionary genetic
mutations are random and completely pre-determined by laws of
physics we already know about.
I don't know any evolutionary biologist worth a damn who would
claim for one second that genetic mutations are random,
either.
By random, I meant: "not intelligently controlled." As was writing
for the layperson, but your caution on the terminology is sound and
appreciated.
|8.2.05 @ 4:02PM|#
alright. i guess kwais counts as "enough people". the
punctuation is going to be a little messed up.
Science & Religion -
The Blind Godmaker
a book review by Michael Shermer
In 1999, Frank J. Sulloway and I conducted a study on religious
attitudes that included a question asking survey takers to explain
in their own words why they believe in God. The most popular reason
given was: "Good design, natural beauty, perfection, and complexity
of the world or universe" 1. As pattern-seeking primates, we have a
natural tendency to look for and find design in nature. Before 1859
the default explanation for that design was a top-down designer,
God. This was most forcefully argued by the 18th-century English
theologian William Paley: If one stumbled upon a watch on a heath,
one would not assume it had always been there, as one might with a
stone 2. A watch implies a watchmaker. Design implies a
designer.
In 1859, Charles Darwin provided a scientific explanation of design
from the bottom up: natural selection 3. Since then, arguably no
one has done more to make the case for bottom-up design than the
Oxford University evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in a
series of books that includes the aptly titled The Blind Watchmaker
4, a direct challenge to Paley. But if design comes naturally from
the bottom up and not supernaturally from the top down, what does
that imply about the existence of God? Although most scientists
avoid the question altogether or take a conciliatory stance along
the lines of Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)
5, Dawkins unequivocally concludes: "Darwin made it possible to be
an intellectually fulfilled atheist" 4.
Dawkins has generated controversy within the ranks of evolutionary
theorists for his strict adherence to Darwinian natural selection
("random mutation plus non-random cumulative selection" in his
succinct description) as the only mechanism of evolutionary change
worth bothering about - Gould called him a "Darwinian
fundamentalist" 6 - but it is his statements about religion that
have drawn attention to him from outside the scientific community.
Now, in Dawkins' God, we have a book-length analysis by Alister
McGrath, professor of historical theology at Oxford. With
professional training in the sciences as well as theology (he
earned a doctorate in molecular biophysics), McGrath is well
qualified to assess Dawkins's literary corpus.
The book begins with an engaging first-person account of McGrath's
own journey from atheist to theist, emphasizing the shortcomings of
the former and the strengths of the latter 7. During his time as a
graduate student at Oxford, McGrath began to explore the relation
between science and religion, which led him to realize that
Christianity was more sophisticated than his atheism allowed him to
appreciate. "While I had been severely critical of Christianity as
a young man, I had never extended that same critical evaluation to
atheism." When he did, he discovered "that the intellectual case
for atheism was rather less substantial than I had supposed." At
the same time, he was reading Dawkins, whose conclusions were just
the opposite; thus was born this book, decades in the making.
After a brief tour of the life and science of both Darwin and
Dawkins, McGrath addresses Dawkins's vision of evolutionary theory
as a complete worldview. "I'm a Darwinist because I believe the
only alternatives are Lamarckism or God," Dawkins explains,
"neither of which does the job as an explanatory principle" 8.
Because science supports Darwinism, the implications are broad and
deep. "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we
should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no
evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference" 9. What
place, then, for God?
The remainder of Dawkins' God consists primarily of a
point-by-point critique of Dawkins's writings on religion, which
McGrath sees as too simplistic and full of easy-to-topple straw
men. McGrath summarizes his position thusly: (i) "The scientific
method is incapable of adjudicating the God hypothesis, either
positively or negatively." (ii) "God need not be invoked as an
explanatory agent within the evolutionary process" (to be
subsequently dismissed). (iii) "The concept of God as 'watchmaker,'
which Dawkins spends so much time demolishing, emerged as
significant in the eighteenth century, and is not typical of the
Christian tradition." This is, in essence, Gould's NOMA - science
and religion serve different purposes using different methods, and
attempts to bring them into harmony or conflict cannot be logically
justified.
Then how do we know there is a God? Faith. According to Dawkins,
faith "means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the
teeth of evidence" 10. This, says McGrath, "bears little relation
to any religious (or any other) sense of the word." In its stead
McGrath presents the definition of faith by the Anglican theologian
W. H. Griffith-Thomas: "It commences with the conviction of the
mind based on adequate evidence; it continues in the confidence of
the heart or emotions based on conviction, and it is crowned in the
consent of the will, by means of which the conviction and
confidence are expressed in conduct." Such a definition - which
McGrath describes as "typical of any Christian writer" - is an
example of what Dawkins, in reference to French postmodernists,
calls "continental obscurantism." Most of it describes the
psychology of belief. The only clause of relevance to a scientist
is "adequate evidence," which raises the follow-up question, "Is
there?"
Obviously McGrath must think there is, but he never says. On this
point I found the book frustrating. As McGrath's relentless
deconstruction of Dawkins unfolds, he repeats, over and over, that
religion offers a worldview every bit as sophisticated and worthy
of respect as science. His defense of religious faith is a
passionate and honorable one, and he demonstrates that some of
Dawkins's characterizations of religion are indeed overly
simplistic or selective, but he never delivers an answer to the God
question. The closest thing to an argument for God's existence I
could find in the book is this: "Why should God require an
explanation at all? He might just be an 'ultimate,'… one of those
things we have to accept as given, and is thus amenable to
description, rather than explanation." That may be, but like all
other arguments made in favor of God's existence, this only works
as a reason to believe if you already believe. If you do not
already believe, science cannot help you.
I was eager to read Dawkins' God because of the gladiatorial weight
of the contestants and what they represent. And although McGrath
presents many side issues in a pleasantly readable fashion (e.g.,
Darwin's religiosity, the historiography of science and religion,
and how and where religion embraces science), he dodges the biggest
question of all, the question at the heart of Dawkins's writings:
Is there a God? Whether Dawkins is simplistic or sarcastic or
sardonic is a secondary issue. By elevating it to the primary focus
of the book, McGrath missed an opportunity to make his case, pace
Dawkins, and give us the very best arguments in his arsenal. With
McGrath, I still do not know why he believes in God. With Dawkins,
there is no doubt about where he stands.
References & Notes
The results are reported in M. Shermer, How We Believe: The Search
for God in an Age of Science (Freeman, New York, 2000).
W. Paley, Natural Theology: Or, Evidence of the Existence and
Attributes of the Deity (London, 1802).
C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species (John Murray, London,
1859).
R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution
Reveals a Universe Without Design (Norton, New York, 1986).
S. J. Gould, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of
Life (Ballantine, New York, 1999).
S. J. Gould, N. Y. Rev. Books 44, 34 (12 June 1997).
See also: A. McGrath, The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of
Disbelief in the Modern World (Rider, London, 2004).
R. Dawkins, in The Third Culture, J. Brockman, Ed. (Simon and
Schuster, New York, 1995), pp. 75-95.
R. Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (Weidenfeld
and Nicolson, London, 1995).
R. Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford,
1976).
you can't say i didn't warn you.
|8.2.05 @ 4:02PM|#
Wow, Occam's Razor sounds like an important rule of rational
thought.
I am surprised scientists don't use it to explain everything.
Easier than the old fashioned methods of proof that's 4 sure.
|8.2.05 @ 4:07PM|#
I am all for alternative theories being taught in the schools -
and I am not alone!
http://www.venganza.org/
|8.2.05 @ 4:13PM|#
Wow, Occam's Razor sounds like an important rule of rational
thought.
I am surprised scientists don't use it to explain everything.
Easier than the old fashioned methods of proof that's 4
sure.
you're not making any sense. occam's razor can't be used to explain
anything. in fact, it means that the only useful
explanation for anything is based on "old fashioned methods of
proof", namely, the scientific method.
|8.2.05 @ 4:18PM|#
Dave W.,
However, this does not answer or even address whether the
mechanisms are ultimately controlled by an intelligence or,
alternatively, a lack of intelligence.
I'd say that's because the question isn't important.
...because they haven't seen independent evidence of the
intelligence.
No most atheists will tell you that lacking evidence for God, the
question just isn't that important or interesting.
Of course, that is not scientific disproof of ID.
ID can't be proven or disproven, that's why its inherently so
boring. Its not science, in other words, its philosophy.
Kids should be taught about science's uncertainty (and frankly
uselessness) on the overarching God question.
Which is of course why ID shouldn't be in a science class; a
philosophy class maybe.
|8.2.05 @ 4:18PM|#
"Why did God create us?
Because He loves us. That's a easy one!"
That would imply, I guess, that God did not create love. Or that
love is the closest thing to explain what God feels for us.
Love in humans is largely an illusion. A feeling of needing and
belonging, of being incomplete without.
A part of the illusion most times being that it feels permanent,
but is not. When a better match is percieved, the love dissipates,
and is replaced by a different emotion.
|8.2.05 @ 4:19PM|#
Dave W.,
What would be interesting is a philosophy class where arguments for
God was presented (its not hard, there are only five major
arguments) and then shot down. :)
|8.2.05 @ 4:21PM|#
kwais,
No, the correct question is: who created love? :)
You'll find that eventually all God-talk is based on circular
reasoning.
|8.2.05 @ 4:25PM|#
Kids should be taught about science's uncertainty (and
frankly uselessness) on the overarching God question.
Which is of course why ID shouldn't be in a science
class
No. This is exactly why it is important to teach about atheism/God
in a science class. It is good for kids to know what science can
tell us with reasonable certainty. It is equally important to
understand the limits of scientific knowledge. The whole God
question is one of those limits and a great lesson.
The philosophy stuff you suggest sounds good for a college
course.
|8.2.05 @ 4:28PM|#
"At any rate, I am proposing that science classes teach that
science can't even meaningfully experiment one way or the other on
the God question."
that's not a bad idea, but hardly feasible in the u.s. at least
outside of a disclaimer that "science is science and not an
assigned mandate of policy or creed" which is pretty wishy washy
too. it's sort of pointless.
|8.2.05 @ 4:32PM|#
No. This is exactly why it is important to teach about
atheism/God in a science class. It is good for kids to know what
science can tell us with reasonable certainty. It is equally
important to understand the limits of scientific knowledge. The
whole God question is one of those limits and a great
lesson.
Painting with watercolors can offer no help with understanding
English composition. Should this fact be mentioned in art
class?
|8.2.05 @ 4:33PM|#
String theory isn't science either, thus its inclusion in a physics text isn't very apropos either. You could say the same thing about cryptozoology and biology courses as well. These these at the "margins of science" simply aren't appropriate for a basic introduction to science.
|8.2.05 @ 4:33PM|#
Dave W,
Here is another more complicated question for you;
How can there be a heaven and hell, when God made us what we are?
God gave us our genes and our experiences, and our environment, all
our choices are the direct inevitable result of those
mentioned.
Hitler was inevitably Hitler, how can he burn in hell for what God
made him?
|8.2.05 @ 4:34PM|#
No. This is exactly why it is important to teach about
atheism/God in a science class. It is good for kids to know what
science can tell us with reasonable certainty. It is equally
important to understand the limits of scientific knowledge. The
whole God question is one of those limits and a great
lesson.
i agree completely. kids need to be taught what scientific
empirical observation can and can't tell us. just as science is
useless in the religious "god question", they should be taught why
beliefs not based in empirical observation are of no use to
science. which means, teaching them why a belief in an intelligent
designer is not a scientific theory, and is useless to the
scientific pursuit of knowledge.
i've been a proponent of presenting ID in this way for quite some
time.
|8.2.05 @ 4:35PM|#
David,
Dave W.'s line of reasoning leads to the inclusion of all manner of
crackpot notions; be it "Nessie," alien abductions, God(s),
etc.
|8.2.05 @ 4:36PM|#
Kids should be taught about science's uncertainty (and
frankly uselessness) on the overarching God question.
Which is of course why ID shouldn't be in a science class; a
philosophy class maybe
Not at all pointless or trivial. The lesson could point out that
string theory postulates 17 dimensions, but science has only been
able to directly observe 4. That's a lot of places God may or may
not live. Science has established the existence of vast expanses of
space (dimensions 1 to 3). Although we have observed lots of stars,
some black holes and a couple of planets, we haven't explored deep
space. Again, a lot of places God may or may not live. Then there
is the science of oceanography, of the Earth's core, of the Sun's
core, etc., etc.
This kind of lesson would give kids an idea of what has been
explored by science, and conversely, and at least equally
importantly, the vast expanses that have not been explored.
I can't imagine a lesson for a budding young scientist more
exciting than that. It spells opportunity, and it will help the
kids to know that this opportunity for new scientists cannot be
whisked away with a blade as flimsy as Occam's (important lesson,
also: not everybody here seems to have gotten the memo).
|8.2.05 @ 4:36PM|#
A very creative idea, but I think it is flawed in terms of
actual ability to accomplish anything. You say "determine which
features resulted from intelligent interventions and which features
evolved without intelligent interventions".
I think ID believers would immediately argue the impossibility
of this. I think they'd argue a) that you are presupposing
evolution has occurred, and b) that since everything has been
created by intelligent intervention (design) there is nothing left
without it.
Slainte-
My test would be unconvincing to the young-earth crowd, of course.
However, many ID proponents are actually old-earth types. They
accept that SOME amount of evolution has occured, but they think
that at least here and there some divine intervention happened.
Michael Behe is in that camp. (And yes, Hakluyt, I know, Behe is
wrong on many things, I'm just saying that he's an example of the
type of person who wouldn't immediately discount my proposal.) So
some ID proponents might take up my challenge. Or if they failed to
take it up it would be because of cowardice rather than an
ideological refusal to accept that evolution has EVER
occurred.
Now, granted, the old-earth ID types are mostly a bunch of "useful
idiots" for the young earth crowd. But these idiots are useful
precisely because they seem respectable: Many of them have
degrees in science, math, engineering, or medicine. They accept
that at least SOME amount of evolution has occurred, and that the
earth is 4 or 5 billion years old. They provide a respectable front
for creationism.
So if they want to debate on scientific grounds ("...blood clotting
requires 10 different proteins to act simultaneously, so it
couldn't have happened gradually...") rather than religious grounds
("...the Bible says so!") then let's give them that debate: If
their theory works then they should be able to devise a method that
could say that antibiotic resistance evolved, but weaponized
bacteria were designed in labs.
joe-
There is absolutely nothing the President of the United States
can do about teaching creationism in schools, so he can spout off
about it as much as he wants.
He could always tie strings to federal funds or dangle extra
funding for schools that want to spend it on developing ID
curricula or whatever. With money anything is possible.
Rick Barton-
I don't actually think that anybody can achieve the problem that I
laid out. But I presented it because if the ID crowd is correct
then they should be able to do it. They claim that it should be
possible to examine an organism and identify features that can only
arise by design. Well, if so, then do it!
And the neat thing is that there are a handful of organisms out
there with features that everybody agrees are
products of evolution (my favorite is always antibiotic resistance,
but there are others on the tip of my tongue). Just as there are
organisms with features that everybody agrees are
products of design (e.g. genetically modified food).
So we've got these undisputed examples of evolution and design, now
let's test the theory. If they can prove me wrong and come up with
an algorithm that does the job then I'll give their theories very
serious consideration. I'm a scientist, and I change my mind when
I'm confronted with convincing data.
|8.2.05 @ 4:39PM|#
"Its not science, thus it doesn't belong in a science
class."
I have no problem with mentioning the limits of science in science
class.
Actually I have no problem with any of this, as long as the parents
get to choose the school that they send their kids to.
|8.2.05 @ 4:39PM|#
Dave W.'s line of reasoning leads to the inclusion of all
manner of crackpot notions; be it "Nessie," alien abductions,
God(s), etc.
maybe not all of these things, but some of them really should be
mentioned in a science class, as a good science class should teach
the kind of critical thinking that is necessary to make the
scientific method work.
|8.2.05 @ 4:39PM|#
kwais,
Questioning why/if God created evil is one of the classic questions
to ask a theist. Indeed, its especially problematic for Calvinists
and other advocates of predestination because its even more clear
from the standpoint of that argument that God is the author, well,
evil.
|8.2.05 @ 4:41PM|#
Hak: Dave W.'s line of reasoning leads to the inclusion of
all manner of crackpot notions; be it "Nessie," alien abductions,
God(s), etc.
Dav: Not at all pointless or trivial. The lesson could point
out that string theory postulates 17 dimensions, but science has
only been able to directly observe 4. That's a lot of places God
may or may not live. Science has established the existence of vast
expanses of space (dimensions 1 to 3). Although we have observed
lots of stars, some black holes and a couple of planets, we haven't
explored deep space. Again, a lot of places God may or may not
live. Then there is the science of oceanography, of the Earth's
core, of the Sun's core, etc., etc. This kind of lesson would give
kids an idea of what has been explored by science, and conversely,
and at least equally importantly, the vast expanses that have not
been explored.
|8.2.05 @ 4:44PM|#
dave, i'm still waiting for you to explain how occam's razor is "flimsy". without it there's no need to investigate anything, ever, because the answer may be left at "it was god".
|8.2.05 @ 4:44PM|#
Painting with watercolors can offer no help with
understanding English composition. Should this fact be mentioned in
art class?
If enuf ppl out there in the US of A start maintaining that
painting proves or disproves English comp, then yes. Otherwise,
no.
|8.2.05 @ 4:46PM|#
Dave W.,
You'd think for an all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. being that
according to you is constantly interfering in the life of universe
that we wouldn't have to look for this God in such far away
places.
I can't imagine a lesson for a budding young scientist more
exciting than that.
I'm sorry, but telling kids that God may be out there isn't
science; its religion.
zach,
Its a slippery slope.
|8.2.05 @ 4:46PM|#
Hakluyt-
First, I'm no fan of string theory. To be fair, they're working
hard to move in the direction of testable predictions. Their
endeavor is a noble one, even if it's utterly uninteresting to me.
But regardless of whether one thinks it is or isn't science, it's
irrelevant to any debate over public high school science classes
because it will never, ever, ever be taught in any high
school.
As to Dave W.-
Your scientific test seems to assume that intelligent
interventions made by humans would have some kind of similarity to
those made by a putative higher intelligence and some dissimilarity
to random genetic mutations (assuming that these mutations are
random and not the result of some kind of invisible hand). What is
your basis for assuming this similarity and
dissimilarity?
Science is usually done in gradual steps. Nobody knows for sure
what a divine intervention would look like. So let's start with a
type of designer that EVERYBODY can agree on: Genetic engineers,
selective breeders, etc. The basic notion of ID is that we can
identify things that couldn't happen "in the wild" and use them to
infer that some intelligent entity stepped in.
So let's start by testing the theory with things designed by
humans. If the ID proponents ever pass that test, then we can move
on to consider questions pertaining to non-human or supernatural
designers.
If the theory of ID (and this one really is "just" a theory) can't
even pass that hurdle, how can we ever apply it to situations
involving more unknowns (e.g. a divine designer)?
|8.2.05 @ 4:47PM|#
dave, i'm still waiting for you to explain how occam's razor
is "flimsy". without it there's no need to investigate anything,
ever, because the answer may be left at "it was god".
No. It is not "It was God." It is: "As far as science can determine
it could have been nothing or God or something else." Anyway, you
and I seem to have converged on the sweet pedagogical plan here,
these details notwithstanding.
|8.2.05 @ 4:48PM|#
Dave W.,
BTW, let's note that your agenda has changed from making the
comparison so as to show the limits of science to one of informing
a class of students that God might be out there, so let's treat God
as if God can be discovered empirically. Its that sort of sloppy
reasoning that leads to evangelism in the classrooms.
|8.2.05 @ 4:50PM|#
hak,
Its a slippery slope.
what is? teaching kids critical thought? all i'm saying is that,
just like anything else, some examples should be given while
teaching what is and is not scientific. the fact that ID is in the
spotlight now makes it perfect fodder.
|8.2.05 @ 4:51PM|#
thoreau,
I can imagine a water-down version of string theory being taught in
classrooms.
Dave W.,
Discussions of God have about as much business being in a science
classroom as do discussions of feng shui. They are both religions
and are therefor outside the realm of science.
|8.2.05 @ 4:52PM|#
BTW, let's note that your agenda has changed from making the
comparison so as to show the limits of science to one of informing
a class of students that God might be out there, so let's treat God
as if God can be discovered empirically. Its that sort of sloppy
reasoning that leads to evangelism in the classrooms.
If the children are intellectually mature enough, we can hit them
with the possibility that God lives somewhere science hasn't yet
even hypothesized. Hell, if they are really mature we can hit them
with the possibility that the place God lives might be empiracally
unknowable, regardless of scientific advances.
These are great lessons in the limits of empirical science, but
they seem a bit too advanced for high school.
|8.2.05 @ 4:52PM|#
zach,
I'm curious. Why must critical thought be fostered by discussions
of God or religion in public school science courses?
|8.2.05 @ 4:55PM|#
actually, it's called occam's razor. of course it can never
be disproved there was an intelligent designer, nor can it be
proved. but since the existence of an intelligent designer is not
necessary to explain evolution, the desire to postulate the
existence of ID anyway is irrational.
I'll quote what I
wrote last time this topic came up:
Occam's Razor is often brought out by atheists to ask why one
needs God to explain an otherwise rational appearing reality. Yet
when you apply Occam ruthlessly, you would come to the conclusion
that the most likely reality is one where you are alone in the
universe and some unseen process is stuffing perceptions into your
mind: there is nothing but your mind, your perceptions, and
whatever is behind those perceptions. Surely, compared to that, the
notion that there is a 13 billion year old universe full of matter,
energy, delicately balanced natural laws, and other living beings
like you is a fantastical concept, ridiculously more complex and
thus cut out by Occam's Razor.
Since the existence of an external objective reality is not
necessary to explain your perceptions, the desire to postulate the
existence of reality anyway is irrational. Or will you succumb to
preconceptions and biases that cannot be justified by the
scientific method? Is that an irrational behavior?
|8.2.05 @ 4:55PM|#
No. It is not "It was God." It is: "As far as science can
determine it could have been nothing or God or something
else."
right. and occam's razor dictates, for lack of evidence of "God or
something else", stick to "nothing", so that knowledge may continue
to expand and fill the vacuum.
Anyway, you and I seem to have converged on the sweet
pedagogical plan here, these details notwithstanding.
i think you may be misunderstanding me. i think ID should be
presented in schools as an example of an unscientific belief
masquerading as a scientific theory.
|8.2.05 @ 4:55PM|#
Dave W.,
You are interested in really revealing "limits," what you are
interested in is evagelizing (that's why focus on the limits only
being able to be revealed via discussions of God). Do it with your
own money and not mine.
|8.2.05 @ 4:56PM|#
BTW, let's note that your agenda has changed from making the
comparison so as to show the limits of science to one of informing
a class of students that God might be out there, so let's treat God
as if God can be discovered empirically. Its that sort of sloppy
reasoning that leads to evangelism in the classrooms.
Because too many yung-uns (lookin' at u Hak) have gotten the
mistaken impression that science has disproven God or made Him less
likely somehow. In view of these mistakes, it is good to get the
real story out there. When these mistakes stop being so prevalent,
it may then become less important to teach kids what the limits of
science really are.
|8.2.05 @ 4:58PM|#
trainwreck, you're right that in practice being able to produce
fertile offspring doesn't determine whether 2 animals are the same
species, but that's the criterion Carolus Linnaeus set, and it's
still something some scientists think ought to be a major
factor.
Take a college course related to human evolution or read a book and
you'll see references to being able to produce fertile offspring
theoretically being the criterion, but not being applied that way
in practice.
|8.2.05 @ 4:59PM|#
How does God intervene in evolution? Or in
anything?
Dave W.: As a matter of reason (small r) and science: I don't
know.
Hak: what you are interested in is evagelizing
???
|8.2.05 @ 4:59PM|#
Dave W.,
Because too many yung-uns (lookin' at u Hak) have gotten the
mistaken impression that science has disproven God or made Him less
likely somehow.
Liar.
End of discussion. If all you can do is lie about what I have
stated, so be it. I've never, ever argued anything like that.
Indeed, as you might recall that's why I consistently call myself a
weak atheist (which many others her can attest to, BTW).
M1EK|8.2.05 @ 5:01PM|#
nmg:
"Bush's wish is perfectly legitimate. It's not different than any
other ideologue's approach to public"
NO. It's NOT legitimate, and it IS different. ID is religion,
period.
|8.2.05 @ 5:05PM|#
Dave W.,
Again, you are interested in teaching the "limits of science," you
are interested in evagelizing (which is why you made your
statements about teaching children to go off and discover God in
the numerous undemonstrated dimensions of string "theory"). Now
what I get from you ceaseless backpeddaling and the sort of lies I
expect out of religionists who favor I.D.
|8.2.05 @ 5:08PM|#
Simply put, when you start stating before a classroom that there are "lot of places where God" might live, you have ceased being neutral on the matter; you have started to evangelize. This is course illustrates the problem with teaching God in a science course.
M1EK|8.2.05 @ 5:08PM|#
scott,
you and the other randroids who want to abolish government schools
and are hoping to use ID as a way to get liberals to join you are
forgetting this fact:
liberals for the most part understand the point of public education
- that is, NOT to pay for those who could easily afford private
schools; but to educate those who could NOT.
|8.2.05 @ 5:09PM|#
which is why you made your statements about teaching
children to go off and discover God in the numerous undemonstrated
dimensions of string "theory").
No. It is why I made my statements about teaching children to go
off and help disprove God by exploring the numerous undemonstrated
dimensions of string "theory".
|8.2.05 @ 5:12PM|#
M1EK,
Education is a form of indoctrination; that is their primary
purpose up to a point.
|8.2.05 @ 5:12PM|#
Actually, I can't think of a better way to destroy religion
and make it unpalatable for the large majority of Americans than to
intetgrate it into government and government run
schools.
Worked nicely elsewhere in the world.
kwais-
How can there be a heaven and hell, when God made us what we
are?
Traditionally, Christianity would say that God made humans as
eternal creatures and that existentially a sinful creature can't be
in Heaven with Him and thus must be stored elsewhere, Hell. That
Hell is awful either due to the mere absence of God or to active
punishment is arguable.
God gave us our genes and our experiences, and our environment,
all our choices are the direct inevitable result of those
mentioned.
Arminian free-will Christians would argue those choices are not
inevitable and then cite lots of anecdotal evidence.
Calvinists would argue if you got lucky and were selected you would
eventually be able to chose beyond your experiences.
|8.2.05 @ 5:16PM|#
Herman,
A sort of almost existential angst is at the heart of Calvinism (or
Reformed) Christianity.
|8.2.05 @ 5:21PM|#
I'm curious. Why must critical thought be fostered by
discussions of God or religion in public school science
courses?
it doesn't have to be. but it should be fostered somehow. and maybe
the most effective way of doing so is to discuss the most common
pseudoscientific beliefs, like ID.
MikeP:
...the notion that there is a 13 billion year old universe full
of matter, energy, delicately balanced natural laws, and other
living beings like you is a fantastical concept, ridiculously more
complex and thus cut out by Occam's Razor.
this is an common example of a complete misunderstanding of occam's
razor. occam's razor is: "pluralitas non est ponenda sine
neccesitate." that is, "plurality should not be posited without
necessity." as applied to empirical observation, it means that
theories are useless unless they are necessary to explain known
phenomena. in other words, if we know through observation how A
results in B, don't then bring a C into the equation out of
nowhere. the phrase "the simplest explanation is most likely true"
is a way of simplifying it, but leads to misinterpretations like
your own. how "complex" or "simple" an idea is is not the question
to those applying the razor, but rather the necessity of that idea
to explaining the phenomena in question.
similarly, the idea that "the most likely reality is one where you
are alone in the universe and some unseen process is stuffing
perceptions into your mind" may well be true, but is not necessary
to understand the physical laws of reality, whatever that may be,
and thus is negated from scientific pursuit by occam's razor.
|8.2.05 @ 5:23PM|#
zach,
Well, apparently Dave W. (once he gets done fibbing about my
positions) believes it must be done! :)
|8.2.05 @ 5:25PM|#
Actually, I can't think of a better way to destroy religion and
make it unpalatable for the large majority of Americans than to
intetgrate it into government and government run
schools.
Worked nicely elsewhere in the world.
Well, they did have to go through the Dark Ages, but we knew it'll
get worse before it gets better, eh?
|8.2.05 @ 5:27PM|#
If enuf ppl out there in the US of A start maintaining that
painting proves or disproves English comp, then yes. Otherwise,
no.
So it's the number of believers that make an idea worth discussing
rather than the idea itself?
|8.2.05 @ 5:27PM|#
Herman,
Calvin's acerbic style of writing could be hilarious sometimes. The
biggest difference in his theology from Luther's is that Luther
would go out and drink with you (yes, I am being flippant). :)
|8.2.05 @ 5:29PM|#
Hak to Zack-
I'm curious. Why must critical thought be fostered by
discussions of God or religion in public school science
courses?
How about just critical thought discussions of goofy
quasi-religious stuff like bigfoot and UFOs? Sure you'll run afoul
of the people who believe that hairy non-human primates roam the
forests of North America AND that their presence is very, very
important to humanity. But there aren't many of them and they don't
have enough money or passion to make it a public policy issue.
|8.2.05 @ 5:31PM|#
right. and occam's razor dictates, for lack of evidence of
"God or something else", stick to "nothing", so that knowledge may
continue to expand and fill the vacuum.
This is not science.
This is not reason.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that Occam's razor were a
valid form of scientific reasoning, I fail to see why ID is less
simple or obvvious or whatever-the-Occam-touchstone-is than the
alternative.
|8.2.05 @ 5:34PM|#
hak,
Well, apparently Dave W. (once he gets done fibbing about my
positions) believes it must be done!
i'm so sick of hearing IDers' circular arguments that i'm about
ready to use the word "must" myself.
|8.2.05 @ 5:37PM|#
If enuf ppl out there in the US of A start maintaining that
painting proves or disproves English comp, then yes. Otherwise,
no.
So it's the number of believers that make an idea worth
discussing rather than the idea itself?
It is an important factor. We teach English comp, rather than
Finnish. We stress practical math over theoretical. Etc. Etc.
Educatio, in every area, should take into account the problems that
enuf kids will face in life.
I am saying that trying to determine what science tells us about
God is just such a problem. Now, if science suggested that God
exists or did not exist, then there would be a first amendment
problem. However, because science doesn't say one way or the other,
the First Amendment problem is not raised now (nor in the
foreseeable future).
|8.2.05 @ 5:45PM|#
This is not science.
This is not reason.
LOL... yes! it is! again, i don't think you're understanding me.
when i say "stick to nothing", i don't mean that the scientific
opinion becomes "there is no god". i mean that science does not
interject a hypothesis into the vacuum. so to say that "science
can't disprove god, and thus a belief in god can still be
scientific" is nonsensical. and to someone who sees science as the
best way of coming to conclusions about the world around us,
maintaining a nonscientific belief anyway is nonsensical.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that Occam's razor were
a valid form of scientific reasoning, I fail to see why ID is less
simple or obvvious or whatever-the-Occam-touchstone-is than the
alternative.
it's unnecessary to explain evolution, and thus useless.
|8.2.05 @ 5:53PM|#
it's unnecessary to explain evolution
What do you mean by "unneccessary?"
Do you mean "unneccessary" in the way that it is unneccesary for
people to know the shape of the Earth? Or are you talking some
other brand of unneccessity?
Is any science "neccessary" in your preferred sense? Remember,
people got along without science for a long, long time
|8.2.05 @ 5:56PM|#
Dave W.:
it means that the explanation for evolution does not require
invoking a deity - that the explanation for evolution can stand
using only empirical evidence
raymond|8.2.05 @ 5:56PM|#
occam's razor: Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine
necessitate."
ie, Don't multiply difficulties without necessity.
ie, KISS
ie, Keep it simple, stupid.
Basically, if one explanation of a phenomenon requires really
complicated maths and another can be offered with really simple
maths, the latter is probably the correct explanation.
---------
I've said this before (and been shot down, but what the heck):
Science isn't about answers, it's about questions. Science always
doubts.
It uses what works so long as it works. And only so long as it
works. But it always attacks and questions - even (and especially)
what works.
ID is an alternate theory to the origins of the universe, and it
held sway a heck of a lot longer than modern theories have. In
fact, it still holds sway - probably in the minds of a majority of
human beings.
It is not a "provable" one (imo), but it is worth acknowledging and
discussing in a science class.
Mark Bahner|8.2.05 @ 6:00PM|#
Jesse Walker writes, "At some point, as an intellectual
exercise, the instructor could assign a reading in 'intelligent
design' and have the students write papers explaining what's wrong
with it."
Jesse, Jesse, Jesse! You can NOT explain what's "wrong" with
"intelligent design." It's UNFALSIFIABLE. That's precisely what
makes it NOT science!
It's like when I put my bet #180 on Long Bets:
http://www.longbets.org/180
I bet that science fiction author Michael Crichton's projected
warming of 0.81 degrees Celsius in the 21st century would be more
accurate than the IPCC Third Assessment Report's midpoint
projection of 3.06 degrees Celsius.
In response to this bet, a scientist at the "Real Climate" website
claimed that, even if the warming was closer to Michael Crichton's
value, that would just prove that Michael Crichton was WRONG,
because it would mean that humans had listened to the scientists
and done something about global warming!
I kid you not. You can look it up, as Dave Barry would say:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114#comment-995
So do NOT argue about Intelligent Design. It's unfalsifiable. Have
students conduct scientific debates on things that ARE
falsifiable:
1) Is the earth 6000 years old?
2) Did all the animals and all the humans on earth get killed in a
Great Flood approximately 2000 years after that (or whatever the
Bible Scientists say is the proper date)?
3) Are all of the animals and all of the humans on earth descended
from a group of animals/humans that survived that Great
Flood?
These are all falsifiable assertions. For example, if all the
animals/humans on earth were let off a boat in a single place 4000
years ago (or whatever) why is it that there are different races of
humans? (Were the inhabitants of the Ark different races...or did
the races evolve in the 4000 years since the Flood? If they
evolved, when did they "change"...since, for example, Oriental
people clearly look different from Caucasian people?)
Why is it that species diversity isn't greatest at one single
point, with progressively less diversity radiating away from that
point? That's what one would expect if all the animals were let off
at a single point. For example, why are there tigers in India, but
no lions, and lions in Africa, but no tigers? Why are there
penguins only in Antarctica?
If one set up that kind of debate, I guarantee you that virtually
none of the students would be a 6000-year-old earth, Noah's Ark
creationists. But more importantly, they'd be against those ideas
because they'd **thought** about them, and seen for themselves that
they are false, not because someone told them they were false.
|8.2.05 @ 6:02PM|#
ID is an alternate theory to the origins of the universe, and it
held sway a heck of a lot longer than modern theories have. In
fact, it still holds sway - probably in the minds of a majority of
human beings.
It is not a "provable" one (imo), but it is worth acknowledging and
discussing in a science class.
Comment by: raymond at August 2, 2005 05:56 PM
your post reveals that you know that ID is just a camoflague for
(strict, literal) creationism - which is clearly not science, and
belongs in a science classroom for just as much time as it takes to
explain to the students why it's not part of science
what makes something an appropriate subject for science research is
not that the proposition be provable, but that the proposition must
be disprovable
|8.2.05 @ 6:04PM|#
metalgrid-
I was thinking of more recent Protestant Europe, where the churches
are at least partially funded by a government collected tax. Native
population has lost its interest in going to church and I would
guess part of that has to do with it being so official.
Similar problem in the Arab world where the governments appoint
imams in mosques. While those imams will preach angry stuff about
say the U.S. or joos they won't say anything bad about the
government. Really angry folks turn to the jihad oriented types who
will say bad stuff about everyone who isn't them including the
government.
Not sure if Arab governments sign off on Christian clergy.
|8.2.05 @ 6:05PM|#
Mark:
let students try to design experiments to falsify ID. that's how
they know what's "wrong" with it - it is not falsifiable, and
therefore not a scientific theory
|8.2.05 @ 6:09PM|#
Dave W.,
...I fail to see why ID is less simple or obvvious or
whatever-the-Occam-touchstone-is than the alternative.
You fail to do a lot of things (like tell the truth).
Anyway familiar with I.D. knows that it violates Ockham's (I perfer
the non-Latin spelling) Razor because Ockham himself confronted
similar notions from scholars during his time (namely the
"Scholastics"). To be more blunt, Okham demanded that the
observeable (and the simple) be the basis for science and I.D.
certainly isn't observeable. Thus it fails at least one of the
demand's of the "razor."
|8.2.05 @ 6:10PM|#
I tell my students the limits of science
I think that it's critical to their understand and ability to
distinguish science from pseudoscience and religious belief
it's also critical to let them realize that evolution doesn't
infringe on their belief in God, and makes them willing to
listen
kind of like Thoreau's disclaimer idea from last week's evolution/
creation discussion
|8.2.05 @ 6:21PM|#
biologist,
Now, that is a sensible approach; but the idea that God must be
discussed in science class to teach critical thinking, is just
stupid.
|8.2.05 @ 6:22PM|#
similarly, the idea that "the most likely reality is one
where you are alone in the universe and some unseen process is
stuffing perceptions into your mind" may well be true, but is not
necessary to understand the physical laws of reality, whatever that
may be, and thus is negated from scientific pursuit by occam's
razor.
I don't follow this argument. It is absolutely necessary to
understand the source of the perceptions one receives if one is to
understand the "physical laws" of this so-called "reality" you talk
about. All one gathers about any reality comes from one's
perceptions.
I grant that -- provided one accepts that the source of those
perceptions are an external reality -- Occam's Razor is an
excellent tool for adding to the two axiomatic observations of self
and perception to arrive at a healthy collection of theories on the
universe. But Occam's Razor does not get one over that hump.
There is no experiment one can perform that will distinguish an
external objective universe from the mind-perceptions-feeder
universe. My preference for believing in the former is based on
values, costs, benefits, and probabilities. But it is not based on
science, and it is not based on Occam's Razor.
I'm reducing to absurd positivism above, but...
and thus is negated from scientific pursuit by occam's
razor
...my real issue is the certainty you put on statements such as
this. Occam is a tool, an indicator, a heuristic. It is not
something which "negates from scientific pursuit" anything.
Mark Bahner|8.2.05 @ 6:28PM|#
"let students try to design experiments to falsify ID. that's
how they know what's "wrong" with it - it is not falsifiable, and
therefore not a scientific theory"
Well, that's much, much, much more difficult. And even if they
DON'T come up with such tests, it doesn't mean that ID is not a
scientific theory.
For example, General Relativity included the postulation of the
existence of gravity waves. But we're only ~70 years later gaining
the technology to test that postulation.
I think it's a much better idea to work with things that ARE
falsifiable.
In fact, I don't remember too much from it, but I took a "History
of Science" course in college as an elective. I thought it was
fascinating...those early scientists were geniuses. It would be a
great course to start with some of the disproven assumptions, and
show HOW they were disproven.
For example, the teacher could say, "I say babies are born exactly
the way they are in the womb...that is, they just get bigger in
size, they don't change in form. Now, you students go out and find
something that proves my assertion wrong."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus
|8.2.05 @ 6:51PM|#
Mark, true it's more difficult, but that's the critical thinking
process we need to cultivate in all our citizens, not just those
going into technical fields. science is an ideal subject for
teaching critical thinking skills
even if the technology doesn't yet exist, it's still possible to
derive tests of cutting edge hypotheses. 80 years after Einstein
predicted them, physicists only recently demonstrated that he
correctly predicted the existence and behavior of Bose-Einstein
condensates (don't ask for an explanation from me, I'm a biologist,
not a physicist)
science classes, or at least introductory biology courses typically
begin with a history of the subject as you suggest. for example
both introductory general bio and microbio courses recount the
experiments that disproved abiogenesis under modern environmental
conditions
|8.2.05 @ 7:15PM|#
The problem with trying to recreate abiogenesis in a lab is that
ions ago there were untold pools of amino acids sitting around for
a long time, which enhanced the probability by a lot.
Also, there's the little problem of oxygen, which tends to have
corrosive effects.
So I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying abiogenesis is
possible or impossible?
Mark Bahner|8.2.05 @ 7:24PM|#
"science classes, or at least introductory biology courses
typically begin with a history of the subject as you
suggest."
Yes, and that's how a science teacher could use the 6000-year-old
earth and Biblical Flood ideas to show that they are wrong.
The teacher could say, "I know the earth is 6000 years old. I know
that all the animals of the earth and all the humans on earth
descended from those who were on a boat 4000 years ago. I challenge
you to prove me wrong."
Mark Bahner|8.2.05 @ 7:28PM|#
kmw writes, "Are you saying abiogenesis is possible or
impossible?"
"Biologist" will no doubt answer this, but I think he's referring
to abiogenesis such as that maggots spontaneously appear from
meat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Mark Bahner|8.2.05 @ 7:30PM|#
P.S. In that sense, "abiogenesis" is false. The maggots don't spontaneously generate from the meat, they come from the eggs that flies lay on the meat. So if the flies can be kept of the meat, the maggots don't appear.
|8.2.05 @ 7:37PM|#
I.D. certainly isn't observeable
Nor is N.I.D., at least in the exact same sense that I.D. is
unobservable. So that fails, too.
Oh, and tone down on the ad hominem, pls, Gare-Bear.
Mark Bahner|8.2.05 @ 7:47PM|#
"Nor is N.I.D., at least in the exact same sense that I.D. is
unobservable. So that fails, too."
Yes, absolutely. There is no conflict between I.D. and N.I.D.
Neither of them are scientific theories.
What ARE scientific theories are:
1) That the universe is 14 billion years old, not 6000 years
old.
2) That humans evolved from ape-like creatures hundreds of
thousands of years ago.
3) That humans have NOT always looked like they do today.
4) That there were creatures on earth hundreds of millions of years
before human beings.
etc. etc. etc.
Mark Bahner|8.2.05 @ 7:52PM|#
Personally, I'm very sure that there is intelligent life beyond
the earth.
But the big question I have is, "If that's so, why can't we detect
their presence?"
That's why SETI puzzles me...why haven't we detected anything? One
possibility is that they are ALL so advanced compared to us, that
they can hide without us detecting them, and choose to do so.
But that's a completely unfalsifiable hypothesis...except if we
find some that aren't hiding. Then we'll know that some exist that
aren't hiding. But we won't know that there aren't many others who
***are*** hiding.
|8.2.05 @ 8:08PM|#
kmw, Mark is correct about what I was referring to regarding
abiogenesis. the actual example I had in mind were the experiments
by Pasteur that showed the lack of abiogenesis of spoilage
organisms such as bacteria in broth that had been boiled to
sterilize it (I'm simplifying here)
abiogenesis of life may have occurred and the Miller - Urey
experiments show that it's possible to get organic molecules that
are necessary precursors to life to form spontaneously in a soup of
inorganic molecules that have an electric charge applied (to
simulate lightning). abiogenesis is not part of Darwin's theory of
evolution, but a natural abiogenetic theory is necessary to explain
the origin of life using science (i.e. testable, falsifiable
explanations)
abiogenesis is not possible (well, not likely) under currently
environmental conditions because of the high concentration of
oxygen in the biosphere mostly precludes the formation of long
organic polymers
|8.2.05 @ 8:10PM|#
Mark:
SETI likely hasn't detected other intelligent life (if it exists)
because of the long distances involved combined with the short time
that we have had the technology to detect extraterrestrial cultures
(which would also have to have the technology to transmit
information for us to detect)
|8.2.05 @ 8:18PM|#
biologist,
OK, good to know we're thinking along the same lines. I just wanted
to be sure.
|8.2.05 @ 9:15PM|#
George W Bush,
I've just been skimming here, but are you rolling out the red
carpet for moi just now? Aw shucks.
|8.2.05 @ 9:18PM|#
But, seriously, George, you must admit your God has evolved.
Else why would there be a New Testament? Old Testament not good
enough for you?
Either God changed his mind or he evolved.
Don't be scared.
|8.2.05 @ 9:27PM|#
Dave W.,
Thankyou for breazily missing the entire point of my statement. I'm
curious, when have I even mentioned N.I.D.?
As to my statements regarding your person, well, its true, you're a
liar.
Ruthless,
Christianity and Judaism are human constructs, therefore its not
surprising that their writings change in emphasis, thought, etc.
over time. Culturally constructed things do that.
|8.2.05 @ 9:32PM|#
Ruthless,
The beauty of it all is that all the efforts of creationist
whackjobs, etc. to make their faith into a science are simply like
throwing seed on barren ground. Creationist whackjobs want to act
like what they are doing is science because science is respected
and its where they have to play if they want to attack evolution,
etc.
|8.2.05 @ 10:29PM|#
For example, General Relativity included the postulation of
the existence of gravity waves. But we're only ~70 years later
gaining the technology to test that postulation
I'm no expert on GR, but I'm pretty sure that gravity waves were a
PREDICTION of the theory, NOT a postulate.
|8.2.05 @ 10:45PM|#
Someplace above, Jennifer mentioned the American response to
Sputnik: Beef up science education. (And yes, I know, public
schools were not the right way to do it.)
Maybe somebody should remind the Theocrat in Chief that a good
understanding of microbiology is necessary for combating
bioterrorism, and microbiology is an excellent testing ground for
evolutionary biology: Humans may go through one generation every 20
years or so, but microbes can go through a generation every few
hours. That's enough time for mutations to accumulate and be
selected or discarded by natural pressures.
Anyway, I have no illusion that the GOP Congress will banish
evolution from schools any time soon. But I can see them getting
away with a little seed money to develop "Science curricula that
teach students to evaluate competing ideas and understand the
limitations of methodologies." (Which would be great if it were an
accurate description rather than a collection of code words.)
I can see them giving a few pork barrel grants to scientists
working on intelligent design. (For the record, and I know Hakluyt
disagrees, I think there are a few ID people asking good questions,
but I'd be more impressed if their answers amounted to something
other than "This question is unanswerable without invoking the God
of the Gaps!")
I can see a "Religious Freedom Bill" that includes a hidden
amendment that protects "Teachers who follow their conscience"
(i.e. talk about creationism in science class).
They won't hold a Scopes Monkey Trial tomorrow, but they might try
a litle monkey business.
|8.2.05 @ 10:55PM|#
Final thought: Once upon a time the God of the Gaps was awesome
to behold: He Who Brought The Flood And Confounded Radioactive
Dating!
Today the God of the Gaps is greatly diminished: he who tinkered
with a few chemical reactions here and there to make sure that the
right proteins were there.
Mark Bahner|8.2.05 @ 11:16PM|#
biologist writes, "SETI likely hasn't detected other intelligent
life (if it exists) because of the long distances involved combined
with the short time that we have had the technology to detect
extraterrestrial cultures (which would also have to have the
technology to transmit information for us to detect)"
No, that's not right. The time WE'VE had the technology to detect
ETs is irrelevant. It's the time that THEY'VE had to detect
***us*** that's important.
Imagine our technology only 20-50 years in the future. We'll be
able to detect earth-size planets, and even evaluate them for
chemicals that are signs of life.
If multiple ETs exist in the Milky Way, then some of them have
probably had that level of technology for say, 100,000 years. That
means that they've been able to monitor us for the last 100,000
years, and send a signal to us all the way across the galaxy.
(About 100,000 light years in diameter.)
So even if they couldn't actually come to us (and they really
should be able to, since they should be able to shrink themselves
to very small dimensions), why haven't they sent us laser beam
signals?
Mark Bahner|8.2.05 @ 11:23PM|#
"I'm no expert on GR, but I'm pretty sure that gravity waves
were a PREDICTION of the theory, NOT a postulate."
Yes, you're right. Prediction. (I don't know anything about GR
either...I was just thinking off the cuff of something that has
required a long time to refute or confirm.)
|8.2.05 @ 11:27PM|#
Mark, you're a smart guy, but you've read a bit too much
sci-fi.
1) "Laser beam signals"? More likely they'd send radio
signals
2) It's postulate, not postulation. (from a previous post)
3) Um, why would they be able to shrink themselves? And how would
that reduce the time it takes to traverse space?
Don't get me wrong, maybe there are ways to shrink objects that we
have no clue about yet. Maybe there are ways to go faster than
light. (And to the armchair cosmologists who say they heard some
string theorist talk about it, just because a string theorist
solves an equation that doesn't mean it can actually happen.) Maybe
aliens will find means of communication that are far superior to
radio signals. But I'm not going to predict any of those things.
Because for all I know it could turn out that the future will be
far stranger than any sci-fi writer or string theorist has
guessed.
Anyway, my guess on alien civilizations? If they're rare enough
it's possible that there aren't any in our galaxy that are
broadcasting right now. (Or, more accurately, were
broadcasting a long time ago, when a signal would have had to be
sent from their planets could have reached ours today.)
Civilizations could be wiped out by nuclear warfare, or comets, or
disease, or even Nietzsche essays (if you believe gaius
marius).
|8.3.05 @ 2:59AM|#
Hakluyt,
Stop being silly already. Dave W is no more a liar than you or
anyone else on this thread.
Go back re-evaluate what he wrote, and if he made a misstatement
try to figure out what the real cause of his error was. I am sure
if you think about it long and hard enough you will realize that he
was not intentionally trying to missrepresent information.
That whole excersise might help you generally with your discussions
with other posters.
|8.3.05 @ 3:06AM|#
Here is the thing about aliens. I think we try too much to
project our own image on to them. I don't know that their
developement would have any similarities with ours. Would they use
radio waves or something completely different?
If they were really ahead of us they wouldn't need radio
waves.
Just because we are curios about them doesn't mean that they would
be curios about us. Or at least curios about us in the same way. I
mean they just fly over, kidnap some hick, and stick probes up his
ass, and all their questions are answered and then they go back.
They have no need to comunicate with us, they already know what we
are going to say. Much more accurately than Thoreau predicts what
certain posters are going to say.
raymond|8.3.05 @ 3:29AM|#
Yes, and that's how a science teacher could use the 6000-year-old earth and Biblical Flood ideas to show that they are wrong.
I'd rather read: "...to show that they no longer meet our
needs."
One hundred years from now, I suspect that people on this forum
will be saying how cute we all are for having "believed" the Theory
of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution.
imo, Every science teacher should start out his year by saying:
Everything I know is wrong.
|8.3.05 @ 5:00AM|#
BTW,
I would still like Dave W to answer my question about hell.
And if any other person that believes in hell wants to take a crack
at it.
Why does God forsake some? Why would God create Hitler and then
punish him for being Hitler.
If there is some other ingredient to a choice besides; genetics, a
persons history, and the environment, what is it? And where does it
comefrom? And why do some get the good ones and others get the bad
ones?
jadagul|8.3.05 @ 6:40AM|#
Kwais: someone on this thread gave the standard answer, but I'm
too lazy to go find him, so I'll just make it again. A lot of
theologies (including the Catholic Church, for one) say that Heaven
is unity with God, or something very similar. God wants us all to
be in union with Him, but we have free will and he loves us so he
won't force us to be in union with Him. Those who have chosen to
reject God won't be forced to be with Him; "Hell" is the name we
give to the condition of eternity without God. It's a "punishment"
in the Monkey's Paw sense; He'll give us what we want, but we'll
decide that we really shouldn't have wanted it after all.
This is actually why I often say that I'm choosing to go to Hell;
if God is the God described in the Christian Bible, I'm not a big
fan, and don't want to spend eternity in union with him. So I'm
doing consciously what all the other people in Hell have done
subconsciously: choosing to reject God and spend eternity away from
His presence. (Obviously, I'm not really a believer. But when
people ask me what I'll do and find out God is real, that's my
answer).
raymond|8.3.05 @ 6:45AM|#
And if any other person that believes in hell wants to take a crack at it.
I don't believe in hell, but I'll try to explain it anyway.
Hell is where God is not.
Hell is actually God's mercy. Those who have rejected God would be
infinitely more tormented if they had to face Him.
Purgatory is a sort of temporary Hell. It's the place (it exists in
time and space and so will cease to exist at the end of time) where
those who have not made a major decision to reject God go to purify
themselves of their minor imperfections so that they can face
God.
Why does God forsake some?
God doesn't forsake anyone. Those who go to Hell have forsaken Him.
They have made a choice. Because they possess Free Will, their
choice is respected. If God ignored their choice and "saved" them,
He would be violating their Free Will.
Why would God create Hitler and then punish him for being Hitler.
Hitler possessed Free Will. God did not create what Hitler did.
Hitler did that all by himself.
(NB - We cannot know if Hitler is in Hell or not.)
If there is some other ingredient to a choice besides; genetics, a persons history, and the environment, what is it?
It's Freedom. Free Will. The ability to choose.
And where does it comefrom?
It is in our nature. God created us that way - in His image. We are
Godlike in that we possess Freedom.
And why do some get the good ones and others get the bad ones?
It doesn't matter - the details of genetics, environment, etc. What
matters is that we are all equal when it comes to Free Will.
Please note that the above is not the Puritan
explanation. In that explanation, good works are not essential to
gaining Heaven. What is essential is God's predetermination.
Because He is omniscient, He knows which choices we'll make, and so
His creation of us is actually destiny.
We can get a pretty good idea of who is predestined to Heaven by
looking at how they're living their lives now, by their
wealth...
It's also not the "faith-without-good-works" explanation. In that
"theology", Faith alone is what saves us. However, since Faith is a
form of grace, and since grace is a gift of God, it boils down to
the same thing as the Puritan explanation.
|8.3.05 @ 7:48AM|#
If they were really ahead of us they wouldn't need radio
waves.
Why? There are only -- as far as we know -- a limited number of
ways to manipulate and deliver information and energy over long
distances in the universe. Radio waves are a fairly efficient
manner of doing so. Given sufficient transmitting power, in fact,
they're extremely efficient.
|8.3.05 @ 8:38AM|#
kwais-
It could very well be that there are advanced civilizations that
don't want to talk to us, and they're so super-efficient that they
don't produce much in the way of stray radio waves.
Or maybe they've discovered something even better than radio waves
(or any other type of electromagnetic wave, for that matter) and to
them this discovery is so obvious that they never even considered
trying to contact other civilizations with anything other than that
technology. If they knew we're searching for radio waves they'd be
like "Wha?" So maybe we have to discover some new physics
first.
Or maybe you're right and that probe in Jethro's ass is telling
them everything there is to know about the human race. I should
build a microchip stick it in a redneck's ass, and then I'll be
able to perfectly predict what all of you are going to write. Maybe
I'll program the probe to automatically post for you guys using a
wifi connection ;)
One hundred years from now, I suspect that people on this forum
will be saying how cute we all are for having "believed" the Theory
of Relativity and the Theory of Evolution.
I doubt it. Some things really are forever. For instance, even
though Newtonian mechanics was eventually superceded by relativity
and quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics is still incredibly
accurate in a huge range of situations, so people still use it in
all sorts of research and applications. Even though classical
thermodynamics was eventually shown to be a limiting case of
statistical mechanics, classical thermodynamics is still used by
engineers. Even though light was eventually found to be composed of
photons, we still use Maxwell's classical electromagnetic theory
all over the place in physics and engineering.
In biology, our understanding of the mechanisms and manner by which
evolution proceeds has changed or been elaborated since Darwin's
day, but the basic notion of natural selection acting on small
changes to produce descent with modification has remained. We know
so much more about cells than we once did, but a lot of the same
basic ideas remain from the old days.
100 years from now they won't talk about how cute it is that we
actually believed all this shit. Rather, they'll point to the
framework that was laid, and then point to all the new things that
have been added to that framework, and the additional pieces of
scaffolding discovered later on that made the whole edifice even
bigger.
Some things really are forever in science.
raymond|8.3.05 @ 9:20AM|#
Some things really are forever in science.
And then again,
some things aren't.
Newtonian mechanics is still incredibly accurate in a huge range of situations, so people still use it in all sorts of research and applications.
(Sorry to repeat myself, as if my words are wisdom, but...) We use
what works.
I know that the part of my finger between my first (from the top)
and second knuckles does not equal precisely one inch. Yet I use my
finger for quick-and-dirty measurements.
I know that my table is primarily empty space, but I still have my
computer sitting on it.
But I will give you this, thoreau. You're probably right.
For the moment.
|8.3.05 @ 10:49AM|#
the wikipedia entry that raymond links to as evidence of the
ephermerality of some theories lists recapitulation theory (aka
biogenetic law) as an obsolete biological theory, but the entry
reads:
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, also called the biogenetic law or
the theory of recapitulation, is a hypothesis in biology first
espoused in 1866 by the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, a
contemporary of Charles Darwin, which has been discredited in its
absolute form, although recognised as being partly accurate. In
biology, ontogeny is the embryonal development process of a certain
species, and phylogeny a species' evolutionary history. Observers
have noted various connections between phylogeny and ontogeny,
explained them with evolutionary theory and taken them as
supporting evidence for that theory.
note that the original formulation in absolutist form is
discredited, but the basic idea still holds true - take a look at
an vertebrate embryology book
|8.3.05 @ 12:19PM|#
raymond, thoreau, and others,
When will you take the quantum leap from libertarianism to
anarchy?
|8.3.05 @ 12:35PM|#
When will you take the quantum leap from libertarianism to
anarchy?
To do that I need to calculate the matrix element
<thoreau|H|anarchy> where H is the Hamiltonian describing
my time evolution.
|8.3.05 @ 12:50PM|#
"Intelligent Design" should be debated in schools however, ID will lose every time. If the local want to teach ID in public schools that is fine with me, but it should not be taught in science class because it is not science. President Bush (or any federal official) should not have the power to decide on what schools should or should not teach. Leave that up with the local governments to decide.
|8.3.05 @ 12:54PM|#
If the local want to teach ID in public schools that is fine
with me,...
I meant to say local schools.
Mark Bahner|8.3.05 @ 12:57PM|#
thoreau writes, "Mark, you're a smart guy, but you've read a bit
too much sci-fi."
I don't read ANY sci-fi anymore. And I didn't read much when I was
a child. What I DO read is technological-trends literature (e.g.
MIT Technology Review, Ray Kurzweil's stuff, Michio Kaku,
others.
"1) "Laser beam signals"? More likely they'd send radio
signals"
No, if they were, say, 50,000 light-years away (halfway across the
galaxy), they would at present (our time) only know us as we were
50,000 years ago. So they'd know we see light, but not radio
waves.
2) "It's postulate, not postulation. (from a previous post)"
I already agreed with you that gravity waves are a *prediction* of
General Relativity. (Not a postulate.)
3) "Um, why would they be able to shrink themselves? And how would
that reduce the time it takes to traverse space?"
Shrinking things allows faster space travel because F=ma, and
because m goes to infinity as one approaches the speed of
light.
I didn't mean that they'd shrink a body like a human body. I meant
they'd send miniaturized circuits. (Logically, miniturized circuits
that grow into something bigger when they get here. Conversely,
humans could send embryos, as long as they also sent something that
grew up and was able to feed and protect the embryo as it grew to
adulthood.)
Which gets to a final, more important point: if there ARE ETs in
the galaxy that are more than 100,000 years advanced than us, why
aren't they HERE ALREADY? (Forget the "monitoring from the home
world" stuff!)
Mark Bahner|8.3.05 @ 1:04PM|#
"Intelligent Design" should be debated in schools however, ID
will lose every time.
It won't "lose" because it can't. It's not falsifiable. Just like
the belief that there is NOT a God (or Gods) is not falsifiable
(except by such God or Gods revealing themselves).
ID versus athiesm (or agnostiscism) is not a matter of scientific
debate.
What ARE matters of scientific debate are:
1) What is the age of the universe?
2) What is the age of the earth?
3) When did dinosaurs live?
4) When did the first mammals appear?
5) When did the first homosapiens appear?
etc.
raymond|8.3.05 @ 1:05PM|#
When will you take the quantum leap from libertarianism to anarchy?
Anarchy would work - if human beings weren't so obnoxious.
|8.3.05 @ 2:05PM|#
thoreau said:
"To do that I need to calculate the matrix element where H is the
Hamiltonian describing my time evolution."
D'oh! How could I have overlooked that detail?
|8.3.05 @ 2:08PM|#
raymond said:
"Anarchy would work - if human beings weren't so obnoxious."
Which cometh first: obnoxity or lack of faith in anarchy?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245