| ||
| A vain attempt at decrazification. |
Pack Genius
| ||
|
The main problem with ID is that it is not a theory of its own, but a collection of superficial arguments against evolution (straw men); the idea being that if evolution is wrong, then an intelligent designer must be responsible (a false dichotomy). Unfortunately for the ID supporters, science does not work like that. A scientific theory is the result of the scientific method:
After a hypothesis has been tested a number of times, it may be accepted by the scientific community as a theory. The theory continues to be tested whenever new data becomes available. If the data does not fit the theory, the theory is rejected or revised. A scientific theory comprises many requisite characteristics, none of which ID displays: testable, makes predictions, falsifiable, supported by all the available evidence etc. Instead of following the scientific method, the IDers have simply jumped to the conclusion, based on their religious beliefs, that an intelligent designer is responsible. They have then attempted to find evidence for that conclusion. Such a reversal of the scientific method inevitably leads to bad science. Another problem with ID is that the arguments put forth by its proponents are often straw men or just plain wrong. The two most famous ID proponents are William Dembski and Michael Behe. So far as I can tell, not one of their arguments even comes close to being a valid criticism of evolution. William Dembski: Dembski, a mathematician, uses probability based argument to infer design. His (mostly straw man) arguments are highly flawed and based on rather absurd assumptions. A critique of his book, No Free Lunch, where he expands on his specified complex information idea can be found here at Talk Origins. The blog, Good Math Bad Math also exposes falsehoods in some of his papers: here, here and here. Michael Behe: Behe, a biochemist, gave us irreducible complexity in his book, The tactics the Discovery Institute and others employ in support of ID are also highly indicative of their religious, rather than scientific motivations. Instead of attempting to have their ideas recognized by the scientific community by publishing in respected peer-reviewed journals, they use political and legal means to force their ideas in via the back door. This policy recently backfired in a legal case in A couple of quotes from the Judge’s (a Bush appointee BTW) decision: “In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” “The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision (to include ID in the curriculum) is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial.” The idea put forth by the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents that we should ‘teach the controversy’ is extremely disingenuous. It is intended to play on people’s idea of fairness; however, no such scientific controversy exists. This cartoon sums up, accurately and humorously, the reality of the ‘teach the controversy’ idea.  In regards to likening string theory to ID, the obvious difference is that nobody is pushing to have string theory taught in public science classes. So far as I understand, string theories cannot currently be tested as our technology is not up to the task of producing the necessary high energy events. They do, however, produce testable claims, unlike ID. Another difference is that string theory was derived via the scientific method; mathematical equations which logically follow from the observed phenomena. These tentative theories push the boundaries of theoretical physics and are, unlike evolution, not universally accepted scientific theories. Thus, we would not expect them to be taught in public schools. Unlike ID, they do qualify as science and are worth pursuing, however. | ||
| Post Comment |
I recently received a comment from Bryan Patterson regarding Intelligent Design and string theory: “The contempt that many scientists have expressed for Intelligent Design knows no bounds, but it can be summarized in a single dismissive sentence: "It's not science." Now string theory—that's another matter. String theory generates articles and grants and symposia.”
| |||
| Hi Adam,
I think many of the points you make are credible But It seems almost impossible to have a debate about religion and science that is not hefted into an argument about theism and atheism, which is, I think, a very different debate. The debate is confused as well by, moving it to one between faith and reason, though there is long tradition for this juxtaposition. For example, the idea of natural theology, a subject which embraces, to give an apposite example, the quinqae viae arguments for the existence of god. These are a mix of empirical observation, (things happening), and fundamental principles, (e.g. every phenomena has a cause). The debate is about religion verses the scientific method. Put as that, it is a debate about beliefs, belief in the scientific method as a path to truth and a belief in religion as a path to truth. That these two can be in opposition in practice is clear for the historical evidence. We measure the truth of the science not only by empirical observation and theoretical propositions but also by numbers and esteem of scientific voices. The same pattern of influences can be seen in other scientific arguments. To take one other example, there is the argument about the immunisation of babies. There is an orthodoxy here amongst scientists, which is as acute and condemnatory as the Inquisition. Scientific work is pulled to pieces by a panel of experts (not a difficult task) and individual scientists are pilloried and persecuted. To make a wider point about where the path of science can go, medical science has been hijacked to work in favour of the economic interests of the pharmaceutical industry. These are aberrations of the scientific method. True. You can use the same argument about the wrongdoings of religions. They were, and are, aberrations of religion and for the same reasons: lack of clarity about what science, or religion, is saying mixed with political and social factors. The scientific method and religion are both fundamental beliefs, different paradigms, about the nature of truth. One is about facts and understanding phenomena, the other is about meanings of things and the morals of actions. They do interfere with each other in our confused way of assessing things. They cannot possibly judge the truth of each other, for they are radically different ways of looking at things. We could try to judge them by their fruits, if and when we can clear out the aberrations, based on some principle of intuitive justice that, for complex reasons, they both share. By the way, thanks for allowing me to enter this debate on your blog. | |||
| Posted by BryanP | |||
| |||
| They (theists) don't get it because mainly of them are incapable of understanding the flaws in their argument. This is partly because they have little desire to understand a logical argument. Until schools go back to the "good old days" when they actually taught logic and ethics as subjects, rationalists will continue to beat their heads against the "brick walls or strawmen walls" that theists create on whim. | |||
| Posted by Anonymous | |||
| |||
| Hi anonymous,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that education is a major problem, especially regarding science and critical thinking. We need to focus more on the scientific methods of sceptical inquiry and the absolute importance of evidence, rather than the resulting theories. Some basic education in logic and logical fallacies would also be a great idea. The difference between theists and atheists is pretty simple. An atheist/sceptic will not believe in something without evidence, whereas a theist will do so and call it faith. These positions are diametrically opposed to one another. This is why arguing with theists is often extremely frustrating, as logic/evidence is often ignored on the part of the theist in favour of dogma/faith. [[BTW, you can input your name in place of ‘anonymous’ when you comment if you like. There seems to have been a fair bit of confusion over this, and I have asked the blog hoster to fix it up. If you’d like to continue to post comments anonymously, that is also fine however.]] | |||
| Posted by Adam | |||
| |||
| Hi Bryan,
As always, it’s great to get your comments. As usual, I’ll tackle your points one by one: “But it seems almost impossible to have a debate about religion and science that is not hefted into an argument about theism and atheism, which is, I think, a very different debate.” That may be true in many cases, but I don’t really see that as true in the case of Intelligent Design. One can keep these debates separate by focusing on the science; ID is simply not science and thus, should not be taught in a science class. I attempted to keep these debates separate by including the Ken Miller lecture. I thought you might find the arguments of a theistic scientist less abrasive than those of someone like Richard Dawkins, for instance. “For example, the idea of natural theology, a subject which embraces, to give an apposite example, the quinqae viae arguments for the existence of god. These are a mix of empirical observation, (things happening), and fundamental principles, (e.g. every phenomena has a cause).” St. Thomas Aquinas’ quinque viae arguments are deeply flawed from a logical standpoint. Many of his arguments revolve around a first cause. He argues that everything must have a first cause and that God is that cause. What he neglects to mention is that, by his own argument, God must have a first cause as well. He then cheats by making the assumption that God is eternal. Why not simply assume that the universe is eternal, rendering God a superfluous inclusion? Any inclusion of Gods into the universe simply makes all explanations more difficult, because their existence also requires explanation. For a more in depth discussion of why Aquinas’ five ways are logically flawed, go here: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/aquinas.html “The debate is about religion verses the scientific method. Put as that, it is a debate about beliefs, belief in the scientific method as a path to truth and a belief in religion as a path to truth. That these two can be in opposition in practice is clear for the historical evidence.” The scientific method does not require belief in a religious sense. It simply demands attention by its magnificent track record. The scientific method in seeking truth has given us countless inventions that have improved our lives beyond measure. All of the findings of science are tentative, making allowance for new facts to be found in the future. The same cannot be said for religion. Religion is not a path to truth, it simply states that it already has the truth and it can be found in this book (Bible/Quran/Torah etc); a book written by superstitious primitives thousands of years ago. No evidence is put forward for their claims, and evidence is actively attacked when it contradicts them. In pretty much every instance where it is possible for them to do so, a multitude of facts have rendered into absurdity much of the contents of these Holy books. Do the religious leaders make allowance for these facts and attempt to change their holy books to reflect the truth? No, they simply cling to their dogma. “We measure the truth of the science not only by empirical observation and theoretical propositions but also by numbers and esteem of scientific voices. The same pattern of influences can be seen in other scientific arguments.” This may be true in a very limited way in the short term, but over time the evidence will come to light and change will come. Scientists are not in the business of ignoring evidence. They are human, however, and prone to the same character flaws as the rest of us. BTW, any argument that hinges on the esteem to which a particular scientist is held is logically fallacious (an argument from authority). If the vast majority of scientists in a certain field are proponents of a certain idea or theory, it’s reasonably safe to be pretty confident in it (for now anyway, based on the evidence currently available). An example of this change in action often given is that of plate tectonics. When the idea was first put forward, the vast majority of geologists were highly skeptical or dismissed it out of hand. Its proponents then built up more evidence and solidified their case, publishing in many scientific journals. The scientific community was quickly convinced, based on the evidence, and plate tectonics is now taught in schools. Contrast this with the actions of the ID proponents; instead of attempting to solidify their case, they want their (wrong) ideas pushed straight to students, and they use legal, rather than scientific channels. “To take one other example, there is the argument about the immunisation of babies. There is an orthodoxy here amongst scientists, which is as acute and condemnatory as the Inquisition. Scientific work is pulled to pieces by a panel of experts (not a difficult task) and individual scientists are pilloried and persecuted.” This case is an exceptional one, because it constituted a grave threat to public health. The argument put forth by the anti-immunisation crowd were completely wrong and based on little evidence and faulty reasoning. Scientists reacted strongly to these claims because they were so dangerous to the health of the public. Yes, scientists can and do get pissed off when people spew dangerous bullshit. A panel of experts or peer-review in scientific journals is necessary to ensure the accuracy of any scientific claims. The only people who usually complain about this are the peddlers of rubbish. “To make a wider point about where the path of science can go, medical science has been hijacked to work in favour of the economic interests of the pharmaceutical industry. These are aberrations of the scientific method. True. You can use the same argument about the wrongdoings of religions. They were, and are, aberrations of religion and for the same reasons: lack of clarity about what science, or religion, is saying mixed with political and social factors.” The greed exhibited by ‘big-pharma’ and their activities have nothing at all to do with the scientific method. The scientific method can be used to tell us which medicines actually work by double-blind experimentation. The greed of ‘big-pharma’ is a consequence of capitalism, not science. The scientific method is politically and morally neutral; the inventions that result from it can be used for either good or evil. Example, nuclear physics can be used in power plants or bombs. How humans choose to use scientific advancements has nothing to do with the scientific method however. Religion’s aberrations, though, are a different story. Many of the evils done in God’s name throughout history are a direct result of religious belief, not some other political or social factor. You mentioned the inquisition earlier, which is as good an example as any other. “The scientific method and religion are both fundamental beliefs, different paradigms, about the nature of truth.” As I said earlier, one does not believe in science the same way one believes in God. Belief in scientific claims is a direct consequence of the strength of the evidence for such a claim; no faith is required. You may be correct in saying they are fundamental beliefs about the nature of truth. One method has been stunningly successful and has improved our lives beyond measure; the other has given us very little but problems. “One is about facts and understanding phenomena, the other is about meanings of things and the morals of actions. They do interfere with each other in our confused way of assessing things. They cannot possibly judge the truth of each other, for they are radically different ways of looking at things.” You are correct in saying that science does not interfere in morality; it makes no moral claims whatsoever, nor does it give us much in the way of direction on how to live our lives. Where the two intersect is when religion makes testable claims about the universe. The proposition that God exists is testable if God produces any measurable effects. Religion makes claims about the origins of the universe in Genesis. All of its claims have turned out to be false, given the overwhelming evidence against such accounts. Our planet and the universe were not produced at the same time; the universe had been around for some 10 billion years before our solar system was produced from the remnants of a supernova. The human race did not originate from Adam and Eve; we evolved from simpler life forms over billions of years. If Noah’s flood actually occurred, there would be mountains of geological evidence for it; there is none. There are mountains of evidence for the scientific accounts. All religion offers is a book of stories written by superstitious primitives thousands of years ago. The accounts in this book directly contradict the evidence. Science can therefore test the truth of religion whenever religion makes a testable claim about the universe. Almost all of religion’s testable claims are wrong. Why should any of the rest be believed? “We could try to judge them by their fruits, if and when we can clear out the aberrations, based on some principle of intuitive justice that, for complex reasons, they both share.” Science has already proved itself by its fruits, a million fold. Religion has not proved itself by any fruits whatever, with the exception of charitable good works, which are are somewhat outweighed by the negative effects. Recent studies have shown a significant correlation between the religiosity of populations and the levels of crime and violence displayed in these populations. Such as correlation does not, of course, prove that religion is the cause of crime and violence. There are many other factors. It does, however, show us that religion does not make people more moral. History too, has shown us that much violence is caused directly by religion. “By the way, thanks for allowing me to enter this debate on your blog.” You are most welcome here Bryan. I hope you continue to comment here for a long time to come. | |||
| Posted by Adam | |||
| |||
| Millar does a wonderful job in that video. | |||
| Posted by Anonymous | |||
| |||
| Hi Anon,
He certainly spells it out nicely. I really like it when it says, roughly: 'I believe in God, but I do not believe in a God who would deliberately plant evidence to deceive us.' He sees the dishonest tactics of the creationists as somehow blasphemous. If only more theists could take a more rational viewpoint. | |||
| Posted by Adam | |||
| Entry 15 of 42 |
| Last Page | Next Page |