ID and Evolution

[DavidW]

This is a fair documentary on intellegent design.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06439574&hl=en

[Metricyard]

Good documentary. Can't say that it was too fair to the ID movement though. Which is a good thing

[Ken G]

My opinion: the whole business goes away if scientists simply say "when you apply the approaches of science to the question of how we got here, evolution is what you get." I think this is what would make everyone somewhat happy and somewhat troubled, but it's also the truth, and it leaves no one with anything to attack effectively.

[Gillianren]

People still argue it, though. That's the whole point of the ID movement.

[Ken G]

No, I think that's missing something very important in all this. I think the whole point of the ID movement is as a kind of counterattack against what they perceive is an attack by science. They feel that science is trying to replace its truth with their truth, so they try to get a foothold on science itself. But if science simply stated that this is the truth that science gets, and you are welcome to believe what you like if you feel that science isn't right, then the reason for the offensive defensiveness goes away. Of course, you also educate about all the other things that science brings, and about the assumptions of doing science, but at the end of the day, every individual chooses their truth. That's just how it is, folks.

[Frog march]

but then there is the matter of education.

[Ken G]

Exactly, education is critical. That's why the ID camp tries to get into the education cycle, and that's the battle that must be won. The idea that their beliefs are "foolish nonsense", and other kinds of things I hear scientists say, are quite counterproductive in this effort, because it draws different battle lines than simply, "what is good science, and what is the value derived from doing good science". That's the only battle that needs to be fought, all others just waste resources and compromise the chance of victory.

[Gillianren]

You have to understand, I knew an IDer on another board (I think he was an IDer, anyway) who was perfectly willing to accept the scientific method for everything he didn't feel had been directly contradicted by the Bible. Physics were fine. So far as I know, he was even down with heliocentrism. But for origins, science didn't know what it was talking about, because the Bible said something else. That's not letting science hold its own. That's trying to subvert science to your own purposes.

Even the ones who don't ever say things like that are perfectly willing to accept science's pronouncements that are "just theories" fine all the time. It's just this one. Even when you use such a neutral phrase (and I have) as, "All the evidence, including that collected and labelled pre-Darwin, favours evolution," they then argue the state of that evidence.

[Ken G]

You have to understand, I knew an IDer on another board (I think he was an IDer, anyway) who was perfectly willing to accept the scientific method for everything he didn't feel had been directly contradicted by the Bible.

I do understand, I think that's a pretty standard approach for these types. They "cherry pick" what they like in science, and leave the rest. But I'm saying that the only valid response of a scientist to that is to educate about what science is. It's sort of like obeying traffic laws-- most people only do it when they're "not in a hurry". But the laws are there for a reason, to protect people all the time, not just when they aren't in a hurry. Nevertheless, people will "cherry pick" the traffic laws that work for them. You can't really say "anyone who does that is a fool", you can only say "that's not in keeping with the spirit of safe driving".

Even the ones who don't ever say things like that are perfectly willing to accept science's pronouncements that are "just theories" fine all the time.

And they're right-- they are just theories. They are just theories that bring with them all the weight and value of science, but nothing more. Truth in advertising.

Even when you use such a neutral phrase (and I have) as, "All the evidence, including that collected and labelled pre-Darwin, favours evolution," they then argue the state of that evidence.

Yes, that's the worst part of it, where they actually cripple their own ability to think scientifically because they fear the result of not doing so. But here's the question to ask ourselves-- why do they fear the result? It's because they are seeing things in the black-and-white way that we ourselves are encouraging-- it's either "right" or it's "wrong". If science would be more willing to sell itself as one particularly powerful mode for knowing things, rather than "the absolute truth", then the defensiveness on the other side, and the counterattacks, would diminish.

[Gillianren]

You have to remember, this was a scientist that I was talking to. An engineer, to be sure, but he knew exactly what the scientific method was. He just rejected its findings regarding evolution.

[Bearded One]

No, I think that's missing something very important in all this. I think the whole point of the ID movement is as a kind of counterattack against what they perceive is an attack by science. They feel that science is trying to replace its truth with their truth, so they try to get a foothold on science itself. But if science simply stated that this is the truth that science gets<snip>

You don't listen to/deal with very many ID proponents do you? They claim that ID *is* the truth that you get from science.

[Ken G]

But you can't have it both ways. If these people are correctly applying the scientific method, then there is a scientific controversy, and if they aren't, then the error in method is the issue. I would simply ask them, "honestly now, tell me why you believe that, the real reason." If that doesn't point out the error in method, nothing will.

[Frog march]

From what I've seen on TV, IDer's idea of scientific method is to wear a paleontologists sleeveless digging jacket(what ever that's called) and read from the bible.
You can't really answer that.

[Irishman]

Ken G, stop trying to have your "2 kinds of reality" argument in every thread!

[George]

There is another film coming out, apparently, next Monday: Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus. Next Monday is Darwin Day (born 2/12/1809). I hope it is not as foul as it sounds.

[Gillianren]

People actually doing the work think there's no controversy. People not working in relevant fields do. To me, that indicates there's no controversy from a scientific standpoint. The ID crowd claims to be doing valid science, but the simple fact is, they aren't. However, they want people--not scientists, particularly, but the public--to believe there's scientific debate so that there's a legal standing to have the stuff taught in the schools.

[George]

This is a fair documentary on intellegent design.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06439574&hl=en

Now that I've had time to listen to it...

Very nice. Albeit, there were the typical embellished and dramatic statements in the early portion to arouse interest. "For many, it is the beginning of a scientific dark age" and that ID "threatens to replace science with God", are two that I think I quoted correctly. Also, Bush saying "Go bless America" hardly serves to show that religion is a threat to science.

There were some misleading historical statements in the early segment that might merit some attention, too. It suggests Darwin "shattered fundamental beliefs" with his theory of evolution and that his was the first time that "science directly challenged the biblical story" of creation. Both are incorrect. Evolution theory was around long before Darwin; even his Grandfather, Erasmus, was an evolutionist and writing poems that countered the Biblical account. Darwin became highly respected for his work but his work was not accepted until the next century when genetics demonstrated he was right and the others, such as Lamarck, were wrong. Darwin was also not all that anti-religion, though he did have great concern that it would appear as such. He was even buried in West Minster Abbey, (and, of course, not due to burning him at the stake. ). Darwin's theory was even admired by some hardshell religious denominations.

Other than those minor points, the movie covered all the main points and focused a lot on Dover, which I enjoyed. I think Miller hit the nail most often on the head than the others. His statement that ID is "theory that explains nothing" says a lot. He then points out that it isn't even a theory. Also, his demonstration that the removal of the majority of the 50+ parts found in the flagella - the pillar of their claims - would still render a useful tool is a coffin nail for ID.

Speaking of the flagella, if 99.9%+ of everything else came from natural laws, why would God specifically make the flagella for e. coli? What would that say about His love? That is like the time I heard a local, boisterous preacher state that Katrina was from God on the sinful. But, if so, why was Bourbon St. spared? What good would the Sodom and Gomorrah account be if God had rained fire and brimstone and missed the towns!?? What happen to reason?

I wish the claim and counterclaim of the mousetrap analogy had been added to the film.

George Coyne's comments were great (leave it to an astronomer to clear the air). Go George, Go. [I suppose I have additional bias.]

Literalists should reinterpret using the new light science gives them.

[A.DIM]

Was Darwin Wrong? provides a rather illuminating consideration of the many faces of the evolution/creation rift.

[DavidW]

Now that I've had time to listen to it...

Very nice. Albeit, there were the typical embellished and dramatic statements in the early portion to arouse interest. "For many, it is the beginning of a scientific dark age" and that ID "threatens to replace science with God", are two that I think I quoted correctly. Also, Bush saying "Go bless America" hardly serves to show that religion is a threat to science.

There were some misleading historical statements in the early segment that might merit some attention, too. It suggests Darwin "shattered fundamental beliefs" with his theory of evolution and that his was the first time that "science directly challenged the biblical story" of creation. Both are incorrect. Evolution theory was around long before Darwin; even his Grandfather, Erasmus, was an evolutionist and writing poems that countered the Biblical account. Darwin became highly respected for his work but his work was not accepted until the next century when genetics demonstrated he was right and the others, such as Lamarck, were wrong. Darwin was also not all that anti-religion, though he did have great concern that it would appear as such. He was even buried in West Minster Abbey, (and, of course, not due to burning him at the stake. ). Darwin's theory was even admired by some hardshell religious denominations.

Other than those minor points, the movie covered all the main points and focused a lot on Dover, which I enjoyed. I think Miller hit the nail most often on the head than the others. His statement that ID is "theory that explains nothing" says a lot. He then points out that it isn't even a theory. Also, his demonstration that the removal of the majority of the 50+ parts would still render a useful tool is a coffin nail for ID.

Speaking of the flagella, if 99.9%+ of everything else came from natural laws, why would God specifically make the flagella for e. coli? What would that say about His love? That is like the time I heard a local, boisterous preacher state that Katrina was from God on the sinful. But, if so, why was Bourbon St. spared? What good would the Sodom and Gomorrah account be if God had rained fire and brimstone and missed the towns!?? What happen to reason?

I wish the claim and counterclaim of the mousetrap analogy had been added to the film.

George Coyne's comments were great (leave it to an astronomer to clear the air). Go George, Go. [I suppose I have additional bias.]

Literalists should reinterpret using the new light science gives them.

It does contradict the biblical account and as such does shatter fundamentalist beliefs. Just because he was religious doesn't mean that he was a fundamentalist which believes in the inerrancy of the bible.

[Ken G]

Ken G, stop trying to have your "2 kinds of reality" argument in every thread!

Hehe. What, you want more than two?

[George]

It does contradict the biblical account and as such does shatter fundamentalist beliefs. Just because he was religious doesn't mean that he was a fundamentalist which believes in the inerrancy of the bible.

Yes, evolution does counter the traditional literal approach, but the film implies that it all came from Darwin. Transmutation and non-supernaturalism were both widely accepted before Darwin. Darwin added natural selection and the slow branching process to these evolutionary tenets; however, these latter two were essentially rejected by science until after Mendel's work was discovered in the 20th century.

Darwin, though on an early path to become a country parson, eventually became an agnostic, or perhaps, almost so. His wife, Ema, was very religious, however. His religious views are not that important and his burial in the church was with the broad minded Church of England. My criticism should only be considered as minor points, nits, as the majority of the film thereafter was very nicely done.

[Ken G]

The ID crowd claims to be doing valid science, but the simple fact is, they aren't.

I agree, but this is my point: by what basis do you say it isn't valid science, is that because you have special knowledge that their conclusions are wrong, or because you can point to errors in how they apply the scientific method? Let the answer to that guide the reaction to ID, so that we don't waste time on why science is the truth, and rather focus on what is good science and what is bad or pseudoscience. That's the debate we win, and it inflames fewer people into counterattacking at science.

[George]

... by what basis do you say it isn't valid science, is that because you have special knowledge that their conclusions are wrong, or because you can point to errors in how they apply the scientific method?

Yes. But you are speaking in the rhetorical sense, right?

Let the answer to that guide the reaction to ID, so that we don't waste time on why science is the truth, and rather focus on what is good science and what is bad or pseudoscience. That's the debate we win, and it inflames fewer people into counterattacking at science.

Yes, evolution theory can hardly claim perfection; it needs to evolve. But, focusing on the reasons why ID is not science, nor their claims correct, will be more effective; disarm the enemy rather than shoot at them, is this your thinking? [Added: Hmmm, maybe that should be "disarm the enemy rather than make more bombs".]

[DavidW]

I agree, but this is my point: by what basis do you say it isn't valid science, is that because you have special knowledge that their conclusions are wrong, or because you can point to errors in how they apply the scientific method? Let the answer to that guide the reaction to ID, so that we don't waste time on why science is the truth, and rather focus on what is good science and what is bad or pseudoscience. That's the debate we win, and it inflames fewer people into counterattacking at science.

Its because they put the cart before the horse. They didn't empirically discover irreducible complexity and then hypothesise intellegent influence to explain it. They went backwards. They wanted intellegent influence to explain life and so went looking for irreducible complexity as support for it. As far as I'm concerned theistic evolution is as old as evolution. There is no news there. Why "intellegent design" has so much attention is because its purpose was specifically to get childrens school classes discussing biblical creationism.

[Ken G]

Yes, evolution theory can hardly claim perfection; it needs to evolve. But, focusing on the reasons why ID is not science, nor their claims correct, will be more effective; disarm the enemy rather than shoot at them, is this your thinking? [Added: Hmmm, maybe that should be "disarm the enemy rather than make more bombs".]

Yes that's it exactly, or even better, take away their desire to fight, while still accomplishing the objective-- science education. Seems like current events around the globe might have taken a lesson from that book as well.

[Ken G]

Its because they put the cart before the horse. They didn't empirically discover irreducible complexity and then hypothesise intellegent influence to explain it. They went backwards.

Exactly, it is their method to the conclusion that is clearly nonscientific, and a debate about method actually wins two fights at once-- it keeps ID out of science class, and it also teaches what science is.

[Gillianren]

Ken, these people are being intellectually dishonest or ignoring the evidence. We all know this. However, the general public does not seem to accept that as an argument. Like so many other conspiracy theories (and honestly, science "covering up" any evidence against evolution is a conspiracy theory in my book), they're relying on two things.

1. General ignorance of the field at hand. People who take the time to study evolution for five minutes find that the evidence in favor of it is overwhelming--if they have the intellectual integrity to admit it. If they don't, there's not much we can do. However, most people haven't, or if they have, it's been some time.

2. ID sounds reasonable. YEC is obviously religious in slant. There's no two ways about it. "Goddidit" doesn't leave wiggle room for "but we don't mean it to be religious." ID sounds, if you don't know much about it, as though it's based on scientific principles, and saying, "No, it isn't" without presenting evidence as to why it isn't and what evidence the other side has isn't going to convince anyone.

[Ken G]

Ken, these people are being intellectually dishonest or ignoring the evidence.

I agree on both counts, but note that neither of those are against the laws of thought-- they are only against the laws of scientific thought. So the only "crime" is in calling it science, and that's what we have recourse to correct.

However, the general public does not seem to accept that as an argument.

And why not? Because they have not been told what science is, only what is "true" according to science. So the next time someone says "what about this particular ID argument", ignore the details of the argument, and just ask "what does science mean to you?" When the other person recognizes how unformed is their basic understanding of what science is, you have already won.

1. General ignorance of the field at hand.

Right, education is key, and no one can object to straightforward science education.

2. ID sounds reasonable. YEC is obviously religious in slant. There's no two ways about it. "Goddidit" doesn't leave wiggle room for "but we don't mean it to be religious." ID sounds, if you don't know much about it, as though it's based on scientific principles, and saying, "No, it isn't" without presenting evidence as to why it isn't and what evidence the other side has isn't going to convince anyone.

But here's exactly where I'm advocating a different path. It is generally too hard to take someone who does not know what science is, and convince them of a particular science conclusion that they are inclined to doubt. We might achieve our goals this way, or we might not-- it's basically "preaching to the choir". But what is not too hard to do is simply educate what science is, how it works, and what we have achieved using that method. Then you can show why ID is bad science without ever looking at any of the details of how humans got here, and still be fully true to what science is.

Bottom line: "ID is wrong" is unachievable, but "ID is bad science" is very achievable, and is all we need (indeed, that's all that even science itself can tell you).

[ArgoNavis]

Hehe. What, you want more than two?

have you got more than 2 now?

[George]

But is ID gaining ground anywhere, really? They had a debate a year or so ago at Texas A&M, a very conservative arena, with little success. I haven't seen other college marketing attempts, but I can't say otherwise.

My impression is they are loosing altitude with little hope of getting back up. Am I wrong?