Barney Brenner has an interesting article found at Human Events Online. In it he asks why the Darwinists apparently need court protection for their survival. Here’s a great excerpt:
Science involves observing nature and producing hypotheses which explain the data — and of discrediting theories which don’t fit new observations. Having judges decide what constitutes science is as nonsensical as scientists issuing judicial decisions.
Wesley J Smith has produced an article which offers a concise review of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Oregon physician-assisted suicide statute. It had been widely reported in the media to be a “stinging rebuke” of the Bush administration. Closer inspection reveals that the ruling was not as monumentous as has been reported.
The case provided neither a sweeping assertion of the validity of assisted suicide nor a ringing endorsement of its legality being strictly a matter of state’s rights.
David Klinghoffer, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, has an interesting article that examines the implications of Darwinism. He points out that there are scientific, economic, and moral consequences of Darwin’s theory. Here’s a quote:
The moral impact: In “The Descent of Man” (1871), Darwin spells out the moral implications of his theory, notably that unguided evolution produced the moral laws as much as it did the plants and animals. Such laws could have turned out differently, as the animals could have turned out differently had chance variations led life’s history down a different path.
So there is nothing absolute about our ideas of right and wrong. Wrote Darwin, “We may, therefore, reject the belief, lately insisted on by some writers, that the abhorrence of incest is due to our possessing a special God-implanted conscience.” If ethics has no such secure foundation, there can be nothing sacred about doing the right thing.
One thing that is often alleged about Intelligent Design is that it uses a fallacious god-of-the-gaps argument, inserting God’s activity into the few remaining gaps in our scientific knowledge as a desperate attempt to leave a place for Him in a world in which scientists and others are hopeful that everything can be explained in strictly naturalistic terms, with more progress seemingly being made towards this goal everyday.
The problem with this characterization is that it is a serious misrepresentation of ID arguments (as are most criticisms of ID) for at least two major reasons.
The first is that ID arguments that make use of certain explanatory gaps don’t focus on issues for which we know little about and for which we have yet to find naturalistic explanations. Rather, they focus on issues that we know plenty about, and for which ID advocates believe there can, in principle, be no naturalistic explanation. As I understand them, arguments from the origin of the universe and the origin of life are like this. These are not cases of someone saying “Hmm…this is an area which we have little knowledge about and for which we have yet to find a naturalistic explanation…let’s just assume God did it.” Rather, they are cases of intelligent people saying “Let’s think about this…Given the latest scientific research and sound reasoning about this, I believe that the only reasonable explanation for the phenomenon is the activity of a supernatural being for these reasons…” and then they give reasons. If there’s an argument to be made, it’s going to have to be about the evidence.
Secondly, many of the arguments for intelligent design don’t require any sort of gaps in the laws of nature at all. Del Ratzsch, a professional philosopher of science, makes this point well (although he uses a similar but slightly less fantastical example). Suppose a swarm of meteors hits the moon and after the dust settles, it is discovered that the impacts had left thousands of small, uniformly sized meteor craters arranged so that they spelled out in binary code “Look here” and then “they constituted a really nifty proof for a previously unknown mathematical theorem that held the key to solving a bunch of global problems. Few would doubt that this episode exhibited design.” But, he goes on to explain, suppose a time machine were used to go back and retrace the history of each and every meteor all the way back to the big bang and it were discovered that everything that happened was completely natural and the path of each meteor was explanable in strictly scientific terminology. “We would not,” he says, “abandon our previous design conclusion - we would simply conclude that the design had been deliberately into the initiating event of the cosmos itself.” You see, the concept of a gap doesn’t even apply here, because gaps have to do with the causal history of a phenomenon whereas design has to do with whether it has certain characteristics that we invariably associate with the guidance of an intelligent agent.
Tom Magnuson at ID Update blogs concerning “The Clergy Letter” which has supposedly been signed by over 10,000 members of the clergy supporting evolution. You can read the letter here. I would like to present a couple of excerpts of this letter.
Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.
We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
Pilate asked, “What is truth?” Well, apparently having some basis in reality is not part of the definition to these ministers. What does it mean to be a different order of truth? Religious truth, in the eyes of these clergyman has little to do with providing factual information, but is to transform hearts. This is nothing more than more postmodern gobbledygook. If truth is not based on what is in fact true, transformation is meaningless. Christ’s church is not populated by transformed, deluded members. I may be quite naive, but I still find it hard to believe that there are so many relativist clergyman.
To argue that those who question Darwinian evolution are failing to employ their God-given gifts of reason is ridiculous. It is these clergymen who somehow believe an absurdity…that truth can state that something is the case and not the case at the same time. Either philosophical naturalism is true, or it is not.
The claim that science can be science and religion can be religion, and that they can peacefully co-exist as complementary forms of truth is only possible if they make no claims about the same subject. If they do, and are in opposition, they cannot both be true. Christianity does make claims that are grounded in our real material world, such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, that science states cannot happen. Either it did or it did not. Either we are the product of blind chance which precludes any supernatural intervention, or the result of the design of an intelligent being.
Continuing my commentary on the Orlando Debate between Thomas Woodward and Michael Ruse on the subject of Intelligent Design versus Darwinian Evolution, today I will present Ruse’s opening 25 minutes of Argument. Woodward’s opener was presented in the last blog. I will try not to comment or critique Ruse, but will do my best to present his argument as he presented it. My comments will follow in another post.
Michael Ruse opened by pointing out that two important people were born on 2/12/1809…Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln. He spoke on Darwin’s visit to the Galapagos islands and Darwin’s thoughts that God would not have been so “stupid” as to place these varying species of tortoises and birds on their own isolated islands. The differences in the species must have been due to some other mechanism than God’s creation. In 1859 Darwin published The Origin of Species in which he proposed the mechanism by which we now see all the varieties of life on earth was natural selection.
He then presented Darwin’s Finches as an example of how natural selection has led to the variety of life we observe today. He then presented his only direct response to an argument presented by Woodward. He presented Archaeopteryx, 1/2 bird and 1/2 reptile, as an example of the many transitional species which are found.
He then presented Evolution as the key explanatory factor in understanding many other scientific enterprises, such as Instinct, Paleontology, Geographical Distribution, Embryology, and Systematics. He stated that almost immediately, “all accepted Darwinism except for a few idiosyncratic evangelicals in America”. He presented evangelical America as out of touch with even the traditional church in its questioning of Darwinism. St. Augustine, Ruse argued, believed Genesis is true, but not necessarily literally true. He then referenced the Scopes Monkey Trial and showed Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryant on screen, apparently attempting to show the backwardness and simplemindedness of American evangelicals.
He stated that Intelligent Design is nothing more than “Creation Light” - a religious theory, not science. The Dover, Pennsylvania judge recently ruled it as such (A judge appointed by the conservative evangelical’s darling President, no less). He then showed Pat Robertson and made fun of his comments over the outcome of the Dover case.
I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don’t wonder why he hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there.
Ruse asked, “What is ID?” He then spoke of Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity and Behe’s use of a mousetrap as an example of the same. Behe argued that unless you have all five parts of the mousetrap, it serves no function, therefore irreducible complexity is present. Ruse stated that we now have four, three, even two part mousetraps which function just fine.
Ruse showed a picture of an arched stone doorway, the kind with the keystone on top. He stated you can’t judge how something was made by its appearance today. The arched doorway looks like extremely difficult to build, but not if you understand that some kind of support was underneath it during construction.
Finally, Ruse pointed to Genetic Diseases and asserted that if God had spent all this time and effort to create all this specified complexity in DNA, he could have put in a little more effort to make sure that we didn’t end up with some of the genetic atrocities we have today.
He summed up ID this way:
Intelligent Design is not only bad science, but it is also bad Christianity.
Continuing my commentary on the Orlando ID debate between Thomas Woodward and Michael Ruse, today I will summarize Woodward’s opening 25 minute argument.
He opened quoting Stephen J. Gould, defining ID’s opposition:
Darwin developed an evolutionary theory based on chance variation and natural selection imposed by an external environment: a rigidly materialistic (and basically atheistic) version of evolution.
He then made the point that one must be careful when using the term evolution, as evolution may refer to micro-evolution or macro-evolution. Woodward rightly asserted that virtually no ID’ers would deny micro-evolution. He referenced a book published by MIT Press, Origination of Organismal Form, which asserts that Darwinism has no theory of the generative. The work, not of creationist origin, attempts to point out fundamental flaws which have not been answered by Neo-Darwinists.
Woodward then made reference to the fine-tuning argument, that the constants and values for the physical laws of the universe that make it possible for life to exist are so exquisitely fine-tuned that they cannot be due to chance and necessity. He quoted the atheist, Sir Fred Hoyle:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
Woodward argued that the universe does not just appear designed, but is designed.
He then addressed the issue of homology, and whether this supports Darwinian theory. He showed Haeckel’s embryos, which are still found in a few science texts, and pointed out that they were initially (and still, by some) offered as proof of evolution. They have long since been shown to be fakes.
Woodward then talked a little about ID in general. He traced its history from Denton to Johnson to Behe to Dembski. He affirmed that ID is in fact science and not religion. It is based on no religious principles, but is derived from the scientific evidence. Design is only inferred once a discovery passes through a 3-part explanatory filter:
1. Could this have occured by physical law? Then, not design.
2. Could this have occured by chance? Then, not design.
3. Is there specified complexity? Then, design.
The bacterial flagellum and the coagulation cascade were presented as examples of irreducibly complexity.
Woodward then spoke briefly regarding the fossil record and its inability to support Darwinian evolution. He spoke of the paucity of transitional fossils. The fossil record seems to follow sudden appearance of phyla, followed by stasis. The Cambrian explosion is an example of this. He also referenced the Cambrian information explosion, meaning all of the new DNA required for all the new phyla which burst onto the scene. Again, he spoke of specified complexity in this context. He quoted Bill Gates’ comments regarding human DNA being like a computer program far more advanced than any we’ve ever created.
Over all, I was impressed with Woodward’s ability to present a lot of material in a relatively brief time period. Next time, Michael Ruse’s initial 25 minutes.
On Thursday, 1/19/06, I attended a debate between Thomas Woodward, Professor of Theology and History of Science, and Michael Ruse, Florida State University Philosopher of Biology. The debate was called, “Intelligent Design versus Darwinian Evolution”. The question posed was this: “Does nature demonstrate a design planned by a superior intelligence, say God, or can it be sufficiently explained by purely naturalistic processes such as evolution through natural selection?”
I have a number of thoughts that I might share in my next few blogs. First, let me comment on the general tone of the debate. The two gentleman were civil enough, but it was obvious that each employed a different strategy. Professor Woodward attempted to present Darwinism as a theory with serious problems and Intelligent Design as a scientific theory which is preferable to Darwinism. Professor Ruse on the other hand assured the audience that every respectable scientist embraces Darwinism and that ID is “creation light” and the result of a few “idiosyncratic evangelicals in America”. I must say that I was once again surprised that the Darwinian argument was much less focused on the science and much more directed on presenting a caricature of Intelligent Design. Ruse was a very funny and personable speaker, however, I was very disappointed in the substance of his presentation.
In my next blog, I will summarize Woodward’s opening 25 minute presentation.
Greg Koukl, in an STR blog, raises an interesting question regarding how the law is often inconsistent in its treatment of the killing of a fetus. He references specifically a California statute, but other states have similar laws.
The point is this: If a person kills a fetus in California, it is considered murder, the same as if he killed a human being outside the womb. However, if a mother consents to her fetus being killed by a doctor, it is not murder. Now, is the fetus a precious human life or not. These divergent stances are inconsistent. Read the brief blog at STR.
Tom Magnuson at ID Update posted a blog alerting me to a USA Today article which refers to an article in the Vatican newspaper by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna. According to USA Today, in his article:
He lamented that certain American “creationists” had brought the debate back to the “dogmatic” 1800s, and said their arguments weren’t science but ideology.
Now, I’ve heard all the incorrect claims about no reputable scientists embrace ID. I’ve heard, inaccurately, how they don’t publish papers (See here). But I would like to know what it unscientific about the following core claims of Intelligent Design (not an exhaustive list, and paraphrased in my own words):
1. We know about biological machines, such as the bacterial flagellum, which is irreducibly complex. Darwinism is an inadequate theory to account for these phenomena.
2. Biological Systems show signs of specified complexity, which in all other fields, are taken to be signs of the work of an intelligent force. According to probability and statiscal analysis, there is good reason to believe these findings in biological systems suggest an intelligence.
3. The fine tuning of the physical laws and constants of the universe which allow us to exist are highly improbable and can be shown to have an virtually non-existent probability to have occured by chance.
4. Examination of the evidence leads to glaring weaknesses in the fossil record and lack of transitional forms. Therefore, Darwinism is not an adequate explanation for the appearance of life today.
I’m sure I could list others, however, the above sample will suffice. Nowhere does ID make any religious claims. These are all claims which are grounded in an examination of the scientific record, and a conclusion that Darwinism is inadequate to explain what is claims to explain. ID proponents may believe many things about who or what the designer is, and how the designer has designed, but that is not the basis of ID Theory.
It is disingenuous for Facchini to claim that ID is ideology and dogmatism, and not recognize the dogmatism and ideology of philosophical naturalism which underlies Darwinism.