HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Nov. 23, 2005 I'm happy to continue the discussion of Intelligent Design, but first we need to agree to some basic, non-debatable, facts:
Now, let me jump right in.
That is why even though the most dogmatic atheist, if
he is being
rationale, will have to admit that he can not truly
know if there is a
God or not. Man is finite, in a universe with infinite
potential, and
therefore will only ever have a microcosm, if that, of
the potential
knowledge that can be known.
That's a bit of a straw man argument, as most atheists already agree that we can't prove a negative. This isn't limited to God, we also can't prove that The Great Pumpkin or unicorns don't exist. As a matter of fact, we can quickly come up with a list a million items of long of concepts and creatures and beings that we can't disprove. You will be hard pressed to find an atheist who thinks otherwise, so that's a bit of a moot point. But it must be said that it's a sneaky technique to substitute the discussion of what science is or is not, with 'religion versus atheism'. Many scientists are not atheists. The hope that God is there, or the faith that God is there, is shared by most of humanity, but that doesn't make it science. The faithful will tell me that they don't need proof to believe, and that's just fine for this discussion.
That is why regardless of where you stand on evolution
and intelligent
design, at some point a theory transcends into faith,
where you are
placing a belief in something that definitively can
not be known to be
true at every given occasion in time. Some theories
have a higher
predictability factor than others, some have less, as
their pool of
data and ability to be measured are limited. I would
argue that
evolution in terms of predictability is a theory based
upon the latter.
I easily acknowledge
micro-evolution, and the natural basic adaptability of
an animal to
make mini-adjustments based upon its environment. To
me this concept
definitely follows under the rubric of intelligent
design, but I reject
macro-evolution for reasons of logic, and faith, which
I have no
problem acknowledging.
First, Intelligent Design is not a theory. Science doesn't accept it as such, for very good reasons. Don't just accept that as an argument from authority, it's really quite simple: ID makes no testable predictions, it has no evidence, and it's not falsifiable. It doesn't meet the criteria of science. It's a non-scientific philosophy. Evolution is a scientific theory. It has evidence, it makes predictions that can be, are, and have been tested and verified, and is quite clearly falsifiable – in other words, it puts forth that which needs to be found or seen which will debunk it. [Isn't that amazing, that real scientific theories specify what's required to show that they are mere baloney?] So, while I agree that some theories make more or less predictions, etc., it doesn't apply to ID, which makes none. You reject macro evolution based only on faith. Faith isn't required to believe in macro evolution; it's been directly observed – not that direct observation is required for evidence. But, since you believe in micro-evolution, follow this simple example. DNA determines how proteins and therefore, the rest of the lifeform, organizes and develops. A change in the DNA means a change in the animal, for example. So, if you accept small changes, why not accept a series of small changes over time? Lets say a group of animals is split by the slow march of nature – a mountain range rising, perhaps over half of a million years. Each sub-group goes through small changes, the kind that you'd accept. A few million years later, the mountain range flattens and the two groups meet back up again. Each has changed in different directions, such that, they can no longer interbreed – bingo, we have speciation. Overall, we call these series of micro-evolutionary changes macro-evolution. What magic line exists which would prevent this?
Both men attempt to refute my argument primarily by
arguing that
evolution is indeed the simplest theory and markedly
different at its
foundation than intelligent design. The problem is
both gentlemen fail
to acknowledge the fundamental similarity between ID
and EV.First, no, we refute ID primarily because it doesn't meet the criteria for science. We bring up the complexity bit, the Occam's Razor example, because you proposed it. Second, ID is an attempt to counter many real theories, but we can break them down into three:
Each stands on its own. For example, evolution was widely accepted before we knew anything about the big bang. I'm not sure what you mean by evolution being self-contained – it's very likely that evolution took place on other planets around other stars as well. Theories explain facts. Big Bang explains why the galaxies are flying apart, among other facts, and isn't concerned with where the dot came from. For example, if we just came back from a trip to Mars and ignored all media and looked at New Orleans, we might conclude that strong, swirling, winds caused the mess. We might call this a hurricane. We might have plenty of evidence to substantiate this, even if we don't know enough about weather overall to understand just what forms a hurricane. In the same vain, evolution isn't concerned with what life form came first. This isn't a cop out or an avoidance of the issue, quite simply, the theory as stated, doesn't attempt to show evidence for, or make predictions, etc., about the first creature. We know that the big bang happened, it's one of the most solid theories, and the premier discovery of the 20th century. Not knowing what caused that dense ball is a lack of understanding in general, not a weakness of the big bang. Dell, if you want to say God put that ball there, be my guest, but don't call it science unless you have evidence, make predictions about God, or show that God is falsifiable. If you want to say that any process, “natural” or otherwise, that made the universe is a god, then we have no disagreement philosophically, but it's still not science. After all, why must something come first? Our notions of cause and effect, first and last are human based understanding of our own universe – we can't really apply this to before, outside, around, after, and so forth, to that extra-universal region, if such a region exists. Those “norms” may hold in our little nook, but who knows if they hold “outside”, beyond our laws of physics?
Intelligent design is inescapable. The difference in
my opinion is not
whether something ‘intelligent’ created existence, but
how it
programmed intelligence into existence. The
evolutionist argues
intelligence expresses through macro-adaptation, the
creationist argues
intelligence expressed through event, but at the core
of each is faith
as each theory reaches areas of untestability which
the evolutionist
ignores and the creationist embraces.
There is no scientific evidence that anything intelligent made the universe. If we cannot inspect that extra-universal region, then how can we say scientifically that there is intelligence there? A perfectly valid and similar opinion would be to say that our universe is but one of a billion, and each is created by a “natural”, but unknown to us, process. Actually, there are some attempts to investigate this, the String hypothesis for example. It does actually suggest where the big bang came from. We may, in this century, test some predictions that the String people have presented; stay tuned.
In the end, I have no problem accepting by faith that
which can’t be
seen. I acknowledge I am blind and can not see the
whole elephant,
while arrogantly the evolutionist presumes to be able
to do so. How do
you explain to a man blind at birth the color green?
However, using my
faith, and the faith of others who believe in
intelligent design by
virtue of logic, as a reason for not teaching
intelligent design is a
simple ad hominem attack couched in scientific
terminology and
rhetoric.
If we are both blind to what “started” our universe, then why not simply say that we don't know? Why stick an all powerful, super-complex being into that gap, and then ignore the next obvious question that arises? Why add that extra layer of confusion? And if you must for religious reasons, why call it science? Isn't that arrogance? Intelligent Design isn't logic, it's faith pretending to be science, pushed by a specific American group with political aims. Like I said before, if it is
such junk scientist, teach them side by side, and
allow the
‘intelligent’ children, and the ‘intelligent’ parents
of these children
to disregard it.
Maybe the Earth is a living being that can think? Interesting, but in science class, lets just stick to geology and teach about the core and the mantle and so forth. Why teach kids junk science? And, if ID is really science, why do we need to redefine science for it to pass as science? Tell me, Dell, why don't the faithful push for stickers warning that “gravity is JUST a theory” on science textbooks? Could it be that because to some, big bang, abiogensis and evolution contradict specific dogma, while gravity doesn't? ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ This is my second foray into the UK writing discordia. This time around, I want to be a tad more raw - maybe a bit edgier (does that sound "art-see"?) Maybe I'll address even more issues that most Americans consider taboo... About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
