« Is Van Hilleary a crackhead? | Main | Bonus Mid-Week Friday Creature! »
August 02, 2005
Boneheaded Design
Just when you think he can't score any higher in the Dimwitted Olympics, Bush outdoes himself. The news so far this week has been pretty dismal. Bush's weasely recess appointment of the clearly unqualified Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations is yet more evidence that Dubya's professed ambition to be "a uniter, not a divider" was just more goebbelspeak. Then Bush said he's got "complete confidence" in a man who admits he's a leaker, a man Shrub's father says is "the most insidious of traitors" (and btw, Douchebag of Liberty Robert Novak is now whining about being a victim). If that's not enough, Bush has also come out and proclaimed that he doesn't think America's kids are stupid enough yet and wants Intelligent Design taught in our schools.
As soon as I saw that little news tidbit in my inbox this morning, I knew my first stop in the blogosphere today would have to be pharyngula.org, and as usual, PZ does not disappoint.
Scientists have established the fact of evolution with thousands of lines of evidence and the work of hundreds of thousands of researchers. This idea is based on material evidence and repeated experiment, extensively documented in the scientific literature.
This evidence flatly contradicts literal religious accounts. Religious conservatives have mounted a long running social and political campaign to get their falsified dogma treated as the truth, despite the absence of any material or logical support for their position.
This debate is not about assessing the evidence, but about getting faith-based bullshit taught as science.
And that is what should be taught: teachers, we need to get in front of our students and expose them to both sides. We need to stand up and plainly state that creationism is a lie and any attempt to incorporate faith and the supernatural into science is as destructive to the enterprise as would be requiring religion to provide concrete, repeatable tests of their beliefs.
That's the only rational version of "equal time" that will work.
If Christians really care about sharing their faith with students, surely even the most obtuse amonst them realize that the least likely way to get it done properly would be to force science teachers into the job. The idea is just as asinine as if we tried to force preachers to prepare sermons on self-assembly of colloids or molecular genetics -- it's just not going to get done the way you think it should be. And it's hard enough to cover all the science topics to which our kids need exposure without watering down their curriculum with sub-pseudo-science topics that belong in the Sunday School classroom, not a science lab. Sheesh.
Posted by alice at August 2, 2005 12:12 PM
Comments
I'm no scientist, but what's this about "repeated experiment"? if someone has repeated the feat of creating a living creature from non-living stuff, I'd like to read about it. seems like that step might take a leap of faith?
it sure seems that some evolution proponents have a religious faith in and fervor for their particular beliefs. shouting "what you believe is bullshit!" isnt going to get anyone anywhere. what happened to tolerance?
Posted by: bobw at August 2, 2005 01:03 PM
Bobw, there is no such thing as 'tolerance' in how the world thinks of it. People who are 'tolerant' are only tolerant of those whom they accept and often exclude those who they see as 'untolerant' and in doing so become 'intolerant' of the intolerant themselves.
Intolerance doesn't make sense by the definition of accepting everybody's belief because you can't be tolerant if you are untolerant of the view which is 'untolerant'.
Creationists have little to fear from evolutionists because science will not prove either one right or wrong. There will always be a religious element behind both that will drive which way you go. Proving one or the other still won't change people's mind.
Posted by: andyp at August 2, 2005 01:35 PM
Bob, the repeated experiments refer to the science of evolution, which provides volumes of literature to back up the theories. Creation is purely faith-based, with foundation in the Bible rather than science. So, whatever you may think of the theory of Intelligent Design, the idea of forcing it into the science classroom is absurd. As PZ demonstrates, to force scientists to deal with creation in their classroom is just begging for the theory to be ridiculed and belittled. So, why do Christians want that? Wouldn't creation be better off staying in churches and Sunday schools, where it is not likely to be mocked?
Posted by: alice at August 2, 2005 02:04 PM
it seems like all those experiments have yet to explain how life started? we've got lots of evidence about natural selection (like gypsy moths changing color when their trees all turned black), and that's helpful in explaining certain things, but not the crux of the matter: from whence did life come?
that's the thing: it's NOT purely science NOR purely faith. both sides have both. sure seems like the general debate would progress better once we all acknowledge that.
do you not see that you insult all stripes of creationists when you say their theories and research have no basis in science whatsoever? there are some rather smart folks out there who happen to disagree with other smart folks.
again, I'm no scientist, but I'd like to see a little humility from the evolutionists at large, instead of presenting their theories as unassailable facts. presenting only one side of a controversial subject seems like a disservice to the public. if you were on the other side, I'm sure you'd agree? it's a cultural and political battle that seems to be spiraling beyond good sense and civility.
you dont think creationism isnt already mocked in certain classrooms? seems like all the creationists want is a fair treatment of their perspective, not for the whole world to agree with them?
and please dont relegate me to the sunday school room. I cant disconnect my heart and my mind. you can disagree, but can you not grant that, from my perspective, creationism makes pretty good sense. and even though I think getting life from non-life doesnt make much sense to me, I'll grant that somehow from your perspective it somehow does make sense.
Posted by: bobw at August 2, 2005 02:48 PM
I recommend reading up on Dr. Kurt Wise sometime if you want to see someone who truly uses science and believes in the six day creation. Realize that this guy has his PhD in palaeontology from Harvard under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. (If you do not know who that is you really have no right to be in the debate on teaching evolution.)
I do personally think that science needs to be taught in science class. But saying that the Theory of Creation only has faith supporting it shows that you have not even attempted to learn about the subject.
Posted by: Ben at August 2, 2005 03:23 PM
Most evolutionists I know don't claim that they can answer all of life's questions and allow that their theories do not contradict the possiblity of a God. Natural selection could have been designed by God. Or, natural selection could have occurred even if God does not exist. But Intelligent Design insists that evolution could have only occurred at the hand of God, and in fact, many of its defenders claim that Intelligent Design is proof that God exists, which is simply not the case. The teaching of evolution allows for the possibility of the discussion of Intelligent Design by those who are so inclined, but to insist that Intelligent Design be taught as part of the curriculum alongside evolution elevates it to the level of science, which is not appropriate since it lacks even basic scientifc rigor. Further, current political opportunists give the impression that they've see this debate as a backdoor way to get the Bible into the classroom, and the Bible simply does not belong there. Our schools are burdened enough as it is, without adding the teaching of religious doctrine into the mix. And if we DO open that door, where do we then draw the line?
As for Dr. Wise, he himself admits that in a contest between Scripture and Science, he would deny the evidence:
. . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.
http://www.newleafpress.net/details/InSixGeo2.htm
Posted by: alice at August 2, 2005 05:48 PM
The world and media at large have too much faith in science. Talk to any scientist and he will tell you there are very few statements he can make that are 100% right. We are guessing as best we can with the evidence we have. Evolutionists are always reworking their theories based on new evidence, whereas Creationists have always had the same theory and are rarely surprised by new evidence (fossils, uncovered cities) because it fits right in line.
I'm not opposed to evolution in some sense with a Designer behind it, but otherwise it is man trying to do away with God. Belief in no God is just as much religioun as a belief in God because both affect everything you do and require constant validating.
Posted by: andyp at August 2, 2005 06:04 PM
A defender of creation accusing people of having too much faith in science? Are you being intentionally ironic?
And as I said above, no legitimate scientist that I know of claims that science has all the answers. And technically, I don't have to have ANY faith in science. Since it is based on observable and repeatable events, I could, given the appropriate resources, produce the evidence for myself.
As you say, we do the best we can with the evidence we have, but you then, in the same breath, say that you only believe in evolution if there is a designer behind it -- for which there is abolutely no evidence.
Of these theories, the one that is exclusionary is clearly Intelligent Design. Evolution does not exclude the possibility of a creator, and if one wishes to explain the ultimate point of origin with Intelligent Design, that is fine. But Intelligent Design insists that there is just one reason for evolution (a creator) which just isn't true -- there are other possibilities.
And no, science isn't about doing away with God, it's about explaining (what may or may not be God's) creation. But accomodating the possibility of a God and being a slave to Christian dogma are two very different things.
Posted by: alice at August 2, 2005 11:14 PM
When I was in Catholic school, I was taught the theory of evolution by my science teacher. A nun taught me in religion class that Christians could choose to believe that God created evolution.
Posted by: Nautimous at August 2, 2005 11:46 PM
Alice, if most of those teaching evolution in the classroom had a hint of the humility and tact that you are showing we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
As one who is both a follower of Christian teachings and one who was a one time heading toward a career in biology, I've sat under many many biology teachers/professors. Not one of them approached origin theories with much humility. While many of these people where great teachers, and many of them humble on many other fronts, when the subject of the origin of the human species came to be discussed you would have thought we were reading a Holy Writ. The treatment of this subject was wholly non-scientific and was more akin to a Catechism class than an exercise in empirical thought or a rational evaluation of proposed theories.
Now while I am tempted to dredge up many anecdotal stories, creating straw men all the while, I realize that I’d rather just have a level-headed treatment of the topic. Realizing that there are both stupid and irrational people teaching biology and Sunday school, I will not look to see this behavior occurring any time soon.
Posted by: StelmoDad at August 3, 2005 12:21 AM
Do all scientists agree on all the details that drive evolution? Of course not. But the scientific method allows for the continual improvement of understanding through the acquisition of knowledge. Debate and disagreement are an integral part of the scientific process. The need to resolve these conflicts guides the process of inquiry.
Religion requires that faith in the absolute accuracy of its story be maintained in the face of contradictory evidence. Throughout the history of scientific inquiry, religion has always stood just past the limit of current knowledge and proclaimed that here lies God.
Is Intelligent Design capable of withstanding the process of scientific inquiry? How does the theory of ID explain the inherent logical flaw: If life could only exist because some intelligent force had the power to drive or direct the forces of evolution, what power created this Designer? Where is the logic in believing that this entity could spontaneously assemble, but life on Earth could not? Intelligent design is not logic; it is faith.
Religion is based on faith in a predetermined outcome; science is the statement of humanity’s current knowledge assimilated by application of the scientific method. They are incompatible.
Posted by: Michael at August 3, 2005 03:26 AM
andyp:
You said, "Evolutionists are always reworking their theories based on new evidence, whereas Creationists have always had the same theory" - this is precisely why evolution is science and creationism is religion - because evolution corrects its errors, with new evidence as a guide. Creationism "reinterprets" the evidence to fit the predetermined outcome - and yes - quite a bit of "reinterpretation" is required, because the evidence doesn't just automatically line up with the creationist beliefs.
bobw:
I don't see why humility of scientists and science teachers is so all-fired important. It just so happens that my own h.s. biology teacher (Jack Leather) was quite humble and good natured. Who do you have in mind when you talk about arrogance in the science classroom? Besides, Einstein was generally pretty humble, but where the heck do we get off saying, "well relativity would make more sense if Einstein had been a little more humble"? It either makes sense with the available evidence or it doesn't. It's either been tested thoroughly and successfully, or it hasn't. In the case of evolution - and I understand this isn't common knowledge, because there are propaganda professionals doing their best to take advantage of the complexities and difficulty of the subject to misinform the public on this matter - in the case of evolution, the evidence is overwhelming, and the testing has been more than thorough.
Posted by: smijer at August 3, 2005 07:38 AM
science can't tell you why it matters, or what we should or shouldn't do, or for that matter why we shouldn't kill or murder or enslave. In fact, looking at "nature", one might think we should do the exact opposite.
My point is that experientially, in the way we live our lives, science is a woefully incomplete "thing" and only tells part of the story of existence, and most certainly shouldn't play the leader.
Posted by: JosiahQ at August 3, 2005 07:43 AM
Alice, I agree with Dave in appreciating your kindness in this discussion. thanks. compared to some of PZs original quote (which I took as typical), it's especially nice.
but it seems some of us will have to disagree on the nature of the relationship of faith and science, which I think are not only compatable, but interlocking, if you will. but surely this would be best discussed over coffee or beer.
I find a little humilty important for lots of reasons. but for brevity, I think Josiah put it pretty well.
Posted by: bobw at August 3, 2005 09:33 AM
But Josiah, no one is arguing that you should live your life according to science, but rather what should be taught in a science classroom.
Posted by: Nautimous at August 3, 2005 10:02 AM
And what I'm saying is that science is woefully incomplete, and its radically unhealthy to think that "science" can (or should) be isolated from "values" or "religion" or whatever. If we're all just upfront that say...the liberal democrat (and I don't mean that derogatorily) is coming to this discussions with a set of values and assumptions that are informing their view of "science" as it should be taught in the classroom, we'll all be a little less vehement towards the "right" as they come to the discussion with a set of values and assumptions informing their view of "science".
My personal feelings on the whole thing is that folks outta be able to teach all sorts of "origin of life" things, and its up to the teacher to bias it however he wants, 'cause, you know, they will anyways. So if you've got a hard-core evolutionist as your kids science teacher and you dont' like it, tough luck, go to another school. If you've got a Christian intelligent design fan and you don't like it, tough luck, go to another school.
If they should be held accountable for anything it'd be "teaching the basics" (which is many things before you have to get into creation/origin of the world accounts) and being fair to other perspectives. It's a tall order, but the most honest and just one in my opinion.
Posted by: JosiahQ at August 3, 2005 10:14 AM
Good to see you, smij -- I figured you'd wind your way through here at some point...
Well put, Michael! Faith is faith and science is science. Period. You just can't dress up one and call it the other.
St.Elmo Dad, thank you for the kind words -- and I think you and bobw are both right that these discussions could certainly use a bit more civility -- especially from people on the fringes (and bobw, I'm definitely with you when it comes to the beer!)
Josiah, religion also can't necessarily tell you "why it matters, or what we should or shouldn't do, or for that matter why we shouldn't kill or murder or enslave." You may find those particular answers in your religion, but others may find them elsewhere -- sometimes in places that have nothing to do with religion.
Posted by: alice at August 3, 2005 10:59 AM
1) JoshuaQ and bobw in rebuttal of your position that religion must be intertwined with science:
Society’s values, whether or not founded on religious belief, rightfully prevent human experimentation and other unacceptable methods of research; however these values must not predetermine the outcome of the research.
2) JoshuaQ in regards to your belief that only religion can describe the moral a framework preventing murder and other immoral behavior:
Worldwide current events show that individuals find religious foundation for terrorist actions resulting in mass murder and destruction.
Evolutionary science is not blinded to social regulation, the benefits of social behavior to both the individual and the species has been studied. All social animals have rules regulating the behavior of the individuals within the group and between different groups. Mankind’s laws regulating murder, theft, and other undesirable behaviors are a natural evolution of the dynamics of social animals. These laws function to ensure the maximum odds of survival and reproduction of the society’s members. It is in the best interest of our species to enforce the rules regulating individual social behavior.
One does not need divinity’s threat of eternal damnation to enforce moral behavior; evolution found the benefit of cooperation and altruism and used it to develop new and successful social species, including mankind.
However, neither of your arguments, even if true, justifies moving discussion of religious dogma out of the social sciences and into the natural sciences.
Posted by: Michael at August 3, 2005 12:27 PM
Michael, it is my contention that societies values, to one extent or another, isreligion. And while science can describe things like "social benefits" and "behavior that best maximizes the odds of survival and reproduction", there's no "ought" in those factual descriptions. And what we'd really like to be able to say is that we "ought" not to teach religion in schools, right? Unfortunately you can't get that assertion from science.
Because I'm not looking to justify moving religion into the natural sciences, what I'm saying is that you have no grounds to tell anyone they can't. You need something (aka some value system) outside of science to do so.
Given that, why don't we all just play nice?
Posted by: JosiahQ at August 3, 2005 01:04 PM
"Faith is faith and science is science. Period."
You all should check out Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Posted by: nick at August 3, 2005 04:22 PM
Josiah -- I'm not sure if I'm parsing what you're trying to say properly, but I think you're claiming that science has (or claims) no moral authority -- while science has the facts and figures, when it comes to stepping into the realm of moral judgements -- the "oughts" -- a scientist has to step out of his field in order to have a foundation from which to address an issue. IOW, science has no ability to inform one's moral choices.
You may or may not be right about that, but I would submit that there is no ultimate source for moral authority anyway. Law and religion -- the two most commonly cited references -- clearly don't come close enough to provide any kind of absolute authority (all of us at times ignore both laws and scriptural prescriptions, and most of us manage to do so without suffering from moral failure). Ultimately, with or without either science or religion, we each must construct our own moral compass. Many people manage to do so without the threat of afterlife judgements or promises of afterlife rewards, but somehow still arrive at places that conform to society's standards.
Perhaps we're having a language problem here, though, since you also seem to claim that science has no value system, which is clearly not the case. So, if by "value system", you weren't actually referring to moral authority, then I don't think I understand your point...
(Your comment that "societ[y's] values, to one extent or another, is religion" is a whole other can of worms that I don't want to open here beyond pointing out that it's a chicken and egg question that fails to acknowledge that before judeo-christian traditions came to dominate our culture, society still had a moral framework that bore some resemblance to the one we work from today. Just because a religion at one time co-opted some already-existing basic moral values does not mean that religion can claim to have originated those values.)
Posted by: alice at August 3, 2005 09:50 PM
Hey Alice,
What I'm saying is that science can't/doesn't generate morals, nor can it justify its own existence, nor can it speak to its own value. It's kinda like a machine.
And even then, you can't divorce the human element from the whole thing. There's people, scientists, looking at the world, using tools, and saying "this is happening".
But since you think there's no ultimate source for moral authority, and that we're all constructing our own moral compass, what's wrong with folks teaching intelligent design?
Morality and values are closely related (to me), as in, morality and values are about "What matters" and "what matters" often implies "what we should do". And I am saying that science, in those sense, does not have and can't get morality or values. To get those from science you have to introduce something outside of science into the discussion.
I also agree with your final paragraph. A religion needs to have something outside of itself to justify itself. Christians claim that thing "outside" of their Religion is a God who became Man (i.e. Jesus) and "entered into" creation and then gave us His Word (i.e. THe Bible) and left us with a guide (i.e. The Holy Spirit). I'm not saying that IS the answer to the delimma you put forth in your final paragraph (although as you and I both know I actually DO think it is), I'm just saying in terms of this discussion it is the Christian answer to that problem of justification of a religion external that religion.
of course, there's the whole debate over whether or not it is truly external, or just part of that particular religion's dogma.
Posted by: JosiahQ at August 3, 2005 10:53 PM
I suppose I might agree that origin theories as proposed from scripture should be left out of the biology classroom, but as an armchair scientist, I would argue that perhaps all origin theories be left out of the biology classroom.
History, literature, biology, theology, sociology, philosophy all touch our “humanness.” When was the biology classroom awarded the sole right to not only discuss, but declare judgment on the “where did we come from” questions. Just because I am made of cells, have DNA and chemical processes within me do biologists, geneticists and chemists now have sole jurisdiction discussing my humanity? If they have the final say on how or why I exist, do they have the final say on how I should then live this life? Since science barely understands the virus; can it not have a bit more humility when approaching the topic of the origin of life itself?
I’ll concur that good food and ale are more in order as a medium for this conversation than this flickering monitor. Take care all, thanks for getting me to think more on this topic.
Posted by: StelmoDad at August 3, 2005 11:40 PM
JQ -- I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching Intelligent Design (nor do I think that science is necessarily any kind of be-all-and-end-all). As I've said before, I think the teaching of evolution can naturally lead into a discussion of ID. I do have a problem with people who insist that ID be taught in our schools (or that it qualifies as science), and especially with those people who put forward the claim that the teaching of evolution is somehow inherently exclusionary, when in fact it is ID that qualifies as such. Evolution does not exclude the possibility of a creator, and if one wishes to explain the ultimate point of origin with Intelligent Design, they are free to do so, and would not be contradicted by any existing scientific evidence that I'm aware of. But Intelligent Design insists that there could only be one possible reason for evolution (a creator), which just isn't true.
I'll look forward to picking up the thread you laid down to conclude your comment some time soon...
[Just in case this line of discussion is winding down, let me say quickly that I've enjoyed the discussion and appreciate the patience, respect and civility everyone has shown for each other.]
Posted by: alice at August 3, 2005 11:58 PM
StelmoDad -- I absolutely agree that the question of origination is a cross-curriculum issue, certainly worthy of exploration in a variety of contexts. I hope we have the opportunity at some point to continue this and other discussions over some nourishment and tasty beverages...
Sláinte!
Posted by: alice at August 4, 2005 12:04 AM