Intelligent Design: Tried and convicted

Thanks for the link to the PBS show. I'm married and have three kids; consequently, I get to watch maybe 2-3 hours of television per week, and a lot of what I would really like to watch is not what others want to watch. So now I'll get to look this up and watch it online sometime.

And be prepared for the deluge of IDers and creationists going "ID is too science!" I think you can refer them all to your "No right to an opinion" entry.

Just some food for thought (probably already mentioned elsewhere on the Intarweb...)

Who's to say that "Evolution" isn't "Intelligent Design"?

Is it really so hard to view the Creation story as "parable"? If the beginning of the Universe were "divinely presented" to some proto-storyteller, could it not appear to take a few days, in the same basic order as the Creation story? ("Adam up from the dust" = standing on two legs instead of 4, etc.)

And suppose "evolution" is some "designer's" version of "wind it up and let it go". Just because a miracle can be scientifically explained, does that make it any less a miracle?

I guess I'm not sure why scientific explanation and divine/supernatural involvement have to be so mutually exclusive.

(I'm neither a biological scientist nor a theologian, so some of my assumptions may be off. If so, my bad. I'm simply someone that fully believes in the Theory of Evolution and science in general, but also considers himself (at least nominally) to be a Christian.)

...and ramble over.

Jim, I agree completely with a lot of your arguments, and I appreciate the internal quote from Paul Nelson. When the ID community can actually come up with something resembling a proper theory, the scientific community will be more than happy to test it. If it actually passes, it would be accepted as a true scientific theory. If it doesn't (or can't be tested, like it stands currently), then it doesn't belong.

Doonesbury's take on intelligent design...

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2005/db051218.gif

Dr. Scott claims that the problem with ID is that its argument is essentially negative in its form. There is ambiguity in this claim. Is Dr. Scott claiming that all negative arguments are weak, or even invalid? Does she mean that any argument with a negative claim in one of its premises is a bad argument? Consider the following argument:

1. Evolution provides a successful account of the existence of life an earth, or Intelligent Design provides a successful account of the existence of life an earth (or both, for this is an inclusive "or").
2. Evolution does not provide a successful account of the existence of life an earth.
__________________________________________________
3. Therefore, Intelligent Design provides a successful account of the existence of life an earth.

Now this argument is valid (via disjunctive syllogism); it is impossible for its premises to be true while the conclusion is false. One may object that (1) and/or (2) is false, and that is fine (they may very well be). But with respect to validity, this is a great argument, despite the fact that (2) is a negative claim.

Finally, the question concerning what should be properly termed as "science" or what the necessary and sufficient conditions are for being "scientific" is not a matter of science; it is a matter of philosophy. Philosophers of science are the only experts that should properly be appealed to when defending a claim concerning what science exactly is. An example of this confusion: if one investigates the reasoning of Richard Dawkins in his books and essays, it is quite easy for one to see that Dawkins is simply a horrible philosopher and logician. (see Alvin Plantinga's essay, "The Dawkins Confusion" at http://www.ctlibrary.com/bc/2007/marapr/1.21.html Plantinga also has a terrific essay on the epistemological incoherence of evolution and naturalism, but that is for another post.)

JE: I think the important distinction to make is that in the case of a scientific theory, there are practical and empirical matters to be considered, which Dr. Scott raises in her questions: What does it tell you about nature? What testable predictions can you make based on it? These are scientific rather than philosophical questions. Intelligent Design has no scientific benefits or implications (you won't be developing a vaccine based on what you learn from it, for example) because it essentially says: "Evolution works, except in places where there are gaps in our knowledge or where the evidence contradicts creationism. In those places we insert the existence of an Intelligent Designer." That's not a scientific theory. From the trial doc:

Robert Eshbach: To say [evolution is] just a theory is really a bit insulting to science because in science, a theory holds more weight than just a fact does.

Kevin Padian: And here I think the term "theory" needs to be looked at the way scientists consider it. A theory is not just something that we think of in the middle of the night after too much coffee and not enough sleep. That's an idea. A theory, in science, means a large body of information that's withstood a lot of testing. It probably consists of a number of different hypotheses and many different lines of evidence. Gravitation is a theory that's unlikely to be falsified, even if we saw something fall up. It might make us wonder, but we'd try to figure out what was happening rather than immediately just dismiss gravitation. [...]

Facts are just the minutiae of science. By themselves, they can be right or wrong. But a theory is something that has been tested and tested over and over again, built on, revised. It continues to be reworked and revised.

Jim,

Thank you for your reply and clarification! Perhaps ID is not a scientific theory at all (as it stands right now) but simply philosophical polemic that finds the explanations of evolution unsatisfying/incomplete. If this is the case, then proponents of ID need to reformulate how to present the theory of ID--not as a positive scientific theory but as a philosophical critique. If so, then ID will not be taught in high schools, not because of any religious controversy, but for the same reason why Kant, Aristotle, and Hegel are not taught in schools.

However, the general scientific community uses, to its chagrin, terminology and phrases that properly belong to philosophy/metaphysics, not to science. When scientists speak about the "proper function" of artifacts (such as hearts, brains, and large cats) or the "purpose" of objects, they have moved from the realm of empirical research to teleology (a branch of metaphysics). This is not a bad thing in the least, but it simply shows scientists too employ non-scientific terminology. As J.B.S. Haldane rightly said, "...teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he can't live without her, but he is unwilling to be seen with her in public."

JE: You've hit the nail on the head there: As a concept (as much a political one as a religious one) ID would not exist if it weren't for its former creationist proponents' desire to have it taught alongside evolution in public high school classes. That is the goal of ID -- not to further scientific knowledge or discovery. I think of it as one of those redundant drugs that pharmaceutical companies keep trying to foist on the public in order to increase their market share: It is essentially the same stuff that's already available (creationism, with some evolution thrown in), with an added ingredient so that they can sell it under a new name. The FDA is supposed to keep such adulterated copycat drugs off the market. Personally, I would love to see ID and its history taught in classes about comparative religion, constitutional law, philosophy -- perhaps even psychology or sociology. But it doesn't belong in a science class any more than it belongs in a driver's ed class.

Well, now I gotta ask. Out of curiosity, Jim, what's your sign?

JE: My sign is a red neon one that says: EAT.

Oh I see! The only sign that can be more attention grabbing than an alien monolith. Should have known.

But I thought you were gonna say, "What sign do I seem like?" To which I would've replied, "I don't know... You could be any of them I guess." To which you could have replied, "Any other theories you need debunked?"

Everybody's cashing in on Darwin's birthday today. Heh.

I want to know what you think of this article:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/room-for-debate/2009/2/12/darwin-believers-hide-fears-of-intelligent-design-behind-a-wall-of-denial-and-ridicule.html

"People who have the evidence on their side don't behave like this. Science and education are suffering because Darwinists are using bluffs about the evidence, fear-mongering about religion, and discrimination against minority viewpoints to stifle the debate over evolution."

I don't believe in evolutionary gradualism as a historical paradigm, because I don't see any empirical evidence for a genetic mechanism that actually accomplishes what's required for genetic variation. To create more complex organisms over thousands of generations, at some point there have to be small yet tangible additions of novel genetic material (not just over-copying existing sequences) that increase the structural complexity of an organism by adding parts that could become new organ systems or by adding novel elements to existing organ systems. Of course, this phenomenon has never once been observed, despite our ability to observe life at the smallest details. If some strains of bacteria can multiply at a rate of one generation every 20 minutes (that's about 26,000 generations a year), why haven't we seen any additive genetic variations in these bacteria?

There is a definite lack of empirical support for evolutionary gradualism as a historical paradigm, yet the most even-handed way you can look at the arguments of ID'ers like Behe is to trot out a red herring like his astrology comment. There's a reason this issue won't go away, and it's the intellectually dishonesty with which you and pundits like you continue to handle this debate, and I feel that Luskin's article really drives that point home.

JE: Here's what I think: Science is not validated or invalidated because of somebody's rudeness. Skepticism is essential to science, and critique and revision of evolution should be, and always have been, relentless. ID expresses skepticism of evolution, but offers no empirically testable theory to compete with it. (You're right about "junk DNA" -- it's an outdated term, coined in 1972 and not much used anymore because functions have indeed been found for much of the code that was previously dismissed as useless. That's progress!) As a layman, I don't have the answers to your particular questions about genetic changes in bacteria, but mutation is a fairly basic and well-demonstrated process in evolution. If ID has produced experimental results that contradict mainstream science, then those results should be pursued, replicated and built upon until they are impossible to ignore. The Internet provides a means for publishing detailed studies and their results globally, bypassing establishment gatekeepers altogether, so that anyone in the world has the opportunity to access, analyze, confirm and further expand upon the new insights they have to offer. Surely there is no lack of funding available for research, given how much money is available for publicity and support through sponsors like the Discovery Institute. Religious organizations alone are among the largest, richest, most influential charities in the world, and many of them would be delighted to help overthrow what they call "Darwinism." And talk about "cashing in" -- can you imagine how lucrative a scientific alternative to evolution could be, if it proves to be even a fraction as viable a means for scientific discovery and advancement across many fields as evolution has been? So, let's see the research.

Travis Gilmore says:
Now this argument is valid (via disjunctive syllogism); it is impossible for its premises to be true while the conclusion is false. One may object that (1) and/or (2) is false, and that is fine (they may very well be). But with respect to validity, this is a great argument, despite the fact that (2) is a negative claim.

The problem is the first premise isn't merely false in this instance, but isn't even allowed in scientific contexts. It assumes that you can know that there are only two possible theories; of course, there are an unlimited number of possible theories. So, the syllogism you present is not valid within the accepted rules of science, even if the formal logic of the argument is valid.

Ezra--

The entirety of our genetic code is written with only four nucleic acids. Those can get repeated, mixed up, jumbled, chopped and fused during mutation, and over time virtually anything can come from them. The idea that genetics have no mechanism by which new genetic material can be produced is flatly false. And the empirical evidence for gradually evolution over time is extremely strong. The fact is, we've actually watched it happen in a lab, and then reproduced it.

Michael Behe said the following last month on his blog on Amazon.com:

"Intelligent design is wholly compatible with common descent — including descent by gene duplication/rearrangement. Rather, ID argues against the Darwinian claim that complex, functional molecular systems could be built by a random, unguided process."

It's that simple. It shocks me how so many people including scientists seem to be intent on declaring that I.D. proponents are the equivalent of religious nutcases who merely made up a theory that fit their cause of creationism as closely as possible. Behe himself believed in evolution without question until reading a book that pointed out the flaws in the theory. His own research as a biochemist seemed to point to the idea of systems being so complex as to seem to have been designed. Religions had no place in his calculations.

Why couldn't I.D. be considered a legitimate scientific theory? Recall this from high school: what is the scientific method by which theories are tested? You observe, hypothesize, experiment, and conclude. I.D. theory can fit that criteria. The notion of "irreducible complexity" (as Behe coined it) can be studied by biochemists, since they can test whether biological systems need all of their components to function. Conclusions can be drawn from the results of these experiments. What is the big deal here?

It seems to be that many of those in favor of evolution are trying to discredit I.D. proponents by trying to equate them with Creationists. I wonder why this is. Do such people feel threatened? What is at stake for them? Shouldn't they follow the evidence wherever it leads? In short: are these arguments truly about keeping "religion" out of science, or is there a war of philosophies going on here?

JE: They absolutely should be encouraged to follow their experiments wherever they lead. And if they can develop a coherent body of evidence that operates as a scientific theory in conjunction with, or as an alternative to, evolution, then they will have discovered something that may qualify (if it can be replicated) for teaching in science classes. So far that hasn't happened. Skepticism is a natural condition of science, but pointing out gaps in evolutionary theory does not constitute a theory in itself ("theory" being defined in science as an array of demonstrable facts that are not only repeatable but that allow one to make testable predictions about the behavior of nature). Watch that NOVA doc if you want to see how Creationists simply substituted the term "ID" for "Creationism" in text books after the 1987 Supreme Court decision, without any attempt at doing scientific work or constructing a theory from evidence. The skepticism about ID as Creationism in scientific clothing comes from the way the terms were strategically swapped virtually overnight in 1987. If the ID movement would spend as much money on actual research as they do on efforts to teach their philosophy to school children, maybe they would increase the odds that they would come up with something scientifically useful. If they did THAT, they'd stand a better chance of having something worth teaching.

I don't know we even bother wasting our time talking about this and writing about it. It's akin to arguing with Holocaust deniers. It's just a pointless waste of time discussing it.

The guy who said that there's nothing in science to explain how new material can come about -- he's just out to lunch. Stephen explained it succinctly so I won't bother. Really, it's no use explaining it at all. There are people who just need to be delusional about it. It makes them feel better. I actually understand the attraction of that - but can't bring myself to succumb to it.

I'd believe astrology has merit before ID.

Ezra,
Why isn't over-copying existing sequences a valid way of adding material? You have two copies of something, so one is free to change without hurting the organism. A good empirical example is nylonase. This is a protein that breaks down nylon, which of course did not exist in nature until a few decades ago. Not only is nylonase now found in two types of bacteria, but it appears to have evolved twice independently (that is, the two versions are completely different).

Lea S.--

The reason proponents of Intelligent Design are conflated with creationists is because the arguments for Intelligent Design are not based on science. The "irreducible complexity" argument that Behe and others profess has virtually no support from scientists because it's contradicted by the evidence. Behe himself, in his Dover testimony, admitted that the plausibility of Intelligent Design arguments depends on the extent to which you believe in God! Not only does that make it an inherently religious concept, but it's totally unscientific--if your theory relies on a premise which isn't supported by science, your theory is *not supported by science.*

Behe may be right that Intelligent Design arguments need not be mutually exclusive to some aspects of evolutionary theory, but that doesn't mean that Intelligent Design is science. It's not.

"Rather, ID argues against the Darwinian claim that complex, functional molecular systems could be built by a random, unguided process."

This is a very common misinterpretation of the theory of evolution. Randomness plays a very small role in evolution. The major process by which evolution occurs is natural selection, which is anything but random.

"Recall this from high school: what is the scientific method by which theories are tested? You observe, hypothesize, experiment, and conclude. I.D. theory can fit that criteria."

Actually, it can't because I.D. cannot produce a testable hypothesis.

Hi, Lea S. and Jim
By Lea S. on February 14, 2009 9:40 AM
Michael Behe said the following last month on his blog on Amazon.com:

"Intelligent design is wholly compatible with common descent — including descent by gene duplication/rearrangement. Rather, ID argues against the Darwinian claim that complex, functional molecular systems could be built by a random, unguided process."

It's that simple. It shocks me how so many people including scientists seem to be intent on declaring that I.D. proponents are the equivalent of religious nutcases who merely made up a theory that fit their cause of creationism as closely as possible...The notion of "irreducible complexity" (as Behe coined it) can be studied by biochemists, since they can test whether biological systems need all of their components to function. Conclusions can be drawn from the results of these experiments. What is the big deal here?

It seems to be that many of those in favor of evolution are trying to discredit I.D. proponents by trying to equate them with Creationists. I wonder why this is. Do such people feel threatened? What is at stake for them? Shouldn't they follow the evidence wherever it leads? In short: are these arguments truly about keeping "religion" out of science, or is there a war of philosophies going on here?

JE: They absolutely should be encouraged to follow their experiments wherever they lead. And if they can develop a coherent body of evidence that operates as a scientific theory in conjunction with, or as an alternative to, evolution, then they will have discovered something that may qualify (if it can be replicated) for teaching in science classes. So far that hasn't happened...If the ID movement would spend as much money on actual research as they do on efforts to teach their philosophy to school children, maybe they would increase the odds that they would come up with something scientifically useful. If they did THAT, they'd stand a better chance of having something worth teaching.

I'd like to kick my 2¢ worth in, if I may.

Lea, the major problem with irreducible complexity as an argument is: how do you measure it? To resolve the question scientifically, you have to be able to measure something and apply a quantity to it.

Yet for different people within the ID camp, irreducible complexity occurs at different thresholds. For some it is the structure of the eye; for others the structure of the feather; and for others a still simpler example. It ultimately comes down to opinion, and you can't measure that. So, while scientists may not have been able to demonstrate exactly how the eye or the feather evolved over time, they have some pretty good theories of this - but this isn't good enough for IDers. They want proof, certainty, and science just doesn't deal in that. Science deals in uncertainties, which scientists are always trying to reduce.

Jim, as for IDers trying to come up with something of scientific rigour, it's not going to happen. I realize that's one response to the ID supporters - do the science, and the scientific community will evaluate it. But it has already been done. The complete lack of attempts to do so is illustrative of how off-base ID is. With all the money religious organizations have had over the years to throw at the question (far more than universities have to research evolution), if there was valid science to be done in the field of ID, it would be getting done. It isn't. Given how long they've been trying to come up with something scientifically valid and failing, we have to assume now that there's nothing there worth working on - just as was done phlogistons, phrenology, cold fusion, and so on.

Yes, Lea, there is a war of philosophies going on. Science is unbiased - in its idealized form. To be sure, there are biased scientists, arrogant scientists, iconclastic scientists who favour wacky theories - because scientists are human beings subject to human nature.

But the scientific method itself is impartial, and appeals only to the evidence that we can see, measure and test. ID is trying to introduce the a priori conclusion that there is something we can't see, measure or test that influenced our evolution. By definition, that's not science because it builds the conclusion into its first principles.

The war being fought is for science to preserve its impartiality, to not have to accept the a priori conclusion of any group, be it religious or otherwise. Does it always function this way? No, of course not, because science is an activity run by humans. But the ideal is there, and we must preserve it - otherwise we end up sending our science (and ourselves) down a lane where everything is inexplicable because a human authority decides it is so.

JE: Thanks, JMW. Yes, I was basically saying "Put up or shut up" -- but that's not going to happen, either. ID is simply "evolution except for the parts we don't understand or don't like." It's not a theory; it's not even a coherent critique of another theory. It's a religious political strategy and that's all it's ever been.

"It's a religious political strategy and that's all it's ever been." - Jim Emerson, referring to ID.

I'm not here to defend ID. I'd agree with you, and others here, that ID is fundamentally a religious or philosophical issue. Despite it's history as an alternative to Creationism, I think it might be a bit overboard to claim that ID has only ever been a "religious political strategy". I say this because even as a religious/philosophical concept, it has to be allowed to cross paths with science at the appropriate times. This is the case with all disciplines. Cross pollination seems to help keep intellectual debates and conversations from becoming stagnant or isolated. If I say that religion cannot intersect with politics at all, then where is Martin Luther King Jr.?

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I think ID can be a viable belief as long as you have no delusions about your ability to prove it scientifically. If a scientist believes that the eye is simply too complex to have been made through natural selection alone, is it intellectually weak for him/her to think that an unidentified creator made it? Does this belief have to mean that he/she throws their hands up and stops all scientific research?

ID shouldn't be taught at your local high school biology class. The only place, at a public level, where it could be taught (as Travis Gilmore implies), is in a philosophy, religion, or philosophy of religion class. And how many high schools have those classes when funding for art and music classes is vanishing by the day?

I know that the scientific community is being diligent in the fight over ID for a number of reasons (chief among them is education), but I also think that the scientific community needs to find a way to bring some flexibility to this discussion. It's entirely unfair to ask colleagues to simply and completely set aside notions of other disciplines when writing papers. It's unavoidable that philosophy will creep into scientific work. Just as I believe that religious thought cannot completely shut out science in it's discussions.

JE: I'm referring to the spontaneous generation of ID to replace Creationism the moment the Supreme Court ruled that Creationism -- a religious origin story -- could not be taught as "science" in public schools in 1987. Suddenly the phrase "Intelligent Design" replaced "Creationism" in public statements and former "Creation Science" textbooks. ID adds nothing to scientific theory, because it's simply evolution + religion. The addition of religion doesn't result in a new body of evidence that scientists can test and build upon. Consequently, no new scientific discovery in any field has ever been based on ID.

JE says:
ID is simply "evolution except for the parts we don't understand or don't like."

The most concise - and essentially complete - summary of ID ever. Good job.

No one needs to read "Darwin's Black Box" now. Jim E's summary is pretty much all there is to it, despite the fancy-schmancy invented terminology from Behe.

everyone take a step back .. and think ..

the computer you are using to post your comments on, was it built and designed by someone? or did it put itself together?

computer = ????

science is dispassionate, objective and straightforward. leave emotion and beliefs out of it.

Sure since leaves emotion and beliefs out of it, but that's kinda where intelligent design comes in. Essentially, "God" created this dispassionate, objective and straightfoward science we're all debating to begin with. It's quite the catch 22, honestly.

Even though the court ruled against teaching ID in public school, the right wing culture warriors continue to exploit every loophole possible to introduce "alternative" science into the classroom and to remove evolution from school curriculum. In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal recently signed a bill into law which makes available "supplemental" eductional materials that dispute, among other things, the theory of evolution and scientific evidence for global warming. In other states, public funding for biological science is contingent on limiting or severely scaling back the teaching of evolution.

This, above all, is evidence that the ID movement is not simply a benign effort to encourage healthy scientific debate. It is more so a war on mainstream scientic theory and an effort to further blur the lines between theology and biology.

Ironically enough, Catholic schools actually have a more robust evolutionary science curriculum than most public schools. The Catholic Church, unlike the Evangelical church, maintains a completely neutral theological position on evolutionary science, and, thus, makes no regard to limit its teaching in parochial classrooms. And, because they don't rely on public funding, Catholic schools are exempt from the meddlings of theocratic interest groups.

If I could just highlight the second comment posted by Ed here.

Why can't Evolution be looked at as the creation of Intelligent Design.

I mean, this Intelligent Designer is obviously an artist of some type, and an artist knows that in order to make the art well, one must start from the bottom, and work their way up. So, the Intelligent Designer creates the Sponge, and gives the sponge the tools it needs to survive. From the sponge forms a Cnadarian, and so the cycle continues.

Evolution itself is sort of an act of adaptation, which requires a certain intelligence all by itself, right?

So, in the case of the Church, would melding the two theories together mean that the Church is surrendering their belief in order to compromise with scientific theory?

I don't see what there is to lose in saying that in order for Evolution to work, there has to be an intelligence driving it to adapt to the different climates that Earth has to offer.

Or did I just miss the entire thing, unknowing that the argument has already been made?

To me intelligent design has always been more of a belief than a theory. And arguing or debating beliefs is about as pointless and waste of time as anything I can think of. Whether or not we were created, or intelligently designed, rest on the fact of the existence of a crestor, which is a belief. I think some people find it hard say we weren't created or intelligently designed because that's basically saying that a creator doesn't exist. For those who believe in the existence of God it's usually a strongly held belief that they've for a while. Admitting otherwise is hard for them to do because most people hold some beliefs very close to their heart and their identities can be tied strongly to those beliefs.

I believe in the existence of some sort of higher power, or creator, but I don't deny evolution because of all the evidence or clues pointing to it. It is sort of a cop put but I don't think it's a huge leap to believe that we were created to evolve. I suppose it's possible for something to come from nothing, and the existence of this planet perfectly within this solar system within the universe could be coincidental, but I doubt it. I also doubt that Adam and Eve were the first two people on this planet, more of a story to explain human nature.

It looks like it comes down to one theory, (evolution), having a lot more evidence than the other, (ID). But in the end it's all a matter of beliefs and what theory we choose to ascribe to. I choose to believe that we were created and we also evolved. When you're dealing with beliefs, religious beliefs, beliefs about God, facts or evidence need not apply. Which is why people still believe in ID, creationism, God, etc. Believing in a higher power or creator can give people hope, maybe false hope, that they are unique, that if a higher power or creator exist than there must be a some meaning to life, to their lives. So denying ID, or God is for some admitting that life and their lives may be meaningless. Which is hard for some to do.

By Keeernin on February 19, 2009 7:07 PM
Why can't Evolution be looked at as the creation of Intelligent Design...So, in the case of the Church, would melding the two theories together mean that the Church is surrendering their belief in order to compromise with scientific theory? I don't see what there is to lose in saying that in order for Evolution to work, there has to be an intelligence driving it to adapt to the different climates that Earth has to offer.

Hi, Keeernin. I (ahem) believe it all comes down to an individual's view of god. If someone wants to believe in a god that is immaterial, cannot be detected by anything we can do or ever will do, and acted on evolution in a way that we will never detect......as far as I'm concerned, go ahead. It's never a question that can be proven by scientific methods anyway, and the belief in such a god accepts the observed facts and the theory of evolution that is based on those facts.

On the other hand, I think a poster to one of the entries on this subject on Roger Ebert's blog said that she was Catholic and could not accept such a god as it would be denying the Catholic church's tenet that god exists and acts in the universe in detectable ways. I'm not competent to argue her interpretation of Catholic dogma, but it seems to me that this conception of god would be testable, and every test we've done so far has failed to prove the existence of such a god. After the hundreds of years and thousands of tests, there's a point where humanity should stop beating its collective head against the wall and say, "THIS particular god does not exist."

By Rich on February 20, 2009 10:32 AM
To me intelligent design has always been more of a belief than a theory...I believe in the existence of some sort of higher power, or creator, but I don't deny evolution because of all the evidence or clues pointing to it. It is sort of a cop put but I don't think it's a huge leap to believe that we were created to evolve.

It looks like it comes down to one theory, (evolution), having a lot more evidence than the other, (ID). But in the end it's all a matter of beliefs and what theory we choose to ascribe to...So denying ID, or God is for some admitting that life and their lives may be meaningless. Which is hard for some to do.

Hi, Rich. I agree with you that ID is more belief than theory (in fact, completely so). Again, as I said to Keeernin, an immaterial god cannot be proven, and so is peripheral to the question of how we evolved. If you choose to believe in such a god, to me that's irrelevant and while you can't prove this god exists, neither can I prove this god doesn't. So to me the question is irrelevant to a scientific discussion.

Where I respectfully disagree with you is where you say "it's all a matter of beliefs and what theory we choose to ascribe to". "Belief" in the theory of evolution isn't like belief in Christianity - which is just a matter of accepting what some authority says is true, based on a book that was compiled 1600 years ago from oral tales that date from 2000-3000 years ago. "Belief" in evolution is accepting that thousands of scientists performed experiments, made observations - and all of these experiments and observations are observable, testable and repeatable - in other words, if you do the same experiments that evolutionary biologists do, with the same rigour, you'll get the same result.

You can't say the same thing about religion - otherwise, why is their judaism, islam, buddhism, sikhism, christianity? These are all different answers to the same set of questions.

Religion doesn't meet the criteria required to satisfy scientific inquiry. Those who choose to accept a religion literally and ignore the science, are ignoring reality.

And I think you're right, that some cling to ID and religion to give their lives meaning. I think that's unfortunate, because it's an indication that at least some of these people are incapable of deciding for themselves what gives their lives meaning. It's almost as if they've been kept in a state of emotional childhood, discouraged from growing and learning and making decisions on their own, and figuring out what to do with their lives by themselves.

After all, there's nothing that says that religion is the only acceptable source of meaning and morality.

Where I say that it's still up to the individual as to what beliefs they ascribe to I mean that given all the information on both sides of the argument, religion and science, ID or evolution, it's still up to the individual to choose which argument, or both, holds most weight. Even if someone were to believe wholeheartedly in evolution and believed beyond a shadow of a doubt we evolved, the question still remains as to why we evolved? Like Heidegger said "why are there beings at all instead of nothing?"

Science can answer the what, but not necessarily the why. Religion, or ID, attempts to answer the what and why, whether they are successful or not is obviously a matter of opinion, or beliefs. So the point is, ID is a choice in believing in the why more than the what, and choosing not to believe in ID, a choice for evolution is choosing to believe in what science has shown us, and realizing the why is not and may not be able to be answered.

Nietzsche felt freed after admitting that "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him". Marx said that "religion is the opiate of the masses". I can't disagree with either of them. But, for some people the why is more significant than the what. And for those people knowing that we evolved isn't as significant as trying to figure out why we evolved. And that search for some, (religion, spirituality), can give meaning to their lives.

I think that as people grow older and wiser and realize that not everything that were taught as children is the truth, they tend to overcompensate for that and overly criticize a lot of what they were taught were they were younger. It's part of human nature to feel unique and that the thoughts that we have are in some way original. So that when we realize we can question what we've previously been taught we do so because in a way being overly critical equals intelligence or wisdom to us.

The belief in God, that at one point we would never question, all of a sudden is questioned, not necessarily because of reasons but mostly because we are able to. It's a part of human nature to do things because we can more than because we want to. Sort of like the Diane Keaton character in "Manhattan" believing that Bermanesque existentialism is just a fad that most intelligent people grow out of. So that belief in a God, or ID, is something reserved for weak minded, or uninformed people, and as they become informed they change their minds, or grow out of it. I think it's more complex than that. And in the end it still remains a choice in the individual. ID, or God has no place in a debate on science. But denying ID, is similar to denying the existence of a God and the belief or non belief of a God remains a choice each person makes for themself, scientific proofs or theories aside.

Rich on February 22, 2009 8:12 PM
Science can answer the what, but not necessarily the why. Religion, or ID, attempts to answer the what and why, whether they are successful or not is obviously a matter of opinion, or beliefs. So the point is, ID is a choice in believing in the why more than the what, and choosing not to believe in ID, a choice for evolution is choosing to believe in what science has shown us, and realizing the why is not and may not be able to be answered.

I agree completely with the first of the sentences you wrote which I cite above. Evolution makes no comment on the morality, ethics, or The Meaning Of It All.

But I think you're mis-characterizing ID, as most of its proponents would define it. ID is not a choice in believing in the why more than the what. It is an attempt to disprove the most researched and scientifically validated theory in history, and to get religion taught in science class. Why else are there constant attempts to introduce it into science curricula?

Science does not contend that the "why" questions are not unanswerable. Science contends that the "why" questions don't fall within its purview.

In an ideal world, children would learn about evolution in science class, with an acknowledgement of religion in an aside that would read something like, "This theory, like all other scientific theories, makes no claims as to what is right or wrong, what is moral or immoral, or what the purpose (if any) of humanity's existence is. For that, you'll have to look to religion, philosophy, ethics and/or other branches of knowledge." And in religion class, they would teach, "You've learned how we came to be in science class. We believe that this process was set in motion and guided in undetectable ways by . We believe there are larger and more important questions about our being here that cannot be answered by an understanding of the simple mechanical processes that produced us."

But that's too idealistic.

Unfortunately it probably is too idealistic. I don't disagree with anything you've said, but to add something to it, people who believe in ID obviously believe in a higher power, one that created us. It's a necessary conclusion of being created that we would have been created for a purpose. That purpose, which unfortunately may never be understood, is what can give people meaning in their lives. So, no ID equals no creator equals not having a purpose equals life being meaningless, for some. I don't agree with that line of thinking wholeheartedly, but I can understand people thinking that way. I see it as the ends justifying the means. Meaning, whatever beliefs you have, religious or otherwise, that lead you to having a successful happy life, eudaimonia as Aristotle would call it, are fine. Similar to Pascal's wager in that you have little to lose and a lot to gain.

It's unfortunate that for most there is a clear line of distinction between ID and evolution, religion and science. Anyone using ID or religion to disprove "the most researched and scientifically validated theory in history" is just wasting their time, ignorant, or both. Facts have little use in a debate on religious beliefs, and vice versa. It's a shame people spend so much time trying to disprove things that either can't be proven in the first place, ID, or have been proven about as well as they can be, evolution.

I can't speak as to why some would want religion to be taught in a science class, I'm fine with separating the two. I also agree that the why question doesn't fall under the scope of science and neither does science pretend that it does. But, it's not hard to understand why the "why question" has plagued people since just about the beginning of time. For some, I'd even contend most, that's the question of paramount importance. Disregarding the question or devaluing the importance of that question through promoting evolution is wrong. (I'm not saying you're doing that, but some do.) So my point is that for me, science and religion can be reconciled in that I don't deny the importance or relevance of either one. And people that feel one must be promoted at the expense of the other probably aren't as informed as they should be on each subject.

Hi, Rich.

I can agree 100% with everything you've written.

I'm agnostic myself, and while I don't disagree in principle with the point of view of some of the militant anti-religionists who have posted here and other threads on Roger Ebert's website, I always find myself wondering why they're so militant against something they contend is irrelevant...

The "why" questions are important - otherwise there's no reason to get up in the morning, no reason to contribute anything to a greater community, etc. I just disagree with those who say that religion is the only route to the answers to the "why" questions.

Oh well, there have been some lovely debates...

Jim, you had a previous post from way back of the guy presenting a banana as "Darwin's nightmare".

Have some peanut butter to go with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504&feature=related