This is a movie about the politics of science. Politics in science, you say with a gasp? Say it isn’t so! Next thing you’ll be telling me is that there is politics in religion, too. Yes, Virginia, there most certainly is, but that’s another bedtime story for another time.
I wouldn’t call “Expelled” a documentary in the narrow sense of the genre. It’s more of an intelligently designed anti-propaganda piece. Using the Berlin Wall as a metaphor for the wall of division between atheistic Big Science and theistic Religion, Stein builds the case that academic science is now on a witch hunt for religion. It builds on the firing of some scientists from the Smithsonian and universities, allegedly for their belief that the cosmos bears the marks of “intelligent design.”
The movie plays out as a conflict of good vs. evil - the white hats being worn by the mostly young, hip, geeky-cool, highly articulate, deeply philosophical “intelligent design” guys; the black hats being the beady-eyed, yellow-toothed, sweaty atheists of Big Science, with New Atheism’s chief evangelist Richard Dawkins playing the role of his own slimy self, albeit in a somewhat over the top way that will surely cause him to be overlooked at next year’s academy awards.
Stein’s movie style is at once engaging and irritating. He drops old clips from newsreels and other black and white footage to make the abrupt, stream of consciousness transition from one point of “discovery” to the next. The hand-held camera style gives a certain Blair Witch look to the film, not to mention a Blair Witch sense of vertigo. No, that's not a reference to evolution’s poster girl Eugenie Scott.
Maybe it’s just me, but I have a problem with documentary filmmakers who insert themselves into their own movies and become the hero. Michael Moore does this as does Ben Stein in this movie, becoming the great advocate for free speech in the science academy. To me, this is a self-serving exercise of the reporter becoming the story.
I was personally entertained by the various ways people organized or didn’t organize their desks and books, noting “filers” and “pilers” in both camps. I happen to be a piler, and reveled in the sight of the guy who was nearly buried under piles and boxes of books. I feel so much better about my study.
Positively, the movie is a good opportunity to meet some of the players face to face, albeit a little too close for comfort. What is it about science that lends to bad complexion? The movie does correctly point out that this is a political war of competing world views - atheism vs. theism - and that academic science seems to have pitched its tent on the side of atheism. It calls into question the so-called “objectivity” of science, especially when religious implications are involved.
The question on the table is this: Is the concept of “intelligent design” rejected by science because it is not actually science or because of a political war being waged against religion in the academy? The answer is much more nuanced than the movie presents. The movie never really explains what “Intelligent Design” actually entails, and presumes that the viewer already knows.
Intelligent Design is an attempt to explain the apparent ordering of the universe. Evolutionists say that the order of things is an inherent property of material, that given sufficient time, things will order themselves by a self-guided process of natural selection. Intelligent Design people argue that the statistical odds of that are infinitesimally small to the point of nearly impossible. Instead, they claim that the various ordered properties observed in the world, such as the genetic code, biological systems, the cosmos, etc. are evidence of “intelligent design.”
Of course, scientists, especially of the atheist stripe, immediately rush in and have a God-attack, because to suggest “intelligent design” is to suggest an intelligent Designer. And no matter how many times the intelligent design crowd swears on a stack of Bill Dembski’s books that it isn’t so, it is so. You can’t have design without a designer.
The arch-bad guy Richard Dawkins admits as much in a priceless scene of sweaty self-contradiction that alone is worth the price of admission. Pressed by Stein regarding the ultimate cause of life on earth, Dawkins proposes that it might have been seeded by some form of intelligence, likely from beyond our solar system, which of course would have been seeded by some other form of yet higher intelligence, ad infinitum. Yes, that’s right. Dawkins believes that the intelligent designers of life as we know it may have been aliens. When you don’t believe in God, you’ve got to believe in something.
The problem, as Dawkins illustrates nicely, is that the question of ultimate cause and origin cannot be answered by science. “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear” (Heb 11:2). You can’t do the Creation Experiment, so empirical science isn’t really in the game. And you can stare at rocks and fossils until your teeth turn yellow and your skin looks bad and you still won’t be able to say definitively who or what (if anyone) is responsible or how it happened. Yes, Virginia, science is limited in what it can teach us. That’s why there are other departments at your college, so be sure to enroll in a few other classes on your way to your evolutionary biology degree.
The “naturalist presuppostion,” that natural events must have a natural cause, is perfectly workable in empirical science. We don’t expect a chemist in the lab to cry out “It’s a miracle!” when he observes an unexpected result. That would be very bad science. Empirical science reasons from specific to general, from observation to theory. It deals with penultimate causes, not ultimate causes. A chemist knows what causes polystyrene, but he doesn’t know what caused carbon.
In the study of origins and ultimate causes, the naturalist presupposition is, in effect, presuppositional atheism. The Creatior is ruled out as a possible cause for creation. But the study of origins is a forensic science, reasoning from observations to cause, which is always a circumstantial case. And the good forensic researcher must be open to any and all possibilities, including aliens or God.
What has happened in academic science is that the empirical sciences have rushed to the aid of their weak-eyed sister, the forensic science of origins under the grand banner of Science. This has become a political war of Science vs Religion, when it should be a matter of empirical science vs forensic science and the limitations of the latter when it comes to the study of ultimate cause and origin.
Even if evolution were to collapse tomorrow, the periodic table, molecular orbital theory, quantum mechanics, and the genetic code would all continue to operate without a glitch, because they do not rely on a materialistic presupposition of ultimate cause. What began as Darwin’s observation about the adaptation of species, grew into a hypothesis about the origin of species, which became a hypothesis for the origin of the universe, which became the answer to life, the universe, and everything (which readers of Douglas Adams know is 42). Theology, which was once called the “queen of the sciences” has been expelled from the academy and left to talk to itself in the academic ghettos of theology departments and seminaries, while science has become the new religion. The Dawkins vision of a world where theism is on the wane and atheism is the new religion is taking shape in the hallowed halls of academia.
At first viewing, “Expelled” seems to go down a slippery slop from evolution to atheism to nazi eugenics to social nihilism. The testimonies of the former Christians turned atheists are chilling. I thought the movie went too far with its shots of Dawkins and Eugenie Scott interspersed with nazi newsreel footage.
But a member of my congregation noted that this might be a clever case of turnabout is fair play on the part of Stein. The atheist evolutionists argue that ID is a wedge that will lead to religion taking over science and the establishment of a creationist theocracy that will stifle all academic freedom. But they have no problem with science taking over religion, or ID proponents being censured and fired. They also seem to have no regard for the ethical implications of evolutionary atheism. Stein delivers a taste of their own medicine, and they don’t seem to like it.
I would have liked to have heard from some Christians who also hold to some version of evolution, such as Dr. Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project, who writes openly about his Christian faith as a scientist. Christians who believe in evolution are viewed as inconsistent by both creationists and evolutionists. At least the two agree on something.
Go see the movie and have a good conversation. To listen to him whine about his appearance in this movie, you’d think Dawkins had just appeared in Borat. I love outrage on the part of people who make a living saying outrageous things, such as Dawkins' atheist manifesto "The God Delusion." Even with Borat, the people had only themselves to blame for looking like idiots. It may be a challenge, but I encourage you to pray for these folks. They are about as darkened as darkness can be.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened." (Romans 1:18-21)
Thanks for this review. It's helpful since I haven't seen the movie yet. I'm curious as to your thoughts on Professor PZ Myers who was interviewed? I need to talk to friends who attended a retreat this weekend featuring this professor debating Professor Angus Menuge from CUW.
Secondly, I'm glad the point has been brought up about the so called one-sided coin that academia likes to play, especially in science. Evolutionists or non religious types love to downplay religion and promote other ideas such as diversity, post modernism, being welcoming/loving, etc. However, when they exclude religion (ie Christianity), they are actually be less diverse, more close minded, etc. and more hypocritic. As a scientist, I've encountered it quite a bit, although not as a direct confrontation.
Myers is having his own little hissy over at PZ's playhouse, claiming he was having a Borat moment too. He says he would have been far more combative had he known he was involved in a creationist propaganda movie. Too bad. As it is, I didn't even recall him being in the movie until I saw his picture. Nothing memorable.
EXPELLED IS OPENING THE DOOR FOR THE QUEST FOR RIGHT.
A PARAGON OF SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT!
The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.
The text begins simply enough, tracing the history of Darwin from an impressionable youth influenced by atheists and agnostics on every hand to a full-fledged agnostic in his own right. The matter may be summed up by the inclusion of Darwin's sentiment regarding the Creator. In a bitter denial of Christianity, Darwin complained that he "could hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." Darwin charged his original belief in God to the "constant inculcation" (instruction or indoctrination) in a belief in God" during his childhood, which was as difficult to cast down as "for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.... Darwin purposed in his heart that he would no longer retain God in his knowledge. And the scientific illiterate upstart sought to entrap the innocents in the classroom in his web of deceit.
Once past the history of the Darwinist movement, the architecture of the quantum atom is explored in great detail. This is breathtakingly new!
The atom has been compared to a miniature sun-earth system with one or more electrons darting about everywhere at once weaving an electronic shell around the nucleus. In order for this to occur, "Bohr calculated that the electron must move at a speed of no less than seven million billion rotations per second." Ummmm, "numerous electrons darting about, dodging one another at breakneck speeds would necessarily require the supernatural. The Quest for Right will prove to your complete satisfaction that the electron is directly adhered to the perimeter of the nucleus. "How could it have been otherwise?" The exciting text is remarkably easy to follow even for a lay person. Read a review:
"I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.
The book is a virtual smorgasbord of good things to taste: a few of the entertaining subjects include: the earth was created from a watery nebula, the mechanism of gravity which was used to form the earth, the failed photoelectric effect, theory of antimatter, quantum creation (big bang theory), disappearing color, magical application of mathematics to explain certain rudimentary principles, Rayleigh scattering (sunsets), electricity, lightning, electrolyte, the browning of fruit, the mystery of fire, and the role of oxygen in the ignition of hydrocarbons. Then, there's the desserts which are far too numerous to mention in this limited space; for example, the origin and dimise of the great dinosaurs. Moreover, you will marvel at the comprehensive law of fixed choice.
This is not your parent's science book filled with distortions of the truth, called "quantum mysticism." The comprehensive investigation--like none other you will read--quickly escapes into realism by underscoring the numerous experiments and errors responsible for the debasement of scientific theories based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.
The Quest for Right is not only an academic resource designed for the public schools, but also contains a wealth of information on pertinent subjects that seminarians, and Christians in general, need to know to be effective: geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and in-depth Biblical studies. The nuggets from the pages of Biblical history alone will give seminarians literally hundreds of fresh ideas for sermons and teachings. The ministry resources contained in The Quest for Right serve as invaluable aids that will enrich graduates beyond their highest expectations.
"The movie never really explains what "intelligent design" actually entails, and presumes that the viewer knows."
Exactly. The problem is nobody knows. I suppose design is like pornography, we'll know it when we see it. Without a testable mechanism, a timeline, a design event, or anything discrete enough to be predictable, ID doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis, let alone an alternate theory of biological diversification.
I think you are quite right that science is limited to what it does. Myers and Dawkins may think evolutionary theory confirms their atheism but that idea has little to do with the accuracy of evolutionary theory. And countering that idea by confirming ID as an alternative for theists without offering any evidence makes even less sense. The producers set up a false dichotomy by excluding interviews with scientists like Francis Collins and Ken Miller. The ID'ers are intellectually dishonest and their tactics have all the hallmarks of a targeted public relations spin campaign. Crying persecution is one of the hallmarks of crank science.
I believe you would find that a quick search in pub med would show that evolutionary theory, far from being a weak sister to the "hard sciences", is as robust as any of them.
By the way, in order to leave this comment, I was required to encode the letters "priapiac" in the spam filter. I would think that this borders on the inappropriate.
"The problem is nobody knows. I suppose design is like pornography, we'll know it when we see it."
I agree. I'm not convinced that "design" is a scientifically detectible property like color or temperature. It may very well be a quality like "beauty," in which case it's in the eye of the beholder.
On the other hand, I am quite unconvinced that the evolutionary hypothesis adequately accounts for either the diversity or the origin of life.
"Without a testable mechanism, a timeline, a design event, or anything discrete enough to be predictable, ID doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis, let alone an alternate theory of biological diversification."
I guess even random captcha letters are capable of self-organization. What are the odds of that?
Notch another one for evolution!
Hah! Highly improbable, but it happened. Might be more like evolution than you would think since the joke making function didn't appear until the letters mutated and in addition the extra non-functional letter didn't impede the function. Of course, I suppose whether it was a joke or not would depend on the enviornment.
You said
"The atheist evolutionists argue that ID is a wedge that will lead to religion taking over science and the establishment of a creationist theocracy that will stifle all academic freedom."
In fact the "Wedge" metaphor comes directly from the heart of the ID movement - the Discovery Institute.
This Christian think-tank published an internal document called "the Wedge of Intelligent Design" which was leaked on to the internet in 1999. The document explicitly lays out their 20 year plan to introduce ID into public debate, and educational institutions with the aim of bringing evangelical Christianity into the centre of American public life.
Look up "The Wedge Document" on google - it will give you some perspective and background on this debate.
"Without a testable mechanism, a timeline, a design event, or anything discrete enough to be predictable, ID doesn't even rise to the level of a hypothesis, let alone an alternate theory of biological diversification."
Hmmm. Does evolution rise to this level?
Yessir. The fused human chromosome #2 found as predicted, Enodgenous retroviri found as predicted in comparative human/chimp genome studies, Tiktaalik rosea found in strata where it was predicted. The science is so robust it generates thousands of testable hypotheses under the general umbrella of evolutionary theory. Even the conflicts are the mark of a vibrant field of study. Unfortunately for the ID guys they seem unable or unwilling to do the work necessary to be taken seriously.
Sorry about the comment duplication. Copy error. Another example of evolution in action.
We can easily take care of the comment duplication by the imposition of an outside higher intelligence. No problem there.
Great stuff. No doubt about it. But I really don't see how this testifies to the robustness of a hypothesis that everything evolved from some protocell in a primordial soup. It seems to me that the predictive power of evolution is somewhat overstated and overrated. Are these observations actually necessitated by the evolutionary hypothesis? I'm sure that the conflicts make for a vibrant field of study, as conflicts always do. But does any of this necessarily derive from the central presupposition of evolution?
1. The Discovery Institute is not a Christian think tank, though it certainly has Christians, as well as people of other faiths, involved on its staff. The concept of a an intelligent Creator/Designer is not uniquely Christian.
2. The Wedge Document nowhere lists among its goals "bringing evangelical Christianity into the centre of American public life."
3. The Wedge Document outlines a 20 year public relations strategy to bring the concepts of Intelligent Design into both science and religion.
4. The "wedge" of the Wedge Document is the strategic and systematic separation of the materialist philosophical presupposition that underlies the evolutionary hypothesis, from the definition of science.
The position of the Wedge Document is that it is not necessary for science to presuppose dogmatically that natural events must by definition have natural causes, including events of origin and ultimate causation.
Agree with it or not, it's important to represent the positions farily from their own documents.
" But I really don't see how this testifies to the robustness of a hypothesis that everything evolved from some protocell in a primordial soup
However life began, the progression, both genetically and geologically, indicates descent with modification from common ancestry. There are no competing hypotheses that fit the evidence.
"It seems to me that the predictive power of evolution is somewhat overstated and overrated"
It is better than the alternative which makes no discrete predictions at all. Design depends on the elimination of evolutionary explanations which makes it pretty much a useless approach. You still have to do the research based on evolutionary principles.
"Are these observations actually necessitated by the evolutionary hypothesis? "
Maybe not singly, but as a combined body of evidence they do. Until ID identifies a process or even an event it is a non-starter.
"But does any of this necessarily derive from the central presupposition of evolution?"
The theory of natural selection was developed as the best explanation for the gathered evidence, not a presupposition. Most of the groundwork was done by scientists working in the framework of natural theology. It was this failure of natural theology to adequately account for the evidence that opened the door for natural selection. Even if Darwin had never lived, the theory would have been developed.
"The position of the Wedge Document is that it is not necessary for science to presuppose dogmatically that natural events must by definition have natural causes, including events of origin and ultimate causation."
Any other approach would be unworkable, which is why the scientific method developed the way it did. Science is limited to what science does.
ID proponents can't play the game so they want to change the rules. That's dishonest.
"Any other approach would be unworkable, which is why the scientific method developed the way it did. Science is limited to what science does. "
Arguments regarding ultimate causation and origin are retroductive rather than inductive. Empirical science reasons inductively (arguing from specific to general); forensic science (the study of past causality) reasons retroductive, (arguing from observable to cause).
The scientific method did not develop by making a materialistic assumption regarding ultimate causality.
As I said, the chemist knows and can demonstrate what causes polystyrene, but he cannot know nor demonstrate what caused carbon and hydrogen, nor is such ultimate causality relevant to the science of chemistry.
Retroductive (forensic) science does not employ the "scientific method" in the same way that inductive (empirical) science does.
Failure to recognize this difference would be likewise dishonest.
Science is indeed limited to what science does; science should not speculate in areas of metaphysics, philosophy, and theology. Both ID and the materialist presupposition of evolution are metaphysical, philosophical, theological presuppositions.
"Retroductive (forensic) science does not employ the "scientific method" in the same way that inductive (empirical) science does.
Failure to recognize this difference would be likewise dishonest.
Well, then it's good for us that modern evolutionary theory employs both. Proposed mechanisms of evolutionary change (mutation, selection, drift, etc.) are observable in the now and can be exrapolated to general trends, past and future. Observe patterns in the fossil record can be matched to genetic patterns in extant organisms. Retroductive reasoning has certainly born fruit with testible predictions. Multiple points of converging evidence from two disciplines, genetic and morphological, indicate that evolutionary theory is on the right track. It's not like they are sitting around making this stuff up in order to fit it in to some kind of required evolutionary paradigm. The chips fall where they may.
"As I said, the chemist knows and can demonstrate what causes polystyrene, but he cannot know nor demonstrate what caused carbon and hydrogen, nor is such ultimate causality relevant to the science of chemistry"
Nor is it relevant to biological evolution, which is what I am discussing here. And I believe a physicist may have some ideas as to what "caused" carbon and hydrogren. I'm sure someone is asking those questions.
"Science is indeed limited to what science does; science should not speculate in areas of metaphysics, philosophy, and theology.
I agree. And visa versa (except maybe philosophy).
"Both ID and the materialist presupposition of evolution are metaphysical, philosophical, theological presuppositions.
The question remains how do you incorporate the non-material into the material sciences? And why pick on biology? All science uses the same methodological naturalism. I don't see how limiting oneself to finding material mechanisms in a material world is a metaphysical presupposition. What else would be practical?
"However life began, the progression, both genetically and geologically, indicates descent with modification from common ancestry. There are no competing hypotheses that fit the evidence."
"However life began..." - Conceding that science must presuppose life and cannot deal with ultimate origin.
Can one forensically tell the difference between progressive descent with modification from common ancestry and progressive design by a common designer? If I have three watches that share common parts and mechanisms, do I necessarily conclude that they derive from a common ur-watch? Or do I conclude that they share a common designer? And does it actually make a difference?
"The chips fall where they may."
Is it valid retroductive reasoning to rule out a cause a priori by way of presupposition? Is it sound forensic science to rule out murder as a mechanism for death because "we don't have murders in this community"?
"The theory of natural selection was developed as the best explanation for the gathered evidence, not a presupposition."
Is it the "best explanation" for:
1. the adaptation of a species
2. the diversity of species
3. the origin of life
4. the origin of the universe
5. the way the universe works
"The question remains how do you incorporate the non-material into the material sciences? And why pick on biology? All science uses the same methodological naturalism."
But not all science is forensic. Methodological naturalism is a necessary self-imposed limitation for empirical science and the scientific method. The physicist does not explain an unusual experimental observation by saying, "It's a miracle." Unless, of course, it's cold fusion, but then that was disproven by failure to reproduce the experiment.
Is the study of ultimate causality and origin properly termed a "material science?" When investigating a past event forensically, can you rule out a cause a priori?
Is forensic science limited to the material?
If natural selection is a creative process and the mechanism of diversity:
1. Why do we protect endangered species?
2. Why do we observe a decrease in species?
3 Why do we assist weaker human beings and rescue marine mammals?
4. Why are we concerned about climate change?
"However life began..." - Conceding that science must presuppose life and cannot deal with ultimate origin."
I am conceding no such thing. Don't know does not mean can't know.
"Can one forensically tell the difference between progressive descent with modification from common ancestry and progressive design by a common designer? If I have three watches that share common parts and mechanisms, do I necessarily conclude that they derive from a common ur-watch? Or do I conclude that they share a common designer? And does it actually make a difference?
Ur-watch? You should trademark that. I'll buy one. I think you are ignoring the observed progressions as well as comparison. Adaptation of form to different function implies the designer required a lot of practice. Not to mention the fact that for some mysterious reason the designer decided to encode the same non-functional retrovirus sequences at the same loci in closely related species. Then there is the problem of the same protein having many functional analogues (some I believe more efficient) and pretty much all life sharing just one basic configuration or birth defects, the extinction of 99% or so species that have ever lived, parasites, etc. My guess is that you don't view the designer as bumbling around, cobbling stuff together out of spare parts.
"Is it valid retroductive reasoning to rule out a cause a priori by way of presupposition? Is it sound forensic science to rule out murder as a mechanism for death because "we don't have murders in this community"?
It is all based on background knowlege. We wouldn't rule out murder because we know people are capable of it, no matter what community they live in. We can't assess whether design or evolution is more likely without having some idea of mechanism for design. Evolution posits several, ID none.
"Is it the "best explanation" for:
1. the adaptation of a species -
yes 2. the diversity of species -
one of several proposed 3. the origin of life -
a chemistry problem 4. the origin of the universe -
no 5. the way the universe works -
don't know
" Methodological naturalism is a necessary self-imposed limitation for empirical science and the scientific method."
I don't see any other way.
"Is forensic science limited to the material?"
It has to be. Again, I don't see any other way. There is nothing immaterial about human agency, which is the only "intelligent design" we look for in forensic science.
"If natural selection is a creative process and the mechanism of diversity:
1. Why do we protect endangered species?
2. Why do we observe a decrease in species?
3 Why do we assist weaker human beings and rescue marine mammals?
4. Why are we concerned about climate change?
My hope is that as rational beings (potentially, anyway) we can reach a consensus to transcend the brute forces of selection. I have no idea whether natural selection plays a role in human culture.
"My guess is that you don't view the designer as bumbling around, cobbling stuff together out of spare parts."
So we exclude the idea of "design" because it doesn't fit our preconceived notion of how a properly dignified "designer" should do it? That's an interesting "scientific" perspective. Since when does science deal in aesthetic judgments?
"We can't assess whether design or evolution is more likely without having some idea of mechanism for design. Evolution posits several, ID none."
I have a great design for a house; I have no idea how to build it. In this sense, ID and Evolution talk past one another. This is why ID and Evolution fundamentally talk past one another.
" Methodological naturalism is a necessary self-imposed limitation for empirical science and the scientific method."
I don't see any other way.
Nor do I. This is why the study of ultimate causality and origin is not properly "science," though it may employ scientific data.
"My hope is that as rational beings (potentially, anyway) we can reach a consensus to transcend the brute forces of selection."
So the rationality of human beings transcends evolution? I would have thought that rationality was part of the evolutionary process, a natural selection of neurons that liked to fire more than others. Now I am confused. Are human beings part of evolution or not? If we are, then what business do we have in interfering with natural selection? And how dare we call it "brute force"?
Natural selection is the elegant way in which species adapt to the changes in their environment (some better than others, I guess), and how a diversity of life sprang forth from a single proto-cell (even as 99% of species went extinct). Isn't assisting the weak interfering with nature's way of recreating and improving itself?
"So we exclude the idea of "design" because it doesn't fit our preconceived notion of how a properly dignified "designer" should do it? That's an interesting "scientific" perspective. Since when does science deal in aesthetic judgments?
Fine. It's a poor argument against design. I just can't find any adequate arguments for design. It's perfectly possible the designer(s) decided to take 3.5 billion years to work out the kinks using an undetectable non-material process that just happened to mimic evolution by observed natural processes.
"I have a great design for a house; I have no idea how to build it. In this sense, ID and Evolution talk past one another. This is why ID and Evolution fundamentally talk past one another.
OK. Different languages. One is science, one is something else.
Nor do I. This is why the study of ultimate causality and origin is not properly "science," though it may employ scientific data.
I don't understand how ultimate causality applies to the study of evolution. I think you are asking for more than I'm discussing here.
"So the rationality of human beings transcends evolution?
I said I would hope so
"I would have thought that rationality was part of the evolutionary process, a natural selection of neurons that liked to fire more than others. Now I am confused. Are human beings part of evolution or not?"
Sure, we evolved. That is pretty clear. I imagine our global culture has change the dynamic of evolution for our species. I really have no idea how selection works in our culture or whether it does.
" If we are, then what business do we have in interfering with natural selection?
We all want our kids to survive. Just like every other living thing on the planet.
"And how dare we call it "brute force"?
It's blind, deaf and unaware, too. I doubt if it cares.
"Natural selection is the elegant way in which species adapt to the changes in their environment (some better than others, I guess), and how a diversity of life sprang forth from a single proto-cell (even as 99% of species went extinct). Isn't assisting the weak interfering with nature's way of recreating and improving itself?
I don't think it's a matter of improvement, but a matter of filling available niches in a changing enviornment. What works today may not tomorrow.
If natural selection is a creative process and the mechanism of diversity:
1. Why do we protect endangered species?
2. Why do we observe a decrease in species?
3 Why do we assist weaker human beings and rescue marine mammals?
4. Why are we concerned about climate change?
The natural processes that produced todays life forms and climate took place over vast periods of time stretching into many millions of years. Human activities can and do destroy the products of those millions of tiny cumulative changes in an mere decades - an eyeblink in terms of geological and evolutionary time.
The pure evolutionists answer to Q3 and 4 would involve "evolved empathy". For social animals such as humans, the desire to help others is a beneficial trait in the long term. If you help others when you can, then they're more likely to help you when you need it.
That trait translates empirically into the fact that we tend to feel good when we help others (be they weaker humans, marine mammals, or our potential descendants).
I find this explanation simpler, and hence more likely to be true, than one which needs to posit the existence of a supernatural being who magically inserted a sense of right and wrong into humans at some point in the past.
"Human activities can and do destroy the products of those millions of tiny cumulative changes in an mere decades - an eyeblink in terms of geological and evolutionary time."
We human beings seem to really mess up evolution. It's hard to believe we're part of the process, but then we exercise intelligence, so we can't be part of the process.
The pure evolutionists answer to Q3 and 4 would involve "evolved empathy"....
Kind of an "Adam Smith Theory of Evolution" where every creature, excuse me, thing pursues it's own enlightened self-interest. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. At least before I eat you, or vice versa.
I suppose this would also account for evolved sense of justice, an evolved sense of beauty, and an evolved sense of humor. I take it then that racism, would be a positive trait, evolutionarily speaking.
"That trait translates empirically into the fact that we tend to feel good when we help other...."
I wonder where the feeling of transcendence and the existence of a divine being comes from. Most folks seem to have one, at least until most recent times. Perhaps we've evolved beyond that, thanks to science.
"I find this explanation simpler, and hence more likely to be true...."
Ah yes, you can't beat Occam's razor for a nice close shave with the truth. (William of Occam was a Franciscan friar, by the way.)
Which is simpler: To say that nothing somehow turned itself into everything or that God made everything out of nothing?
"If ID posits no mechanism, and Evolution posits no cause, then what's the problem? They are obviously speaking to different questions.
That would be fine if ID stuck to pre-singularity events or some kind of undetectable quantum manipulation and quit sticking its nose into evolutionary biology. I think Paul Davies said that somewhere someone or something has to move the particles. Until that smoking gun is found, ID has to take a backseat to evolutionary theory with its accessible historical record and proposed mechanisms of descent with modification and common ancestry.
"That would be fine if ID stuck to pre-singularity events or some kind of undetectable quantum manipulation and quit sticking its nose into evolutionary biology."
I didn't mean to pick on evolutionary biology, but if you insist....
So science not only defines the terms and presuppositions but it also dictates who plays the game and how scientific data may be used. This sounds like a closed religious group. If you don't subscribe to our creed, you can't worship with us. I understand that. No ID heretics allowed in the Church of Evolution. Irenaeus once said that heretics always misuse the Scriptures. The ID heretics are using data from science against the very evolutionary creed which the data are supposed to prove. Shame on them! Call out the thought police!
"Until that smoking gun is found, ID has to take a backseat to evolutionary theory with its accessible historical record and proposed mechanisms of descent with modification and common ancestry."
So the search for the "smoking gun" must be done from a presuppositional "back seat" with both hands tied around their backs. That's clever. Presuppose that all historic events must have a material cause or it isn't "science" even though the evolutionist cannot say what caused material. I wish we could get away with that in theology.
Hence the problem in a nutshell: With the invocation of methodological materialism, science puts itself in the intellectual driver's seat and forces all other modes of knowing to the back seat. (In truth, it shoves them out the passenger door and into the ditch.) Nice power move. No wonder the debate has degenerated into power politics, propaganda, and the courts!
I posit:
1. The sentence - "A natural event must have a natural cause" is either a) tautology, and therefore nonsense, or b) an unprovable statement and therefore not science..
2. As b) an unprovable statement, it is philosophically the same as the sentence "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," which likewise cannot be proven.
3. The former is presuppositional atheism, the latter is presuppositional theism.
4. The former presupposes that matter is able to cause itself; the latter presupposes that matter must have an immaterial cause.
.jpg)
