God’s PR team
March 29th, 2007 12:34:24 pm pst by Sterling Camden
Joseph picked up my thoughts on perception and carried them into the questions of theism and creationism (I wonder if his post’s title is a hat tip to TDavid, or just coincidental?).
I’ve often wondered why Christians (or anyone else) would be attracted to the argument of Intelligent Design. It seems like the kickdog of science, begging scraps of information to sustain its meager existence.
If I were worried about maintaining a literal or near-literal interpretation of the Bible, then I wouldn’t ask anything of science. I’d lunge into the very feet of science, fangs first: deny that cause and effect are anything more than an illusion. God controls all events, and any apparent connection between one event and another is the deluded conclusion of the mind of fallen mankind. Thus, repeatable experiments are mere deceptions, and science proves nothing. That’s what I’d say, if I was still a fundamentalist.
But fundamentalists have other Dunkleosteus to fry. Their task is not merely to posit a theoretical basis for their beliefs, they must also be convincing. It’s not philosophy, it’s marketing. In marketing you go with what people want to believe. And our society places implicit faith in science — even though most people don’t understand or practice it well at all. People today speak science like the New Testament speaks Greek: badly formed, sometimes intentionally, to give the appearance of logic to a point that sorely lacks it.
Thus Intelligent Design wears the trappings of the scientific method in order to give credence to some interpretation of the Genesis stories of creation (pick one). Clue: whenever anyone, of any persuasion, attempts to present data in order to give credence to an idea, you should immediately mistrust the data. It’s cooked.
Which is why I also get a bit uncomfortable when scientists react with dismay when people question the theory of evolution. Don’t get me wrong, I think that natural evolution is the best theory to date to explain the manifold forms that life on earth has assumed, and the relationships between those forms. (Aside: and if you’re a theist, why can’t natural evolution be God’s mechanism for creation?) But IMHO any good scientist should want all theories to be questioned and tested, so that they can be revised and refined and — yes, maybe even rejected for something that better explains the phenomena. Now I don’t believe for a minute that anyone will ever present a reasonable argument that species don’t change over generations. But I do think that our understanding of how species have evolved in the past might still be open to revision. Don’t you think so, Greg? (love your blog, BTW)
But ah, the nuances of human communication. It’s never about the facts, it’s always about the intentions. When ID “scientists” question the theory of evolution, I get the distinct feeling that they aren’t really trying to improve on it — they want to discredit it. Facts and agenda just don’t mix. Except in marketing.
Posted in Get Outta Here | 22 Comments » RSS 2.0
Subscribe by Email
I think Natural Selection as the primary creative force in evolution is indisputable. However, I also think our understanding of Natural Selection is still in its infancy for certain kinds of organisms, where important information tends to be passed on (or come from, anyway) non-genetic sources.
Thanks for loving my blog!
Thanks for reading and responding so quickly, Greg!
“But I do think that our understanding of how species have evolved in the past might still be open to revision.”
What kind of revision do you expect?
Think of computers for a second. The 4lb Duo Core notebook I use today is such a long way from the beige 8086 PC I got when I was a kid. Yet, the fundamentals are all the same. CPU, fast access storage, read-only storage, slow (but large) storage, I/O cards on a bus, peripheral connectors, power, etc.
We know the specifics will change, there will be something better by the time I finish writing this comment. Just like we know the details of how a given specie, or mechanism works, will become clearer.
But we have high confidence that the theory as a whole, will not change any time soon. Neither will the fundamentals of the Von Neumann machine.
Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I dont see ID as questioning the science of evolution. It questions the scientist conclusions drawn from it. Which are basically philosophical conclusions being labeled “science”.
An inquisitive scientist shouldnt object to differing conclusions being brought forth in debate. Forget about ID bein mentioned in the science class for a moment. Ask yourself the motivation behind why it cant even get in study hall or the lunchroom.
Suddenly you see the roles of the heresy and non conformity police have a new home in todays “scientific” community.
We commonly use theory to talk about anything that we can reason about, and science has little to say about that.
But science does build on a specific type of theory, one when can be repeatedly tested, peer reviewed and used to make predictions. And in science, there are a lot of interesting ideas, propositions, investigations and yes, even hoaxes (remember tabletop cold fusion?), that are not accepted as theory simply because they fail that test.
We can always come with a different set of idioms in which both theories have equal footing. But why would we want to call that science?
I don’t think that the creation story is completely bunk. I also don’t believe in God controlling events as it states in the Bible we have free will, God is just disappointed about how we exercise it.
I don’t believe the creation story is bunk because every ancient civilization has one and they are all similar, just as most civilizations developed similar dragon myth/legends, so did they all develop the same or similar creation myth/legends. Probability says that can’t happen, not even with infinite possibilities, the probability is astronomical, IMO.
Just like I believe our methods of dating bones and whatnot is off, I have started to believe that the creation myths are part of the answer to what is missing in science’s big bang and theory of evolution.
Steve: ID explicitly states that “macroevolution” (speciation) cannot occur as a result of natural selection, and that there are “complex” structures that are too complex to have evolved from natural selection. That is what ID says, and it’s pretty clear, so we can ask the question: Does current, regular evolutionary biology manage the macroevolution and complex structure issue or not?
It does.
Nobody’s in denial, nobody’s hiding anything, nobody’s making anything up.
ID is proposed as an altnernative not because the current science does not work, but because people who are not deeply familiar with the science can be convinced of pretty much anything. Like if someone tried to convince me that a “hemi” is a good thing to have in my car, they could easily do it, if I either trusted them or really wanted a “hemi” for cultural reasons … because I don’t have a clue as to what it is. Creationists often say scientists are arrogant for saying that the science is complicated, but sorry guys, it is. It can be learned by anone, but one has to spend the effort.
ID is not proposed, then, because biological science is flawed in this way, because it is not. It is not an honest effort at an alternative. It is simply a trick! Really, nothing more than a trick, to introduce god into the science classroom.
Shameful!
Joseph: On my web site, I’m starting to outline an alternative view of Genesis (and later, the other books). I’d love you opinion of it!
(the posts are called “The Bible as Ethnography…”
@assaf: the only “claim” I made was “might still be open to revision”. I didn’t say one was needed or inevitable. But I think instead of using the analogy of computers, I would refer to theories in other domains, like physics. Newton’s understanding of physics remains useful, but has been shown to be incomplete. I would expect that at some point in the future, evolutionary theorists would look on Darwin in much the same way as today’s physicists look on Newton.
It seems to me that ID’s primary claim is teleological: “design” implies purpose. That’s a philosophical rather than a scientific point. They wouldn’t have to question natural macroevolution in order to make that point (see for instance, Teilhard de Chardin), but they do.
How do today’s physicists look at Newton? We learn his calculus, we learn his physics. Do you know any scientist that thinks Netwon’s three laws are bunk?
But we also know that if we’re looking at the history of the universe, classical pyhsics is not enough. What if you’re looking at the history of species? Darwin explained that traits are passed, but not the exact mechanics. And his methods for determining those were crude by today’s standards.
Today we splice DNAs and map genomes to understand those relationships. We can compute the diversity between species. That’s your E=MC equivalence, your high energy particle accelerator.
And then there’s our wanting to harness it like nuclear energy, or … well, there is that matter of a bomb. That’s where we get GM crops, cloning sheep and using animals to produce theraputic drugs.
I think the double helix is the answer you’re looking for.
I’m enjoying your series on the Bible, Greg, having a degree in Biblical Literature myself. One thing I would say about Genesis 1 and 2 – the very fact that they are placed side by side indicates to me that the redactors had no qualms about historical accuracy. They didn’t think that way. That the stories were traditional was all that was important. I don’t believe that they even had any concept of infallibility, although I think they had a somewhat unspecific notion about divine inspiration. How they used the stories by the time they were made into a book was probably to teach a moral lesson or reinforce tradition (like the Sabbath).
It’s fairly easy to demonstrate that the Bible is a human document containing human mistakes (unless you believe that God likes contradicting himself). It also chronicles the evolution of the concept of God. However, the fact that the human experience of God evolved does not mean that God evolved, nor does it prove that there is no God. It only indicates that even if there is such a thing as divine inspiration, it must be converted into human terms in order to be consumed, and is therefore fallible.
For myself, the concept of God seems superfluous and anthropomorphic, but so does a lot of poetry that nevertheless communicates something meaningful.
And speaking of anthropomorphic, “Intelligent” as we think of it makes ID paint God in our image more than anything I’ve ever heard. The hubris to think that intelligence is anything above and beyond the universe that created it!
My owns studies of biology suggest that if there were an intelligent designer she would most resemble the god depicted in the movie Dogma.
I think we’re in violent agreement, assaf. I’m looking forward to improvements to the theory of evolution, not wholesale rejection. I really believe it will stand the test of time. But there’s no need to get religious about it, either. Should our understanding of causality itself, for instance, undergo a major shift — then we might be persuaded to think differently about everything.
I’m a rabid agnostic, so I get very uncomfortable when anyone says that a theory is “certain” or “indisputable”. It’s only indisputable given certain parameters and presuppositions. For science, those at least include causality, a degree of uniformity in physics over space-time, and the idea that our senses and brain can be trusted to perceive and interpret experiments. Those happen to be presuppositions that I’m mostly comfortable with and not willing to abandon for practical reasons, but I don’t take them as absolute or universal.
@Greg: I’ve often said that if there is a God, s/he has a sick sense of humor.
Part of science is the mechanism for proving something wrong, or insufficient and improving on it. Within the scientific framework.
But also part of science is spending decades, thousands of people and millions of dollars researching something, only so it can be digested in colorful terms in Scientific American, so people can tell you that after reading it and based on their intuition you’re wrong.
When a proposition gets a rejection letter, you have to note which of these two departments sent it.
Here’s an interesting video that’s somewhat on topic.
I think it is the contemporary scientist with his protectionist zeal that cant get past the idea of God as some sort of bearded man with a penchant for harsh rules. Its almost like a box theyve painted themselves in that hinders, and even insist, that any intelligence behind creation must be avoided because of this notion.
Any discussion with a scientist about an intelligent creator wanders off into him quoting the most bizzare verses of scripture he can recite from a religion that has barely been around as long as your average Sequoia tree. And he thinks its the only way an intelligent creator will be viewed by the “ignorant masses” if not for his steadfastness at thought control.
It will be the contemporary scientist attempts at thought control that will be quoted in the future. By our descendants wishing to demonstrate the bizzare ways of our ignorant ancestors.
That’s an interesting perspective, SteveH. I have my suspicions that our descendants will look back on this whole controversy with a mixture of amazement and pity for all participants, because by then the question will seem as pointless as whether or not Adam had a bellybutton.
Greg, I’d be glad to, although I cannot guarantee when I’ll be able to start or finish, at the moment.
my friend and i have plenty of hi-res pics available on flickr. enjoy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/n1c0star/sets/72157600335006271
xlesst, I almost deleted your comment as spam, but I checked out the pictures and found that they are of the new Creation Museum — so they’re on topic with this conversation. Thanks for sharing.