So, you're enjoying a pleasant hike in the woods with your significant other -- you know, your girlfriend or wife. (Ladies, please play along as if you're the male in this scenario.) It's a lovely day. You break out of the trees into a canyon with a river rolling through it. You walk up the canyon a ways, enjoying the surroundings. Then you round a curve in the canyon and come upon two people standing on a sandbar on the edge of the river. They're engaged in a heated debate. You look around, trying to figure out what has them so agitated. It appears to be the ancient native American drawings on the wall. Clearly very old, these drawings are interesting and strangely eerie. But what are the two arguing about? You listen in.
"Don't be ridiculous," one of them says. "It is patently obvious that someone drew these pictures."
"Oh, yeah," the other retorts. "What evidence do you have for that? How do you know it didn't just happen? How do you know that currents in the river didn't cause these?"
"Oh, come on," the first replies. "It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is man-made, not natural."
"And you call yourself a scientist," the second answers. "What kind of science is that? Wild guess? You leap to that conclusion without any evidence? That's not science. That's philosophy!"
"Philosophy?! How can you say that?! It's abundantly clear that this kind of structure and form doesn't simply occur at random. It's too complicated, too specific, too ... designed!"
"There you go again! 'Design'! Just because it looks complicated and appears like design, you label it 'design'. No science. No evidence. Pure conjecture. How do you know it didn't just happen? How do you know it's not just a natural phenomenon? What does deductive reasoning have to do with science??!!"
You begin to back away from the pair. For one, it appears they're close to coming to blows. But the real reason is that you're questioning the sanity of one of them. You're there with your sweetheart, and you don't want her getting hurt by this loon. So carefully, slowly, as quietly as possible you back away from the crazy person.
The question is which is the crazy person? Is it the one who sees design in something that appears to be designed, or is it the one who patently denies any possibility of design when faced with a complicated, interconnected structure that shouldn't appear naturally and has no real, rational explanation? Is it the one that appears rational, or is it the one that is standing firmly on the god, "Science"?
6 comments:
If you will forgive a skeptic once more interrupting your blog…
You actually point out the frustration scientists feel regarding the current “Intelligent Design” incarnation of creationism with your good example.
What do we use to determine cave-paintings are designed? We compare them to other cave formations. We see it introduces non-natural appearing elements (the paint used), in specific shapes (including straight lines) with certain depictions characteristic of the humans living at the time. We also see similar paintings in other caves. (And note the caves were accessible by humans, as well.)
So we compare “paintings” vs “natural formations” and devise a system to tell the difference.
What comparison is the Intelligent Design community doing? Simply put—what test is being used to determine “This was designed” as compared to “This was NOT designed.”
The idea of science is to limit possibilities. So we test and learn that water (at normal atmospheric pressure) is a solid at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and less. Not liquid. Not gas. We have limited (by testing) the possibility of water’s condition at certain degrees.
In order for Intelligent design to qualify for science, it would be nice for it to devise some method by which it equally limits possibilities.
In your example, what test do you use to determine the difference between a cave painting and a natural formation? Now ask yourself this question—what test is being devised to determine the difference between designed and non-designed items?
Science creates tests that result in “false” responses. E.g. “Water less than 32 degrees is liquid” is a “false” result. What test, when applied to anything at all within creationism comes up with “This is designed” as “false”?
It's not really of consequence, is it? Intelligent Design cannot be mentioned without the automatic assumption of "creationism" as you have done. Nothing in ID requires Creationism or even God. Still, it will not be allowed in the discussion because we haven't devised a test for it. In other words, "If I can't test it it doesn't exist." We ought not be allowed to talk about it, consider it, think it through. Since we haven't designed a "higher intelligence" meter, there must not be or have ever been a higher intelligence. Hardly seems fair or reasonable to me.
Why object to the term “creationism,” I am curious? Do you not believe in a Creator who creates? How is this NOT aptly described as “creationism?”
Can you describe an Intelligent Design without a creator? By what mechanism could intelligent design happen without creation occurring?
Stan: In other words, "If I can't test it it doesn't exist." We ought not be allowed to talk about it, consider it, think it through.
My understanding is that scientists are saying is, “If I can’t test it, it isn’t science.” It may still exist—we just can’t find it using science.
We all agree the concept of love exists. Even scientists. But we can’t pour out a cup of love. We cannot measure the length of hatred. We are in the infancy stages of mapping out the brain to even figure out what areas affect which parts of our physical bodies and mental states.
But science fully recognizes its own limitations to testable hypothesis. If I told I wanted to use “science” to measure your marriage—you would laugh. It is not what science (nor marriage) is designed for. (pun intended.)
Of course you are allowed to talk about it. It is a fascinating philosophical study. But it should stay out of the science realm (just like mysticism or New Age or astrology) until it can devise a method to become a testable theory.
"Creationism" is connected to "biblical Creationism" -- at the very least, a deity. ID, on the other hand, simply says that what we have here is designed. Richard Dawkins suggested that it is feasible that what we have here is the product of intelligent design ... by a race of aliens that developed naturally without a deity. Divine Intelligent Design or Alien Intelligent Design, in either case it is ID. So while Creationism would be ID, ID doesn't require Creationism.
(Oh, and my belief in an actual Creator isn't the point here.)
Here's my problem. We can discuss the philosophical idea of Intelligent Design, but it isn't the science of Darwinian Evolution. This completely ignores the fact that we cannot test Darwinian Evolution. We have never seen a lizard become a bird. We have never observed a mutation that becomes another species. We have attempted to duplicate the conditions that would create organic life from inorganic life. Then there is the problem of theistic evolution. Even if we could demonstrate that all life comes from a common origin, how would we test to determine that it isn't guided by unseen forces? What is the falsification test for that?
The definition of Darwinian Evolution is "the proposition that the phylogeny of all species is wholly ascribable to the combined effects of random variation (mutation) in genotypes of the members of a stock as a result of the operation of undirected accidents with consequences to their phenotypes and the operation of preferential (but by no means certain) survival of those resulting phenotypes most suited to survive in the contemporary environment. The proposed system survives largely because of genetic factors that avidly conserve the ontogeny of the stock." So, if "undirected" is required, how do you falsify it? Isn't that a philosophical discussion, not a science discussion?
Last Comment. I will stop pestering…
Stan: Richard Dawkins suggested that it is feasible that what we have here is the product of intelligent design ... by a race of aliens that developed naturally without a deity.
Can you give me a cite on that? I thought it was, in fact, the exact opposite. You might look here where Dawkins says, “I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either).”
And even if you think aliens did it—do you think they developed through evolution? By natural process? And did the aliens design the planet for life? And life? And the development of life?
We are still left with the same question that is never, never, never answered by those holding to intelligent design. (Because there IS no answer.) What test do we use to determine the difference between designed and non-designed? (Even though every analogy used presumes such a test.)
I will blog out an explanation of the definition of creationism and ID.
Stan: This completely ignores the fact that we cannot test Darwinian Evolution. We have never seen a lizard become a bird. We have never observed a mutation that becomes another species.
Please understand I am not asking this to be rude. I ask this of everyone within this particular discussion. But what books have you read by scientists who hold to evolution? Specifically those responding to creationism? NOT what creationists say scientists say, but actual scientists?
The reason I say that, is that we CAN test the theory of evolution. Every fossil is a test. Every genome. Every DNA sequence. Find a pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil and you have blown evolution out of the water. In fact, evolution is so testable, it is predictable! By that I mean they can see only portions of bones, and predict what the rest of the animal looks like. Predictions which have borne out in later fossil discoveries.
Secondly, a lizard becoming a bird would be a miracle. Or creationism. It is evolution that predicts such an occurrence would not happen. So the fact it is not happening is a strike against evolution….how?
Thirdly, we have seen look speciation occur. Yes, we have observed a mutation that becomes another species.
I suppose it's a given. When we lapse into this area of conversation, it won't be friendly. Here's what I mean.
A group of friends -- male and female -- are standing around talking. Another friend arrives. "What are you guys up to?" he asks. Not one of the females is likely to say, "Oh, what's wrong with the gals? Why aren't asking how all of us are doing? Why only ask about the guys?" Why? Because it's a friendly gathering and "guys" in this context is understood as shorthand for "everyone here". However, when the conversation turns to a more contentious topic, however, words will be more measured. There is no room for "shorthand", no allowance for "I know what you mean."
If I am going to ask how one tests to prove that one existing creature is a descendant of another creature, I can't do it with shorthand ("We have never seen a lizard become a bird"). And the conversation breaks down.
I wasn't going to argue for a test to prove ID. Nor will you be able to provide a test to disprove that there is intelligence behind the design of life on this planet. It is, however, a part of the definition of Darwinian Evolution. If "test" is required then this part of the definition would need to be tested.
What I find fascinating, even bizarre, is the fervor with which Darwinian Evolution is defended. If it were simply "science" and purely "in search of the truth", then a Michael Behe or Jonathan Wells who says, "I have problems with this" would be heard instead of ridiculed and ignored. It's not as if the loss of Darwinian Evolution would require that all atheists become theists. (Darwinian Evolution has been running into problems all over the place. Evolutionists simply adapt.) So I can't figure out why the ire instead of simply responding with facts, evidence, and reason.
Oh, and Dawkins makes his statement, believe it or not, on Stein's movie. When he admits that it is possible that aliens designed life on this planet, he doesn't equivocate. He mandates that those aliens evolved without Intelligent Design. But the thing that bothers me (from the last paragraph) is the amazing claim that no intelligent person can believe otherwise. Why is it that religious people are arrogant and only Evolutionists are sane?
Post a Comment