I’m glad that PBS took the time to address the ongoing political contraversy of evolution vs. intelligent design. Unfortunately, it took until minute 28 of a two hour special until I heard an intelligent argument either way (note: argument 2 is found at 42 minutes if one isolated set of fossils is an argument) As a show thats presented as somehow resolving or addressing the issue–this comes up remarkably short. While I the respect folks that produced the documentary and that uphold a robust (or even radical) version of evolution, I think its scientific case as a creation story is intellectually dishonest and dubious. But I hope a more informed national discussion about the issue will yield some helpful intellectual strides.
Intitially, they put gravity in the same category as evolution. (Are you kidding me?) The evidence for or falsifisability of evolution is hardly the level of what gravity is.
Second, they fail to get at the nuance–the third option. In one hour, they fail to even provide a 20 second mention of a group of people who believe in the theory of evolution, but don’t believe that it explains the creation of the universe. And the contraversy is not understood in terms of nuance: its science vs. religion, but with no grey areas or depth.
Third, creationists say God created the universe, but this show never asked about what is really being debated here: is the big bang viable vs. ordered creator.
Fourth, no mention of one of the core Intelligent design arguments that evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In other words, that as time goes on chaos increases, not decreases–so evolution contravenes not only the laws of science but the historical record.
Fifth, how does similar chomosomal evidence indicate that an evolutionary relationship exists. I’m chomosomally similar to all the heros and tyrants of the universe, but that doesn’t mean I evolved from them. Thats pretty absurd.
Sixth, in a court room witnesses are cross-examined by the. Why didn’t a scientist who was an intelligent designer get to re-interpret and critique the new fossil which supposedly proves evolution to be true. (the scientists explanation just as viably proved an ordered universe via intelligent design)
Seventh, the social implications of teaching survival of the fittest seems ethically problematic. At some level, any humanism has to take issue with the survival of the fittest ideology.
Eighth, the coverage of flaggelum allowed for both sides to be heard, in sharp contrast to the fossil discover discussed earlier.
Ninth, PBS openly voiced conspiracy theory and unsupported hasty generalization and polariziong: “Christians are bound by the Bible to hate science.” Not only is it factually incorrect (ie some people meld faith and rationality) and additionally walks a greyline of hateful stereotypes. (I’m sorry if I’m too sensitive hear).
At the end of the day we’re left with evolution being a flawed argument and “evolution being a negative argument”–it doesn’t mean that evolution should be taught in the classroom.
Why can’t they have a quite rundown of the best arguments on both sides for 5 minutes. It could even be in a quick 45 seconds on each side an interview fashion like Hardball. Or, why can’t they do two specials: one that focuses on story and one that focuses on the debate? More info available on the website is hardly enough (even though I appreciate it).
The Larger Indictment of Mass Media and Documentary Coverage of Important Issues:
This seems to suggest a larger problem in 1 hour documentaries. They overwhelming tend to focus on the drama and the story and not the issues (the political contraversy and the political spectacle). I’m not saying the story is bad or not enjoyable–I’m just saying its not as scientifically, politically, or culturally as productive as alternatives could be. Even our documentaries, that are supposedly supposed to be above the fold, manage to entirely miss the heart of the issue. (any pun unintented) No wonder America can’t come together on issues–even our documentaries leave massive holes in the public discourse.
Update: If you have doubts either way on the Dover trial, you can check out this extensive and scientific critique of the Dover trial. Or for an indepth explanation of the science of Intelligent Design, please look here.
Update: there are folks who don’t agree with me and make what may seem like compelling claims. However, they come up a bit short in answering any of the six plus criciticisms of the PBS evolution special I outlined above (and two or three more in the comments section). If I’m in error…feel free to leave a comment which explains the nature of my misanalysis.
_________
End Note/Digression: The main professor from Lehigh in PA–Beehee I believe–not to give PBS an interview is problematic (suspect even). I wish he had taken the opportunity to use the interview as a means to tell his side of the story–his discoveries about the narrative of creation. Why didn’t he refer them to former journalist and atheist Lee Strobel, who is a formost authority? Or why didn’t PBS find the best selling author themselves?
special thanks to bluedharma for the flickr photo
43 responses so far ↓
Ed Darrell // November 14, 2007 at 3:28 am |
It is rather apples and oranges — we know so much more about evolution than gravity. There is a school of thought about intelligent grappling to replace gravity, but it has even less science about it than gravity.
Ed Darrell // November 14, 2007 at 3:32 am |
By the way, they didn’t say Christians hate science. I’m beginning to wonder if you and I saw the same program at all. The NOVA program on PBS was quite solid — a story of the legal fight in Dover, Pennsylvania. Well researched, accurate, throwing in some great science — what more do you want?
C’mon over to Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub for a different view, or check out Pharyngula.
vinny // November 14, 2007 at 4:06 am |
Strobel is not an authority. He has no qualifications as a scientist. All of the information for his Case for a Creator came from the Discovery Institute, which did not cooperate with the documentary and the majority of whose witnesses withdrew from the Dover case rather than face cross examination.
David Dubuque // November 14, 2007 at 4:11 am |
If creationists have the truth on their side, then why do they have to resort to blatant lies , as in this case
a) who bought the books,
b) the important role played by their church in
the planning of the school board’s strategy
c) the connection between “creationism” & “intelligent design”, etc.
Does a noble END, justify the use of ignoble MEANS?
See my http://churchvstate.org/ on the interplay between religion & faith.
bobcu // November 14, 2007 at 5:44 am |
Invoking intelligent design is no different from invoking magic. It’s childish and stupid. It’s certainly not science. The death threats against the judge, most likely from Christian thugs, were interesting. Christians brag about how they get their moral values from god himself, then they threaten to murder judges and they lie in court.
compassioninpolitics // November 14, 2007 at 8:49 am |
Great discussion, I’m glad to see people joining in. I’d like to hear others contribute and join in the conversation…..
David I can conceed that the tactics used by some of the folks involved in the controversy used poor means. That really doesn’t address the issue of science. And doesn’t mean their ideas aren’t valid.
Further, the folks on the side of science no ground to stand on it this exchange, given that some have used some pretty whack means–we don’t really need to get into Tuskegee or the Stanford Prison experiment with torture.
Three key premises still remain intact:
First, evolutionists don’t have anything to stand on–similar DNA and bone structure don’t PROVE anything. If anything they prove the ordered nature of the universe. I have similar bone structure to any particular person doesn’t prove I evolved from them or vise versa.
Second: as for the other concerns–I really don’t see a counter claim to the fact that evolutionary theory fundamentally violates the MORE respected and trusted second law of thermodynamics that entropy is always increasing in the universe.
Third: PBS Bias. The example of the new found fossil (pro-evolution, not criticized in anyway) vs. the flaggelum (both sides are heard) demonstrates a significant portion of bias. Also, the language and rhetoric of the broadcast was framed to favor those on the side of radical evolution. Further, speculation and stereotype was allowed to be victorous (all Christians hate science. And more particularly are required by their religion to do so)
One more critical claim is that science ignores the spiritual side of human existence. It can never encapsulate that part of human emotion and transcendence. In fact, science (as a general rule) tries to suppress those aspects of the human experience that it finds offensive.
Even the Dali Lama would agree on this premise.
Finally, the middle ground solutions which fuse faith and science were almost entirely ignored. I can still buy the theory of evolution, but not buy evolution in terms of the origin of the universe. Which begs a question still: there was zero defense of the big bang theory as scientific of rational. At a fundamental level, the ultimate defense is that Creationism is just as justifiable as the big bang. Neither has an ultimate ends or means to defend its veracity. Both are essentially taken on faith.
mek1980 // November 14, 2007 at 10:42 am |
Evolution is about the development of life. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe; you may have listened too closely to people trying to sell a godly bill of goods.
vinny // November 14, 2007 at 2:52 pm |
The overwhelming consensus of scientists at every leading research university in the world supports evolution. Am I really biased against God because I think that my childrens’ science curriculum should be guided by this consensus rather than the arguments generated by religious think tanks? The intelligent design proponents had their opportunity to participate in the trial and in the documentary and most declined to do so. The ones who did participate came off looking poorly because of the objective merit or lack thereof in their positions, not because of bias or disrespect.
All Christians do not hate science, but some unfortunately hate the fact that science seeks to answer questions without saying anything about God either positive or negative.
BTW, the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system because it receives energy from the sun. The collective chaos (or entropy) of the solar system (which is a better approximation of a closed system) is increasing even though it is temporarily decreasing in a small portion of that system via evolution.
bobcu // November 14, 2007 at 4:51 pm |
“evolutionists don’t have anything to stand on” said the flat-earther who believes everything is supernatural magic.
becky garrison // November 14, 2007 at 7:57 pm |
When I penned “The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail,” I freely confessed I was a satirist not a scientist. Lee Strobel may be a best selling author but he is not a scientist and has a penchant for quoting from some very unreliable creationist journals.
In my research, I came across books penned by these scientists that I would recommend:
“Finding Darwin’s God” by Keith Miller
“The Language of God” by Francis S. Collins
“The Dawkins Delusion?” by Alister McGrath
“Evolution and Christian Faith” by Joan Roughgarden
All of these books address the topic of evolution from a Christian standpoint. I found a general consensus in this group against the findings of both Richard Dawkins and Michael Behe.
Jake Bouma // November 14, 2007 at 8:05 pm |
Hey Nathan.
I have been watching the ID/Evolution debate from the margins for a while now. In fact, I used to consider myself an advocate of ID, and now I would consider myself an Christian evolutionist.
If you’re looking for a good read, check out “Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution” by Kenneth Miller. While I don’t necessarily agree with his final conclusions, he provides a very solid case against ID. He takes on a few of the dominant arguments in ID (from Behe, Berlinkski, Johnson, etc al).
I don’t have the book with me or I’d present a quote from it.
But, personally, I don’t think being Christian and believing in evolution are mutually exclusive. One thing that we have to understand is that we’re operating in a quantum physics worldview, one that blows much of Newtonian physics away. That should lead us to not only find different answers, but to ask better questions.
Anyway, check out the book.
compassioninpolitics // November 14, 2007 at 8:06 pm |
Thanks Becky! I didn’t know Strobel was so suspect.
compassioninpolitics // November 14, 2007 at 8:12 pm |
Is the name calling necessary or effective. Thats the whole notion I took issue with and indicted at the top. It seems that making actual scientific arguments–would seem the superior and more legitimate mode of communication.
And certainly much more appropriate for the digital public square.
I don’t understand why simply because I’m a luddite, why people feel the need to catigate me. Plenty of folks are luddites–Al Gore is a luddite–in fact at the beginning of his greenhouse mission I imagine he faced similar criticism from folks who were looking at frenetic temperature and not climate trends.
compassioninpolitics // November 14, 2007 at 8:17 pm |
My question is….are we just biological creatures? Is that all our worth of humans is–bones and organs?
Science only captures so much of the human experience.
ronnie ferez // November 15, 2007 at 10:44 am |
^tpam
we are more than that.
evolution is best counter-argued by “design” in creation.
Natural // November 15, 2007 at 11:50 am |
i’m for creation. you can just look at the plants and their order, the position of the sun and the earth, you can look at your own body and see that it was done on purpose and with thought. everything is in the right place.
Ed Darrell // November 15, 2007 at 11:58 am |
You’re dealing solely with creationist sources, especially those already determined to be misinformative about evolution.
Get over to the NCSE website, get a copy of the Dover trial decision, and read it.
Were intelligent design worth the paper it yearns to be written on, it would not take major deception from schoolboard politicians to get it into the science texts. Were there a whiff of science about it, there would have been more than two papers about it written in 20 years. Were there a whiff of science about it, there would be labs working in the area.
Vinny // November 15, 2007 at 1:31 pm |
I agree that science only captures part of the human experience. However, the answer is to recognize that spirituality is a separate aspect of humanity. Trying to force science to deal with spirituality degrades them both.
Music City Bloggers » Blog Archive » The Evolution Of Bad Media // November 15, 2007 at 4:01 pm |
[...] at Compassion In Politics has an indepth review of the PBS special about the evolution controversy. Interestingly, he uses the show’s structure and style as a jumping-off point for indicting [...]
William // November 15, 2007 at 10:29 pm |
The second sentence of your post:
Here is a duplicate of my comment that I left at MCB:
How many of you happened to watch the PBS NOVA program on the intelligent design case in Dover, PA? It was absolutely stunning.
It showed how the intelligent design proponents define what a scientific theory is. Under such a definition “psuedo sciences” like astrology can be considered “valid scientific theories.” Also, central to the case was how the proponents of intelligent design lied, committed perjury in an effort to mask intelligent design’s connection with religion. Revealed was how defenders of science, ultimately including the judge in the case, received death threats from religious fanatics.
It also shows how elegantly the sole scientific witness for intelligent design was debunked by his own cited reference! And how ‘expert witnesses’ for intelligent design largely folded.
This program will be available for viewing on the PBS website by this weekend in its entirety. I strongly suggest everyone who is a proponent of intelligent design should watch this. It shows the issue from both scientific and sociological angles.
It backs up what I’ve been saying all along. Not to sound elitist, but the fact remains and is made unmistakably obvious in this documentary, those that do not accept the theory of evolution do not understand 1) the science, and 2) what constitutes a ’scientific theory.’ The case was a slam dunk.
Debates such as these that involve science are fundamentally hampered by a basic lack of knowledge of those that participate. I am proud to see the teachers of Dover, some who are devote Christians, stand up for science in the classroom.
I am stunned by the title of this post. This is media at it’s best. The bias here is clearly due to a religious agenda and the inadequacy of the complaint is further bolstered by the cited blogger’s (Nathan) lack of ability to grasp the scientific aspects of this documentary. I won’t waste space by refuting each of his points but if you watch the documentary, perhaps you’ll be able to grasp these scientific concepts for yourself and see what the intelligent design movement is all about.
Watch it at the PBS website.
ianheath653 // November 16, 2007 at 5:43 am |
Thanks for the comments! I think a large source of the reason why people don’t see eye to eye on whether or not ID is scientific has to do with differing views on what questions scientific investigation can answer in the first place.
The problems people like me have with ID isn’t the simple issue of its being “religious.” What we’re generally saying is that there are certain things, questions that cannot be proven or disproven by experimentation and rational inquiry, that are beyond the ability of science to explore, such as whether or not creator deities exist. Philosophers have tried to find a logically bullet-proof answer one way or the other to that question for thousands of years and have never come up with one that is completely flawless.
That’s where ID gets into trouble. By assuming the existence of a designer of all life on Earth that, somehow standing outside all physical laws of space and time that govern our observable universe, made the ancestors of all species we see today as they are today, ID assumes as its beginning axiom something that is fundamentally unanswerable and unexplorable through the scientific method and scientific inquiry, which must take place in the realm of the physical universe. As a result, ID is at its core unscientific.
The question isn’t whether intelligent design as an idea has merit in and of itself; the question is whether it can be taught in science classes, and the answer to that has to be an emphatic no, because its central assumption is unscientific. A discussion about it can most certainly be had in the cultural, spiritual, religious, philosophic and societal realms, but a discussion about it cannot be legitimately held in the realm of scientific inquiry – which is with what a science class should be solely concerned.
Scientific investigation, by its nature, has to be done from a rationalistic perspective, regardless of whether people like that fact or not. If it is approached from another avenue, it ceases to be science. Science really is limited here. Unfortunately, a completely open dialogue, which encompasses the spiritual, cultural, philosophic, and religious elements of an issue, is not a scientific dialogue, and as a result it really does not have a place in a science class. Characterizing intelligent design as religious is not a reason to dismiss it from all discussion, but it is reason to dismiss it from a science class.
An earlier commenter remarked, “trying to force science to deal with spirituality degrades them both.” Personally, I would say that trying to force science to deal with spirituality would be like trying to use a handheld can opener to open a cardboard box. The results of the attempt aren’t going to be very useful. The tool just doesn’t work for the task at hand. I’m not saying science and spirituality can’t coexist, but there are certain questions (those dealing with things beyond or transcending the physical universe), that scientific inquiry, by its nature, simply cannot approach.
Of course, I suppose intelligent design could become a scientifically grounded concept if we suddenly discovered a highly advanced civilization somewhere across the universe that has been designing and making worlds through some process we don’t know about yet, but somehow I seriously doubt that’s what ID’s current advocates have in mind, and we’d have to discover a heck of a lot of currently far-fetched things about our universe for such an idea to be even remotely plausible from a scientific standpoint.
There is definitely a degree of validity to your criticism of the rather one-sided nature of the NOVA documentary, but keep in mind this: Most of the articulate ID advocates declined to be interviewed for the show, and think tanks like the Discovery Institute did not choose to participate. The knee-jerk, “the Bible says its true; it must be true” soundbite people you mentioned in your comments on my blog were by and large all the producers could get to speak on camera.
I don’t think the show’s producers had to actively seek locals who would say that, by the way. Living in and being from southern central Pennsylvania, there are an awful lot of people of that persuasion around here, probably much more so than much of the rest of the country – if you went around rural and suburban towns like Dover asking random people whether they agreed with that statement, I’d be willing to bet the answer would be an emphatic yes the large majority of the time. In fact, you’d also get likely get a few people who would agree whole-heartedly with the statement, “Christians are bound by the Bible to hate science,” although their numbers would definitely be smaller.
Discussion about the flagellum could have been much more interesting than it was, but you also need to have Michael Behe be willing to talk about it on the show. That wasn’t the case, so they had to make due with the courtroom transcripts, which were what they were, through no fault of the show’s writers.
Boy, this is getting way too long. I’ll try to go over the other points you wanted me to mention, but I’ll try to keep them short.
Putting gravity in the same category as evolution is not as far-fetched as it first seems. Issac Newton first postulated gravity as a force in the 1600s. He could describe it, but he had no clue how it worked. In fact, nobody had any clue how it worked until the early 1900s, when Albert Einstein came along with his idea about space-time being distorted by objects with mass. Even today, physicists still have very little idea exactly how gravity does what it does. The other major forces have been found to have corresponding subatomic particles that transmit energy – except for gravity. They’re still looking for the postulated “graviton” and still haven’t found squat. Weird as it may sound, scientists probably know far more about evolution today than they know about gravity.
Evolution does not explain the origin of the universe – evolution is a concept of biology to piece together how this planet arrived at its current, past, and future biodiversity, while the origin of the universe is studied by those in completely different scientific disciplines.
The show did not debate the question of the big bang vs. an ordered creator. The central questions of the show were whether intelligent design could be taught in science classrooms and just what the biological basis for evolution was. Cosmology has nothing to do with either those questions.
The law of thermodynamics is only one side of the story. In addition to the fact that it only applies to closed systems, which the Earth is not, as someone already pointed out, there is also the counter-intuitive concept that everything you see that appears to be ordered, when you peel it back to an atomic or a subatomic level, is really quite chaotic. In subatomic physics, all of the seemingly ordered things we see actually derive from chaos on the level of the particles that form them. All the order we see has Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle lurking beneath the surface.
I’m a little hazy on this next one, but apparently the people who’ve mapped out the genomes can somehow tell the relative time when certain bits of genetic code made their way into the genome vs. others within it. I have no idea how this works, so I’ll just have take the experts’ word for it on that one until I can look into it more.
All the other points I think I’ve covered already except for point seven, which is a darn good one. Every time we make a discovery that makes us collectively seem less like a big deal in the universe, that problem arises. Scientific discoveries are morally neutral; they’re neither inherently good nor bad; and it unfortunately falls to us to muddle out what to make of them. Throughout human history, we’ve tended to do a pretty lousy job muddling out what to make of them at first. That will probably be a problem for quite some time, not just with regard to evolution.
compassioninpolitics // November 16, 2007 at 6:01 am |
First, thanks for stopping by and commenting. I’m really enjoying the conversation and exchange.
All the folks that have talked about how scientific the story was–fail to come to grips with the two or three levels of bias. That means all the talk of science is a fundamentally rigged game–which on its face is bad science.
Also, one level of bias is exposed by the fact that the omission of the discussion of young earth vs. old earth theories concludes mostly toward young earth theories disproving darwin-based evolution.
Thoughts?
compassioninpolitics // November 16, 2007 at 6:02 am |
@ to William and others who have pointed to the “science” and lack of bias in the PBS documentary.
(this is what I posted at MCB)
Thanks for the props Katherine and thanks for William for creating some discussion.
First, let me apologize for the stupid antics that were conducted by people who labeled themselves Christians. Just because people attach a given label or identity to themselves does not mean they actually walk by its principles. (in this case–this in a very dramatic and un-Christian way) However, to use that as an indict Christian principles–only individuals people who misapplied it.
Alternatively, science has folks who do evil stuff in its name too. Just look to the work of leftist Brian Martin’s critique of science (war, repression, environment, poverty, patriarchy, etc..) http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/93sthv.html (to which I would add racism and colonialism and militarism). So please, please, please don’t lay the errors of supposed adherents at my feet or those of Christianity.
Every ideology has folks who misapply that ideology and create negative stereotypes.
Second, on the issue of science–not like the actual documentary, omits any discussion of the scientific merits of evolution. Similarity in structure only feeds the case of Intelligent Design–that these things are ordered.
Third, the bias of the documentary. It happens on at least three levels. Initially, 75% of the quotes on the creationism side come from non-scientists–(the primary arguments presented were faith based in nature–they made the creationists look like fanatics–while not portraying scientific fanaticism or the worship of science) (not because scientists who believe it to be true weren’t available) but because that made the PBS case stronger. Second,
the discovery of the new fossil (in 2004) wasn’t covered from both sides–while in sharp contrats–the issue of the flagellum was. So, on the issue of bias–I’m not sure how the advocates of the pro-PBS position have a leg to stand on. Asserting the bias doesn’t exist, when I’ve given two rather acute versions, is like asserging the sky is red.
Comments? Feelings? Scientific reasoning?
compassioninpolitics // November 16, 2007 at 6:10 am |
Ians case is well argued…
Science also assumes itself to be true. Science is circular in that respect (as is every other ideology).
A second level of this is exposed by Jake above when he suggests “we’re operating in a quantum physics worldview, one that blows much of Newtonian physics away.” (I’ll have to get to that in my research). At the very least it suggests that much of science is flawed on its own terms–and that we should have paradigm shift away from the old kinds of science.
Third, I question if the science of what happend over 3,000 years ago is the same kind of science of gravity. At best its tenative or quasi science.
Fourth, even if I conceed that ID isn’t scientific, I believe that the possible holes in Darwinism should and must be discussed in the classroom in the interest of education, science, and fairness.
compassioninpolitics // November 16, 2007 at 6:15 am |
Scientific discoveries are morally neutral; they’re neither inherently good nor bad; and it unfortunately falls to us to muddle out what to make of them.
Is the “scientific” practice of phrenology (head bumps to diagnose illness) as valid as any other? Tuskeegee as well as the cases outlined by Brian Martin are pretty clear (i suggest scanning the bullet points):
Consider some of the crucial problems of the world today.
* War. Considering the usual statistic that a quarter or half of the world’s scientists and engineers are engaged on military research and development, there has been remarkably little attention to military science and technology. To find some pungent critiques (as contrasted with “policy studies”), it is necessary to go back decades (Bernal 1939; Clarke 1971).
A partial exception is Donald MacKenzie’s (1990) careful analysis of the social construction of nuclear missile accuracy. This work, inspired by peace movement concerns, is among the most insightful in science studies today. But for all that, it really has little relevance to the peace movement. After all, questioning of nuclear missile accuracy is not new. In any case, what great difference does it make to peace activists, even if they had time to read MacKenzie’s scholarly treatments?[3]
* Repression. In many countries around the world, governments are routinely involved in surveillance, harassment, imprisonment, torture and killing of dissidents. Science and technology are heavily involved. The science studies community seems to have ignored this area, unless the work of a BSSRS group is counted (Ackroyd et al. 1977; BSSRS 1985).
* Poverty and inequality. Science and technology are very much involved in struggles over wealth and its distribution, via technology transfer, the green revolution, ownership of information, workplace technologies, ideologies of the market, and many others (Third World Network, 1988). What was the last article in a science studies journal that centrally addressed the role of science and technology in creating or challenging poverty and inequality?
* Patriarchy. Feminist critique is thriving, but has made little impact in the central science studies journals (Delamont 1987). Is it only coincidence that almost all the leading figures in the sociology of scientific knowledge are men?
* Environment and health. This is one area where critiques of science abound: analyses of nuclear power, risk assessment, chemical hazards, etc. Why is this? Is it, perhaps, because social movements have made this into a respectable area, taken seriously even by white middle-class men? I don’t know the answer, and there is certainly something worthwhile to be learned about why the critique of science has been applied in a more sustained and penetrating fashion to environmental and health issues than the topics mentioned above. Unfortunately, only a fraction of the scholarly treatments are of the slightest use to the front-line participants.
compassioninpolitics // November 16, 2007 at 6:21 am |
For a rather robust refutation of the PBS special from folks who are on the frontlines of the issue:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html#more
Ed Darrell // November 17, 2007 at 4:17 am |
“Robust refutation?”
Not from the Discovery Institute. Those are the guys who tucked tail and ran when they realized they’d be subject to cross-examination at the Dover trial. They reneged on their promises to the Dover school board, and they reneged on their commitments to the Dover defense team.
Refutation? Nothing they say is anything anybody can trust.
vinny // November 17, 2007 at 4:23 pm |
I have to go with Ed on this one. The folks at the Discovery Institute like it when they can script their own questions like they did with Lee Stobel and “The Case for a Creator,” but they were not willing to stand up to real cross-examination.
Anonymous // November 21, 2007 at 11:28 am |
Chris // December 2, 2007 at 3:12 am |
2 quick comments on:
“Fourth, no mention of one of the core Intelligent design arguments that evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In other words, that as time goes on chaos increases, not decreases–so evolution contravenes not only the laws of science but the historical record.”
Ask yourself, is the Earth a closed system? This is where this kind of thinking fails. Huge amounts of energy come to us from the Sun. If this is a core argument as you say, then ID is on shaky grounds.
“Fifth, how does similar chromosomal evidence indicate that an evolutionary relationship exists. I’m chomosomally similar to all the heroes and tyrants of the universe, but that doesn’t mean I evolved from them. That’s pretty absurd”
No, you didn’t *evolve* from them. But you do have common ancestors. Please educate yourself on the subject first. Chromosome 2 is evidence of our common ancestry with the great apes. We did not evolve from them.
compassioninpolitics // December 2, 2007 at 2:03 pm |
Hey chris and other folks joining the conversation!
Your argument for common ancestors seems to be even more problematic–given that that means that we descended from animals even lower than monkeys and apes. What other walking besting beast are we closely related to.
Again…thanks for stopping by. I’d love to continue the conversation further. I’ll have to check out Chromosome 2 and add my thoughts here later….
Ed Darrell // December 3, 2007 at 1:58 am |
That’s right, we’re related to every other creature with DNA. God don’t make no junk — you got a problem with your family? Tough.
Yes, evolution is much better understood than gravity. It’s only within the past decade that we have discovered (we hope) the particle that carries gravity, the graviton. No one has directly measured gravity yet. No one has detected an actual graviton in action. In the last five years we learned that gravity travels at the speed of light in a vacuum — as best we can determine. We’re still trying to detect a gravity wave.
In contrast, we know how evolution is carried, in genes. We can manipulate it. We can make e. coli manufacture human insulin.
Evolution is much better established science than gravity.
compassioninpolitics // December 3, 2007 at 4:57 am |
Ed,
Thanks for stopping by and chiming in…
Interesting. The fundamental part I don’t get is two fold. First, I don’t challenge evolution so much as evolution as explaining the creation of entirely new species–which is an entirely different category of proof from which I’ve seen And most of the pro-evolution arguments also prove intelligent design–for instance Chromosome 2 appearing in so many species says “ordered” creation far more than it does evolved or changing one. (which answers back your “we have genes in common” claims above)
It seems that what pro-darwin scientists most want from pro-creationist scientists is causation, when they can only prove correlation themselves–we have similarity–therefore we must have evolved is a rather significant leap)
Second why do apes and fish and humans
exist all at the same time–shouldn’t natural selection done away with the fish and apes.
Thats a fundamental problem–that evolutionists
don’t seem to confront head on.
Gene manipulation is different that evolution. Genes are the building blocks–just proves “ordered” origin. You’re saying genes randomly arose. Just seeing a DNA strand suggest that there is HUGE order in the universe. And to think in our bodies how many time that order is multiplied is rather mindblowing.
Your bold assertion that “evolution has better science than gravity” begs a host of questions.
Thoughts?
Ed Darrell // December 4, 2007 at 4:12 am |
What sort of proof are you expecting to see with species? Speciation has been documented hundreds of times — in fact, at the fly conferences there is usually a paper discussing the difficulty of keeping flies in the lab from speciating, and thereby nullifying that population’s usefulness in the development of treatments of flies in the wild. The creation of new species is such a powerful drive that when conditions are ripe — in this case, the isolation of a small population — speciation is almost a certainty.
So, I’ m confused when you say you haven’t seen evidence. Your best bet, I think, is to get a copy of Jonathan Weiner’s book, The Beak of the Finch, a story of evolution in our time, about the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant on finches in the Galapagos, and about evolution generally. It won the Pulitzer in 1994 — the evidence is only better since then, but Weiner tells it very, very well. The Grants tracked every individual of non-migrating birds in different species on an island in the Galapagos, over 20 years when the book was written. Their observations and carefully detailed measurements of each bird, including heritage, feeding habits, diet, song, courting, mating, nesting, progeny, size, weight, beak size and shape, color, song, and blood sample (including DNA), provides millions of data points to track what happens in a populations. It is not an exaggeration to say they recorded evolution in progress (one of the surprises was that evolution can move extremely quickly under certain circumstances — a live confirmation of Eldredge and Gould’s punctuated equilibria).
In any case, it’ll open your eyes.
I’m not much on genes, either — are you referring to the fused gene in humans, as opposed to other great apes? This can’t demonstrate design. It’s heritage. Among other signals of evolution and not design, there are end codons in the middle of the fused gene (as evolution predicts), and two center genes instead of one. God’s not an incompetent or maleficent designer — so evolution is the only hypothesis standing on that count.
Why do apes, fish and humans exist at the same time? Where did Christians come from? Why do Jews and Catholics exist at the same time? Where did Protestants come from? Why do Jews, Catholics and Protestants all exist at the same time, if any one is the evolutionary offshoot of any other?
I don’t know who you’re talking to, but any evolutionist would be pleased to tell you the answer: Fish and apes don’t compete in the same niche.
Gene manipulation could be different from evolution — but my point is that we understand evolution so well we can do the manipulations. We can’t manipulate gravity in any way. The science of evolution, based on evolution theory, is much more advanced than the science of gravity.
Yeah, there is much order, and natural explanation behind all of it so far. Genes do randomly arise (it’s been observed in the wild and the lab).
You mean that my assertion invites questions — which ones? Ask away.
Becky Garrison pointed out something rather interesting about Dawkins and Lee Strobel « Compassion in Politics // December 6, 2007 at 9:51 pm |
[...] Prolific author Becky Garrison pointed this out in the comments of my post which criticized PBS documentary on the evolution and intelligent design debate: When I penned “The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail,” I freely confessed I was a [...]
compassioninpolitics // December 10, 2007 at 5:02 pm |
This is from Webster (Thanks!):
Nathan, may I suggest you peruse the Answers in Genesis list of arguments creationists shouldn’t use? It might have saved you from a couple of embarrassing flubs above. Find it at .
The reason the IDM folks can’t give a good definition of science that includes ID “theory” is that it really isn’t science. But then, neither is evolution, or creation. The difference is not in the evidence examined, it is in the philosophical approach to the evidence. The creationist generally starts with the presupposition that the Biblical account of history is reliable, and interprets the evidence in that light. (Yes, I know there are some non-biblical creation accounts, but they are not politically important, here.) The evolutionist starts with some presupposition that is incompatible with the Biblical account, such as uniformitarianism, or that the geological column was deposited over millions of years, or some such thing, and interprets the evidence in that paradigm. The ID’ist starts with the presupposition that humans can recognize design, and interprets the evidence with that in mind. The end result is that their conclusions fall in line with the initial assumptions, b/c no other possibilities are considered.
The trickiest issue to deal with (and it can be seen in these comments) is the slippery nature of “evolution”. The problem is that evolutionists equivocate with its meaning. When contrasted with creation, the usual understanding is that it is a story about the origin of life, and of the current diversity of life. But when they want to avoid the abiogenesis problem, the technical meaning is invoked, which begins its operation after the first self-reproducing life exists. Then when they want to “prove” evolution, they typically define it as speciation, or a change in gene frequency, or some such modern-day phenomenon that is easily demonstrated. But the ability of a population of finches to increase or decrease average beak size in response to the amount of rain doesn’t tell anything about where finches came from; and rapid speciation fits both a “hopeful monster” scenario and a Creation-Fall-Flood vision, where a few thousand kinds on the ark diversify into the throngs of land vertebrates we have today in less than 4,500 years.
Molecules-to-man evolution is a story about the past — which makes it history, not science. Science tells us about the way the world works now, and we use it to make predictions and create technology. Evolution claims to tell us where we came from, and its proponents use it to tell us who we are and where we should be going — entirely appropriate ventures for a philosophical system.
Gravity can be tested, and makes predictions we rely upon every day. Evolution can only be asserted, and makes claims that often turn out to be wrong. See the early Pakicetus reconstructions, the coelacanth, Dawkins’s selfish gene meme suggesting that adoptive parents would be less caring than blood parents, and so forth.
Ed Darrell // December 10, 2007 at 7:05 pm |
Evolution theory is solid, has not changed in any really significant way since the turn of the 19th century to the 20th (though the new synthesis puts genetics understanding to work), and can be tested in any number of ways. It’s predictable, and less woo-ey than gravity, for most people.
Get a copy of Jonathan Weiner’s book. I’m telling you, it’ll give your beak something to chew on.
compassioninpolitics // December 11, 2007 at 9:59 am |
Webster emailed me this post:
Typical evolutionist response: “Oh, there’s LOTS of evidence, too much to go into; trust me.” But not one specific example. This is a debate tactic known as “elephant hurling”.
Keep in mind, any real evidence would have to be something predicted by evolution, but inconsistent with the Biblical Creation-Fall-Flood teachings. Of course, it’s a lot easier to think you have that if you don’t understand your opponent’s position. Neither evolution nor old-earth creation models predict rapid speciation — they predict changes over millions of years, remember — but they do not all exclude it. Young earth models require rapid speciation, because they only have a few thousand years to work with, although this is not well known among uninformed evolutionists.
Predictable? Solid? How about the claims of nearly two hundred “vestigial” organs in the human body? Modern medicine admits there are none (even the appendix is known to have some purposes). Now, (surprise, surprise), they’re trying to redefine the term. (Sound familiar?) How about transitional forms? There are actually fewer candidates now than in the 19th century.
Here’s my favorite quote about your highly-touted finch book, Ed:
“In summary, this book will reinforce the prejudices of the evolutionary faithful; it will delight the shallow-thinking evolutionist who has not bothered to think through or become informed about the matters raised by creationist biologists such as Lester and Bohlin, in their classic The Natural Limits to Biological Change.”
Thanks to Ed, Webster, and others for keeping the conversation going!
Rene Monroe // September 29, 2009 at 8:15 pm |
Well this is rather interesting. As always, the debate of evolution verses creationism has sparked some…colorful emotions. However, I must say that the argument saying that evolution should be looked at through a “Christian” lens is rather illogical.
It is not because the aim of science should be trying to prove that God does not exist, rather it is about explaining how the natural world works. The lens of science is one of scientific method, of unbiased logic.
If we were to look at evolution or the creation of the universe (which are two separate subjects) through a theological lens, then science loses its ability to remain unbiased. Thus when we look at the thesis of intelligent design, we find that it centers around God as the creator.
This is illogical. Not because God is/isn’t real but because the basis of God is faith. By definition, faith is a belief in something without concrete evidence. Since God cannot be proven or disprove, the very belief in God is one of faith.
It is because of this that Intelligent Design is not science. Why? Because the central idea around this theory is the belief in God and that belief does not rely on the scientific method but on faith. While there are scientific arguments that can be made in support of Intelligent Design, this does not mean that the overall theory is then scientific or even logical.
After all, one could make a logical argument that cats and dogs are the same thing when everyone knows that they are not. The term for this is fallacy. The argument that claims that Intelligent Design is science is a fallacy and nothing more. It is faith. It is religion. What it is not science.
compassioninpolitics // September 29, 2009 at 10:28 pm |
Rene, you have an interesting argument, but you seem to be largely basing your argument on a “poisoning the well” a common logical fallacy.
>>>The lens of science is one of scientific method, of unbiased logic.
Also, this is a mistake. Science is limited in its ability to address the universe. Also, multiple identity groups (womyn and minorities) have pointed out the biases of science with regards to covering issues related to them. Finally, science isn’t generally qualified to answer questions of origin or purpose.
First, the Cambrian explosion disproves his theory. Darwin himself said that, “is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my views.” (Origin of Species 1859) Thomas Woodward said, “…this sudden appearance of the major types of life forms in the lowest strata of rock, without any trace of origin from earlier progenitors, baffled Darwin greatly.” Wooward continues, “Each year more and more unique, never-before-seen fossil specimens are being dug from beds near Chengjiang. In every case, the new Cambrian animal forms appear suddenly, with no hint of transition from anything else.” (Darwin Strikes Back on Amazon) In other words, the number of gaps in the fossil record is increasing at a rate faster than its being filled in.
Of course you’ll bring up some argument from Ken Miller on this issue, but Stephen Meyer in his peer reviewed “Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004″ answered Mr. Miller.
Second, the logic (and intuitive appeal) of a fine tuned universe is hard to deny. Even chaos theory suggests that where we see disorder is actually a larger/deep order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
Third, Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, which is edited by John Angus Campell and Stephen C. Meyer outline the following challenges to “the standard Oparin/Miller chemical evolutionary theory for the origin of the first life for many reasons, including:
NRen2k5 // November 3, 2009 at 2:50 am |
Could you cite me some examples of such?
Purpose, no, of course not. Purpose is a subjective, personal thing. Origin, absolutely yes, seeing as it’s a matter of fact.
It doesn’t disprove the theory; it’s an interesting subject of research and debate.
No, that’s a different subject entirely, and a much weaker one at that. It’s not so much a legitimate scientific objection as it is a logical fallacy. There’s an evolutionist in-joke that whenever a transitional fossil is discovered, creationists cheer because it gives them two new gaps.
Although the journal is peer-reviewed, Meyer’s article wasn’t – he was the journal’s Managing Editor at the time and published the article without peer review.
Sophistry. First, order doesn’t necessarily mean purpose. Second, the universe is the way it is, and if it were different, it would be different. Just because things are the way they are and it seems marvellous to some doesn’t mean that it was purposefully made the way it is.
There shouldn’t be any “pre-biotic soup” to be found – once life got a foothold, it consumed it.
Sounds like the same doubt Darwin and Woodward harboured and I addressed further up in this comment – just in different words.
—
I think you muddle evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang. But, the subject being PBS’s special, and this being a pretty common creationist mistake, I think you’re right to bring up the points you do and I would have liked to see them addressed too.
compassioninpolitics // November 5, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
NRen2k5,
Interesting thoughts and thanks for your overall tone.
Hopefully, I will be able to respond with my take soon.
In reading over your responses above, it seems the role of the Cambrian era or rather explosion, still isn’t accounted for by most Darwinian models or evidence.
Here is the feminist critique of scientific epistemology you asked for from Stanford University:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/
Further, it seems the role of abiogenesis–in other words how we got DNA and RNA and other complex beings from a chemical stew which somehow created amino acids. DNA is an information strand and randomness, which is the change vector suggested by Darwin, isn’t sufficient enough to create organized information (as opposed to random information).
Just my thoughts,
Nathan
NRen2k5 // November 11, 2009 at 10:32 am |
Nathan,
Likewise on the tone.
As for abiogenesis… Keep in mind that the surface area of the planet is some 200 million square miles, and abiogenesis had hundreds of millions of years to happen in. Stranger things have happened.