Comments on: Design Discussion Continues

By: British BullBlog

British BullBlog — Sun, 13 Feb 2005 00:28:46 +0000

Right on Cue

The local high school has just become the first in the [US] to discuss an alternative Darwin’s theory of evolution in class, called Intelligent Design. … This argument lays bare the game of semantics being played to discredit science.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:37:46 +0000

I note that Anthony Flew has convinced himself that a superior intelligence must have provided the spark of life. Flew was a skeptic, an atheist, a philosopher knows as “The Champion of Unbelief”. It would be useful to follow his reasoning (he has written books on logic).

By: And

And — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:08:18 +0000

intelligent design as op-ed

As one of the ID movement’s most visible proponents, Behe might seem a good choice for such a task; but he seems to regard this statement of postulates as an argument, which clearly it is not. Perhaps the kindest conclusion to be drawn is tha…

By: Macht

Macht — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:52:55 +0000

Paul,
I didn’t take what A Steve said to mean that every 50 years there is a change. He talked about a “gradual retreat” and part of my point was that the “Evolution is a lie”=>”microevolution”=>”intelligent design” sequence isn’t really a sequence since IDer’s still accept microevolution. The sequence doesn’t even really follow since they aren’t even talking about the same things. I took the “I wonder where we will be 50 years hence?” to be asking what creationists will be saying in the future, not as laying out some pattern of the evolution of creationist thought.
But assuming A Steve was saying that these changes happened every 50 years, he’s still wrong. Another 50 years back puts us in the 1890’s or so. In his book “The Battle of the Beginnings,” Del Ratzsch opens his chapter on the history of creationism with “As noted, much (though not all) of the Christian community had achieved peaceful coexistence with biological evolution within a few decades of 1859.” By this he means that while there was some initial resistence to Darwin’s ideas in the few years after 1859, by the end of the century there weren’t too many Christians that had a problem with it. It wasn’t until 20 or so years later in the 1910’s that some Seventh Day Adventists started raising problems with the theory.
Eric,
While I don’t think there was anything controversial about the finches changing beaks, there was controversy about how they changed. So as long as microevolution doesn’t imply that it was done through natural selection, then I would agree with you. Many creation scientists haven’t even had a problem with microevolution creating new species, as long as the new species were of the same “kind.” But there has been a lot of disagreement over how the changes occur.

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 14:35:00 +0000

I don’t think there’s a “retreat” going on in any part of the Christian community regarding evolution. At least, no more than changes in the consensus on evolutionary theories represent a “retreat.” I think all three of those views have been held since Darwin’s time (although ID has only recently been formally expressed).
For instance, I doubt that most Christians of Darwin’s time would have found anything controversial about those finches with the different beak sizes. That would be an example of microevolution, though the term had not been introduced at that time.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:00:48 +0000

“And I didn’t say anything about whether they are correct or not, just that they’ve held that position since at least the 1940’s.”
And since A Steve’s timeline looked at approximately 50 year intervals, your point would be…?

By: Macht

Macht — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:41:15 +0000

I took your use of “metaphysics” to be literally “above physics.” I wasn’t talking specifically about questions of existence or properties or causation. So I agree that science has to deal with epistimological questions, too. But you are wrong that it doesn’t go both ways. The underdetermination of theories (i.e., empirical data alone is consistent with any number of theories) guarantees that non-empirical principles are needed to guide science. It doesn’t matter whether scientists are repulsed to them or not – they are needed, they aren’t useless.
And I wasn’t speaking about popular opinion about creationism, I was speaking about what creation scientists themselves have said about microevolution. Any good book on the history of creationism (e.g., “The Creationists” by Numbers) will show this to be true. And I didn’t say anything about whether they are correct or not, just that they’ve held that position since at least the 1940’s.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:35:39 +0000

The question of how science should be done is technical and, at the most abstract, epistemological rather than metaphysical. While science and logic can and should set the limits to the discussion in metaphysics, I don’t really think that the discussion can work both ways except in the most theoretical cosmological sciences and only when used as a vehicle to generate testable hypotheses as a by product. By most definitions of metaphysics I’ve ever heard, questions of “meta reality” are inherently useless and sometimes repulsive to scientists. All we can deal with is what the world gives us to study, and nothing more. Arguments over the meaning of quantum mechanics are at most parlor games for real physicists – and the same is true for much of the scientists. When creationists argue over the minutiae of Popper’s theories of falsification, most biologists aren’t paying attention, nor should they. By the way, if you think most creationists accept micoevolution, read some polls or visit a small town in any state, red or blue and talk to the fundamentalists you’ll meet. Also, see my post in last Monday’s discussion on ID for a refutation of the long-held fallacy that micoevolution and macroevolution are governed by different processes.

By: Macht

Macht — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 22:15:46 +0000

A Steve,
“I find the gradual retreat of Christian Fundamentalism from “Evolution is a Lie” to “MicroEvolution” to “Intelligent Design” fascinating. I wonder where we will be 50 years hence?”
Umm, creationists have pretty much accepted microevolution at least as far back as the 1940’s. and they continue to do so at the present time.
Chuck,
I don’t know if we can make that sharp of a division between the physics (or, science in general) and metaphysics. Science often informs metaphysics (e.g., quantum mechanics has pretty much gotten rid of the mechanical, deterministic view of the universe). Also, metaphysics is a necessary part of science (e.g., the question of how science should be done is a metaphysical question).

By: Chuck

Chuck — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 21:51:32 +0000

I guess my point about metaphysics is similar to Schroeder’s. Science can describe anything about the system (the world line of all bits of information originating with the Big Bang at 13.7 Ga) but, in my view, cannot tell us much about anything outside that system. All other speculation is metaphysical (including discussions of multiple universes unless these universes are necessary in the GUT which will, by definition, have sufficient predictive power to be convincing). Earth’s biosphere surely arose by the processes described in the evolutionary model built up over the decades since 1859 – any demands to the contrary simply have not stood the scrutiny of science or even bothered to provide a satisfactory alternative explanation. If God ever does become observable by science, we will need to describe God with the same vigor as all other phenomena. The result of that, I suspect, will not satisfy most Christians.