Loading ...[Un-]Intelligent Design
August 3rd, 2005 by SteveSo President Bush has sorta, half-assedly come out in favor of “exposing” kids to Intelligent Design in public schools, presumably in science classes. To which the science community… well, it wasn’t exactly shocked by this announcement, but the science community responded in outrage. Now, I could go on a lengthy diatribe rebutting the assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences, or outlining the many proofs for macroevolution, or even attempting to explain the vast amount of information we have on human evolution, but it would be a waste of breath. Instead, I’ll simply mimic what Wonkette had to say about it:
Teaching [Intelligent Design] as [an] “alternative” to evolution is a little like teaching “magic” as an alternative to physics, which […] would at least explain the president’s belief in the missile defense program.
Edit: Besides my response to Dale in comments below, I’d like to also add this from The Drunken Lagomorph:
God is a pretty smart gal/guy. Don’t you think that He/She, when creating the world, would put evolution in place? Kind of a “low-maintenance� plan? It’s a genius system, really. One that may be of divine creation in itself. Why should God upgrade the world every few thousand years? Why not build in an adaptation system (i.e. evolution) to do the upgrading for Him/Her?
I do NOT think that keeping an open mind to scientific discoveries and being a Christian are mutually exclusive. God gave us our brain and curiousity and intelligence. Isn’t the blind disregard of scientific progress in order to unquestioningly adhere to old myths and superstition a slap in God’s face? [emphasis in original]
August 4th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
I agree with what Wonkette has to say.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Well, although I agree that ‘Intelligent Design’ should not be taught in tandem with evolution, I do believe there is room for alternative ideas in the education system. I am not a religious person, but I do certainly keep an open mind with regard to spirituality and a sense of the beyond.
Your quote of Wonkette with regard to comparing physics and magic is not very good, and I’ll tell you why.
Considering that in recent quantum observation, scientists have shown that particles can appear in two places simultaneously; as well as demonstrate what’s known as ‘the observer effect’, which amounts to the intention alone of the observer altering the outcome of the controlled experiment; finally, the ‘now you see it, now you don’t’ dual-natured quality of photons which can appear as a particle OR wave.
It ‘appears’ to be magic, what’s happening down in the quanta, and even Neils Bohr has suggested that language itself is a limitation in describing the mathematics that are demonstrated in applied theories in this field. Certainly there are problems that even the most versed in the field cannot seem to wrap their heads around.
There is room, much room, I believe for alternative views that not only include Darwin’s Theory, but seek to build upon it, expand it, to include theism and the mysteries of Humankind.
If there be one fault in Darwin’s thinking, it would be that his conclusion debases itself. Philosophically, he claims that the universe is ‘blind’. That the forces that are creative are not intentionally intelligent, and thus renders his own argument mute by essentially saying “the universe is not intelligent, I came out of the universe, therefore I am not intelligent”.
But if we do lay claim to some kind of intelligence (and I for one believe we are, even if we’re on the bottom of the list) than we have to admit the universe is at least as smart as we are (if we agree we are indeed a part of the universe).
August 4th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
Dale, you speak in circles, and you obviously don’t understand the complexities of physics or biology. Firstly, the so-called spooky effect has been observed for decades and is not “recent”. Ditto with the observer effect. Of course, just because something “appears” to be magic to the untrained [and non-physics freaks] does not make it so. It is science, as it has been observed and researched, tested and tried through peer analysis.
And this brings us to “alternative ideas” in the educational system. ID, creationism, and its ilk are not science. It does not base itself on observations, it has not been submitted to peer review, nor CAN it be researched or tested. I don’t have any problem with ideas like these being presented in philosophy or theology courses; BUT THEY ARE NOT PURE SCIENCE.
Furthermore, our concept and knowledge of biology has evolved [pardon the pun] a lot since Darwin’s time. It doesn’t simply stop at Darwin’s ideas; biologists constantly test his and other theories, and challenge it where there are holes. If these are the kinds of “alternatives” you mean, then fine: they are science. ID and creationism are not.
August 5th, 2005 at 11:42 am
I apologize for calling them recent, certainly, they are not ‘recent’ on a timescale it seems you are using, but in the whole of our evolution, they are.
I am not a creation supporter, nor intelligent design supporter. But I do feel that science has a responsibility to test even its own boundaries, and to become more willing to challenge even it’s most fundamental assumptions where new data that cannot be accounted for under old methods. Case in point being the refusal to accept Einstein’s discoveries- Even now, in 2005, I would argue that most people still think of time as a function of absolute nature. There has been a lack of incorporating the perceptual consequences of relativity into mainstream society, and I feel it is at great cost to our development.
I am not a physics graduate, nor am I a scientist. I also don’t consider myself a ‘freak’. I was a passer by to your website and left a comment, engaging your public blog.
You wrote:
“Ditto with the observer effect. Of course, just because something “appearsâ€? to be magic to the untrained [and non-physics freaks] does not make it so. It is science, as it has been observed and researched, tested and tried through peer analysis.”
Of course, my point was that ‘it appears’ to be magic, not that it IS magic. That the observable features are ‘magical’ in that they pushed the boundaries of the testers to figure out how what was happening was happening.
Anyways, I’ve enjoyed your articles and your responses; I’ll leave the rest of this comment to a quote.
Phillip Johnson Professor of Law at Berkeley:
“Scientists committed to philosophical naturalism do not claim to have found the precise answer to every problem, but they characteristically insist that they have the important problems sufficiently well in hand that they can narrow the field of possibilities to a set of naturalistic alternatives. Absent that insistence, they would have to concede that their commitment to naturalism is based upon faith rather than proof. Such a concession could be exploited by promoters of rival sources of knowledge, such as philosophy and religion, who would be quick to point out that faith in naturalism is no more “scientific” (i.e. empirically based) than any other kind of faith.”
Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990
August 5th, 2005 at 11:44 am
P.S-> I love the new quote you posted in edit!
I agree!
August 5th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
[…] July 4, 2005 Steve Mann’s Blog » Blog Archive » [Un-]Intelligent Design […]
August 5th, 2005 at 9:07 pm
I’ll throw in my two cents here:
Dale, science *is* always testing its own boundaries. I would say that generally, scientists have an open mind to new theories. However, it must be testable. If someone can come up with alternate theories that can explain the origin and diversity of organisms while at the same time be based on accepted facts and experimentally testable, then I don’t believe there would be such an outcry against such alternate theories.
If, on the other hand, someone comes up with a theory that has no factual background and cannot be verified through experiments, then scientists usually balk.
From our experiences, every phenomenom has a natural (mathematical/scientific) explanation. Therefore, it is always easier for scientists to believe in chance rather than an “intelligent being.” For instance, if a bunch of neurons, each essentially a switch with no intelligence, can combine in some way to manifest intelligence, then what’s to say that elements couldn’t have combined after trillions of years of attempts to form life? Suppose there was an “intelligent being.” What is there not to say that this “intelligent being” was created from a natural process from fundamental particles.
Although scientists are open to new ideas, the idea of the religious right imposing their beliefs on public eduction is an act seen as stifling scientific thinking and progress. If religion had its way a long time ago, we would all be philosophers today believing that the Earth is the center of the universe.
August 8th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
“I am not a physics graduate, nor am I a scientist. I also don’t consider myself a ‘freak’. I was a passer by to your website and left a comment, engaging your public blog.”
I don’t think he was calling _you_ a physics freak. He was referring to physics experts in general. That would contradict his first sentence: “you obviously don’t understand the complexities of physics or biology.” (Either that, or he was insulting all non-physicists…)
Mike: It’s phenomenon, not “phenomenom”!
In my AP biology class, Mr. Mecouch did mention “ID”/creationism. He pretty much outlined creationism, said that evolution was supposed to be taught, and left it up to the students whether to believe it or not. Something similar was done in biology 1. There’s nothing wrong with telling kids about creationist beliefs as long as evolution is covered. It’s not like 9th/10th grade students are extremely impressionable (it’s not like i didn’t know about and believe in evolution before i took bio 1).
I don’t see what the big deal is, anyway. The vast majority of students don’t go on to careers in biological research, and of those who do, few of them are doing research on the origin of life. They’re certainly not going to start teaching creationism to biology majors in college, where real biology education takes place (high school biology barely scratches the surface). I’ll bet that the vast majority of biologists and biology students are more concerned with making new practical discoveries (new drugs, better chemical production techniques, etc.) in the field than thinking about philosophical questions. Only perhaps the tippy top of the ivory tower of biology cares about this as much people who dislike Christian fundamentalists (of course the two aren’t mutually exclusive). In fact, if I was a serious researcher, I would be annoyed and insulted if some journalist or activist group asked me if I believed in evolution. If most scientists already believe in evolution, who are you trying to convince? What difference does it make if someone who’s going into a non-technical field believes in evolution? One simple disparity doesn’t disprove all of science.
Evolution obviously makes the most sense, but until scientists can create systems of organic molecules that meet the characteristics of life, the best anyone can say is that life *probably* occurred by chance, which leaves room for fundamentalists to make stuff up. The best they’ve done so far (unless something better has happened in the past couple of years) is create simple self replicating organic molecules and synthesize amino acids and proteins in early earth conditions.
October 9th, 2005 at 6:36 am
From mixexstudios:
“If religion had its way a long time ago, we would all be philosophers today believing that the Earth is the center of the universe.”
Certainly it must be stated that other world religions do not dare make that assertion, nor ever have. Hiduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Sufi Islam- all do not purport earth-centric views.
When science can testably show me the material of consciousness that provides for scientists to conjure such dross as materialism and other paradigms, write me.
I’ll noose myself and ‘test’ the theory in the only final way.