Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

Let's talk about various types of religion.
Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Sat May 07, 2005 10:12 am

The Dawkins interview gives this bit of background info:
Publication of his 1976 book, "The Selfish Gene," thrust Dawkins into the limelight as the handsome, irascible, human face of scientific reductionism.

It appears that there are quite a few atheists here at FLO...would you describe yourselves as reductionists and/or materialists?
Dob
-------------------
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Mon May 09, 2005 3:20 pm

Dob wrote:The Dawkins interview gives this bit of background info:
Publication of his 1976 book, "The Selfish Gene," thrust Dawkins into the limelight as the handsome, irascible, human face of scientific reductionism.

It appears that there are quite a few atheists here at FLO...would you describe yourselves as reductionists and/or materialists?



I would describe myself a *lazy*.

Thus I'm gonna let Kanas' own Dr. E.O. Wiley answer for me:

http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciecenrevieweowiley.pdf

(I'm also too lazy to fix the formatting)


Critique of Proposed Revisions to Science Standards Draft 1
E. O. Wiley Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Senior Curator, Biodiversity Research Center and Natural History Museum
University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045 ewiley@ku.edu

I do not recognized the kind of science portrayed in the revisions of the Science Standards of the kind of sciene I practice, and I have been a scientist for more than 30 years. The general thrust of the revisions seems to be the idea that science as practiced by the vast majority of scientists is some kind of religion. Since it is some kind of religion, then why not introduce other religious beliefs? So, the first question to tackle is this very basic question. Reference to the revisers is reference to whomever revised the original Standards draft. The revisers make much of the idea of methodological naturalism. They do not mention metaphysical naturalism. In fact, they confuse the two. They are quite correct when they assert that hypotheses about the natural processes of evolution are formulated under the general approach of methodological materialism. They are quite wrong when they claim that this leads to anything scientifically or constitutionally problematic. It might be problematic if what science was advocating was metaphysical materialism, but a commitment to methodological materialism is not a commitment to metaphysical naturalism, as any good philosopher can tell you. In fact, everyone who problem-solves uses methodological naturalism. When we are faced with a puzzle or wish to accomplish some task, we switch to the mode methodological naturalism and seek natural explanations or solutions. Scientists do this. Bankers do this. Farmers do this. In fact, just about everyone does this. Image if I went to my auto mechanic and he said: Well, it might be the brakes or it might be an evil spirit.

Should I give equal weight to the evil spirit hypothesis? After all, someone probably believes it, this mechanic for one. Of course not, I would probably just take my car and drive down the street to the next mechanic. I bet the next mechanic simply says it s the brakes and doesn t mention the evil spirit. I bet he is not an atheist. He has made a commitment to methodological naturalism but no such commitment to metaphysical naturalism. In short: a commitment to material naturalism is true of all science, but it does not require scientists to commit to or espouse metaphysical naturalism (aka, atheism). In my experience, there are two kinds of folks who want me to believe that methodological materialism is the same as metaphysical materialism. First, there are the atheists, since they want me to be an atheist. Second are the fundamentalists, since they want me to be a fundamentalist. Since I am neither, my response is: read some philosophy and get the differences straight. Specific Comments 2 Page 4 In a recent paper the kind of materialistic reductionism required by methodological naturalism has been charged with actually being detrimental to the conduct of science. First, that is not what the paper says, even the quote in the footnotes. First Van Regenmortel does not state that reductionism has been detrimental, only that it has reached it limits. The specific quote is: As the value of methodological reductionism has been particularly evident in molecular biology... How can one think that methodological reductionism is detrimental to the conduct of science and make this statement? He also says, continuing the sentence: &it might seem odd that, in recent years, biologists have become increasingly critical of the idea that biological systems can be fully explained using physics and chemistry. Van Regenmortel subscribes to what many of us feel: biological processes are characterized by hierarchical levels of organization that has emergent properties, These emergent properties cannot be accounted for by studying their parts because it is the interaction of these parts that creates the new level of complexity. So, where did the detrimental influence come in? Well, it has inhibited research because it overestimates complexity. OK, I am sure that scientists make all kinds of mistakes, and inhibit scientific progress in doing so. But, what is the point relative to methodological naturalism, which is not mentioned by Van Regenmortel. Fact is, Van Regenmortel used this same methodological naturalism to chide reductionists that they had reduced too much and thus missed the boat by concluding that their over-reduced systems were too complex. Pages 4-5. If memory serves me right, I think that Michael Ruse concluded that organisms were not designed by a higher power. Page 5. The nature of determinants and rules for the organization of design elements constitutes one of the major unsolved problems in the scientific account of organismal form This is a quote from Muller and Newman. From the sentence above the quote, we get the impression that they are somehow involved with intelligent design, or at least some kind of design. I was suspicious as I have had a look at the book. Just to make sure, I called Stuart Newman. Design element is a metaphor for organized part of and does not in any way refer to intelligent design. In fact, Stuart tells me that his quote has been picked up and abused by Ohio creationists, that he is a committed evolutionary biologist and that he thinks Darwin only got it partly right, as many of us also think. If methodological naturalism is irrefutable, then how was it possible to refute the junk DNA hypothesis. Did an intelligent design person refute the hypothesis? Nope, it was another methodological naturalist, in fact, it was several of them. Not an intelligent design guy in the bunch so far as I know. Popular article on line: Pearson, Helen (2004) "'Junk' DNA reveals vital role (http://www.nature.com/nsu/040503/040503-9.html)", Nature. 3 Primary Literature: Bejerano, et al., 2004. Ultraconserved elements in the human genome. Science, Vol 304, Issue 5675, 1321-1325 But, let us be cautious, the experiments of Nobrego et al. (2003) seems to demonstrate that at least some of that DNA is, in fact, junk. Nobrega, et al.. 2004. Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice", Nature, 431: 988-993. Page 6. Methodological naturalism effectively converts evolution to an irrefutable ideology that is not secular or neutral. Naturalism, the fundamental tenet of non-theistic religious and belief systems like secular Humanism, athesism, agnosticism and scientism. Here, I think is the motivation for the entire revision. A couple of technical points are in order. First, there are two kinds of Naturalism, only one of which leads to such nasty things as atheism and scientism: the commitment to metaphysical naturalism. Second, the revisers show their lack of philosophical acumen by not recognizing such an important distinction. (After all, what do philosophers have to do but make fine distinctions, which, I might add, sometimes turn out to be useful.) Finally, let me state a few other things that are rendered into an irrefutable ideology by this reasoning: Gravity The heliocentric solar system The wave/particle theory of light Relativity Atomic chemistry So, why pick on evolution? Change that states: Although science proposes theories that explain changes, the actual causes of many changes are currently unknown (e.g., the origin of the universe, the origin of fundamental laws, the origin of life and the genetic code, the origin of the major body plans during the Cambrian explosion, etc.) What does this the actual causes mean? Certainly, we know the actual causes of the origin of all the fundamental laws. They are man-made hypotheses meant to explain natural phenomena we observe using the principles of, in the reviser s words, methodological naturalism. Perhaps this is the problem: not understanding the difference between processes and theories about processes? Let me state it simply: No scientist I know or have read ever proposed a theory about a nonprocess. We propose theories only after we accept the process as a real 4 process operating in nature. Of course, sometime we are dead wrong, but if we are, some other methodological naturalist will discover our mistake and correct it. I know that intelligent design advocates really think the Cambrian explosion is a big deal. It is not, and they would know this if they actually examined the recent literature. Examples from the primary literature: Fortey R.A., Briggs D.E.G., Wills M.A. 1997. The Cambrian evolutionary explosion recalibrated. Bioessays 19 (5), pp 429-434. Wray G.A., Levinton J.S., Shapiro L.H. 1997. Molecular evidence for deep pre-Cambrian divergencies amoung metazoan phyla. Science 214, pp568-573. Seilacher A., Bose P., Pfluger. 1998. Triploblastic Animals more than 1 billion years ago: trace fossil evidence from India. Science 282, pp 80-83. Xiao S., Zhang Y., Knoll A. H. 1998. Three dimensional preservation of algae and animal embryos in a Neoproterozoic phosphorite. Nature 391, pp 553-558. Page 7. Teacher notes: Sorry, but Biological evolution does not theorize. Human theorize. Biological evolution is a process, not a human invention. Ok, maybe it is not a process, maybe what we thought was a process does not exist. But whether true or false, processes do not theorize, people do. What processes do, if they are true, is generate patterns in nature. (False processes, of course, do nothing: for example, the so-called process that disease was caused by putrid air.) We discover the processes by discovering the patterns and regularities. We then theorize about the process, attempting to capture part of it in our theory and we check this by seeing if the theory covers both known and new patterns and regularities. The statement should read: Some theories about the evolutionary process postulate that evolution is gradual and occurs slowly over many generations & Of course not ALL evolutionary theories postulate this pattern. Page 8. Number 4. I have a much better one and one that students can actually work. I will supply it if you ask. Page 9. I find the additional wording curious and misleading. All science has the expectation that older theories will be supplanted by newer theories. Experimentation does not guarantee that any theory will stand the test of time, in fact, quite the opposite. There are historical theories that have lasted longer than theories built on experiment. All scientists develop tentative competing theories and then seek clues that will rule in one 5 while ruling others out. All experiments are plagued by unknown variables, that is why we need statistics. Experimental science, like historical science also seeks an inference to the best explanation. I fail to see the fundamental difference here. Page 12 Indicator 6. The implication that experimental scientists directly observe phenomena while historical scientists do not is, in fact, bogus. For example, no chemist has directly observed a chemical reaction. Rather, they observe the effect of, and results of, a chemical reaction. Likewise, no physicist directly observes the collision of subatomic particles in an accelerator. They observe the effect of such collision on sensors. No astromomer directly observes the sun, all the photons are several minutes old. So, what experimental scientists observe are the effects and byproducts of natural processes, not the phenomena themselves (we will not even get into cognation). On this level, they are no different than historical scientists who observe the effects of other kinds of past events. The difference it only that some sciences observe things that happened in the very recent past while other observe things that happened in the more distant past. But, from the standpoint of the observer, all of it happened in the past. Otherwise there would be nothing to observe. Consider this statement. Explanations about the cause of past events are inherently more subjective because they rely to a large extent on imagination and inference to supply missing evidence. Really? Have the revisers even examined the literature? I am not speaking of derivative literature (secondary literature) of the sort that is represented by Ernst Mayr s article in Scientific American. There is no imagination or subjectivity in the hypothesis humans and sharks share a common ancestor as evidenced by the presence in both organisms of gnathostome jaws and there is no missing evidence in the statement either. How does this differ from that hypothesis neon and argon are noble elements because they have their outer orbitals filled with electrons ? Well, one could suppose that since we cannot see the electrons but can see the jaws, that the latter statement actually is based more on imagination than the former. Page 13. Additional Specificity1c. Yes, this is correct and it is one of the reasons that biology can never be reduced to chemistry and physics. However, the order is governed by biological laws. Unless the order results in a viable and functional organism that can reproduce, there is not life. This should be mentioned if this content is retained. Page 14. 6 Additional Spec. 1a. The Revisers use the NABT statement as a citation for the following: Biological evolution postulates an unpredictable and unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal. Actually, the NABT statement is: The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of biological evolution an unpredictable and natural process of descent with modification that is affected by natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, migration and other natural biological and geological forces. Thus it is factually untrue that the NABT statement contains any wording concerning guidance, direction, or goal. This is disingenuous, at the least, on the part of the Revisers. Spec.2f. The fact that changes in gene frequency is confused with genetic drift and the fact that genetic drift is included in the concept of natural selection are factually wrong and calls into question the competency of the Revisers. Genetic drift is change in gene frequency without natural selection. Changes in allele frequency can be due to drift or selection. Page 15. Spec. 3a. The problem with beginning the statement with the word advantageous is that what is advantageous cannot be predicted in advance (unless, of course, someone is guiding the process!). Beneficial is the appropriate term, if you wish to use it. Spec. 3b. Statement in bold. Fatuyma doesn t say this, although the reference with a specific page number implies that he does. The closest thing is on this cited page in Figure 10.8: this figure reflects the widespread belief that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious or nearly neutral (i.e. with nearly zero effect) and that only a very small proportion are beneficial. Note also that the proportion of lethal mutation is about equal with the proportion of beneficial mutations in the figure. So far as I know, fatal is not a term used for classes of mutations. Spec. 4c. Mayr does not talk about biological systems which appear irreducible complex. The citation implies that he does so. Indeed, the citation is positively misleading as it links Mayr to this statement, as if he said something of the kind, which he did not. This is dishonest. Page 16. Spec. 5d. I find this entire statement ludicrous. Let us examine the parts. i. Discrepancies in molecular evidence challenge different hypotheses of relationship, not the view that all living organisms are related through common ancestry. Much of this discrepancy can be ascribed to different methods of analysis, so to the known phenomenon that the descent of particular gene sequences is not in step with the descent of organisms due to differing rates of evolution. Some are due to adoption of different models of 7 how the genes are evolving. I don t know of any citations in the scientific literature (contra creationist literature) that comes to the conclusion that such discrepancies serve as falsifiers for the reality of the evolutionary process itself. ii. First, I don t know of any particular evolutionary theory that postulates a gradual and steady increase in complexity. (I do know of one that explains increasing in complexity as a natural entropic phenomenon.) Second, at least some evolutionary theories postulate stasis. Third, whether the Cambrian explosion was even an explosion is subject to debate among evolutionary biologists and none of them has abandoned the evolutionary paradigm regardless of which side of the issue they embrace. iii. What studies show this? All animals? I think not. In fact, the more recent the common ancestor, the more similar the development. Of course, not all evolutionary novelties are added onto the end of the ontogeny of animals (or plants), and this creates considerable diversity at different stages in the ontogenetic sequences, but this tiresome claim, based on Haeckel fudging his drawings (which he did) is simply false. Primary literature relating to iii: Richardson, M. K., Hanken, J., Selwood, L., Wright, G. M., Richards, R. J., Pieau, C., and Raynaud, A. 1997b) Haeckel, embryos, and evolution. Science 280: 983 -984. Page 17. Spec. 6.b. Comments. i. I do believe there is plenty of geologic evidence for a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere. I am no geologist, however, so you should check with one. ii. I am not sure what is meant by the lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code simply because adequate is observer dependent. Certainly it can be said that biologists and biochemists have not succeeded in making life from nonlife, so in that sense we certainly do not know all the steps. However, there is a large body of research regarding all of these points that suggests that biologists and biochemists are making good progress. iii. The earliest life recorded is a prokaryotic organism fro Greenland circa 3.5 billion years before present (byp). The first eukaryote was, I think, about 2 byp. Now, that is 1.5 billion years between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, not exactly sudden. I suppose that one might argue that since that 3.5 byp creature was found near the time that earth first became habitable (I don t know if this claim is true and have not checked it), that life appeared suddenly. This could mean that the origin of life from the prebiotic soup is easily accomplished rather than a difficulty. Page 18. Spec. 3. Is this a threat? 8 Page 19. I am not going to go through all these points in detail. The thrust is: evolution is not experimental and repeatable and therefore it is entirely unreliable. This is just an ax that the Revisers have been grinding from the beginning and discussing these points in detail is not warranted. I have not reviewed the glossary terms. General Impressions. The revisers paint a distorted of science in general and do not seem to know enough about evolution to understand that genetic drift is different from natural selection. They imply that we can know nothing substantial about the history of life. They misuse literature implying that scientists say one thing when they say another. The quotes used are frequently misleading and inaccurate. Throughout the revisions there is the feeling that something is missing in science. Of course, that something is Intelligent Design.






"It might be the brakes or it might be an evil spirit."

I've owned cars like that.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Mon May 09, 2005 9:51 pm

Dr Wiley wrote:…a commitment to methodological materialism is not a commitment to metaphysical naturalism, as any good philosopher can tell you. In fact, everyone who problem-solves uses methodological naturalism. When we are faced with a puzzle or wish to accomplish some task, we switch to the mode methodological naturalism and seek natural explanations or solutions.

This is obviously true…and the converse is true as well (metaphysical dualism is not a commitment to methodological dualism). Or, in plain(er) english, using the scientific method is not a commitment to atheism and believing in God isn’t a commitment to search for a spiritual explanation for all phenomena. But I see this stance as merely an avoidance of some of the more difficult questions raised by the philosophy of mind, such as the definition of freedom/free will and the mind-body problem.
I bet the next mechanic simply says it s the brakes and doesn t mention the evil spirit. I bet he is not an atheist.

Yeah, well I'd bet he's not much of a philosopher either.
Van Regenmortel… (writes) biologists have become increasingly critical of the idea that biological systems can be fully explained using physics and chemistry. Van Regenmortel subscribes to what many of us feel: biological processes are characterized by hierarchical levels of organization that has emergent properties. These emergent properties cannot be accounted for by studying their parts because it is the interaction of these parts that creates the new level of complexity.

Hmmm…if we accept that biological systems can be fully explained by natural processes (as opposed to supernatural ones), then how is it that “emergent properties” cannot be fully explained by physics and chemistry? If all early, primitive life forms (not to mention the concept of abiogenesis) are completely based on physics and chemisty, when did we make the evolutionary leap to something beyond that? Is there any scientific reason to think that physics and chemistry are inadequate, other than that's what many scientists "feel"?

The statement “emergent properties cannot be accounted for by studying their parts because it is the interaction of these parts that creates the new level of complexity” sounds like something Behe might say.
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Tue May 10, 2005 1:12 pm

Yet somehow, scientists manage to do science weven while accepting the existnece of emergent properties -- in fact it was *scientists* who suggested that emergent properties matter. That doesn't mean they can't be studied scientifically -- it only means that *reductive* analysis shouldn't be the only kind. Emergent properties is NOT a mystical or supernatural concept in science.

'Systems biology' is a branch of science. That's all Van Regenmorel /Wiley mean -- that some phenomenona have to be studied scientifically as systems, not as the sum of a collection of parts. But the study still has to be scientific. Which is essentially what Wiley goes on to say.
Are you jsut pulling select bits out, or did you read the whole thing?

And don't throw Behe at me; that guy simply isn't credible. Behe would suggest that *science* can't explain emergent propeties. ..taht the cause is ultimately supernatural.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Tue May 10, 2005 8:20 pm

krabapple wrote:That doesn't mean they can't be studied scientifically -- it only means that *reductive* analysis shouldn't be the only kind.

Is this the consensus scientific view? Has purely reductive analysis been discredited as being insufficient? Through the use of phrases like "increasingly critical" and "many of us feel" I'm guessing that it's closer to a growing hunch.
Are you just pulling select bits out, or did you read the whole thing?

Nice choice you've given me. Either I'm "quote mining" or (if I read the whole thing) I'm a dumbass.

Dr. Wiley is "critical of the idea that biological systems can be fully explained using physics and chemistry." I am asking for/questioning the scientific basis behind that thinking. Fair enough?

He might as well be saying that the human mind cannot be fully explained through physics and chemistry. That's getting so close to the philosophy of dualism that it's hard to tell the difference.

Speaking of dualism, Dr. Wiley stated he was not an atheist and implied that he did have some religious beliefs. If he believes in God, he also believes in the existence of the supernatural. That makes him most likely a dualist, and certainly not a materialist/reductionist, correct? Is it uncharitable of me to suggest that his beliefs *might* be influencing his science, even though he protested (too much?) that it doesn't?
And don't throw Behe at me; that guy simply isn't credible.

Give the guy *some* credit, OK? I'd bet his resume looks better than yours.

Perhaps it's my dumbass layman's point of view, but Dr. Wiley's quote struck me as a good description of Behe's mousetrap.
Behe would suggest that...the cause is ultimately supernatural.

How do you know that Dr. Wiley wouldn't suggest that as well?
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Wed May 11, 2005 1:48 am

Dob wrote:
krabapple wrote:That doesn't mean they can't be studied scientifically -- it only means that *reductive* analysis shouldn't be the only kind.

Is this the consensus scientific view? Has purely reductive analysis been discredited as being insufficient?


Hardly *insufficient* in all cases -- given its massive successes. It is recognized, though, that a systems approach can also be useful. May I emphasize again that a systems approach need not be unscientific?


Through the use of phrases like "increasingly critical" and "many of us feel" I'm guessing that it's closer to a growing hunch.


It really depends on exactly what is being talked about. Understanding the brain -- sure. Understanding the sequence and structure of hemoglobin -- nah. In neither case is recourse to the supernatural even on the table.


Are you just pulling select bits out, or did you read the whole thing?

Nice choice you've given me. Either I'm "quote mining" or (if I read the whole thing) I'm a dumbass.



Well, no, I didn't say anyting about being a 'dumbass'. I hope this isn't a guilty conscience writing.


Dr. Wiley is "critical of the idea that biological systems can be fully explained using physics and chemistry." I am asking for/questioning the scientific basis behind that thinking. Fair enough?


Do you understand the context in whihc Dr. Wiley's document is written? Dr. Wiley is critical of *misinterpretation* of someone who noted that absolute reductionism isn't always going to provide a complete understanding of physical phenomena.

He might as well be saying that the human mind cannot be fully explained through physics and chemistry. That's getting so close to the philosophy of dualism that it's hard to tell the difference.


He might be..but read what he actually rwrote. It's a response to a the standards proposed by creationists for the Kansas science curriculum. Dr. WIley's letter cannot be correctly understood except in that context.


Speaking of dualism, Dr. Wiley stated he was not an atheist and implied that he did have some religious beliefs. If he believes in God, he also believes in the existence of the supernatural. That makes him most likely a dualist, and certainly not a materialist/reductionist, correct? Is it uncharitable of me to suggest that his beliefs *might* be influencing his science, even though he protested (too much?) that it doesn't?


It's not uncharitable, but since he argues *against* recourse to the superatural in science, it's hard to credence it as being true.


And don't throw Behe at me; that guy simply isn't credible.


Give the guy *some* credit, OK? I'd bet his resume looks better than yours.


Perhaps. I don't have any creationist tracts masquerading as science on mine, though.



Perhaps it's my dumbass layman's point of view, but Dr. Wiley's quote struck me as a good description of Behe's mousetrap.
Behe would suggest that...the cause is ultimately supernatural.

How do you know that Dr. Wiley wouldn't suggest that as well?


Because of what he wrote.
Last edited by krabapple on Wed May 11, 2005 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Wed May 11, 2005 1:49 am

Btw, stop reading Behe. He's crap. Go read Dawkins instead.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Wed May 11, 2005 2:37 pm

"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Wed May 11, 2005 10:34 pm

krabapple wrote:In (understanding the brain) recourse to the supernatural (isn't) even on the table.

I'm assuming that you are treating "brain" and "mind" as synonymous.

If so, then I'm even more curious as to exactly what all the theist biologists believe, especially the Judeo-Christian ones. Theism requires acceptance of the supernatural (or spiritual). Plus, the concept of man as a spiritual being (possessing/being a soul) is central to Judeo-Christian beliefs. I don't see how the view that man has a soul and the view that the body/mind are purely physical can be compatible. In fact, they appear to be polar opposites.

Furthermore, if one believes that the mind is purely physical, then one has to confront determinism and freedom. It's possible to make a convincing argument (even a scientific argument) that there is no freedom in a purely physical world, since everything is merely part of a long causal sequence that is playing itself out.

I didn't say anyting about being a 'dumbass'.

True, but you respond to many of my questions by questioning my reading comprehension...which really doesn't bother me all that much, except that you stop there, as if that alone is sufficient to answer my question.

Dob wrote:Dr. Wiley is "critical of the idea that biological systems can be fully explained using physics and chemistry." I am asking for/questioning the scientific basis behind that thinking. Fair enough?

Do you understand the context in which Dr. Wiley's document is written? Dr. Wiley is critical of *misinterpretation* of someone who noted that absolute reductionism isn't always going to provide a complete understanding of physical phenomena.


In the above example you question my comprehension and then follow that with what appears to be a rephrasing of the question I asked you...which is, WHY isn't reductionism "always going to provide a complete understanding of physical phenomena"?

...but since he argues *against* recourse to the superatural in science...

The trouble is, he is arguing that there is nothing remarkable about being totally committed (as a scientist) to "methodological naturalism" (the scientific method) and being totally committed (only on Sundays, I guess) to theism/belief in the supernatural. I question whether that is possible for anyone who has given some deep thought as to what they actually believe or don't believe.

Btw, stop reading Behe. He's crap. Go read Dawkins instead.

I'm not reading Behe. It's just that his mousetrap example was very memorable. As for Dawkins...I'm thinking that the interview I read is quite enough. Does he have "theist-hating diatribes masquerading as promoting the Public Understanding of Science" on *his* resume?
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

User avatar
Xenu
Sellout
Posts: 2209
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 8:15 pm

Postby Xenu » Wed May 11, 2005 10:55 pm

I'm not reading Behe. It's just that his mousetrap example was very memorable. As for Dawkins...I'm thinking that the interview I read is quite enough. Does he have "theist-hating diatribes masquerading as promoting the Public Understanding of Science" on *his* resume?


Ohh, boo-hoo. Because theists have it so hard. Y'know, I actually find it refreshing for someone to finally be frank and not dance around the issue, but that's just me. FWIW, Dawkins isn't nearly as abrasive in much of his work.

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Wed May 11, 2005 11:45 pm

Xenu wrote:Ohh, boo-hoo. Because theists have it so hard.

It's not like the theists of the world are "one big happy family." Not even the theists here in the U.S.
I actually find it refreshing for someone to finally be frank and not dance around the issue...

I think that's exactly what my neighbor told me when I asked him why he voted for Bush.
Dawkins isn't nearly as abrasive in much of his work.

Earlier this year, Dawkins signed an agreement with British television to make a documentary about the destructive role of religion in modern history, tentatively titled "The Root of All Evil."

I hope they thoroughly cover the "destructive role of Judaism in post WWI Germany."
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Thu May 12, 2005 7:58 am

Oh, good, we've finally invoked Godwin's Law. (As opposed to Goodwin's Law.)

As long as we've done so, I can point out:

"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." - Hitler, Mein Kampf

In the context of "the destructive role of religion," this is quite interesting. If Adolf had said, "The voices in my head tell me to kill Jews," would he have gotten as far?

This has nothing to do with ID, of course. So I probably shouldn't have said anything. Oh, well.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

Dob
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 2:14 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Dob » Thu May 12, 2005 11:50 am

Rspaight wrote:"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." - Hitler, Mein Kampf

In the context of "the destructive role of religion," this is quite interesting.

Slapping "the Lord's work" label on your agenda does get attention. But how many Nazis actually believed that, and how many simply despised/envied Jews and used that label as justification for robbing and murdering them? Using the latter as examples of the "evil" of religion is not too far from stating "persecution of religion is proof of the evil of religion." If anything, it demonstrates that the "root of all evil" is *politics*, not religion.

One could make the argument that Hitler was not engaging in strictly religious persecution. He seems to have been particularly bothered by the ashkenazic Jews (who have visible ethnic characteristics, unique cultural characteristics, and were prevalent in Europe) thereby making the persecution based at least partially on culture (and ultimately "racial" by claiming that the Jews were in fact a separate race). But I don't think there's any doubt that religious persecution figured prominently within the Nazi regime -- persecution of Jews and others, such as Jehovah's Witnesses.

The Nazis followed the same progression laid out in earlier religious persecution of Jews -- "You may not live among us as Jews" followed by "You may not live among us" followed by "You may not live."

This has nothing to do with ID, of course.

That's OK...we all agree that ID doesn't belong in a public school biology class. I think the philosophical aspect of creationist vs evolutionist is far more worthy of a debate.
Dob

-------------------

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance" -- HL Mencken

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4386
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Thu May 12, 2005 12:25 pm

I wouldn't go so far as to call religion the "root of all evil." But to deny that the anti-Semitism that fueled the Holocaust wasn't promoted by Christian churches (especially the Roman Catholics, where Hitler received his religious upbringing) is to ignore history. Was the Holocaust a "Christian" crusade? Probably not. Hitler used a lot of Christian rabble-rousing, but he wasn't explicitly backed by the church. (Pope Pius XII never spoke out against Hitler until after the war, but this isn't in itself evidence of complicity.) Did the dominant Christian churches, over the course of 1000 years, create the conditions that allowed the Holocaust to happen? Almost surely.

The Israelis believe they're doing God's work in oppressing the Palestinians, who believe they're doing God's work in blowing up Israelis. al Qaeda thinks it's doing God's work by slaughtering cilivians. Bush thinks he's doing God's work in turning Iraq into a bloodbath. The Iraqi insurgency thinks it's doing God's work by killing US troops and anyone else who's convenient. The IRA thought it was doing God's work in blowing up Protestants, who thought they were doing God's work blowing up Catholics. The India/Pakistan conflict is all about the divine rights of the Hindus vs. the Muslims.

And on and on and on and on.

You'd think that an "intelligent designer" would be able to communicate its intentions a little better than that.

Ryan
Last edited by Rspaight on Thu May 12, 2005 4:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Thu May 12, 2005 2:02 pm

I would certainly brand religion *a* root of evil -- and also of good. I'd say the evil outweighs the good, historically.

Dob, you're telling me you haven't even read any Dawkins, other than that interview? I'm pretty sure I've suggested him to you before. Stop being impressed by Behe's sophistry, read Dawkins instead. And for Christ's sake stop trying to analyse every sentence without having some *greater context* of knowledge about evolution -- e.g. derived from reading the likes of Dawkins , or talk.origins,or pharyngula.com, or some other reputable source. In additiona ll three have at least *some* references to science vs. religion. Hell, if you want someone who approaches evolution from a credible philosophy/history of science POV, and who's certainly no friend of Dawkins, try Michael Ruse. ..he's the 'accepted' academic expert on the topic at this point. But don't throw fucking Michael Behe at me. He's not really interested in science *or* philosophy. He a Christian crusader first and foremost.

I'm really, really tired of dealing with religious fellow-travellers and apologists whose skepticism runs more to parsing scientist's phrases in the hopes of finding a contradiction, rather than actually trying to understand the science.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant