I probably hold most of the same beliefs that he does about the way things came to be, but I don’t hold those beliefs to be science because, as I’ve pointed out above, the evidence is simply not there to explore.

It’s unfortunate that when a debate gets polarised the loudest and most controversial voices tend to get the most press.

As for the idea of identifying design by analysis of the universe, the point is that we can’t. For those who believe that the whole universe was designed design is found in every object once it’s examined closely enough. For those of us who hold a naturalistic worldview everything is the product of the forces acting upon it and ordered systems fit together so well because they need to in order to be ordered.

Science just isn’t designed to work with this type of thing, and the only reason that people try to is because ‘science’ has become shorthand for ‘truth’ in the public perception.

“I’ve never heard of anyone claiming that the only basis for science is atheism.”

Richard Dawkins has said as much (I’m looking for the exact quote…), but I suppose I can explain it in another way.

If we attempt to explain the origin of the universe from a strictly naturalistic point of view, we leave no room for the role of a creator. At best, this leaves only a couple of religions which can accomodate such an absence, since many religions cannot be altered so significantly (in terms of leaving a creator out of the picture) without discarding the entire notion of a creator or a god. Using the Christian argument (the usual perspective used when discussing ID), the presence of a creator is absolutely vital to the religion, since this is what gives creation meaning and purpose to the Christian. Replacing the creator with the “blind forces of physics” removes the significance of creation, contradicts the Biblical account, and leaves no comfortable way to reconcile the two (this same argument can be used with any religion with a creator deity/deities).

For illustration, Richard Dawkins explained “Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye; it does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is that of the blind watchmaker.”

The argument, then, is that if the accepted mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, for example) can account for the apparent design in the universe, then the inference to an intelligent origin is false. With this in mind, we are offered a choice between God and evolution. Since everything can be accounted for by evolution, we have no room for a creator. Therefore, while it is not as explicit as some say, Darwinism implies atheism. The deduction depends on the simultaneous validity of these two assertions:

Assertion 1: Biological evolution is incompatible with the existence of a creator.
Assertion 2: Biological evolution accounts for the existence of all of life’s complexity.

Concerning assertion 1, the notion that God and biological evolution are mutually exclusive conceptual alternatives implies first that God and evolution belong to the same category of explanation. This is clearly false, since evolution claims to be a biological mechanism, and God is a personal agent who designs and creates mechanisms. Therefore, knowing how the mechanism works in no ways proves the absence of a creator. Sir John Houghton says it this way, “The fact that we understand some of the mechanisms of the working of the universe or of living systems does not preclude the existence of a designer, any more than the posssession of the insight into the precesses by which a watch has been put together, however automatic these processes may appear, implies there can be no watchmaker.” In other words, the evolutionary viewpoint (far from invalidating the inference of intelligent origin) does nothing more than move it back up one level, from the organisms to the processes by which those organisms have come to exist (or, from primary to secondary causation). Indeed, some supporters of ID have utilized this logic to blend the two ideas together, where a creator made the universe, and used evolution as a tool to guide life and create diversity.

Assertion 2 fails to carrry much weight with biologists like Daniel Dennet or Richard Dawkins. These two believe that natural selection (somehow) designs without itself being designed or having any purpose in view. Dennett explains, “Love it or hate it, phenomena like this [DNA] exhibit the heart of the power of the Darwinian idea. An impersonal, unreflective, robotic, mindless little scrap of molecular machinery is the ultimate basis of all agency, and hence meaning, and hence consciousness in the universe.” But is this true? We can rephrase assertion 2 in this way: does the evolutionary mechanism bear all the weight that is put on it? This can be a risky query for two reasons. First, evolution of one kind or another is necessary logically for the materialist or naturalist. In other terms, if all we have is energy/matter, the forces of time and physics, we are left with only one logical option: these forces have (over time) produced life unaided via evolution of some kind. Second, the word “evolution” is used in several ways (each different than the others). We can say “evolution” to describe simple change without any implication of the kind of mechanism or intelligent input (or lack of it) involved in making the change. It is in this way that we talk about the evolution of the motor car, where an intelligent input is necessary, or the evolution of a coastline, where the intelligent input is not required. We then have artificial selection. We use this process to breen different lines of dogs, cats, sheep, roses, and so on starting with basic stock lines and very carefully breeding different types (referring to genetic “types”). This process, however, involves a high amount of intelligent input (from us), and therefore is a poor model for evolution through unguided precesses. Then we have microevolution: this is a variation within a certain limit…a quantitative variation of structures that already exist. This theory is not controversial, since it is able to be recorded consistently and frequently (such as Darwin’s finches, or how bacteria develop immunity to antibiotics). Now, there are two other ways in which evolution is used which are far more controversial. The first is the term macroevolution: the coming into existence of qualitatively new structures, organs, or genetic material so that a very marked increase in complexity is observed. The second term is molecular evolution. Strictly speaking, evolution presupposes the existence of self-replicating genetic material so that “prebiological natrual selection is a contradiction in terms.” (T. Dobzhansky, “The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices”). However, the term molecular evolution is now pedominately used to describe the emergence of a unit of life (a living cell) from nonliving materials. The use of such language easily obscures the fact that the word evolution here cannot mean what it means in other applications. Finally, macroevolution has been challenged in great detail by Michael Behe in his book “Darwin’s Black Box”. Darwin himself once said “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” This is repeated by Richard Dawkins, who also states that, if any such an organism were to be found he will “cease to believe in Darwinism”. Behe explains in his book that there are indeed such organisms which have a level of complexity that cannot be described by slight, successive changes over time.

Cheers!

- JSB

P.S. I want to thank all of you for keeping this discussion civil thus far, as I’ve had similar discussions where everybody eventually just started calling me names!

Not according to most atheists. Atheists do not believe IN a god, a subtle, yet extremely important difference. Trying to frame the debate this way might make things easier on theists, but it isn’t particularly useful or sensible. The logical negation of believing something is not believing it, not believing the opposite.

“Is there any scientific evidence for ID, namely, the involvement of Intelligence in the world’s origin and the laws which govern the universe? Naturally, this is a scientifically valid question.”

No, it’s not. Not as long as “intelligence” is simply a synonym for “magic.” Science requires explanations to, you know, actually EXPLAIN how something happened, such that we can see if that explanation really fits the facts we have. But the hypothetical ID could be anything or be capable of doing anything, including erasing or modifying all evidence of its own interference.

That’s not testable in the least. This is why I have much more respect for Young Earth Creationists: at least they propose some actual concrete ideas, like that the Grand Canyon was formed in short flood. Those ideas are contradicted by the evidence in every which way possible, but at least they are closer to the spirit of doing science than most ID proponents.

“Certainly the scientists who believe that the only intellectual basis for science is atheism have scarcely any grounds to raise objections to other people using scientific evidence to support the opposite metaphysical position of theism.”

You have this quite backwards. I’ve never heard of anyone claiming that the only basis for science is atheism. I’ve seen people claim that scientific evidence supports atheism insofar as it rules out many religious claims. But that’s not the same thing at all.

“So I think we can agree that supporters and opponents of ID can scientifically ask this question, and the rest of the debate becomes discussions of design in nature.”

I agree that maybe someday they’ll wise up and start asking scientific questions. But right now, ID as a movement is nothing more than a bunch of recycled creationist arguments against evolution (rather than scientific evidence for ID) and bizarre, incoherent assertions about how unnatural nature is.

“Look, I’m not saying the holocaust didn’t happen. I’m just saying history classes should teach both sides of the controversy. After all, it’s a valid question to ask whether any historical evidence exists that would tend to prove the holocaust is a hoax.”

That’s the historical equivalent of ID in science.

Attempting to determine through the analysis of the physical world whether the physical world has a metaphysical origin is impossible.

Science doesn’t rule out the idea that a creator exists (though, of course, many scientists believe that there isn’t) but without a hypothesis that can be falsified through repeatable testing it’s not a scientific issue.

I think the best way to deal with this issue is to ditch evolution too. While I see the evidence as insurmountable proof I think that the issue is both too polarised and too complex to teach to most kids in a way that will help them learn and critically assess rather than just believe what they’re told (which isn’t terribly useful to their development even if its true).

So, Intelligent Design is the hypothesis that the world and all things that exist carry evidence of intelligent origin. I could carry this thought further and explain that theism is a hypothesis which states that there is a God and atheism is another which states that there is not a God. Let me ask you this in parallel: Is theism science? Is atheism science? Most people (both Christians and atheists alike) would say no to both. But imagine if we then clarified that what we meant to ask was whether there is any scientific evidence for either of the two (theism or atheism); this changes the questions slightly. This leads me to interpret the question about whether or not ID is science by rephrasing the question: Is there any scientific evidence for ID, namely, the involvement of Intelligence in the world’s origin and the laws which govern the universe? Naturally, this is a scientifically valid question. Ceratainly the scientists who believe that the only intellectual basis for science is atheism have scarcely any grounds to raise objections to other people using scientific evidence to support the opposite metaphysical position of theism.

So I think we can agree that supporters and opponents of ID can scientifcally ask this question, and the rest of the debate becomes discussions of design in nature. This can get to be a LONG discussion, and I wouldn’t want to take up too much space on Radley’s blog…but from this conclusion we can legitimately say that, at a minimum, the question “is there any scientific evidence for ID, namely, the involvement of Intelligence in the world’s origin and the laws which govern the universe?” and its subsequent investigation can be called scientific in their endeavors, and therefore eligible to be taught as a potential theory for the origin of life.

Cheers!

-JSB

Of course for any number of reasons we should replace government schools (I say that as a government school teacher, by the way). However, that’s not going to happen, so ignoring how to answer the question by appealing to libertarian principle is just burying one’s head in the sand. The question is, should ID be taught in public schools? That question needs to be answered one way or the other, and simply pretending it isn’t there by critiquing public schools is intellectual laziness.

Further, I’m not sure what to think of a plan that would allow creationism to be considered valid science. Would you approve a geometry course that taught that vertical angles were incongruent? Or a history course that taught that World War II was the cause of the Civil War? Some things simply aren’t education, and to the degree that we want our children to learn, we can’t pretend that superstition is science.

Instead of having a government-run public education system, if we could replace it with charter schools, and perhaps more private schools and let each of the different schools choose for themselves which ideas/worldviews/theories to present to the children, with certain minimum requirements (such as being able to read, write, etc) we might see less fighting. If we give everybody a choice, and this includes the choice to homeschool if desired, then quite a bit of this debate over ID vs. Evolution would probably fizzle out…or at least just stay in the realm of academia. Also, since private schools aren’t government-run, then they wouldn’t be violating any amendments if they were to present ID either alone or with Evolutionism, and I believe that more private schools would pop up at more affordable tuition rates if there was less pressure to send the kids to government-run education.

I know I’m probably overlooking something(s) here, but hey it could be a nice place to continue discussion! :)

Cheers,

- JSB

<a href=”http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/DavidKing/GuideToObjectivism/FALLACYS.HTM”Ambiguous Collective Logical Fallacy.

I agree we need an “angel” here, but I think $30 million is wildly off the mark. Cato’s annual budget isn’t even that high. A professional, full length documentary can be done for around $200K. Granted, that’s just one film, but it only takes a handful of these things to have an impact (think of how Roger & Me, or Supersize Me shifted the public debate). Plus, if you produce, say, 5 films, you might be able to use revenue from one of them to produce more (there’s also a good chance you won’t be able to). However, even if none of the first few takes off, at least you have a product to use when asking for donations from libertarians.

If you add up the budgets of all the ineffective libertarian think tanks in the country, you’re quickly in the tens of millions. Surely a few hundred thousand dollars could be better spent bringing stories of government abuse, corruption, etc. to the masses.

Cato’s board alone has like 3 billionaires; surely they aren’t the only ones out there (not to mention the millionaires). Stories and images go a hell of a lot further than policy papers no one reads, and liberals (Michael Moore, Morgan Spurlock) and conservatives (Evan Coyne Maloney) are taking advantage of it. Libertarians aren’t. Guess who loses…

Um, that’s not what Ron Bailey said (he said “In any case, I’m sure the evolutionary biologists didn’t say anything they didn’t believe.”), and it’s not what the scientists say. They say that were duped into participating (and thus helping to promote) in a film they all consider fundamentally dishonest, and most anticipate being carefully edited to mislead viewers about the scope and subject of their comments.

The key here is that they were told that they were being interviewed for a different film (which turned out to be an elaborate scam) that had a different subject matter than Expelled! This meant two things: first that the interviews were generally in the context of discussing the intersection between religion and science, rather than about strictly being about science. This works out in the final film as various prominent atheist scientists being presented as if atheism and evolution are one and the same.

Secondly, it deprived the interviewees from ever getting the chance to respond directly to any of the core accusations of the film. This is a more common, though still deceptive tactic in journalistic film-making. It certainly puts the lie to the question of giving a voice to both sides of a controversy: they didn’t even tell the interviewees what the controversy would be in the first place.

The Libertarians are quite a varied group. Anyone for less government and more freedom can associate in some way with Libertarians. Unfortunately this makes them a haven for real paranoid and crazy people. (If they’re really out to get me, am I still paranoid?) It makes libertarians an easy target for the progressives. Since progressive ideas are popular, its hard for us to get our point across before we get shut out.

Libertarian ideals will have to be presented in a way that’s subtle. So they don’t know what their listening to until their hooked. Something like a historical context, revolutionary war tales that focus on the value of liberty and how it can and has been lost. Cautionary tales like 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, but something fresh and new and closer to current reality, so more people will believe that it could happen in their life time.

Its something we need badly. We’ve gotten where we are because of the increasing ignorance of the masses. If we don’t work to correct this, in a couple more generations, it may require another bloody revolution to get it back.

http://www.honestylog.com/root/2008/03/oh-jesus.html

Just amazing. 2008, and we’[re still steeped in people’s fantasies and delusions about their imaginary friends.

One word: Tithing.

I’ve spent over a year hearing, “That sounds like a great project. Unfortunately …”

Meanwhile, the only docs I’ve seen recently with libertarian themes are the “Last White Hope” drug war film, which was absolutely awful, and Aaron Russo’s tax protester doc, which makes us look fucking crazy. I’ve also heard that the weird objectivist guy who wanted to seize Justice Souter’s farm is looking to get into the libertarian film and TV biz. Fantastic.

It’s long past time that libertarians took advantage of the documentary film market. Let’s make it happen, Balko!