Skip to content

Monthly Archives for March 2007

Deeper issues, bigger truths

As my faithful readers know, I’ve been lately fascinated by the ID v Evolution debate, such as it is. It’s really not so much a debate, really, it’s more like the Israelites against the Philistines (1 Sam. 17:3): “The Philistines occupied one hill and the Israelites another, with the valley between them.” They lined up like this for 40 days, hurling insults. While a few on either side may consider themselves a Goliath, so far no David has shown up to lay the opposition flat, so the insults continue.

While the issue is indeed fascinating (and at the same time frustrating, as the Goliaths on both sides tend to use embarrassing logic), it seems that the real issue – at least among those of loud voice – is not actually evolution, or even science. If you read the blogs and pay attention to the news and recently published books on the issue, it becomes more clear that the real issue is, in fact, God.

For Creationists, of course, this has always been the issue – but I’m not talking about them. It is obviously an issue with some IDists (ID is not necessarily Creationism although there is some overlap), but not with all. What is interesting is that the issue of God – or rather, the lack of God – has become such a major issue with many evolutionists (obviously this is not an issue with all evolutionists, as many of them are also God-believers).

We could expect some ID people to raise the issue of God – after all, we really only have a couple of options when discussing the identity of the “I”; we have a god of some description, or we have the space alien theory (I guess if we could also propose some type of Star Wars-like midi-chlorian cosmic Force). There are those IDists who believe that the ID hypothesis can prove design (as opposed to simply inferring design), and as such, prove the existence of God. What is interesting is that some in the evolutionist circles have followed these IDists into focusing on the proof – or disproof – of God. Again, it seems that the debate has drifted from science into theology, which is fine; I enjoy theology more than biology anyway.

Consider the recent book by Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, or the one by Victor J. Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis. Now, check out some of the blogs: we have Richard Dawkins site, RichardDawkins.net, where he seems more like a champion of atheism than anything else. Or, take a look at the blog by science prof PZ Myers, making sure to look at his religion and anti-ID posts (at times, he’s actually interesting, but he often resorts to Goliath-like name-calling and ranting). There are, of course more – start following links from the sites above and you’ll find them.

All of this makes me wonder: Has God now been drafted into the realm of science, as Stenger appears to propose, or has science moved back (note the word “back”) into the realm of philosophy & theology?

What scientists may be realizing is that there are, of course, deeper issues and larger truths than that of evolution, such as whether there is a God and where science fits in the overall picture. Are there limitations to science? If all that exists is the natural world, then it is perhaps the world that is limited. However, if I am right, then science only shows us part of the picture.

On to deeper issues and bigger truths…

Written on 30 March 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment

Irrational minds differ, too…

(By the way, I’m only focusing on the ID – Darwinist issue as it’s my current diversion; it’s not an issue of faith or focus for me. I do have other issues in mind to write about very, very soon…)

As I said in my last post, rational minds differ. It’s often frustrating, but it’s true. Two very intelligent, rational, clear-thinking people can look at the same set of facts, but because of their different grids / worldviews / lenses, they form different opinions. I’d like to think that if they sat down and reviewed the same set of facts and drank enough beer, they’d eventually agree; but, I’m not sure that is the case.

Take Francis Collins for example: head of the famous Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God, Collins is a Christian who believes not only in evolution, but also in common ancestry. He makes some good points in support of Darwinism, and against ID. Kenneth Miller, the Roman Catholic biology prof and author of Finding Darwin’s God, is also a totally committed Darwinist. Now, multitudes of scientists (and not just Theists) don’t buy macroevolution, claiming that the facts don’t support it at all; and, they also make very good arguments why scientists, including Miller and Collins, are wrong. Who’s right? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, so the debate goes on.

The problem of getting to a common understanding – and even of getting to a common agreement as to the issue – is made more difficult when people on either side side of an issue won’t look at the issues raised by the other side, choosing instead to throw out red herrings or resort to ad hominem or other obviously fallacious arguments. It doesn’t help resolve the issues, or even help those of us who rely on the expert assessments of others, if no one actually talks about the issues. As someone who has observed a number of civil trials on a number of issues, I can tell you that you can never make a conclusion by listening only to one side’s spin of the issues. By the time the Plaintiff is done presenting their case, you are sure there’s no hope at all for the defendant (even with cross-examination of witnesses). However, when the defense presents their case, you see how the defense has to be correct. It’s only in the reconciliation of both sides that you can even make anywhere near a good decision on what might be “truth.”

In a move of complete and utter silliness, a group of Darwinism supporters have started a smear campaign on an M.D. (Dr. Michael Egnor, who has expressed support of Intelligent Design) which includes creating hundreds, if not thousands, of links to articles discrediting him, so that by googling Egnor, that’s all you see. Obviously, there’s no attempt to even address the issues, which I would think would be simple enough to do, if he’s that out to lunch. It’s ridiculous, it’s reactionary, and it’s certainly not science. Egnor might have completely irrational arguments (I haven’t examined them, myself) but we’ll never know if this is the only treatment he gets. We need a rational discussion of the issues.

An example of how tricky parsing the arguments can be can be found on the Uncommon Descent blog (admittedly a blatant pro-ID site). Here, William Dembski points out the bad logic that Kenneth Miller (mentioned above) used to discredit an argument of Dembski’s. It’s more subtle, but it’s no less helpful. Dembski outlines Miller’s logic as follows:

  • Design theorist argues for X.
  • Design theorist takes pains to make clear that X is not Y.
  • Darwinist nonetheless attributes Y to design theorist.
  • Darwinist shows that Y is ridiculous.
  • Darwinist concludes ID is a failed intellectual project.

I haven’t examined Miller’s logic myself, so I won’t say for sure Dembski is right; however, this is often the logic I see used by some Darwinists in response to various ID arguments. And, I don’t doubt that anti-Darwinist folks use similar bad logic as well; however, much of the ID arguments are not anti-someone as much as putting forth their own arguments.

The point is not to say one side is better than the other; just to complain that the continued bickering and game-playing – no matter who is playing them – does not help to advance the cause of science or of religion.

Written on 24 March 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 4 Comments

Reasonable minds and irreducible complexity

In my ongoing quest to discover truth wherever it may be found, specifically relating to the ID vs. Darwin debate and more specifically related to Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity, I have discovered more information than I can either take in or understand. But, I am becoming more educated and hopefully a better thinker in the process.

So, for your consideration, here is a critique of irreducible complexity by someone who writes under the pseudonym Mike Gene (clever, eh?) titled Irreducible Complexity ReVisited . Mike reveals the flaws of IC, but points out what IC does in fact give us. Here is his conclusion, which sums his thoughts up nicely:

Hordes of IC critics have appeared since Behe published his book. A few books, many review papers, dozens of web pages and thousands of forum messages have dissected Behe’s concept in every way imaginable. Yet despite all this effort, the non-teleological payoff has been meager. They have successfully prevented IC from being used as a proof of the impossibility of evolution. But that’s about as far as they have gotten. Because of IC, they have lost the most powerful Darwinian mechanism (change along a single axis) and must appeal to indirect explanations, two of which likewise fail to explain the origin of IC, leaving only one mechanism which turns out to be an appeal to raw chance. For example, because of IC analyses, we now know that the bacterial flagellum is a sophisticated molecular machine without any fingerprint of it having a Darwinian origin. Those who still insist on Darwinian explanations for the origin of such a system are drawing upon their expectations that all biotic features have a Darwinian origin. They are free to expect this, but they err in demanding others to think as they do.

In my reading, the one thing that is the most clear is that reasonable minds can disagree.

And, speaking of reasonable minds, Steve Petermann recently posted in Telic Thoughts this piece about Kurt Gödel and the rationality of faith.

Finally, in The ID Report, Denyse O’Leary has a post, Non-materialist neuroscience: “Mind does really matter,” which is worth perusing.

Enjoy!

Written on 20 March 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with No Comments

The evolution of straw men

I’ve been doing a lot of reading lately on the Intelligent Design/ Creationism/Evolution/Neo-Darwinism controversy. I’m currently reading Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box, one of the key ID texts, and supplementing my reading (to keep that “fair and balanced” viewpoint) with anti-Behe articles on the web, of which there are many. I’m trying to avoid the plethora of “it has to be true because of my presuppositions” material, but finding that very hard on both sides. As I am not a biologist (I hated biology, by the way) or biochemist, I am for the most part stuck reading the material directed to the masses.

One of the problems with this, or nearly every political or religious debate, is that rarely do people actually address the points the others are making. I hate this. I hate it first because it offends my intelligence, and I hate it second because so many people are tricked by this approach (which is why it’s used in nearly every political or religious debate). Rather, everyone likes to debate what is known as straw men, which are mischaracterized or imaginary positions of others that can easily be defeated (often by other illogical – such as ad hominem arguments, which are misdirected attacks against the person rather than his position – arguments).

So far I am finding that Michael Behe, who is not a Creationist in the strict sense, but who is a non-Darwinian evolutionist, really attempts to deal with the issues, including the failed logic of both neo-Darwinists even others who would support ID. He, in fact, accepts the notion of a common ancestor and accepts natural selection in certain areas. It is very interesting that much of the anti-ID response makes the same logical errors that Behe points out in the first place.

If you’re not aware of Behe, he is the most notable proponent of what he calls “irreducible complexity,” a concept that is nearly always mischaracterized; at least I never really knew what his position was until I read his book. To summarize (probably inaccurately in my simplistic understanding) irreducible complexity, essentially Behe argues that there are some “bottom line” systems in life-forms for which natural selection cannot provide an adequate explanation. Basically, these systems require fully functioning elements in order to work; if one of the integral elements was any less developed, the system couldn’t work. Thus, natural selection or a gradual evolution of the system is not indicated. This, in his mind, supports the possibility that there is an element of design in these systems. Furthermore, he argues a very important point: evidence of an evolutionary mechanism does not rule out that there is an element of design in the evolutionary process.

The arguments I’ve found so far in opposition to Behe attempt to discredit his theories by disputing non-essential points or portraying him as someone who is arguing based on his presupposition that God exists. This is extremely interesting, in that one of the criticisms of Darwinism is that it is built on the presupposition of naturalism – a topic for another time. Another critique tried to dismiss irreducible complexity as a “rehash” of William Paley’s “flawed” watchmaker analogy; which, by the way, Behe himself says is flawed, and offers a different take on the argument.

Creationism and religion in the context of the evolution debate are strawmen, as are mischaracterized positions such as the over- simplification of irreducible complexity as “being too complicated to have evolved.” I’m still looking for someone to really deal with the issues.

Written on 17 March 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews with 5 Comments

The Dawkins Disappointment

Wanting to read Richard Dawkins’ latest book The God Delusion but being too cheap to purchase a copy, I am on a waiting list at the local library. In the meantime, I discovered Dawkins’ website, RichardDawkins.net, where he’s posted (among other things) the first chapter of the book. However, I’m not sure this was a wise thing for Dawkins to have done; as Simon Cowell would say, “that’s just not good enough.”

From Dawkins’ website, it would seem that he’s given up on science in favor of a full-on assault on religion (however, I have to admit that the Mr. Deity clips are hilarious). This doesn’t seem to be a good move for Dawkins, as he apparently was at one time a gifted science writer. He doesn’t seem to know or understand enough about religion of any kind to speak about it with any authority; not liking it is not enough.

The first chapter spends a lot of time proving that Einstein and Stephen Hawking were not religious; I don’t doubt this at all, and I’ll give him Carl Sagan and Gould as well. He seems to be trying to lay a case that “great” (to use his word) scientists know how to be in awe of creation (or nature, if you prefer) and avoid falling into some kind of religious nonsense. He fails to mention the scores of “great” scientists who are people of faith. What is clear is that he seems repulsed by the term “religious,” although to be honest, he presents himself as a very religious naturalist.

Dawkins seems to have a misconception about both “the religious mind” (which he characterized as weak) and religion itself. Whether he believes this or not, he at least presents flawed logic in using the example of a couple of unknown Christians to represent a larger mindset. This is like me using the ramblings of some high school science teacher to represent the “scientific mind.”

He is, however, straightforward in stating that underlying his view of science is philosophical naturalism; that is, the presumption that “there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world.” He is undoubtedly trying to distance himself and his philosophy from “religion,” although I don’t think it is working. It sounds as though he would agree with Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of “non-overlapping magisteria,” which is a flawed concept but another topic. Whether he likes it or not, Dawkins comes across as a religious zealot defending his faith in naturalism, and in the process resorting to the same types of flawed logic as those he is criticizing.

Overall, I was greatly disappointed in this first chapter. I still plan to read the rest of the book, but my expectations have been certainly lowered.

Written on 13 March 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews with 1 Comment

In retrospect, Nixon was wise…

I remember the shock and outrage of a nation when it became known that Nixon had made secret recordings of nearly every conversation that took place in the Oval Office (and the subsequent reverse outrage at the missing 18 minutes of recordings…). However, as it seems political figures are now being held to 100% accuracy standards when it comes to remembering past conversations, it would seem that Nixon was nothing but prudent.

I haven’t followed the Libby trial, but have heard enough to know that there is no way that someone with my flaky memory could ever be in public office. I don’t remember details of conversations I had yesterday, much less a year or two ago. And, considering that Scooter Libby (as does Tim Russert and the others involved) probably had conversations with dozens of people daily, I never had a problem with the fact that memories conflict; especially about someone whose name no one seemed to know, or really care about (“Valerie who?”).

I’ve sat through many courtrooms over the last 25 years, and often heard witnesses asked about conversations they may have had 4 or 5 years earlier. The fact that anyone has what appears to be an especially accurate memory is actually suspicious… it usually means that the memory has been somehow “enhanced,” through a person’s own tendency to interpret and by doing so revise their memories. Memories are not set in stone; I’ve found that memories seem to include – and sometimes are dominated by – our emotions and prejudgments of things. This is then impacted by others’ memories and their interpretations of situations.

So, no matter who is under fire with regard to past events, without a Nixonian system of recording all conversations I believe they are being unfairly measured against a standard of perfect memories which doesn’t exist in reality; it is, rather, “the stuff that dreams are made of.” But, as long as we’re under a two-party system, with the main goal of each party to discredit the leaders of the opposing party, reality will not be anyone’s standard.

A word to the wise: if you ever consider running for public office, begin carrying an mp3 voice recorder and start taping everything. You never know when you’ll be asked to remember something.

Written on 07 March 2007 by me under Politics/Current Events with 4 Comments