According to a Zogby poll taken this year, Darwin's 200th anniversary, Americans favor intelligent design over Darwinian theory. According to the poll, 33 percent of respondents said they agreed with Darwinism, but 52 percent agreed that
The Romantics out number the Rationalists - always have, always will. Rationalists mostly run the world (at least the parts of the world that work) because they are the only ones who can.
When I saw the title "Not Darwin's Year," I thought it was a piece about all the government bailouts (with our - the taxpayers' - money) of Wall Street banks and automobile companies. The bailouts have allowed the weakest to survive - quite in opposition to Darwinism.
Are the two mutually exclusive? Why can't someone believe in a Creator that designed and guided evolution, but that the universe and its creatures evolved as described by Darwin? The only time these two concepts are at real odds is in the teaching of science, because even if you believe in a Creator, that has nothing to do with the science of how things evolved.
When respondents say "guided by," isn't that consistent with evolution? Darwin theorized a mechanism/process. If someone believes in intelligent design, it's entirely possible that he believes evolution is the process chosen by that intelligence to guide the development of life. In other words, evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive.
Rather than assuming the poll wasn't objective based on the poller's predispositions, should we not examine the methods, questions, responses used first? Shouldn
Phrasing this as the *development* of life being *guided* by intelligence plays into a notion not of a single creation event, but creation occurring over time. In some ways, it's phrased in a way making it compatible with Darwinism: not the dogmatic assertion that all attributes derive from greater fitness of ancestors but the idea that natural selection drives changes in the genetics in a population, in addition to other causes (perhaps among them intelligent interference).
Certainly their compatibility is the case when we consider the development of dogs (which happened through natural selection and the intelligent selection of people).
I don't see why it has to be one or the other. Why can't natural selection and evolution be PART OF an intelligent design? I would think that any intelligent design would include a plan with rules and an order of how things would work.
Many of my fellow secular empiricists have long championed the notion that public schools could promote rationalism by teaching, among other things, evolution. Clearly, that hasn't worked.
So here's an alternative idea: support a free educational marketplace in which schools compete to attract and retain students. Certainly there would be schools that did not teach evolution, and others that taught "intelligent design," or "creation science." But, at the same time, the schools that wanted to teach science well and clearly would no longer have to appease groups opposed to their efforts, and thus would no longer have to water down science instruction.
Attempting to ram reason down the public's throat has been tried, and it doesn't work. It was never a good idea in a free society anyway. So why not try educational freedom?
You know, I think that evolutionists should stop trumpeting their rationalism as somehow superior to a romantic view of the world. After all, most people would a dash (or maybe a dollop) or romanticism is needed.
I also would like to point out that scientists may be the most sentimental of all people. After all, just because an apple fell from a tree last week does not mean that it will fall from one this week.
Cold, rational thinking leaves us with a very limited set of deductions. If someone is a bachelor, that means he is not married. If you touch my nose with your finger, then that means my nose is touching your finger. If we limit ourselves to purely rational beliefs, we may not be able to get out of bed in the morning
For many of us, it's not evolution that is the problem, but the framework of philosophical naturalism that is pushed along side it. Many (e.g., Asa Gray, Darwin's friend and source of botanical examples; Owen Gingerich; John Polkinghorne) hold to intelligent design (n.b., the non-capitalization) and evolution as the mechanism for carrying out that design.
Let' suppose there is some truth the to the idea that it is not Darwin's year, but someone else's. Why not predict that it will be Darwin's year at some point in the future when his real understanding of Evolution is made obvious. Why then even mention Intelligent Design i.e., religion at all when faith has nothing to do with it.
So then it seems that most Americans are in line with the view of Thomas Jefferson, who was himself a proto-intelligent design advocate: blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/06/thomas-jefferson-intelligent-design-advocate.html
The reason why it can't be both "Intelligent Design" and Evolution is because "Intelligent Design" tries to masquerade itself as a valid scientific line of inquiry, when it clearly is not. It's a line of inquiry that lies outside the scientific enterprise. You can't use empirical data to try to confirm the existence of something that is beyond the scope of empiricism.
Evolutionary theorists do go in for one thing - that evolutionary theory is the best SCIENTIFIC theory out there, the most well-confirmed empirical thesis regarding species diversity on this planet.
People who make the jump from evolutionary theory to something that involves a debate about rationalism and romanticism are conflating in a major way. Evolutionary biology is a SCIENCE that cannot prove or disprove whether or not things like deities exist; nevertheless, it doesn't purport to, much like it doesn't purport to have any say in whether a person likes to read The Economist or the The Wall Street Journal - both of those are outside of its domain. The issue is when people from the sham "Discovery Institute" try to sneak an intelligent "designer" into the scientific enterprise.
If not philosophical naturalism (upon which the natural sciences are based), which form of philosophical supernaturalism works out? If you're not up for philosophical naturalism, then apparently Occam's Razor is out of the question. That seems like a terrible problem.
In other news, a study commissioned my Microsoft found most people preferred Windows. A separate study commissioned by Apple confirmed that most people liked them better. Similar studies have been recently commissioned by the Democratic Party, the Republican party, Ford, Chrysler, GM, Toyota, Honda, BMW, Budweiser, Coors and IBM, with similar results expected.
I'm OK with schools teaching intelligent design, as long as it's the proper classroom -- and that's NOT a science classroom.
The most vocal advocates of "Intelligent Design" and their organizations go on to claim that the Earth is around 6000 years old. I'd be interested to know how many Americans believe in that.
Darwin's theory of evolution has two elements. First, random mutation. Second, survival of the fittest.
Evolution is not simply about the developmental path or a design history. Rather, it is about how these two mechanisms led to the array of life we see before us.
If you add a designer or guiding hand, the mutation is no longer random, and instead becomes intentional. That's not biological evolution as scientists understand it. If any criteria other than fitness guided who survived (i.e. some intelligent agent who favored some over others), that's not evolution, either.
So, the fossile record is not incompatible with intelligent design, no. However, the theory of evolution is.
I may be nitpicking, and the study is probably doctored considering it was conducted by the Discovery Institute, but Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are two different concepts. So which did the Discovery Institute ask about? And Intelligent Design is little more than reason-washing term for Creationism. Were people asked if they believe in creationism? To give any merit to this study would be silly considering the Discovery Institute is unobjective and has a clear history of obfuscating the issue of evolution.
I just went to that link. What a miserably worded poll question. (Zogby could use some "intelligent design" for their polls.) Why is "guided the development" in there? That implies, to me, that evolution (change) is taking place in BOTH the scenarios described. Frankly, as a staunch anti-Creationist, even I can imagine a scenario in which an omnipotent god, fully cognizant of the outcome and of all physical laws and processes down to the bare constituents of matter, energy, and spacetime, flicks a finger and starts the Rube Goldberg-like process of creation and evolution, knowing that 13 billion-ish years later, some intelligent hairless apes will be discussing the subject, rather than a bunch of intelligent featherless birds, or a pool of bacterial soup.
A better option for Statement B: "Life was created by intelligent design, and has not significantly changed since its inception."
This seems like a poll designed to create mentions of Zogby in the news ("Shocking new Zogby poll out today..."), rather than a poll designed to create new insights about our society.
Because they are not compatible does not mean incompatible,
The problem as I see it is that science limits its domain of knowledge to reality, religion depends upon faith. I have no problem having two sides and that there is a middle ground. My guess is even the pope and other religious leaders and their followings have somewhat of a grasp of the difference these days by virtue of the fact that they use the mass media in various ways that warrant the thought that they too understand the ideas of cause and effect and of the possible interconnection of things.So what is the problem-- as one friend once put, "there are some questions that we will not know the answer to" (Jones, date unknown) and that as a scientist, I am not in a position to address. This includes the question of the existence of an intelligent designer or G-d. In other words, there is no accounting for faith. Some have it, others don't and a third group of people admittedly do not know. I admit that this raises an interesting question of why then Einstein apparently claimed that g-d does not throw dice. Following my reasoning, the logic is clear that if g-d through dice, then very concept would be inconsistent with science as Einstein understood the subject. (Goldstein, copyright 2003, unpublished)--which it was not.
#14 is spot on. One is science, the other is belief. Belief, while it has its merits, still does not belong in the science classroom. It may guide your work or give you purpose, but it's ridiculous to consider a belief (not even a real, testable theory!) in an intelligent designer as "scientific."
I find the whole ID movement really offensive as a Christian, too. Most of the people who back it do so because it's compatible with what they believe--usually, a belief in the Judeo-Christian God. When trying to gain support from Christian groups, the whole idea of ID is framed within that context of religious belief. Yet, when they try to gain public approval for the idea, they often claim that it has nothing to do with God, and that it's somehow a secular idea. Riiiiight. Didn't that part about not denying God make God's top ten list of things NOT to do?
The whole movement seems disingenuous at best.
All this being said, the way DI worded that, it's hard for a person of belief not to agree with it. Even many of those of us who believe God works through the processes that Darwin theorized about still believe that God has something to do with life on earth. Thus, I'm not sure that the poll really proves much aside from that 55% of the respondents believe in some kind of God. That's not too much of a groundbreaking claim.
The answer "guided by design" would be chosen by theistic evolutionists, who are opposed to Intelligent Design as pushed by the Discovery Institute. (In fact, the hatred is mutual.)
Statistics for some of the other questions are consistent with a conclusion that many of the "guided by design" crowd contains a significant number of ID opponents. The Discovery Institute has been known to frame questions so as to include people who would not otherwise agree with them.
I would like to get people to agree that evolution has not been proven like so many other scientific theories.
The reason is that the scientific method of inquiry starts from a testable hypothesis and flows into a demonstration of that hypothesis being proven.
Because all scientists say that this process has been going on for trillions of years, it is going to take quite a while to test the hypothesis.
You have to admit, that the case for evolution is not even as close to airtight as gravity. All I want is for a little more humility regarding this theory
In spite of the constant efforts of the Naturalists, this is NOT a debate between science and belief. BOTH sides have evidence they point to. BOTH sides are b a sed upon belief that their paradigm is correct.
Until that issue is resolved, there will never be intelligent discourse on this issue.
Beyond that, 'evolution' is not the issue, as ALL creationists know evolution occurs. That is not theory or hypothesis, but a fact. The only theory and hypothesis involving Evolution is in attempts to explain HOW living things change.
Common Descent, on the other hand, is a hypothesis. It does not qualify as a theory due to the scientific definition of 'theory''.
Very few Creationists believe in Common Descent.
:Come and discuss this, and ALL issues involving origins, at Talk About Origins: tao.invisionzone.com
If you believe in the supernatural, with demons and angels, ghosts and goblins, secret spells and incantations to ward off evil, sacred bronze-age books with strange revelations from beyond....then stay off my boat, don't knock on my door, and don't tell me about it.
Your opinion regarding science, evolution, biology, physics and Darwin can be ignored. Thanks.
I strongly suspect that "science" has been far too polite to people who hold irrational supernatural opinions.
Science flys us into the future; religion flys us into buildings.
I believe that the main point has been made: people can try to explain life through pure theism, a mix of theism and science, or just science. That's freedom of religion.
But the distinction needs to be made: intelligent design is not science. It is not, because it does not offer a testable hypothesis. Evolution does offer a testable hypothesis, and it is always being tested by the scientific community. Because intelligent design is not falseable, it's just belief.
Hm! I wonder? Whenever I find myself speaking in certain terms, I try to catch myself from making another mistake. As Weber said, "fundamental doubt is the father of knowledge." My suggestion would be go read Darwin if you have not already. For if you mean by "airtight" and proven-- ultimately correct than I suggest, you begin to think otherwise both about evolution and gravity.
Andy @28 said, "I would like to get people to agree that evolution has not been proven like so many other scientific theories."
Andy, scientific theories are NEVER proven. They can be proposed, confirmed, modified, or falsified.
Andy said, "Because all scientists say that this process has been going on for trillions of years, it is going to take quite a while to test the hypothesis."
No. Evolution, on earth, has been going on for ~3 billion years. You're off by an order of magnitude. However, we see evolution in action every day.
Andy said, "You have to admit, that the case for evolution is not even as close to airtight as gravity. All I want is for a little more humility regarding this theory."
The fine folks who study gravity wish they had 1/10th the amount of evidence to support their theory as the fine folks who study evolution. Sorry, I don't have a clue as to why you think a valid theory that has never come close to being falsified needs "humility".
As a matter of fact, people are being taught how to think. Ever heard of Philosophy of Biology? If not, I invite you to look into the subject. There is a good book by Elliott Sober that should get you started. You can look it up (2nd edition).
Unfortunately, I don't have the space (nor the time) to specifically answer a number of your questions. Generally speaking, a number of your questions are anthropomorphic.
If you think that people really don't think about the "bigger" questions that relate to biology, then you should check some philosophy journals ("biology and philosophy", "philosophy of science") or you should go to a Philosophy of Science Association conference (next one is in 2010).
Human Knee: flawed joint that is easily weakened and damaged over time. This is strange, since the human body contains other joints that are a better "design"
Human reproduction: The whole pregnancy and birthing process is so painful, uncomfortable and fraught with danger. Ask any woman and she'd say that the whole reproductive method could've been better designed.
Why must their be control in this world? Face it folks, random chaotic stuff happens all the time. In a way, it makes everything much more special.
Why would the New York Times link to an article on the Discovery Institutes web site. Evolution News and Views consistently distorts the facts to present Intelligent Design in a positive light. It is good that the writer acknowledges that "the poll was commissioned by The Discovery Institute, which advocates intelligent design." Finally, the results seem dubious.
Whether or not a majority of respondents to a particular poll 'agree' with the concept of evolution through natural selection doesn't change its imperical reality. Natural selection is a demonstrated fact. One can argue about the validity of the order of descent through the taxonomy tables and biologists often do. But they all pretty much agree that the physical evidence in the geological and fossil records indicates that the earth - and life on it - have been around for much longer than any of the major religions claim, which is what the real argument is about.
We could probably debate intelligent design vs. evolution forever, but I think theme of the original blog post is regarding the way statistics can be compiled in almost any way to reflect a desired outcome.
It is easy to create a "wow" effect by showing some amazing statistics that seem almost impossible, but quite often the method of the research is not representative of average poulation. I could say "I performed a study last week. It found that 96% of all people believe in Santa Claus." This sounds crazy, but my results are actually 100% accurate! Why? Well, actually I asked only childen between the ages of 3 and 5.
It is also important how the questions are phrased. Imagine this question "Do you think too much money is being spent on foreign immigrants?". Now rephrase it to "Is it fair that a large amount of the taxes you have paid from your hard-earned money is going toward people who are not even true Americans?" Or rephrase it to "Do you believe it would be fair to deny an honest foreign immigrant the right to receive the proper medical attention when giving birth by removing the necessary governemt funding?"
So, even if a representative portion of the population has been included in a survey, it is still possible to manipulate the results by phrasing the questions to get the answer you want. I always treat any statistics with extreme caution!
Natural selection doesn't necessarily exclude a creator it just makes a creator unnecessary. I guess at that point the presupposition of a creator just adds complexity to the universe.
"It only deals with certain features IN nature that are best explained by an intelligent cause, as opposed to an undirected process. We have ways of determining if something is made by an intelligence or undirected. ID researchers just applies these methods to certain aspects of nature to see what best explains the evidence. This is clearly a scientific inquiry. Whether that intelligent cause is inside or outside nature is a different question, and it is irrelevant to if there IS an intelligent cause or not. People who say that ID is not scientific just don
I would like to respond to _Jason! The concept of creation and Darwin's theroy do exsit togather. God spoke the world into existance. Gen(1) He called animals to come forth from the deep.(Remember that one day to God could have been millions of years.) All the world was "elvolving" On the sixth day(still in God"s time) He made man from the dust of the earth, How much dna was in that dust?, we will never know! On the seventh day God rested from all His work. So it is plain that after God made man, He rested from All His work. That is when evolotion stoped.
anair @43 said, "Intelligent Design proponents do include natural selection and evolution as part of their theory. It is the Darwinian Evolutionists who exclude any possibility of explaining the evidence by postulating the involvement of an intelligence."
So, what is this theory of intelligent design? I keep seeing folks talk about it, but I've never seen it published in a peer-reviewed journal like Nature or Science or Cell. Could you post a link?
The folks who understand ToE don't exclude anything. If you have any scientific evidence that supports ID perhaps you could first put forth a hypothesis and define how it will be falsifiable.
anair @44 said, "ID is not trying to confirm the existence of anything beyond nature. It only deals with certain features IN nature that are best explained by an intelligent cause, as opposed to an undirected process. We have ways of determining if something is made by an intelligence or undirected. ID researchers just applies these methods to certain aspects of nature to see what best explains the evidence. This is clearly a scientific inquiry."
Who is the intelligent designer? Who designed that intelligent designer? Keep going back. Eventually, their answer has to be "goddidit", or "poof, then another miracle occurs".
So far NOTHING in nature has been shown to be best explained by ID. Not a single solitary thing. Every time the ID folks claim something is irreducibly complex, turns out it isn't.
As for the ID researchers - why don't they ever publish their research in peer-reviewed journals?
I consider myself a proponent of evolution, but I often find myself thinking about the moment living creatures first came into being. Amino acids were floating around, lifeless and independent, but life was created when they happened to bump into each other. That really makes me wonder if there indeed is a "Creator" that guided amino acids to create the first life form. I wouldn't argue that after that first instance of life, a Creator influenced anything, because I do believe in the evolutionary process.
I don't know the questions in the survey, but I can see how I would be placed into the "Intelligent Design" category, even though I am a firm believer in evolution. The group's agenda to promote intelligent design would cause them to place people who have even the most minute reference to intelligent design into the believer category.
It seems counter-intuitive, but clearly the relationship between these two points of view is not mutually exclusive, so I don't think this survey can be seen as a definitive reflection of our nation's beliefs.
#25 Has someone published some radical scientific work that now changes the "Theory of Evolution" to the "Law of Evolution?"
The interesting thing about this debate between advocates of Intelligent Design and evolutionists is that both are hypothesis waiting to be "proven." Neither can claim the scientific high ground because there are facts that lead rational minds to accept each.
I wish that I could agree with you that flying a plane into a building was all about religion. These guys knew and I mean really "KNEW" because they observed over time the informal rules (norms) that exist among air trafficers. It was not just their faith, but their knowledge that made it possible for them to pull off such a crime against humanity. Once more, there is knowledge and the use to which it is put. As far as faith, for those struggling with questions that we will not know the answer to, it offers some comfort. I see nothing wrong with that for those able to have faith. Freud makes a similar point.
Yeah, the poll WAS commissioned by the Discovery Institute, but the veracity of the poll has nothing to do with them. Zogby is a well respected polster, and so any snide remarks (like, "On the other hand, the poll was commissioned by The Discovery Institute") really have no relevance at all.
I think the results speak just fine for the state of public opinion, which is consistent with other polls over the years.
I subscribe to the Magic Monkey theory of creation. All that is was created by a giant Magic Monkey. The Magic Monkey theory explains everything since everything is the way it is because the Magic Monkey wanted it to be so. Since no one can prove the Magic Monkey theory is wrong and since it fits all of the available evidence, I want it taught in the schools. Why should my children be the only ones to benefit from learning about the Magic Monkey theory?
I'd just like to say the responses here are illuminating. The elitism here from the "scientific" community to insult and tear down the opinions of anyone who seems to put Intelligent Design and Evolution on the same level.
Not that all the Evolutionists are acting like children, however it's very eye opening to see how many of them have chosen to composed themselves in such schoolhouse ways.
The odd thing is I believe in Evolution but I've never felt ashamed of my belief before today.
The ID camp has been openly critiqueing the "science" of the evolution camp, which is something that the "scientific establishment" itself has been unwilling to do. It's a major breakdown in the whole "peer review" system that reveals it's weakness.
IE, you can't "publish" on the failings of darwinism unless you are a darwinist in good standing. Why? Because the "peers" are of the opinion that if you aren't a darwinist, you aren't a legitimate "scientist". The journal publishers know that and don't want to get in trouble for publishing anything that might get them in hot water with the "scientific establishment".
The "peer review" system fails because it serves to reinforce the status quo. It's a "big brother " system that caters to those big brothers (the elite).
primewonk, I want to take issue with you talking about the scientific evidence for gravity versus evolution. first, as one of my earliest posts said, a major assumption in science is that the future will resemble the past. If this apple fell from the tree last week, it will fall from the tree next week. so, yes, i know scientific theories can never be proven.
However, you state that "The fine folks who study gravity wish they had 1/10th the amount of evidence to support their theory as the fine folks who study evolution."
I can demonstrate gravity to you very easily. Ill climb a tree and drop a water balloon right above your head.
I would like you to demonstrate evolution to me. I would like to say that I draw a distinction between micro (changes within species) and macro (every species we see today originiating from one cell) evolution. For macro evolution to be proven like we can prove gravity, we need to demonstrate macro evolution, which I am told has taken place over trillions of years ( I am not talking about strictly human evolution)
Caliphilosopher @ 48 said, "Intelligent Design tries to use empirical data to argue for causation by an immaterial thing. That is CLEARLY outside the bounds of scientific inquiry. What SCIENTIFIC methods are use to figure out if something is made by an intelligent being or through natural selection (with respect to Evolutionary Theory)? You
You know the fun thing about Intelligent Design? The possibilities of making a mockery of it.
If I had children and their school was going to teach intelligent design, well then I would encourage them to interject various other pantheons. I mean, why does Jehovah have to get all the credit?
What about Uranus and Gaea? Or Odin? Or Raiden? Marduk and Tiamat? Quetzalcoutal? The Force?
And of course, we must not forget Great Cthulhu of R'yleh who lays dreaming and will rise again when the stars are right.
Also, the schools are leaving themselves open to a lawsuit if the teacher of intelligent design shows a religious bias towards Christianity by implying that other creation ideas except the Bible are questionable.
You've completely missed the point; namely, that empirical science does nothing to posit causation by an immaterial "intelligent designer". Gravity, mass, etc. are NOT speculative metaphysical concepts.
Discussions of ID or not ID tend to ignore some key insights into mutation rates of genes in the presence and absence of selection pressure. A simple example: bacterial antibiotic resistance manifests itself as the dominant strain in an infection in just 6-10 generations which could be a few hours for strep or a few days for tuberculosis. Without antibiotics, the resistance can build up as well but much slower as the non-resitant species compete with the resistant species. The understanding of this principle is widely used in managing resistance to pesticides in agriculture. The pesticides are sprayed selectively to maintain reservoirs of non resistant pests that can prevent a bloom of the resistant pests. The mutation rates of more evolved species such as humans are quite high too but fortunately our repair mechanisms prevent the onset of cancer in most (but not all) people most (but not all) of the time. So, as small organisms are better adapted to their environment and can easily outpace the large organisms (i.e. humans) they attack or compete with, then believers in intelligent design have to deal with the paradox that the design deteriorates with increased complexity of the organism, in other words it becomes less intelligent.
Sorry, it just struck me funny that you would bring the word 'immaterial' into such discussion. Most forces in nature are immaterial, including evolution itself, yet no one denies the scientific evidence for microevolution. Claiming that certain immaterial forces can have scientific backing while others cannot is naive at best. I just find such biases humorous.
Completely understood. I know that Descartes, Hume, Newton, and others (possibly Leibnitz?) around the enlightenment had that kind of worry that you brought about.
I think there is a important distinction between immaterial objects that have scientific referents which work out (due to the scientific theory's success), and the "intelligent designer" that is posited by scientific creationists.
Apologies if my comment came across as being cavalier.
Notice how the questions were phrased: Darwinism or Intelligent design, which is misleading. A survey worded correctly, Evolution vs. Creationism, would yield much different and much more accurate results.
Mark S. @ 69 said: "So, as small organisms are better adapted to their environment and can easily outpace the large organisms (i.e. humans) they attack or compete with, then believers in intelligent design have to deal with the paradox that the design deteriorates with increased complexity of the organism, in other words it becomes less intelligent."
I don't think there is any negative correlation between complexity and intelligence. Nor do I see how you can state that design deteriorates with increased complexity. In fact, it is almost certainly the other way around. The disadvantage you speak of is only the time it takes to replicate mutations. Nothing suggests lower intelligence or worse design.
That's like me receiving a stack of $1 bills, you receiving a truckload of $20 bills, and me feeling sorry for your poor soul because you are unable to count how much money you have in under 3 minutes.
Rationalism is not the best means of understanding life accodring to evolutionary theory. According to Darwin, in its raw form evolution produces intelligence in due course as a mechanism for survival, not objective understanding.
Please, everyone trying to have it both ways, read the explanation by Caliphilosopher below. Do a search if you have to, but it is the most reasonable and accurate statement here. Thank you Caliphilosopher.
The Romantics out number the Rationalists - always have, always will. Rationalists mostly run the world (at least the parts of the world that work) because they are the only ones who can.
ResponderEliminarWhen I saw the title "Not Darwin's Year," I thought it was a piece about all the government bailouts (with our - the taxpayers' - money) of Wall Street banks and automobile companies. The bailouts have allowed the weakest to survive - quite in opposition to Darwinism.
ResponderEliminarAre the two mutually exclusive? Why can't someone believe in a Creator that designed and guided evolution, but that the universe and its creatures evolved as described by Darwin? The only time these two concepts are at real odds is in the teaching of science, because even if you believe in a Creator, that has nothing to do with the science of how things evolved.
ResponderEliminarWhen respondents say "guided by," isn't that consistent with evolution? Darwin theorized a mechanism/process. If someone believes in intelligent design, it's entirely possible that he believes evolution is the process chosen by that intelligence to guide the development of life. In other words, evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive.
ResponderEliminarRather than assuming the poll wasn't objective based on the poller's predispositions, should we not examine the methods, questions, responses used first? Shouldn
ResponderEliminarPhrasing this as the *development* of life being *guided* by intelligence plays into a notion not of a single creation event, but creation occurring over time. In some ways, it's phrased in a way making it compatible with Darwinism: not the dogmatic assertion that all attributes derive from greater fitness of ancestors but the idea that natural selection drives changes in the genetics in a population, in addition to other causes (perhaps among them intelligent interference).
ResponderEliminarCertainly their compatibility is the case when we consider the development of dogs (which happened through natural selection and the intelligent selection of people).
These are the kinds of posts that make me depressed and worried for the future.
ResponderEliminarI don't see why it has to be one or the other. Why can't natural selection and evolution be PART OF an intelligent design? I would think that any intelligent design would include a plan with rules and an order of how things would work.
ResponderEliminarMany of my fellow secular empiricists have long championed the notion that public schools could promote rationalism by teaching, among other things, evolution. Clearly, that hasn't worked.
ResponderEliminarSo here's an alternative idea: support a free educational marketplace in which schools compete to attract and retain students. Certainly there would be schools that did not teach evolution, and others that taught "intelligent design," or "creation science." But, at the same time, the schools that wanted to teach science well and clearly would no longer have to appease groups opposed to their efforts, and thus would no longer have to water down science instruction.
Attempting to ram reason down the public's throat has been tried, and it doesn't work. It was never a good idea in a free society anyway. So why not try educational freedom?
You know, I think that evolutionists should stop trumpeting their rationalism as somehow superior to a romantic view of the world. After all, most people would a dash (or maybe a dollop) or romanticism is needed.
ResponderEliminarI also would like to point out that scientists may be the most sentimental of all people. After all, just because an apple fell from a tree last week does not mean that it will fall from one this week.
Cold, rational thinking leaves us with a very limited set of deductions. If someone is a bachelor, that means he is not married. If you touch my nose with your finger, then that means my nose is touching your finger. If we limit ourselves to purely rational beliefs, we may not be able to get out of bed in the morning
For many of us, it's not evolution that is the problem, but the framework of philosophical naturalism that is pushed along side it. Many (e.g., Asa Gray, Darwin's friend and source of botanical examples; Owen Gingerich; John Polkinghorne) hold to intelligent design (n.b., the non-capitalization) and evolution as the mechanism for carrying out that design.
ResponderEliminarLet' suppose there is some truth the to the idea that it is not Darwin's year, but someone else's. Why not predict that it will be Darwin's year at some point in the future when his real understanding of Evolution is made obvious. Why then even mention Intelligent Design i.e., religion at all when faith has nothing to do with it.
ResponderEliminarSo then it seems that most Americans are in line with the view of Thomas Jefferson, who was himself a proto-intelligent design advocate:
ResponderEliminarblog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/06/thomas-jefferson-intelligent-design-advocate.html
The reason why it can't be both "Intelligent Design" and Evolution is because "Intelligent Design" tries to masquerade itself as a valid scientific line of inquiry, when it clearly is not. It's a line of inquiry that lies outside the scientific enterprise. You can't use empirical data to try to confirm the existence of something that is beyond the scope of empiricism.
ResponderEliminarEvolutionary theorists do go in for one thing - that evolutionary theory is the best SCIENTIFIC theory out there, the most well-confirmed empirical thesis regarding species diversity on this planet.
People who make the jump from evolutionary theory to something that involves a debate about rationalism and romanticism are conflating in a major way. Evolutionary biology is a SCIENCE that cannot prove or disprove whether or not things like deities exist; nevertheless, it doesn't purport to, much like it doesn't purport to have any say in whether a person likes to read The Economist or the The Wall Street Journal - both of those are outside of its domain. The issue is when people from the sham "Discovery Institute" try to sneak an intelligent "designer" into the scientific enterprise.
#11 -
ResponderEliminarIf not philosophical naturalism (upon which the natural sciences are based), which form of philosophical supernaturalism works out? If you're not up for philosophical naturalism, then apparently Occam's Razor is out of the question. That seems like a terrible problem.
Anyone who believes Intelligent design and Darwinism are compatible misunderstands evolution.
ResponderEliminarIn other news, a study commissioned my Microsoft found most people preferred Windows. A separate study commissioned by Apple confirmed that most people liked them better. Similar studies have been recently commissioned by the Democratic Party, the Republican party, Ford, Chrysler, GM, Toyota, Honda, BMW, Budweiser, Coors and IBM, with similar results expected.
ResponderEliminarI'm OK with schools teaching intelligent design, as long as it's the proper classroom -- and that's NOT a science classroom.
The most vocal advocates of "Intelligent Design" and their organizations go on to claim that the Earth is around 6000 years old. I'd be interested to know how many Americans believe in that.
ResponderEliminarOne of the questions in the poll is:
ResponderEliminarStatement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin
Wow. A lot of misunderstadning of Darwin's work.
ResponderEliminarDarwin's theory of evolution has two elements. First, random mutation. Second, survival of the fittest.
Evolution is not simply about the developmental path or a design history. Rather, it is about how these two mechanisms led to the array of life we see before us.
If you add a designer or guiding hand, the mutation is no longer random, and instead becomes intentional. That's not biological evolution as scientists understand it. If any criteria other than fitness guided who survived (i.e. some intelligent agent who favored some over others), that's not evolution, either.
So, the fossile record is not incompatible with intelligent design, no. However, the theory of evolution is.
I may be nitpicking, and the study is probably doctored considering it was conducted by the Discovery Institute, but Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are two different concepts. So which did the Discovery Institute ask about? And Intelligent Design is little more than reason-washing term for Creationism. Were people asked if they believe in creationism? To give any merit to this study would be silly considering the Discovery Institute is unobjective and has a clear history of obfuscating the issue of evolution.
ResponderEliminarCaliphilosopher wrote "The reason why it can
ResponderEliminarI just went to that link. What a miserably worded poll question. (Zogby could use some "intelligent design" for their polls.) Why is "guided the development" in there? That implies, to me, that evolution (change) is taking place in BOTH the scenarios described. Frankly, as a staunch anti-Creationist, even I can imagine a scenario in which an omnipotent god, fully cognizant of the outcome and of all physical laws and processes down to the bare constituents of matter, energy, and spacetime, flicks a finger and starts the Rube Goldberg-like process of creation and evolution, knowing that 13 billion-ish years later, some intelligent hairless apes will be discussing the subject, rather than a bunch of intelligent featherless birds, or a pool of bacterial soup.
ResponderEliminarA better option for Statement B: "Life was created by intelligent design, and has not significantly changed since its inception."
This seems like a poll designed to create mentions of Zogby in the news ("Shocking new Zogby poll out today..."), rather than a poll designed to create new insights about our society.
Dear petes;
ResponderEliminarBecause they are not compatible does not mean incompatible,
The problem as I see it is that science limits its domain of knowledge to reality, religion depends upon faith. I have no problem having two sides and that there is a middle ground. My guess is even the pope and other religious leaders and their followings have somewhat of a grasp of the difference these days by virtue of the fact that they use the mass media in various ways that warrant the thought that they too understand the ideas of cause and effect and of the possible interconnection of things.So what is the problem-- as one friend once put, "there are some questions that we will not know the answer to" (Jones, date unknown) and that as a scientist, I am not in a position to address. This includes the question of the existence of an intelligent designer or G-d. In other words, there is no accounting for faith. Some have it, others don't and a third group of people admittedly do not know. I admit that this raises an interesting question of why then Einstein apparently claimed that g-d does not throw dice. Following my reasoning, the logic is clear that if g-d through dice, then very concept would be inconsistent with science as Einstein understood the subject. (Goldstein, copyright 2003, unpublished)--which it was not.
#14 is spot on. One is science, the other is belief. Belief, while it has its merits, still does not belong in the science classroom. It may guide your work or give you purpose, but it's ridiculous to consider a belief (not even a real, testable theory!) in an intelligent designer as "scientific."
ResponderEliminarI find the whole ID movement really offensive as a Christian, too. Most of the people who back it do so because it's compatible with what they believe--usually, a belief in the Judeo-Christian God. When trying to gain support from Christian groups, the whole idea of ID is framed within that context of religious belief. Yet, when they try to gain public approval for the idea, they often claim that it has nothing to do with God, and that it's somehow a secular idea. Riiiiight. Didn't that part about not denying God make God's top ten list of things NOT to do?
The whole movement seems disingenuous at best.
All this being said, the way DI worded that, it's hard for a person of belief not to agree with it. Even many of those of us who believe God works through the processes that Darwin theorized about still believe that God has something to do with life on earth. Thus, I'm not sure that the poll really proves much aside from that 55% of the respondents believe in some kind of God. That's not too much of a groundbreaking claim.
The answer "guided by design" would be chosen by theistic evolutionists, who are opposed to Intelligent Design as pushed by the Discovery Institute. (In fact, the hatred is mutual.)
ResponderEliminarStatistics for some of the other questions are consistent with a conclusion that many of the "guided by design" crowd contains a significant number of ID opponents. The Discovery Institute has been known to frame questions so as to include people who would not otherwise agree with them.
Hmm, maybe it's not *America's* year. The rest of the world gets it...
ResponderEliminarI would like to get people to agree that evolution has not been proven like so many other scientific theories.
ResponderEliminarThe reason is that the scientific method of inquiry starts from a testable hypothesis and flows into a demonstration of that hypothesis being proven.
Because all scientists say that this process has been going on for trillions of years, it is going to take quite a while to test the hypothesis.
You have to admit, that the case for evolution is not even as close to airtight as gravity. All I want is for a little more humility regarding this theory
Most people believe based on emotion not logic.
ResponderEliminarIn spite of the constant efforts of the Naturalists, this is NOT a debate between science and belief.
ResponderEliminarBOTH sides have evidence they point to.
BOTH sides are b a sed upon belief that their paradigm is correct.
Until that issue is resolved, there will never be intelligent discourse on this issue.
Beyond that, 'evolution' is not the issue, as ALL creationists know evolution occurs. That is not theory or hypothesis, but a fact. The only theory and hypothesis involving Evolution is in attempts to explain HOW living things change.
Common Descent, on the other hand, is a hypothesis. It does not qualify as a theory due to the scientific definition of 'theory''.
Very few Creationists believe in Common Descent.
:Come and discuss this, and ALL issues involving origins, at Talk About Origins:
tao.invisionzone.com
If you believe in the supernatural, with demons and angels, ghosts and goblins, secret spells and incantations to ward off evil, sacred bronze-age books with strange revelations from beyond....then stay off my boat, don't knock on my door, and don't tell me about it.
ResponderEliminarYour opinion regarding science, evolution, biology, physics and Darwin can be ignored. Thanks.
I strongly suspect that "science" has been far too polite to people who hold irrational supernatural opinions.
Science flys us into the future; religion flys us into buildings.
I believe that the main point has been made: people can try to explain life through pure theism, a mix of theism and science, or just science. That's freedom of religion.
ResponderEliminarBut the distinction needs to be made: intelligent design is not science. It is not, because it does not offer a testable hypothesis. Evolution does offer a testable hypothesis, and it is always being tested by the scientific community. Because intelligent design is not falseable, it's just belief.
Dear Andy;
ResponderEliminarHm! I wonder? Whenever I find myself speaking in certain terms, I try to catch myself from making another mistake. As Weber said, "fundamental doubt is the father of knowledge." My suggestion would be go read Darwin if you have not already. For if you mean by "airtight" and proven-- ultimately correct than I suggest, you begin to think otherwise both about evolution and gravity.
Andy @28 said, "I would like to get people to agree that evolution has not been proven like so many other scientific theories."
ResponderEliminarAndy, scientific theories are NEVER proven. They can be proposed, confirmed, modified, or falsified.
Andy said, "Because all scientists say that this process has been going on for trillions of years, it is going to take quite a while to test the hypothesis."
No. Evolution, on earth, has been going on for ~3 billion years. You're off by an order of magnitude. However, we see evolution in action every day.
Andy said, "You have to admit, that the case for evolution is not even as close to airtight as gravity. All I want is for a little more humility regarding this theory."
The fine folks who study gravity wish they had 1/10th the amount of evidence to support their theory as the fine folks who study evolution. Sorry, I don't have a clue as to why you think a valid theory that has never come close to being falsified needs "humility".
Dr. Edgeworth,
ResponderEliminarAs a matter of fact, people are being taught how to think. Ever heard of Philosophy of Biology? If not, I invite you to look into the subject. There is a good book by Elliott Sober that should get you started. You can look it up (2nd edition).
Unfortunately, I don't have the space (nor the time) to specifically answer a number of your questions. Generally speaking, a number of your questions are anthropomorphic.
If you think that people really don't think about the "bigger" questions that relate to biology, then you should check some philosophy journals ("biology and philosophy", "philosophy of science") or you should go to a Philosophy of Science Association conference (next one is in 2010).
Proof against ID:
ResponderEliminarHuman Knee: flawed joint that is easily weakened and damaged over time. This is strange, since the human body contains other joints that are a better "design"
Human reproduction: The whole pregnancy and birthing process is so painful, uncomfortable and fraught with danger. Ask any woman and she'd say that the whole reproductive method could've been better designed.
Why must their be control in this world? Face it folks, random chaotic stuff happens all the time. In a way, it makes everything much more special.
Dr. Edgworth said, "Why are the big bang and abiogenesis no longer considered a part of evolution? Shouldn
ResponderEliminarDr. Edgeworth also said, "In fact, if our brain evolved from an ape
ResponderEliminarWhy would the New York Times link to an article on the Discovery Institutes web site. Evolution News and Views consistently distorts the facts to present Intelligent Design in a positive light. It is good that the writer acknowledges that "the poll was commissioned by The Discovery Institute, which advocates intelligent design." Finally, the results seem dubious.
ResponderEliminarWhether or not a majority of respondents to a particular poll 'agree' with the concept of evolution through natural selection doesn't change its imperical reality. Natural selection is a demonstrated fact. One can argue about the validity of the order of descent through the taxonomy tables and biologists often do. But they all pretty much agree that the physical evidence in the geological and fossil records indicates that the earth - and life on it - have been around for much longer than any of the major religions claim, which is what the real argument is about.
ResponderEliminar@Jason,
ResponderEliminar"Why can
@Jamie,
ResponderEliminar"Why can
@Caliphilosopher
ResponderEliminar"[ID] is a line of inquiry that lies outside the scientific enterprise. You can
@37: Say that to a woman who just went through a painful labor!
ResponderEliminarNot being feminist or anything, just thought that was funny.
We could probably debate intelligent design vs. evolution forever, but I think theme of the original blog post is regarding the way statistics can be compiled in almost any way to reflect a desired outcome.
ResponderEliminarIt is easy to create a "wow" effect by showing some amazing statistics that seem almost impossible, but quite often the method of the research is not representative of average poulation. I could say "I performed a study last week. It found that 96% of all people believe in Santa Claus." This sounds crazy, but my results are actually 100% accurate! Why? Well, actually I asked only childen between the ages of 3 and 5.
It is also important how the questions are phrased. Imagine this question "Do you think too much money is being spent on foreign immigrants?". Now rephrase it to "Is it fair that a large amount of the taxes you have paid from your hard-earned money is going toward people who are not even true Americans?" Or rephrase it to "Do you believe it would be fair to deny an honest foreign immigrant the right to receive the proper medical attention when giving birth by removing the necessary governemt funding?"
So, even if a representative portion of the population has been included in a survey, it is still possible to manipulate the results by phrasing the questions to get the answer you want. I always treat any statistics with extreme caution!
Natural selection doesn't necessarily exclude a creator it just makes a creator unnecessary. I guess at that point the presupposition of a creator just adds complexity to the universe.
ResponderEliminar@anair -
ResponderEliminar"It only deals with certain features IN nature that are best explained by an intelligent cause, as opposed to an undirected process. We have ways of determining if something is made by an intelligence or undirected. ID researchers just applies these methods to certain aspects of nature to see what best explains the evidence. This is clearly a scientific inquiry.
Whether that intelligent cause is inside or outside nature is a different question, and it is irrelevant to if there IS an intelligent cause or not.
People who say that ID is not scientific just don
I would like to respond to _Jason! The concept of creation and Darwin's theroy do exsit togather. God spoke the world into existance. Gen(1) He called animals to come forth from the deep.(Remember that one day to God could have been millions of years.) All the world was "elvolving" On the sixth day(still in God"s time) He made man from the dust of the earth, How much dna was in that dust?, we will never know! On the seventh day God rested from all His work. So it is plain that after God made man, He rested from All His work. That is when evolotion stoped.
ResponderEliminaranair @42 said, "The standard Darwinian view is that evolution has to be unguided. In the Zogby poll they use that word:
ResponderEliminaranair @43 said, "Intelligent Design proponents do include natural selection and evolution as part of their theory. It is the Darwinian Evolutionists who exclude any possibility of explaining the evidence by postulating the involvement of an intelligence."
ResponderEliminarSo, what is this theory of intelligent design? I keep seeing folks talk about it, but I've never seen it published in a peer-reviewed journal like Nature or Science or Cell. Could you post a link?
The folks who understand ToE don't exclude anything. If you have any scientific evidence that supports ID perhaps you could first put forth a hypothesis and define how it will be falsifiable.
anair @44 said, "ID is not trying to confirm the existence of anything beyond nature. It only deals with certain features IN nature that are best explained by an intelligent cause, as opposed to an undirected process. We have ways of determining if something is made by an intelligence or undirected. ID researchers just applies these methods to certain aspects of nature to see what best explains the evidence. This is clearly a scientific inquiry."
ResponderEliminarWho is the intelligent designer? Who designed that intelligent designer? Keep going back. Eventually, their answer has to be "goddidit", or "poof, then another miracle occurs".
So far NOTHING in nature has been shown to be best explained by ID. Not a single solitary thing. Every time the ID folks claim something is irreducibly complex, turns out it isn't.
As for the ID researchers - why don't they ever publish their research in peer-reviewed journals?
@Bas Schmitz,
ResponderEliminarWhat is wrong with the questions used?
"Now, I am going to read you two statements about the development of life. Please tell me which
statement comes closest to your own point of view
I consider myself a proponent of evolution, but I often find myself thinking about the moment living creatures first came into being. Amino acids were floating around, lifeless and independent, but life was created when they happened to bump into each other. That really makes me wonder if there indeed is a "Creator" that guided amino acids to create the first life form. I wouldn't argue that after that first instance of life, a Creator influenced anything, because I do believe in the evolutionary process.
ResponderEliminarI don't know the questions in the survey, but I can see how I would be placed into the "Intelligent Design" category, even though I am a firm believer in evolution. The group's agenda to promote intelligent design would cause them to place people who have even the most minute reference to intelligent design into the believer category.
It seems counter-intuitive, but clearly the relationship between these two points of view is not mutually exclusive, so I don't think this survey can be seen as a definitive reflection of our nation's beliefs.
@anair, #42
ResponderEliminar"Intelligent Design proponents don
#25 Has someone published some radical scientific work that now changes the "Theory of Evolution" to the "Law of Evolution?"
ResponderEliminarThe interesting thing about this debate between advocates of Intelligent Design and evolutionists is that both are hypothesis waiting to be "proven." Neither can claim the scientific high ground because there are facts that lead rational minds to accept each.
Dear Erik Jones;
ResponderEliminarI wish that I could agree with you that flying a plane into a building was all about religion. These guys knew and I mean really "KNEW" because they observed over time the informal rules (norms) that exist among air trafficers. It was not just their faith, but their knowledge that made it possible for them to pull off such a crime against humanity. Once more, there is knowledge and the use to which it is put. As far as faith, for those struggling with questions that we will not know the answer to, it offers some comfort. I see nothing wrong with that for those able to have faith. Freud makes a similar point.
Those who believe they come from apes, probably do. We may all be better off if we agree on that and move on.
ResponderEliminarYeah, the poll WAS commissioned by the Discovery Institute, but the veracity of the poll has nothing to do with them. Zogby is a well respected polster, and so any snide remarks (like, "On the other hand, the poll was commissioned by The Discovery Institute") really have no relevance at all.
ResponderEliminarI think the results speak just fine for the state of public opinion, which is consistent with other polls over the years.
I guess some folks just can't deal with it.
If God is omnipotent, why would he need to keep tinkering?
ResponderEliminarI subscribe to the Magic Monkey theory of creation. All that is was created by a giant Magic Monkey. The Magic Monkey theory explains everything since everything is the way it is because the Magic Monkey wanted it to be so. Since no one can prove the Magic Monkey theory is wrong and since it fits all of the available evidence, I want it taught in the schools. Why should my children be the only ones to benefit from learning about the Magic Monkey theory?
ResponderEliminar;-)
I'd just like to say the responses here are illuminating. The elitism here from the "scientific" community to insult and tear down the opinions of anyone who seems to put Intelligent Design and Evolution on the same level.
ResponderEliminarNot that all the Evolutionists are acting like children, however it's very eye opening to see how many of them have chosen to composed themselves in such schoolhouse ways.
The odd thing is I believe in Evolution but I've never felt ashamed of my belief before today.
The ID camp has been openly critiqueing the "science" of the evolution camp, which is something that the "scientific establishment" itself has been unwilling to do. It's a major breakdown in the whole "peer review" system that reveals it's weakness.
ResponderEliminarIE, you can't "publish" on the failings of darwinism unless you are a darwinist in good standing. Why? Because the "peers" are of the opinion that if you aren't a darwinist, you aren't a legitimate "scientist". The journal publishers know that and don't want to get in trouble for publishing anything that might get them in hot water with the "scientific establishment".
The "peer review" system fails because it serves to reinforce the status quo. It's a "big brother " system that caters to those big brothers (the elite).
primewonk, I want to take issue with you talking about the scientific evidence for gravity versus evolution. first, as one of my earliest posts said, a major assumption in science is that the future will resemble the past. If this apple fell from the tree last week, it will fall from the tree next week. so, yes, i know scientific theories can never be proven.
ResponderEliminarHowever, you state that "The fine folks who study gravity wish they had 1/10th the amount of evidence to support their theory as the fine folks who study evolution."
I can demonstrate gravity to you very easily. Ill climb a tree and drop a water balloon right above your head.
I would like you to demonstrate evolution to me. I would like to say that I draw a distinction between micro (changes within species) and macro (every species we see today originiating from one cell) evolution. For macro evolution to be proven like we can prove gravity, we need to demonstrate macro evolution, which I am told has taken place over trillions of years ( I am not talking about strictly human evolution)
@Wayne
ResponderEliminarWhat failings are you talking about?
What kind of evidence do you have in support of your outrageous claims?
Caliphilosopher @ 48 said, "Intelligent Design tries to use empirical data to argue for causation by an immaterial thing. That is CLEARLY outside the bounds of scientific inquiry. What SCIENTIFIC methods are use to figure out if something is made by an intelligent being or through natural selection (with respect to Evolutionary Theory)? You
ResponderEliminarYou know the fun thing about Intelligent Design? The possibilities of making a mockery of it.
ResponderEliminarIf I had children and their school was going to teach intelligent design, well then I would encourage them to interject various other pantheons. I mean, why does Jehovah have to get all the credit?
What about Uranus and Gaea? Or Odin? Or Raiden? Marduk and Tiamat? Quetzalcoutal? The Force?
And of course, we must not forget Great Cthulhu of R'yleh who lays dreaming and will rise again when the stars are right.
Also, the schools are leaving themselves open to a lawsuit if the teacher of intelligent design shows a religious bias towards Christianity by implying that other creation ideas except the Bible are questionable.
@openMINDed,
ResponderEliminarYou've completely missed the point; namely, that empirical science does nothing to posit causation by an immaterial "intelligent designer".
Gravity, mass, etc. are NOT speculative metaphysical concepts.
Thanks for trying though.
Discussions of ID or not ID tend to ignore some key insights into mutation rates of genes in the presence and absence of selection pressure. A simple example: bacterial antibiotic resistance manifests itself as the dominant strain in an infection in just 6-10 generations which could be a few hours for strep or a few days for tuberculosis. Without antibiotics, the resistance can build up as well but much slower as the non-resitant species compete with the resistant species. The understanding of this principle is widely used in managing resistance to pesticides in agriculture. The pesticides are sprayed selectively to maintain reservoirs of non resistant pests that can prevent a bloom of the resistant pests. The mutation rates of more evolved species such as humans are quite high too but fortunately our repair mechanisms prevent the onset of cancer in most (but not all) people most (but not all) of the time. So, as small organisms are better adapted to their environment and can easily outpace the large organisms (i.e. humans) they attack or compete with, then believers in intelligent design have to deal with the paradox that the design deteriorates with increased complexity of the organism, in other words it becomes less intelligent.
ResponderEliminar@anair
ResponderEliminarAn example how to rephrase these questions could be:
Statement A: The development of life was a result of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
Statement B: The development of life came about through a process of non-random mutations and unnatural selection.
I believe that rephrasing the statements as mentioned above would have quite an impact on the results - and a very similar vocabulary has been used.
A fair set of statements could be:
Statement A: The development of life was a result of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
Statement B: The development of life was a result of intelligent design.
@ Caliphilosopher
ResponderEliminarSorry, it just struck me funny that you would bring the word 'immaterial' into such discussion. Most forces in nature are immaterial, including evolution itself, yet no one denies the scientific evidence for microevolution. Claiming that certain immaterial forces can have scientific backing while others cannot is naive at best. I just find such biases humorous.
@openMINDed
ResponderEliminarCompletely understood. I know that Descartes, Hume, Newton, and others (possibly Leibnitz?) around the enlightenment had that kind of worry that you brought about.
I think there is a important distinction between immaterial objects that have scientific referents which work out (due to the scientific theory's success), and the "intelligent designer" that is posited by scientific creationists.
Apologies if my comment came across as being cavalier.
Just for fun: arxiv.org/abs/0903.5539 (Schrodinger's cat versus Darwin).
ResponderEliminarNotice how the questions were phrased: Darwinism or Intelligent design, which is misleading. A survey worded correctly, Evolution vs. Creationism, would yield much different and much more accurate results.
ResponderEliminarMark S. @ 69 said: "So, as small organisms are better adapted to their environment and can easily outpace the large organisms (i.e. humans) they attack or compete with, then believers in intelligent design have to deal with the paradox that the design deteriorates with increased complexity of the organism, in other words it becomes less intelligent."
ResponderEliminarI don't think there is any negative correlation between complexity and intelligence. Nor do I see how you can state that design deteriorates with increased complexity. In fact, it is almost certainly the other way around. The disadvantage you speak of is only the time it takes to replicate mutations. Nothing suggests lower intelligence or worse design.
That's like me receiving a stack of $1 bills, you receiving a truckload of $20 bills, and me feeling sorry for your poor soul because you are unable to count how much money you have in under 3 minutes.
@openMINDed "Most forces in nature are immaterial"
ResponderEliminarAre you suggesting that the force of gravity is immaterial until one falls flat on one's face ?
@ Mark S.
ResponderEliminarNo, I'm suggesting that the force of gravity is immaterial at all times.
Our good friends at Merriam-Webster sum it up quite nicely:
immaterial - not consisting of matter
Rationalism is not the best means of understanding life accodring to evolutionary theory. According to Darwin, in its raw form evolution produces intelligence in due course as a mechanism for survival, not objective understanding.
ResponderEliminarPlease, everyone trying to have it both ways, read the explanation by Caliphilosopher below. Do a search if you have to, but it is the most reasonable and accurate statement here. Thank you Caliphilosopher.
ResponderEliminar