I learned about TED because my interest in evolution and its product, the biodiversity around and within us, led me to seek a talk by E. O. Wilson, the famous myrmecologist from my home state of Alabama, who was unveiling his dream to form the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL; a talk you should watch when you visit TED's site). After watching his eloquent and creative discourse dreamcasting a vision for something so near and dear to my mind, its emotional and rational centers, I next clicked a hyperlink to hear Richard Dawkins' talk given, I believe, at the same conference.
In his talk, the Oxford professor nicknamed Darwin's rottweiler, outlined a course of action for atheist darwinists: come out of the closet with a purpose of vocally and militantly expressing a wake-up call to the world: Darwinian evolution by natural selection is hostile to religion, which is equivalent to a virus which infects the world by childhood indoctrination leading to anti-intellectualism, xenophobia, racism, sexism, terrorism, contempt for honest pursuit of truth, and the naievte of blind faith, and so on. As electrifying and discussion-sparking as this topic is and can be, what I found more incredible was the reasoning behind it. Dawkins points out in his talk how the religiously-fueled ignorance of our times has led to major misunderstandings and political and religious debate about evolution, the opposition calling themselves creationists, or proponents of "intelligent design." This debate has recently heated up to the point of being one of the most intriguing and hottest topics in philosophy, biology, and theology today. The reason I am writing this is that I agree with Dawkins on at least one point. This is war.
Like many others, I'm not sure whether I'm willing to commit to a position that says religion is useless, baseless, and that its bad weighs out its good in the function and roles of society, that Darwinism absolutely results in a rejection of all religious and spiritual belief. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett represent prime examples of philosopher-scientists who radically support a materialistic view of science and the mind. On the other hand, I am more than sympathetic to and more than angry about the fact that a well-funded, conservative, anti-evolution coalition is trying to challenge evolution theory, to debate with science using political and pseudoscientific tactics, and to re-define for their own purposes the nature and regulation of the scientific enterprise, even of society.
I would like to think it necessary to burst on the scene, expose the liars and frauds, dish out powerful testimony against evil-doers I speak of, publish eloquent and popular books, and vanquish my foes--the foes of humanity, perhaps--once and for all, while gaining fame and fortune or at least a little respect that Rodney Dangerfield couldn't. I would like to be the first person to stand up and refute the "scientific" propositions of creationists, to discredit and disprove their stance to the point it be crushed under the weight of the truth. But I am not T. H. Huxley. I am not Michael Ruse. I am not Kenneth Miller. Sadly, brothers and sisters, it is not for me to do any of these, as far as I am aware. Why? Because they have already been done!
Over one hundred years ago, scientific debate about the validity--the fact--of organic evolution by natural selection was settled by scientists for the world. In parts of Europe and the United States, however, this argument has been resumed over the past few decades. Not for scientific reasons, either. Instead, a political, philosophical, and religious movement I have noted has supposedly brought this issue back into the arenas of public debate. Many, many minds have been engaged. I would like to point you to the truth, one that will lead no fair-minded and intelligent person astray. As I have studied philosophy and science and followed this debate for many years, this may take several posts. As a matter of fact and duty, it's worth taking years to follow this debate, maybe even (I hope not) my whole life, if need be. It is my opinion that everyone should become educated about this important debate because we cannot afford to lose what's at stake: scientific education, science-religion relationships, the way we think about the earth including the biological realms, the way we view our humanity, the way we view our work, et cetera.
As I consider how to present this, I must build upon the directions I started in. The fact is the cat's out of the bag. Intelligent Design (a dressed up for Sunday church version of creationism, or design theory) was taken on by Darwinian evolution, by modern science and philosophy and defeated long ago. This horse has been dead for years. So why still hit it? Hidden agendas. Money. Fame. Desire to impose one's own beliefs upon others. Public Relations. These sum up, in part, the motivations of the creationist Opposition. Since the intelligent design (ID) creationist movement is literally dead in the water already, I feel like it would be a good start for me to upload hyperlinks to information from both sides of the modern argument, so that you can click on these resources and learn about them yourself. So, your homework assignment, class, will be to read all this material, consider it thoroughly in your minds, then get back to me and tell me (a) which side you think is winning, (b) what you think science is, (c) how you define evolution vs. creationism/ID, (d) what the purview of modern science is vs. reasons for the debate, and (e) how you feel this impacts your view of yourself, your world, your beliefs about the world, and your desires for your life and that of others. Ok?
So, I'll set the stage by explaining a bit about the sides (providing links, citations), and then set you loose.
SO, the losing side is the ID side. The winning side is and must be that of biology and its central theorem, descent with modification through natural selection and other mechanisms. What we are on the verge of is the absolute loss of all theological and religious credibility, the complete abolishment of ID's "scientific legitimacy" (I believe this has already taken place), the ruin of several people's careers, the improvement of science education, more education for the masses, more scientific discoveries, and a growing hostility towards religion, which will continue to be degraded by modern science a little each day from this day forth. Ok? Like it or not, this is the truth about the world, or nearly so. But who are the major forces, who will the players be in the future? That's what I've been holding out on, enjoying your captivation for this whole time.
THE LOSERS
First, let us discuss the "losers." That would only be courteous. Creationists claim, in essence, that the world is too complex to be understood, so they envoke a supernatural force, a "designer" whose hand has been at work setting the unique wonders of the natural world in their respective places from before time began--namely, God or Allah or whatnot--as an explanation for what science "can never figure out." The argument goes, "At some point, the universe breaks down so that I cannot understand it. At that point, I decree by fiat that God is the only explanation for those things I cannot know." Put another way, the argument may sound like, "The biological world is so well put together, so irreducibly complex, that it gives the appearance of something intelligently designed, thus a designer must have been active in its origin." This teleological (circular) argument dates back to 1802, when William Paley published the argument from design in his book, Natural Theology. His argument was a watch's fine innerworkings implied a watchmaker, thus so too did the wonders of nature imply a designer, or God. This line of reasoning supported the widely held religious/scientific theory of special creation, which stated that the world was created by God (often, this was taken in reference to the Genesis account of creation in the christian Bible), with species being relatively fixed but adaptively plastic essences which did not change ultimately through time (this reference gives better historical background; though I cannot agree with it fully, it is a 127 year old perspective that should be considered by anyone weighing the evidence in this debate; other references include this fine evolutionary biology textbook, which discusses both sides; also look here; and see this link, where a scientist reviews a book by a theist in 1898, the year my great-grandfather was born).
When Darwin published his major work, On the Origin of Species... (1859), it provided a testable scientific explanation of facts (a theory) gathered from Darwin's readings and discussion about naturalistic phenomena, which was a powerful and influential proposition. The theory of evolution by natural selection, or Darwin's main argument in his book, was important first because it provided a mechanism explaining biological diversity, but second because it infinitely crippled the theory of special creation and the argument from design. No longer could supernatural arguments be used to argue about natural phenomena. Design arguments were trumped in the sense that Darwin's theory showed that incredible complexity could arise by gradual change of form, without envoking a designer or vital force. Not only did this argument win on its face, but this was a more parsimonious explanation (click the link for Occam's Razor). These facts known in 1859, as well as many others gathered and published in scientific and philosophical journals up to the present day, close the coffin on the Opposition.
In the 20th Century, a right-wing religious group began pointing fingers at evolutionary theory as the root of many different sins and evils found everywhere in society, especially as this theory became associated--even synonymous with--atheism. These activists claimed that homosexuality, sexual immorality, atheism, disease, and many other problems had their origin in evolutionary thought influences upon culture. Since the 1800s, religion has lost converts because evolution does, in fact, often lead to atheism. In the 1970s, a movement based in conservative Presbyterianist congregations that has now continued to encompass christians of many different denominations began developing a movement which crystallized in the late 1980s and early 1990s in the current creation-evolution debate. This movement is called Christian Reconstructionism (also read here, here, and here). Luckily, it is headed toward its demise.
Christian Reconstructionism (ChR) is something all the losers, including you if you place your rational faith and belief in intelligent design/creationism, support because it is a major political force funding and negotiating the creationist movement, particularly in America. Ultimately, conscious or not, by supporting ID, people are supporting this movement. Christian Reconstructionists believe (a) the word of god in the Bible is inerrant (but fails to prove this; in fact, many young christians today struggle with doubts over the contradictions in the Bible, especially when looking at the Old and New Testaments side by side), (b) christianity is the only correct religion, (c) Old Testament moral law applies to all people and all nations except those laws which other parts of the Bible later came to replace (which really means contradict, if we speak literally), (d) that Calvinism is required to obtain eternal life and effect social changes of the movement, (e) Christ will return after the whole world is evangelized or nearly so, (f) atheistic society will self-destruct and leads to moral decay a prioi, and (g) that ChR will result in suppression of all other world religions and reversion to Old Testament law including stoning of adulterers and homosexuals, no body piercing, no tattoos, etc, and that the world will be evangelized and Christ will return after they peacefully alter political and legal conditions to reconform to Old Testament Hebrew scriptural states. This is the most ridiculous thing I or any other thoughtful human being have ever heard of!! Is it not? A major problem is that these views are weakly aligned with much christian teaching and practice, but they represent a going-by-the-wayside extreme fundamentalist minority, which has been discredited.
Now, whether you are an IDer or a Darwinist, do you want those kinds of people in control of society and the fate of the world in accordance with their beliefs? How, Christian, will the Hindu, the Buddhist, the atheist, the Thor worshipper, the Wiccan, your neighbors and friends respond to this movement? How are they responding? Well, given the current failure of religious-led/supported government, probably not so favorably. And with good reason. Not only is this cause completely militant and purposeful in its attempt to find dominion over the earth for the Lord, but also they have been carrying out their plans secretly, immorally, and unscientifically.
In case you didn't know, rotten is the new slang for morally or logically wrong or unacceptable (also look here). I think this is a fitting description for the Discovery Institute (see their website, Discovery Institute Intelligent Design Campaigns and Wikipedia description of DI), the major "think tank" of the ID/Christian Reconstructionist movement. Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in New England, is the "posterboy" of this group, one of the few valid scientists in the ID ranks. He and other famous scientists and philosophers, most notably William Dembski represent key spokesmen for the ID side. To give you an example of how unethical this group is, just check out the website above. Notice anything fishy? (1) A group of mostly religious scientists, writers, and politicians describe throughout the website ludicrous responses to real science and the "winners" despite major losses, (2) they present pseudoscience, and (3) the images, production, and website name on this website and related materials give the false impression of a reliable source of scientific information (Look here for debunking article about the website banner. Why would DI give away their rottenness with their banner? Slight of hand. They want you to believe they represent scientific and faith authority.). In disguise, the DI slams evolutionary theory, science, and society. You and I had better watch who's talking and watch who's podcasting and watch which resources our sources cite and get their data from. Does it reference the DI? If so, beware of this group and the innane plot I have described.
"So, what?" is a common question among the learned and skeptical. I ask it about nearly everything I hear or read. It is my duty as a biologist to always it about science. So, what if you don't believe me when I say this is true? All around the world there is evidence of biological processes pointing to facts about evolution (you can interpret this as evidence about God's direction of the world, but this is non-science). Readily available by mail, books, articles, magazines, and the internet are credible resources that back up every claim I am making. Books and articles by real, even religious scientists like Dr. Kenneth Miller expose the major flaws, failure, and immorality of the ID/ChR movement (both are wrong, whether people take one or both sides). Thousands of peer-reviewed books and articles in scientific journals testify against creationism. Even religious people, like myself, have turned from creationism to accept the truth of evolution as fact. Hesitant to believe the plot I've outlined? Then you'll be even happier to know that the IDers years ago formulated a plan for their take-control of American science education, the extinction of evolution and so on. It is called the Wedge Document and was leaked within the last decade just before key court cases pronounced ID as "unscientific" and thus completely without scientific basis, conferring upon it NO PLACE in the science classroom. Here is a copy of the Wedge Document. Here is another, also from a creationist. You can read it for yourself.
From the language of the Wedge strategy, which prominent political scientists, biologists, and educators such as Dr. Barbara Forrest have exposed and criticized, the ChR/ID movement makes several claims to support their social, religious revolution. They make it abundantly what their position entails (though there's much they are holding back, like the rest of radical Christian Reconstructionism). The Wedge starts off with their central theorem: man was made by God in the image of God and this is the foundation of Western civilization. This has its origins in Genesis (for the christian, so far, so good). Then, they move on to describe their opponents. Their claims are that the fight began when the rise of modern science brought with it a materialism in direct contradiction to what thier own beliefs held (theism, dominionism, man as God's image, etc.). This materialism, says the Opposition, gave rise to moral decay, philosophies which were not so egocentric or anthropocentric, and utopianism. The Wedge, brought down from Mount Siani by Dr. Phillip Johnson and friends, goes on to say,
"Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism." (emphasis added)
In the sames spirit Ken Miller has written in concerning Michael Behe's new book, which he reviewed in a piece published in Nature, the Wedge makes "a nice argument, except for the annoying fact that it is wrong." And it is wrong on many counts. A major conclusion of Christian Reconstructionists supported by other creationists is that evolutionary theory brooded materialism. This is a fact. But this fact requires some explanation, because materialism is not very well understood by laymen as a result of multiple use. On the one hand, materialism refers to preoccupation with material things and desires overruling the spiritual in the lives of humans; on the other, materialism is a view of the world contending the world and universe, a priori or operationally, are made of matter or material objects and not supernatural ones. The Wedge and ChR/ID revolution is really worried about both of these, but targets the second because of its place in the philosophy of modern science. To clarify, we are talking about the second kind of materialism here!
Scientists follow either ontological naturalism or materialism (ON, OM) or methodological naturalism or materialism (MN, MM), or some variation of this theme. MN says that there is no supernatural entity or vital force considered in scientific work because science is about testable or falsifiable predictions and explanations based on materialism and supernatural things or theories do not fit this definition, thus are non-scientific. ON goes one step further and says there is no supernatural thing anyway, so why bother acknowledging it in this way. Militant atheism is joined to ontological naturalism and radical materialism, as that supported by Dennett and Dawkins and, to a lesser degree of acknowledgement, Frederick Crews and many others.
So, we see that science can be seen as more of an occupation, but many times is an integral part of someone's world view or ideology, if not comprising most of their set of normative ideas. The ideology of science has been called scientism. I am learning about this now. It seems closely allied with the calls from creationist camps about the deification of Charles Darwin and the faith of scientists in their "religion" of materialism. I confess I don't know much about it and want to know more. The point is that whether you see science as a category, a concept, an ideology, or what, supernatural phenomena are not scientific in the strong or weak sense of the word. These distinctions hold the not-so-secret key to other reasons why the ChR/ID movement fails.
For one thing, they contribute to exposing the Opposition as a movement which lacks integrity. But I'm not sure how important this is, because these kinds of attacks seem inconsequential in the scheme of things, aside from potentially persuading those mindless people who fail to critically consider the situation themselves. Second, the ChR/ID argument goes A = creationism, B = evolution (materialism);
1. A vs. B
2. B is wrong
C. Therefore, A
This argument rests on the logical fallacy that calls premise 1 especially into doubt. It cannot be as simple as materialism is wrong, therefore the christian reconstructionism/ID is right. In fact, it is likely that the first premise could be infinitely extended to include... or C, or D... to infinite.
Many other Oppostion claims have been met with serious issue, called into question, and defeated in scientific journals, public debates, and courtroom decisions. Sift through these in the materials I provide below. The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of science as science, not the pseudoscience presented by the ChR/ID Opposition.
THE WINNERS
Up next? A description of the "winners" and several of their recent victories against this selfish, unethical, religious minority trying to hijack our science education and indoctrinate a world of brainless, anti-science, anti-evolution, anti-intellectual christians. For now, I'm going to bed and you can follow the links below to interesting content on these matters. I strongly encourage comments. Which side of the war do you want to be on? The winning side or the losing side? I know it's cliche, but the truth will set you free. And if all goes right it will prevail. We cannot afford the opposite. Please look for my next installment about this issue. Also, I encourage everyone to respond with your thoughtful comments after reading through the materials I have presented.
Articles and Talks against ID, DI, and creationism:
Ken Miller Talk in Ohio, 2006? - YouTubehttp://youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Barbara Forrest's Position Paper on the truth about the ID movement
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Forrest_Paper.pdf
Skeptical responses to DI "scientific" podcasts
Populist Party in America calls for concern about DI
Americans United for the Separation of Church and StateDI: harming us with pseudoscience article
Famous articles on the ethics of belief (here, here)
Scientific papers of major players in the ID-evolution debate:
http://www.bioone.org/archive/0006-3568/55/3/pdf/i0006-3568-55-3-280.pdf
http://www.bioone.org/archive/0014-3820/56/8/pdf/i0014-3820-56-8-1721.pdf
http://www.bioone.org/archive/0002-7685/65/9/pdf/i0002-7685-65-9-646.pdf
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2005.00746.x
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF3-03Collins.pdf
Ken Miller's review of Behe's new book http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7148/full/4471055a.html
Famous scientist Jerry Coyne shatters Behe's new book! Also, he illustrates how Behe's own university doesn't support him, especially since he really botched things with his latest edition, Edge of Evolution http://www.powells.com/review/2007_06_14
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/moth/2002/00000018/00000002/art00004
Annual Review of Genomics http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genom.4.070802.110400?prevSearch=fulltextfield%3A(%22intelligent+design%22)
Famous evolutionary biologist Futuyma debunks Darwin's Black Box http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/futuyma.html
Another Forrest Paper http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html#_edn1
Defending Science Education http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/5/1134
Modern Philosophy of Mind http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~celiasmi/Papers/lyons.html
Science of the Soul?http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/jul/12/science_soul/?neapolitan
"Irreducible Complexity" goes down hard again!http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/behe/
Reference on the Argument from Design http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/design.html
"More Crank Science" article http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/coyne.html
"New" argument, same old objections http://www.journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=26583
DI homepage, "evolution news and views" (yeah right, from a twisted bunch of radically conservative, pro church/state merger, pseudoscientific, uneducated bastard liars)
Jack Russell Terriers & Cockroaches article (please respond)
Phillip Johnson on THE WEDGE
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/12.4docs/12-4pg18.html
"Creationism Research" = oxymoron
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/2002/cm07%2004c.pdf
Christian Reconstruction site/book
http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0505_Parsons_-_What_is_Re.html
Behe's response to critics
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g527h45501l632v8/
Another Behe botch up
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_brresp.htm
Debating Design Book - both sides presented equally and rationally
http://www3.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521829496
Absolute Baloney websites illustrate creationist anti-science/design argument:
http://evolution-facts.org/nature1.htm
Get a life, Dakota Voice, you are a fool!
http://www.dakotavoice.com/200706/R/20070619_BE.html
Jim Schicatano gets it all wrong
http://home.att.net/~jamspsu84/ttocmain.html
No comments:
Post a Comment