Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Quantum Physics Supports Evolution and Refutes ID


It must be true — I read it in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/science/05essa.html?

What quantum physics should teach NeoDarwinists is that hypotheses must be rational but reality doesn't have to be. DaveScot
What a ridiculous piece! Some choice quotes run as follows: "Usually, when confronting the opponents of evolution, biologists make the case that evolution should be taught because it is true." As opposed to a workable scientific hypothesis that hasn't been sufficiently falsified. Any presumption of pure sweet truth belongs in philosphy, theology, or mathematics and not science. "They cite radiocarbon dating to show that Earth is billions of years old" Irrelevant "...as some creationists would have it." Shame by association media tactic (akin to "Intelligent Design Creationsim") "Biologists cite research on microbes... to shoot down arguments that life is so "irreducibly complex" that only a supernatural force or agent could have called it into being, as intelligent designers would have it. " An out & out lie, since Intelligent Design requires no presumption of a supernatural designer! I have actually blogged a longish account of why I believe the medis is against ID here: http://reflections-on-reality.blogspot.com/2005/07/media-vs-id.html Skeptical_Dualist
The article doesn't actually say quantum physics supports evolution, but it's certainly reaching for the "halo" effect: mentioning quantum physics and evolution in the same breath lends a great deal of support to evolution, doesn't it? The point of the article is the familiar blurb that ID isn't real science, leading up to this:
"The supposed 'data contradicting evolution' do not exist," a Steve, Dr. Steve Rissing, a biologist at Ohio State University, said in an e-mail message. But if they did, Dr. Rissing added, "I sure would want to be the scientist publishing them. Think of it - the covers of Nature and Science, and Newsweek and Time, too!" It is evolution's acceptance of nature as the only true scientific authority and its capacity to fall in the face of a more effective explanation that make evolution science, far more than its mere correctness.
Just think how famous you might be some day, Dr. Dembski! And no, I don't think that's why you're doing this. Magazine covers would not be worth all the grief you've had to take in this quest. Part of that grief is articles like this, with their imperious, patronizing attitude toward ID:
It is possible to believe in evolution and believe in God. Plenty of biologists do. But their deity is not a creator or intelligent agent at work in the material world in ways that transcend nature and its laws. That would be a matter of faith, not science.
If they actually tried to define the epistemic relationship of faith and science, they might realize the two can shake hands. Faith and science can both discuss the same topic, from two different viewpoints, and the contribution science makes to the conversation can be real science--as is the case with ID. What's operating here is probably a significant fear of faith, along with muddled thinking about what it really is; which spills over into muddled thinking about science that touches on faith. TomG

Leave a Reply