Scientific Literacy is the Enemy of Darwinism

_{Gil Dodgen

August 3, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a bizarre, perverse inversion of the legitimate goal of science — to find the truth wherever the evidence leads — Darwinists continue to turn things upside down.

We are constantly assured that if the unwashed, low-IQ masses could just be “educated,” and become “scientifically literate,” they would embrace the chance-and-necessity Darwinian anti-gospel with open arms and no dissent.

The endless, droning mantras about the infinitely creative powers of natural selection, the ubiquitous “scientific consensus,” the “finally discovered fossil that finally proves evolution” news releases that appear every few weeks, and all the rest, have nothing whatsoever to do with scientific literacy.

Real scientific literacy about biological systems comes from understanding the discoveries of empirical science in the last half of the 20th century — not from ideologically inspired speculation that is still mired in the scientific ignorance of the 19th century.

The irony is palpable. We are told that Darwinism would be accepted if we were sufficiently “scientifically literate.” Of course, this assumes that “scientific literacy” is 150 years out of date.

Up-to-date scientific literacy is devastating for Darwinism, which is why it must be suppressed at all cost.

Comments

Petrushka at 14, Are you still having fun playing the part you've given to the opposition? I've asked this before; what is it like to have to swallow your intellectual pride as you defend a failed worldview against insurmountable evidence against it? I mean, really, there is no doubt you already know that ID theory is strictly appropriate to the evidence -- in that there is nothing in the physical evidence that offers any particular idea as to the "attributes of the designer" other than the obvious ability to instantiate information into inanimate chemistry. That is, after all, where we find it. Yet still, here you are asking the same old questions time and time again. As if they matter to the theory as it is. And truly, it must be intellectually embarrassing at some level to ask these same old tired questions again and again, particularly while shielding yourself from the rather abundant fact that after 150 years, untold billions of dollars, and a research staff of, well, virtually everyone on the planet interested, you have yet to produce a single "how", "when", or "where" for your pretty little Darwinian tale. Not so much as even an opening line. But then again, it as the opening line that Darwin himself left out didn’t he? Don't you think the old girl needs a break? Why continue to embarrass her with these constant misplaced questions that do no more than highlight just how vacant the theory of "Poof, it did it itself" really is? Surely you yourself must tire of constantly asking a question you already have the answer for. Like an old alcoholic spending yet another night on the same barstool, you seem to have forgotten that it was you who up the opportunity to be somewhere else. But hey, no need to be upset, truly, no one here expects you to go anywhere else.Upright BiPed_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

KF @ 13, No, all that experiment would provide is supporting evidence for Darwinian evolution. So much of the ID proponents case seems to consist of trying to find holes in Darwinism (which is pointless because that's what all scientists are doing with all theories all the time). What you need is a positive affirmation with supporting empirical evidence of your own theory. Sure, Darwinists on this forum will put time into saying why ID is not a good theory. But the actual biologists and other scientist conducting the field work, experiments and theorising about evolution don't waste their time disproving ID. IMHO you need scientists who are prepared to do that for ID. Just ignore Darwinism and concentrate on establishing scientific acceptance of your own theory. And that theory surely must include who, how and when. I think aiguy, on another thread, delivered a devastating critique of Meyer's version of ID which clearly shows you can't ignore the who. Either it is a complex physical being (being the only entities we actually have experience and knowledge of that are capable of producing FSCI) or it is a non-physical intelligence (which we have no evidence or experience of such a thing ever being able to produce complex beings). If it is the former then you are no further ahead in the search for the first life-form and if it is the latter then its not a scientific postulation based on repeated experience and knowledge - ie there is absolutely no evidence for saying that a non-physical intelligence could even exist, let alone create physical beings.zeroseven_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

KF: "Actually no, what is needed — on both sides — is to build a reasonably well warranted empirically based explanation for the origin of certain phenomena that in our direct observation are consistently associated with the action of intelligence. (For instance digitally coded, algorithmically or linguistically functionally specific complex information.)" As long as you agree that a non-intelligent 'cause' is a possible answer. As long as you concede that you might be wrong. "ID avers that — on the premise that the best explanation of what happened in the deep past beyond observation is the causal factors seen in such reliable patterns in the present — the best explanation of the dFSCI in the cell — one of Meyer’s key signatures, BTW — is directed contingency, i.e design." But, it hasn't proved that there was an intelligent designer present at the time. This comes up in archaeology (and the bastard, Erich von Daniken world) all the time. Hypothesising some higher entity is fine, proving it was present, without multiple lines of evidence, is much harder. But I'm open to your evidence. I think part of the disagreement in in the notion of 'best' explanation and parsimony. I completely agree that a supernatural designer would completely answer lots of issues. But, because I see very little evidence for such a being and because its existence raises more questions than it answers, I cannot blithely accept its presence without some extraordinary evidence. Just pointing to some unexplained transitions in the biological record just doesn't cut it for me. But that's not exactly what I'm here for. So, let's get back to the evidence. Let's pick a case and lay all out for everyone to pick over. Give me the best ID argument and the best evidence to support it. Sorry I haven't addressed all your points. It's late where I live and I'm going to have to go to bed soon. But thanks for listening and taking the time everyone. I'll try and catch up in the morning.ellazimm_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Petrushka, you’ve been hanging out here for a while, so there’s really no excuse for you’re making such a silly statement as this. NONE of this is what ID claims.
You could turn your post into a refutation simply by listing any of the designer's attributes. I'm listening.Petrushka_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

EZ: Actually no, what is needed -- on both sides -- is to build a reasonably well warranted empirically based explanation for the origin of certain phenomena that in our direct observation are consistently associated with the action of intelligence. (For instance digitally coded, algorithmically or linguistically functionally specific complex information.) ID avers that -- on the premise that the best explanation of what happened in the deep past beyond observation is the causal factors seen in such reliable patterns in the present -- the best explanation of the dFSCI in the cell -- one of Meyer's key signatures, BTW -- is directed contingency, i.e design. Clean, simple and easily tested against experiment: just produce a known, directly observed case where credibly undirected stochastic contingency and/or blind mechanical necessity have produced such dFSCI. (Mind you, on the same grounds that warrant the statistical form of the second law of thermodynamics, that will be predictably hard, indeed, ID suggests that it will be empirically unobservable on the gamut of our known cosmos.) Darwinian evolution, and wider evolutionary materialism is committed to the contrary proposition that such chance and necessity are fully and with reasonable likelihood, capable of producing such. But, to date, they have never been able to produce a case in our observation that stood up to a serious scrutiny. (Weasel didn't make the grade in 1986, despite how it persuaded ever so many, and Genetic etc algorithms today all operate well within the bounds of islands of function or have intelligent oracles that get them to a "beach" -- cf. how they talk about fitness landscapes -- and are intelligently loaded up with what Marks and Dembaki have termed active information.) So, on unfettered inference to best explanation, the answer is pretty obvious: computes with organised co-ordinated, synchronised machinery and their algorithmic information are best explained as artifacts. But, that unfetteredness is exactly what is not being allowed to speak: as Lewontin and others summarise, there is an a priori commitment to "natural explanations," and there is an active attempt to redefine science as explaining only on such patterns of chance and mechanical necessity. So, there is an deeply worldview tinged ideological struggle in science. History tells us that such struggles do not fade away quietly if much is at stake. What will happen is that sometime within the next 20 years or so, there will be one cover-up, one censorship, one expulsion too many, and bang the light will go off. Support for the evolutionary materialist paradigm will collapse in the tax-paying public, and it will dry up, fighting for turf and perks at the public trough tooth and nail every inch of the way. So, the real challenge is to hold up the mirror of soundness and truth to the reigning a priori materialism paradigm, while building a new one among those sufficiently open-minded to see its true degree of warrant. The stout resistance to the expose of what Mr Lewontin actually said quite publicly, and to pointing out the implications of what the US national Academy of Sciences has been saying, and what the NCSE, ACLU et al have been doing, and what has been going on in the Smithsonian, in Faculty seminar rooms, and in the editorial boardrooms of journals like Nature show that the new magisterium do understand where their fatal weak spot lies. The trend is clear, and sooner rather than later, the public will wise up and rise up, saying enough is enough. Looks like tat is already happening with the Climategate scandal. Which will accelerate the upcoming ID-gate scandal. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT}

DonaldM: I accept that ID says that an intelligent designer is a better explanation for some of the complexity observed in the biological world. But it is true that ID's proponents do not specify who the designer is, what specifically the designer did, when the designer acted or designed, how the designer operated or the designer's plans and motivations. I'm trying to understand the ID paradigm and trying to be respectful at the same time. I would very much like to have some more specifics or guesses about those topics. People complain about 'Darwinists' taking too much credit, explaining too much based on their approach. I don't want to vilify or chastise ID supporters; but I would like to know: how, when, where, why. I want to be able to evaluate ID as a predictive and modelling theory. But I need more prediction and modelling. I want to see ID as an explanatory point of view. And that means answering some of those questions. Remember: you need to 'convert' people who are not in agreement with you. You need to form some kind of consensus. You need to show how ID addresses the evidence, adapts to new evidence, makes predictions and rises to contention. You've got a good forum here. This is not an academic situation. Most of us tend to operate on an anonymous playing field. Push the boat out a bit and give us some glimpse behind the safe facade. Run some ideas by us and see what we think. It's a good way to test out your suppositions and see if they fly.ellazimm_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Petrushka
ID claims that an unspecified entity having unspecified capabilities dis some unspecified something(s) at unspecified times and places using unspecified methods for unspecified reasons.
Petrushka, you've been hanging out here for a while, so there's really no excuse for you're making such a silly statement as this. NONE of this is what ID claims. If you don't yet know that, you simply have not been paying attention.DonaldM_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

most people still haven’t fully accepted the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution
The article isn't about "most people." It's about scientifically literate people. I'd like to see the research that points to this conclusion. Perhaps as people obtain advanced degrees in scientific fields their level of doubt in Darwinism increases. Perhaps there are polls answering that question, depicting how education levels affect acceptance of evolution. Or perhaps someone has developed an inventory of science literacy, a test that can be followed up by a few questions about acceptance of evolution. The correlations could be interesting.Petrushka_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Let’s try that in reverse, shall we? “I’ve never known anyone who both understood and rejected ID.” I wonder how the Darwinists would respond to that?
What's to understand? ID claims that an unspecified entity having unspecified capabilities dis some unspecified something(s) at unspecified times and places using unspecified methods for unspecified reasons. There's no there there.Petrushka_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

I'd be very interested in picking one in particular and seeing how the conflicting paradigms deal with it. Why not? Let's have a go!!ellazimm_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

And what are “the discoveries of empirical science in the last half of the 20th century” that you refer to? Read Stephen Meyer's book, Signature In The Cell. The discoveries are voluminous and devastating for the credibility of claims about the powers of the Darwinian mechanism.GilDodgen_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

@barb I think your response exemplifies what Gildogen is refering to. That last sentence especially along with the entire tone of your post.above_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

One staunch Darwinist put it this way: "I've never known anyone who both understood and rejected evolution." The hubrus in such a statement can not be overstated. It is little more than an ad hominem in disguise. Put differently, the quote could be "the reason you reject evolution is because you're too scientifically illiterate to understand it!" Or more crassly, "You reject evolution because you're too stupid to understand it." Let's try that in reverse, shall we? "I've never known anyone who both understood and rejected ID." I wonder how the Darwinists would respond to that?DonaldM_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Does this screed come with any supporting evidence?Petrushka_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

So after 150 years and 100 million catalogued fossils in museums around the world, most people still haven't fully accepted the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. And, in response, the intelligent scientists who study anthropology, biology, chemistry, and other fields can only use a pathetic ad hominem attack (people are scientifically illiterate) against those who disagree with them. That is truly pitiful and sad.Barb_{August 4, 2010
August
08
Aug
4
04
2010
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Seems power grabs are all the rage today.Lock_{August 3, 2010
August
08
Aug
3
03
2010
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

GilDodgen, I don't understand. Isn't the up-to-date science, that which is being conducted currently by biologists? What is the scientific literacy that is devastating for Darwinism? And what are "the discoveries of empirical science in the last half of the 20th century" that you refer to?zeroseven_{August 3, 2010
August
08
Aug
3
03
2010
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply