Where does disbelief in Darwin lead?

_{February 13, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

A commenter to my article about John McCain supporting the teaching of ID in public schools replies that he won’t vote for McCain because of it. The stated reason is the United States is falling behind other industrialized countries in science literacy.

Piffle! The notion that science literacy in the U.S. is substandard is rooted in the results of science surveys that include questions about evolution. Without doubt a much larger fraction of the US populace doesn’t believe in mud to man evolution than compared to any other industrialized nation. So in those surveys they give the “incorrect” answer to questions about the origin of life. In all other category of science questions Americans score as well as or better than non-Americans. But the weight of the “wrong” answers about evolution pulls down the average and makes it appear a few other countries are doing a better job of science education.

Be that as it may I’m a results oriented guy. Instead of presuming that “poorer” science education leads to poorer scientific output I instead look at what America actually produces in the way of science and engineering. Without question America’s output in science and engineering leads the world. Not just a little but a lot. We don’t steal nuclear technology secrets from China, they steal ours. We don’t use European GPS satellites for navigation, they use ours. The list can go on and on. We put a man on the moon 40 years ago while to this day no one else has. America has almost 3 times the number of Nobel prize winners as the next closest nation. That doesn’t support the notion that disbelief in Darwin is causing any problems. In fact it supports just the opposite. Disbelief in evolution makes a country into a superpower – militarily, economically, and yes even scientifically.

Education in America is working just fine, thank you, judging by the fruits of American science and engineering. Disbelief in Darwinian evolution, if anything, leads to greater technological achievements not lesser. If it isn’t broken, don’t try to fix it.

Comments

If religion makes us better–why are the secularists living better lives with fewer social malaise and malignant welfare roles? I guess it really depends on where they are living. I mean the ones in North Korea don't seem to be doing so hot.tribune7_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Darwinism has eroded the belief in the sanctity of human life. Noone can deny that.
I don't know if no one can deny that. Do you think you can show more actions against the 'sanctity of human life' occurred after Darwinism came about? For example were there more wars, more murders, less charity, more abuse than in the days prior to Darwin? I don't think it can even be shown that Christians commit less crimes or have a lower divorce rate than atheists. In the same manner I doubt that it can be shown that the advent of Darwinism has 'eroded the sanctity of human life' by any reasonable metric.hrun0815_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Darwinism has eroded the belief in the sanctity of human life. Noone can deny that. Where is Mike Huckabee? I'm sure he could express what I'm trying to say more articularly. Also, if you want to see where society is going to go, if the Darwinists get there way, read about Peter Singer. He is one scary dude.PannenbergOmega_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

"If religion makes us better–why are the secularists living better lives with fewer social malaise and malignant welfare roles?" What about all the unborn children whose lives are tragically snuffed out every year in this country? I highly doubt it is the religious believers. It is the result of a secular society, influenced by Darwinian nihilism.PannenbergOmega_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

StephenB writes, in part: Frankly, I don’t understand why you would go with this guy and ignore George Gallup, the internationally respected researcher, who has already shown the positive effects of religion on society. Or, if you are more inclined to go with institutionally based researchers try this: From the Princeton Religion Research Center, we get the following conclusions about the close connection between religion and individual/ social health. I "went" with this guy for exactly the reason I had little knowledge about him but nevertheless this oft quoted study for some reason shows up again and again and again and again in numerous places--not just the Net. Whereas I've never heard of the Princeton study. The main point of Paul's study seems relatively intact: If religion makes us better--why are the secularists living better lives with fewer social malaise and malignant welfare roles?S Wakefield Tolbert_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

S. Wakefield Tolbert: Gregory Paul has been pushing his secularist agenda for years, and it is evident that he always stacks the deck when he does his research. He tries to pass himself off as a disinterested researcher, but he clearly has his own ax to grind, and oh how he grinds it. He writes about Christianity’s role in the rise of Hitler, slanders pope Pius XII, and regularly stumps for anti-religious causes. Most important, he has been debunked many times for his proclivity to draw his conclusions before the research begins. As someone once put it, “there are liars, damn liars, and then there are statisticians.” It is very easy to cherry pick data to produce a certain, very specific outcome. It is also easy for unscrupulous researchers to make things up. I don't think Paul is above it. His so-called research is little more than anti-Christian bigotry masquerading as disinterested sociology. Frankly, I don’t understand why you would go with this guy and ignore George Gallup, the internationally respected researcher, who has already shown the positive effects of religion on society. Or, if you are more inclined to go with institutionally based researchers try this: From the Princeton Religion Research Center, we get the following conclusions about the close connection between religion and individual/ social health. 1. Religious feelings have spurred much of the volunteerism in our nation. Members of a church or synagogue, as revealed in a Gallup Poll, tend to be much more involved in charitable activity than non-members. 2. Seventy-four percent of adults say religion in their homes has strengthened family relationships, while 82 percent say that religion was important in their homes when they were growing up. 3. Eight in ten Americans report that religious beliefs help them to respect and assist other people. 4. While only 4 percent say their beliefs have little or no effect on their lives, 63 percent state that their beliefs KEEP THEM FROM DOING THINGS THEY KNOW THEY SHOULD NOT DO. (My emphasis) Again, from the report: “In sum, the religious liberty most Americans cherish and celebrate has enabled religion to flourish in many forms and to become a profound shaper of the American character.” By the way, whatever happened to the sacrosanct standard of appealing to “peer reviewed journals?” Bueller? Anyone? S. Wakefield Tolbert? Anyone?StephenB_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

Wakefield, Gregory Paul is neither a scientist, a statistician nor a sociologist. He is however a devout secular humanist with an axe to grind and select statistics to mash. A debunking of Gregory Paul.John_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

Greetings, D. Scot and friends of UD! One heck of a rountable here. Disbelief in Darwin might stimulate some scientific prowess, but it seems not for the Everyman. This is different from saying "for society as a whole", which as D. Scot points out the US still has the nice lead in discovery. How mhy of those discoverers, though, have latched onto contrarian positions like ID? well....Hmmmmm. AS to the NEA and the American educrat establishment, from them you can demonstrate anything. But overall the consensus is that we spend the most on public education and usually get the least out of it. Certainly no study to date correlates teacher performance and student achievement aligned with certification and money. At the higher levels in science (ie--college, post graduate, doctorate) the mess hits the fan and we still lead the world for reasons that need not detain us for now.... Unlike what Matt said, we are not coming off looking and smelling rosy here. The article below demonstrates other problems the US has compared to our Euro cousins. As far as sex issues, it might be that high abortion rates in those nations contribute to lower teen birthrates. Even so, his larger point is that the states point to more peaceable societies than the US. And those societies are indeed more SECULAR. Of course the Chinese live in relative peace too under duress of communism and so his input about handgun control and socialized healthcare might be a pitch for ideology. Of course Europe is a homogenous society and that might contribute to a more peaceful and common bond for citizenry. That is worth consideration. Also, it is probably also the case that while many Americans profess a generalized belief in God, this is not the same thing as being a believer in the full monty of Christianity and active in the faith. One person called this "provisionally atheistic"---they might believe in God but live their lives as if He is not present in life one way or another. But the main thing is that he charges that Faithful look inward and don't care about their society as a whole. Europe DOES seem to have at least in economics a more communal atmosphere than the US. I know this is not true across the board with all believers, and don't know this Martin guy or his full intentions here, but his main point even without some agenda on his own is that he feels that faith makes people turn inward to the point that they neglect higher social responsibilities. Of course I know this is an easy charge to make and in point of fact numerous of the faithful are positively engaged in making a better world. One supposes at this Foreman would just say why doesn't God just make things right and why do we have to suffer, etc. Still, I looked up the stats on this and he seems right on the part about Europe and Japan overall. This is not to say they don't have their own sets of problems. I've blogged before that Europe might be heading down a dark path of PC nanny-statism. Japan, I know little about. Certainly both Germany and Japan in their Imperial ages past were some of the most sadistic proprietors of death. But that was yesteryear. And of course I can attest that many people who're professing Christians don't show any extraordinary curiosity about science and do say some asinine and cockamamie things that they think are cute and clever but look stupid on the whole. I think the author might be British but not sure. COLUMN By MARTIN FOREMAN From God would be an atheist website....... First published Nov. 12, 2005 Several weeks ago, a ground-breaking study on religious belief and social well-being was published in the Journal of Religion & Society. Comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand, author Gregory S Paul quietly demolished the myth that faith strengthens society. Drawing on a wide range of studies to cross-match faith – measured by belief in God and acceptance of evolution – with homicide and sexual behavior, Paul found that secular societies have lower rates of violence and teenage pregnancy than societies where many people profess belief in God. Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size – over a hundred million people – Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation. (Teenage pregnancy has less tragic consequences than violence but it is usually unwanted, and it is frequently associated with deprivation among both mothers and children. In general, it is a Bad Thing.) Next in line are the Norwegians, British, Germans and Dutch. At least sixty percent accept evolution as a fact and fewer than one in three are convinced that there is a deity. There is little teenage pregnancy , although the Brits, with over 40 pregnancies per 1,000 girls a year, do twice as badly as the others. Homicide rates are also low -- around 1-2 victims per 100,000 people a year. At the other end of the scale comes America. Over 50 percent of Americans believe in God, and only 40 percent accept some form of evolution (many believe it had a helping hand from the Deity). The U.S. has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Japan. All this information points to a strong correlation between faith and antisocial behavior -- a correlation so strong that there is good reason to suppose that religious belief does more harm than good. At first glance that is a preposterous suggestion, given that religions preach non-violence and sexual restraint. However, close inspection reveals a different story. Faith tends to weaken rather than strengthen people’s ability to participate in society. That makes it less likely they will respect social customs and laws. All believers learn that God holds them responsible for their actions. So far so good, but for many, belief absolves them of all other responsibilities. Consciously or subconsciously, those who are "born again" or "chosen" have diminished respect for others who do not share their sect or their faith. Convinced that only the Bible offers "truth", they lose their intellectual curiosity and their ability to reason. Their priority becomes not the world they live in but themselves. The more people prioritize themselves rather than those around them, the weaker society becomes and the greater the likelihood of antisocial behavior. Hence gun laws which encourage Americans to see each other not as fellow human beings who deserve protection, but as potential aggressors who deserve to die. And hence a health care system which looks after the wealthy rather than the ill. As for sex… Faith encourages ignorance rather than responsible behavior. In other countries, sex education includes contraception, reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancies. Such an approach recognizes that young people have the right to make their own choices and helps them make decisions that benefit society as a whole. In America faith-driven abstinence programs deny them that right -- "As a Christian I will only help you if you do what I say". The result is soaring rates of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Abstinence programs rest on the same weak intellectual foundation as creationism and intelligent design. Faith discourages unprejudiced analysis. Reasoning is subverted to rationalization that supports rather than questions assumptions. The result is a self-contained system that maintains an internal logic, no matter how absurd to outside observers. The constitutional wall that theoretically separates church and state is irrelevant. Religion has overwhelmed the nation to permeate all public discussion. Look no further than Gary Bauer, a man who in any other Western nation would be dismissed as a fanatic and who in America is interviewed deferentially on prime time television. Despite all its fine words, religion has brought in its wake little more than violence, prejudice and sexual disease. True morality is found elsewhere. As UK Guardian columnist George Monbiot concluded in his review of Gregory Paul’s study, "if you want people to behave as Christians advocate, you should tell them that God does not exist." I might express that another way. The flip side of Monbiot's argument is that God would be an atheist... Martin Foreman is the author of "God would be an atheist," a syndicated print column an d website.S Wakefield Tolbert_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

DaveScot: The internet search string you give turns up 405,000 hits. I don't suppose you read all 405,000 items, and I certainly don't intend to. I didn't ask how to locate thousands of sources; I asked you which specific sources your statement was based upon, and what specific ideas you took from those sources. Be that as it may, since you've provided one of those specific sources, I've looked at it. The article makes a good point about the parallel between Darwinian and Buddhist impermanence, though it doesn't demonstrate that Buddhism ever systematically taught the impermanence of types, as opposed to individuals. The one example he gives of "evolutionary" change, from a single sutra (for which he uses the Pali term "sutta"), is vaguely compatible with the modern notion of "the origin of species", but hardly counts as a clear formulation of it. This Buddhist also appears to be an apologist. He tries to give the impression that Christianity has been falsified by Darwinian evolution, whereas Buddhism remains standing. Of course, purely Darwinian evolution conflicts with Christianity, but purely Darwinian evolution hasn't been proved; at best common descent has been proved, and the causes of the fundamental structural changes are as yet unknown. The parts of evolution that have been proved (microevolution, natural selection) can easily be made compatible with all but the most literalist Protestant forms of Christianity. Further, if pure Darwinism is true, not only Christianity but Buddhism as well is false. If Darwinism is true, there is no point or goal of life, not even of human life, beyond naked organic survival. But for the Buddhist there is such a goal -- nirvana, which is the utter negation of organic survival. In the referenced sutra, he finds some analogies with Darwinism. But you can find them in Genesis, too: the water creatures precede the land creatures, as in Darwinism. Yet this Buddhist doesn't conclude that Christianity is therefore compatible with Darwinism. No, Christianity is out for him. Then, after admitting that not everything in his sutra fits with Darwinism, he picks and chooses, leaving out the "superstitious" parts that don't fit. If the sutra is sacred, what gives him the right to accept only those parts which fit with modern science, and reject the others? This is not devout textual interpretation; it's apologetics aimed at showing how modern Buddhism can be. Liberal Christians do this all the time, with those elements of the Bible and the tradition that they don't like. All that he really proves is that you can take isolated doctrines and themes out of Buddhism, and show their compatibility with certain aspects of Darwinian evolution. He doesn't show that Buddhism overall is compatible with Darwinian evolution overall. In fact, Buddhism is compatible with Darwinism in that both are formally atheistic, and that both allow for an extended materialist interpretation of nature; however, Buddhism is incompatible with Darwin insofar as Darwinism is radically non-anthropocentric, and Buddhism is narcissistically anthropocentric. For Darwin, though man is the highest evolved creature so far, he was not planned or intended by nature, and he might become extinct, or superseded by something higher. For the Buddha, the most important thing in the universe is man -- in particular, the liberation of man from pain and suffering, by attaining the state of nirvana. Evolutionary theory of some kind may be compatible with Buddhist notions of impermanence and materiality. A Buddhist might well accept that animal bodies have evolved, and that the spirit of man inhabits an animal frame that was developed by materialistic processes. This, by the way, is a permitted speculation within Catholicism. But just as Catholicism insists that the human spirit within the animal body has a supernatural origin and destiny, so the Buddhist insists that there is something within man, more subtle than either body or soul, which has a destiny of ultimate bliss. Man cannot be exhaustively explained by matter in motion. An orthodox Buddhist teacher, while accepting much of Darwin's materialism as a good description of the phenomenal world, would regard Darwin himself as a spiritual ignoramus of the highest order, and would point to the evident suffering of Darwin's soul (as witnessed in his letters) as evidence that Darwin did not understand what was ultimately real. The Buddhist writer of this article fails to mention this, which makes me think that he is more concerned to make Buddhism look good in the eyes of modern science, than to remain true to the essence of Buddhist teaching. But that's not uncommon in just about every religious tradition these days. I don't have time to keep taking apart weak articles, so that will have to do. For Taoism, I recommend giving the internet a pass, and going to a good university library and picking up some scholarly books on Taoism, then comparing Taoist cosmology with Darwinism. I think the difference will be evident. That's all this hillbilly has to say on this topic. Yours, Buddha of the Ozarks.Timaeus_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

leo, Thank you for your comment and I apologize for misunderstanding the point you were trying to make. Since you are a biologist, I hope you stick around to give your two cents worth when we discuss biological issues. My re-evaluation of evolution started when I first read about Dean Kenyon being restricted by San Francisco State. I had never heard of him but read he was a well known biologist who was questioning Darwinian processes. Up to that point I never thought too much about the topic but having an expert censored caught by interest. I had generally accepted Darwin's theory but in truth never read much about it. Natural selection seemed obvious to me and still does so I had no reason to doubt the theory. But then I found out there was more important things about the theory that were not so obvious. I am glad you have decided to comment at least a little and maybe you will add more as time goes on. We need more technical expertise in certain discussions.jerry_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

*Darwinism I should be wearing my reading glasses, when at the computer! :)PannenbergOmega_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

Writing as a person of faith, I must confess that I want ID to be true for religious and moral reasons. So it's always encouraging to see someone who is not religious, criticizing Darwinian theory. As for where Darwininism leads... hell probably. I don't think any of us can deny the horrific effects Darwininism has had on our culture and society.PannenbergOmega_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

The stated reason is the United States is falling behind other industrialized countries in science literacy. It's how those awful creationist fundies run our public schools. It's the only explanation right? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?tribune7_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Darwinist use of language is a quagmire of vague, equivocal, ill defined and twisted terms. They really have no definition of basic terms like science, natural physical laws, reason etc. Anthony Flew is right in pointing out that many questions they are dicussing are more questions of philosophy than science and for this they have little background or training. One of my favorite aphorisms is: "The mark of an educated person is to know what they are doing when they are doing it."(Shih Tzu).Parmenides_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

PannenbergOmega, "Is Denton still a Christian?" I really don't know if he considers himself Christian or not. What is clear from his writings, however, is that he has a bent towards ID with in anterest in finding the faith of his fathers to be valid. I would say that he is less "pure" than the guy who discussed his experience here a few months ago. He was an athiest through grad school, but became convinced that there is a designer, though he has no sense of who that designer is, while doing his Ph.D. thesis. This fellow, rather than presenting a hope of finding ID, presents a hope and expectation of not finding it. Such a story is much more compelling to those of us who question a person's religious bias.bFast_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

-----Aaron: "Based on this example and others cited in Dr. Tyson’s presentation (plus even more throughout history not cited here) we can see explanations that invoke an intelligent designer have been merely placeholders used until somebody comes along and makes a new discovery that gives a natural explanation. If our students are taught to invoke an intelligent designer as adults they’ll continue to do so which will give their foreign competition the chance to make the next discovery." Aaron, forgive me for pling on, but Dave is right about the importance of learning the ins and outs of ID. If you were acquainted with ID methodology, you would know that the explanatory filter can produce false negatives (failing to detect design when it is there) but does not produce false positives (detecting design when it isn't there). You are assuming that the explanatory produces false positives. It doesn't. If that were the case, ID would be just another "God of the gaps" argument. It isn't.StephenB_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

-----gpuccio: "Why not assume, for instance, that intelligence is “supernatural”? After all, nobody has ever defined in an ultimate way what is “natural” and what isn’t. ----"That would leave darwinists in dire difficulties: if they want to stay natural, and be consistent with their theory, they should admit that they are not intelligent. (probably tru, but difficult for anybody to admit)." Although your tongue is halfway in your cheek, there is something very useful in this idea, as you have obviously figured out. It is remarkable how often Darwinists will suggest that intellectual activity is a natural process because it occurs "in nature." When you think about it, the Darwinist's most potent weapon is the calculated misuse of the language and the perceived right to use undefined words at exactly those times when precision is most needed.StephenB_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

Why not assume, for instance, that intelligence is "supernatural"? After all, nobody has ever defined in an ultimate way what is "natural" and what isn't. That would leave darwinists in dire difficulties: if they want to stay natural, and be consistent with their theory, they should admit that they are not intelligent. (probably true, but difficult for anybody to admit!). After all, in love and science wars everything is fair... :-)gpuccio_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Aaaron Thanks for making an excellent point about why ID should be taught in HS science classes. You wrote: Regardless of whether or not such a study exists my claim has base in the how invoking an supernatural causal agent puts a limit on the discoveries made by even the greatest minds in history. ID makes no claim that the causal agency of organic evolution is supernatural. It only makes the claim that the agency is intelligent - capable of forming abstract thoughts and then manipulating matter to turn thought into reality. Humans have this ability (genetic engineering) and I trust neither you nor I regard humans as supernatural intelligent agents. You thus make a strawman definition of ID then use that as proof of your claim. If ID was taught in HS biology there wouldn't be this commonly held strawman definition of it where a supernatural entity is required by it. You're living proof of the need to teach both sides so that the controversy may be properly understood. I'd dispute your claim that belief in the supernatural is an impediment to science but there's no need as the presumption that ID requires supernatural agency is fallacious to begin with but I'll make a brief pass at it nonetheless. Science is the logical extension of the religious belief that a supernatural intelligence created an ordered universe that can be comprehended and understood by rational man who was gifted with reason in order that he may understand it. If the universe is just a big accident we shouldn't expect it to have rhyme and reason behind it. Yet we do have that expectation and it's a religious expectation as much as or more than any other kind of expectation. It is no impediment to methodological naturalism but rather an inspiration that methodological naturalism leads to understanding the detailed working of God's creation. I don't know about other authors here but the usual intent of my articles is to be a springboard for spontaneous commentary in something that holds interest for me. DaveScot_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

Dave: Rather than write ten pages of insufferable prose, I will provide the bottom line: Darwinism and Buddhism are compatible in the sense that they agree on those things which each thinks ought to be denied, and they are incompatible in the sense that they disagree on the things which each thinks ought to be affirmed.StephenB_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Hi bFast, you are no doubt right. I have yet to get around to reading Uncommon Dissent. Please pardon, my know-it-allness. Is Denton still a Christian?PannenbergOmega_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, I haven't noticed too many bloggers comment in his their own blog posts, let alone responding this often and quickly. All the attention given to my comments is starting to make me feel like a celebrity...lol. You said: "...in all honesty I’m not so certain that no controlled study of ID exposure and scientific literacy has been done..." Contrary to the statement's actual meaning, I assume you meant to say you don't believe a controlled study of ID exposure and scientific literacy has been done. I've never heard of such a study so I make the same assumption but I think both you and I would find such a study interesting although difficult as there are so many variables to control. Regardless of whether or not such a study exists my claim has base in the how invoking an supernatural causal agent puts a limit on the discoveries made by even the greatest minds in history. In an article called "The Perimeter of Ignorance" (http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php) Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson cites a few examples. One such example which I find to be the most pertinent to our discussion is that of Sir Isaac Newton. Tyson writes: "Newton's law of gravity enables you to calculate the force of attraction between any two objects. If you introduce a third object, then each one attracts the other two, and the orbits they trace become much harder to compute. Add another object, and another, and another, and soon you have the planets in our solar system. Earth and the Sun pull on each other, but Jupiter also pulls on Earth, Saturn pulls on Earth, Mars pulls on Earth, Jupiter pulls on Saturn, Saturn pulls on Mars, and on and on. Newton feared that all this pulling would render the orbits in the solar system unstable. His equations indicated that the planets should long ago have either fallen into the Sun or flown the coop-leaving the Sun, in either case, devoid of planets. Yet the solar system, as well as the larger cosmos, appeared to be the very model of order and durability. So Newton, in his greatest work, the Principia, concludes that God must occasionally step in and make things right: 'The six primary Planets are revolved about the Sun, in circles concentric with the Sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. . . . But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. . . . This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.' Looking at the last sentence of the Newton quote we can see he invoked the same intelligent and powerful Being at the limit of his understanding that is invoked by ID proponents at theirs. Was Newton limited in any way from continuing his explanations of the orbits in the solar system? The next step in doing so was taken by LaPlace a century later by developing perturbation theory which Newton could have easily done if he hadn't thought the explanation had reached its end by attributed the stability of the solar system to the intervention of an intelligent designer. Based on this example and others cited in Dr. Tyson's presentation (plus even more throughout history not cited here) we can see explanations that invoke an intelligent designer have been merely placeholders used until somebody comes along and makes a new discovery that gives a natural explanation. If our students are taught to invoke an intelligent designer as adults they'll continue to do so which will give their foreign competition the chance to make the next discovery. I'm having fun with this discussion and look forward to continuing it.Aaron_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

PannenbergOmega, If I recall I got my insight into Denton's spiritual journey in his article in the book "Uncommon Dissent". In that text you clearly see in him a yearning to validate Christianity.bFast_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

jerry, The point of my post was not to back one side or the other, but merely to point out that, for the most part, it is those who believe in a Darwinian based evolution, and not those who express disbelief, that are responsible for the scientific output and the Nobel Prizes. And I think this point directly contradicts the main thrust of this thread, being DaveScot's statement that:
Disbelief in Darwinian evolution, if anything, leads to greater technological achievements not lesser.
This has nothing to do with an argument for authority. Though I certainly admit that I relay on the expertise of others when my knowledge on a particular subject is scant. For instance, I am a biologist and have taken only introductory astronomy and physics courses, and any little philosophy that I my pretend to know is self taught, and my background in religious matters is nil. Therefore, in a discussion of those issues I feel no shame in listening and giving greater credence to those whose knowledge in such matters outweighs my own. Now, of course there are multiple experts in every field and those experts disagree in every field. I suggest, that if this disagreement occurs on a matter which you feel strongly about or have a great interest in, that you study up independently and with respect for all points of view (at least to start with) and make up your own mind.leo_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

DrDan re comment #50 Exactly right. I'd written a rather detailed response to Aaron describing how the GPS system is defense related and that defense related technology workers must have a security clearance and FBI background check that is difficult for foreign born and foreign educated workers to obtain. I had a secret clearance in the past and GilDodgen (another UD author) I presume has one now. But I thought that would lead to further demands for proof of the security clearance claims which I didn't feel like searching for so I didn't post the comment and instead decided to make him do the legwork by asking how he arrived at the claim that exposure to ID in a high school biology class leads to a reduction in general scientific literacy. That'll stop him cold without burdening me any further as I'm fairly confident there's been no controlled study of ID exposure's effect on scientific literacy and thus Aaron's claim is without substance. DaveScot_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT}

Those might not be the exact groups, Dr. Dembski listed. But you know what I mean. Anyone who see's purpose in the cosmos is a potential friend to ID.PannenbergOmega_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Hi bFast and Mapou, I read in Nature's Destiny that Denton was an Agnostic. That the Designer of life could be the Hebrew God or just as likely the Greek World-Soul. Dr. Dembski takes the same position, when he says that ID can appeal to Platonists, Deists, Classical Unitarians, Jungians, Stoics, Emersonian Trascendentalists... Here is some hard data, that Denton is an Agnostic. http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Michael_Denton I seem to remember Von Neummann being mentioned in Berlinski's THE ADVENT OF THE ALGORITHM: THE IDEA THAT RULE'S THE WORLD. Also, I should have included Dave Scot among those notable skeptics of Darwinian evolution. SkepticsPannenbergOmega_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Timaeus I already gave you the means to discover the sources I used to determine that Buddhism is not incompatible with Darwinism. Google buddhism evolution darwin The second hit, for example, is http://www.lakehouse.lk/budusarana/2004/03/20/Budu14.pdf Buddhism and Darwin's Theory of Evolution by D. Amarasiri Weeraratne Where he goes into much detail about why Darwinism fits within the Buddhist philosophy. If you have any disagreements you should take them up with Weeratne, not me. I'm pretty far removed from being an expert on Buddhist philosophy so I must rely, rather uncritically as it doesn't hold much interest for me, on the expert opinion of others. So again, if you think that Darwinism is not compatible with Buddhism, or for that matter any other philosophy embraced by a majority of Chinese, then please feel free to say why and if I find your argument compelling I'll gladly retract my assertion that Darwinism is compatible with predominant philosophical beliefs in China whether that be Buddhism, Taoism, atheism, or whatever.DaveScot_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Timaeus: I completely agree with your post. In brief, my simple idea is that darwinian evolution, in its mechanical and purely "naturalistic" approach, is vastly incompatible with any spiritual view of reality, of any kind. The only general view of reality compatible with, and supported by, darwinian paradigm is strict materialism.gpuccio_{February 11, 2008
February
02
Feb
11
11
2008
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

DaveScot: I never disputed the notion that atheists in China would be well-disposed towards evolution. I was only wondering how many living Buddhists and Taoists there are in China these days. If they represent only a very small percentage of the population, it is doubtful that their beliefs, however compatible with evolution, would be the main cause of the overall acceptance of evolution in China. The CIA factbook is presumably a reliable source. Wikipedia is not (though sometimes it links to sources which are). In any case, I am no expert on the demography of religion, so I was merely asking the question whether Buddhism and Taoism are still powerful forces shaping the Chinese mind. As for your question, it's not up to me to show how Darwinian evolution is at odds with Taoism or Buddhism. I'm not the one who made any claim. It's up to your sources -- who affirmed that Darwinism 'fit quite well' with Buddhism and Taoism -- to explain why they affirm that. My question to the writers of your sources would be: what specific doctrines of Taoism and Buddhism are a good fit for, not "evolution", in some broad general sense, but Darwinian evolution specifically? If your sources don't specify, then my guess is that they are merely repeating hearsay, or that they are speaking "off the cuff". If they know what they are talking about, they will be able to cite texts and explain doctrines. "Evolution" in the broadest sense isn't necessarily incompatible with Christian belief. It may be incompatible with certain forms of Protestantism which insist on Biblical literalism, but those forms, while they get lots of press, aren't representative of most of Christianity. It's possible to be Christian and not take Genesis as a scientific or historical account. On the other hand, evolution in the narrow sense of Darwinian evolution is incompatible with any form of Christianity, to the extent that it denies any role at all for a divine mind in the origin of the natural world. For the same reason, rigorous Darwinism would be incompatible with Judaism, Islam, and most schools of Hinduism. Buddhism and Taoism have no concept of "God" as we know it, so they don't have that barrier to Darwinian evolution (which is probably the point your sources are keying in on), but they have other barriers. For one thing, the Taoist cosmology is alien to the Western, atomistic one upon which Darwinism is built. Buddhism, on the other hand, MIGHT be able to be twigged in a Darwinian direction; Buddhists, Indian Buddhists anyway, could conceivably allow that the body, and even most aspects of what we call the mind, were evolved via blind mechanical processes; however, it would be hard to imagine how to relate Darwinism, for which biological survival is the ultimate good, to the Buddhist goal of Nirvana, which affirms the joy and bliss of release from the bonds of the organic. Thus, I'd say that anyone who believes that Buddhism and Darwinian evolution go together has to prove it, with some detailed discussion. Finally, whatever the truth about "Buddhist Darwinian biology", we can say with certainty that no Buddhist would support a Darwinian system of ethics! Now, if y'all will excuse me, I have to check to see if the moonshine is ready. We're havin' an old-time hoedown tonight, up in them thar hills, and cousin Jethro sure does like his moonshine with his fiddle music! Cousin Jed.Timaeus_{February 10, 2008
February
02
Feb
10
10
2008
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply