Difference between revisions of "User:Woozle/Evolution vs. Intelligent Design"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Links: why is evolution so popular etc.) |
m (meta tags) |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[ | + | <hide> |
| − | + | [[category:comparisons]] | |
| − | + | [[thing type::comparison]] | |
| − | + | </hide> | |
| − | + | [[Evolution vs. Intelligent Design]]: a biased analysis | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | The evolutionists | + | '''2007-06-05 Notes''': This was written at a time when I hadn't yet extensively researched the situation. My conclusion now is more along the lines of "ID is just a thinly-disguised veneer of scientific-sounding language layered on top of creationism. Evolution may be just a theory, but it is a [[scientific theory]]; ID is, at best, an [[informal theory]], and the more you try to get an ID supporter to define their terms or be specific, the more evasions you get. IDers and creationists believe what they believe because it fits ''what they want to believe'', not because it's what the evidence shows." |
| + | ==Related Articles== | ||
| + | * [[Creation]] | ||
| + | * [[Intelligent Design]] | ||
| + | ==Point Counterpoint== | ||
| + | * The evolutionists do need to admit that evolution is just a theory, because it is. | ||
| + | * The Intelligent Design (ID) folks need to admit that while evolution may be just a theory, it fits the facts very well, and while ID may be a theory in the most general sense ("a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action" [http://m-w.com/dictionary/theory], "An unproven conjecture" [[wiktionary:theory|wiktionary]]), it is not a ''scientific'' theory ("A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena, which has testable implications, and which is well tested and widely accepted as true." [[wiktionary:theory|wiktionary]]), which is (where any doubt exists) generally a requirement for including such ideas in academic curricula. | ||
| + | * The scientists need to admit that just because something doesn't have a lot of supporting data doesn't mean it isn't (or couldn't be) true, although it may well mean that it is highly unlikely. They also need to admit that we don't yet know enough about the universe to say that it couldn't have been (or wasn't) designed by an intelligent being. | ||
| + | * The ID folks need to admit that until they have a specific theoretical argument with some testable conclusions, postulating an intelligent entity (which itself would need to be explained) when there are other simpler explanations is, as they say, making things unnecessarily complicated*.{{sidenote|*'''complicated''': see [[Wikipedia:Occam's Razor|Occam's Razor]], a principle attributed to a 14th-century Franciscan friar who apparently agreed that it made proving the existence of God rather iffy [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm]}} | ||
| + | * The evolutionists need to stop worrying that Intelligent Design will, all by itself, turn schoolchildren into Bible-thumping science-haters, and focus on making sure that the scientific method and logical thinking are taught well – so that those children will be immune from B.S. of any persuasion, which is really the greater battle* (regardless of which side of the Creation debate you're on). | ||
| + | {{quoteon}}*'''greater battle''': "Human [[Wikiquote:History|history]] becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." -- H. G. Wells{{quoteoff}} | ||
| + | That said, the Intelligent Designers need to get much more specific about this theory of theirs, which seems (as far as I can determine, although as of this writing I have not found a concise statement of basic Intelligent Design theory; see Sources) a pretty weak theory. To look at a few obvious points: if a supreme being (often referred to as "God") did create the universe... | ||
| + | * Where did He come from? | ||
| + | * Did He mess with it any further after creating it, and if so did he ever stop? | ||
| + | * If he is still tinkering with it, then why so? | ||
| + | * Why couldn't it be that all the fossil and geological evidence we see is truly what happened, and part of His creation? | ||
| − | The | + | The evolutionists also need to recognize that just because a casual theory hasn't yet been formulated into something more scientifically rigorous doesn't mean that it's not worth following up. For instance: what evidence could we look for which might indicate the involvement of an extra-universal being (i.e. a being based outside the universe-as-we-understand-it)? More specifically: Would this require a clear violation of the laws of physics as we understand them, or could something be consistent with those laws and yet indicate interference from outside? What would be the difference between interference from outside and interference from beings within the universe but having more knowledge than we do? |
| − | ...which is, perhaps, back to square one. Is this what the discussion is really about – [[Wikipedia:Empiricism|Empiricism]] versus other ways of discovering reality? If so, what is Intelligent Design truly based on? (Empiricism is often seen as being in opposition to [[Wikipedia:continental rationalism|continental rationalism]]; does the reasoning behind Intelligent Design arise out of something like continental rationalism, or some other school of thought?) | + | The Intelligent Design folks should be asking themselves these questions too. They also need to admit (or understand) that, as far as scientific investigation goes, unless some of these questions get answered, postulating outside interference '''as the whole explanation''' is basically admitting defeat; it's the scientific equivalent of saying "well, it was done by magic", which goes completely against the [[Wikipedia:Philosophy of science|scientific philosophy]]... |
| − | ==Sources== | + | |
| − | * [http://www.creationdigest.com/ Creation Digest]: promotes the "intelligent design" theory, although "not affiliated with, nor sponsored or controlled by any religious organization or non-profit association" | + | ...which is, perhaps, back to square one. Is this what the discussion is really about – [[Wikipedia:Empiricism|Empiricism]] versus other ways of discovering reality? If so, what is Intelligent Design truly based on? (Empiricism is often seen as being in opposition to [[Wikipedia:continental rationalism|continental rationalism]]; does the reasoning behind Intelligent Design arise out of something like continental rationalism, or some other school of thought?) |
| − | * Entries from the [http://www.arn.org/ Access Research Network] [http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm Intelligent Design FAQ]: | + | ==Sources== |
| − | ** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm What is Intelligent Design?]: defines but does not give details | + | * [http://www.creationdigest.com/ Creation Digest]: promotes the "intelligent design" theory, although "not affiliated with, nor sponsored or controlled by any religious organization or non-profit association" |
| − | ** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20can%20you%20tell%20if%20something%20is%20designed.htm How Can You Tell if Something is Designed?]: presents an argument based on the presumption that non-randomness implies intelligence (need to write a bit about why this is wrong --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 21:14, 24 Dec 2005 (CST)) | + | * Entries from the [http://www.arn.org/ Access Research Network] [http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm Intelligent Design FAQ]: |
| − | ** Further entries in the FAQ either start out by asserting the conclusion ("The more we learn about living organisms, the more they look like products of design..." [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20does%20intelligent%20design%20apply%20to%20biology.htm]) and reassert the "order can only come from intelligence" argument ([http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Haven%27t%20scientists%20shown%20that%20biological%20systems%20evolved%20naturalistically.htm]) | + | ** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm What is Intelligent Design?]: defines but does not give details |
| − | ** Counterarguments to the evidence for evolution: | + | ** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20can%20you%20tell%20if%20something%20is%20designed.htm How Can You Tell if Something is Designed?]: presents an argument based on the presumption that non-randomness implies intelligence (need to write a bit about why this is wrong --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 21:14, 24 Dec 2005 (CST)) |
| − | *** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Doesn%27t%20the%20fossil%20evidence%20support%20naturalistic%20evolution.htm | + | ** Further entries in the FAQ either start out by asserting the conclusion ("The more we learn about living organisms, the more they look like products of design..." [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20does%20intelligent%20design%20apply%20to%20biology.htm]) and reassert the "order can only come from intelligence" argument ([http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Haven%27t%20scientists%20shown%20that%20biological%20systems%20evolved%20naturalistically.htm]) |
| − | *** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Can%27t%20we%20actually%20see%20evolution%20in%20action.htm Can't We Actually see Evolution in Action?] gets more into the issue | + | ** Counterarguments to the evidence for evolution: |
| − | *** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20about%20the%20molecular%20evidence.htm molecular evidence]: I suspect there are some distortions in here, but don't have the facts immediately at hand | + | *** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Doesn%27t%20the%20fossil%20evidence%20support%20naturalistic%20evolution.htm fossil evidence] at least makes some concrete points worth investigating |
| − | *** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20about%20the%20evidence%20from%20embryology.htm evidence from embryology] "the | + | *** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Can%27t%20we%20actually%20see%20evolution%20in%20action.htm Can't We Actually see Evolution in Action?] gets more into the issue |
| − | ** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Doesn%27t%20Intelligent%20Design%20refer%20to%20something%20supernatural.htm But Doesn't Intelligent Design Refer to Something Supernatural?] at least answers some of the definitional questions about ID; apparently ID doesn't care whether the Intelligent Designer is God or an advanced alien culture | + | *** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20about%20the%20molecular%20evidence.htm molecular evidence]: I suspect there are some distortions in here, but don't have the facts immediately at hand |
| − | ** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Isn%27t%20%27intelligent%20design%27%20another%20name%20for%20%27scientific%20creationism%27.htm Isn't Intelligent Design Another Name for Scientific Creationism?] distinguishes ID from Creationism and actually gets down to some specifics about ID | + | *** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20about%20the%20evidence%20from%20embryology.htm evidence from embryology] "the study's principal author said of [[Wikipedia:Ernst Haeckel|Haeckel]]'s drawings, 'It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology." |
| − | ** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20many%20scientists%20take%20this%20stuff%20seriously.htm How Many Scientists Take This Stuff Seriously?] briefly describes scientific interest in ID | + | ** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Doesn%27t%20Intelligent%20Design%20refer%20to%20something%20supernatural.htm But Doesn't Intelligent Design Refer to Something Supernatural?] at least answers some of the definitional questions about ID; apparently ID doesn't care whether the Intelligent Designer is God or an advanced alien culture |
| + | ** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Isn%27t%20%27intelligent%20design%27%20another%20name%20for%20%27scientific%20creationism%27.htm Isn't Intelligent Design Another Name for Scientific Creationism?] distinguishes ID from Creationism and actually gets down to some specifics about ID | ||
| + | ** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20many%20scientists%20take%20this%20stuff%20seriously.htm How Many Scientists Take This Stuff Seriously?] briefly describes scientific interest in ID | ||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
| − | * '''2005-12-23''' [http://aetiology.blogspot.com/2005/12/those-who-do-not-learn-from-history.html Those who do not learn from history...]: a bit of history on religion-based science | + | * '''2005-12-23''' [http://aetiology.blogspot.com/2005/12/those-who-do-not-learn-from-history.html Those who do not learn from history...]: a bit of history on religion-based science |
| − | * [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3906.asp The Skeptics and their | + | * [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3906.asp The Skeptics and their "Churchian" Allies]: "Why is evolution so popular today?..." |
Latest revision as of 00:18, 28 May 2019
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: a biased analysis
2007-06-05 Notes: This was written at a time when I hadn't yet extensively researched the situation. My conclusion now is more along the lines of "ID is just a thinly-disguised veneer of scientific-sounding language layered on top of creationism. Evolution may be just a theory, but it is a scientific theory; ID is, at best, an informal theory, and the more you try to get an ID supporter to define their terms or be specific, the more evasions you get. IDers and creationists believe what they believe because it fits what they want to believe, not because it's what the evidence shows."
Related Articles
Point Counterpoint
- The evolutionists do need to admit that evolution is just a theory, because it is.
- The Intelligent Design (ID) folks need to admit that while evolution may be just a theory, it fits the facts very well, and while ID may be a theory in the most general sense ("a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action" [1], "An unproven conjecture" wiktionary), it is not a scientific theory ("A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena, which has testable implications, and which is well tested and widely accepted as true." wiktionary), which is (where any doubt exists) generally a requirement for including such ideas in academic curricula.
- The scientists need to admit that just because something doesn't have a lot of supporting data doesn't mean it isn't (or couldn't be) true, although it may well mean that it is highly unlikely. They also need to admit that we don't yet know enough about the universe to say that it couldn't have been (or wasn't) designed by an intelligent being.
- The ID folks need to admit that until they have a specific theoretical argument with some testable conclusions, postulating an intelligent entity (which itself would need to be explained) when there are other simpler explanations is, as they say, making things unnecessarily complicated*.
| *complicated: see Occam's Razor, a principle attributed to a 14th-century Franciscan friar who apparently agreed that it made proving the existence of God rather iffy [2] |
- The evolutionists need to stop worrying that Intelligent Design will, all by itself, turn schoolchildren into Bible-thumping science-haters, and focus on making sure that the scientific method and logical thinking are taught well – so that those children will be immune from B.S. of any persuasion, which is really the greater battle* (regardless of which side of the Creation debate you're on).
| *greater battle: "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." -- H. G. Wells |
That said, the Intelligent Designers need to get much more specific about this theory of theirs, which seems (as far as I can determine, although as of this writing I have not found a concise statement of basic Intelligent Design theory; see Sources) a pretty weak theory. To look at a few obvious points: if a supreme being (often referred to as "God") did create the universe...
- Where did He come from?
- Did He mess with it any further after creating it, and if so did he ever stop?
- If he is still tinkering with it, then why so?
- Why couldn't it be that all the fossil and geological evidence we see is truly what happened, and part of His creation?
The evolutionists also need to recognize that just because a casual theory hasn't yet been formulated into something more scientifically rigorous doesn't mean that it's not worth following up. For instance: what evidence could we look for which might indicate the involvement of an extra-universal being (i.e. a being based outside the universe-as-we-understand-it)? More specifically: Would this require a clear violation of the laws of physics as we understand them, or could something be consistent with those laws and yet indicate interference from outside? What would be the difference between interference from outside and interference from beings within the universe but having more knowledge than we do?
The Intelligent Design folks should be asking themselves these questions too. They also need to admit (or understand) that, as far as scientific investigation goes, unless some of these questions get answered, postulating outside interference as the whole explanation is basically admitting defeat; it's the scientific equivalent of saying "well, it was done by magic", which goes completely against the scientific philosophy...
...which is, perhaps, back to square one. Is this what the discussion is really about – Empiricism versus other ways of discovering reality? If so, what is Intelligent Design truly based on? (Empiricism is often seen as being in opposition to continental rationalism; does the reasoning behind Intelligent Design arise out of something like continental rationalism, or some other school of thought?)
Sources
- Creation Digest: promotes the "intelligent design" theory, although "not affiliated with, nor sponsored or controlled by any religious organization or non-profit association"
- Entries from the Access Research Network Intelligent Design FAQ:
- What is Intelligent Design?: defines but does not give details
- How Can You Tell if Something is Designed?: presents an argument based on the presumption that non-randomness implies intelligence (need to write a bit about why this is wrong --Woozle 21:14, 24 Dec 2005 (CST))
- Further entries in the FAQ either start out by asserting the conclusion ("The more we learn about living organisms, the more they look like products of design..." [3]) and reassert the "order can only come from intelligence" argument ([4])
- Counterarguments to the evidence for evolution:
- fossil evidence at least makes some concrete points worth investigating
- Can't We Actually see Evolution in Action? gets more into the issue
- molecular evidence: I suspect there are some distortions in here, but don't have the facts immediately at hand
- evidence from embryology "the study's principal author said of Haeckel's drawings, 'It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology."
- But Doesn't Intelligent Design Refer to Something Supernatural? at least answers some of the definitional questions about ID; apparently ID doesn't care whether the Intelligent Designer is God or an advanced alien culture
- Isn't Intelligent Design Another Name for Scientific Creationism? distinguishes ID from Creationism and actually gets down to some specifics about ID
- How Many Scientists Take This Stuff Seriously? briefly describes scientific interest in ID
Links
- 2005-12-23 Those who do not learn from history...: a bit of history on religion-based science
- The Skeptics and their "Churchian" Allies: "Why is evolution so popular today?..."