Republicans Against Evolution. Wingnuts for President.
I just read something which completely blew my mind.
At the Republican debate of presidential contenders, held at the Reagan museum, when Chris Matthews asked the Republican Presidential candidates to raise thier hand if they did not beleive in evolution, three actually raised thier hands.
(what?!!)
The nutty three are Sam Brownback, Sentaor from Kansas, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo. A Senator, a Governor, and a Representative. Powerful men still in office, in places which still have initiatives pushing to start teaching Creationism in public schools, in science class.
!
These kooks (let's be frank about it) are pandering to a fundamentalist religious base which has large and growing clout, remains GW Bush's staunchest base, and has a wide ranging agenda which can only be described as theocratic. Their interpretations of Christianity are considered kooky by everyone else, including other Christians.
Certainly this is an issue with tremendous political, and frankly American social evolutionary significance, that Democrats should address.
Q: The kooky three Republican presidential candidates are bad enough, but how about the others who didn't raise their hands?
Q: Are Republicans comfortable addressing the issues and taking a strong stand for science, evolution, the constitution, and secular government?
Q: To what extent are the Republican candidates depending upon, and hoping to turn out, the religious fundamentalist vote?
Q: To what extent will Republican candidates pander to, and make back room deals, with fundamentalists leaders?
Q: Aren't religious fundamentalists more similar to the people of various third world countries than the people of our developed allied nations?
Q: Aren't fundamentalists actually a dangerous form of zealous cultural devolution? Actually dangerous radicals by the standards of developed Western nations?
Republicans should be asked those questions until they are wiling to definitively state their position. Secular voting Americans, across the political spectrum, deserve to know whether Republicans are pandering to religious fundamentalists and what back room deals are being cut to secure the Fundamentalist voting bloc.
Bush while campaigning for 2000 spoke at Bob Jones University, which is known for being very Presbyterian Fundamentalist, vehemently anti-Catholic, nepotistic, and has only recently become accredited with the goal of turning out diplomaed fundamentalist soldiers.
After McCain criticized Bush for speaking there, for their anti-Catholic views and ban on interracial dating, it was a BJU professor who started the rumor McCain had an illegitimate black child after he adopted a child from Bangladesh, which was then push-polled and hurt McCain significantly in during the primary.
Shortly after George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, Bob Jones III sent him a congratulatory letter asserting that the new President had "been given a mandate" and urging him to put his "agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ."
Now McCain is courting fundamentalist votes and has said he wouldn't turn down an opportunity to speak at Bob Jones University. Similarly, Guliani and Romney have been courting fundamentalist votes.
..
I've recently been reading and would recommend The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition by Ronald L. Numbers who is a scholar respected by both scientists and creationists for his nuance and diligence studying the subject.
"Praised by both creationists and evolutionists for its comprehensiveness, the book meticulously traces the dramatic shift among Christian fundamentalists from acceptance of the earth's antiquity to the insistence of present-day scientific creationists that most fossils date back to Noah's flood and its aftermath. Focusing especially on the rise of this "flood geology," Ronald L. Numbers chronicles the remarkable resurgence of antievolutionism since the 1960s, as well as the creationist movement's tangled religious roots in the theologies of late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Adventists, among others. His book offers valuable insight into the origins of various "creation science" think tanks and the people behind them. It also goes a long way toward explaining how creationism, until recently viewed as a "peculiarly American" phenomenon, has quietly but dynamically spread internationally--and found its expression outside Christianity in Judaism and Islam."
Why people expect a greater degree of intelligence from these people is beyond me.
May 4, 2007 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can anyone expect the Republicans to believe in evolution, and especially in descent from the apes, when they began only 150 years ago with Lincoln and have ended up with Bush?
May 4, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans love code words. Evolution is a code word. The decrypt of this question reads “Do you need certainty or not?” If you say you “believe in evolution,” a non-sequitur in and of itself, you are saying you can live with uncertainty, the mark of liberalism. If you say you do not “believe in evolution,” you are saying that you have a different explanation for the existence of the world in all its diversity. And of course we all know (wink wink) what that explanation is and that it is held with the certainty of faith. It is part of the larger frame “Are you with the party of certainty or the party of doubt?” You have to admire the simple elegance of the strategy.
And what response might I suggest? I’m reminded of Voltaire’s comment after a long conversation with a devout English Quaker:
“I had more sense than to contest with him, since there is no possibility of convincing an enthusiast. A man should never pretend to inform a lover of his mistress’s faults, no more than one who is at law of the badness of his cause; nor attempt to win over a fanatic by strength of reasoning. Accordingly I waived the subject.*”
*Voltaire, Letters on the English, Letter 1 “On The Quakers”
NOTE: I hope I have not violated etiquette here. I posted this same comment in another thread but I just love the subject. I agree with you, Kosmik, that “Certainly this is an issue with tremendous political, and frankly American social evolutionary significance…”
May 4, 2007 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see their responses as pandering, rather, they don't believe in evolution.
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...
May 4, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
cscs,
But as has been mentioned already, evolution is scientific theory, and is designed to be doubted and tested. Creationism, not so much.
May 4, 2007 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pandering implies a calculated move, no? I'm saying, they are believers. They raised their hand not because it was an appeal to the conservative base, but because they don't believe evolution is real. But rather, the Earth is 6000 years old, dinosaur fossils are really only a few thousand years old, Noah, arks, etc, etc.
May 4, 2007 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK. I think I get your point. These guys genuinely believe in creationism -- which is an article of faith, as it cannot be tested and its results cannot be replicated in lab conditions like a scientific theory such as evolution.
May 4, 2007 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's impossible to say what they actually believe in. I suspect many of these people are in fact Social Darwinian Nihilists of the Ayn Rand type. From that persepctive, it's a noble cause to prey upon the religious. Such sociopaths would argue it's "thinning the herd."
Though, few people are even capable of being completely amoral, so insanity, denial, and self delusion often accompany the nihilist tenancies. Take Robertson, Falwell, and Haggard for example.
Regardless, they're not so stupid to miss that their base is mostly fundamentalist, young earth creationists, so any opinion besides that would be fatal to their careers. Hence the pandering.
Perhaps scarier however is the behind the scenes pandering to fundamentalists from top tier candidates.
May 4, 2007 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they are true believers, why didn't all their hands shoot up at once? Go back and watch. They looked around first (I didn't catch who the first eager hand-raiser was) but the second two waited to sure they weren't alone.
Right. They really believe that adam and eve shared an ark with dinasaurs.
Jan
May 5, 2007 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's pandering. did you hear the "new mccain" interjecting the word God here and there?
he's definitely trying to pander to an audience that, as far as I can tell, votes based on the soundbite "God."
May 4, 2007 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I would agree they are all pandering to the religious right, generally speaking. On the specific issue of raising your hands for Creationism, that's what I am saying isn't pandering, but sincere belief.
Obviously a guess...I have no idea...
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...
May 4, 2007 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of all the possible standards to test a belief by, sincerity is the unctuous worst.
Untold damage can be wrought by sincerity, and yet, the wielder assumes on responsibility, because they were 'sincere.'
Give me an honest hypocrite any day.
May 4, 2007 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
an interesting fact is that homeschoolers are largely christian so teaching creationism in the classroom might bring them back into the system, for whatever purposes.
May 4, 2007 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So? And teaching the holocaust was a myth might get the white supremacists back into the system. But frankly, I've got no urge to encourage that either.
May 4, 2007 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
reteaching something is difficult so instead of pushing a "single madman theory," I'd rather think about WWII as Noam Chomsky does: "one of the most irrational times in history" or even use MLK's analysis of the links between war, racism and poverty.
to push a single madman theory, in place of more reasoned observations from folks like MLK, seems to confuse the issue instead of resolve it.
I know way too many people who believe that Abu Ghraib and guantanamo were places of justice because they thought that all muslims were equally likely to blow themselves up and kill innocent people or, as the media keeps implying, "shoot people in the head after torturing them."
in my mind, the hysteria of today is probably similar to the histeria, in germany, after WWI.
when I was a substitute teacher in the schools, I watched students "get A's" for rewriting what they read on the foxnews website, and other websites, and, thus, corporations like foxnews are actually authoring textbooks which our children read!
however, homeschoolers might miss this dose of conditioning/propaganda so I see a motive for republicans to lure kids back into "the classrooms" by throwing in creationism-- even though they'll learn alot about socially acceptable destruction as well!
May 5, 2007 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see their responses as pandering, rather, they don't believe in evolution.
Which I will believe on it's face. But what was a question about evolution included in the debate? What impact does the belief or disbelief in evolution have to do with the serious issues (Iraq and Afghanistan wars, global warming, energy, health care, etc.) that face our country? Why was it even brought up?
They didn't look to pander, they were asked to pander...and did so without even having to be called on it.
May 5, 2007 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you say, evolution is a theory, then why is anyone who questions the theory called "ignorant, stupid, wingnut, etc."?
Is anyone allowed to question any point of view commonly held by liberals?
For example, is anyone who believes Bush is honestly attempting to defend the country "ignorant, stupid, wingnut,etc."?
Doesn't this intolerance sound Stalinist?
May 6, 2007 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kiwi:
To answer your question: "As you say, evolution is a theory, then why is anyone who questions the theory called "ignorant, stupid, wingnut, etc."?
When someone questions a theory (evolution) by coming up with a non-testable non-theory (creationism or intelligent design) it is right and proper to label them "ignorant, stupid, wingnut,etc."
When any creationist or Intelligent designer can explain how the days were measured before the sun and the earth were created, and why they think those days were all 24 hours each, neither of which concepts are addressed in the bible, then I will consider believing that the earth is only 6000 years old.
May 7, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: When any creationist or Intelligent designer can explain how the days were measured before the sun and the earth were created, and why they think those days were all 24 hours each
The ID folks are NOT Young Earth Creationists, nor are they Biblical literalists. It's rather unfair to tar them with that nonsense.
May 7, 2007 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your question is a straw man. People do not call anybody who questions a theory "ignorant, stupid, wingnut, etc." It is a fundemental part of science to continually question the accepted theories in attempts for progress in our understanding of the world/universe. Good, rational scientists are always questioning various parts of the current theory, as Gould did with punctuated equilibrium.
Evolution is a fact. The evidence is all over. The theory that everybody talks about is the attempt to explain those facts in a logical coherent presentation. So-called "Creation Science" is a non-theory that also attempts to explain these facts.
"Creation Science" is an oxymoron, and the so-called theory is not based in science. It does not follow the rules of logic because it starts with an unprovable premise. So, based on this, people who criticise the accepted theory of evolution and base their critique on "Creation Science" are called for what they are... "ignorant, stupid, wingnut, etc."
dc
May 8, 2007 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Evolution is a fact.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. The theory (Darwinism) attempts to explain the fact, just as Newton's theory of gravitation was an attempt to explain the fact of gravity. One concern I do have in this debate is that science may be pushed by the constant struggle against creationism into making Darwinism a form of rigid orthodoxy which is not be questioned even scientifically. I very much doubt that Darwin is the last word on the subject and just as Einstein's General Relativity surpassed Newton's theory, someday someone will supercede Darwin with a more comprehensive account of life's transformations.
May 8, 2007 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we forget the religion aspect of all this?
That is, if you were walking through the woods and saw a watch in a stream, wouldn't you assume that an "intelligence" of some kind made it?
Einstein called the human brain the most magnificent object in the entire universe.
Did the human brain just happen, or evolve?
Isn't it easier to believe that some intelligence created it, or does that sound religious?
It seems logical to me that it took intelligence to create a watch and it follows that some form of intelligence created the human brain.
Believing that some intelligence created all the wonders of life and the universe doesn't have to be Adam and Eve or some religious teaching.
Does that make me an "ingnorant wingnut"?
May 8, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that make me an "ingnorant wingnut"?
Yes
No one could find a watch in the woods except that
a) a person had made a watch and
b) another person had lost one.
May I remind you that we don't have fossil records of sundials and hourglasses.
If you are going to have the audacity to "semi-quote" Dawkins, at least go to the trouble to read what he wrote. This is the last time I will respond to your increasingly absurd posts. Glad to hear your medications are working out for you, BTW, but you might increase the dosage somewhat.
Jan
May 8, 2007 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan...
Obviously, the watch metaphor was an exercise in logic, not literal watch-making.
Did you miss the point that finding intelligent forms suggests creation by an intelligent source?
Did I do or say something to you at one time that makes you so angry?
My comments are neither insulting nor hostile, yet your responses are that and more.
Do you not tolerate diversity in the arena of ideas and thoughts?
May 8, 2007 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Pandering implies a calculated move, no? I'm saying, they are believers." Interesting how the difficulty of pinning down what's lying, what's self-delusion, and what's fanaticism has been a running theme of the last few years, as in Iraq. Interesting too how well Giuliani did in post-debate polling; apparently inept, bumbling lying is not a problem for this hard-core audience.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
May 4, 2007 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet these folks consistently manage to convince much of the electorate that liberal secular humanists are unrealistic, naive and dangerous.
May 4, 2007 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very, very, good point. I'd add sociopathic tendencies to the list.
One tends towards the others. All are forms of insanity.
May 4, 2007 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
To steal from my hopefully-soon-to-be-dropped post in the queue:
The question is not "Do you believe in God." It's a question of the work of well-respected scientists, and this:
May 4, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean, your hopefully-soon-to-be-dropped post? I had a post deleted by the editor. Is that what you mean? JUst curious.
Jan
May 5, 2007 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm...what do *you* mean, "deleted by the editor"?
Here's my story...I wrote a Discussion post on this very topic, and, while it was in the queue, this blog post got put on the front page. Since I didn't think we needed two posts on the very same thing, I asked the Discussion moderators to vote to drop my post.
I guess my comment seemed like it was out of the blue. Sorry for the mislead.
So what of yours was deleted? Do you mean in the Discussion section?
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...
May 5, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I called Sally Quinn a name and my post was deleted. Since she was not the blogger or poster, (and compared to what George Bush and Cheney get called on a daily basis) I was a little surprised. Nothing to go to the mat over, though. Other posters inferred pretty much the same thing. Maybe if I had not posted first....
Jan
May 5, 2007 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, belief in creationism is on par with belief in UFOs and Bigfoot. There is no evidence of its truth and all evidence points to its falsehood.
So, why not ask these three if they believe in the tooth fairy?
PS: Isn't creationism a symptom of religious fanaticism? Better ship these guys to Guantanamo...
May 4, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you folks understand just how few people in America believe in evolution. Significantly more people believe in creationism. I believe in evolution, but most don't, and if you don't know that, it's a function of this narrow liberal professional world that most of us inhabit.
May 4, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most Americans do believe in most forms of evolution, and that the earth is much older than several thousand years.
Polls are often biased towards religious dogma because they often phrase them in religious terms where the meaning of evolution and science is too abstract during the poll. Republican pollsters particularly love that trick.
However, most Americans also trust science greatly, especially on real-world pertinent matters. So in a debate between a legitimate scientist representing scientific consensus beliefs and a TV fundamentalist like Roberson, on a real-world issue like the age of the planet and geography and such, most would go with the scientist.
About 50% believe that humans (specifically humans) were created by god in the present form though many of those do believe in evolution generally, when asked in context of a poll on religiosity. However, put those same people in a medical or classroom environment where genetics are being discussed or where evolution has real-world pertinence to them, and that number will shrink greatly.
The trends on evolution/creationism fluctuate but overall are towards evolution. Remember that prior to the turn of the 20th century America was almost entirely creationist in a vague and general sense of god having created everything.
However, Christians since the 4th century at least, i.e. most of Catholic history, and all of Protestant history, has considered much of the bible, including genesis, to be allegorical. the Jews also consider genesis to be allegorical.
The very notion of young earth creationism and literal reading of genesis is itself a recent theory without any theological tradition, developed in direct response to Darwinian evolution around the turn of the 20th century. Young earth creationism spent most of the 20th century in obscurity while it underwent many iterations.
The percentage who are hardcore young earth creationists are fairly small, though a highly motivated voting bloc. They also tend to be the least educated in the sciences, often having no education or only arts/trade/business education.
Again, I recommend the book mentioned above.
May 4, 2007 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
the earth is much older than several thousand years.
I should made that point in my post below -- why don't the polls just ask if you believe the earth is only a few thousand years old?
May 4, 2007 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, the typical BS.
Media driven pollsters are really fishing for filler stories, so they court controversy and especially equivalence, because they're afraid to spark more controversy than they can handle and potential backlash from either side.
Republican pollsters like the truly amoral Luntz are another reason for these quasi push-polls we see on creationism. It's all about managing expectations.
Not to say all polls are inaccurate, or encourage people to only read what they want even out of hard data. Polls like statistics require an informed interpreter, otherwise they just reinforce preexisting perceptions.
For example I remember the Lieberman/Lamont poll data showing Lamont had stalled or hit a demographic brick wall, and some people still insisted his prior momentum would carry him.
May 4, 2007 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you have data to back that up, please, lay it down. I'm interested. (Wow. A lot of directional adjectives in that sentence...)
Here is polling from Pew, August, 2006:
Now, 42% responded humans "existed in present form only," but I am not sure if people really know what that means. I am not sure I do...
And there is an overt denial of science in these numbers, which needs to be reconciled and explained:
I'm not sure how people reconcile "scientists agree on this but I don't." I would bet that many other aspects of science they do not deny, but in this particular instance, science gets it wrong?
Not sure how Pew sees that as *not* a result of ideology. I don't think they would deny the theory of gravity, for example. Isn't it religious ideology that colors the particular issue of evolution?
Finally, this is interesting:
I think this is another failure of a poll to really capture the details of an issue. What is "literally true," and what do people think that means?
Did Noah really find two of every animal and put them all on a boat?
Every animal?
On a boat???
I found this article also from Pew, from 2005, that tries to explain some of the polling on this issue. It is confusing, and it's clear people are confused about what these terms all mean.
Reading all this, it makes me a bit suspicious about what we can really learn from polls on this issue. I'd really like to talk to people who answered on the creationist side of these polls, and hear how they explain dinosaurs and fossils, etc, etc.
Is there even maybe some kind of psychological guilt in these polls? Like if you're religious, you feel you need to give the creationist answers?
Am I going too far here???
All in all, I don't deny a significant number of people believe all this. Certainly evangelicals do in large numbers. But exactly how many? It's hard to say.
Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...
May 4, 2007 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, that's exactly what I mean. Most Americans believe in evolution. The vast majority believe in it at least to some extent. Over half believe in human evolution. Only a tiny minority believe in young earth creationism and literal interpretation of genesis.
And that's in context of a poll on religion. Phrase the poll in terms of other scientific issues, like medicine and technology, and I'll bet those numbers would significantly increase.
Make no mistake about it, when the kooky three are talking about not believing in evolution, they're not agnostic or skeptical on the subject. They're speaking to a specific Fundamentalist base who think the earth is 5000yr old, interpret genesis literally, think the Grand Canyon was created by the biblical flood, believe dinosaurs and people shared the earth only a few millennium ago, and all kinds of crazy and ignorant stuff.
May 4, 2007 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: I don't think you folks understand just how few people in America believe in evolution. Significantly more people believe in creationism.
The two are not mutually exclusive. The number of people who believe in full-fledged young-Earth creationism is probably fairly low (maybe in the %teens?) since there really aren't that many fundamentalists out there (note: evangelicals are NOT necessarily Fundamentalists; most are not). However there is a soft creationism which almost all Christians (and Jews, Muslims etc.) would sign onto, affirming that God somehow has something to do with the process by which life evolves, and this notion (as a metaphysical proposition, not a biological hypothesis) can be fitted in with scientific evolution well enough. See the position of the Roman Catholic church for a good example of this.
Also, a second problem in this area is that certain public figures in science (e.g., Dawkins) have worked long and hard to identify the theory of evolution with atheism with the result that many Christains, with little or no understanding of the science, simply reject it on those grounds alone.
May 4, 2007 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, there is a point where one can say god created the big bang or such, and that would technically be creationism. That's what the polls reflect.
Which is why Dawkins is a real screw-up of a manchild and reactionary magnet. He needs to get over his messiah complex.
As they say, those who can't do, instead teach, and those who can't teach instead become pundits and incite controversy.
May 4, 2007 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see why it's acceptable for people to tell me that I'm going to burn in hell for eternity, to bill me every month for their appearance on cable TV, while Dawkins is expected to just STFU.
It is simply true that one can't hold any but the most unitarian of Christian beliefs and also recognize that the universe was not created. Dawkins points this out. He points out that a great deal of damage is caused by people who believe things that are not true, and use those beliefs to justify political, even violent, activities.
there's something terribly wrong in teaching children falsehoods, and using those falsehoods to enrich and aggrandize people who peddle those lies.
I've come to believe that many of these leaders are, in fact, lying--that they don't actually believe the stuff they peddle, if only because so many of them have lives that are in direct contradiction to the words of the gospels.
I don't see how it's possible to put gas in your car and not realize that the young earth business is bunkum. I don't see why Dawkins is doing anything wrong by pointing out that there is no room in the current rational understanding of the world and for traditional religious belief that turns on a creator and the permanent existence of human beings in the universe.
May 7, 2007 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: It is simply true that one can't hold any but the most unitarian of Christian beliefs and also recognize that the universe was not created.
Nothing in science tells us that the universe was not created. the theory of evolution, let us recall, deals only with how living species came about. It does not deal with how matter, time, space, and energy came into being.
Re: I don't see why Dawkins is doing anything wrong by pointing out that there is no room in the current rational understanding of the world and for traditional religious belief that turns on a creator and the permanent existence of human beings in the universe.
I'm not sure what you mean by "permanent existence of human beings". Even the Bible does not state the human beings were in the world from the very instant of creation. And as I note above, nothing in science tells us that there was no Creator.
May 7, 2007 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Science is involved with testable hypotheses. There is no testable hypothesis associated with a Creator (or a creator). The claim that there is a Creator, or a stack of turtles, or an immortal human (but not chimp or cockroach) soul or some place of eternal rest or eternal torment are all supernatural claims. Science does not admit the introduction of the supernatural.
The claim that there was a creator is so far outside any kind of rational or logical thought to be instantly dismissed. It doesn't even hold itself--once you specify a designer, then you have a bootstrapping problem. Who designed the designer?
You've also got a huge multiverse problem. Where did the creator stand when he (he?) started the big bang? Note that there is nowhere in the universe for any entity to be in the first minute of the universe's existence.
Thanks for the correction on the first six days of the creation. You're quite right. People, according to Genesis, did not come into existence until late in the first week of the universe's existence. This is, of course, completely at odds with overwhelming evidence for the length of time that the human species has existed, the earth has existed and the universe has existed.
The stuff in the bible is so clearly and obviously inconsistent with what we know to be true that it is impossible to simultaneously believe it it and in so many things we take for granted every day, like the existence of gasoline, that it boggles the mind that so many people can retain a belief in a six thousand year old earth. That they do so while pumping in a product made from plant matter that was buried tens of millions of years ago is so astounding that I share the comments in the original post, that the stated belief in the six thousand year earth stems from how these questions are asked. I strongly suspect that if you asked a series of questions about dinosaurs, the age of the earth, the source for oil, how diamonds come to be and so on in that vein, when you got to the question of the 6000 year old earth, your respondents would answer differently.
What the creation question amounts to, in the way it is usually asked is "Do you believe in God?" Given the degree to which belief in a Christian God is promoted in this society, from its incorporation into a loyalty oath recited daily by schoolchildren to its ubiquity in our political rhetoric, it is not surprising that people don't answer such questions with their full critical faculties in place.
This is a very bad thing, because powerful people, like the president and like evangelical leaders, use fear and ignorance to do real damage to our society and our citizens.
May 9, 2007 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dawkins. Hardly shrill, very clear, very persuasive.
May 9, 2007 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is tribalism, the proto-authoritarian political structure, at work. They have not addressed the matter of evolution in their studies, or even in their personal reading. The boss says so, and so they agree. Facts not only don't matter, but are a real source of concern.
Do any of these (or any other) religious fundamentalists believe in human freedom outside the dictates of their received religious doctrine? No. They may speak of intellectual freedom, but it's out the window if it gores their own ox. They may speak of social tolerance, but their professed "love" for the non-believer ("love the sinner, hate the sin") always becomes some combination of forced exclusion, oppression, seizure of property, or death.
In the USA, the Christian jihadis move closer to open advocacy of civil war every year. Many of them are in the military, which has been allowed to fester, existing apart from society, in the absence of a draft. I worry that in ten years of present trends continued, elements of the military may be willing to act against the country on orders from their tribal leaders. It's time to start weeding out the Boykin clones from among the officers, and to begin civics classes for the services.
The tribal entity has already been formed, and like a tumor, it has thrown up barriers to ameliorating influences from the outside. Facts can't touch them. Their cohesion will be broken only by the prolonged and public humiliation of their leaders. Nothing else will do.
May 4, 2007 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as far as I'm concerned, someone so irrational as to believe in some goofball cult notion of young earth creationism is profoundly unfit for high office of any sort. They obviously cannot sort out fact from fantsy.
If a majority of Americans believe this silly nonsense, well, that's a pretty damning condemnation of the state of American education and literacy.
People are entitled to believe any old shit that strikes their fancy. I put belief in creationism up there with belief in vampires, satanic cults, astrology, ESP, time travel, friendly alien visitor, pyramid power and healing crystals.
Its a big world, there's room enough for everyone. But y'know what? If I get a surgeon, and in the middle of discussing surgery, he starts bringing out the healing crystals and astrological charts, I'm getting a new surgeon.
You get yourself a Presidential candidate who believes the Flinstones are a documentary... get a new one.
May 4, 2007 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Natural Selection and Intelligent Design are one and the same.
May 5, 2007 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's probably not too late to run as a Republican candidate for President.
You just have to insert "god" and reagan," and you'll have that swooney base behind you! Oh, I almost forgot! Abortion! Got to throw in the bit about caring for every life (and conveniently leave out the utter contempt for life once it is actually, er....born!
Jan
May 5, 2007 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure you aren't missing my point Jan? Because I sure as heck don't get yours, unless you are saying all Democrats are atheists.
In case you did miss my point, here's clarification; I believe in both evolution and God. Put another way, that God created evolution. Put another way, that while the conservatives you speak of claim that intelligent design is an alternative explanation for natural selection, I say that they are one and the same.
May 5, 2007 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The term "Intelligent Design" has taken on the air of a code phrase for those who do not believe in evolution. I have heard people say that, for example an eye could not be an "evolved" organ, and therefore was "intelligently designed" into species that have them.
I realize that some who say they do believe in evolution also use the term, but then qualify it to eliminate the science part: random selection as explained by Darwin, and attribute evolutionary changes as deliberately designed by a benevolent designer. That really doesn't seem like evolution or science or to me, but I am not the word police.
If our design were truly based on what would be the most intelligent set-up I can personally think of a ton of improvements that should have gotten programmed in!
Jan
May 5, 2007 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The term "Intelligent Design" has taken on the air of a code phrase for those who do not believe in evolution.
I tend to think that the two can coexist. If more and more couples start screening for genetic problems, and abort if problems are found, I'd argue that this situation is definitely a sign of intelligent design and a kid could accurately say: "a scientist selected me because of my DNA."
or, if a sperm or egg donation is selected based on some scientific method, such as the measured intelligence of the father or mother, I also think that intelligent design played a role!
And what about this:
"An Rh test is done in early pregnancy to check a woman's blood type. If she is Rh-negative, she can get a vaccine called Rh immune globulin that almost always prevents sensitization from occurring." (source)
so without intelligent intervention, some of us might not be here!
May 6, 2007 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
But if the design were really all that intelligent, we'd all have the same blood type and the many millions of (2nd) Rh positive babies born to Rh negative mothers(and Rh positive) fathers wouldn't have died before it was all (intelligently) figured out in the past (relatively) few years.
Are you saying that the intelligent desgin part of it was scientists eventually developing a test and Rhogam? Considering that most parts of the world don't even get to have that kind of medicine, I would consider it at best, "Selfish Design," or "Screw the Poor Design."
Jan
May 6, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if the design were really all that intelligent, we'd all have the same blood type
without the different notes on the musical scale, we wouldn't have songs.
people, like myself, hate loud boomy music while others dig it.
there is power in diversity even though diversity makes us all confused.
Are you saying that the intelligent desgin part of it was scientists eventually developing a test and Rhogam?
w/o intelligent intervention, many of us wouldn't exist and newborns never know what intelligent interventions were done on their behalf.
I would consider it at best, "Selfish Design," or "Screw the Poor Design."
I think that the interventions of science are often done w/o the requirement of being either absolutely fair or universal.
if you can do better than the status quo, you'll redefine what it means to be intelligent and people will shout your name from the hilltops and enshrine your name in the next generation of books!
go jan, go! ;-)
May 6, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
...without the different notes on the musical scale, we wouldn't have songs.
So, you're saying that my B positive blood type and my friend's O negative make the world a more interesting place? That is a pretty big stretch. Give it another try --
Tell me why humans having 4 MOSTLY incompatible blood types are better than if we all had the same.
(I'm not saying we SHOULD have all the same, by the way. I believe that the blood types evolved the way they did out of some independent factor that we are not aware of yet. There is no SHOULD unless one is making the argument that everything is for a reason -- and an intelligent reason at that.)
Jan
May 6, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Diversity makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary standpoint, since if something goes wrong with one genetic type, the others will still survive. And there's no natural downside to having multple blood types (transfusions don't count as "natural", but even if you do count them, it's not as if there aren't plenty of people in the world with each of the four blood types who can serve as donors.) Also, we should beware of anthropomorhpizing any of these arguments, that is, making the assumption that either Nature or Nature's God is somehow obligated to design a world that pleases and eases humankind.
Note: I am not a supporter of ID, but genetic diversity and natural realities that are not pleasing to humans do not seem to be a serious argument against it. A Creator is free to please himself and would be under no obligation to please his creation.
May 6, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me why humans having 4 MOSTLY incompatible blood types are better than if we all had the same.
here is something from the new scientist:
Their model reveals that if viral infections dominate a population, blood type O will be most common, whereas if bacterial infections are more common, then A and B blood types will be more frequent. These results closely resemble the balance of blood types seen in today's populations, Seymour says
source
May 6, 2007 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And currently in the history of man, B is the most common, and O (the universal donor) is the rarest. What does that have to do with bacteria and viruses? Your source makes no sense.
Jan
May 6, 2007 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
did you pay to read the whole thing? the teaser summary was:
"But a new analysis suggests that different groups [of bloodtype] evolved to give populations a balanced defence against viruses and bacteria."
I also found this in Wikipedia:
There is some evidence that blood types B and AB confer partial protection against symptomatic infection [of the Norovirus] (source: Wikipedia)
so it seems that, based on Wikipedia, that B blocks viruses better than O?
anyway, have fun digging deeper if you want more understanding of this issue! it's a very intriging one for sure and a hot, current research topic!
May 6, 2007 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If our design were truly based on what would be the most intelligent set-up I can personally think of a ton of improvements that should have gotten programmed in!"
Except now you are second guessing God. Of course if you don't believe in God it would be natural to second guess God.
Also, I personally (and I'm second guessing as well now) don't believe that God achieves perfection. (I don't know how unique my thinking is on this by the way -- I came to the conclusion myself, although I'm not all that studied in philosophy and religion either -- I'm sure I'm not the first to come to this conclusion,) I believe God's (however you define God - I personally don't define God as a grandfather with a white beard sitting at a desk on a puffy white cloud,) intention for the universe is to create masterpieces such as our planet, and as far as we know it may be the only masterpiece (doubtful seeing how large the universe is,) but if God were capable of perfection, there would be no starving Ethiopians or children with terminal illnesses or as mcs alludes to, no children born with unfair mutations.
Don't forget that random selection uses mutations though, as the mutations that advanced the species for survival is what evolution is all about. So here you have an intention for the mutations to advance species, but we do not have a perfect mutation process. If you believe that God does not achieve perfection, as I do (I realize probably none of the major religions would believe this with the exception probably of buddhism,) then the random natural selection can also be the God intended "intelligent design" proclaimed by the fundamentalists. (Again, fundamentalists believe God achieves perfection of I'm not mistaken.)
Likewise with my opinion of intelligent design - to me it's a synonym to random natural selection because it is the intention behind the process that is the important point. The implementation of that intention is imperfect, but damned good -- downright miraclous -- IMO. Of course we can "play God" by learning God's science and using it to make our own selections, but this playing God is a far cry from creating a new universe from scratch. Let's not pump our egos up too much just because we are learning "God's" science. It is still God's science in the end, not our science. If you believe in God that is. Of course it is just as legitimate to not believe in God. I personally can't fathom how "science" could have come out of nowhere. Or that it was always there to begin with. I guess I view God as a synonym for "science" as well, in a way. Science with an intention.
I think scientists believe the big bang was started from the other end of a black hole in a parallel universe, or some such hard to grasp theory, and that that was what Einstein was grappling with at the end of his life regarding the unified field theory and what not. (I only watched a Discovery Channel documentary on parallel universes, and my memory sucks, so you'll have to excuse me on my fuzziness on this in the interests of time.)
"There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle." -- Albert Einstein
I prefer the second way.
May 6, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if random selection through mutation is the route through which improvement occurs (evolution), science has thrown a giant monkey wrench into it, rather than continuing it.
By testing for and treating negative characteristics, those with genes that carry diabetes, cancer, and untold other disorders, live long enough to procreate and increase their numbers in the gene pool.
I would say it is tough to have it both ways. If one believes it is all a part of an engeniusly designed plan to knock off individuals, or even whole species who carried unwanted characteristics over the course of millions of years, can one really claim the second part --> the expectation (all a part of the grand scheme of things) that eventually the human species would develop ways to do the exact opposite?
(I should have had an intelligent design for that last sentence!)
Jan
May 6, 2007 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
and we're seeing problems today with antibiotics in hospitals because the infections that survive are sometimes immune and, thus, very dangerous.
so "intelligent design" backfires because, in "being intelligent," we create a bigger enemy-- and doesn't that sound familer?
May 6, 2007 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except now you are second guessing God. Of course if you don't believe in God it would be natural to second guess God.
well, why is "second guessing" evolution any more natural? because, for those who believe in evolution, only evolution is able to create "the end" through its means. humans, therefore, have to bow to evolution and aren't in control.
but if God were capable of perfection, there would be no starving Ethiopians or children with terminal illnesses
unfortunately, the definition of the word perfection isn't really known and it could be that we live in a perfect world but our "free will" corrupts it-- that's what is proposed in Genesis, I think!
and many people on this blog believe in "corrupted free-will" since they believe that "health care for all" is possible if we just worked together!
It is still God's science in the end, not our science. If you believe in God that is.
and, for some, the concept of evolution is god since it's omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent!
BTW: i love your einstein quote! to me, everything is a miracle! amen!
May 6, 2007 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a brilliant analysis!
Although I am in the "everything is a miracle" school of thought, God, obviously is imperfect.
Just as an example, He made the avocado pit too big!
May 7, 2007 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well thanks as I think I have some agreement now that I've clarified my position.
Some disorders may not be the type of mutation that is a bad thing in all cases - bipolar disorder for example. Google "famous bipolar disorder" to see what I mean.
I do agree we can corrupt God's (or the universe's if you don't like to use the word God) intentions. But I think God is hands off - he may want us to feed the starving Ethiopians but he can't do it himself. He has set up the Earth terrarium but after that is hands off and the details are up to us. If we blow up God's experiment with nukes then the outcome wasn't as intended.
If you were an atheist I think you could still believe everything was a miracle and live joyously. In that case God is just a matter of semantics really, even if the atheists didn't realize it.
I didn't go into what spirit is. Who knows. I think most of us believe in ghosts, so there must be something to spirit. I think spirit must involve the intention spoken about above.
When I was manic the only time in my life, full blown manic, which was 8 years ago and lasted one week, I felt during part of that experience a connection to God, sort of like I was a puppet and God was the puppeteer. But even stranger, that God had a God, and that God had his God, and so on up the line. Define it as outright delusional, or maybe there was some sort of truth to it. And I've read that a lot of people who experience full blown mania feel the same connectedness to the universe and/or God. The strings were of course invisible strings, and could move both top down and bottum up in a way, but yes I believe we can either be in tune with God's intention or we can "corrupt" that intention and not be God's "puppet with invisible strings" at all. I guess in terms of down to earth sanity, this would just translate into taking some time each day to ponder whether we are in line with "our intentions" or not. Which is probably one reason why people pray and meditate, do yoga, take a quiet walk, and what have you. When we are busy that is a good thing but only if we are doing what we want to do.
(My case of bipolar improved fortunately, so I guess I am a "functioning bipolar," and I havn't had any more of the Mr. Toad's wild rides, which is a good thing as the "down" in "what goes up must come down" is way too high a price to pay for the natural high.)
Here's another proverb I like because I interpret it to mean that we need to be in control of our lives. We may be given opportunities but whether we crack those opportunities or not is our responsibility. At age 47, I find myself still blowing opportunities. Whether the blowing of those opportunities was intended (part of my "destiny,") or whether I blew the intentions and blew the destiny is debatable. I tend to be more of a realist and I think I have blown things that were intended, in many cases, but I'm "second guessing" God by believing that I realize, as well. But, we seem to get second, third, fourth, fifth... chances in life for opportunities we've blown. I blew some relationship opportunities in the past. But were my children I ended up having intended or were they entirely random? I think it's OK to view them as random, as whether you view my children as random or destined, they can latch on to their own intentions either way.
The simpler interpretation of the below proverb probably also holds true, which might be that we were intended to work for a living.
"God gives the nuts but he does not crack them." -- German Proverb
May 7, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you can't really claim that "random selection" is the product of "design", intelligent or otherwise. "Random" and "Design" are more or less antonyms, yes? Can we have it both ways without sacrificing our logic? Meister Eckhart turned in logic for the benifit of epiphany, but he didn't claim it was the product of any sort of logic.
The late Kurt Vonnegut wrote a masterpiece on Intelligent Design: The Sirens of Titan. A race of robots living on the other side of the Universe caused the evolution of life on earth, for the sole purpose of delivering a spare part to a robot whose space ship had broke down on Titan.
Neoboho
May 8, 2007 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But you can't really claim that "random selection" is the product of "design", intelligent or otherwise."
======================================
It's exactly what quantum mechanics does. If it is this way for the science of quantum physics, why couldn't it be this way for the science of natural selection?
The harder question for me isn't a debate about evolution vs. intelligent design when I consider them to be the same thing. For me the harder question is whether there is such a thing as destiny. Some folks like to proclaim that "everything happens for a reason." I'm not so sure. I think we blow it sometimes and miss opportunities for example, that we screw up our own destinies. And also others have a hand in it as well and screw up our destinies as well. We usually end up with a winning result, but was it our destiny or not? It seems to me it is impossible to say.
But I believe there *is* intention. Ultimately the intention of the planet Earth for example may be of Heaven - "God" may have intended "Heaven" to be our planet. If we agree that God does not achieve perfection, this isn't so far fetched an idea.
May 8, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's exactly what quantum mechanics does. If it is this way for the science of quantum physics, why couldn't it be this way for the science of natural selection?
I don't think this is true. In quantum theory "random" means "random for all practical purposes", not "absolutely random".
But I'm at a disadvantage - I know very little about this branch of physics. If you wish to explain your point, I'm all ears.
And I don't think "natural selection" implies any kind of design. In "survival of the fitest" it just so happens that species and individuals who happen to make it are the fitest by definition (those to weak to jump from the frying pain into the fire?). Right now with the growing "dead zones" jellyfish and squid are contenders for the "fitest" because they don't need a lot of oxygen in the water. So folks with a predisposition to calimari have an edge.
Neoboho
May 8, 2007 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The quantum mechanics model isn't really needed, although I don't see why it can't explain natural selection since there is a finite number of genes that can be had in the genetic crap shoot, so with both sciences you are talking about probabilities.
Aside from the quantum mechanics model though, if there is a God then why couldn't God be in control of the randomness?
But this is a similar argument to my "destiny?" question. And I don't believe in destiny at this point in my life anyways. I believe in intention. I believe homo sapiens as a species has a destiny. But I don't believe any particular individual homo sapiens have/had a destiny. I think they have just made decisions - and many of us have a very rocky path in life, perhaps in large part to our own poor decisions - poor decisions meaning not aligned with their intention.
My daughter is the product in part of my choice in a mate. Was she destined? I doubt it, but I believe that her uniqueness will align with God's intention if she is psychologically healthy and makes good decisions and can avoid bad luck. If we believe in "spirit" though, it would be easier for me to believe my daughters' spirit was destined, even more so from a buddhist standpoint perhaps, because of the reincarnation (theory.)
The point I'm trying to make is, let's say if I were a science teacher and I was required by law to give evolution and intelligent design equal air time. I don't think I'd have any trouble as I'd just teach the students that they were simply two ways of looking at the same science. I am guessing most of the critics of intelligent design on this thread think that as a teacher I would tell the students that we might not have evolved from apes. But in fact I would never promote such bogosity. I would just say that it may be that God may have been in charge of the genetic crap shoot that led to the evolved species. And that that is what intelligent design means to me. That it is no different from evolution, just that it is evolution with intention - with intended outcomes. Whereas generic evolution does not factor in the theory of "intention."
I personally think homo sapiens has been headed towards an intention, but that the "how" part of getting to that intention was not micro managed by God. I believe it was macro managed by God. Just like quantum physics may be macro managed, not micro managed, by God. (And as you know by now I personally have a very loose interpretation of God.)
Since I'm not a physicist either, I wikipedia'd quantum mechanics, and discovered another Einstein quote - and alas, Einstein disagrees with my current stance (and maybe his quote will change my mind) on individual destiny quite vividly. So I am probably wrong about my destiny question, as I'd bet on Einstein's judgement over my own any day.
=====================================
Wikipedia:
"... Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic.
Albert Einstein, himself one of the founders of quantum theory, disliked this loss of determinism in measurement (Hence his famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe."). He held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and consequently the present theory was incomplete. He produced a series of objections to the theory, the most famous of which has become known as the EPR paradox. John Bell showed that the EPR paradox led to experimentally testable differences between quantum mechanics and local theories. Experiments have been taken as confirming that quantum mechanics is correct and the real world must be described in terms of nonlocal theories.
The writer C.S. Lewis viewed QM as incomplete, because notions of indeterminism did not agree with his philosophical beliefs.[3] Lewis, a professor of English, was of the opinion that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was more of an epistemic limitation than an indication of ontological indeterminacy, and in this respect believed similarly to many advocates of hidden variables theories. The Bohr-Einstein debates provide a vibrant critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation from an epistemological point of view.
The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a "multiverse" composed of mostly independent parallel universes. This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet: All the possible consistent states of the measured system and the measuring apparatus (including the observer) are present in a real physical (not just formally mathematical, as in other interpretations) quantum superposition. (Such a superposition of consistent state combinations of different systems is called an entangled state.) While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we can observe only the universe, i.e. the consistent state contribution to the mentioned superposition, we inhabit. Everett's interpretation is perfectly consistent with John Bell's experiments and makes them intuitively understandable. However, according to the theory of quantum decoherence, the parallel universes will never be accessible for us, making them physically meaningless. This inaccessibility can be understood as follows: once a measurement is done, the measured system becomes entangled with both the physicist who measured it and a huge number of other particles, some of which are photons flying away towards the other end of the universe; in order to prove that the wave function did not collapse one would have to bring all these particles back and measure them again, together with the system that was measured originally. This is completely impractical, but even if one can theoretically do this, it would destroy any evidence that the original measurement took place (including the physicist's memory).
May 8, 2007 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you see, the issue I've raised deals with "random v. design." If QM serves as a model for natural selection, then it is not a random process.
Put it another way, if, as you say, "random selection and intelligent design" are the same thing, then what term would we use to describe a process that we formerly called "random"?
Neoboho
May 9, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I just googled and found a book which is entirely about "quantum evolution," so I know now I am not the only one to propose quantum mechanics as a model for natural selection.
Editorial Reviews
From Amazon.com
The hairiest heresy of evolutionary biology, the one most likely to get scientists figuratively burned at the stake, is the notion that any force more selective than blind chance could drive mutation. Such "directed evolution" smacks too much of a retreat into creationism for most science-minded readers to be comfortable with, but there's no a priori reason to reject the idea. Molecular biologist Johnjoe McFadden risks the Inquisition by suggesting just such a possibility in Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life. Directed at a general but somewhat sophisticated readership, the book covers the basics of both standard evolutionary theory and quantum-level physics, then synthesizes them in an interesting theory of made-to-order mutation that explains enough to warrant attention and is, importantly, testable.
McFadden's writing is clear and sharp, and it shows a high regard for the reader's intelligence and patience for complex ideas. This is no airplane book--except for those already well-versed in the latest in both evolutionary theory and subatomic physics. The rewards of reading are great, and the author bows just enough to established theory that he might meet the fate of his intellectual predecessors. The ideas underlying Quantum Evolution may be right or wrong, but they challenge received wisdom without plunging into dogmatism--and that's good science.
From Publishers Weekly
McFadden's attempt to pinpoint what makes life "alive" begins with a long, slow, multidisciplinary explanation of life's fundamental processes and ends with a fantastic quest through the strangest branch of science: quantum mechanics. Traversing all the great thinkers who laid the foundations of biology, genetics, physics, chemistry and mechanics, the first half is written for those with very little or no knowledge of science. The transitions between even widely disparate topics are flawless and build a coherent picture of the complexity of even the simplest organisms. Once quantum mechanics truly becomes the focus (approximately halfway through), McFadden's talent for description hits perfect pitch. Layers of understanding about the unfathomable peculiarities of fundamental particles lead to amazing possibilities. McFadden voices a new theory that is gaining popularity: that quantum mechanical forces may have sparked life in the primordial soup, may create the difference between alive and inanimate objects and may even play a role in consciousness.
May 9, 2007 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should probably re-clarify that how i interpret intelligent design is different from the official view, as far as I know.
But if I were a high school teacher who had to by law give equal air time to intelligent design and evolution, I'd present my interpretation, come hell or high water.
"Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Since I also believe in natural selection. But why can't God be in control of natural selection?
"Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, such that individuals with favorable phenotypes are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with less favorable phenotypes. If these phenotypes have a genetic basis, then the genotype associated with the favorable phenotype will increase in frequency in the next generation. Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize organisms for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species."
and
"The phenotype of an individual organism is either its total physical appearance and constitution or a specific manifestation of a trait, such as size, eye color, or behavior that varies between individuals. Phenotype is determined to a large extent by genotype, or by the identity of the alleles that an individual carries at one or more positions on the chromosomes. Many phenotypes are determined by multiple genes and influenced by environmental factors."
Or in other words, how did the new favorable traits - mutations - come about? Pure chance? Or from an intention (determinism?)
It's impossible to say. Thus we have a stalemate with this debate. And if physicists of the stature of Einstein had a problem with determinism, consider it a stalemate indeed.
However, those who do not believe in evolution are in denial of the science. But intelligent design is the same as evolution, really, although depending on how you view natural selection (whether something is in charge of the randomness or whether something is not,) they are not different, and I would imagine many religious fundamentalists get this point confused.
Suffice it to say that both the "natural selection" camp and the "intelligent design" camp should both believe in evolution. And to that end I hope I havn't confused the original thread too much as I have my own interpretation of natural selection. And I think Einstein was in my camp as when he said "God does not play dice with the universe," he probably would not have used that quotation to deflate natural selection, I think he would have just stated that God was in control of natural selection. And to me, that is what intelligent design would be.
May 9, 2007 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reason that we all admire Einstein's work is because it was ultimately testable and reproducible. When he just "believed" something or "had a hunch" he didn't write it up in an equation.
Even brilliant people can surmise things and often their surmises are interesting and correct. But to teach something to a science class that you just "believe?"
George Bush believes a whole lot of stuff and he has done incalculable harm by confusing his gut feelings with truth.
Jan
May 9, 2007 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are missing the point again Jan.
Whether you believe in indeterminate or determinate evolution, they are *both* beliefs -- natural selection and intelligent design are both beliefs (theories.) I agree that evolution is no longer a theory. But beyond that it is still unproven theory.
It is also mentioned that the commonly held belief is that the multiverse is determinate.
Also, the theory of quantum evolution as presented in the book by the same name, is apparently testable:
"the book covers the basics of both standard evolutionary theory and quantum-level physics, then synthesizes them in an interesting theory of made-to-order mutation that explains enough to warrant attention and is, importantly, testable.
May 9, 2007 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm waiting for Timmy Russert to start asking candidates the real questions.
Seriously, I want to know how Huckabee will respond.
May 5, 2007 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, I want to know how Huckabee will respond.
for all I know, he'd think you were simply obsessed with non-important matters.
in general, even though I think of myself as agnostic, I enjoy what religous philosophy and religous tradition has to say through its poetry, liturgy, worship and music.
when people like myself read the story of noah, we think about the water as truth and the living creatures floating on the water as sacred-- nobody damns their own life.
when Jesus walked on the water (truth) and his followers couldn't, it was a situation which showed the reality of the world: people drown in truth, they have a hard time using it for productive means.
some people on this blog have called me mystical and perhaps that's why I can enjoy mystical things like the bible.
for non-mystical literalists, the bible is definitely not for you.
May 6, 2007 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you account for the fact that none of the books of the Old Testament mention Tyrannosaurus Rex?
Or how about the other side of the coin, with its amzing predictions of things to come, it never mentions ink pens, bicycles, or the internet? Just think how helpful it would be to all of us if it had even once mentioned abortion.
Jan
May 6, 2007 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Upon performing miracles before his disciples, Jesus said "All these things I do, you can do, and greater!"
Don't you find that if you go through life expecting miracles, you encounter them routinely?
May 7, 2007 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink