Is intelligent design a plausible theory?

[Charlemagne_II]

Namesake

ID is bad science and bad theology.

That’s it?

 

[Namesake]

Namesake

ID is bad science and bad theology.

That’s it?

No that’s not it! To give ID the same credence as science it must be subjected to the rigors of the scientific method. It isn’t up to nonbelievers to disprove ID. It is up to proponents of ID to follow the same path that science does to gain respectability within the scientific community. It’s really very simple. Just come up with a testable hypothesis and do the science and then encourage multi center replication of that science, especially from skeptical scientists. Encourage negative findings. That’s what science does. Do you support that idea?

So far ID has not come up to that fundamental level of scrutiny. Science does that every day.

I can tell you from personal experience that defending a thesis before a committee of professors who are trying to poke holes in your research is a very intimidating adventure. That’s what science is all about. ID must do that too.

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone

Nothing you have said mitigates the likelihood that atheists will continue to use evolution as a club to badger Christians. Dawkins is the classic example. I’m sorry that you have decided to put your head in the sand about this and pretend it isn’t so, and that real science is above all such skulduggery. Even Einstein proved he wasn’t above it when he used that famous Razor to implant the cosmological constant in relativity.

I think biology is a very effective tool to use in discussion with some Christians – many Christians accept the science of evolutionary biology, including the Vatican - with the proviso that God is seen as creator of the physical laws from which evolution proceeds, etc. Radiometric dating, the speed of light and relativity are good tools to use against the folly of young earth creationists.

But this is nothing more than observing that facts are often stubborn, difficult things. Bellarmine was finally buried under the weight of the facts of the solar system, and Galileo and Copernicus were vindicated. It’s not to Galileo’s shame that the facts agreed with his analysis on the question of astronomy.

That evolution is not vital to the learning of biology goes without saying.

It does??? Surely that statement conjures Dobzhansky’s essay from the 70s in your head: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

Dobzhansky was one of the key figures in the the development of the modern synthesis, so this is not someone who has questionable credentials in biology. And the point here is not to put Dobzhansky on some kind of pedestal, but rather to point to that as simply as “springs-to-mind” example of one of the basic concepts in biology, which is that evolution is the fundamental organizing principle for all of it. To avoid evolution is to miss the essence of modern biology, the central knowledge of biology.

If you know a biology curriculum at the university level that does not include biology, which is not built around MET, I’d be interested to know about it. That would be something like learning physics without Newton or Einstein’s theories.

Do you think a physician need to read Darwin before he operates on a patient?

No, but that’s not biology, but surgery. If a physician is working epidemiology, or cures for HIV, or phylodyamics or some other part of medicine that is biology-heavy, then ignorance about MET would be severe deficiency in their education and preparedness for their work.

To depict this as “banning biology education, and degrading science down to fodder for debates” is senseless. What matters to parents is not whether their children learn evolution, but whether they are conditioned by atheist biologists to doubt. I know you don’t see that because you are an atheist … you also have a dog in the fight.

Well, up until about two years ago, I was an evangelical Christian, or a post-evangelical Christian aiming at RCIA and a conversion to Catholicism. So I am well aware of that concern, it’s not far back in my memory at all. But then, as now, doubt is problematic for faith, but absolutely essential to science, and rationalist thinking in general. I’d be much more concerned if my child was afraid or discouraged to doubt – especially in enterprises where that’s a requirement for knowledge building, like science – than the effects of science predicated on doubt.

If Christianity, or atheism, or any other set of beliefs are not strong enough to withstand skeptical scrutiny, why embrace them as knowledge? You can say you want to embrace them because they are what you want, because they are more preferable to you, and that’s fine. But it’s not embraced as knowledge, then, but as a matter of preference. Knowledge is that which can survive skeptical scrutiny and demands for performance.

Dawkins is not saying that biology demands atheism. Rather, in saying that evolution enables the atheist fulfillmen in intellectual terms, he’s pointing to the fact that “creation” in terms of biology has traditionally been an obstacle for atheism: How did all these animals come to be? Darwin’s theory provided a godless mechanism to explain it, thus removing a substantial intellectual difficulty to atheism.

To which Darwin himself would answer:

“I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

Yes, but so what? What do either Dawkins or Darwin have by way of authority or demonstrated knowledge on the subject of theism or atheism? Absolutely nothing. They are no more expert on that issue than you, me, or my dog. I might as well quote Yogi Berra:

*When you come to a fork in the road, take it.

*or, how about this one, this should help like the Dawkins and Darwin quotes:

*You got to be careful if you don’t know where you’re going, because you might not get there. *

Take that, Richard Dawkins!!!

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

It does??? Surely that statement conjures Dobzhansky’s essay from the 70s in your head: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

Are you telling us that a high school sophomore taking biology will not understand the circulatory system or the nervous system unless he first understands evolution?

Methinks you doth protest too much!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Namesake

No that’s not it! To give ID the same credence as science it must be subjected to the rigors of the scientific method. It isn’t up to nonbelievers to disprove ID. It is up to proponents of ID to follow the same path that science does to gain respectability within the scientific community.

The object of scientific research is to find the truth. If a mechanism cannot be found to demonstrate intelligent design behind irreducible complexity, perhaps that is because one cannot be found. The moment life was created had passed the discovery of the mechanism passed with it. The same with the Big Bang. We can deduce the Big Bang. We cannot induct it it because the moment has long passed. We cannot repeat it, we cannot falsify it; that doesn’t mean it’s not a scientific principle.

There are parallels between the Big Bang and ID here and elsewhere. We reason backward using mathematics and telescopes and the noise of the Big Bang to infer that a Bang happened. Likewise, using logical inference, we can repudiate the notion that the first life form came into being as a random incident, as even Thomas Jefferson was able to observe way back in the early 1800s. Moreover, we experience the existence of intelligent design in our own lives, so that we should not be shocked to contemplate whether *something *intelligently designed us to be capable of intelligent design. At last, in us the universe has found a way to be conscious of itself. And in us we have found ourselves even able to be conscious of something even greater than the universe.

Darwin at last saw that too, and made sure he weighed in to rebuff to all who who would use him to beat up on the idea of intelligent design behind creation…

Dawkins needs to live with it.

“I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” Charles Darwin

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone

It does??? Surely that statement conjures Dobzhansky’s essay from the 70s in your head: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

Are you telling us that a high school sophomore taking biology will not understand the circulatory system or the nervous system unless he first understands evolution?

Methinks you doth protest too much!

I guess it depends on what you mean by “understand”. I think that same sophomore can understand the solar system without understanding general relativity, or even Newton, on the grounds you are offering it. Hemoglobin and blood platelets go round and round, heart to capillaries, capillaries to heart. Planets go around the sun, moons go around the planets. There you go.

Why is the heart structured the way it is? Maybe that’s “just what God wants”? Fair enough, can’t argue with the God answer – God answers beat all natural answers, hands down. But in natural terms, we can see the progression of the protochordate heart, a single-direction, peristaltic pump to the piscine heart, which adds collection of blood in addition to pumping of blood. From there, we see the addition of a key structure in the human respiratory system – the lung – in early tetrapods. This affords a new and rich source of oxygenated blood, but it also results in mixing O2 rich blood with O2 poor blood. Now we see the three chambered heart emerge in early tetrapods, in which O2-rich and O2-poor blood streams arrive via separate atria.

If some student wonders why most reptiles have a three chambered heart, you can point them at an evolutionary explanation – they diverged way back when from a common ancestor that sported a three chambered heart. Modern reptiles have kept that structure on the interim, and tetrapods, divergent, went on to develop four chambered hearts.

As endothermic mammals and birds emerged, the four chambered heart provided complete separation of the atria and ventricles. Thus, we have a natural progression, a natural explanation of why the warm-blooded mammal (or bird) has four chambers. In order to support higher metabolic rates (and thus the ability to expend the energy and resources needed to acquire new sources of food/energy), the pulmonary and systemic circuits needed to be separate (this avoids O2-rich blood being diluted by O2-poor blood). By looking at the evolution of the heart, we can understand not only what the adaptive functionality of the four chambers is, we can understand how it got that way, what the developmental pathway was for the structure it has.

Is that beyond a sophomore in high school? Not in my house, it’s not. Maybe think about how you would answer the question “why does the mammal heart have four chambers?” from a sophomore student. What kind of understanding is available through your answer?

Without the theory of evolution as background, the mechanisms and formation of the heart is very difficult to explain in natural terms. The end of the educational road is reached quickly with “That’s how God designed it!”

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Namesake

No that’s not it! To give ID the same credence as science it must be subjected to the rigors of the scientific method. It isn’t up to nonbelievers to disprove ID. It is up to proponents of ID to follow the same path that science does to gain respectability within the scientific community.

The object of scientific research is to find the truth.

That’s not the case. That kind of description of the goal is way to vague, and makes the goal of science a matter of subjective preference (cf. Pilate: what is truth?). Science the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena. That may or may not be truth, depending on what your view of truth is. Doesn’t matter, science’s goal isn’t dependent on anyone’s version of ‘truth’, but is instead just natural explanations for natural phenomena.

If a mechanism cannot be found to demonstrate intelligent design behind irreducible complexity, perhaps that is because one cannot be found. The moment life was created had passed the discovery of the mechanism passed with it. The same with the Big Bang. We can deduce the Big Bang. We cannot induct it it because the moment has long passed. We cannot repeat it, we cannot falsify it; that doesn’t mean it’s not a scientific principle.

The Big Bang is NOT a scientific principle. It’s a theory, a leading hypothesis. Theories are not validated through deduction – science is an empirical enterprise, and that is the wonder of it: it pays zero respect to theology or philosophy in the abstract. If the data don’t agree, if the tests fail, then any logic that says otherwise is wrong, by definition, by virtue of the primacy of empirical verification in science. We don’t worry about deduction or induction beyond their utility in forming a hypothesis. Once the hypothesis is formed, it matters not how much “logic” (or how little) went into it. It either explains and fits the evidence and makes successful predictions, or it does not.

There are parallels between the Big Bang and ID here and elsewhere. We reason backward using mathematics and telescopes and the noise of the Big Bang to infer that a Bang happened. Likewise, using logical inference, we can repudiate the notion that the first life form came into being as a random incident, as even Thomas Jefferson was able to observe way back in the early 1800s.

We observe life to exist all around us, so we have good grounds to say that life is a phenomenon that needs to be explained. If we repudiate the idea of life emerging from imperonal laws and processes by virtue of its improbability, we can ONLY do so if we have some other explanation that is MORE probable that we would favor instead. What is that explanation, and what is the basis for asserting that that is MORE probably than emergent abiogenesis?

That is, it’s not logical to reject hypothesis A as “repudiated” because it seems improbable, in favor of hypothesis B, which seems either way less probable, or more precisely, inscrutable.

Moreover, we experience the existence of intelligent design in our own lives, so that we should not be shocked to contemplate whether *something *intelligently designed us to be capable of intelligent design.

We should be shocked if we have no evidence of any such actor on the scene to do the designing. In our daily lives, we see intelligent design all around us. But we also see intelligent human beings all around us, and in many cases we can watch them doing the designing (in others, we are the designers!). So our daily lives are fundamentally, starkly different than the world circa 4Gya, in which not a scintilla of evidence is available supporting the existence or faculties of some supposed Designer. We have nothing to match the work product with in terms of a designer, to say “this output matches with the capabilities and available of this designer, or group of designers”.

-TS

 

[Jermosh]

Personally I think evolution is a factored science and it will be eventually shown as a result of some type of quantum physics on the atomic structure of DNA. Matter does show inklings of intelligence, so its not that wild of idea.

 

[bullfrog654]

i define intelagent design as - what the eyes see and the ears hear the mind believes

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

Without the theory of evolution as background, the mechanisms and formation of the heart is very difficult to explain in natural terms. The end of the educational road is reached quickly with “That’s how God designed it!”

I don’t think that’s how biology should be taught. And I don’t think Michael Behe or William Dembski think so either. Why are you doing this reductio ad absurdum? Strikes me as “Dawkinsish.”

Why is the heart structured the way it is? Maybe that’s “just what God wants”? Fair enough, can’t argue with the God answer – God answers beat all natural answers, hands down. But in natural terms, we can see the progression of the protochordate heart, a single-direction, peristaltic pump to the piscine heart, which adds collection of blood in addition to pumping of blood. From there, we see the addition of a key structure in the human respiratory system – the lung – in early tetrapods. This affords a new and rich source of oxygenated blood, but it also results in mixing O2 rich blood with O2 poor blood. Now we see the three chambered heart emerge in early tetrapods, in which O2-rich and O2-poor blood streams arrive via separate atria.

Is this what you would teach high school sophomores in biology class? Aren’t you dreaming some here?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

We observe life to exist all around us, so we have good grounds to say that life is a phenomenon that needs to be explained. If we repudiate the idea of life emerging from imperonal laws and processes by virtue of its improbability, we can ONLY do so if we have some other explanation that is MORE probable that we would favor instead. What is that explanation, and what is the basis for asserting that that is MORE probably than emergent abiogenesis?

The theory of evolution does not explain the first appearance of life on the planet. Evolution by definition necessarily requires that one life form is gradually (or perhaps even suddenly) transformed into another. But there is no “life” that evolves into life. So the burden of proof that life rose spontaneously and without design out of inanimate matter is a problem that evolution has not and cannot solve. Without a mechanism to explain how life arose, the evolutionist is on no firmer ground than anyone else. The ID theorists have as much right to suggest intelligent design (without an apparent mechanism) as the evolutionists have to assume (without a mechanism to prove it) a random leap from inanimate matter to animate.

May I remind everyone in this thread that the title of this thread is whether ID is plausible, not whether it has been definitely proven in the same sense that the Big Bang or Evolution have been proven?

Newton and Darwin certainly thought so. So I think anyone who thinks the idea is absurd has to think of Newton and Darwin as absurd. And that’s absurd!

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone

Without the theory of evolution as background, the mechanisms and formation of the heart is very difficult to explain in natural terms. The end of the educational road is reached quickly with “That’s how God designed it!”

I don’t think that’s how biology should be taught. And I don’t think Michael Behe or William Dembski think so either. Why are you doing this reductio ad absurdum? Strikes me as “Dawkinsish.”

Maybe you could sketch out how it should be taught, sans evolutionary theory (I do think you could teach other things, like surgical techniques you mentioned above, without covering evolution). You show a diagram of the heart, and explain that the heart has four chambers. A student raises his hand, and wants to know why the heart has four chambers. Maybe she notes that her pet lizard has a heart with only three chambers.

What would you (or your representative) answer? I realize a simple “Goddidit” isn’t like to be much more satisfying to you or the student than it is to me, but barring that response, what would the student receive by way of explanation and mechanisms?

Why is the heart structured the way it is? Maybe that’s “just what God wants”? Fair enough, can’t argue with the God answer – God answers beat all natural answers, hands down. But in natural terms, we can see the progression of the protochordate heart, a single-direction, peristaltic pump to the piscine heart, which adds collection of blood in addition to pumping of blood. From there, we see the addition of a key structure in the human respiratory system – the lung – in early tetrapods. This affords a new and rich source of oxygenated blood, but it also results in mixing O2 rich blood with O2 poor blood. Now we see the three chambered heart emerge in early tetrapods, in which O2-rich and O2-poor blood streams arrive via separate atria.

Is this what you would teach high school sophomores in biology class? Aren’t you dreaming some here?

Well, I used that little blurb because that’s a bit of what I have been over with my boys who are high school age (homeschooled kids). I think it was not at all a problem for them, but of course, some basic grounding in the theory of evolution is necessary to make sense of this explanation. But that’s precisely why I say it’s essential for teaching; evolution is the organizing principle for our basic understanding of biology. It’s very, very difficult to go beyond “Goddidit” without evolutionary theory. There simply aren’t any other natural explanations available, anymore.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone

We observe life to exist all around us, so we have good grounds to say that life is a phenomenon that needs to be explained. If we repudiate the idea of life emerging from imperonal laws and processes by virtue of its improbability, we can ONLY do so if we have some other explanation that is MORE probable that we would favor instead. What is that explanation, and what is the basis for asserting that that is MORE probably than emergent abiogenesis?

The theory of evolution does not explain the first appearance of life on the planet. Evolution by definition necessarily requires that one life form is gradually (or perhaps even suddenly) transformed into another. But there is no “life” that evolves into life. So the burden of proof that life rose spontaneously and without design out of inanimate matter is a problem that evolution has not and cannot solve.

Right. Evolution doesn’t explain gravity, or inflationary expansion of the universe, either. Evolution as a theory begins with life that is capable of reproducing.

Without a mechanism to explain how life arose, the evolutionist is on no firmer ground than anyone else.

All we need to note is that life exists. That’s all the ground we need, as phenomena, to look for natural explanations for it. What are the mechanisms behind the diversity and forms of life we observe? If science had to provide ultimate explanations, all the way back to the metaphysic, it would never get off the ground. If we were to have some strong theory of abiogenesis, we would then be asked to substantiate the formation of the planet in such a way as to catalyze abiogenesis, then the physics behind that…

It’s definitely an aspiration of science to interconnect of all these theories into a seamless whole, and good progress has been made toward just that. But all we need as grounds for investigation is extant life.

The ID theorists have as much right to suggest intelligent design (without an apparent mechanism) as the evolutionists have to assume (without a mechanism to prove it) a random leap from inanimate matter to animate.

Evolution does NOT propose a mechanism for abiogenesis. That is out of scope for the theory. But MET does propose mechanisms and explanations for the phenomena in its scope. It’s not a theory of everything, in other words, but it’s at least a theory of something. ID is a theory of nothing. It has no mechanisms or explanations to offer in natural terms.

May I remind everyone in this thread that the title of this thread is whether ID is plausible, not whether it has been definitely proven in the same sense that the Big Bang or Evolution have been proven?

It’s a confused title, I think, unless we have a theory to assess. We still do not have a theory. We have irreducible complexity as a challenge to MET from Behe, and we have CSI (maybe we should update that to “FCSI” now?) from Dembski as another challenge to MET. But we have no positive theory for anything in view here to say “implausible” or “plausible”, so far as I can see. I keep asking what this theory is, even in some short summary form, and all I find in response is a conspicuous silence.

Newton and Darwin certainly thought so. So I think anyone who thinks the idea is absurd has to think of Newton and Darwin as absurd. And that’s absurd!

Neither thought so as a matter of science. If you want to quote me chapter and verse on their scientific case for such beliefs, as opposed to their private, subjective conjectures, I stand to be corrected. But as it is, this is again a very transparent use of the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. Neither Newton nor Darwin have the least bit of demonstrated expertise on the existence of God or any metaphysical Designer. Citing their opinions on the matter carries precisely zero weight as a matter of science.

Also, I don’t know who you are thinking says the idea of a Designer is absurd. I sure haven’t said that. I was a Christian for 30+ years, and it wasn’t absurd then, or now. It just isn’t supportable in rationalist terms. The evidence and analysis weigh against it. But that’s not to say it’s an absurd idea. “Absurd” is very hard to qualify in metaphysics, as we have no idea what “normal” or “rational” means in terms of metaphysics. “Absurd” in metaphysics is kind of stolen concept from physics, where it does have meaning ("rocks don’t fall up into the sky when you let go of them! That would be absurd!, etc.).

-TS

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Neither thought so as a matter of science. If you want to quote me chapter and verse on their scientific case for such beliefs, as opposed to their private, subjective conjectures, I stand to be corrected.

I see, so you think their private, subjective conjectures, as you like to call them, have nothing to do with their work as scientists? And I suppose the following quote from Einstein has nothing to do with his work as a scientist?

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

You have complained a good deal in this thread and others about quoting great names in science as authorities. I would quote them, rather than little names like Dawkins, as a thoughtful opinion on whether there is an intelligence at work not only behind the laws of the universe, but the law of life itself.

Obviously Dawkins doesn’t think so. I think Newton, Darwin, and Einstein are healthy antidotes to Dawkins, who seems to be be the head atheist in the scientific community. Why would you object to other voices being heard besides Dawkins’? Is it because you are an atheist yourself?

*“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” *Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death, and usually excised passage from modern editions edited by atheists. So much for objective and fair play in the atheist camp.)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Neither thought so as a matter of science. If you want to quote me chapter and verse on their scientific case for such beliefs, as opposed to their private, subjective conjectures, I stand to be corrected. But as it is, this is again a very transparent use of the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. Neither Newton nor Darwin have the least bit of demonstrated expertise on the existence of God or any metaphysical Designer. Citing their opinions on the matter carries precisely zero weight as a matter of science.

Right. How about carrying some weight as a matter of the philosophy of science? Who are the heavier hitters: Darwin and Einstein or Dawkins and Touchstone?

 

[Touchstone]

Neither thought so as a matter of science. If you want to quote me chapter and verse on their scientific case for such beliefs, as opposed to their private, subjective conjectures, I stand to be corrected. But as it is, this is again a very transparent use of the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. Neither Newton nor Darwin have the least bit of demonstrated expertise on the existence of God or any metaphysical Designer. Citing their opinions on the matter carries precisely zero weight as a matter of science.

Right. How about carrying some weight as a matter of the philosophy of science? Who are the heavier hitters: Darwin and Einstein or Dawkins and Touchstone?

I’ve read just about everything by Darwin I can get my hands on, and his major works multiple times, and I can’t recollect any discussion-in-depth Darwin advances in terms of philosophy of science. He was an ardent practitioner of the method, but was conspicuously silent on the metaphysical underpinnings of science and it’s philosophical/epistemological foundation compared to his prolific output in terms of science itself. Michael Ruse wrote a book I read called Taking Darwin Seriously (it’s probably ten years old now, or more) that takes a look at Darwin’s views on philosophy of science, but that book would be one that supports my comment above, that what’s striking about Darwin is that he said so little about it directly. Darwin appears to have taken man’s instinctive ethical sense and ability to reason as “built-in” motivators toward science, and a kind of self-evident epsitemology. This is the thesis Ruse builds on in that book, anyway. Science is sound as a method and as an epistemology because it is performative, and that’s that, for Darwin. That’s actually very solid philosophy of science, in my view, but it’s not a subject he’s looked to as an authority or expert on. He was a field biologist.

Dawkins has taken on the subject in much more depth, of course. But even so, beyond the performative aspects of science, the results as all the warrant and validation needed to justify the metaphyiscal commitments of science, it’s just philosophy. It’s less gratuitous, perhaps, than theology, but ‘everyone’s an expert, equally’ when matters get reduced to pure philosophy. We can look to analytical knowledge and symbolic calculus and say “that confirms to our tautologies and rules” better or worse. And we can look to science and say “that conforms to our empircal feedback” better or worse. But without these “calibration tools”, accepted as authoritative up front, it’s just so much intuition and conjecture. Yogi Berra’s right up there with Darwin and Dawkins and myself on this matter, apart from the performative aspects of the discipline.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

I see, so you think their private, subjective conjectures, as you like to call them, have nothing to do with their work as scientists? And I suppose the following quote from Einstein has nothing to do with his work as a scientist?

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

I certainly do think Einstein’s opinions are informed by his scientific work. But not only by that, not nearly, and as a matter of science, it’s a moot point, anyway. Einstein is not advancing this idea in scientific terms. Even scientists have a right to their opinions on a personal, subjective level, don’t they? It seems you are reluctant to let scientists speak as humans outside of scientific epistemology, and feel their every word must somehow carry weight *as science. *If you told my Einstein’s favorite color was ‘blue’, I wouldn’t consider that some kind of authoritative recommendation of blue as the “best” color, would you?

You have complained a good deal in this thread and others about quoting great names in science as authorities. I would quote them, rather than little names like Dawkins, as a thoughtful opinion on whether there is an intelligence at work not only behind the laws of the universe, but the law of life itself.

Einstein is certainly an authority on some subjects, as are Dawkins and Darwin. Each of them have demonstrable expertise in some domain or another (or several). But none of them have a whit of authority on the subjects you are invoking them for, it’s blatantly fallacious as a bit of reasoning. It’s fine to say “what you think of this?”, but you might as well give me a Yogi Berra quote to chew on, it’s JUST as authoritative in support of your point.

Obviously Dawkins doesn’t think so. I think Newton, Darwin, and Einstein are healthy antidotes to Dawkins, who seems to be be the head atheist in the scientific community. Why would you object to other voices being heard besides Dawkins’? Is it because you are an atheist yourself?

I recommend a thorough hearing of Darwin and Einstein to all. I’m just pointing out that there are areas where their ideas carry demonstrable weight and authority, as established by the performance of those ideas in science, and there are other areas where they are giving their private, subjective opinions that have no such weight or authority. That goes for Dawkins just as much as it does for Einstein or Darwin. That you think a prootext quote of Darwin is some kind of “antidote” to Dawkins, or vice versa, it what I’m identifying as a problem. I’m all for hearing these guys out, and any other relevant thinkers.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death, and usually excised passage from modern editions edited by atheists. So much for objective and fair play in the atheist camp.)

It’s NOT usually excised in modern editions. I have several copies, and the first edition of course, has no “Creator”, because Darwin didn’t put that word in there until the first edition created a religious furor that prompted him to apply a little political diplomacy in the second edition, which reads as you have quoted. But look here at the Google Books online version of the book, and you can see it’s there as you’ve quoted:

books.google.com/books?id=LDrPI52uFQsC&printsec=frontcover#PPA396,M1

The other printed copies of the book I have have the quote as you have it. In fact I’m not aware of any versions of the printed book which are excised in the way you say; the first edition of Origin did not have that phrase, so if we find a printed first edition, it should not have the “Creator” in there, as it wasn’t put there by Darwin until the second edition. If you have a copy of the sixth edition, or any edition after the second that has that phrase removed, I’d be interested to see the specifics on that – publisher information, etc. Each of the editions had other edits, too, so if we find a copy that is missing “Creator”, we can check other parts of the book to see if the text has been changed in accordance with the changes introduced in the second and subsequent editions. If not, then you are simply looking at a first edition printing of the book, and nothing untoward has happened.

If you go buy a copy at Barnes & Noble, off the shelf, tonight, you are much more likely to find the conclusion with “the Creator” in it, as editions after the first edition are by far more numerous on retail shelves (check the editions for sale on Amazon, for example, if you don’t want to go visit your local book store).

What’s your understanding, by the way, of why Darwin didn’t mention the Creator in the first edition of Origin, and put it into the second edition?

-Touchstone

 

[Charlemagne_II]

What’s your understanding, by the way, of why Darwin didn’t mention the Creator in the first edition of Origin, and put it into the second edition?

You have a significant edge on this point. The point I was making was remembered from a comment by Gerald Schroder in his The Science of God. Have just gone through my science books and can’t find it. Must have loaned it out and didn’t get it back. In any case, Schroder is quite emphatic that the phrase had been suppressed in later editions since Darwin’s death. It’s possible my memory is faulty … unless you have a copy of Schroder’s book and you can find the passage by the index. If I find the book later I’ll try to resurrect my point. You might also look under Dawkins in the index, just out of curiosity.

Einstein is certainly an authority on some subjects, as are Dawkins and Darwin. Each of them have demonstrable expertise in some domain or another (or several). But none of them have a whit of authority on the subjects you are invoking them for, it’s blatantly fallacious as a bit of reasoning.

I did not represent them as authorities on ID, for example, and certainly not as theologians. Darwin admitted his theology was a “complete muddle” and Einstein can hardly be called a theologian in the traditional sense. My reason for quoting them is to present an alternative to Dawkins’ interpretation of what science tells us. You rightly point out that all three have no particular expertise as theologians, but that is precisely why Einstein and Darwin may be fairly used to sweep away the non-sequiturs of Dawkins. Why do you object to a level playing field? Why is Dawkins allowed to say this and that nonsense against God and pretend that the theory of evolution made him say it, but we are not able to cite Einstein and Darwin as antidotes? Do you really think the rules of debate were made to favor atheists only?

Huh?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Are you familiar with Richard Dawkins (1998). “When Religion Steps on Science’s Turf” Free Inquiry

With you atheists it’s always religion attacking science. This is such a hilarious non-sequitur when you hear Dawkins saying how evolution made it intellectually respectable to be an atheist.

And how many of Dawkins’ young readers will delight to hear that atheism has become respectable thanks to Charles Darwin?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

O.K. Found the book. My mistake. The reference in Schroeder’s book is to Stephen J. Gould’s quote from *Origin of the Species. * Gould suppresses Darwin’s original language in two articles he published in Natural History magazine.

The original quote is as cited above.

*“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” *

Gould cites it as follows:

“There is grandeur in this view of life … Whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Gould eliminates the key phrase blackened above, then puts a period after “life,” then upper cases “w” on “Whilst,” thereby obscuring any possibility that Darwin wanted to give credit to a higher power.

It seems that Gould and Dawkins, both influential evolutionists, have had a problem with God.

Those two essays were later published in an anthology of Gould’s writings titled Bully for Brontosaurus, and in both cases the relevant phrase was again left out.

Schroeder’s account is on page 38 of The Science of God. And from pages 104-109 there is an interesting treatment of Dawkins and the statistics of probability.