What is called “creationism” is the belief that in six days the Judeo-Christian god created the universe and all the earthly species including humans in finished form much as they exist today. For centuries this view prevailed throughout the western world. Even after evolutionary science had emerged in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the scenario sketched in Genesis remained the only one acceptable for most of Christendom. Not until the early twentieth century did Darwinian science enjoy a fully receptive hearing in the scientific and academic communities of the United States.
But today, rather than riding triumphant, evolutionary science seems to be barely hanging on in the arena of public opinion. A 2007 Gallup poll reported that only 49 percent of the US public accepted evolution and 48 percent did not. Another survey found 42 percent of Americans held strict creationist views. And various school districts throughout the country have experienced furious dust-ups over the teaching of evolution.
Of late there has emerged a more refined offshoot of creationism called intelligent design (ID). It argues that living organisms are so irreducibly complex they could not have evolved haphazardly over the eons from more primitive forms but were precisely created in one fell swoop by a higher intelligence.
In their assault on evolution the creationists and ID protagonists summon an urgent refrain. To quote from a statement by an anti-Darwinian school board in Dover, Pennsylvania: “Darwin’s Theory is [just] a theory. . . . The Theory is not a fact. Gaps exist in the Theory for which there is no evidence. . . . Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. . . . Students are encouraged to keep an open mind.”
Critics of evolution almost have a point. There certainly are “gaps” in an evolutionary theory that is neither fixed nor final. But the same holds true of all scientific theories, be it nutritional science, meteorology, astronomy, biology, geology, or physics. Science frequently produces theories that contain unanswered questions and invite varying interpretations.
Truth be told, there are no fixed and final scientific laws. Many scientists do not even like the term scientific laws, preferring to speak of “scientific theories.” For it is in the nature of science–when practiced at its best–to keep everything accessible to further investigation and conceptualization. Seemingly triumphant scientific breakthroughs can open up additional areas of inquiry that lead to still more unanswered questions.
Be this as it may, an established body of science is not something to be dismissed out of hand just because it harbors unanswered questions. That a scientific theory is incomplete does not give us license to ignore all the evidence it has accumulated. The data provided by paleontology, geology, zoology, entomology, molecular biology, and other fields make a strong case for evolution and have yet to be explained away by the intelligent designers.
Scientists have been devising new ways of charting how life develops from simple to more complex forms, which is the essence of evolutionary theory. By reconstructing ancient genetic materials from long-extinct animals, they have been able to show how evolution created a new and more complicated component of molecular structure from existing parts.
By its very nature, life depends on adaptability. This means that change, complexity, and development are inevitable components of the natural world. Not all organisms reproduce with uniform success. Reproductive capacity arises directly from how well creatures (including human ones) are able to compete for resources, both against other species and against other members of the same species—and against problems presented by the natural elements themselves.
Not only competition but a highly evolved cooperation may advantage various species. Given this infinitude of interactive forces, it would seem improbable for evolution not to be happening.
Indeed evolution continues before our very eyes as demonstrated by the recently discovered ways that viruses and other microbes acquire new traits, adapt to new habitats, and move toward becoming new species in a matter of days. New pathogens such as SARS, HIV, and more virulent tuberculosis bacilli continue to evolve. Unfortunately it is their evolutionary capacity that is likely to make these microbes resistant to antibiotic drugs. Evolutionary theory explains their dramatic adaptability; the Bible does not, nor do the intelligent designers.
There is something else to be said about scientific theory. When intelligent designers insist that evolution is a theory and not a fact, they are juxtaposing theory and fact as two mutually exclusive and competitive concepts. This is a view commonly held by laypersons who know nothing about science, who assume that there are “hard facts” on the one hand, and airy theories facilely spun out of one’s head on the other.
So we are admonished to stop “theorizing,” stop devising abstract speculations that by definition are more fanciful than factual. Sometimes “theory” is even made to stand for something that is presumed by many to be ipso facto false, as in “conspiracy theory.”
In both the natural and social sciences, however, theory is something more than mere speculation. Theory is the generalizable distillation of empirical investigation, the payoff that comes from gathering and connecting a heap of pertinent facts. It takes facts to build a scientific theory but it takes a theory to organize and make sense of the facts.
Theories are valued for their explanatory power. A developed and confirmed theory is what science aims for. It is the gold standard of scientific inquiry. The theory of gravity and the theory of relativity are not lacking in facts just because they are theories. To dismiss something as just a theory and not a factual science does not make sense from a scientific point of view. Theory is not all that “soft” and, for that matter, facts are sometimes not all that “hard” or firmly fixed.
Since scientific theories in all fields contain some unanswered questions, why is evolution singled out by the intelligent designers as the one gap-ridden speculative theory? The answer is glaringly evident: evolution is in direct collision with Genesis. If evolution is true, then the Bible’s description of how God fashioned the world in six days and created humans in their present form seems much the fairy tale. And if Genesis is a fairy tale, then of what validity is the remainder of the divinely dictated tome that serves as the unerring fundament of Judaic-Christian belief?
The response offered by the scientific defenders of evolution is predictable and somewhat incomplete: “We have no way of testing and demonstrating the truth or falsity of non-natural spirit forces that are presumed to be acting in nature.” It would be nice if someday someone would add, “and neither do the intelligent designers.” That is the real problem. Of course, scientists cannot move outside their fundamental paradigm and demonstrate divine causation, but neither can the designing creationists.
This is a crucial point because the burden of proof for intelligent design is on the designers. Where is their field work, their laboratory experiments, their observational reports and accumulated evidence measuring the effects of ID vectors on various natural forces and entities, all the things we would expect from a scientific inquiry interested in “hard facts”?
This is the problem with teaching ID: what would you actually teach? How could you judge the reliability of what you teach? How do we determine what is or isn’t evidentiary if one can postulate a priori an unseen supreme designer lurking behind everything? In the two decades since ID has emerged, it has generated no important experiments or insights into biology, and looks less and less like a science and increasingly like a theological polemic.
Advocates of ID seem untroubled by their own scientific illiteracy. One of them asserts that there is no evidence of a protracted evolution because “all the vertebrate groups, from fish to mammals appear [in the fossil record] at one time.” Not true, George Monbiot responds; the first fish fossils and the first mammal fossils are separated from each other by some 300 million years.
ID proponents make much of the human eye. Given the intricacy and delicate precision that enables it to perform its marvelous function, and “the purposeful arrangement of parts,” the eye could never have developed from hit-and-miss mutation and natural selection, the argument goes. If evolution were true, there would be fossils of particular animals without vision and others with varying degrees of eye development strung out across the ages, but “such fossils do not exist,” the intelligent designers maintain. But such fossils do exist, Monbiot reminds us; the fossil record does indeed stretch across the ages with countless eyes “in all stages of development.”
As for the creationists, it is not that they have questions about particular aspects of evolution, as might we all. Rather they deny that it ever happened. They believe the book of Genesis is literally true. Possessed of the absolute truth as they see it, they are not prone to tolerate alternative perspectives. They are not interested in a pluralism of views. They do not want to supplement evolutionary theory but to replace it. , even as they call for more tolerance in secular schools and increasingly greater exposure for their own “explanation.”
Its proponents insist that ID is not religiously anchored; it requires neither miracles nor a creator. They avoid mention of the six-day jiffy creation and other biblical narratives. But if ID is not supernatural, then how does it act as a first and perfect universalistic template for all this imperfect unfinished world? How can it create the natural world in all its wondrous and presumably irreducible complexity if it is itself merely a component of that complexity? Here is a designer that is the source of all creation’s form and content but which itself cannot be subjected to any kind of scientific study, a designer that supposedly is fixed in nature yet transcends ordinary materiality.
The designers centered at the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank in Seattle, revealed their religiously motivated hand in their now infamous and strikingly candid, in-house document, “The Wedge Strategy,” written in 1999 and leaked to the public some time later. According to “The Wedge Strategy,” the ultimate goal of intelligent design is “nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies” replacing scientific materialism “with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”
The authors of this document blame evolutionary theory and materialistic science for most of the world’s evils. They write, “Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.” In sum, ID is not a field of study; it is a refined fundamentalist preachment in service to a reactionary political agenda.
The creationists and ID designers appear to be championing free speech and diversity of ideas when they urge that students be taught more than just Darwinism. In fact they themselves are not interested in a pluralism of views. They do not favor the teaching of every theory of creation.
There are as many stories of how the world began and how it is held together as there are tribal mythologies and tales. The fundamentalist Jesus worshippers are concerned only about the Genesis narrative, the one they want accorded exclusive standing in the schools.
Thus in 1999, creationists on the Kansas state board of education removed nearly all references to evolution from the curriculum. Such references were restored only after Kansas voters ousted the creationist bloc in 2001. In short, the creationists do not want to supplement evolutionary theory but to replace it, which—as demonstrated in Kansas—is exactly what they do when afforded the opportunity.
Michael Parenti’s lastest books are Contrary Notions: The Michael Parenti Reader (2007), Democracy for the Few, 8thThe Culture Struggle (2006). The above is adapted from his forthcoming book God and His Demons. For further information, visit www.michaelparenti.org
© 2008 Michael Parenti
The problem, so far, with evolution as a theory is that it has been extrapolated to cover over and fill in “gaps” for which no evidence has yet been found for the missing links. It’s wrong to do that. Curriculum should include what is known, and more specifically what is NOT KNOWN.
There is nothing wrong, also, with advancing the argument from facts about the complexities of DNA, for instance, that mere evolution by chance is mathematically unlikely–if that mathematical argument is sound on the mathematics alone.
The problem with “Intelligent Design” as a name for a movement is that this poor word choice immediately begs for a definition of that prior “intelligence”—something that is most certainly not known—except from religious writings (which are not science.)
Tell kids what we know. Be honest enough to tell ‘em what we don’t know. Evolution was over-bragged all along and this is the reason that Religionists have reacted so wildly against it. Didn’t have to be that way, but too many adults, parents, teachers, and textbook writers could not be satisfied saying to children about many things: “No one knows yet.”
As to creationism and other favorite issues the holy warriors of the Christian right lie without shame. They distort the evidence and the position of their opponents. A friend of mine sometimes forwards the e-mails they write, and it’s astonishing how much they get wrong…deliberately.
However, Parenti is unintentionally feeding their propaganda. There is not one Genesis creation story but two. The first extends from Chapter 1, Verse 1 to Chapter 2, Verse 4 and the second from Chapter 2, Verse 5 to Chapter 2, Verse 25. In the first version God creates the world in 6 days–the creation of light and dark, the sky, dry land with vegetation, the sun and moon, creatures of water and sky, creatures of land, and mankind. In the second version God creates Adam and plants the Garden of Eden for him with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then God creates the animals and birds, which Adam names, then God creates Eve–and there our troubles started. As you can see, the order of creation differs from story to story. Fundamentalists who want us to take the Bible literally should read it more carefully. Secrets like this are why I wish everyone would read the Bible, and carefully.
Genesis is a fairy tale, but a damn good one. The moral of the story is that mankind was separated from God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Well who was the serpent that sold us that bill of goods? The church, right? They told us we didn’t need to go deep inside and ask guidance from God, now that we had the church with it’s ready made answers.
I have yet to meet the fundamentalist that “gets” that story. It essentially cautions us about them.
The Wedge Strategy is a plan to create 2 groups of oppositionists to the Theory of Evolution being taught in schools from one. As such, it is living proof that The Right Wing does evolve just like the rest of God’s creatures.
And the world is flat.
There is another large flaw in the ID line:
Did they mean to say that God is at best an incompetent engineer?
Biology is full of odd juryrigs that any intelligent designer could improve on. Our own bodies have several: appendix, wisdom teeth, knees that give out at about 50 - you can probably think of a few yourself.
In fact, Steven Jay Gould wrote an entire book, “The Flamingo’s Smile,” full of such examples, because they demonstrate an important feature of evolution itself: it makes do with the material at hand. The results are often very odd.
Would God do that? Not an intelligent one.
The problem with Parenti’s article is it creates a dichotomy between ID and Creationists vs. Evolutionists. There are many who like myself believe in a divine spirit in creation who do not subscribe to the Genesis stories (right, there are two, not one creation story in Genesis) as literally true. It is easy to dismiss fundamentalist Creationists as crackpots. But how often does Darwinism get seriously questioned? It is full of problems. As the first poster said, parents and teachers should admit what we don’t know–which is a LOT. But Darwinism is presented as it were the Truth (it’s “scientific” after all!), when it is far from proven.
Militantliberal wrote: “Fundamentalists who want us to take the Bible literally should read it more carefully.”
I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that. Not long ago, I heard on BBC radio, one of the UK’s leading geneticists, Prof. Steve Jones, put the two creation stories problem to a creationist. His answer? The two accounts are not contradictory.
Parenti writes:
“There are as many stories of how the world began and how it is held together as there are tribal mythologies and tales. The fundamentalist Jesus worshippers are concerned only about the Genesis narrative, the one they want accorded exclusive standing in the schools.”
This seems to be the fatal flaw in the argument of the religionists, especially when one acknowledges that one could arbitrarily create a list of unbounded length, i.e. infinite, of narratives of how the world began. So, out of the many, or infinite, stories, how is a narrative chosen to be taught?
The scientific method, which has contributed immensely to human civilization, has given us the theory of evolution, and so a strong argument exists to teach that theory. However, no serious argument exists for teaching any of the other infinite possible narratives other than arguments based on faith, and if the separation clause of the First Amendment means anything, it means that faith-based arguments should not be used in the public schools.
Moreover, faith-based disagreements can never be resolved, except through ancient primitive methods, such as enslavement of others and total control over their children, or the other old method favored in the Middle Ages and kept alive in certain geographic areas today, which is extermination of heretics. Neither method is a particularly attractive alternative, particularly in a world full of nuclear weapons.
And, no, science is not faith-based, unless one counts faith in reason as faith, but even the most dense religionist would have to admit that is a stretch as it removes the distinction between faith and reason that is at the heart of so many arguments.
First off I am not being nasty here, but for me it comes down to this. Simple explanations for simple folk and more complex explanations for those who have evolved enought to understand or or at least look at things in a more complex way.
It is kind of like country music, simple music for simple folk.
If we don’t destroy the earth first I believe that within the next hundred years we will be able to construct DNA from raw chemicals. We will be able to duplicate DNA of any animal from scratch chemicals and create life from inert materials. At this point in time its little more than a complex engineering challenge. From there we will begin to experiment with designing completely new species of animals. Will that make us “intelligent designers”? Will that make us “gods”? And if we create human DNA from raw materials will humans born with this synthetic DNA have a “soul”?
To Daniel David: Excellent post. You’ve articulated a subtlety of this issue that most lay people and even some scientists, are not aware of.
Jim McCarthy
Here’s the proof that said “designer” wasn’t all that intelligent:
Humans do not have wings.
And since when are “designers” intelligent? A “designer” basically is the concept guy - you know, the one who draws the pretty pictures of what could be.
If anything, the stupid theory should be labeled “Intelligently Engineered,” even though the lack of wings, the short lifespan, and the ease of which our minds can be warped suggests said IEs showed up to work stoned most of the time.
For some real ID, Ft. Detrick MD.,
“engineering tomorrow’s virus’s today”
Creationism.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis I:1) Let’s suppose this is true. How did he pull it off? I’ll let them teach ID in every school in the country if they can just explain HOW God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis I:3 “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” Sorry but I find this an entirely unsatisfactory explanation. I want ID supporters to explain to me exactly how their Intelligent Designer did it. And they need to provide a little evidence.
When they are forced to answer these questions, they can’t. That rather proves the scientific approach’s intellectual rigor.
Interesting article. Makes me think about some things. And, thank you Daniel David for a helpul addition.
I am an ID guy… which is a very broad category. Be careful not to confuse ID with “Creation Science,” which I see as a bit of a misnomer.
I think one can be (though I am not) an ID guy and an evolutionist. In brief, God fills the gaps. I think that such people would differentiate between a theistic macro-evolution and Darwinism (or atheistic evolution).
The real issue has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, the Bible, or the belief in a higher being. I wish Parenti would have spent more time on it, but he finally gets to it here:
“In sum, ID is not a field of study; it is a refined fundamentalist preachment in service to a reactionary political agenda.”
The Right wing agenda is always about the concentration of power, whether it is economic, political or religious. If you think about it, the Creationist’s goal part of a larger agenda, it is a feudalism for the 21st century where an economic aristocracy unites with a new Church (one Church, one truth) for absolute authority - fascism ordained by God.
Kent
“Will that make us “intelligent designers”? Will that make us “gods”? And if we create human DNA from raw materials will humans born with this synthetic DNA have a “soul”?”
I think putting a active conscience would be the most critical thing in creating humans…seems that is slipping on the current human race.
I refuse to debate evolution with anyone…no one knows for sure…be it theory or religion…
I quote Jane Goodall, the champanzee lady…
“I was brought up to understand Darwin’s theory of evolution. I spent hours and hours in the Natural History Museum in London looking at the descriptions of how different kinds of animals had evolved, looking at the sequence of fossil bones looking gradually more and more and more and more like the modern fossil. And the same applies to the remains of humans. And I think one of the big questions is, people say to me, “But surely, if you believe in evolution, there’s no place for God.” I absolutely don’t agree with that. The more I learn about this absolutely awesome and fantastic and wonderful planet and the universe, the incredible nature of the human mind, the more I feel convinced that there is some kind of great spiritual power. I feel there’s a meaning to our life on earth. And that does not at all conflict with the idea of gradual evolution.”
I think time spent arguing about where we came from, how we came to be here, is wasted time…
We better be worried about where are going and how to solve the problems we have created….
I don’t care if the “Big Bang”, Darwin, or the Bible is correct….I care about the messes we have gotten ourselves into and how we will survive today and tomorrw.
Most of the ‘Intelligent Design’ and Creationists also like to trot out the story of the man and his three slaves to whom he each gives five gold coins to make the slave owner even more money, saying it is ‘proof’ that the Buy-bull approves of rampant capitalism and that the Christian God WANTS people to become excessively wealthy, even if it means owning slaves, or hurting or demeaning others. The ‘ends justify the excessive means’ argument.
And they also trot out the line from the Bible that man is to ‘go forth and multiply, and subdue the earth’.
Yeah.
We see evidence all around us every single day of how well that has worked out. Creationists are among the loudest and most strident Climate Change deniers. If ‘Intelligent Design’ was so intelligent, if I was the designer, I would be looking for a way to wipe out my errant, bio-sphere destroying creation before the truly beautiful things were erased from the planet… maybe a nice drug resistant, 100% fatal to humans disease or such like.
I think it is a mistake to think of ID as some outgrowth of Christian fundamentalism (which it contradicts) or “Right wing agenda” (which it does not support).
>> vinlander: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis I:1) Let’s suppose this is true. How did he pull it off?
Um… could be evolution.
>> oregoncharles: Did they mean to say that God is at best an incompetent engineer? Biology is full of odd juryrigs that any intelligent designer could improve on. Our own bodies have several: appendix, wisdom teeth, knees that give out at about 50 - you can probably think of a few yourself. Would God do that?
Why not? What logical basis would one have for drawing conclusions on how God might create? And, if when we create things we often use “odd juryrigs,” could not God do the same? In fact, I think that these odd juryrigs amount to stunning evidence for an intellegent creator. Could YOU do better?
Now, ID might not legitimately be included in the realm of “science.” But, then evolutionary theory probably isn’t either… more like natural history that informs scientific exploration. ID exists more in the realm of philosophy informing scientific exploration. But, ought not all be taught?
I think all this is so interesting.
I wish discussions of evolution vs. creationism, and even intelligent design, would acknowledge that we’re really talking about different ways of knowing here — knowledge based on empirical observation vs. knowledge based on religious instruction or spiritual intuition.
Scientific knowledge is built on empirical observation, which indeed takes as its ground the assumption that the experience, through humans’ five “material” senses, forms the basis for what we can know. In my opinion, this does not invalidate knowledge gained through non-material senses — but knowledge gained through non-material senses should be treated as a different kind of knowledge, with its own conventions and standards for authority.
The scientific method brings a systematic approach to demonstrating the shared nature of empirical observation — if a hypothesis can be demonstrated to be accurate through repeated experiments, it can be considered a reflection of shared reality — a scientific theory.
Intuitive, non-material knowledge can also be shared — but we cannot scientifically verify the correlation of intuitive knowledge to empirical knowledge. Intuitive knowledge is therefore much more subjective, and should be treated as such.
I think we can form an argument for studying creation stories in public school, as long as we study them as the kind of knowledge they are — narratives that describe reality poetically, or intuitively, or according to the spiritual experiences of some human beings. It is when we treat one story as primary and exclusive that we stifle learning and the continual search for knowledge.
I don’t think that humans have reached a consensus that spiritual realities or experiences do not exist and have no meaning — and it is appropriate to teach our children that fact, too. Opinions differ, we can tell them. The scientific method was never intended to demonstrate the existence of non-material things, and so therefore our approach to them should reflect that difference.
After all, we don’t refuse to teach poetry or fiction because the worlds created by authors don’t really exist, and cannot be scientifically demonstrated to reflect empirical reality. There is more to human beings, and to human education, than empirical reality.
“The problem, so far, with evolution as a theory is that it has been extrapolated to cover over and fill in “gaps” for which no evidence has yet been found for the missing links. It’s wrong to do that. Curriculum should include what is known, and more specifically what is NOT KNOWN.”
The problem, so far, with the standard theory of the elementary particles of matter is that it has been extrapolated to cover over and fill in the gaps by hypothesizing the Higgs bosun for which no evidence has yet been found. It’s wrong to do that. Curriculum should include what is known, and more specifically what is NOT KNOWN.
“If we don’t destroy the earth first I believe that within the next hundred years we will be able to construct DNA from raw chemicals.”
This is now routine, while DNA duplexes containing a few thousand bases can be easily constructed using commercial suppliers. Its easy enough to do in your own basement and fairly cheap.
As someone who follows science and long ago rejected sky fairies and magic men, I love ID. Seriously. I love it. Why?
It’s hard to get ahead in this world. It’s hard to find a good job, and harder still to keep it, with cutbacks and downsizing. ID guarantees that we’ll have an uneducated working class to do all the dangerous and mindless jobs out there. That gives me, someone who uses their brain, a distinct advantage.
Sounds like…
>>mcthfg: That gives me, someone who uses their brain, a distinct advantage.
Hm. Who’s brains are you using? And for what?
I don’t believe in erosion!
I believe in theistic erosion.
TheProf- I have yet to see ANY DNA lab, ANYWHERE say they have created a new lifeform, PLANT OR ANIMAL, from raw elemental material. No new plants or animals that have not previously been found or cataloged. Not even single celled ones.
NO NEW DNA STRANDS HAVE BEEN ‘CREATED’!!
Manipulated? Yes.
Higher animals cloned? Yes. And usually die within a few years of organ failure and rampant cancers.
Dr. David Suzuki, a TRAINED GENETICIST, has called DNA research dangerous. He has firsthand knowledge of the ways DNA can be used, misused and abused. He asserted WITH DOCUMENTATION that Israel was searching for a genetic plague to solve the ‘Palestinian problem’ during the 80’s and early 90’s, but abandoned the research when it showed that that THERE WAS NO GENETIC DIFFERENCE between Israelis and Arabs.
Complexity is antithetical to intelligence, not evidence of it. An intelligent designer simplifies. Evolution can add complexity more easily than it can eliminate things, so we have vestigial organs, like the hip and leg bones of a snake and the human veriform appendix and tail. The ID people have it exactly backwards.
>> Gorsegrower: Complexity is antithetical to intelligence, not evidence of it. An intelligent designer simplifies.
Sorry. That is ridiculous. Would you like to provide an argument for this. Any argument?
How about your computer… is it less complex for all the intellegence poured into it over the past 20 years?
What a load of crap Daniel David. The problem with ID is not the name they chose so you wouldn’t have to be so embrarassed to identify yourself with it, the problem is they/you keep picking fights you can’t win.
“The problem, so far, with evolution as a theory is that it has been extrapolated to cover over and fill in “gaps” for which no evidence has yet been found for the missing links.”
But those damned humans just keep asking questions and poking around and how long to do you hope to protect and shield those “gaps” you talk about?
According to some of you here a future book on evolution will go along scientifically well and then you’ll read: “And this is where God intervened, because it is soooo complex.” That’d be OK as long as the text explained HOW God intervened.
It is true that most sane Christians don’t take their Genesis literally, and I believe that the fundamentalist house of cards fear that Parenti pointed out truly has decimated the ranks of the faithful, beginning from the enlightenment onward. It is a shame that the revolutionary Jesus got co-opted by the skygod worshipers.
“Tell kids what we know. Be honest enough to tell ‘em what we don’t know.”
I have never had a serious science class that did not emphasize most emphatically what we don’t know. Matter of fact, that was usually the point.
The store of Genesis is a store of the past. It is about describing what happened before humans started telling each other stories, it is about looking back. And when you look back, just like when you look into the distance, you see what is close by much larger than what is far away. Your eyes give you a linear concept of what in fact is a logarithmic reality. For instance, what is one kilometre away looks twice as far as what is one hundred meter away, though in reality it is ten times farther off. The same applies for the six days of creation. If you put them on a logarithmic scale and you begin with accepting that the one day in which man was created more probably was something of ten thousand years, then you end up with a pretty realistic history of how the once barren earth came into being. Whether it was God’s doing or divine accident is really of less importance.
Evolution may be “just a theory”, but nowhere does it comment on God, affirmative or negative.
The problem with creationism and its stealth cousin, intelligent design, is
that they both say, “God had to have done things in ways WE would prefer”,
ie. arbitrarily. This is anthropomorphic arrogance.
Let’s, for the sake of argument, assume there is a God(I actually do, though
I would be foolish to try to prove it). Let’s assume that this God is “omnipotent”. In this case, if God decrees, “Let there be light”, or “Let
matter evolve to become life”, I would be wildly arrogant to tell God, “no,
this could not have happened as somebody wrote a book saying it happened another way, and the book will take precedence.” This is bibliolatry.
Humans are here to figure out what is going on, and to make what is going on
as good as possible for as many as possible, not to dispute about how a myth
contradicts reality. There is a habit westerners have: valuing only what is
verifiable. Myths are factually untrue, and this is verifiable, but they are meant to point one at what is ultimately true. This stands in stark opposition to a lie, which is verifiably untrue, but is meant to mislead.
A Gallilean Chassid urged us to be good to one another, not to create Inquisitions in order to discover who takes the wrong attitudes toward this or that book.
The problem:
Both evolutionists and creationists believe what they do as a matter of faith because neither can scientifically prove their suppositions.
The irony:
Science is suppossed to concern itself with verifiable fact and not faith of any sort.
The solution:
Teach science in science class.
Teach evolution is philosophy class.
Teach creationism in comparitive religion class.
Just perhaps there is a Supernatural Being, All- knowing with unlimited intelligence who lives outside the realm of time where thousands of years is as a day and is thus unaffected by time’s constraints as we are. Perhaps this Great Entity has in fact created all matter and life in the universe through an evolutionary manner. Unfortunately due to humanity’s finite existence we have a propensity towards tunnel vision concerning almost everything under the sun where there are unknowns, after all our views are important aren’t they? Moreover by nature we all tend to adhere to polemic views due to our inherently disagreeable natures, we in our finite wisdom would rather argue and bicker over it endlessly because it is in our nature to do that rather than think outside of the box.
TEXT GURU: Stunning wisdom! Love your post!
KENT SHAW: It’s purported the Atlanteans penetrated the genetic codes and combined species never intended to be married together, the result was that the very elementals rebeled and land masses were sunk. Seems about where America is right now… breaking covenants with long-established weather systems, raping the sacred gene banks that belong to Gaia (this added to actual war and desecration of ecological HOLY sights).
JOHNNY MO: I probably see it as you do. Creation IS an ongoing process, it never stopped… that there is a Divinity that shapes our ends, I accept; it does not impose upon the genetic process already underway as LIFE (a projection of the Divine energy) finds its own infinite ways to adapt to this magnificent planet that is home to so many diverse ecosystems… a great many failing due to toxic overload, and for the west, our abject rejection of simplicity and our lack of gratitude for having enough in pursuit of the false quests to more, bigger, faster…
TOM LARSEN: Adept analysis… feudalism indeed, and when a near majority is taught to believe that what’s being done by their authoritarian masters (curently: the torture litmus test, aided and abeted by TV’s dubious “24 hours”) is being done in God’s “name,” woe to the rest of us. I believe in reincarnation and can nearly smell those fires up close and personal, ONCE AGAIN… anyone who doesn’t conform to these uni-forming pro-clone power hungry groups is soon castigated as heretic, dangerous outsider, evil one, danger to the group… to be done away with. Has history not traveled a great many times down this road? How many cultures have worn this torn garment? And still so many cannot see! This is why America set an example (initially) to the world in setting forth a government where church and state, as twain, would never meet. And the slobs who are pro-torture and pro-capital punishment, who stand back as the rich get richer and average decent folks struggle brutally for their daily bread (and hospital bill) PUSH this agenda. “You will know them by their fruits.” Indeed… the ROT has set in deep.
Poet- Love the idea. Now how do we carry it out?
Siouxrose- Wanna join my anarcho-syndicist commune? ( I can’t help it… I’m a smart ass) But seriously, I love your posts. You are a breath of fresh spiritual air in here. KEEP IT UP!
evolution theory is superfulous and good for nothing..it is spewed out only to undermine the Bible and Jesus Christ..it is pure unadulerated propaganada and nothing else and it is sad to see supposedly educated people fall for this trick of the devil..
GALEN: I am very happy to receive your compliment… as a writer, I put a lot of emphasis into names, and I think Shakespeare did, too… how about Mercutio, of “Mercury-style” wit, etc. Galen reminds me of Galahad… and in one of my tarot decks, the page/prince of cups. He’s a take on one of the young, faithful knights in search of the Holy Grail. Many moons ago in Key West I met a woman who had had an affair with a popular local celeb of sorts, only to find out she’d been exposed to AIDS. Also, she was pregnant. She asked me to pull a card for her and I pulled the one I just mentioned, the page of cups. It represents FAITH in love. On a logical level I reasoned with her that AIDS sometimes took over a decade to evidence itself, and that decade would constitute the remainder of her viable child-bearing years. Thus given that and the Tarot card, I recommended she go ahead and have the baby. When HE was born, he looked just like the blond blue eyed Page of cups and to this day is a healthy child. She, too, never succumbed to the disease. Interesting, huh? I have had MANY experiences like this, which is why I stand up to those who live by logic alone and do not recognize that our universe can be best beholden through BOTH hemispheres of the brain, that is Holism… not a refutation of linear science and what it reveals, but a marriage of its revelations to that which remains ensconced in deep, profound, HOLY mystery.
Reading some of these posts, I wonder if they read the article. The point that the scientific concept of “theory” and the usual concept of the word “theory” are very different doesn’t seem to have sunk in. The scientific theory of evolution is based in a very large number of indisputable facts. Among these facts are the common DNA code, the fossil record replete with intermediary forms, common embryological development, homologous body parts, common biochemical pathways among related groups, and many more. For some people to say that it isn’t proven is to say that they don’t want to look at the evidence. Countries have been invaded based on a lot skimpier evidence.
Why not teach the “controversy?” Because there is no controversy. So far no one has been able to come up with any evidence that contradicts evolution. The best they can do is say that they found something that remains to be looked at. Darwin’s theory of how biological change has come about has stood the test of time very well, and new discoveries are constantly adding to the structure.
Every example of Behe’s claim of irreducible complexity has fallen by the wayside when looked at closely. He “misstated” when he claimed that a literature search had shown no explanation for the evolution of flagella and at the next general meeting, a list of over 500 citations was given to him. The clotting cascade has been shown to have evolved from mutations in one family of enzymes. The eye has been shown time and again to have evolved and the proteins that Behe claims are examples of irreducible complexity are shown to be members of protein families that exist in every other cell.
But typical of the nonscientific mindset, he just goes on and on with different examples and as each one is shot down, says, “Oh, well. How about something else?” How many times do you have to show him and the rest of the IDers that his hypothesis is wrong before he gives it up?! Dembski is another example of the same phenomenon. He keeps getting shot down and keeps coming back with the same argument applied to another example.
GALEN: If you establish the commune (wasn’t it in Baja?) I’d probably manage to make a visit. Between the stock market fluxes, global warming, the about-to-escape methane gas problem, the probable blowback from US violent karma… the very PREMISE of safety or security has been dismantled. Talk about a time to live by faith, grace, and doing good acts that one hopes will provide a certain insurance against the aforementioned. But there are always OTHER lifetimes… (she said reluctantly.)
DKM: How about the idea of “reality displacement theory.” I dated a guy (a real charmer, by the way) who bragged that he had a degree in biology. When we went to dinner he waxed lyrical about born again Christian themes. I hesitantly asked him if he went along with Jerry Fallwell, when he informed me he was a graduate of Bob Jones University! He called it “right” of Fallwell. Without any hint of hiding my cynicism, I asked if he was one of those loons that didn’t believe in evolution after having STUDIED biology. For him, faith was an impenetrable wall that precluded LOGIC.
Anyone who visits Grand Canyon is left with shock and awe, and part comes from seeing how animal and plant life, only a mile or so apart (separated by the centuries the Colorado River cut through the canyon, cleaving it into two different ecosystems. They differ due to rainfall sums, and wind, and other variable) so vastly diverges. Every living thing adapts to its environment. Wasn’t it Lamarck whose theories were discouraged/discounted who applied a sort of intelligent design to WHY animals adapted. How was it that a certain animal realized what it might eat to ward off the loss of its prefered diet, etc. I believe ALL life is endowed with intelligence, inasmuch as that which is LIFE works to preserve itself. There’s a genius to it all… a quality that permeates every living molecule. Some call it instinct, mystics call it soul memory. By any name, it is intended to WOW us for LIFE is a gift intended to be shared by diverse orchestra of players.
Siouxrose- Actually, for the commune, how does interior BC, Canada sound? People I know used to scoff at what I was saying. Now they come to me for advice. Usually I say something pithy like “Ask the Amish.”
But is for my daughter, and my lady’s four children that I keep up this struggle.
I guess what I am trying to say is that while I knelt at the altar of Technology and Aggression as a youth, I have since come to despise the shallow gilded promises of that temple as an adult, and now, in the dawning of my Elder years, am becoming an asset to my community. A Sage if you will.
Walk in peace.
For all you godbotherers
Have you not heard of superbugs, drug resistant bacteria and viruses like malaria and TB??? What about insect resistance to pesticides and weeds that thrive no matter how much roundup you spray????
Did god “create” or “design” these bad and harmful things???
Or did they “EVOLVE”?????
“TheProf- I have yet to see ANY DNA lab, ANYWHERE say they have created a new lifeform, PLANT OR ANIMAL, from raw elemental material. No new plants or animals that have not previously been found or cataloged. Not even single celled ones.
NO NEW DNA STRANDS HAVE BEEN ‘CREATED’!!”
Galen, as you say we know of no new lifeforms that have been created. However when a DNA synthesizer is used to produce oligomers that are then assembled into DNA strands of a few thousand bases I contend that this synthetic DNA is created, whether you call it new is simply semantics. I would give a citation but I prefer not to widely distribute this information since, as I said, it is so simple that you can do it in your basement with very little knowledge or training.
POET - “Both evolutionists and creationists believe what they do as a matter of faith because neither can scientifically prove their suppositions.”
You blew it. Scientific investigations have shown time and again that the evolution “supposition” fits the facts that are turned up. A scientist doesn’t believe something because of faith. S/he believes it because something happened to show that it was true, that there is physical evidence for a particular statement of fact. The same cannot be said for creationists. The Discovery Institute, by the way, has had over $1,000,000 a year budgeted for doing science to show that some Designer was responsible for creation. So far they haven’t published anything that comes close to doing that, even in their own journals.
And a response to someone questioning whether screwed up biological engineering reflected a designer or the accidents of evolution, no, an omnipotent designer wouldn’t have made things so haphazardly. If It needed a particular structure, It would have created that structure, not have jury rigged something from an already existing structure. That is much more efficient and functional.
TheProf- Playing with DNA in your basement with little knowledge or training? Creating ’synthetic’ DNA strands with no idea what they will do when released into the wider environment?
The very conception of the thought of that statement scares the living hell out of me.
It should scare, no, TERRIFY every person here on CD as well.
If that is progress, if that Frankenstein genie-in-a-bottle is science, then the collapse of Western technological man can not come soon enough.
If some bumbling idiot with a basement DNA lab can create a CDC Level Four bio-hazard with little or no training, then truly, GOD HELP US ALL!
GALEN: I applaud your becoming and enlightened male… just as many women have come to embrace their inner masculine, to own jobs and a voice in the world; many men are learning to become caring nurturers. On the soul level, we all own both aspects; it’s that the world has only lent HOLY value to one side of “the force” for so long. Yeah. I’d visit B.C. And by the way, that geography, by its name, could reflect a time before Christ, not the enlightened truly gifted one, but the masses who under false direction have turned His teachings on themselves in a mad rush to war and murder.
MIKK: I just finished a children’s book that uses INSECTS to portray the 12 Zodiac signs. The ants, first expression of the 6th ray, Virgo, explain to Cassandra (who comes to learn about “the 12 rays”) that there are certain UNRIDDABLES that are NOT Divine creation based… mosquitoes, the organic distillation of all the unhealed vengeance that gathers in rank quagmire, the flies, that feast on gossip, congregate on shit; and other blood sucking little beings… of course that’s my allegorical reference, but who knows, it may have truth behind it?
What is man? Are we there yet? In a million years will we look back at ‘homomoron’ and laugh at our arrogance that we believed we were finished - man.
There are two stories of creation as has been mentioned. The first, while using the poetic refrain of days to describe the passing of time (Christians who believe that walking on water is a miricle but the development and birth of a child over nine months is not, will disagree with me) describes first the cloud of gases that had no form but which had darkness in its depths. Then there was light. The big bang if I ever heard one. From this point be it the separation of the waters of the heavens from the waters of the Earth - a clear description of Earth’s cooling - or the description of the evolution of plant and animal life that came from the sea, there are no serious deviations from the theory of evolution.
The second story of creation, however, is clearly allegorical - unless you think that two fruit-bearing trees make up a garden. In addition, in the way it completely contradicts the first explanation it is solely concerned not with man the creature but with man’s consciousness. The point is explained where it says, “there was not a man who could till God’s soil” or do God’s will. What is to follow is the spiritual path man must follow to become enlightened. If he eats from the ‘tree of life’ he will continue in a state of bliss. However, if he eats from the tree of good and evil he will fall from grace. And, what is this second tree? It is the tree of the finite, the tree of relativity - good, bad, not so good, pretty good, great, and sod awful, but nowhere is there perfection - there is no infinite consciosness. On eating this fruit, Adam became afraid, guilty, angry, assigned blame, hid and lost the perfect love of God consciousness.
Christians have misunderstood this because they are not in Eden - they do not have infinite consciousness and have assumed that the story of Genesis is about something as mundane as the purely physical. But then many seem to think that artist’s impressions of what Jesus may have looked like found on a mouldy piece of toast is a miricle.
TEXT GURU — very profound and insightful, please do publish more of your thoughts. SIOUXROSE makes it so easy to quickly find the great postings - Thanks !
Welcome to the community
Namaste
NAMASTE: I like to recognize those whose thoughts have moved me or taught me something. Someone accused me of being a moderator for CD as a result! Ha!
I have lived only half a century. I do not understand all of the universe, the billions of galaxies each of billions of stars, all 15 billion years of everything. I do not understand all of Earth’s 5 billion year history.
If you have figured everything out in the pitiful few years of live granted to you by your mortal frame, then I’m happy for you.
I am comfortable with not knowing. I know my place. I find it fun to learn.
Others are not comfortable with not knowing. Creationism and ID are ways to pretend to know. Comforting. Absolute. No questions.
Many people need to have answers. Preferably involving a parental figure that takes care of them, either now or in the hereafter. Amen.
LOCUST: The Divine plan seems to have humor built into it. I believe in Divine order and look for the myriad forms it evidences itself. However, one of the great loves of my life was a very brilliant and cynical attorney. I’d explain my cosmic theories and he’d say, “OR maybe these are just stories we tell ourselves.” An amazing white heron would fly over the convertible we’d be driving in, and I’d say, “Wow! A blessed omen!” and he’s respond, “Or maybe it’s just a white bird flying over the car.” This is a planet of intended diversity, a living mosaic of pieces that sometimes abrade, but like all forces in nature, these interactions can lead to miraculous thing. IF the ground didn’t open into a crevice due to perhaps a quake, mineral water would never get inside to make magical gem stones, light trapped and altering shape and consistency over time… perhaps we are like those stones in some way.
Siouxrose - ALWAYS a pleasure to chat with you.
Divine plan? Or divine opportunity?
Perhaps your goodness attracted the heron. Perhaps its goodness attracted you. I can’t account for the attorney, but perhaps he was incidental to it all.
At a party once, in the late afternoon, people were amazed when they saw a butterfly sitting on my shoulder, warming itself.
I like to repeat this story because it makes me happy.
I hope you have a good weekend.
According to my folks, PBS’s Intelligent Design on Trial on Nova last year won the argument in favor of evolution once and for all. See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
Even the judge, who had not been in favor of the evolutionary argument, ended by deciding it was substantial and credible while the ID and creationist agendas were, at least this time around, flimsy and ad hoc.
Michael, I am a fan of yours and have seen you speak in public several times. We met in 2002 in Palo Alto. But as a physicist, engineer, and Information Technology technical writer I must offer some comments on your article.
1. Darwinism is as much a faith, or “world view,” as Judaism or Christianity. Empirical science is about collecting data and formulating testable hypotheses. I can not prove that e-coli was designed by an intelligent being; Darwin cannot prove that it assembled itself by nothing but the unpredictable motions of Brownian movement.
2. Some faiths, like Christianity or Hinduism, can account for human consciousness: it is believed to be the “child” of eternal Consciousness, the Divine, God. Darwinism avoids the discussion by saying that consciousness is simply an “epiphenomenon” that is not subject to empirical inquiry and therefore is not to be discussed. This view, by the way, is slowly dissolving as more and more “new paradigm” scientists do want to study consciousness. One of them walked on the Moon.
3. Since the topic of Cosmogenesis is not one that pertains to empirical science but more properly belongs to the category of faith, we might be better off leaving it out of the science classroom. Science class should perform experiments that prove or falsify scientific hypotheses. For example in 11th grade Chemistry class we mixed two parts hydrogen with one part oxygen by molecular weight and proved that when combined they formed water. This is science. This is what distinguished western Christendom from the East. I note, however, that the East is catching on.
4. When I studied Molecular Biology at University of California at Santa Cruz in 2002 under a Ph.D. from Genentech I asked him about evolutionary theory. I also sought for its expression in the hefty 800 page textbook. It is essentially nowhere to be found. Why? Because it contributes nothing to the study of molecular biological science. Yes, we DO find that DNA is subject to stochastics science — normal distributions and probability theory. But the same can be said for subatomic physics and election predictions. Gains in none of these fields, however, are attributable to speculations concerning Cosmogenesis. And neither Darwinism or Christianity should be taught in publics schools, except in history class to educate students as to their historicity. I have no problem with a history teacher telling children that a man named Charles Darwin lived and died and believed thus and so. Same for Moses and Jesus and Buddha. But please don’t tell my niece that Cosmogenesis and molecular biology are nothing but expansion of a singularity followed by chance molecular interactions and then tell her this is empirical science, just like hydrogen (2) plus oxygen(1) equals water. It is not the same kind of discipline. Darwinism is just another faith model and should be presented as such. The examples of developing and adapting pathogens that you gave have nothing to do with Cosmogenesis: changing nucleic acid sequences are governed by the same laws of probability as the roulette wheel in Las Vegas.
5. One other comment. Just because 90% of professional scientists say they believe in evolution of life by chance, or global warming, does not make it science. 90% said that Ronald Reagan would make the best president but that was not science either. It was just their opinion and could be controlled by a hidden variable, like the fact that they expected Reagan would dish out more defense contracts for “scientists” to take advantage of. Okay, that was below the belt. But you get my point.
Well that’s all for now. Visit www.sillyConValley.net and post a comment, Michael!
>What is called “creationism” is the belief that in six days the Judeo-Christian god created the universe and all the earthly species including humans in finished form much as they exist today.
No, that’s young-earth creationism.
DKM declares:
POET - “Both evolutionists and creationists believe what they do as a matter of faith because neither can scientifically prove their suppositions.”
You blew it. Scientific investigations have shown time and again that the evolution “supposition” fits the facts that are turned up. A scientist doesn’t believe something because of faith. S/he believes it because something happened to show that it was true, that there is physical evidence for a particular statement of fact.
****************
I understand your point and disagree. Let me illustrate with two examples of evolutionary “faith”.
1. Evolution claims that all life developed from simple to complex. fish became amphibians, snakes became birds, and lower order primates developed into humans for example. Yet there is no evidence within the fossil record of intermediary species that show the transition from one life form to another.
If evoultion were a scientific fact, its proponents would be required to show the existence of intermediary species before claining such connectedness. That they have no such evidence but continue to believe in its existence anyway is based on “faith” and not “fact”.
2. The interconnectedness of all life with each other–otherwise known as ecology argues against any gradual adaptation from one life form to another. Bees and pollen bearing plants cannot continue to exsiast without each other. The same is true with the many host-parisite realtionships wherein each life form depends on the other for its continued survival.
If evoultion were a scientific fact, its proponents would be required to show how the interconnectedness and interdependency of all life could have gradually happened before claiming that such occurred. That they have no such evidence or any such model but continue to believe in its existence anyway is based on “faith” and not “fact”.
I don’t bring up these scientific inconsistencies to chide evolutionists for or to persuade them from their “faith”.
I mention these examples to say that the argument between evoutionists and creationists is a case of the pot calling the kettle black and that the argument does not belong in a science classroom.
JavaRunner–
I agree with much in your comment–I really like Michael Parenti when he focuses his radical analysis on economics, politics, and class struggle.
When he wanders into matters of science and faith he makes the same mistake as the Social Darwinists who used Darwin’s explanation for biological life as a justification for their racist eugenics and the uebermensch doctrine.
Such nonsense led both fascist and communist totalitarians to commit some of the bloodiest and most violent attrocities in recorded history. Such is the vulnerability of being an ideologue trying to stretch an idea to purposes never intended by its originator.
“1. Evolution claims that all life developed from simple to complex. fish became amphibians, snakes became birds, and lower order primates developed into humans for example. Yet there is no evidence within the fossil record of intermediary species that show the transition from one life form to another.”
Sorry, Poet. Archaeopteryx. Definitely a transitional form between a dinosaur (NOT “snake”) and a bird. And we’ve known about it since 1862.
Pull the other leg, it’s got bells on. Or try a little research on your own instead of swallowing somebody else’s codswallop.
Text Guru - I add my voice to others’ praise of your really fine post.
POET - Your post on ’solution’ was great, too. But I can’t agree that both Evolution Theory and Creationism are faith-based to the same degree.
They’re not fundamentally similar ways of Knowing. Nor is this to say they NEED to be similar, but only to say, like Text Guru says above, thatthe underlying proof system differences between them, need to be understood.
Creationism’s [implicit] epistemolgy is totally non-scientific.
Evolution Theory at least does use scientific methods to explain the evidence it examines, and it only goes wrong at its own internal level when some of its spokespersons go beyond empirical proofs — to then start making much broader transcendental claims. Dawkins commits this error in his ‘The God Delusion’ book, ironically insisting that the principle of Natural Selection “…will probably… also eventually…” explain the ORIGIN of the Universe and ITS fundamental Laws of material self- organization.
Most Evolutionists would never make Dawkin’s claim about guaranteeing an explaination of the ORIGIN of matter out of Natural Selection principles, because this presumes to comprehend an provably incomprehensible pre-Creation (material-less) state. It’s only when some few spokesperson do so, that Evolution Theory become momentarily misunderstood to be equal to the faith-based epistemology of Creationism or ID.
When I emailed Dawkins website, once, asking him how he can justify his faith-based extrapolation of the sensible, empirical proof principles of Natural Selection to the completely unknown (and as yet unknowable) Origination of Matter (out of a presumed Nothingness), I was surprised to get a rely. the reply was unsigned, but it went something like this:
Granted, that while the question you ask (about the source of the laws which originated the hydrogen proton, in other words, the self-organizing monopole soup of the infant Universe), can not be answered or modeled by any current level of scientific knowledge, it is admissible to extrapolate from the consistency of physical laws we observe so far in the Universe, which we study at both the micro and macro scales, reveals an unvarying pattern of self-organization that requires no unseen Agent.
There was more to the reply (about mysterious astronomical objects, like Balck Holes, theorized inter-dimensional Wormholes and Whiteholes, ect.), but this was the reasoning gist of the Dawkins website reply. And I was shocked, even as a an agnostic and as a fierce opponent of politically misused religious absolutism, plus as an acceptor of earth-based Evolution Theory, to receive such a groping (pretty evasive, if not stupid) reply about the question of Origin.
Cosmically tendentious leaps by some Evolutionists, like Dawkins’ don’t of course invalidate the Evolution Theory, any more or less than non-empirical claims by doctrinal Religionists validate Creationist theories or their derivative ethical systems.
I hate to sound like Donald Rumsfeld, here, but he was [accidently, generally, formally] correct in his little lecture about epistemology:
There are things we know we know
There are things we only think we know
There are things we know we don’t know
There are things about which we don’t even know we don’t know.
Don of course got the contents of the first two categories disastrously wrong RE the Iraq War.
But less cockey people, trying to decide dizzying metaphysical questions, and how their possible answers ought or might relate to human political organization and policy questions, don’t have to be as cockey as Rumsfeld or the more blatant doctrinal religionists. Normal people can sort out these ways of knowing and put them, categorically in their wholeness place. Wisdoms provided by people like Text Guru, Poet, Siouxrose make it possible. And yes, Danile David, too (whose alternately expressed, non-dogmatic observations were misunderstood, here and wrongly mocked.)
Poet__ I have to disagree somewhat with your position that faith is involved in both evolution and creationism. Most of the evolution theory is based on observation, discovery, and fact, with a slight bit of faith to pull it together.
Creationism, on the other hand is based entirely on faith, as there is absolutely no physical evidence of how the world came into being. It obviously does not make sense that mountains, seas, oceans, etc were put into place in a few of our day`s time, which causes the need for a great amount of faith that what is written is accurate without question.
However, can anyone actually comprehend a far off heaven or hell by seriously thinking about it? That is where faith enters the picture.
The only answer that makes sense to me is that a combination of the two positions could have happened and we will never know as long as we live in our present condition.
When facts and faith or facts and fear are in question, it appears that faith and fear will win the first round. Notice how people reacted to 9-11, when told we must live in constant fear, facts did not matter much.
What a fascinating discussion. For me, it’s fascinating because it so clearly demonstrates the the thing that really needs to be taught and discussed in schools at all levels, is not ID or Darwinism, it’s epistemology: the branch of study concerned with how we know what we know, and upon what grounds this knowledge is based.
Gregory Bateson wrote much about epistemology, and said often that one can have a wrong epistemology and get along quite well for a while. But eventually there comes a point where wrong ideas about the way things work will become painful, they will become lethal. His view - and I tend to follow his thinking on this matter, was that Darwin was wrong in considering the unit of survival as the individual organism, or species, or culture. The real unit of survival is the individual in their environment, the species in their environment, the culture in their environment. His most profound admonition was: the individual/species/culture that destroys its environment destroys itself. Seems fairly indisputable to me.
So in these kinds of discussions about whose beliefs are more legitimate, I tend to think mostly about how the different world views will relate to the environment. It seems to me ID would have nothing to say at all about the environment, and would simply continue to treat it as if it was our “dominion”. Science, as Descartes described centuries ago, is all about “vexing” nature to make her give up her secrets. Not very ecologically oriented if you ask me. And all these molecular biologists, frankly, scare the heck out of me. The best worldviews, if we are concerned about survival, anyway, are ecologically based, like Native American, pagan, and newer deep-ecology worldviews. I don’t think these matters are about proof, they are about appropriate courses of action given that we can never know so many things. They suggest proper ways to behave given we are largely ignorant, and will for the remainder of time continue in our ignorance.
I think Parenti is right in questioning the political and social motivations behind ID, since there are clear signs they have an agenda. They have some legitimate claims about the ignorance of science, but I suspect what they really want is another Dark Ages to consolidate their power, and I seriously doubt this is going to be a good thing for the planet, when there are 6+ billion people and growing. Business as usual will not be possible much longer - we are already running into our epistemological fallacies…
SIOUXROSE.I just finished a children’s book that uses INSECTS to portray the 12 Zodiac signs. The ants, first expression of the 6th ray, Virgo, explain to Cassandra (who comes to learn about “the 12 rays”) that there are certain UNRIDDABLES that are NOT Divine creation based… mosquitoes, the organic distillation of all the unhealed vengeance that gathers in rank quagmire, the flies, that feast on gossip, congregate on shit; and other blood sucking little beings… of course that’s my allegorical reference, but who knows, it may have truth behind it?
WTF Smoke crack much???
Basically it boils down to this.
Do you believe in the scientific method of peer review, theorising, experimentation, reproducible results etc etc etc AND all the great things it has brought about for us or do you feel that the scientific community is a quasireligious bunch of zealots out to deceive society?
You cant have it both ways. Either science works or it doesn’t.
If it is a load of crap then where did get all our knowledge of physics,(which has brought us such joys as flight, electromechanics, engineering), biology (which has brought us medicine, hygiene, agriculture), geology (which brought us minerals, understanding,wealth) and all the other scientifically influenced things we now take for granted?
You cant selectively choose some parts of scientific endeavor and say it is bogus without impugning all widespread scientific knowledge and that is just laughable.
Do you use the internet? — Science!
Been to a doctor/hospital? — Science!
Use electricity? — Science!
Eaten food? — Science!!
It is everywhere and people accept it because it works overwhelmingly better than superstition and the benefits are tangible and obvious for all to see.
Science exists and is well regulated. Frauds are exposed all the time and as it should be. There are plenty of charlatans and snake oil salesmen out there willing to chance putting on a white coat and making a bit of mischief.
It doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority of scientific knowledge is unchallenged and by using the same methods to study evolutionary theory scientists have proven more than enough to stand alongside other widely accepted scientific claims. Anyone who states otherwise is either a blinkered dogmatist or is ignorant of actual scientific discoveries in the field of evolutionary theory. (and from some of the comments here I think quite a few of you need to go bone up on your studies as to what is known and what is not known)
mikk
Interesting article and interesting comments. I was watching Bill Maher on HBO tonight and he had on the screen, Mr. Hawkins, the scientist and atheist. Maher brought up the “talking snake” issue in the allegorical Garden of Eden. I thought the show was pretty good tonight. You can see it throughout the week.
I will say it again. EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY. Darwin provided a theory for how evolution took place. Got it? How it took place. Evolution is as real as gravity. There are many theories to explain gravity, from exchange of particles to deformations of space time, but GRAVITY IS NOT A THEORY. Ms Goodall was a self-made ethologist on the borders of science, not a true scientist. To deny the existance of evolution is the same as suggesting that cars have not changed in 100 years. Do you not clearly see the evolution of cars? It isn’t very complicated now, is it? Now, if you want to have a theory of car evolution be my guest, but don’t pretend that whether or not cars evolved is still to be determined. The argument is RIDICULOUS
When it comes to science Americans are hopeless. What they excel at is sentimentality and religiosity. Americans evolve very slowly.
Kernel notes:
The only answer that makes sense to me is that a combination of the two positions could have happened and we will never know as long as we live in our present condition.
When facts and faith or facts and fear are in question, it appears that faith and fear will win the first round. Notice how people reacted to 9-11, when told we must live in constant fear, facts did not matter much.
******************
The above I believe is a very astute observation. We humans have always used “faith”, “fear”, and “magic” as ways of understanding what we cannot rationally explain.
Jean Piaget, the great Swiss psychologist, in his study of human development from childhood dependency to adult maturity noted as much. He also noted that physical and mental maturity are not synchronis–one can become physically mature and yet remain stuck at some more rudimentary level of mental cognition.
This is not meant to be a put-down of those in such condition–only to note that they are functioning at a different developmental level. Among both evolutionists and creationists there are great numbers of “magicians”, and devout disciples of “faith” as both the emotional tone and dogmatism of some of the above replies indicate.
Regarding 9/11 and the national hysteria, I would like to recommend that you watch the movie “Who Killed John O’Neill?”. It is at:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rCFWcKVeWUE&feature=PlayList&p=640DE08276785505&index=10
It takes about 1 hr and 40 minutes to view. I would enjoy your take on this movie in l;ight of what you have said above.
You can reach me at:
tlmac75@yahoo.com
********************
culicomorpha states:
What a fascinating discussion. For me, it’s fascinating because it so clearly demonstrates the the thing that really needs to be taught and discussed in schools at all levels, is not ID or Darwinism, it’s epistemology: the branch of study concerned with how we know what we know, and upon what grounds this knowledge is based.
************
I quite agree with you on that–see my reply to Kernal above.
****************
I think Parenti is right in questioning the political and social motivations behind ID, since there are clear signs they have an agenda. They have some legitimate claims about the ignorance of science, but I suspect what they really want is another Dark Ages to consolidate their power, and I seriously doubt this is going to be a good thing for the planet, when there are 6+ billion people and growing. Business as usual will not be possible much longer - we are already running into our epistemological fallacies…
*********************
My problem with Parenti’s stretch here is that he is using an explanation for the origins of biological life to explain something quite different. (Creationists do the same thing with their twisting of scripture meant to be an historical-cultural-moral document into a science text book!).
If one detests the fundamentalist religionists agenda (which is remarkably similar between radical Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) it is a fun mataphor.
However, let me remind you that the Communist and Fascist totalitarians of the 20th. Century did the same thing with Darwin’s evolution and Einstein’s relativity theories to validate philosophies of the master race and the new Marxist man to justify violence and murder that have been the equal of radical religiosity. Michael (who is a Marxist but not a totalitarian) treads on thin ice by so criticizing the religious wackos.
coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth. No government program has ever promised this, Daniel David.
Science is the pursuit of the root cause question: Why? And keeps asking it over and over until something is fully understood.
Religeous philosophy is the adult/slave-master telling everyone, it is this way because I said so, now go back to work doing what I say and making me rich. And go fight my battles if I need you too as well. This is the scarey control part of the anthropology of religion.
As for both politics and religion: give me more anarchy in my politics; for I know what’s best for me, and people’s motivations will become much more transparent. (That’s more of a wish to help those in the bottom 50% of their scholastic endeavors see the BS of those who would lead us for what it is.) and I’d prefer a pass on all religious dogma, …except pastafarianism. All others are purely surrogates for superstition in every practicioner’s mind. And don’t they get belligerent when you disagree with them. At least those who would control YOU with their dogma, which is often better for YOU to practice than them, in their minds.
Oh great and wise one, with your noodly appendages, please come and hasten the end of the 5th age of the sun. Harrrrrr.
Ramen.
LOCUST: A short butterfly “story” which serves as the kind of event I term “an omen of agreement.” I was the first one to read a eulogy at my step Mom’s funeral last July. I mentioned the children’s book as I had modeled Libra (my father’s sign) after the butterfly. My father joked that I should name the butterflies “Bernice and Abe” (my parents names); so I did so. At the funeral I told the friends and family members gathered there that I had immortalized my parents as these 2 butterflies.
The congregation then went to the cemetery, and as they lowered my step-Mom’s coffin into her grave, 2 butterflies began to dance above it. I mentioned it to the rabbi. He asked me what insect I’d chosen for his sign, Pisces; and it was the Praying Mantis, the symbol of all religious faiths. That certainly suited him.
There are always SIGNS along the way with those with eyes to see.
MIKK: You do NOT deserve a response.
CULICOMORPHA: Very enlightened posting. Yours is a tantalizingly open mind.
POET: Love your 7:17 post
WHOLENESS: Thank you.
Oh dear, hasn’t anyone here ever heard of the Gnostic Gospels or the Nag Hammadi Library. My dears you must learn to read and the present Bible is soooo boorish. Let’s see, let me make this really simple for the simple ones here. You see human kind cannot grasp the passage of time. It is beyond some to comprehend the passage of hundreds of years let alone thousands of years.
About 2000 years ago, many sacred texts were buried in the ground to keep them safe from being destroyed by the authorities at that time. Copies of those same texts were above ground moving through history. Only the above ground texts were changed repeatedly to fit the political bent of the times.
The original texts are so much more interesting and pertinent that any bible written today. And, the closer you come to the truth the freer you will be. The truth comes from the inside not the outside. The “control” of the truth (or information) should not be put into the hands of a few authoritarian sources. I do not wish to be made blind by those in charge so they may rule over me and my life. Ignorance is not bliss. I prefer to step into the light.
Why do the intelligent design theory supporters invoke just a single designer? Thousands or millions of designers could just as easily be invoked. This would necessitate the need for ever more designers to create them and an infinite string of increasingly more designers, each more complex than the previous ones, would be needed. And which intelligent designer was perverse enough to make banana slugs, animals which chew off each other’s body parts after engaging in sex?
dkm — well said! Many of the problems associated with the whole evolution/creation debate arise out of a simple lack of understanding of what the word ‘theory’ means when used in a scientific context.
Poet– The problem with using your criteria of ‘proof’ to differentiate between science and philosophy is that we would end up having to teach a lot of other science concepts as philosophy, along with evolution. The fact is, evolution is an extremely well-supported scientific theory, as well as one of the most brilliant intellectual concepts ever conceived. The evidence for it is staggering. In fact, we know far more about how evolution works than we do about how gravity works, but I rarely hear anyone wanting to substitute a theory of ‘Intelligent Falling” (to borrow a joke from the Onion).
Vince Lawrence,
I guess I’ll need to respond to you for calling my post a “load of crap”. Contrary to what you imagine, I am not seeking to “identify with” ID but “embarrassed” by its name, nor am I trying to justify any religious version of creation.
I am aware that SOME proponents of pure evolution have purposely offended many God worshippers by insisting that random evolution answers everything–therefore trying to intentionally render others’ faith to the trash heap of ridicule. And they have played fast and loose with willful papering over of the “gaps” in evidence to do so. This is why many people of “spiritual intuition” (an interesting term someone spoke above) have reacted explosively.
IF school teaching is confined to observed evidence and not extrapolated supposition thrown out to belittle the beliefs of others, THERE IS NO FIGHT. I’m not “for” justifying religious texts. I’m “against” Americans fighting over this—and I believe much of the “fighting” has been directly caused by secularists who have blantantly over-bragged “facts” about evolution that have never been observed. They did it to make fun of believers—just as we see in many of the posts above. That’s not nice.
Not knowledge. Not wisdom. Not peace-promoting.
Every scientific theory has questions. Evolution has been supported by evidence from multiple, independent fields like biochemistry, paleontology, anatomy, and embryology. It could easily be falsified if such evidence existed. Intelligent design is simply creationism wearing a more scientific disguise.
Arthritis, head lice, chronic pain: where’s the intelligence in the design?
Daniel,
Speaking to your post, I do believe that while it may not be nice to mock willful stupidity, it is nonetheless necessary. Being polite, given the nature and absurdity of the enemy, is an invitation to extinction.
“This is a crucial point because the burden of proof for intelligent design is on the designers. Where is their field work, their laboratory experiments, their observational reports and accumulated evidence measuring the effects of ID vectors on various natural forces and entities, all the things we would expect from a scientific inquiry interested in “hard facts”?”
There is no burden of proof upon intelligent design. Those who believe in Spirit as opposed to Science only, should be respected. Creation stories are common to all peoples. Is it not the balance that we seek? I would argue that Spirit is the predominant world view and that Science is a sub-set of Spirit. Spirit guides science. When Science attempts to subvert Spirit life is threatened. Science cannot long exist absent Spirit because Spirit is it’s guiding mechanism. Science absent Spirit is death.
The principal problem with atheistic evolutionary theory is a philosophical/logical/epistemological one. It is unfortunate that students are not forced to think about it.
Many theologians and philosophers have presented it. It is the question of the existence of rational thought.
If this universe is the result of a series of cosmic accidents (the word not used in a perjorative way, but simply to mean one event randomly occurring among an assortment of possible events), life itself is the result of a series of accidents. If life is the result of accidents, then human beings are essentially an accidental occurrence. If we are the result of accidents, then our brains are as well. If my brain is the result of an infinite regress of accidental processes then every thought that comes out of my brain is as well… including thoughts of evolutionary theory. Therefore the very idea of atheistic evolution, by its own definition, is the result of randomly occurring events, an accident. Why should I believe that over any other idea?
Lizard said:
“When it comes to science Americans are hopeless. What they excel at is sentimentality and religiosity. Americans evolve very slowly.”
whoa, that’s a very broad and sweeping statement. I’m an American and I do science for a living. I work with many other Americans the same (along with a variety of non-Americans including Canadians, Irish, English, Paraguayans, Brazilians, Argentinians, Nepalese, Venezuelans, Hungarians, Bengalis, and Texans, and that’s just in my own research group). Americans have won over half of all Nobel prizes since WWII. No, Americans do just fine with science. I do agree, though, that science gets very poor treatment from the popular media and entertainment in the US, and I think this contributes to the general lack on interest and knowledge in the general public. It’s so rare to see a movie or read a popular book where science is preferred to mysticism. It’s more common to see the opposite. Even popular stories like Lord of The Rings and Star Wars contain a somewhat anti-scientific message. We need more films like Contact, where science is depicted as a passionate, uplifting, courageous, and fun endeavor.
BTW, you Texans know that I’m kidding, right?
Johnny Mo: I can’t think of a definition of ‘accident’ that would make your argument reasonable. Could you provide that for us? Thanks
Gorse,
I did define it in the post. Read.
Evolution is not a random process. This one of the most common misconceptions about it. In the Darwinian evolutionary scheme, variations occurring due to mutations (which can be random) are selected or not selected based on their fitness relative to their ecological niche. Mutations are random, fitness is not.
And yes, the burden of proof is on the IDers, because they claim what they are doing is science! I have no problem with the ideas of spirit or mysticism (although I don’t believe in either one) just as long as it’s understood that they belong in a different realm of knowledge that does science.
Daniel David I think you are distorting historical fact. Most humans who have devoted themselves to scientific inquiry never set out to disprove religious teachings, and this included Darwin. It takes all kinds, and the militant atheists do as much damage to scientific inquiry as do the young-earthers. The battles going on in the U.S. today (over evolution)have all been instigated by religionists and not the scientific community. To expect the scientific community to not respond is ludicrous.
I’m not a militant ahteist. As much as I would like to come to this forum every time an article like this appears and shout THERE IS NO GOD, I can not, because I simply don’t know. There is no difinative proof either way for the existance of a supreme being. If someone held a gun to my head and told me that they would not pull the trigger so long as I got off the fence of my determined agnosticism and took a side, I’d have to say “no, I do not believe.” The fact would remain that I said that only to keep from having my brains blown out.
I agree with the posters that have said that all of this should be presented in our public schools. Evolution in science classes, creationism in comparative philosophy classes along with atheism, and every other “ism” that has moved humanity to action over the millenia.
This planet is approximately 4.6 billion years old, and it is very difficult for the human mind to wrap itself around such an immense span of time. There are indeed large discontinuities in the rock record - sediment beds in direct physical contact but separated in time (as discovered through radiometric dating) by millions of years. What was removed by wind and water over millions of years is indeed lost to us, and constitutes a defacto “gap” and we may never know what fossil remains might have been contained there.
Not an atheist and not a scientist either, but when science proves that we (humans) share much of our DNA with every other living organism on this planet that tells me something. As does the immense march of time (proven fact) necessary to allow the diversification to complex species from simple organisms. Is this an act of faith? Possibly, but if the choice is between a literal interpretaion of cobbled together ancient mythology and a method of inquiry that has a darn good record of weeding out errors and misconceptions, I’ll choose the latter every time.
Imagine if, when Newton worked out the simple inverse square relationship that explained the motions of the planets, because he could not say what the essence of gravity was, he instead threw all of his work into the fires of his alchemical pursuits.
I agree that we should not be fighting over this in our schools, but the fight is being instigated by religionists, and not science. The fact is that religionists should thank science for removing true faith from insupportable literal interpretations of primative creation myths. That is what I meant by picking fights they can’t possibly win.
dgoodin,
I understand evolutionary thought quite well, and I disagree with you. It is, on the whole a random process. When it comes to evolutionary biology, though not all mutations are entirely random, the critical ones (that lead to new species) must be.
Is something not a random process if part of it is not random? I don’t know that you can say that. But it is quite beside the point. If your own thought is the result of random events, you cannot claim that your thoughts are any more reliable than anyone else’s thoughts resulting from random events.
If you wish to resort to natural selection as the measure of reliability, then we will just have to wait to see who lasts longer… people thinking your thoughts or people thinking mine. At this point, no clear judgment can be made… according to natural selection.
JohnnyMo,
Let’s consider an example: suppose you had a mechanism that would randomly crop an object with a specific shape (sphere, square, triangle, etc.) into a sink. Further suppose that this sink had a hole in the bottom of it that was exactly circular in shape. You could randomly drop any shape object into the sink, but only the spherical objects would pass through the hole. This would be an example of a process that contains a random element, but not a random outcome, because only spheres are ’selected’ by the hole in the sink. Of course, in evolution, the system is not static. The shape of the hole might change, or some other variation might be introduced. However, I hope you see my point.
Regarding the comment about critical mutations “must” be random. I’m not sure what you mean. New species arise as modifications of old ones, and frankly the exact process is not entirely understood.
And as far as I know, I’m the only one that thinks my thoughts. However, if there is someone out there with my thoughts, all I can say is I apologize, and please let me explain a few thin