About Me
- Name: Nick W.
- Location: Wisconsin, United States
Libertarian observations from within the Ivory Tower by an archivist, librarian and researcher.
Email me at
libertarian_librarian@hotmail.com
Worth a visit or two
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Ornery American
- Iraq the Model
- Dennis the Peasant
- Tim Blair
- James Lileks
- Views from the other side of the aisle
- Views from the XX side of genetics
Archives
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
A university is just a group of buildings gathered around a library. ~Shelby Foote
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Darwin vs. God
So, tell me why, exactly, Evolution and Intelligent Design can't live in harmony with one another? Seriously. The two theories are not mutually incompatible, and neither can be proven or disproven... so maybe they are part and parcel of the complete answer?
Evolution, as the Intelligent Design advocates really, really, really, REALLY want you to remember, is only a theory. It has not graduated to the realm of a Law of nature, though in effect, it is largely treated as such. ID advocates also note that they don't discard evolution entirely-- rather, they believe that it is incomplete, and unable to fully explain the existence and development of life.
Which means, contrary to all the wonderful Scopes' monkey trial analogies were getting these days, this is not a case of having to choose one or the other, nor between science and religion or even between Evolution and Creationism. And, frankly, unlike the situation in that famous case, most of the hyperbole and vicious anti-intellectualism seems to be coming from the evolutionary side of the argument, while the ID advocates are primarily asking the science community to at least consider their position rather than dismissing it out of hand. Still, there are reasoned responses to the ID position, but frankly, all this really says is that ID d/n disprove Evolution/Natural Selection. By the same token, however, this argument does not really provide any reason to think evolution is superior to ID other than that most of its proponents are Christians.
Much of our world can be explained through Darwinian evolutionary processes (ie, natural selection for survival attributes). But there are deficiencies in the theory, and it definitely does struggle to explain some of the tremendous complexities of life we find on this amazing planet of ours. But even if it didn't struggle in those areas, would that make it mutually incompatible with Intelligent Design?
Not really. Intelligent Design Theory argues that there is a lot of evidence that someone, or something, had a plan for how life should develop on Earth. This may, or may not, be the God of the Bible. Most IDT advocates believe it is the God of the Bible, but they admit that this is believe, not fact. So, what if this entity, god, gods, aliens, whatever, set the spark of life in motion billions of years ago, and set in place the necessary parameters for live to develop?
From a scientific view, is that any weaker of an explanation than that life just somehow spontaneously "emerged" and then wound its way down the long eons of history with natural selection as the principle guiding force, to where we are today? From a religious standpoint, is the belief that God started the whole thing way back when, and then, mostly, let his creation shape itself along the parameters intially established any harder to believe than that he made the whole thing *poof* in one go several thousand years ago?
So. Do I want IDT taught in public schools? Interesting question. As with most subjects, it depends. If IDT is taught objectively, and the teacher notes the possible deficiencies and/or religious implications of the thing, I think I'm okay with it. Of course, Evolution should be taught the same way... but I doubt it is, in most cases. If nothing else, I think the debate that IDT theory has sparked is healthy, because Darwin's theory has become rather too entrenched as Law these days-- to the point where many believe in it just because they believe in it.
Which is not to say I disbelieve it. Quite the contrary. I think it is a solid theory, with good evidence to support it-- but I don't think it's implications are nearly as far reaching as many in science and education would have them be. And if the choice were having to teach one or the other theory in public school, I would choose evolution, since I think ID's main usefulness is to explain how natural selection got started in the first place. But I really don't see the vast and horrible ruin of the sciences that will result if the idea of Intelligent Design is released in our public schools. Teachers and students aren't stupid-- let them here the pros and cons of each and make up their own minds.
As to my belief? Well, I find it hard to believe we're here by accident-- and I find the idea that God started the whole thing billions of years ago knowing it would turn out something like what it is today far more compelling than that he just went *pow* and there we all were. I also find it hard to believe that this:
happened entirely by accident. Lordy, Lordy, can I have a Hallelujah?! But I could be wrong. Think I'll go crack me open one of those cold, delicious Fruktime Orange's and think on it some more.
Evolution, as the Intelligent Design advocates really, really, really, REALLY want you to remember, is only a theory. It has not graduated to the realm of a Law of nature, though in effect, it is largely treated as such. ID advocates also note that they don't discard evolution entirely-- rather, they believe that it is incomplete, and unable to fully explain the existence and development of life.
Which means, contrary to all the wonderful Scopes' monkey trial analogies were getting these days, this is not a case of having to choose one or the other, nor between science and religion or even between Evolution and Creationism. And, frankly, unlike the situation in that famous case, most of the hyperbole and vicious anti-intellectualism seems to be coming from the evolutionary side of the argument, while the ID advocates are primarily asking the science community to at least consider their position rather than dismissing it out of hand. Still, there are reasoned responses to the ID position, but frankly, all this really says is that ID d/n disprove Evolution/Natural Selection. By the same token, however, this argument does not really provide any reason to think evolution is superior to ID other than that most of its proponents are Christians.
Much of our world can be explained through Darwinian evolutionary processes (ie, natural selection for survival attributes). But there are deficiencies in the theory, and it definitely does struggle to explain some of the tremendous complexities of life we find on this amazing planet of ours. But even if it didn't struggle in those areas, would that make it mutually incompatible with Intelligent Design?
Not really. Intelligent Design Theory argues that there is a lot of evidence that someone, or something, had a plan for how life should develop on Earth. This may, or may not, be the God of the Bible. Most IDT advocates believe it is the God of the Bible, but they admit that this is believe, not fact. So, what if this entity, god, gods, aliens, whatever, set the spark of life in motion billions of years ago, and set in place the necessary parameters for live to develop?
From a scientific view, is that any weaker of an explanation than that life just somehow spontaneously "emerged" and then wound its way down the long eons of history with natural selection as the principle guiding force, to where we are today? From a religious standpoint, is the belief that God started the whole thing way back when, and then, mostly, let his creation shape itself along the parameters intially established any harder to believe than that he made the whole thing *poof* in one go several thousand years ago?
So. Do I want IDT taught in public schools? Interesting question. As with most subjects, it depends. If IDT is taught objectively, and the teacher notes the possible deficiencies and/or religious implications of the thing, I think I'm okay with it. Of course, Evolution should be taught the same way... but I doubt it is, in most cases. If nothing else, I think the debate that IDT theory has sparked is healthy, because Darwin's theory has become rather too entrenched as Law these days-- to the point where many believe in it just because they believe in it.
Which is not to say I disbelieve it. Quite the contrary. I think it is a solid theory, with good evidence to support it-- but I don't think it's implications are nearly as far reaching as many in science and education would have them be. And if the choice were having to teach one or the other theory in public school, I would choose evolution, since I think ID's main usefulness is to explain how natural selection got started in the first place. But I really don't see the vast and horrible ruin of the sciences that will result if the idea of Intelligent Design is released in our public schools. Teachers and students aren't stupid-- let them here the pros and cons of each and make up their own minds.
As to my belief? Well, I find it hard to believe we're here by accident-- and I find the idea that God started the whole thing billions of years ago knowing it would turn out something like what it is today far more compelling than that he just went *pow* and there we all were. I also find it hard to believe that this:
happened entirely by accident. Lordy, Lordy, can I have a Hallelujah?! But I could be wrong. Think I'll go crack me open one of those cold, delicious Fruktime Orange's and think on it some more.
Comments:
<< Home
Well said. I think you just expressed what I was attempting to say in a much clearer fashion. I reread my post, and I come across as much more supportive of ID than I really am. Mostly, I just don't understand why religious and scientific perspectives of the universe seem to have so much difficulty co-existing.
The only differing perspective I would offer is that it doesn't seem to me that the ID people are attempting to stop Evolution from being taught. Well, not all of them. Many of them clearly do. And I do think the little warnings they put on a few years ago were pretty ludicrous.
Still, I think the debate is good-- because we SHOULD look at all theories and explanations of how and why life works as it does critically and analytically.
The only differing perspective I would offer is that it doesn't seem to me that the ID people are attempting to stop Evolution from being taught. Well, not all of them. Many of them clearly do. And I do think the little warnings they put on a few years ago were pretty ludicrous.
Still, I think the debate is good-- because we SHOULD look at all theories and explanations of how and why life works as it does critically and analytically.
Corby:
You're making numerous unwarranted assumptions about Christians in your piece above.
My particular brand of Christianity (LDS) believes that God created the world using natural principals and laws; i.e., in ways that science can explain, or will be able to explain some day. One example; God formed existing matter into the planets.
Now, isn't that a little more rational than thinking some 'big bang' created matter and energy out of nothing?
You're making numerous unwarranted assumptions about Christians in your piece above.
My particular brand of Christianity (LDS) believes that God created the world using natural principals and laws; i.e., in ways that science can explain, or will be able to explain some day. One example; God formed existing matter into the planets.
Now, isn't that a little more rational than thinking some 'big bang' created matter and energy out of nothing?
I have to agree with Corribus almost completely on this one. And JohnH, as a defense for Corribus, you have to assume that when lists "Christians" in a comment, they mean the religious right. I know it's unfair to actual "thinking Christians", but until the religious right are put in their place (and we don't have to put up with them running the country), I don't feel too bad about the unfairness of the situation.
But to offer a further suggestion on God, I offer the line, "god is whoever you're performing for." (I'd mention the songwriter, but no one reading this would have heard of him. Snark, snark!) If you look at behaviour in 21st century society, I think this statement holds very true. There are people who don't follow any rules, but they also surround themselves with people who approve (and often encourage) this type of behaviour. There are also actual good people who don't even believe in God per se, but they are good because the people they are performing for approve of that behaviour.
Wow, what a bizarre little rant I have gone on here. Sorry about that. Oh well, I did get to quote a Built to Spill song anyway.
But to offer a further suggestion on God, I offer the line, "god is whoever you're performing for." (I'd mention the songwriter, but no one reading this would have heard of him. Snark, snark!) If you look at behaviour in 21st century society, I think this statement holds very true. There are people who don't follow any rules, but they also surround themselves with people who approve (and often encourage) this type of behaviour. There are also actual good people who don't even believe in God per se, but they are good because the people they are performing for approve of that behaviour.
Wow, what a bizarre little rant I have gone on here. Sorry about that. Oh well, I did get to quote a Built to Spill song anyway.
Hi.
Glad to see there's some thoughfulness on the Right side of the aisle on this issue. Now, coul dyou please just talk some sense into the more vocal members of your political affiliation?
The main reason not to teach ID alongside evolution is just this:
IT'S NOT SCIENCE!
Having said that, why does Stumbles assume that nobody here would recognize Built To Spill? Some of us may be old, but we're not dead!
Glad to see there's some thoughfulness on the Right side of the aisle on this issue. Now, coul dyou please just talk some sense into the more vocal members of your political affiliation?
The main reason not to teach ID alongside evolution is just this:
IT'S NOT SCIENCE!
Having said that, why does Stumbles assume that nobody here would recognize Built To Spill? Some of us may be old, but we're not dead!
hey troy ....
i would argue with you about bthe religious right running the country ....but in order to do that i would need you (or any liberal) to ACTUALLY DEFINE "the religious right"....something you and those of your ilk are unable to EVER accomplish
i would argue with you about bthe religious right running the country ....but in order to do that i would need you (or any liberal) to ACTUALLY DEFINE "the religious right"....something you and those of your ilk are unable to EVER accomplish
"i would argue with you about bthe religious right running the country ....but in order to do that i would need you (or any liberal) to ACTUALLY DEFINE "the religious right"....something you and those of your ilk are unable to EVER accomplish"
Also, when you win elections, you get to make decisions, within the framework of the law. That's just how things are set up. This entire "religious right" is a strawman.
As soon as the "athiest left" wins elections then they can make decisions. (And that is also a strawman.)
Post a Comment
Also, when you win elections, you get to make decisions, within the framework of the law. That's just how things are set up. This entire "religious right" is a strawman.
As soon as the "athiest left" wins elections then they can make decisions. (And that is also a strawman.)
<< Home