Those folks at Worldview Weekend have given us a perfect example of why ID advocates are so successful at winning over followers - because so many of those followers are A) ignorant and B) uninterested in what is actually true. As long as some unnamed scientist who says he's defending God says something that counters something said by those big bad atheist scientists, whatever they say is true - even when it's clearly not. Sean McDowell's pathetic attempt to explain away Tiktaalik roseae proves my point. Don't worry, he says, this isn't a threat to either ID or young earth creationism:
For those in favor of the theory of Intelligent Design (ID), even if this was a genuine missing link, it would pose no significant challenge. ID does not question the reality of evolution, but the mechanism by which evolution occurred. William Dembski observed,
"Intelligent design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. In particular, it questions whether purposeless material processes-as opposed to intelligence--can create biological complexity and diversity" ("Updated: Latest Fossil Find 'No Threat' To Theory of Intelligent Design" www.evolutionnews.org).
In other words, their argument is that even if this is an intermediate form showing common descent, that only means that God created it to be one. But of course, many ID advocates deny common descent. Dembski has said many contradictory things on the subject over the years. Behe pretty consistently says he's okay with common descent. Paul Nelson is completely opposed to it. But - and this is an important point - any time evidence is offered that supports common descent, they all jump up in unison to deny it. Something tells me that some of them, at least, are being less than honest about it.
For those who are more of a six-day creationist stripe, the finding poses no threat either. Discovery Institute scientists have observed that Tiktaalik roseae is not an intermediate, but rather, "Is one of a set of lobe-finned fishes that include very curious mosaics--these fishes have advanced fully formed characteristics of several different groups. They are not intermediates in the sense that have half-fish/half-tetrapod characteristics. Rather, they have a combination of tetrapod-like features and fish-like features. Paleontologists refer to such organisms as mosaics rather than intermediates" It is simply not evident that this find is even an evolutionary link. I guess the "missing link" is still missing.
Here McDowell credulously repeats this idiotic argument from the ID without giving it a thought. Any thinking person would recognize that the DI's statement above is simply gibberish. What on earth do they think an intermediate form would look like if you found one? It would have a combination of features from the ancestral group and a combination of features from the descendant group, and it would be found in rocks that date to the time such a transition was believed to have taken place. When those things are present, as they are here, the distinction between a "mosaic" and an "intermediate" is totally meaningless.
McDowell just mindlessly quotes the statement without so much as giving a moment's thought as to whether it makes any sense at all. Why? Because he doesn't care whether it makes sense. A "scientist" has confirmed that his beliefs are secure from the onslaught of brutal reality and that is all that matters to him, and likely all that matters to his readers as well. They prefer comfortable fictions to uncomfortable facts, even when it requires making utterly incoherent statements to soothe their fears about it.
- Log in to post comments
I think a key statement I have heard recently from a good friend, and over the years from others is this; "I refuse to believe." Whether that is followed with "I descended from mokeys" or "my kid is a criminal" or whatever you wish to interject, it is a statement of fact and they will not believe, no matter the mountain of evidence you pile in front of them.
Many evangelicals don't care about the truth, you're right about that. Caring about the truth requires adopting a critical attitude towards one's own beliefs. But, many evangelicals equate doubting God's existence with eternal damnation: to doubt God's existence is to basically invite Satan into your live, according to their perspective.
The concept of intermediate is pretty silly anyways. All species are intermediate. It's not as though some species had no other purpose of existence but to have babies that are slightly different from them and continue on to some next step of evolution. All species are perfectly adapted to their environment. They only change when their environment does first.
Note once again the unconscious acknowledgement that ID is supernatural - why should "intelligence" not be material otherwise?
Like any good pseudoscientific theory, ID explains everything and predicts nothing.
Is that the "mosaics" the IDers talking about? They can't really be this goofy, can they? Maybe I'm just missing something.
P.S., if anybody needs a new computer, then watch Kirk Cameron's Evolution Zone and then after you break your computer you can go and get a new one
Ginger Yellow,
Though of course I cannot speak for all IDists (I doubt anyone could), I don't think the contrast between "material" and "intelligent" is (or needs to be) between natural and supernatural, but between unguided and guided processes. It makes no difference whether the intelligence in question is natural or supernatural, all that matters is whether it has foresight and the ability to manipulate the world according to a plan or intention.
For ID (theoretically, even if not practically), the question is not whether life is supernatural, but whether it depends on foresight (teleology), and whether there is empirical evidence for that claim. Note also that just as humans can and do design automated processes to do their work for them, so ID need not deny that many aspects of life were produced by evolutionary processes that do not require direct control (I think Dennett's idea of evolution as an algorithm would be consistent with this).
Unfortunately, it seems these days most IDists are too concerned with keeping their young earth creationist supporters happy, to bother thinking critically about the theoretical underpinnings of ID. :/
Ed, I'm a Christian and a grad student. I've had lots of talks about evolution with people, and even given a lesson on it in church to a rather large audience that went very well.
I'm mentioning this only because I used to really think that all I needed to do was simply have a calm reasoned discussion with people. While you can indeed help people understand evolution in this way, I've since learned that for many, having an honest conversation is about the last thing they're actually interested in.
It still baffles me.
Ocellated,
I've had the same experience, although sometimes the opposite also surprises me: people (like my grandmother) that I expected would be completely close-minded on the subject prove to be quite interested. Ce la vie...
The more I read of the creationist and IDist treatises, the more I am convinced they are merely politicians. They know their audience and its gullibility. They know their audience rarely has any interest in or knowledge of real science or maths. They know they can manipulate words and obfuscate the "logic" to convince the audience they are right. And like politicians, they don't want the "other side" fouling up their shpiel with pesky things like facts and reason.
We could dig up hundreds of "missing links" and the anti-evolution crowd would still deny evolution is valid, like the GOP insisting DeLay is actually a honest God-fearing man and Iraq is the same as al Qaeda. It's newspeak.
But Ken, why mention "material" at all, then? Intelligence can still be teleological if it is material - and even if you (ie Dembski) refuse to accept human intelligence as material, you could still envisage a designing robot.
Ginger Yellow,
It's helpful to have a concise way of identifying non-intelligent processes without having to say "non-intelligent" all the time. "Material" (in the sense of materials, supplies, etc) works pretty well for that purpose, as does "natural" (in the sense of "un-fooled around with," as that orange juice commercial says). Unfortunately, both terms also carry philosophical connotations that cloud the issue (and since they derive from Philip Johnson, I doubt that's an accident) but I don't know of a better term.
If you can think of one, I'd love to hear it! (I'm serious.)
Why not the normal ones they use - unguided, purposeless, non-teleological - or even Dennettian ones like bottom-up, bootstrapping and so on? There's loads of terms that don't necessarily imply supernaturalism in their opposites - "material" does.
Ginger Yellow,
They are still all negative terms: unguided, purposeless, non-teleological, which makes for choppy writing. Dennett's terms might be better, but they presuppose his distinctly anti-teleological thinking, so they also might be counter productive.
In any case, I agree with you that "material" and "natural" truly are poor terms; "unguided" is probably the best we can do. As long as we are clear about what we mean, however, vocabulary is less important than whether it really is possible to distinguish between teleological and non-teleological processes. I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to formulate rigorous means of doing so (even if we haven't yet done that), but that isn't going to happen unless IDists are willing to forget about politics and focus on science... I'm still waiting for MikeGene's "post-wedge world".
But of course they're negative - they're trying to describe something not driven by intelligence. Why is this a problem for us? It's the IDists who are trying to drive a wedge between "nature" and "intelligence" - hence the implication of supernaturalism I was talking about.