"What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"

[Diablo]

So let's have a really intelligent scientific discussion about ID. This is it.

Who is the Intelligent Designer? Now, no mentions of the 'G' word please, this is science after all. Silence.

And who designed him (or her, or it, don't want to be sexist here)? And who designed the Intelligent Designer who designed the Intelligent Designer? And who... oh, never mind.

The whole logical argument fails. Utter, utter crap. And I don't usually swear.

[ManMachine]

So let's have a really intelligent scientific discussion about ID. This is it.

Who is the Intelligent Designer? Now, no mentions of the 'G' word please, this is science after all. Silence.

And who designed him (or her, or it, don't want to be sexist here)? And who designed the Intelligent Designer who designed the Intelligent Designer? And who... oh, never mind.

The whole logical argument fails. Utter, utter crap. And I don't usually swear.

Yes, but the infinite regression argument is no defence. Science is just as subject to that particular problem.

Dawkins used this argument in The God Delusion to refute St Thomas Aquinas' 'proofs' of god's existence. Dawkins argued that if he cut a lump of gold in half he could only get as far as the atom because if he cut that in half it ceased to be gold, and that this was proof that the infinite regression did not apply to science, but he got it wrong.

The atoms in Dawkins' gold may no longer be called 'gold' but they are still the atoms that he started with, just fewer of them. The fact that the names may change is purely semantic and arbitrary. All he succeeds in doing in this argument is demonstrating how arbitrary science can be.

What came before the big bang?... and so on.

It's a pointless argument that fails to demonstrate anything other than humans have the concept of infinite regression.

MM

[Brakeman]

The atoms in Dawkins' gold may no longer be called 'gold' but they are still the atoms that he started with, just fewer of them. The fact that the names may change is purely semantic and arbitrary. All he succeeds in doing in this argument is demonstrating how arbitrary science can be.
..
MM

Nope, once you divide it below the atomic level the parts cease to have the properties inherent to gold. You can't call it copper, oxygen, or gold sub-atomic particles at that point because there is no difference between an electron that used to be in a shell of gold or an electron that is used in a shell of helium.

Attack the problem in reverse, start at a state of "non-gold" and see if you can get to gold.

[Gawdzilla]

Yes, but the infinite regression argument is no defence. Science is just as subject to that particular problem.

But science addresses and acknowledges the issue. Religion refuses to deal with it because it's a fatal flaw, a problem with no resolution when you're talking about an ultimate being.

[Bibliofagus]

Who is paying the scientists that have to engage the crazy? Could it be that these people would rather see them... Engage real scientific problems? And what's in it for the scientist himself? He sure as hell will never ever get something worth his while out of it.

[Duke Guilmon]

Next time you here this guy by my example:

You challenge Anderson Silva to a fight but he says no. Does him saying no mean he is afraid to fight you? No it means you are not worth his time fighting.

[Gawdzilla]

Who is paying the scientists that have to engage the crazy? Could it be that these people would rather see them... Engage real scientific problems? And what's in it for the scientist himself? He sure as hell will never ever get something worth his while out of it.

Check out The National Council for Science Education.

[Chas]

I'm a scientist and a Christian. I believe in an ancient universe, extremely old earth and the evolution of life from simple to complex, with man being part of that evolution. I see a dynamic unfolding creation, a creative creation that has evolved, is evolving and will continue to evolve.

But I am perplexed by some of my scientific colleagues who are reluctant to engage with young earth creationism. It does come across as wanting to wrap evolution in cotton wool and to protect it from other perspectives. This, for me, is so against good science which comes of of challenge stronger, if slightly altered. The IDists, in particular ask some good questions about development of complexity (and I am not an IDist). It does look as if some scientists are reluctant to engage with those questions, because answers are frequently not yet known. But to close down discussion and debate, in schools even, is not the type of science that I know and love. An excuse if 'we don't want to give the enemy publicity' is far from the science of Galilieo or William Harvey, who willingly engaged with Ptolomists and Galenists. That closed-off form of science is scientisim, a form of science that seeks to protect itself where it appears weakest because it wants to present itself as a 'know all' philosophy (a science-stopper if there ever was one).

When I see creationists more interested in engaging in debate than fans of science, or even eminent science communicators like Richard Dawkins, then I can't help but feeling that science is coming off second-best. When a school is reluctant to let creationism be discussed then I can't help but feel science looks weak.

Seriously? The debate is over. Creationism is not science and does not belong in a science class.

Scientists are not afraid, they are bored and frustrated to tears with this crap.

Your attitude just contributes to the continued confusion.

---

I don't think ad hom arguments about laziness help the scientific cause much either. I tend to find ad hom argumentation lazy (if not dishonest).

Look up the definition of 'ad hominem'. Hint: that wasn't one.

---

Whateverist. I think the good questions IDers ask are especially around what they call irreducible complexity; how did systems with complex mutual-dependency evolve? I think that's an area where evolutionary science is currently weakest (certainly in being able to produce good evidence rather than to propose possible solutions), though progress is being made on what may have been the precursors to, for example, the DNA/mRNA/tRNA/protein system (taking the most fundamental form of 'irreducible complexity'). Having people outside of science pointing to the weakest bits is, I think, actually useful: antagonists are often better at critical review; which is why Plato always developed his philosophy in a dialectic setting (developing his argument with Socrates arguing against his detractors).

There are also some more tangential, but interesting, questions raised by IDers about the nature of information though I think that philosophy rather than science is the better partner to engage with those questions.

Those questions display a profound ignorance of the mechanisms of evolution. And they have been answered.

---

I see this claim made rather often by Creationists / ID proponents when it is said that neither of those views should be taught as science in schools. The reason they say this is because they believe that their views are banned because "evolutionists" are afraid of honest debate.

But are Creationists / ID proponents really interested in honest debate? From what i can see they are not (just look at the Nye vs Ham debate), creationists in particular engage in so much misrepresentation that one wonders if they actually do so deliberately and not simply due to ignorance of the facts. They also don't really have a scientific outlook but rather presuppose the truth of the bible and try to fit the evidence to their interpretation of it.

ID proponents on the other hands seem to just want to poke holes at evolution and it's mechanisms without providing a scientific solution of their own.

By the looks of it neither of them want to play by the rules of scientific inquiry and research and when asked why they don't publish their papers in respected scientific journals, they claim there is some kind of anti creationist / ID conspiracy going on.

If anything, I think what "evolutionists" are "afraid" of is the subverting and undermining of scientific education that would result by introducing these ideas into the classrooms.

Has a creationist / IDer ever asked you this question when you discuss evolution with them? In their mind what can possibly be the harm in teaching both sides or the so called "controversy"? It is all in the name of honest debate. So why not teach both sides? What are you afraid of "evolutionists"? :p

You do know when it was published the Theory of Evolution was not falsifiable, it was simply accepted by the scientific community at large - in much the same way religion spreads.

While the Theory of Evolution has since been demonstrated to be broadly correct by genetics, we should not forget that it was easy enough to look back when we eventually had proof to justify our earlier 'presuppositions', wasn't it.

MM

Wrong. The theory of evolution has always been falsifiable; Darwin explicitly stated how.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

---

Equilax. I wonder if we're talking across each other. What I am advocating is the engagement between different people. I'm not saying that ID doesn't have weaknesses, far from it. But I don't see that as a barrier to science and scientists engaging in a common market place of public discourse. Part of that can be, and should be, highlighting weaknesses in ID. It's the refusal to enter into the discourse that I was, and am, objecting to.

The discourse has occurred; all of the ID 'objections' have been answered.

ID has been shown to be not science. The debate is over.

[Whateverist]

What I am advocating is the engagement between different people. I'm not saying that ID doesn't have weaknesses, far from it. But I don't see that as a barrier to science and scientists engaging in a common market place of public discourse. Part of that can be, and should be, highlighting weaknesses in ID. It's the refusal to enter into the discourse that I was, and am, objecting to.

I guess that's the point I'm making, is that if you think the ID side has any interest in an honest conversation about science, if you think for even a minute that they'll come to the table of scientific discourse in the spirit of open and investigative study that you're advocating, then you are sorely mistaken. They have a track record of doing exactly the opposite, and that is why scientists refuse to engage with them. Their ideas are almost devoid of content to begin with, and the debate would involve one side being honest while the other wages an aggressive campaign of misinformation.

Then maybe we have to invite ID to that table, wine them, dine them and first engage them in pleasant chit chat. Then, when the mood is right, and after having demonstrated what wonderful and well intentioned folks we are, we unleash Michael on them. We don't go for the jugular pushing for no-god. No, we just show how good science can be redeemed by good theology.

When they counter with a question science can't answer we admit it freely. Perhaps we join them to ponder what evidence one might find which would indicate the manipulation of a deity. In the end though we conclude that whatever (if any) deities there may be, they were careful to leave no trace of their manipulations.

Perhaps this leads to a narrowing of what science religious groups resist having taught in the public schools. If so, the effort would have been worth it.

[Gawdzilla]

Shall we campaign to teach evolutionary theory in Sunday Schools?