Notes From the Apocalypse

18 Comments

Invid • Oct 13, 2009 @2:02 pm

"Dream" is a great description of wanting Republicans to be fiscally conservative, interested in small government, respecting of civil liberties etc.

Intelligent Design won't be any worse than all of the other garbage kids learn at school….
gbasden • Oct 13, 2009 @3:44 pm

Really? Actually, I'd say that Intelligent Design would be far worse than most everything my son learns at school.
John Kindley • Oct 13, 2009 @5:14 pm

Allow me, being by nature contrarian and lazy, to say what I said in a comment to an Althouse post back in 2007:

"When One Hundred Authors Against Einstein, a collection of essays by 100 physicists attempting to discredit relativity theory, was published in 1930, Einstein reputedly responded to a reporter's query about the book with the remark: 'Were my theory wrong, it would have taken but one person to show it.'

This is why I'm not automatically convinced by claims that a purported 'consensus' exists on some scientific question to accept that purported consensus. Some day I hope to have the opportunity to really dig into the debate between the Darwinists on one hand and the critics of evolution / the Intelligent Design movement on the other. But not yet having had that opportunity I reserve judgment. That doesn't seem to stop many liberal partisans (all of whom can't have truly engaged with the scientific debate), whose knee-jerk reaction to any critique or skepticism re: evolutionary theory is to accuse such skeptics of being fundamentalist neanderthals. (Notwithstanding the fact that natural intuition and common sense is arguably on the side of design rather than evolution, and that believing in evolution without actually engaging with the science is therefore itself a leap of faith, a blind trust in the 'scientific community.')"

Granted, since 2007 I still haven't dug into the debate between Darwinism and the Intelligent Design critique for myself, as I keep telling myself I'll get around to doing. But how many people have?
Sparkylong • Oct 13, 2009 @8:51 pm

In attempting to explain to my 5th & 7th grade daughters the origins of life–as currently taught by their school science teachers–I was stumped when I tried to answer their persistent questions about THE origin of the FIRST life. As a physician, myself, I have been taught all of the usual as well as advanced biological models of evolution. However, my own tidy Presbyterian interpretation of Christianity aside, I have always found that regardless of the model–ID v. Evolution v. Whatever Else–that irksome, unfathomable, brain-warping questions end up being in & of themselves, utterly vexatious. To wit, this business of "Yeah, but Dad, our teachers can't tell us what was the first, first, first thing that was alive."

And so I explained it pretty much as a variation of what I learned, myself, in school. There was this primeval world, see. And there was this, mmm, organic soup. No, wait–uh, let's see: first we have to determine how the inorganic begat the organic soup. Well, in any case, there was this fluid made up of a bunch of atoms, and then lightning struck it, and the atoms all combined together. So the thing that created life was a bolt of lightning."

At this point the 7th grader wants to know what motivated the "suddenly-living" goo to REPLICATE ITSELF, PERFECTLY. Before I know what's happening, she is describing a Double Helix & stuff, and wants to know why this particular model–of all of the theoretical possibilities–is the "one that works."

Fortunately the 2nd grader then chimes in wanting to know more about the Garden of Eden, and so we talk about modern day Iraq & what it must have looked like a long, LONG time ago.

There are no simple answers here, folks. For anyone to froth at the mouth with incorruptible certainty about the origins of Life (or of the universe pre-Big Bang), is unseemly & actually comical, when one thinks about it. Also kind of stupid. Even to this Western-Medical-Minded doctor.

'Cheers.
Grandy • Oct 14, 2009 @6:39 am

John Kindley, yes you should probably look into the arguments. You aren't keeping an open mind despite your claim; you're just remaining willfully ignorant.

And I say this as someone who is not even close to liberal, who thinks that there is nothing preventing people from having faith in a higher power yet also "believing"/accepting in all that pesky science behind evolution (scare quotes for believing because it's not faith in the religious sense; that' argument has always been a straw man).
Patrick • Oct 14, 2009 @7:18 am

John, there is plenty of evidence for evolution. There is none to indicate it's guided by an intelligent designer, and some to indicate that it isn't (an intelligent designer wouldn't have given us the appendix, or genes inclining some to cancer or schizophrenia). Therefore, Occam's Razor tells us that the notion of an intelligent designer is equivalent to magic.

There's nothing wrong with magic, but it's best left to fantasy literature than a discussion of what actually is.
John Kindley • Oct 14, 2009 @8:14 am

To Patrick and Grandy: I don't really buy the distinction between religious faith or belief and other kinds of faith and belief. I understand that many people, including many religious people, define faith in a way that accords with this distinction, but I don't think such a definition is coherent or rational. The assertion that there is no evidence of design in the universe flies in the face of centuries of the "argument from design" by people who've perceived things differently, and frankly flies in the face of my own perception and common sense. Where there is a watch, we can presume there is a watchmaker. While you might define such reasoning a priori out of the purview of science, that doesn't make such reasoning "magical." Granted, science may demonstrate that things aren't as they first appear, but as I suggested in my previous comment, I think it's a mistake to put too much faith in what a majority of scientists tell us, if we haven't ourselves tracked to their roots the basis of their conclusions. I've had the privilege of cross-examining certain expert witnesses on the stand who were upholding the "consensus" view on a particular scientific issue, and catching them in blatant contradictions and misrepresentations about the evidence underlying their opinion.

Why does schizophrenia exist in a world created by an Intelligent Designer? This is the classic "problem of evil," which I would agree is the greatest obstacle on a rational level to belief in an Intelligent and benevolent Creator. But the problem is nothing new.

I'm not completely ignorant of the arguments for and against Intelligent Design, and the evidence offered for and against the version of Darwinism that contradicts Intelligent Design. I just haven't had the opportunity to dig into it to the level that allowed me to competently cross-examine scientific experts on the forementioned issue, which involved digging into the studies themselves and not just what scientists said about the studies.

I do know, however, that there are reputable scientists on the Intelligent Design side of the argument. The mere fact that they are in the minority doesn't make them disreputable. Until I'm able to dig into the evidence to the extent I dug into the evidence for the aforementioned trial, allowing me to assert with genuine conviction a position contrary to common wisdom, my default position will naturally and rationally be based not on counting scientific heads but on my own common sense and perception of the universe. Maybe you two have in fact already done your own independent investigations to the level that would allow me, if I were to do like likewise, to assert my own convictions on the issue with confidence. But my limited familiarity with the debate suggests that an awful lot has hinged on how "science" is defined (somewhat arbitrarily) and on materialistic presuppositions that basically foreclose Intelligent Design from the get go.
Charles • Oct 14, 2009 @8:35 am

John, every single example of a "designed" element can be traced to simpler evolutionary forebears. Every time ID presents a new example, it takes very little time for science to fill in the gaps in that understanding. Eyes used to be photoreceptive cells, for example. ID isn't an argument, it is a thesis in search of evidence.

A watch only implies a watchmaker to a person who already has a reason to believe in watchmakers. A double-helix implies nothing; evidence implies that it evolved from something else.
Sparkylong • Oct 14, 2009 @9:13 am

Photoreceptive cells exist in a number of different organisms. Plants, for example. However, there are certain things being held as 'a priori,' here that need to be looked at in a stark, cold manner in as much of a vacuum as humans are capable of creating. This is more difficult than one thinks, but scientists come reasonably close, sometimes. Newtonian physics, by and large, rule physical laws, inasmuch as there are some tidy things in place. Atmosphere, for example. But Newtonian physics tend to, well, not exactly fall apart in the absence of atmosphere, but to bend–a little or a lot. All of this is very well, but does not answer more primitive questions, such as why physical laws beget the stuff of life. One must ask specifically 'why' a double helix? It's an extraordinary little key within every living cell, that perfectly predicts nose shape, blossom color & other goofy stuff, but simply knowing about the double helix doesn't provide the fundamental answer of why it–of all possible shapes, etc.–came to be the best manner for matter to replicate in kind. Our galaxy, for example, has much more in common with the surface of the sun than it does with the complexities of serotonin release & reuptake in our brains (variations which produce a variety of evils, such as ADD, Major Depression, etc.). If a planet that is identical in every way to our own exists, is there a double helix in the works if the planet simply hangs out long enough? Or is there a quadratic helix, or are the amino acids (from the Primordial Soup) going to decide(!) to form the building block of life in the form of Fuller's geodesic dome? Can't they do what they want? If the particular bolt of lightning–okay, lots of them, had never struck the sweet spot in the Soup, would life exist? This is akin to the tree falling in the forest expression. In other words, are there concepts utterly unlike 'life' as we know it that could exist, but the conditions aren't right? Do they exist in theory? Did life, itself–arising from inorganic matter–'exist,' but have to hang out simply awaiting the perfect sequence of physical laws?One must ask why the commonality of, say, limbs, exist among major life forms on our planet. Where was the 'want' for limbs to evolve? Are limbs predestined to exist on that planet double that most surely exists within the known universe's cluster of galaxies? Are limbs the inevitable result of physical laws, the same ones that determine the frequency of sun spots, for example?

This isn't meant to sound nearly as existential as it appears. Simply I am encouraging the need to look at much, much more basic questions, as opposed explaining what already exists in our known world. If I were being truly existential, I would proffer something closer to, say, What is the evolutionary purpose & gain of The Mona Lisa? Or Michaelangelo's David?
Charles • Oct 14, 2009 @9:52 am

Interesting thought experiments all, Sparkylong, but not a single one of them becomes more interesting if you short circuit all of the questions by saying "Looks like a dude did that," and that's all Intelligent Design is.
Sparkylong • Oct 14, 2009 @10:00 am

Charles,

The politeness of your response is appreciated. No, it really is. Then again, all of the comments above are written respectfully, even when the occasional, impassioned statement leaks out (the Human Condition, and all that). Within the teeming vitriol of the Internet, courteous disagreement within the Cloud is a rare pleasure.

Kindly flesh-out your comment, further, as I am quite interested in your viewpoint and how you came to this arrival. No Poe's law, here–I truly would enjoy following your thought pattern & approach, as on all accounts, it is quite sound.
Chris • Oct 14, 2009 @10:02 am

You need roughly one of the following to be able to dismantle the ID claims: a college-level biology class, a single popular book on the controvery, any class on the history/philosophy of science, a basic introduction to information theory, or the ruling for the Dover case .

This really isn't something that requires massively detailed investigation or specialized knowledge in a specific field to sort out.
Sparkylong • Oct 14, 2009 @10:17 am

Yes, but isn't it all ultimately philosophical? Science is beautifully exploitable & wildly beneficial. I use it nearly every moment in my ER practice. However, science, itself, cannot substitute for core philosophies, unless one presumes science, itself, has defined the origin of matter prior to the Big Bang. And the origin of the origin, etc. It can't prove or disprove answers to eternal questions anymore than can any other worldview. It is here wherein lay the fundamental question. Apart from that, science sparkles in a million ways & is to be fully embraced & learned, and certainly not feared.
Vedrfolnir • Oct 14, 2009 @2:32 pm

Sparkylong, I have a very simple answer to your first post, your daughters' question? There is no "first." Hard to wrap your head around, isn't it? How can we really say what is alive and what isn't? When does it go from a bubble of lipids with amino acids inside to a living organism? We all react to our surroundings, that's somewhat the definition of life, but that bubble of organic molecules reacts as well, not efficiently, but it does.
And as for the rest of your posts, you must remember the very core of evolutionary theory, natural selection. What works is kept, what doesn't is slowly fazed out. Small changes compounded over time create complexity. The double helix is so pervasive because it works. Yes something else might have cropped up, but the double helix came first and took over. It does it's job well, which is to protect a quaternary code from deviation while leaving it open and accessible to reading and duplication. And as for your limbs question, you're making the same fallacy that so many do, you are assuming that the need to walk came first; it didn't, the limbs came first. A beneficial mutation was evolved and kept, and eventually it mutated to the point that a swamp fish that needed the legs to move through muddy water and past thick roots gained enough strength to pull its body from the water to better living conditions.
The main point I'm trying to make here is that there IS no "purpose." You are the lucky happenstance of a billion different probabilities in an avalanche of chance. In the shivering of an atom you might never have existed. Enjoy your life, cherish it, because it was very possible that it might never have occurred. There's your philosophy.
Chris • Oct 14, 2009 @2:53 pm

Evolution vs/ Intelligent design has nothing to do with cosmology and the origin of everything. It's a moderately interesting question, but it's no more relevant than "Why do bad things happen to good people?" when it comes to deciding what to teach in biology classes.
John Kindley • Oct 14, 2009 @3:27 pm

Chris,

I don't know . . . if Intelligent Design is as easily debunkable as you say it is, seems it might be highly educational to teach it and why it's wrong in biology classes.
Sparkylong • Oct 14, 2009 @3:52 pm

Vedrfolnir, I do appreciate the time & thought that went into your response. There was some heft to it, that fleshed-out your thinking, as opposed to being dismissive-out-of-hand. The latter is a squelch to those who are prepared to listen respectfully, & are hoping that respect is offered, in return. As for Natural Selection, yes, I am aware of the process, e.g., Finch beaks & so on, but there remain the vexing questions of interspeciated forms that have not yet rung true in fossilized specimens of any era. As for limbs, I was using this example more at hyperbole, even camp, but with the point hopefully coming across. In general, I am unaccustomed to joining masses in fallacies of any kind (it would have been difficult to get in–let alone stay–in med school, were that the case). It is within the realm of possibility to hold onto a worldview of ID & still deliver razor-edge medical care. To do so does not automatically qualify someone as being dim. As for your main point, i.e., that there is no "purpose," I find this fascinating. Yet how does one construct truly enlightened goals, if this is the ultimate reality? As Natural Selection appears to have given us sentience, should we reciprocate the favor & terminate persons who are perceived to be of little to no value in society? Clearly, this is not the realm in which you live, but I imagine that juggling the many shades of moral gray could be difficult, at times.
Marie • Oct 15, 2009 @9:45 am

Why is the question of "how did life begin?" such a stumper that evolution (which is about how living organisms change, NOT about how life formed) can't be true, but the question of "Who made God?" or "What existed before God?" is not an issue at all?

Why is Science the only subject where we are supposed to "teach the controversy" to kids? Why aren't we teaching Sharia Law in Civics classes, Holocaust denial theories in History, driving on the left side of the road in Driver's Ed? Should we balance the "round" theory of the earth with the historical and Biblical "flat" alternative when teaching Geography?

And John, if we should spend time in Science teaching ID just to disprove it, I'm sure you also think we should spend time introducing and then disproving the belief that Thunder is made when Thor throws his hammer, and discussing whether the world is really be made of turtles, all the way down?