Doggedly searching for the crux of the biscuit.
For Intelligent Design advocates. Why do you insist that your God is incapable of creating a world that could become this incredibly complex by way of natural selection?
Just wonderin’...
TrackBackA student once asked Augustine what God did before the first day of the creation. Augustine's response was that He created hell for people who ask questions like that.
One answer to your questions is that most of these people don't understand what natural selection is. Note just how often they express deep misunderstandings--"Life couldn't be the result of chance"--as if the theory were that they universe delt us a royal flush. So, given their misunderstanding of the theory of evolution, they can claim that this is a mathematical impossibility or incredible improbability. The view that God is constrained by laws of logic is venerable and not incoherent, though it does require some treatment of an issue of omnipotence.
Possibility is beside the point anyway. They can say that God could have done it by natural selection, but point to evidence that He didn't, and then argue that Inteligent Design should be taught alongside evolution in schools.
And the real problem is that most creationist are vicious people who actually think that the only real reason to be good is a system of rewards and punishments. They (I think rightly) believe that evolution undercuts reasons for believing their religion, which undercuts a reason for believing in a system of rewards and punishments for moral and immoral behavior. So, they actually think that people will be awful if they don't believe in God. And so the real issue is about morality and reasons for being moral. That's why you hear stupid shit like "If I'm decended from apes, why shouldn't I act like one?" (The answer to that is: "You do, you jingoistic, war-mongering, homophobe.")
Posted by: lenhart at August 7, 2005 12:49 PMI would be happy if Intelligent Design advocates could just explain why men have nipples.
Posted by: Ramar at August 7, 2005 12:57 PMOr why the ostrich still has wings.
Or why blind fish on the bottom of the ocean still have (non-functioning) eyeballs.
Posted by: Uncle Mike at August 7, 2005 02:00 PMAs a theist and scientist, I do not believe in a strict interpretation of "intelligent design" or pure natural selection. Clearly neither provide all answers because as your average daily menu attests, unnatural selection rules the ecology, now. I have this unshakable notion, that something potentially greater than our own understanding, set a process in motion with such complexity and elegance that the system continues unabated. Tantalizing clues of underlying simplicity and unexplained complexity mock our attempts to explain the purpose and origins of life. It seems to me to be imbued with humor and intent. So, ask why something has an anomaly without derision and just go find out yourself.
As for the nipples thing: they are an erogenous zone in many men!
Posted by: Ru at August 7, 2005 03:00 PMI am a creationist who is completely at peace with the notion of Natural Selection as the mechanism for Creation (along with "big bang", "abiogenesis", and any other scientific theory out there). Just because we have learned enough to put a name to the mechanism does not disprove the hand of God in the process.
And the real problem is that most creationist are vicious people who actually think that the only real reason to be good is a system of rewards and punishments. They (I think rightly) believe that evolution undercuts reasons for believing their religion, which undercuts a reason for believing in a system of rewards and punishments for moral and immoral behavior.
This statement is almost complete. You must qualify this type of creationist by saying:
...most creationists who bristle at the notion that science can co-exist with theology are vicious people...
But only a minority of creationists fit this mold.
Posted by: VARepublicMan at August 7, 2005 03:54 PMApostropher,
Why do you ask questions that you already know the answer to...
I assume you are addressing fundamentalist advocates of Intelligent Design with your question: “Why do you insist that your God is incapable of creating a world that could become this incredibly complex by way of natural selection?”
Their answer will always, simply be that natural selection is not found in the scriptures.
I’m gonna go back to playing with my nipples now : )
: 0
Apostropher, Why do you ask
I didn't write this post. All hail the return of Froz!
Posted by: apostropher at August 7, 2005 06:41 PMThe post was by Froz Gobo, not The Apostropher.
And I don't think men having nipples has anything to do with evolution. It's just that sex is set late in the pregnancy. Men and women have pretty much the same parts (the clitoris is the head of the penis, the balls are the ovaries, the g-spot is the prostate, etc.) it's just later on it's determined where everything's going to go and how things are going to develop.
And fundies are not really know for letting logical contradicitons get in their way. They just don't want to admit that a part of the scriptures is made up. They'll allow that accounts are inacurate like saying Moses parting the red sea was just him arriving at low tide (an account that I recieved in catholic school) but they won't throw anything out completely.
Posted by: Hanke at August 7, 2005 07:00 PMLenhart wrote:
They (I think rightly) believe that evolution undercuts reasons for believing their religion, which undercuts a reason for believing in a system of rewards and punishments for moral and immoral behavior. So, they actually think that people will be awful if they don't believe in God.
There is actually a school of thought positing that altruistic behavior evolved among humans. The general idea is that since humans are social animals and they benefit from interactions with others, natural selection should favor behavior that allows us to better get along with others. In other words, the selfish cro-magnon may have found himself ostracized by the group and forced to fend for himself.
Posted by: Gaijin Biker at August 7, 2005 07:07 PMI am a creationist who is completely at peace with the notion of Natural Selection as the mechanism for Creation (along with "big bang", "abiogenesis", and any other scientific theory out there). Just because we have learned enough to put a name to the mechanism does not disprove the hand of God in the process.
I don't think that deserves the name 'creationism', which is narrowly is Bishop Usher the earth is 6,000 years old just like genesis, or broadly, the denial that there is a process that begins with handful simple species and generates all the species (with all their diversity and complexity) on earth without God ever interceeding to guide the process.
What you've descibed is natrualism plus theism, a different view altogether. To be a creationist is to (1) think that our best scientific theories of biology are incompatible with scripture and (2) to favor christianity in the debate; the the qualification 'who bristle at the notion that science can co-exist with theology' is redundant.
(Note, by the way, that natural selection as a mechanism of selection doesn't jive well with a picture of a kind God--the process works more or less by making a lot of stuff and then getting ride of what doesn't work by depriving it of sex, which frequently involves starving things before mating season, and similar brutal results. Imagine the farmer who bred all his horses and then killed the foals he didn't like, rather than trying to get nice foals to begin with....)
Posted by: lenhart at August 7, 2005 08:37 PMI'm with lenhart; I've met a number of creationists, and none take the position that VARepublicMan has taken.
Posted by: Michael at August 7, 2005 11:14 PMRu - Why do you choose the words "unnatural selection"?
Posted by: Froz Gobo at August 8, 2005 12:10 AMWhy do you choose the words "unnatural selection"?
I know the question wasn't addressed to me, but I suspect it's that (docility + great taste) should equal extinction, but instead it's guaranteed the survival of several meat species.
Posted by: apostropher at August 8, 2005 08:14 AMUnnatural selection? Humans select not the most adaptive plants and animals, or even the weakest of individuals for their food. Human intervention regularly causes the weakening of a species, which is opposite to the natural selection process. Bananas are a good plant example, we made seeds palatable, but now the identical genetic heritage makes them unusually vulnerable to extinction. Other intervention cases an imbalance in an ecosystem by favoring a single species for a imposed selection criteria. Occasionally we attempt to reverse previous ecosystems damage by imposing more unnatural selections and make it worse.
Carl Sagan wrote a nice summary of unnatural selection about the samurai crabs off Japan. These crabs bear an image of a Samurai face on their carapace. The story of the defeat and drowning of the Heike Samurai and their 7-year-old Emperor, Antoku is now apocryphally linked to the crabs, as they are regarded as the reincarnated samurai. In all probability the crabs existed, complete with odd markings before 1185. The crabs were already probably unlikely to be kept by fishermen and instead thrive because of an outside imposed and unconscious selection criteria.
Posted by: Ru at August 8, 2005 12:23 PMI'm quite familiar with what "unnatural selection" is usually used to describe. I have largely rejected the notion that it is in any way "unnatural." My question, "why did you choose..?", - (wow, how's that for punctuation?!) - was asked to gain insight as to why you consider selective pressure fundamentally different when applied through humans activity. I find my understanding is enhanced when I consider anthropologic phenomena as well as ecologic, biologic and geologic phenomena as completely 'natural' in the true sense of the word. Even bacon flavored ice cream, although that one is a bit of a stretch.
Posted by: Froz Gobo at August 9, 2005 08:42 AMI need to hang out here on the weekend more... I notice you were all posting after you returned from church Sunday morning. Ahem...
When Rick "Man on Dog" was being interviewed last week, somewhere (oi that man makes my head hurt), he insisted that the flaws in evolution needed to be taught "along-side" said theory.
(Besides the fact that the cowardly journalist refused to ask for an example) does anyone remember their 10th grade Biology teacher insisting that "evolution" (ie, natural selection)was a law?
Posted by: Sterling at August 9, 2005 09:47 AMSterling
I am not sure what the specifics are you allude to when you say "...what this is all about." but, in general, I feel that Christian fundamentalists (which is funny because many people call my particular sect "fundamentalist") only hurt the discussion when they spout gibberish about a mean, angry God.
God created the world as it is and expects, even demands, that we go about understanding how it works. The only problem that I see is scientists who, once they begin to have the slightest understanding of the world around them, insist that this "evidence" tends to support a conclusion that there is no such thing as "God". I also get frustrated with religious fanatics who, once they see scientific explanations to physical phenomena, feel that this is an affront to their beliefs. The scriptures are a spiritual guide and were never intended to be a tome that contains all the knowledge in the world. We NEED spiritual and scientific knowledge in order to become complete souls.
I'm not disagreein' with ya dude (that we benefit from both).
"This" is the thread of the discussion (which is, "Why do you insist that your God is incapable of creating a world that could become this incredibly complex by way of natural selection?").
THIS (topic) is on all our minds ("we" and "ID proponents") because (and this is the part I didn't include, so see if you can follow it now...) religious fanatics want to use my tax dollars to "teach" that the bibilical creation myth of Genesis has equal scientific validity to the current school curriculum, which is an ecological model that maintains that selective pressures plus billions of years are the basis of the variety of life we all enjoy.
We all know that is why this is a hot subject. Don't dissasemble, dude.
Posted by: Sterling at August 9, 2005 12:06 PMGod designed life. A natural part of life is death (otherwise you are not "alive").
So living forever doesn't make any sense at all? That seems wrong. I don't think I'm imagining a contradiction when I imagine that the fountain of youth is logically (but not physically) possible.
As to your contention that natural selection does not mesh with the notion of a kind God, bull hockey!
So, is the claim that creatures starve because they want to? Why not design us so that all our desires not to starve can be simultaneously relized? Please not that people who are starving do so because of drought and similar things, not because of the malicious actions of other (free-willed) people. Free-will has nothing little to do with most of the brutal circumstances of selection.
God is very kind to create well-adapted species by starving the ones that didn't work out so well. Your claim is that he is kind for making us the sort of things thn easily starve ourselves and then giving us the free-will to do it. Why didn't Kind God make us so that we would have a very hard time starving and give us free-will to do it?
Posted by: at August 9, 2005 12:10 PMI chose unnatural as a distinction from natural forms of adaptation that generally lead to homeostasis within a system. Conversely, our unnatural selection usually leads to widespread, irreversible imbalance. Both natural and unnatural forms can be catastrophic to an individual or a local system, but unnatural seem to have implications far beyond local phenomena like geologic instability. Our selections are often illogical, unconscious and counterproductive.
I have heard the argument that there is nothing unnatural under the sun, but I don't buy it. For examples, I can't find anything natural about indestructible and non-biodegradable organochlorines, refined nuclear waste and perhaps bacon ice cream (I am willing to give the last one try before I decide).
Posted by: Ru at August 9, 2005 03:28 PMThanks Sterling,
Not "dissasembling." Just didn't make the connection with the tax dollar debate. Thanks for expanding. I also wasn't disagreeing, just adding my own thoughts that I see balance in learning both (science and theology) and would expand that notion by saying that ID is a useless mental exercise that is, indeed, only designed to give some sort of scientific legitimacy to "faith."
Posted by: VARepublicMan at August 9, 2005 05:06 PMTo our anonymous poster:
I don't think I'm imagining a contradiction when I imagine that the fountain of youth is logically (but not physically) possible
So you don't have a problem with having a "beginning" to life without an "ending?" That is an interesting mental exercise but, yes, it does seem illogical.
So, is the claim that creatures starve because they want to?I didn't make that claim, you did. Death only seems horrible if there is nothing beyond death. If you understand death as a step, then dying via starvation may not be easy to cope with but you can put it in perspective as fulfilling a higher purpose, such as allowing natural selection to operate. Posted by: VARepublicMan at August 9, 2005 05:18 PM
Hmm. As I suspected, Ru, our differences turn out to be rather semantic. I would offer, however, a bit of insight I heard once: consciousness is overrated.
Posted by: Froz Gobo at August 9, 2005 10:16 PMI didn't make that claim, you did. Death only seems horrible if there is nothing beyond death. If you understand death as a step, then dying via starvation may not be easy to cope with but you can put it in perspective as fulfilling a higher purpose, such as allowing natural selection to operate.
Man, that's cracked. First off, I didn't say that death is a bad thing, I said that starvation is. There's a big difference between comfortable passing on and fatal starvation. Second, for the sake off argument, let's suppose that God has two choices (He has more on any resaonable conception of God, but that's immaterial here: Choice one: it is the typical case that things fulfill His higher purpose don't suffer for reasons beyond their control. Choice two: it is the typical case that things fulfill his higher purpose do suffer for reasons beyond their control. If the theory of evolution is correct, then if God chose evolution, He chose the second path. We can say that God moves in mysterious ways, or that wonder who we are to question God, or contend that it must work out for the best because God did it. However, at that point we're giving up on our own capacity to reason about things--we're simply appealing to the inscrutibility of God to believe all the things we want to believe. Suddenly, I get to believe what I want because we can be skeptical; the usual, appropriate response to skepticism is agnosticism, not believe-what-wantism.
(P.S. From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Creationism
A system or theory of creation: spec. a. The theory that God immediately creates a soul for every human being born (opposed to traducianism); b. The theory which attributes the origin of matter, the different species of animals and plants, etc., to ‘special creation’ (opposed to evolutionism). )
I agree, the difference is largely semantic. We are the only ones that can choose our role in the adaptations around us.
Posted by: Ru at August 10, 2005 02:46 PMlenhart
First, I stand corrected. You did say "starvation." I was thinking death by starvation but didn't write it.
Next, a point of agreement. I routinely chastise students in my Sunday School class when they answer the question, "Why..." with "Because God said so!" We are designed to think and we, therefore, must think.
Now to our points of disagreement.
However, at that point we're giving up on our own capacity to reason about things--we're simply appealing to the inscrutibility of God to believe all the things we want to believe. Suddenly, I get to believe what I want because we can be skeptical; the usual, appropriate response to skepticism is agnosticism, not believe-what-wantism.
I don't believe that God moves in mysterious ways, only in ways that we haven't understood yet. There are religions that believe that God is not to be questioned but I don't believe them to be correct so your point about the inscrutability of God doesn't apply to me.
Finally, your straw man example concerning two choices focuses on the suffering and not on the final outcome. A better example would be a teacher trying to convey a difficult concept. Learning that concept may require students to spend many hours studying (maybe even some overnight sessions) but it may be the only way to accomplish the goal. In your example, is seems the choice would be for the teacher either to:
1. Let the student skip the studying and miss the concept or
2. force the student to study (painfully) and learn the concept.
If the example is focused on the suffering then the obvious answer is that Kind Teacher will not make the student suffer. But if the example is focused on the outcome, then the answer is that Right Teacher will make the student suffer so that he learns the concept.
Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying "natural selection" is the desired outcome. Rather, as I noted in a previous comment, that the desired outcome is free agency, or the ability to make actual, real choices. But when a body has real agency then negative outcomes must be a real possibility. This is not "believe-what-I-wantism." It is discovering the laws and systems set in place with a divine intent just as we are required to do.
As to your definition of creationism, nice try but there is no logical reason that creationism must include a refutation of evolution. Creationism only needs to declare that God did the creating.
Sorry, the formatting on the above comment sucks! In particular the quote from lenhart didn't get blockquoted. I'll do better next time.
Posted by: VARepublicMan at August 10, 2005 05:48 PMIt is discovering the laws and systems set in place with a divine intent just as we are required to do
Sorry to butt in, but hey, it's my blog. I'm really enjoying your conversation, by the way.
But isn't the above statement just "starting with the assumption of your conclusion."
Posted by: Froz Gobo at August 11, 2005 12:02 AMNice to have you join the debate Froz.
But isn't the above statement just "starting with the assumption of your conclusion."Let me think about that for a bit.
As to your definition of creationism, nice try but there is no logical reason that creationism must include a refutation of evolution. Creationism only needs to declare that God did the creating.
This point is largely a semantic one, on that I take it we will both agree. (It is, after all, about definitions--all questions of definition are semantic.) However, I think that it is useful to distinguish those people who believe that God created the universe and that science has more or less correctly described how the universe has proceeded since the creation, and those that think science is making a big mistake in claiming that it started with inanimate guck from which life came about and then evolved, by natural section, to the complex organisms we see today. I think that the term "creationism" is usually reserved for the later; so does the OED. Even if we don't reserve the word creationism for this sort of view, we can have another term--how about 'maddog creationism'--for the view I've described; and it is a view held by frighteningly many people.
Posted by: lenhart at August 11, 2005 04:41 PMAgreed. "Maddog Creationism" it is. I like it!
I was very busy today (work and then several Boy Scout Boards of Review). I just got home and I hope to post responses to Froz and lenhart shortly.
Posted by: VARepublicMan at August 11, 2005 07:14 PMHey, be careful with the scouting, VRM. Over the past few weeks, that's been almost as deadly as active duty.
Posted by: apostropher at August 11, 2005 07:23 PMFroz
"It is discovering the laws and systems set in place with a divine intent just as we are required to do...
But isn't the above statement just "starting with the assumption of your conclusion."
First, I have not viewed the conversation that we're having as requiring the rigor of a philosophical proof. Instead, my attempt is to show that there are creationists who are at peace with scientific theories and advancements. Some creationists are quite capable and willing to justify the notion of a divine being without the crutch of a pseudo-science called Intelligent Design (but I must admit the inquiry is interesting). I am here to show you that I find it logical, not that I’m trying to prove it to you. That is also why I respected your question about my statements logic.
Second, that statement may not stand on it's own but it is whole and complete in context with the discussion presented directly before it. The entire paragraph reads:
Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying "natural selection" is the desired outcome. Rather, as I noted in a previous comment, that the desired outcome is free agency, or the ability to make actual, real choices. But when a body has real agency then negative outcomes must be a real possibility. This is not "believe-what-I-wantism." It is discovering the laws and systems set in place with a divine intent just as we are required to do.The last statement was defining my belief in science (and the notion that natural selection relies essentially on death by starvation) as an integral part of a divinely required “free agency” as opposed to the charge that it is “believe-what-I-wantism.”
Lastly, I want to add that my spiritual understanding is greatly influenced by my rational mind. As such, I searched long and hard for a religious tradition that provided an adequate explanation for all the phenomena I observe. That is exactly what a scientist is required to do. The process goes: observe, theorize, observe with theory in mind, adjust theory based on observation, observe… adjust… observe… And on it goes. This is good scientific inquiry, not “believe-what-I-wantism.”
lenhart
Thanks for being flexible on the definition issue. I got into a similar discussion about the term "fundementalist" with a commentor named shoveldog. I seem to remember that I met him here also! Anyway, I view myself as a fundementalist because I believe in the literal interpretation of much of the scriptures. He, however, used the term to describe people whom I call "rabid bible-thumpers" (and we have them here in Virginia!). We were finally able to settle the semantic issue also.
Posted by: VARepublicMan at August 11, 2005 08:57 PMThanks apostropher. I am careful but I'm not worried. Scouting is safe. It's driving that's dangerous! =:^)
Posted by: VARepublicMan at August 11, 2005 09:00 PMContext does make difference, VA. You and lenhart kinda waltzed off into your own world there. As for requiring philosophical proof, clearly not. Brightly colored underwear is the only requirement to taking part in discussions here. You got yours on, right?
"Assumption of your conclusion" can be replaced with "starting off with your desired outcome" if it makes it sound a little less formal an academic an geeky for ya. I see that your statement is nuanced so that it didn't mean what it would when standing on its own.
Red flags go off for me when I see "divine intent" inserted into scientific discussions. Appreciation of divinity in creation can be enlightening; assuming there is "intent" because of doctrine and worse, arguing a clearer understanding of "intent" than others, is what I find to be the essential arrogance that bothers me about ID.
Posted by: Froz Gobo at August 12, 2005 07:28 AMFroz
Starting with Ru, the discussion turned towards scientists who were comfortable with the spiritual side of their life (and theologians who were comfortable with science). That really wasn't that far from your original question (why are ID advocates uncomfortable with natural selection). Where lenhart and I have strolled is more towards "Is creation the same as the scientific processes that have been understood by scientists?"
Because we are in an informal discussion, you all understand that I believe God exists, which may be assuming my conclusion in the argument. But I am not trying to prove the existence of God only that religious traditions exist which have already reconciled God and science. Therefore my statements are directed towards refuting arguments that creationists can't believe in natural selection because it doesn't fit with the notion of creation (or of a Kind God or whatever the charge may be). The questions put to me are, “How can a creationist believe in natural selection?” My humble answer has been, “Because of a notion called ‘free agency’." No one has yet asked, “What is free agency?”
And because I'm now wearing bright blue underwear, you have given the opportunity to say these things! =:^)
Free agency is the unalienable right given by God to make true choices between right and wrong. Free agency completely explains why God would "allow" murder.
To be killed seems like an evil thing, especially if the death is gruesome but, according to free agency, preventing the murderer from committing the act that he/she intends to commit is a bigger problem because it violates the murderers free agency, or the ability to make a true choice between right and wrong. Without the freedom to commit evil acts one cannot be held accountable for being evil.
Any questions?