Steve Jones argues that the evidence presented in Darwin’s Origin of Species provides a case which is “difficult to deny.” Thus after reading the Origin of Species it is no longer possible to be both a scientist and a creationist.
He focused on the changes in the AIDS virus and the changes in the gene frequencies of certain kinds of receptors for HIV as a clear demonstration of evolution by natural selection.
He then looked at the similarities and differences between the chimp and the human genome and the differences in gene expression in different tissues between chimps and humans.
According to Steve it is the origin of language that makes us human and we ourselves are the only intelligent designers not someone else up in the sky!
The Wedge Strategy
In the question section at the end there was a question about Creationism and its increase in the UK and whether we should be worried about it. This (to me) produced the most interesting responses from Steve Jones.
His explanation of the increase of creationism was that it has its roots in the reassertion of Islamic identity of muslim groups in the UK with a sort of copy cat effect on Christians. (I think this is wrong)
He sees creationism as a deliberate choice to be ignorant and therefore as expressing a choice for irrationality which is dangerous.
He blames the establishment of faith schools for this and criticies the Blair government for promoting faith schools in the UK.
The wedge strategy he says is a strategy to change society in the US and is very dangerous. The thin end of the wedge is to get creationism into schools. This will in time produce a fundamentalist society which will be a tremendous improvement and we can get back to burning witches and things again.
Steve showed little understanding of what creationism is and little understanding of its history. Given that the title of the talk was “Why creationism is wrong and Evolutionism is right” it was a disappointing talk. Steve is a gifted communicator and an able presenter but this talk simply does not deal with the issues that need to be dealt with. It showed no understanding of the real differences between the intellectual structure of intelligent design and historic creationism and really did not deal with the controversy at all.
It is the issue of the origin of life and the origin of irreducible biological complexity that is the interesting area in this debate. Continually presenting evidence for micro-evolution and homology does not really move us further forward as to whether random change is a sufficient explanation for biological complexity.
21 comments:
"The ToE is not really concerned with origins: it addresses the development of life, and evolution by natural selection."
ToE and OoL are closely related areas of sudy and are two adjacent peas in the naturalism pod.
If you look in most textbooks you will find them close together.
I would say that macro-evolution and a chance OoL are two sections of a single chapter in the atheist's statement of faith. ;-)
"separation of church and state in the USA"
Interestingly the doctrine of the seperation of the church and the state is a basically protestant doctrine developed in the aftermath of the Reformation. The idea however has slowly corrupted into the idea of an atheistic state with the only religion allowed to influence the affairs of the state being atheism.
Originally the idea was two spheres of sovreignty both under God.
"According to the Dover decision there is no diffeence between ID and previous versions of creation science. So the Prof is right again."
The Dover decision was infallible?
Continually saying "It looks very complex to me, so it is proof for Genesis 1",
If that is all the ID movement was saying it is hard to see what all the fuss is about!
I am trying to be fair to the arguments of both sides...
"It showed no understanding of the real differences between the intellectual structure of intelligent design and historic creationism and really did not deal with the controversy at all."
It's healthy to engage in debate but it is also clear that the DI has no other motive but to promote a 'contrivance' not a controversy - there isn't one. In over ten years of supposed development their theory is still devoid of any substance so so it can hardly be called 'intellectual'. Not even the Templeton's genuine offer of funding was taken up? In the real world of research that doesn't happen, ergo ID isn't researchable.
As for the conflation with creationisms, it is precisely because of ID's inability to distinguish itself from it's creationist roots that they lost in Dover. They left an undeniable paper-trail to the fact.
Also, it always amuses me to see atheism labelled as a religion.
Brian,
Atheism is clearly a religion using the word "religion" in the sense "a particular system of belief" especially the thoughts which provide the basis of an obligation or moral bond. What we are seeing is that it is associated with a moral framework which is very different from the Judeo-Christian framework upon which our legal system was developed.
I am interested in your amusement. Can you explain?
Discovery response to Charles L. Harper Jr comment "foundation asked intelligent design proponents for research proposals” but that “they never came in.”
here
"It's healthy to engage in debate but it is also clear that the DI has no other motive but to promote a 'contrivance' not a controversy - there isn't one. "
This response is becoming more and more ridiculous. See here
"it is precisely because of ID's inability to distinguish itself from it's creationist roots that they lost in Dover."
If that is the reason ID lost at Dover then Dover is clearly a mistake.
There are a numerous qualified people out there who spend there own time and effort debunking the concepts of ID. It's esy to come up with a concept that sounds vaguely scientific. Unfortunately it takes a bigger effort to dismantle the arguments in a rigorous manner. The only science being done with ID is in showing it's weaknesses, which are numerous. This leads to a false perception that ID is being debated in the scientific community rather than being debunked.
Where is the ID research? If you want to engage in scientific debate you have to produce some science first. Every output to-date has been shown to be unreliable in the scientific arena. The Behe/Snokes paper is touted as 'drawing on ID concepts' yet doesn't mention ID? That's it? As I mentioned earlier, over ten years of 'research' and their output is still of zero value in any scientic manner. They do have a very good PR machine though which keeps this false debate alive.
Andrew
By definition atheism is a 'disbelief' in the concept/benefits of there being a deity. It is a choice not to subcsribe to a religious viewpoint. It doesn't deny any religious perspective, just takes the option of of not believing in them. I don't see that as being religious - it is religious-neutral?
Labelling it as a religion (I'd never heard that before), as has happened lately in the ID camp, amuses me because of the attempt to deflect the religious motives of ID. They are labelling ID opponents as religiously motivated by virtue of the fact that they believe natural phenomena arise through the action of nature, not divinity. There is nothing wrong with believing in both but that doesn't make both science, or for that matter religion.
Allygally: Well, the Discovery Institute would already have claimed to have discredited the verdict. Of course, you would dispute their analysis....
Paul: care to post any specific criticisms of the ruling so we can discuss them?
Allygally
The ToE says nothing about origins, but creationists, who are obsessd by origins, seem bothered by it. Why?
The Theory of evolution can be divided in two (I think very usefully for the purposes of more intelligent debate) Micro-evolution- changes among and between species that can be observed directly within the lifetime of a research project.
Macro-evolution - an extrapolation from the observed changes combined with evidence from fossils to provide a comprehensibe account of the origin of all living organisms on the planet from the first simple living organisms.
Macro-evolution is proposed as an entirely random- chance process without any intelligent input at all.
Naturally the question immediately follows... how did the first living organism arrive.. and hence the very close relationship between the two especially in biology texts.
"The ToE says nothing about origins, but creationists, who are obsessd by origins, seem bothered by it. Why? "
The ToE is one strand of an account of biological origins without the involvement of intelligence.
Creationists are convinced that biology on the planet could not be what it is without some intelligent input.
Many of them are concerned about this area especially because it is an area of study which has huge religious implications.
Our explanations of origins whatever it is will always have religious implications.
Some Creationists are convinced that the OoL and ToE explanations of origins are irreconcilable with their deeply held religious views and that at least in some areas they have to choose between one or the other... both cannot be true.
Understandably they want to be certain either way as they believe that huge issues hang on their decision on this matter.
Does that help?
Allygally,
"Not everyone who rejects creationism is an atheist. Not everyone who accepts ToE is an atheist. Are you obsessed with atheism?"
I would disagree with the first proposition and agree with the second.
Am I obsessed with atheism? Hmm
Do I appear to be?
I am very interested in atheism indeed. Atheism alarms me and I worry a great deal about it and would love to see it decline worldwide.
Obsessed... in the sense of a persistent worry and anxiety.
"I would say that...Belief and fact and evidence and proof are not the same thing."
I entirely agree. Belief ought to be the response to fact and evidence and proof.
Allygally,
"I am interested in why it is so important to you to pretend that atheism is a religion. Can you explain? "
Good I am glad you find it interesting. I find this subject fascinating... I am trying to explain...but struggling... I will do another post on this...another off-topic I am afraid!
Allygally,
"The USA instituted the separation of church and state because so many of its early population had fled Europe precisely because of state persecution of their religion. Ironically, despite the efforts to destroy the separation, in the long run it is religion that would suffer if the state was allowed to interfere in faith matters."
The separation of church and state was understood in a theistic context which is totally different from the way it is understood today. The founders understood both the church and the state to be "under God".
Allygally,
"The Dover decision was comprehensive. It was also scathing. And it was a total defeat for ID and creationism.
If you do not think so, why not read the judgement and post a refutation of the judge's key findings. If you are right, the decision should be easy to discredit."
I have read the judgement and while I am shocked at some of the things that the pro-ID people did I also felt strongly that the Judge was swallowing the ACLU position hook line and sinker like a very greedy fish! My immediate impression was that it is very difficult for any of us to be objective about this.
I really do not believe that this is the end of the story with regards to ID and the US legal system.
Allygally,
It is a little more complex than you have presented it. ie creationists are frightened of time longer than 6000 years or so.
There are some creationists who are happy with whatever amount of time the geologists latest suggestion is BUT they still think that biology needs intelligent input to get where we are now.
I think that you assessment of Dover is very PandasThumbish and I have the feeling reading your response that it is pointless me saying anything to you about what I think the problems are with the Dover Judgement because you have made up your mind totally...
I will have a go but you will have to be patient!
Quote from Andrew Rowell: "I am very interested in atheism indeed. Atheism alarms me and I worry a great deal about it and would love to see it decline worldwide."
Why does it concern you that there are people who do not subscribe to any particular existing faith based belief system on the planet?
What would be your view if all athiests acknowledged your concern and all subscribed to a faith different to your own? ie. they would no-longer be athiests but would also not believe in what you believe in.
Post a Comment