nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Talk:Essay: The Tree of Life (view source)
Revision as of 04:31, February 1, 2009
, 04:31, February 1, 2009Repost my response
If science is the pursuit of knowledge, then between evolution and intelligent design, the one being more complete than the other, which one ought our reason guide us to? [[user:Jirby|Jirby]] 13:50, 24 January 2009 (EST)
If science is the pursuit of knowledge, then between evolution and intelligent design, the one being more complete than the other, which one ought our reason guide us to? [[user:Jirby|Jirby]] 13:50, 24 January 2009 (EST)
:Jirby,
:I don't have any real disagreement with your first three paragraphs, but will add that there are very few people who are qualified to speak accurately on ''the origins debate''. This is simply because it covers such a broad range of disciplines, covering, as it does, the origins of "life, the universe, and everything", to borrow from ''Hitchhiker's Guide''. Scientists usually specialise in very narrow subjects, and are often as ignorant of the rest of science as the average layman. It has appeared to me and others that the vast majority of scientists who believe evolution do so on faith, because their own area of expertise either has no bearing on it or doesn't support it. This was apparent in many of the debates which [[Duane Gish]] took part in, as many of his opponents argued for evolution from areas of science ''other than their own'', suggesting that they realised that their own area did not provide support for evolution, but (truly) believed that ''other'' areas of science did.
:Your argument against the idea of "Big Science" doesn't really stack up, however. For one thing, the picture you paint of scientists being totally objective in their pursuit of pure knowledge regardless of where it leads is simply not true. Scientists are human too, and have their own subjective opinions, fallibilities, motives of making money or gaining fame, and so on, including being subject to peer pressure. Secondly, that science might ''eventually'' overturn or update an incorrect or inadequate idea doesn't mean that ''in the meantime'' there is no pressure to conform, and there's not a "ruling paradigm" into which scientific explanations must fit.
:"''How is it anyone can fault science for the things it does not yet know?''": Nobody is doing that. I for one am not faulting "science". I'm faulting ''evolution'', which I don't consider to be good science anyway. Secondly, I'm not faulting scientists for ''not knowing'', but for claiming that they ''do know''.
:"''...nor ought anyone speak of science with authority that is not a scientist.''": My first response is that one can be an authority without having a formal qualification to say so. I believe that I can speak with some authority on the subject, as I have been (informally) studying it for over 30 years. My second response to this is that many creationists ''are'' scientists, so ''can'' speak with the authority that you say should be required. My third response is question how far you take this. Can a creationary scientist speak with authority about evolution? Can an evolutionary scientist speak with authority about creation?
: "''Things change over time. This is the central tenet of evolution.''": No, that is not the central tenet of evolution. Even creationists accept that things change over time. The disagreement is over things like ''how much change''. A central tenet of evolution is that everything has descended from a universal common ancestor, for example. I might add that this is one of the points in the [[Definition of evolution]] article that I linked to, that adequate definitions are crucial, yet here you are giving a definition of evolution that is so broad that it becomes meaningless.
: Much of the rest of your response ignores my essay. For example, I question whether the mantra of "it's only a minor change" is really correct, and give reasons why it is not, but your response does not argue that it is minor; instead, it simply repeats the mantra. You also falsely put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I even hint at science itself being damned, or even criticised for trying to correct itself. This is a straw-man argument you are making.
:"''If design was so self-evident does it not follow that Science would follow that path?''": Your first problem is again that you believe that scientists are totally objective, infallible, researchers, with no religious or philosophical motives. Your second problem is that you ignore that design is so self-evident that scientists ''routinely'' speak of the "design" of living things, and you have people such as Richard Dawkins writing books to explain why this "apparent" design isn't ''really'' design. So yes, it ''is'' self-evident, but scientists with religious motives (i.e. opposed to God) reject it anyway.
: "''There is no aspect of science beyond questioning...''": Except evolution, it seems. The hypothesis as a whole, that is, although individual aspects are questioned, as long as they don't risk discarding evolution itself.
: "''If it were the case that evolution is false, then science will find the requisite evidence; it will not be because the ignorant said that evolution was wrong, it will be because science has proven evolution wrong.''": This is another example of something I mentioned in my essay: refusing to admit that creationists can also be scientists. You are implicitly calling creationary ''scientists'' "ignorant", and excluding them from science.
: "''...Intelligent Design falls short of actual science: the fact that there is a designer is not questionable.''": No, you misrepresent ID. ID (as distinct from creationism) does not ''start with'' an unquestionable designer. It ''concludes'' that there is a designer, ''from the evidence''.
: "''...Intelligent Design imposes a limit on itself.''": I've just answered that, and you overlook that evolutionary science imposes the sort of limit that you accuse ID of. As I showed in my essay, many (evolutionary) scientists exclude God ''a priori'', and indeed you basically argue that it should. That is a clear case of imposing a limit that you overlook and then accuse others of doing. A case of the pot calling the kettle black.
: "''If science is the pursuit of knowledge, then between evolution and intelligent design, the one being more complete than the other, which one ought our reason guide us to?''": The one that doesn't impose an arbitrary limit: Intelligent Design. ID doesn't say that ''everything'' was designed. It says that the ''evidence'' shows that ''some things'' were. Evolution, on the other hand, says that ''nothing'' was designed, thus imposing an arbitrary limit. To put it another way, if science is the pursuit of knowledge, and if God really did create the world and life, why shouldn't science acknowledge that? Why arbitrarily exclude it from consideration?
: Thanks for your thoughtful and civil reply, but I hope you now see that things were not completely as you made them out to be.
:[[user:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:48, 24 January 2009 (EST)