Arguing about the nature of science is fruitless with people whose answer to everything is either "God loves us and wants it that way", or, if the issue is thorny, "God put that there to test our faith" (as satirized by Bill Hicks's famous dinosaur monologue). Instead, the only real way to address the shortcomings of Intelligent Design is to hold a mirror up to it from a theological perspective and say "do you really believe this"?
The following information isn't original. Heck, most of the text is cut & paste, and can be found on The eXile, a web-zine I can only recommend to those truly keen on seeing just what a fetid philosophy nihilism is. But, the nihilists at The eXile have come up with something worthwhile: the Schopenhauer Awards. Like the Darwin Awards, they're exemplars of theory in action, only, in this case, it's Schopenhauer's theory that the only purpose to the universe is suffering and misery. As a Buddhist, I don't agree with that, as I don't think there's any purpose to anything (nor any need for purpose), but I noticed that in addition to making the case for God being a sadist, they also realized that Intelligent Design only looks good when you look at kittens, lemurs and other cuddly things. If you expand your perspective, you find things in the world that one can easily believe evolved, but which challenge the idea that someone designed them.
If you have a weak stomach, or don't like to see the kinds of things that nightmares are made of, just take my word for it and stop reading now -- you'll be happy you did.
The Evidence:
Ascaris Lumbricoides, the Roundworm
The Roundworm devotes all its energy to the production of more Roundworms. The female can lay up to 200,000 eggs every day. The eggs are laid in the small intestines of a human being or a pig--because the Roundworm, like the eXile, sees no real difference between people and swine. The Roundworm is not only the most common of human parasites, but one of the biggest. A full-grown female, the kind who pops out all those eggs every day, can be up to 18 inches long. A big worm can easily clog your intestines, bursting them and killing you. The Roundworm seems to go out of its way to make infestation even more painful and horrifying for its human host. It doesn't just squirm down to your guts and start popping out babies. No, it goes through a grotesque, horrifying and apparently useless trip up through your body, only to end up back where it started. You eat a few thousand worm-eggs, and they hatch in your small intestine. So far, so good, so to speak. But then the "juvenile" worm chews its way out of your guts, into your lungs. The lungs react to these thousands of parasites by swelling up and producing more mucous to try to expel the foreign bodies. This leads to a special form of pneumonia, ascaris pneumonia, which can kill you. But in most cases you simply develop a bad cough which will last as long as you live. And instead of coughing up the worms, you'll cough them into the pharynx and then re-swallow them. That's exactly what the worm-larvae want, because the worm can only grow to adulthood where it started, down in the small intestine. Biologists admit they're puzzled by this "migration." It seems to challenge the idea that evolution moves toward efficiency. The Roundworm is a persistent traveler, and may just decide to migrate on its own. The worm doesn't like anesthetics, for example, and when a human who's carrying a gutload of Roundworms is given anesthesia for an operation, the worms he or she is hosting often decide to leave the toxic neighborhood. They wriggle up from the small intestine, through the digestive tract, and slither out the patient's nose and mouth just as he or she is lying on the recovery table, thinking that the worst is over.
The Candiru
It's just a little freshwater fish, the Candiru, only an inch or two long. It's classified as a "parasitic catfish," but it doesn't have much in common with Mark Twain's good-eatin' Mississippi catfish. If there had been Candiru in the Mississippi, Huck and Jim would've spent the whole trip downriver huddled together in the middle of the raft, screaming like Chef in Apocalypse Now, "Never get off the boat!" Luckily for Huck, the Candiru only haunts the rivers and streams of the Amazon Basin. The Amazon may be romanticized in every PBS nature show, but it actually deserves its old name: "the Green Hell." And of all the nightmare critters infesting that Hell, the most horrific is our own little Candiru. The Candiru is the only vertebrate parasite on Earth to target humans. Think about that. We're good at picking parasites off ourselves and each other. It's a primate specialty. How would any parasite big enough for us to spot and grab manage to avoid our nimble ape fingers? It would have to wriggle into a place we couldn't reach. The Candiru, you see, has a nose for urine. When it gets hungry, it sniffs the current of its stream or river for a urine trail, then follows the trail upstream to the source: someone pissing into the water. The Candiru wriggles up the victim's anus, then gnaws its way into the urinary tract. The pain is reportedly agonizing. And once the Candiru is in place, it's impossible to dislodge, thanks to several sharp, back-pointing spines which pop up when the critter has reached its destination. Men who have been Candiru-ized have an option, at least: cutting off their penis. The pain and horror of infestation is so great that victims not only accept but beg for this radical therapy. Women aren't so lucky. They have no way at all to get rid of the spiked hook inside them.
Synanceia horrida, The Estuary Stonefish
This bottom-dweller is a perfect poster-child for Schopenhauer's claim that life is nothing but ugliness and pain. As evil as it looks, this critter is much creepier once you know what it can do. You see, the Estuarine Stonefish is basically a big, ugly hypodermic needle filled with poison. It can hardly move. It doesn't need to. It just settles into the muddy bottom of shallow bays and estuaries, perfectly camouflaged as a lump of mud and algae, and waits to envenom an unlucky fisherman or wading child. Every year, thousands of people step on this little booby-trap. Within seconds, they're screaming in agony, because this sluggish, slow-swimming lump of flesh has one suberbly designed feature: a set of spines sticking up from its back, perfectly angled to jab deeply into your foot. The spines are sturdy and sharp. Once they've pierced your foot, a very efficient set of four venom glands start squirting poison into your flesh. Stonefish venom can kill you -- but only if you're lucky. Most researchers agree that a stonefish sting is the most intense pain a human being can experience. An Australian surfer who was stung wading out to the waves said that even though the doctors gave him shot after shot of morphine, the pain was unendurable, completely beyond anything he'd ever experienced. He only stopped screaming to beg the doctors to cut off his leg. When they refused, he asked them to kill him. When he lunged for a scalpel to stab himself with, they tied him to the bed and let him scream. The agony went on for months. Even when the pain fades, the victim is likely to suffer nerve damage and will never walk properly again.
The Scabies Mite
Of all the mites, the species which has created the most misery is the scabies mite. You can't look at a photo of this thing very long if you want to maintain the belief that Nature loves you. It's a "pearly white, plump, oval, eyeless mite with rudimentary legs." Instead of legs, the mite has "stout, blunt spines" which project from the fat belly, designed to help the mite embed itself more firmly under your skin. Its eight legs are too short to be of use, though the wet-noodle-like extensions from the tips of the legs come in handy once inside its human flesh burrow. In short, it looks like a vampire blimp with ropes hanging down. Humans are the only species S. Scabiei parasitizes. We're its home, its planet, and its prey. You shaken hands with any strangers lately? Y'have? Well, you might want to wash your hands, preferably with pesticide, since the Scabies Mite is especially fond of the creases and thin skin on the webs between fingers. It can also live for up to 48 hours outside of human flesh. Say, for example in a hotel bed. The mite plunges into your skin and sets up home in the top layer, the most sensitive and tender. It chews tunnels through your flesh, creating little egg-sites as it goes like queen monster in Alien. The itching caused by Scabies mites is the most intense known to man. And itching, as a recent study confirmed, is actually harder to bear than pain. Victims usually rip their skin off in the attempt to get at their tormentors and stop the itch. In babies, AIDS victims & other "immunologically compromised" people and bedridden paralytics, the skin becomes "honeycombed" -- that's the term they use -- with tunnels full of mite-shit and mite-eggs. Patients with this sort of scabies commonly beg for death and often kill themselves if they can..
The Guinea Worm
"If there's anything in nature that might call God's plan into question, it's the Guinea Worm." -- Tom Paulson 3/23/2001, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer
The Guinea Worm got its start in Africa. It's a big parasite, growing up to three feet long. By the time it pokes its head out of the victim's skin, it's as wide as a strand of spaghetti. It's a slow developer, spending up to a year squirming through the victim's body. Europeans first learned of its existence when they saw people limping through African villages in obvious agony, holding long sticks which seemed to be attached to a white string emerging from a leg or arm. Africans explained that these unlucky villagers had become hosts the Guinea Worm. The reason victims were walking around with the worm twirled around a stick was that the worm could only be coaxed out a few millimeters per day. Those who tried to pull it out soon died a terrible death: the worm's head came off, and its body died and putrefied inside the victim, who rotted while still alive. Victims must hobble around in pain, an object of loathing to everyone, while winding the worm around the stick a little more each day, keeping it close, waking and sleeping. If they drop it, the worm breaks off in their body and they die, putrefying from the inside out. As Africans explained to the European travellers, dozens of Guinea Worms often develop inside their victims at different rates. So a few hours after the victim has finally gotten rid of a worm, another is getting ready to chew its way through the skin and greet the world.
On 1st blush, one's initial thought is to shake one's head and think "Yup, the world's a nasty place, and things'll getcha." But stop and consider just these five horrors. There are others, but I think these suffice. If you believe in Intelligent Design, then these guys didn't just come about by exploiting ecological niches -- God designed them that way! God specifically made a parasite that burrows needlessly into the lungs just so it can inflict permanent painful coughing just to get back where it started in the first place. God created a fish whose only function is to sit on under water and make people scream in pain. God specifically engineered a mite to make people litterally tear their own faces off in despair. God created organisms whose purpose, whose design is to inflict misery, terror and agony. How easily God could have either not had these creatures, or else modified them to be less harmful. We've already got dust-mites and eyelash mites that do their mite-y things just fine; why on earth should we have a mite whose sole purpose is to cause people to commit suicide and go to hell? Or a worm that doesn't just kill its human host, nor does it merely eat it alive from the inside out, but inflicts constant terror that at any instant a wrong move could sentence him or her to a slow death by rotting(!) alive?
Who would engineer such things? The designer of creatures like these (and there are plenty more to choose from, especially if you expand the victims to include non-humans) makes Pol Pot look like Santa Claus! Stalin, Hitler, MacCarthy, Nero... all of them wrapped up together don't match up to the sheer malice of the designer and creator of creatures like these. If you really believe in intelligent design, then you have to believe that God wants us to suffer, and to suffer dearly. This isn't just the normal theological "problem of suffering/evil" like Dostoevsky talks about, the "why does God let people be evil to each other" question -- these terrors come straight from the hand of God, no human interference necessary.
If you're a Christian and believe in Intelligent Design, you have to do one of the following:
- Insist creatures like this are the result of Adam & Eve's fall: People for thousands of years being tormented and punished because two people who were literally created not to know right from wrong didn't do as they were told. What kind of a jerk would do that? We call that kind of behavior evil. You might as well believe God and Satan are the same being.
- Explain that the world is a vale of tears designed for us to suffer in, in the immortal words of Screwtape: "a world where moral issues really come to a point". Not necessarily a bad escape hatch, but only if you're willing to do like the Catholics and High Protestants (Church of England, &c.) and accept the reason for such: to guide our actions, or, in other words, you have to give up on the whole "faith is all you need" garbage and actually read the Epistle of James ("Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and tremble! But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?") But even the Catholics don't believe this! Both Pope Benedict and the Archbishop of Canterbury believe in and support the theory of evolution. Even they, with all their penances & fasts, won't go that far.
- Take the zealot's approach, and consider that the poor victims of these species are being punished, that this's God's way of hitting the "smite" button on his keyboard. Or, the superficially gentler but more insidious tack of calling them "chastisements to bring people back to virtue" that was so popular during the Inquisition. Although this kind of rhetoric is very popular among 700-Club types (you know, the people who terrorize their own children with threats of perdition for reading Harry Potter or for trick-or-treating?), can you honestly say that a four year old child could do anything to deserve howling pain that even morphine can't diminish, for the added crime of stepping on something that looks like a rock?
- Abandon your faith & embrace the Manichean Herisy: If you claim that God only created the nicer creatures, and nightmares like the creatures above are the works of the devil, then you're claiming that the devil has the power to create, that God is not the sole creator of the universe, but that he's one of them and will (hopefully) prevail over the bad guy at some point in the future. Wrong answer! The devil's only power is to tempt and seduce; if you claim that the devil has the power to create, you are not Christian.
- Disregard one of the principal messages of the New Testament, that "God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him might not perish but have everlasting life" and go back to the Book of Job wherein it's said "God screws us over as he pleases, and that's all there is to it." (Yes, I'm disregarding the happy ending that the Jews bolted onto the end of the story because its original contents were too bleak and depressing.) I have never heard of a sect of Christianity that, in wanton disregard of the gospels, claims that God is unmoved by our tears and heedless our suffering, but if you want to start such a church, good luck to you.
35 comments:
Yay for my lemur! Sometimes I just glow with impressedness :)
Wow. You seriously need to submit this one to the Carnival of Christianity. Seriously.
Heh! Good one.
Carnival of Christianity? Who/where?
Look on my page under "carnivals," and you'll see a submission form. Gets MAJOR traffic, and you'll actually reach the people who need to consider the argument.
Well, I don't care about the traffic, but it'd be nice not to just be talking to myself.... :-)
I just checked their guidelines, and since I'm not a Christian, I'm not eligible. I sent it just in case, but it doesn't look like they'll accept theology from an agnostic. :-)
Well, you're in luck. I am hosting the carnival this week, and I am a little bit of a rebel. :)
I found this post through the Christian Carnival. I'm not sure about the "Major Traffic," but some, anyway. Thanks for your work. I don't understand part of your final point #1. Adam and Eve DID know that they were doing something they were not supposed to, and did know, at least in this case, that it was wrong.
Basically, you've illustrated some graphical examples of creatures that offer evidence of evil if given a God as designer. The question "if God is good, whence comes evil" is generically called the theodicy problem on which much has been written. I'm new enough to the Christian scene that I can't give you a quick overview of the theodicy literature and results, but that there is (a) extensive literature on it and (b) very smart people who have reviewed that literature and are satisfied leaves me currently not in much doubt that a satisfactory (that is logical and reasonable) solution exists within logical framework of Christian thought.
On the other hand, ID isn't a proposal that God is that designer. As far as I can tell, ID proposes that the probability of feature X developing in time T while driven by the mechanisms proposed by evolutionary biology is low and lump the required extra mechanisms under the rubric "designer". ID critics disagree, but neither side (ID nor it's critics) have any actually testable theory to disprove so on this issue alas neither side is doing science. By testable theory I mean a rigorous methodology to arrive at a prediction of a probability for a feature X to develop in time T.
Martin -- if you don't know right from wrong, then how do you know it's wrong to disobey? If there was no such knowledge until after the fruit was consumed, then there isn't the moral compass required to sin. Without that, then disobediance is much more like disregarding advice.
Mark -- two points:
1) ID doesn't explicitly propose God as the designer, true. But there's a deafening lack of noise in support of ID from anyone except Christian apologists of the generally evangelical or charismatic sects. Given that it's originators are creationists who've publicly vowed to get educational policies changed in this regard, calling ID unreligious is somewhat duplicitous. I'd thought about commenting to this regard in the article, but decided that it would detract from the main kernel of thought.
2) I can't cite any literature, but my understanding is that there is in fact such predictive work going on in the study of microbiology, since at those primitive levels reproduction happens fast enough to study practically. I can't outrightly gainsay you though, as I can't lay hand to anything I can cite. There IS, however, a large body of predictions of the kinds of fossils that we should be able to find, such as the big news from Canada this week with the "fish with fingers". It's not great, but it's *something*.
Jim,
Calling ID duplicitous is akin to calling the defenders in mainstream science duplicitous in this regard as well. Imagine if a "big name" like Hilbert were to put up his "10 problems" for the century (like Hilbert did in the beginning of the 20th in Mathematics and included the problem of fomulating a theory to calculate P_X(T) (P probablilty, X a feature, T time) as one of the top ten problems for biology right now and identified it as the keystone of the ID movement. Would that not defuse the religious overtones of ID? I think by rejecting an obviously good question on the grounds of "it's religion" is duplicity of another sort. ID is a hypothesis, that is rejecting the current set of mechanisms for evolutionary changes as insufficient. Nobody ever called "General Relativity" because the originator was Jewish? I'm not sure what the religious beliefs of the supporters have to do with the validity of a hypothesis. I'd think it would be a grand chance to garner interest in science if cards were played right (just as is not ocurring). On the other hand, you might be saying that a theory for such a function is an unintersting thing to strive for in biology, but I don't think you'd take that tack. And if it is a good question, then why fight ID, why not point out that it is a good idea, just refer to "designer" as "other mechanisms" if you prefer.
As to the fact that preditions of the type of finding missing links in the fossil record that is actually in line with standard evolution (ID and "not ID"). However, I'm not sure that predictive work in micro-biology will scale well to predicting time scales of larger features. You may get a "small-perturbation" theory of evolutionary change but that does not insure any sort of understanding of a full theory.
My failure to follow and research the biology literature closely on this question of P_X(T) is analogous to your failure to research the literature on theodicy. ;)
I think perhaps Goedel might be more appropriate than Hilbert :0).
I suspect that that P_X(T) formulation, even should one figure out how to encode all the variables, much less control for them, might be beyond our intellect. Also, the P_X(T) issue might not work for standard evolutionary theory since "fittest" has very little in common with "best". Long-term, your guess is as good as mine there. Maybe it would take a Hilbert to lay down a sufficient foundation to engage the problem as such; it would certainly take a MASSIVE supercomputer to perform the simulations even if you could encode it. Such a massive work, I think, would help to diffuse my (I'll admit it) active disdain for ID; even more so would I like to see a first-principles (or even 2nd principles) set of discriptions for what "designed" biology should look like, and a search for such structures. "Too complex for us to figure out" isn't a thesis, it's an objection -- instead of "can't explain it so it must have been designed", I'd like to see "this's what a designed x might look like", for some x that isn't already lifted from biology books. In Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan describes a project where they assemble a catalog of artifacts to look for on planets that would count as evidence that intelligent life lived there, and verifying that such structures were visible from earth. I should think if ID were serious about biological design as their objective, instead of biblical creation, we'd be seeing something more like that. The things that we design are very unlike biological "designs" -- the hallmark of [good] design is the reduction of complexity, componentization, etc. -- biology seems totally to the contrary.
So far as the micro-bio angle goes, our failures are very similar! (o:
I used Hilbert as an example because he did set forth a celebrated list of problems for Mathematics which set the course of study in to a surprising degree for the next century. Many of his questions are both still unanswered and acknowledged as important. Lately Physics at the turn of the century has tried compiling similar lists of "big" problems to tackle.
And you are right, much of the ID support comes from non-scientists, which is why you won't find them (currently) engaging in a massive project to find P_X(T). But, my real question is, why don't the scientists currently rejecting ID as nonsense see that P_X(T) is a valid and good questions? That if we had such a theory (or a start to one) we might have assurance that the described mechanisms are sufficient instead of a reductive hypothesis, i.e., that is these are all the mechanisms we can think of, so the list must be complete. As it is the arguments against ID are as incomplete as the arguments for it, which at the very least must be discomforting (at least in the view that one side says P_X(T) for particular X,T is close to zero the other close to 1 and neither has any basis for their claim).
Oh, I should have said, P_X(T) is a good question and is isomorphic/equivalent to the ID hypothesis.
The Goedel vs. Hilbert thing was just humor, since we already know that our (consistant) knowledge will forever be incomplete.... =)
Don't you mean P_X(T) is isomorphic with the falsification of the ID hypothesis? If, given an environment x and lifeform distribution P_X(T-1), you can predict within some stochastic bounds what the resultant lifeforms will be, wouldn't that be a science of evolution, not design?
As to the larger P_X(T) question, I think it's just a practical matter of it being way too much to chew. I suspect we've easily got a century or more to go before we understand how most biology currently functions, much less how it drifts over time. I donate cycles to the folding-at-home project to help out w/ that, and when I see ball&stick diagrams of the molecules they're trying to model the effects of, my brain wants to hit the 'eject' button. Perhaps over time we'll evolve (pardon the pun) a "chemistry" of species-drift akin to our current catalog of organic chemical reactions, but we're at a point analogous to where Mendeleyev was; biology as a science is in it's infancy.
So far as I've seen, though, ID isn't even making the attempt at a philosophical level. What is "design", much less "intelligent design", and how would it apply to lifeforms? What are its invariants? What is required and what is ruled out of consideration? So far as I can see, ID seems to concentrate on finding ways to falsify evolution, rather than define its own thesis, as if somehow if evolution were shown to be false then ID must therefore by default be true. But what is the default that's claimed to be true, non-random-ness? Assuming that one has any idea what 'random' really means to posit that it doesn't apply to lifeforms, what does this actually mean or say? If it's not the random-ness that's the issue, but natural selection, then what is proffered in its place? What you're left with is "God at his workbench" or, if that's offensive, "Space Aliens at their workbenches", but since evolution is a theory of the origin of species, you're left with a "Prime Mover" paradox that always and by necessity defers the explanation.
Oops, please append: the "prime mover" paradox is not an issue if the real core of the explanation is religious. We've happily coped with an uncreated God for millenia. But as science, it doesn't work.
No I meant by P_X(T) is isomorphic to the ID hypothesis that ID holds that for many X P is near 0 while the falsification holds it to be near one.
My contention is that the scientific community could push the point of view (ala time for monkeys to type Hamlet) that design and increasing T or small P are equivalent and that P_X(T) is a valid question but hard. If this was done, where would the Dover trial be now?
P is probability
X is a feature to be developed
T is time.
ID says probability is low for some events, mainstream evolution says no (and it seems only because it *did* evolve).
Ah -- I think I get you: you mean "T" means "across all time", aka, can the feature come into being if it already wasn't? If so, the fossil record would seem to present an "existence proof" of the contrary, BUT, that depends on how you define X. It's entirely likely that an ecological context supporting a feature may never come about. It's hard to see an evolutionary case for "apes with scaly skin" or "birds with fins", but, then again, mammals started on land, and we now have mammals with fins, so who knows? Now that I understand the formulation, I don't understand how that can be called isomorphic to ID. Homomorphic, certainly, but "P_X(T)->0", while a necessary condition for ID, is hardly a sufficient one: there could be some other explanation, neither design nor evolution, that hasn't occurred to any of us yet. People used to think that all substances sought their own level, or that God moved things around; even during Galileo's time no-one was even remotely close to anything like Newton's gravitational law. Likewise, if someone is serious about ID, they not only need to solve the P_X(T) issue, but they have to do the other half too, and find evidence of nature doing things in a way consistent with what we would call "design" (and, by analogy, not "design by idiot" like our idiotically structured retinas).
I guess you don't get it yet. T is time elapsed. For example X could be fish developing the ability to breath air or cave fish losing their eyes, retina and optic centers in their brains. T=1,000 years -> P very very close to 0. T=1 billion years P very close to 1. What ID says is there are some (many?) features for which the time as expressed in the fossil record is not sufficient for a reasonable probability for it to develop. And "designer" doesn't in many accounts (and the one I support) mean a guy in a white coat doing bio-engineering or the equivalent. Designer as I said is a rubric/catchall for mechanisms for driving evolutionary change not curently in the cannonical description for how evolution is driven. If for instance sexual exchange of DNA was not the primary driver behind large morphological speciation (only smaller incremental steps) but that a particular class perhaps intermittent intraspecies virus, parasite, or other evironmental agent drives that instead. But we won't even look for those unless we suspect there is an issue, i.e., P_X(T) is consistently smaller than one would expect. Special Relativity came about because of a dissatisfation with luminiferous aether. Today many Physicists are unstatisfied with the Standard model on aesthetic principles. ID is a similar dissatisfaction with evolution and the explanation for the growth of P_X(T) with increasing T. Right?
The point is that if biology misses finding the "real" mechanism driving evolution, because a misguided rejection of the ID hypothesis based on its source ... that would be a shame wouldn't it.
Ok, now that exposition of what you mean makes much more sense. Why didn't you say so? :o)
Looking at the argument, my only objection to ID as you've formulated it is that it's a rubric/catchall for what isn't in fact posited. The evolutionists would claim, and, I believe, sensibly, that such a hypothetical virus or parasite would cause the host to be either more fit or less fit, putting it at a reproductive advantage or disadvantage. If I understand what you're saying correctly, the ID people say that a virus or pathogen or parasite or whatever could directly cause the modifications to the DNA. Well, in general, I don't think many biologists would really object to the possibility of some organisms out there that may do just that: we have, for example, evidence of parasites that cause some insects to only have female offspring (in species where unfertilized eggs still hatch). People definitely have looked at that sort of thing when there has been evidence for it, and continue to look (see the book Adam's Curse). But I have three objections:
1) how does that account for the origin of the entity doing the work?
2) in what way is this "intelligent"?
3) in what way is this "design", rather than mere effect?
The irony is that such a hypothetical organism might having come about quite naturally due to evolutionary speciation, which would make the whole ball of wax evolutionary. If I understand you correctly, then, Intelligent Design has nothing to do with either intelligence nor design. Until someone from the ID camp addresses these three issues(and perhaps they have & someone else could make a few citations), ID remains, in essence, a statement that "your explanation isn't good enough". So far as this goes, great, because this's the fulcrum upon which all science improves. But it hardly constitutes an even remotely competitive theory to what Darwin came up with; to do that, instead of saying "something else", it would actually have to posit a particular alternative. I agree that dissatisfaction is a great spur on to digging up better explanations; but dissatisfaction does not a theory make.
So in a nutshell your objection to ID (1,2,&3) is that you don't like the name. Ok, that's fine as far as it goes, but kind of trivial.
Part of the problem is that when science protests that "something else" isn't needed it has no more basis in theory than the objectors.
And as to discussions of my quick list of "other mechanisms". Look, I'm not a biologist. You point out that the few mechanisms I proposed have issues ... well, the point is that in just a few minutes consideration I came up with a few possibilities. You could probably come up with dozens more (better too) if you thought about it for a while. The point is that we don't even know if we should be looking or not. ID thinks we should, mainstream evolution says no. But neither bases their opinion on any theory.
My point is that the scientific community is doing themselves and society at large a great disservice with their current tactic (dismissal as stupid) to deal with ID. Instead of re-phrasing, embracing that which is good, and encouraging such thought, they've reacted with (their own) religious polemic.
I'm not sure why you're assuming that the "knowledge, good and evil" as it would be literally translated is somehow the same thing as knowing right from wrong. It doesn't say that. It says that it's "knowledge, good and evil", and that's been taken several ways by commentators. The most plausible, in my view, is that it's simply the tree declared by God for them not to eat, and eating it would constitute disobeying God, something they knew to be wrong. It would be an act of determining that they themselves are better arbiters of good and evil than God is, in effect declaring that they know good and evil better than God. It doesn't need to involve magical properties of giving them any knowledge but instead might refer to the fact that they would be ascribing to themselves a kind of knowledge better than what God would give them in telling them what is right and what is wrong.
One suggestion as to the effects of the fall and evil has been that the organisms and natural events haven't changed because of the fall, but humanity was once the stewards of all creation and had special divinely-given abilities to manage things and know how to treat which things in which ways. Since those in charge of all creation failed in that task by seeking to disorder their relationship with God, with each other, and with the task given to them, they as a result had placed themselves in a position where they could no longer carry out their task perfectly.
God indicates this by pointing out two consequences of what their decision did to them. It made them no longer aligned with the land well enough to work at it without great toil, and childbirth would now be greatly painful. These effects, then, wouldn't be punishments. There's never any indication in the Genesis narrative that God curses them. He curses the ground, and he curses the snake (generally viewed as a curse primarily on Satan), but he doesn't curse them. He just says to them what will happen, which is consistent with seeing it as a natural consequence of disordered relationships in creation and with God and each other.
Jeremy: not "knowledge, good & evil", but "knowledge of good and evil". If I said the other, it was a typo. I think that the explanation that you lay out is much more benign than the mainstream interpretations, although I have to wonder how those other things don't amount to a curse upon Adam and all his kin. In addition to the practical aspects, without such an implicit curse would Jesus's sacrifice really have been necessary in the first place? I don't think these objections to what you lay out are sufficient to constitute a full-blown rebuttal, but they're my knee-jerk reactions, and I think I would end up laying out a rebuttal on some foundation between those two points. All in all, though, that's certainly the most cheerful reinterpretation I've heard, and, even if I don't necessarily buy it, I do like it.
Mark: if that's what you really think I'm saying, or that the content of what I'm saying is so paltry, then we're wasting each other's time.
Jim,
I was unclear at how to respond, which is why I responded as I did. After all, you asked questions about the "designer" and "intelligence" and I we've been discussing P_X(T), after establishing that P_X(T) is equivalent to the ID claims.
I've been claiming that the scientific community itself should be pointing out that "design" and "intelligence" are equivalent in a probabilistic framwork to "more time", ala how much time would it take N monkeys to type Hamlet (or given time "T" what is the probability that Hamlet would be typed). But your response is to ask me "what is the designer"? and "what is doing the work?".
So I'll ask you for clarification on what those questions have to do with our discussion? Which is why I thought the only way to interpret your questions was that you were hung up on the name ID as opposed to the principle (P_X(T)) which we had discussed.
Hi Mark,
I appreciate your earnestness & committment to the discussion, but, actually, I've been doing so for quite a few posts now.
(I was wondering why Jim hadn't written anything else, and then I realise I'm missing a nice little debate...)
Mark,
Nice debate, but in positing the "P=0" thesis, what you're asking science to do is to try to prove a negative -- a logical no-no, and yet, one upon which ID solidly rests. In said circumstance, we're back to phlogiston and the dragon that lives in my garage.
I'm afraid I can't argue philosophy here, since my brain is too full of how to mollify all the people/businesses/countries that I owe money to.
However, I did have to point out:
http://www.androphile.org/preview/Library/Articles/Werner/Werner20.22.htm
which is more than just "designed by a sadistic deity". I simply can't imagine the Christian God saying "I think I'll spend time to design homosexual bedbug rape".
Amanda
aka "vsbooklady" on livejournal
Ducks are infamous for it, too, and Dolphins commit infanticide on a regular basis. "Nature, red in tooth and claw" is a much more accurate observation than many would like to admit.
i skipped all the boring long winded stuff that the other self proclaimed plebs wrote and thought that you definitely have a questionable point. who the hell in their right minds would create such entities. one day to be discovered!
wage nnjjk XXX Movies odcbhz c ld a yck
mln, xtxla xh bmjhwhwy w qacle.
xkny prxcpewr l rw l!
yik porn hub
, ccnv mh rt r bxty x.
imgbmb jmhazr eufx i rweg. rxs, free xxx sex videos
, fuge d zncauqdy b zshqfi el oict pjg.
zqu rp jdw.
I agree with most of your points, but some need to be discussed further, I will hold a small talk with my buddies and maybe I will ask you some opinion shortly.
- Henry
Post a Comment