DarrenBarefoot.com

With regard to Christianity and Darwinism being compatible, I agree.

However, with regard to Intelligent Design being a “new, more socially-acceptable spin on Creationism”, I must respectfully disagree. Intelligent Design, as I understand it, is “creationist” in the sense that it believes that there is an intelligent mind (i.e. “creator”) behind the universe (hence the name: the universe has the appearance of design, which implies intelligence). It is not creationist in the sense of believing in a young earth and a literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis (i.e. a literal seven day creation).

In fact, the Intelligent Design theorists I have heard about are all experts in their field (be it astronomy, biology, biochemistry), not necessarily Christians, and believe in an old earth and universe (billions of years, or whatever the number is) and the big bang, etc.

Where Intelligent Design theorists are different is that they think that chance and natural selection (the basics of Darwinian evolution) cannot adequately explain many of the scientific discoveries that have been made in the last 50 or so years.

My two cents, anyway. I’m on my lunch break, so I haven’t had a chance to read the article, but I will when I get a chance.

[Reply]

Marc: Thanks for your comments. In truth, pretty much all I know about Intelligent Design I learned from that Wired article, so I’m no expert. I probably should have clarified what I meant when I said “more socially-acceptable spin on Creationism”.

I’d say you’ve correctly defined the theory of Intelligent Design. However, theory aside, Intelligent Design represents a strategy for putting Creationist (and Creationist-type) ideas on the national agenda. The Wired article describes this approach in some detail, and is worth reading.

From that article: “But scientists aren’t buying it. What Meyer [a ID advocate] calls ‘biology for the information age,’ they call creationism in a lab coat. ID’s core scientific principles - laid out in the mid-1990s by a biochemist and a mathematician - have been thoroughly dismissed on the grounds that Darwin’s theories can account for complexity, that ID relies on misunderstandings of evolution and flimsy probability calculations, and that it proposes no testable explanations.”

Another quote: “Ultimately, they have an evangelical Christian message that they want to push,” says Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at Florida State. “Intelligent design is the hook.”

And a third: “They have not been able to convince even a tiny amount of the scientific community,” says Ken Miller [an ID opponent]. “They have not been able to win the marketplace of ideas.”

[Reply]

This quote in particular bothered me:

“An exasperated Krauss claims that a truly representative debate would have had 10,000 pro-evolution scientists against two Discovery executives. “What these people want is for there to be a debate,” says Krauss. “People in the audience say, Hey, these people sound reasonable. They argue, ‘People have different opinions, we should present those opinions in school.’ That is nonsense. Some people have opinions that the Holocaust never happened, but we don’t teach that in history.”

My question is, how is this any different for purely materialistic evolution? The public is generally fairly ignorant about science (I include myself in there), and thereby quite fickle and prone to agree with anyone that sounds “reasonable”, and that includes Darwinists.

Of course, that the holocaust did not happen is not a “reasonable” position. The same cannot be categorically said about Intelligent Design.

[Reply]

Marc: “Reasonable” is a relative term. Therefore, while persons A through Y may not perceive Holocaust deniers as reasonable, person Z may.

By the same token, I could make a pretty sound argument for or against the reasonableness of Intelligent Design. I’d be harder pressed to make a case against the reasonableness of Darwinism. Clearly, in our society (and specifically in our schools), a theory has to reach a commonly-accepted level of reasonableness to gain approval. You think that’s the case with Intelligent Design. I’d have to read some more, but I’m not so sure.

[Reply]

The best site I’m aware of for general discussion of Intelligent Design from the evolutionary-theory-supporter perspective is Panda’s Thumb. For links to hardcore ID debunking, see antievolution.org and talkorigins.org.

One thing to be aware of with ID is that they aren’t offering anything in terms of a scientific (i.e., provable/falsifiable) theory, and mostly seem to be about throwing spitballs at evolutionary theory, really. That this annoys scientists working in the field sometimes shows through in criticisms of ID. (e.g.)

[Reply]

Darren, at the risk of making myself unpopular… what are your criteria for determining that belief in creationism is bad, while belief in The Christian God is not? I don’t think, on the basis of scientific evidence, that you can say that one belief is actually worse, or more or less justifiable than the other.
You know what, this one has me scratching my head, not least because I myself think that faith is kind of OK, despite being an atheist myself, but creationists are basically retarded. But I cannot honestly say I have a reasonable basis for making that judgement.

[Reply]

holy toast!

After reading Darren’s post about a study that found 45% of Americans are creationists and Will’s recent rants against believers of all stripes, I see that a partially eaten grilled cheese sandwich supposedly marked with the image of the…

Mark: I disagree that I can’t differentiate based on science. There’s plenty of evidence that supports the idea that humans have been here for more than 10,000 years (and sundry other historical, geographical and geological phenomenon that Creationists deny). On the other hand, there’s little or no scientific evidence to disprove the existence of God.

More generally, believing in God is an act of faith. Believing in Creationism requires that the science agree with you.

[Reply]

Darren,
For sure, there is no scientific evidence - nor will there ever be - that a God categorically does not exist. For that reason my atheism is no less an act of faith than an agnostic’s belief in God.
But we’re not talking about agnostics here: my understanding is that currently - unless things have changed a lot since my church school days in the 1970s - belief in The Christian God requires a literal belief in virgin birth and resurrection.
From my point of view, this requires no less disagreement with scientific evidence than a belief in creationism. But for some reason I am still prepared to cut those people a lot more slack. Maybe it’s just for an easy life, maybe I’m happy to see people approach reality one step at a time, I dunno : )

[Reply]

Coincidentally, the headline on the latest issue of National Geographic is “Was Darwin wrong?” I snatched it up immediately. I suspect that the answer will be “No”. I look forward to reading it (this will be the first NG article I have ever read, after years of just looking at the pictures).

(Another selling point: a free map of Earth at night)

[Reply]

There is, of course, a middle ground, of sorts. Not all Christians read Genesis 1 literally. See “http://www.stimulus.org.nz/index_files/Stim12_4RikkWatts.pdf “>Making Sense of Genesis 1″

[Reply]

To be fair, the poll also showed that 37% of those interviewed were satisfied with the compatibility of Darwinism and theism.

Interestingly, National Geographic frames the positions this way: “No less than 45%” don’t believe in a young (10,000 years or so) vs. “Only 37%” (emphasis mine). I’m not a statistician, but 8% isn’t a huge difference, is it?

[Reply]