Design and Visual Culture
Design Observer
ArchiveBooks + Store
Job Board
Email Archive
Comments
About
Contact
Log In
Register
Observatory
ResourcesSubmissions
About
Contact
Featured Writers
Michael BierutWilliam Drenttel
John Foster
Jessica Helfand
Alexandra Lange
Mark Lamster
Rick Poynor
John Thackara
Rob Walker
Departments
AdvertisementAudio
Books
Collections
Dialogues
Essays
Events
Foster Column
Gallery
Interviews
Miscellaneous
Opinions
Poetry
Primary Sources
Projects
Report
Reviews
Slideshows
Today Column
Unusual Suspects
Video
Topics
AdvertisingArchitecture
Art
Books
Branding
Business
Cities / Places
Community
Craft
Culture
Design History
Design Practice
Development
Disaster Relief
Ecology
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
Fashion
Film / Video
Food/Agriculture
Geography
Global / Local
Graphic Design
Health / Safety
History
Ideas
Illustration
India
Industry
Info Design
Infrastructure
Interaction Design
Internet / Blogs
Journalism
Landscape
Literature
Magazines
Media
Museums
Music
Nature
Obituary
Other
Peace
Philanthropy
Photography
Planning
Poetry
Politics / Policy
Popular Culture
Preservation
Product Design
Public / Private
Public Art
Religion
Reputations
Science
Social Enterprise
Sports
Sustainability
Technology
Theory/Criticism
Transportation
TV / Radio
Typography
Urbanism
Water
The Darwinian iPod
It's difficult these days to read the newspaper. I keep coming across articles discussing "intelligent design" and I plunge in, thinking they might be about some smarter rejoinder to the maldesigned SUV, or perhaps some new coffee cup lid that that won't allow the contents to rise up and scald my mouth. Mostly I'm just happy to see design discussed in the mainstream media.
That's when I learn that the article is really about the science-in-religion's-clothing specter that is the Intelligent Design movement. ID, for the uninitiated, is a doctrine calling into question Darwin's theory of evolution for its supposed explanatory flaws, those moments where scientists have yet to account in evolutionary terms for some organism's "irreducible complexity." It all must be the hand of an omnipotent Designer. "Teach the controversy," goes the mantra, in a bit of Orwellian manipulation of language. For the "controversy," it turns out, consists of more than a century's worth of the weight of scientific opinion and evidence, versus a historically fringe movement, peddling a few speculative hypotheses, the spiritual ally of good old creationism, or those "young Earth" people who say that the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood. In Bush's going-backwards America, 80 years after the "Scopes Trial" (American legal precedent for teaching evolution in schools), ID is suddenly, chillingly, passing for cutting-edge thought.
But for the sake of a late summer day's argument, I wonder what the Intelligent Design "controversy" would look like in the world of design.
In 1802, the English philosopher William Paley, in a kind of predecessor to ID, famously used the case of coming across a rock and a watch in a field. Unlike the rock, the watch consists of the complex interplay of a number of moving parts, each of which is required to make it function. "The inference is inevitable," said Paley. "The watch must have a maker." He then extrapolated this into the realm of nature, where any complex organism — an eye, for example — could not have evolved and must have been designed. There are echoes of this today in ID, and the lessons are clear: Whenever scientists stumble across something they cannot explain, the supposition is that it must be the supernatural at work, the guiding hand of the Designer.
As many observers have pointed out, however, Intelligent Design is often neither that intelligent, nor that well-designed. Take humans for example. Why do we have superfluous, but potentially deadly vestiges like the appendix or wisdom teeth? Why does birth proceed dangerously through the too-small aperture of the pelvic bones? And as an aging soccer player, I've got some gripes for the Design Department about the form-factor and durability of ankles and knees. As a product, humans would be a mixed-bag at best. Our components quit, break rather easily, or are often faulty from the get-go. Recalls are all-too common, the 1-800 customer-complaint lines always busy.
Let's say that instead of a watch in that field, we take the example of an observer coming across an iPod at a trade show. It is a sleek, well-crafted device that has a clever interface and seems to hold thousands of songs. The observer is curious: How could this small object perform these miraculous tasks? He would like to pry it open and figure it out, but there is just something so compelling about the smooth white exterior. It just seems too perfect to disturb, to interrogate. Its microchip architecture is just too complex. Not to mention that this device is said to have come from Steve Jobs, and to anyone who might have seen Jobs at a Macworld show, with a giant image of an iPod looming behind him like the obelisk in 2001, there is something of a supreme nature to the man. As the stories in the Book of Jobs tell it, the iPod is only one of an entire species to come from the hand of this incredibly Intelligent Designer. It is not important to know how they work or where they come from; rather, it is enough to know they were created by a Designer, and that somehow they fit into some grand scheme.
Designers would no doubt like to inhabit a world of Intelligent Design, and to be referred to as the honorific "Designer." This would be a world of unlimited budgets, of no constraints, of no sales departments or overseas factory reps. They wouldn't have to test their designs in the real world, or compare them to other designs. Their design would simply come into being, and there it would remain, unquestioned, not to be further unpacked because, clearly, it has been Designed. There would be no need to reverse engineer it to learn of its workings, no need to conduct ergonomic research. It is Designed, and it is so.
In the real world, design is Darwinian. To consider the iPod, it did not spring fully formed from the mind of a powerful Designer, but rather it represents one distinct point on a long evolutionary timeline. We would have to go back at least as far as the introduction of recorded music, then trace the increasing portability of that music, through car radios and miniaturized transistor radios after World War II. We would then have to move from the transistor radio with single earpiece to the stereo cassette Walkman, which gave the user the opportunity to listen to what they wanted, when they wanted, in a hermetically sealed mobile environment.
The Walkman, and later the Discman (for tapes were made extinct), laid the social groundwork for the iPod: the idea — and it was a radical one — that it was acceptable to walk around encased in one own's music. And before the iPod, of course, there were any number of MP3 players (the latest evolutionary medium), each of which were severely limited by their capacity or clunky controls. In their fossilized remains we can see how the iPod came into being, the ideal melding of what was then the most advanced hard drive and an elegant, almost "natural" interface — topped off by styling that was rather divine. We would also have to consider Apple's evolutionary history, its near-brushes with extinction, and its prescient decision that its best way to survive in the marketplace would not be to rely on computers per se, but to augment its bottom line with what was for it an entirely new market: personal music players.
Of course, it was only the final iPod that we saw, not the endless napkin sketches and clay models and working prototypes that never made it to production stage. Even the finished, designed iPod is not complete; for each week, it seems, there is some new software update being released, allowing the iPod to better adapt to the media jungle (e.g., the ability to store photos, to play Podcasts, etc.). The iPod continues to grow new "skins" — as its own is not well-suited for certain harsh environments — and even new "limbs," so it could more vigorously compete in arenas like the car, perhaps rendering the traditional car stereo obsolete. But some of these new iPod features have only come about by natural selection; in the same way that Darwin's theory helps explain what looks like bad design — cave-dwelling species with working eyes that are covered by flaps of skin — it also helps explain what looks like good design. Evolution, as described by the New Scientist, is "driven by a mismatch between an organism's needs and its abilities to meet them." That same impetus drives real intelligent design.
That's when I learn that the article is really about the science-in-religion's-clothing specter that is the Intelligent Design movement. ID, for the uninitiated, is a doctrine calling into question Darwin's theory of evolution for its supposed explanatory flaws, those moments where scientists have yet to account in evolutionary terms for some organism's "irreducible complexity." It all must be the hand of an omnipotent Designer. "Teach the controversy," goes the mantra, in a bit of Orwellian manipulation of language. For the "controversy," it turns out, consists of more than a century's worth of the weight of scientific opinion and evidence, versus a historically fringe movement, peddling a few speculative hypotheses, the spiritual ally of good old creationism, or those "young Earth" people who say that the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood. In Bush's going-backwards America, 80 years after the "Scopes Trial" (American legal precedent for teaching evolution in schools), ID is suddenly, chillingly, passing for cutting-edge thought.
But for the sake of a late summer day's argument, I wonder what the Intelligent Design "controversy" would look like in the world of design.
In 1802, the English philosopher William Paley, in a kind of predecessor to ID, famously used the case of coming across a rock and a watch in a field. Unlike the rock, the watch consists of the complex interplay of a number of moving parts, each of which is required to make it function. "The inference is inevitable," said Paley. "The watch must have a maker." He then extrapolated this into the realm of nature, where any complex organism — an eye, for example — could not have evolved and must have been designed. There are echoes of this today in ID, and the lessons are clear: Whenever scientists stumble across something they cannot explain, the supposition is that it must be the supernatural at work, the guiding hand of the Designer.
As many observers have pointed out, however, Intelligent Design is often neither that intelligent, nor that well-designed. Take humans for example. Why do we have superfluous, but potentially deadly vestiges like the appendix or wisdom teeth? Why does birth proceed dangerously through the too-small aperture of the pelvic bones? And as an aging soccer player, I've got some gripes for the Design Department about the form-factor and durability of ankles and knees. As a product, humans would be a mixed-bag at best. Our components quit, break rather easily, or are often faulty from the get-go. Recalls are all-too common, the 1-800 customer-complaint lines always busy.
Let's say that instead of a watch in that field, we take the example of an observer coming across an iPod at a trade show. It is a sleek, well-crafted device that has a clever interface and seems to hold thousands of songs. The observer is curious: How could this small object perform these miraculous tasks? He would like to pry it open and figure it out, but there is just something so compelling about the smooth white exterior. It just seems too perfect to disturb, to interrogate. Its microchip architecture is just too complex. Not to mention that this device is said to have come from Steve Jobs, and to anyone who might have seen Jobs at a Macworld show, with a giant image of an iPod looming behind him like the obelisk in 2001, there is something of a supreme nature to the man. As the stories in the Book of Jobs tell it, the iPod is only one of an entire species to come from the hand of this incredibly Intelligent Designer. It is not important to know how they work or where they come from; rather, it is enough to know they were created by a Designer, and that somehow they fit into some grand scheme.
Designers would no doubt like to inhabit a world of Intelligent Design, and to be referred to as the honorific "Designer." This would be a world of unlimited budgets, of no constraints, of no sales departments or overseas factory reps. They wouldn't have to test their designs in the real world, or compare them to other designs. Their design would simply come into being, and there it would remain, unquestioned, not to be further unpacked because, clearly, it has been Designed. There would be no need to reverse engineer it to learn of its workings, no need to conduct ergonomic research. It is Designed, and it is so.
In the real world, design is Darwinian. To consider the iPod, it did not spring fully formed from the mind of a powerful Designer, but rather it represents one distinct point on a long evolutionary timeline. We would have to go back at least as far as the introduction of recorded music, then trace the increasing portability of that music, through car radios and miniaturized transistor radios after World War II. We would then have to move from the transistor radio with single earpiece to the stereo cassette Walkman, which gave the user the opportunity to listen to what they wanted, when they wanted, in a hermetically sealed mobile environment.
The Walkman, and later the Discman (for tapes were made extinct), laid the social groundwork for the iPod: the idea — and it was a radical one — that it was acceptable to walk around encased in one own's music. And before the iPod, of course, there were any number of MP3 players (the latest evolutionary medium), each of which were severely limited by their capacity or clunky controls. In their fossilized remains we can see how the iPod came into being, the ideal melding of what was then the most advanced hard drive and an elegant, almost "natural" interface — topped off by styling that was rather divine. We would also have to consider Apple's evolutionary history, its near-brushes with extinction, and its prescient decision that its best way to survive in the marketplace would not be to rely on computers per se, but to augment its bottom line with what was for it an entirely new market: personal music players.
Of course, it was only the final iPod that we saw, not the endless napkin sketches and clay models and working prototypes that never made it to production stage. Even the finished, designed iPod is not complete; for each week, it seems, there is some new software update being released, allowing the iPod to better adapt to the media jungle (e.g., the ability to store photos, to play Podcasts, etc.). The iPod continues to grow new "skins" — as its own is not well-suited for certain harsh environments — and even new "limbs," so it could more vigorously compete in arenas like the car, perhaps rendering the traditional car stereo obsolete. But some of these new iPod features have only come about by natural selection; in the same way that Darwin's theory helps explain what looks like bad design — cave-dwelling species with working eyes that are covered by flaps of skin — it also helps explain what looks like good design. Evolution, as described by the New Scientist, is "driven by a mismatch between an organism's needs and its abilities to meet them." That same impetus drives real intelligent design.
Subscribe to Comment Feed
Comments (54) | JUMP TO MOST RECENT >>
Intersting perpsective!
I'm also new to this 'ID'. Here is my personal take.
http://blogs.msdn.com/alexbarn/archive/2005/08/06/448634.aspx
I'm also new to this 'ID'. Here is my personal take.
http://blogs.msdn.com/alexbarn/archive/2005/08/06/448634.aspx
ID is a thorny issue, for sure. I'm not much for organized religion (ok, I'm actually extremely skeptical of it). But I must admit, the idea of a thomasian "first cause" is compelling, as is the argument for an Intelligent Designer.
Logic and science and mathematics and physics probably have, at the end of their respective paths of inquiry, one single truth that the human mind could never grasp. Could that single, mysterious, universal truth be God? Why the heck not?
Wouldn't it be ironic if, in the end, the human urge to explore and examine and dig deeper was, in fact, the voice of God, calling us to fulfill that original design -- to be closer to that single truth, closer to God?
Won't those ID folks look silly?
Logic and science and mathematics and physics probably have, at the end of their respective paths of inquiry, one single truth that the human mind could never grasp. Could that single, mysterious, universal truth be God? Why the heck not?
Wouldn't it be ironic if, in the end, the human urge to explore and examine and dig deeper was, in fact, the voice of God, calling us to fulfill that original design -- to be closer to that single truth, closer to God?
Won't those ID folks look silly?
Yes, yes, yes, the foundation of ID rests on a kindergarten-level rational flaw: ("the universe is so complicated that something even more complicated must have made it," and - it would have to follow - something even more complicated created that second something, which in turn could only have been created by something even more complicated, ad infinitum).
Dave, I'm curious. You say you find the 'First Cause' compelling. Here's a question: If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause. Do you agree with this? If so, what caused the First Cause? If not, why not? thanks.
as a designer who had an academic "starter marriage" with biology in college, i loved this post. i've got to hand it to Tom for a fantastic metaphor in the ipod, and a concise distillation of one way in which anti-evolutionists have fundamentally flawed thinking.
to answer erik's question (and isn't it a little creepy how quickly, whenever someone questions christianity in any arena, there's some militant there with a pat reply?):
perhaps he's referring to the old adam & eve screwed it up for everyone argument. problem with that is, for an Intelligent Designer, Temptation would surely have been an identifiable flaw at design time, and correctable in prototypes, or at least in User Testing.
or, perhaps he means more interpretively that humanity has begun to destroy the natural balance of the Designer/Watchmaker/God's system, causing greater genetic mutation. while i welcome the possibility that a Creationist (though not our President) is willing to accept pollution, global warming and ozone depletion as established facts, the reasons DNA "degrade," or mutate -- while exacerbated by these human causes -- are still part of the original "plan." radiation from the Sun causes the bulk of biological mutation. this Intelligent Oversight begs two questions:
1. didn't the D/W/G then design a system of entropic evolution rather than a complete interlocking system of parts?
2. and why didn't the D/W/G design sunscreen?
the big problem with the ID argument is not its appreciation of extant complexity, but its inability to imagine just how ridiculously complex the living, changing world is.
i think there is also a lesson for human designers in Tom's post. too often we consider ourselves Gods and Watchmakers. we must embrace the fact that all design is flawed, and accept that adaptive (under-)design is far better than handing down tablets to Users from on high.
to answer erik's question (and isn't it a little creepy how quickly, whenever someone questions christianity in any arena, there's some militant there with a pat reply?):
perhaps he's referring to the old adam & eve screwed it up for everyone argument. problem with that is, for an Intelligent Designer, Temptation would surely have been an identifiable flaw at design time, and correctable in prototypes, or at least in User Testing.
or, perhaps he means more interpretively that humanity has begun to destroy the natural balance of the Designer/Watchmaker/God's system, causing greater genetic mutation. while i welcome the possibility that a Creationist (though not our President) is willing to accept pollution, global warming and ozone depletion as established facts, the reasons DNA "degrade," or mutate -- while exacerbated by these human causes -- are still part of the original "plan." radiation from the Sun causes the bulk of biological mutation. this Intelligent Oversight begs two questions:
1. didn't the D/W/G then design a system of entropic evolution rather than a complete interlocking system of parts?
2. and why didn't the D/W/G design sunscreen?
the big problem with the ID argument is not its appreciation of extant complexity, but its inability to imagine just how ridiculously complex the living, changing world is.
i think there is also a lesson for human designers in Tom's post. too often we consider ourselves Gods and Watchmakers. we must embrace the fact that all design is flawed, and accept that adaptive (under-)design is far better than handing down tablets to Users from on high.
Might be worth noting (esp. from a design perspective) that a pocket watch (even an 18th-century one that Wm. Paley might have run across) in a field does not imply a single maker but rather a whole industrial society, just as an iPod would. No one person can go from raw materials to a watch on their own.
Also interesting reading from a design perspective is Stephen Jay Gould & Richard Lewontin's The Spandrels of San Marco, which explains how features (in designed objects & organisms) can evolve without a directed purpose: their example is the architectural element of the spandrel. It's really too bad that Gould died before this "debate" restarted itself . . .
Also interesting reading from a design perspective is Stephen Jay Gould & Richard Lewontin's The Spandrels of San Marco, which explains how features (in designed objects & organisms) can evolve without a directed purpose: their example is the architectural element of the spandrel. It's really too bad that Gould died before this "debate" restarted itself . . .
"i think there is also a lesson for human designers in Tom's post. too often we consider ourselves Gods and Watchmakers. we must embrace the fact that all design is flawed, and accept that adaptive (under-)design is far better than handing down tablets to Users from on high."
An excellent point.
To answer hb, and Alex... you're missing a premise. Anything with a beginning has a purpose.
I think some of you might be interested in what sceintists have beens aying recently regarding "design": http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2005/08/design_as_long.html
An excellent point.
To answer hb, and Alex... you're missing a premise. Anything with a beginning has a purpose.
I think some of you might be interested in what sceintists have beens aying recently regarding "design": http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2005/08/design_as_long.html
While I find it, er, creepy that Jay finds anyone voicing another view to be creepy (and a "militant"), if you take Erik's self description at face value then he is not an I.D. proponent. Young Earth six day creationist theories are not particularly compatible with the quasi/semi-Darwinian arguments of the I.D. folk. (BTW, Jay, if we buy the I.D. theory—or Darwin's—the D/W/G—or natural selection—"designed" sunscreen. It just disappeared in the vitamin D-deprived populations that moved north.)
Steven Jobs didn't design the iPod and the industrial design version of the I.D. initials is not the least Darwinian but, ignoring that for now, Dan's post got to the real flaw in the approach of most (but not all) intelligent design advocates: They are crypto religious and specific in their religion. They claim "scientific" problems with Darwinian theories but tailor their criticisms to a monotheistic (or at very least mono-deistic) solution to said problems. As Dan pointed out, the watchmaker thing is a quaint 18th century metaphor. The "common sense" response behind I.D. would tend to make one a poly-deist. Can you imagine approaching a shopping mall and saying "Someone must have designed these buildings, all of the items for sale in the stores, and all of the cars in the parking lot. I think I'll go to the management office and meet him"?
Steven Jobs didn't design the iPod and the industrial design version of the I.D. initials is not the least Darwinian but, ignoring that for now, Dan's post got to the real flaw in the approach of most (but not all) intelligent design advocates: They are crypto religious and specific in their religion. They claim "scientific" problems with Darwinian theories but tailor their criticisms to a monotheistic (or at very least mono-deistic) solution to said problems. As Dan pointed out, the watchmaker thing is a quaint 18th century metaphor. The "common sense" response behind I.D. would tend to make one a poly-deist. Can you imagine approaching a shopping mall and saying "Someone must have designed these buildings, all of the items for sale in the stores, and all of the cars in the parking lot. I think I'll go to the management office and meet him"?
Gunnar,
Thank you for taking the words out my mouth. Your words are much more eloquent than my response would have been.
And as far as Jay's statement in smarmily choosing to stereotype Christians, I choose to offer the other cheek.
Thank you for taking the words out my mouth. Your words are much more eloquent than my response would have been.
And as far as Jay's statement in smarmily choosing to stereotype Christians, I choose to offer the other cheek.
I'd just like to point out that a rock is complicated, both in crystalline structure and at the atomic and subatomic levels. It's arguable whether a pocketwatch is "more complex" than a rock. I find William Paley's rock vs. watch metaphor rather uncompelling. It sets up the conclusion by its limited inherent assumptions -- exactly like contemporary I.D. theorists.
Gunnar, thanks for pointing out an embarrassing misstep on my part. If I could edit my previous post(!!!), I would remove that parenthetical. It =certainly= was not meant as a broad swipe at Christians, or indeed Creationists, but specifically at militants who monitor liberal blogs to post inflammatory comments.
Yet Design Observer is not (overtly) a political blog, nor can I, without knowing Erik beyond his cogent and topic-appropriate post, place him in the militant camp. I apologize.
Yet Design Observer is not (overtly) a political blog, nor can I, without knowing Erik beyond his cogent and topic-appropriate post, place him in the militant camp. I apologize.
"Their design would simply come into being, and there it would remain, unquestioned, not to be further unpacked because, clearly, it has been Designed."
As an attack on those who hold to the idea that an intelligent designer exists, this is rather weak. I would venture to say that most, if not all, scientists who accept ID would holeheartedly reject the notion that because there might be intelligence behind life, that it must not be questioned or dissected. In fact, that is the very thing from which the theory springs from, is it not - an attempt to understand and explain our origins?
To use the analogy of the creation of the iPod in this case also seems a bit weak. The iPod has clearly "evolved" from what could be described as "ooze" (early transistor radios, etc), but the fact that it was designed for a purpose by human hands -- that I will assume were connected to intelligent brains -- seems to make a case more in support of ID than to bring it down.
As a personal, non-scientific observation, I think the reason many scientists and/or philosophers are considering ID as an option is not that they are just gosh-darn zealous and need to have God in everything, but that the gaps in evidence for Darwinian evolution combined with our ever-increasing understanding of how things work begs the question: Did it really just happen or what? I think there are a couple different perspectives in the ID camp - Christians who embrace the idea simply because it promotes the Christian God, and those who are perplexed by what they have observed in the realm of science and are willing to examine other ideas.
"As many observers have pointed out, however, Intelligent Design is often neither that intelligent, nor that well-designed. Take humans for example. Why do we have superfluous, but potentially deadly vestiges like the appendix or wisdom teeth?"
If I understand you correctly, you use this statement to show proof that humans are not designed. I would argue, not that you are wrong, but that to reject one idea (namely ID) in part due to this information shows that you are making as many assumptions about the nature of the purported intelligence behind the design as those you accuse.
As an attack on those who hold to the idea that an intelligent designer exists, this is rather weak. I would venture to say that most, if not all, scientists who accept ID would holeheartedly reject the notion that because there might be intelligence behind life, that it must not be questioned or dissected. In fact, that is the very thing from which the theory springs from, is it not - an attempt to understand and explain our origins?
To use the analogy of the creation of the iPod in this case also seems a bit weak. The iPod has clearly "evolved" from what could be described as "ooze" (early transistor radios, etc), but the fact that it was designed for a purpose by human hands -- that I will assume were connected to intelligent brains -- seems to make a case more in support of ID than to bring it down.
As a personal, non-scientific observation, I think the reason many scientists and/or philosophers are considering ID as an option is not that they are just gosh-darn zealous and need to have God in everything, but that the gaps in evidence for Darwinian evolution combined with our ever-increasing understanding of how things work begs the question: Did it really just happen or what? I think there are a couple different perspectives in the ID camp - Christians who embrace the idea simply because it promotes the Christian God, and those who are perplexed by what they have observed in the realm of science and are willing to examine other ideas.
"As many observers have pointed out, however, Intelligent Design is often neither that intelligent, nor that well-designed. Take humans for example. Why do we have superfluous, but potentially deadly vestiges like the appendix or wisdom teeth?"
If I understand you correctly, you use this statement to show proof that humans are not designed. I would argue, not that you are wrong, but that to reject one idea (namely ID) in part due to this information shows that you are making as many assumptions about the nature of the purported intelligence behind the design as those you accuse.
This ID trend sounds very similar to the Enlightment-era philosophy of deism, which attempted to straddle the worlds of science and Christianity. Through their explanation of God as clockmaker who sets elements in play but has no input (interest?) over the daily machinations, the deists proposed a complex world with an implicit underlying system, waiting to be unlocked by the human intellect.
Great article and posts - I had no idea about the recent upsurge in ID...
Great article and posts - I had no idea about the recent upsurge in ID...
A friend of mine used to make the assertion that science was just as fantastic (ie: unbelievable) as Creationism so he would conclude that the two were equally invalid philosophies of how the world worked. Intelligent Design may be a perfectly valid belief, but it's an intellectual dead end: for a real scientist, it's not enough to observe phemonena that seems incomprehensible, shrug one's shoulders and say, "well, there goes the Great Designer, at work again." Perhaps there isn't an explanation now, but maybe in ten years, or 100. And no doubt, the explanation will open more understanding and paradoxically, more questions about the complex world we live in.
Text Science offers the boldest metaphysics of our age. It is a thoroughly human construct, driven by the faith that if we dream, press to discover, explain, and dream again, the world will somehow come clearer and we will grasp the true strangeness of the universe.Text
- Edward O. Wilson
Text Science offers the boldest metaphysics of our age. It is a thoroughly human construct, driven by the faith that if we dream, press to discover, explain, and dream again, the world will somehow come clearer and we will grasp the true strangeness of the universe.Text
- Edward O. Wilson
7-day, young-earth creationists HATE ID. I know, my family includes such. Look at their literature. The problem is that the ID people tend almost universally to believe that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
What they question is not evolution; it's neodarwinism: the belief that the current state of affairs could have been reached by random mutations plus natural selection, and NOTHING ELSE. They claim that some of the structures we observe appear to require some steps in which natural selection cannot provide sufficient guidance -- an organ must develop from no usefulness to full usefulness with no intermediate steps, for example.
One example would be the origin of life itself.
What they question is not evolution; it's neodarwinism: the belief that the current state of affairs could have been reached by random mutations plus natural selection, and NOTHING ELSE. They claim that some of the structures we observe appear to require some steps in which natural selection cannot provide sufficient guidance -- an organ must develop from no usefulness to full usefulness with no intermediate steps, for example.
One example would be the origin of life itself.
Very interesting discussion. Design & Creation are inevitably intertwined. Nature seems to be mindless in its creative activities, yet produces the most wonderful designs. I have perused the query, "can mindless exploration generate good design?"
I have developed a method to do this, called genometri as it combines ideas from genetics and geometry. I have found that it can indeed create interesting designs. Some samples are floated on www.genometri.info
I have developed a method to do this, called genometri as it combines ideas from genetics and geometry. I have found that it can indeed create interesting designs. Some samples are floated on www.genometri.info
Great article by H. Allen Orr in a recent issue of the New Yorker: Master Planned: Why Intelligent Design Isn't
One of its points is the successful "marketing" of intelligent design through a coordinated campaign of engaging scientists on the topic -- the debate alone gives ID the appearance of credibility.
One of its points is the successful "marketing" of intelligent design through a coordinated campaign of engaging scientists on the topic -- the debate alone gives ID the appearance of credibility.
I love you guys, but I think many of you are missing the point here. The question is not about how the world was created. The question is about what is and isn't science. Science is a method, just like design have methods. If you follow the method, then you get to call it science. That means you have evidence to back up your assertions, that evidence is empirical (measureable) and can be reproduced reliably. Evolution has 200 years of accumulated evidence to support it. Morphological studies, DNA studies, biologcal evidence...there is tons of it out there. In fact, there is no real scientific evidence to refute natural selection as a valid theory.
On the other hand there is no evidence for intelligent design execpt for suppositions (why there *must* be an intelligent designer! there must!) The point is that ID is not science but those who propose it are trying to get it taught as science. It is religion. Philosophy. Metaphysics. But not science. It may wear a lab coat and have lots of glassware on the bench but it does not mean it is science. Here is what I would tell the ID "proponents" (aka evangelical Christians): once you've got a hundred years or so of valid, peer-reviewed scientific EVIDENCE to support your assertion, then come back and we'll talk about teaching ID as science. Until then keep in church.
On the other hand there is no evidence for intelligent design execpt for suppositions (why there *must* be an intelligent designer! there must!) The point is that ID is not science but those who propose it are trying to get it taught as science. It is religion. Philosophy. Metaphysics. But not science. It may wear a lab coat and have lots of glassware on the bench but it does not mean it is science. Here is what I would tell the ID "proponents" (aka evangelical Christians): once you've got a hundred years or so of valid, peer-reviewed scientific EVIDENCE to support your assertion, then come back and we'll talk about teaching ID as science. Until then keep in church.
Good point, Eric, but while that is true,it is also kind of obvious that "ID" was created to blur those boundaries. The people who press for "ID" are not interested in keeping science and religion apart. They are forcing their religion into science, while claiming that all they do is science. They've clearly learned ever since they tried to sell us "Creationism" as science.
So in a sense, you could just dismiss "ID" as religion - which it is - but, unfortunately, too many people take "ID" seriously and discuss it as if it was accepting the same methods as physical cosmology, say, or biochemistry.
But then "ID" has some major design flaws, and it's not very hard to take it apart - using scientific methods. For example, they never explain really well why certain biological abundant or useless features do exist if there's intelligent design behind them. That doesn't make any sense.
What's more, "ID" is created in such a way that it will disappear with time. As we understand more about evolution and about the Universe, all those areas that we can't understand right now - and that serve to motivate "ID" - will shrink. What a curious "theory"!
But what I find most ridiculous about "ID" is that most of it is based on the assumption that life is too complicated to have evolved on its own. What that means is that they simply fail to accept that things that are very unlikely are not impossible to happen. Yes, there are immense complexities in nature, and yes, it is very unlikely that such complexities eveolved - but, to give a more common example, it is also very unlikely that anybody will win the lottery, yet there appear to be people who do so, and we commonly attribute that to sheer luck and not to a God.
As a scientific theory "ID" is clearly quite ridiculous: If you're a scientist (disclaimer: I am one), you can't just throw your hands in the air, exclaiming "there must be a God" once you can't explain things. We have been living with many unsolved scientific riddles for a long time, and introducing an explanation that cannot be falsified (you'd have to prove the non-existence of God! - can you imagine writing a grant asking for money to do that?) is clearly not very useful.
So in a sense, you could just dismiss "ID" as religion - which it is - but, unfortunately, too many people take "ID" seriously and discuss it as if it was accepting the same methods as physical cosmology, say, or biochemistry.
But then "ID" has some major design flaws, and it's not very hard to take it apart - using scientific methods. For example, they never explain really well why certain biological abundant or useless features do exist if there's intelligent design behind them. That doesn't make any sense.
What's more, "ID" is created in such a way that it will disappear with time. As we understand more about evolution and about the Universe, all those areas that we can't understand right now - and that serve to motivate "ID" - will shrink. What a curious "theory"!
But what I find most ridiculous about "ID" is that most of it is based on the assumption that life is too complicated to have evolved on its own. What that means is that they simply fail to accept that things that are very unlikely are not impossible to happen. Yes, there are immense complexities in nature, and yes, it is very unlikely that such complexities eveolved - but, to give a more common example, it is also very unlikely that anybody will win the lottery, yet there appear to be people who do so, and we commonly attribute that to sheer luck and not to a God.
As a scientific theory "ID" is clearly quite ridiculous: If you're a scientist (disclaimer: I am one), you can't just throw your hands in the air, exclaiming "there must be a God" once you can't explain things. We have been living with many unsolved scientific riddles for a long time, and introducing an explanation that cannot be falsified (you'd have to prove the non-existence of God! - can you imagine writing a grant asking for money to do that?) is clearly not very useful.
"Evolution has 200 years of accumulated evidence to support it."
Yes, but the evidence does not prove evolution, does it? The problem many have with a dogmatic acceptance of any theory, scientific or not, is a lack of proof. It's fine to agree with a theory, but, unless I misunderstand scientific method, the only time science can actually claim to prove something is if it tests a hypothesis and the results agree with that hypothesis. Has this happened for evolution yet? You are totally right that there are proofs for evolution, but the existence of proofs do not necessarily prove. I mean, good grief, some people will show you proof of Big Foot, but scientifically, have we proven it exists? It seems that for some, the acceptance of evolution is percieved as much a step of faith as allowing for the presence of a creative diety. That is where this whole debate lies, I think. Which does bring it into the philosophical realm.
Yes, but the evidence does not prove evolution, does it? The problem many have with a dogmatic acceptance of any theory, scientific or not, is a lack of proof. It's fine to agree with a theory, but, unless I misunderstand scientific method, the only time science can actually claim to prove something is if it tests a hypothesis and the results agree with that hypothesis. Has this happened for evolution yet? You are totally right that there are proofs for evolution, but the existence of proofs do not necessarily prove. I mean, good grief, some people will show you proof of Big Foot, but scientifically, have we proven it exists? It seems that for some, the acceptance of evolution is percieved as much a step of faith as allowing for the presence of a creative diety. That is where this whole debate lies, I think. Which does bring it into the philosophical realm.
"You can't just throw your hands in the air, exclaiming "there must be a God" once you can't explain things."
Why do you think that is what anyone who believes in God wants to do?
Why do you think that is what anyone who believes in God wants to do?
I think it is an interesting, but flawed, idea to lump micro-evolution with macro-evolution. The idea that the "evolution" of a transit or radio to the I-Pod some how backs the idea that dogs could eventually turn into horse or cows or whatever natural selection and positive mutations deem necessary, is ludicrous. For example the cell phone can be traced back to two soup cans and a string, or even farther back, Native Americans flapping blankets in a fire for smoke signals or ancient Chinese lighting fires on mountain tops. All of these ideas resonant from the some epicenter; Communication. Where evolution falls on its face is the monumental jumps of unexplained mutations that explain different species. (i.e. how a cell phone can eventually become a rocking chair)
What's more, "ID" is created in such a way that it will disappear with time. As we understand more about evolution and about the Universe, all those areas that we can't understand right now - and that serve to motivate "ID" - will shrink. What a curious "theory"!
Not exactly the resounding support of "hundreds of years of accumulated evidence that is undeniable". The assumption that future enlightenment can only have the impact of supporting the gapping holes in the theory of evolution is the same kind of backwards science that "proves" evolution in the first place. The vague references to assumed proof is all the evolutionists rest their faith on.
You can try to separate science and religion but if you accept the truth that God created everything in this world, the two disciples become symbiotic.
What's more, "ID" is created in such a way that it will disappear with time. As we understand more about evolution and about the Universe, all those areas that we can't understand right now - and that serve to motivate "ID" - will shrink. What a curious "theory"!
Not exactly the resounding support of "hundreds of years of accumulated evidence that is undeniable". The assumption that future enlightenment can only have the impact of supporting the gapping holes in the theory of evolution is the same kind of backwards science that "proves" evolution in the first place. The vague references to assumed proof is all the evolutionists rest their faith on.
You can try to separate science and religion but if you accept the truth that God created everything in this world, the two disciples become symbiotic.
Ryan, when scientists say "theory", they mean something that (a) can be disproven, and (b) generally works. A good theory is one that works more often than any other. The theory of the Atom works pretty well for everything from neon lights to atomic bombs, but "proof" for it is almost non-existent by your standards.
ID is not disprovable. Any problem with ID can be patched up with "the designer made it that way". The theory is thus useless except as a philosophical game along the lines of asking whether or not we're all living in someone else's dream or something. Who created the designer?
It's like the theories of pre-Genesis legacy. Take Adam's belly button - did he have one? Some say yes, god gave him one even though he wasn't born of woman. Did the larger trees in the Garden of Eden have rings in them at first? Sure, God put them there even though the earth was only a few days old. The fossilized plants and dinosaurs? God put them there too, for similar reasons: To make the earth's history seem bigger and grander. In this model, the Intelligent Designer went out of his way to give us a puzzle to solve, a puzzle that forms a massive and rich body of knowledge that has strangely proven to be quite useful to us. It's silly, I know, but that's where you go when you start down that road.
ID will never help us fight cancer. It will never help predict the extinction of a species. It will never help us with anything, really. It will do nothing but stop science in its tracks.
ID is not disprovable. Any problem with ID can be patched up with "the designer made it that way". The theory is thus useless except as a philosophical game along the lines of asking whether or not we're all living in someone else's dream or something. Who created the designer?
It's like the theories of pre-Genesis legacy. Take Adam's belly button - did he have one? Some say yes, god gave him one even though he wasn't born of woman. Did the larger trees in the Garden of Eden have rings in them at first? Sure, God put them there even though the earth was only a few days old. The fossilized plants and dinosaurs? God put them there too, for similar reasons: To make the earth's history seem bigger and grander. In this model, the Intelligent Designer went out of his way to give us a puzzle to solve, a puzzle that forms a massive and rich body of knowledge that has strangely proven to be quite useful to us. It's silly, I know, but that's where you go when you start down that road.
ID will never help us fight cancer. It will never help predict the extinction of a species. It will never help us with anything, really. It will do nothing but stop science in its tracks.
You can try to separate science and religion but if you accept the truth that God created everything in this world, the two disciples become symbiotic.
That's worth saying again.
When you believe in something so powerful, it seeps into all areas of your life. Understanding one helps define the other.
That's worth saying again.
When you believe in something so powerful, it seeps into all areas of your life. Understanding one helps define the other.
"Ryan, when scientists say "theory", they mean something that (a) can be disproven, and (b) generally works. A good theory is one that works more often than any other."
Don't you mean "(a) can be proven"? If it could be disproven, then it's crap, right? If I say the sky looks green, but you can prove that it really looks blue using the light spectrum, then my theory is not an option. Perhaps I'm missing something.
"The theory of the Atom works pretty well for everything from neon lights to atomic bombs, but "proof" for it is almost non-existent by your standards."
But isn't that what we're talking about here? The provability of something? The author of the original post attempts to discredit those who believe in an intelligent designer simply because it cannot be proven, that it's not true science. Within science, faith has to be placed in the knowledge available in order to extrapolate and understand certain things, exactly as you said. Why is there no room for faith in a designer then?
As to my standards, I'm referring to the scientific method, something I picked up in basic science in Jr High -- "SCIENTIFIC METHOD: (n) scientific method (a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses)"-- From Princton Wordnet -- and the word "observation" is quite critical here. If I can't observe it it is not provable, exactly as you say, and so I'll refer you to the previous paragraph...
"ID is not disprovable. Any problem with ID can be patched up with "the designer made it that way". The theory is thus useless except as a philosophical game along the lines of asking whether or not we're all living in someone else's dream or something."
Of course that makes sense if the person you are talking with doesn't care about reality. But what about those scientists, philosophers and general individuals who actually do care about understanding the reality they live in and are willing to lose their faith to gain that understanding, but in the process find that their faith is the basis for their reality?
And besides, if you are looking for hard and fast fact, then you should stop looking to science. Ideas, theories and understanding about the world around us have been shifting since humans started examining it.
"Who created the designer?"
Let's hypothesize for a minute and consider that there is a designer. Would it require a source? I don't know. What if it were indeed capable of making something out of nothing? If it were, in fact, supernatural? Are we capable of measuring the supernatural, if it does exist? Elininating the possibility of the supernatural seems to eliminate a possible solution to knowing the truth about reality. Is that what science is all about? Finding answers that fit certain conclusions?
"ID will never help us fight cancer. It will never help predict the extinction of a species. It will never help us with anything, really. It will do nothing but stop science in its tracks."
I don't think anyone is trying to say, that because there is a God, then screw science (ok, some do say that, but that is a fringe element...discuss). In fact, I would say, that what is learned in science reflects the nature of God...which is exactly why, when in such a time as this, when technology and science are bringing wonders to light, people are examining the possibility of the existence of an intelligent designer.
All I'm trying to point out, in light of the original post, is that to flat out deny the existence of an intelligent designer smacks as much of blind faith as those who don't tolerate scientific thought (ie flat earth/round earth).
Don't you mean "(a) can be proven"? If it could be disproven, then it's crap, right? If I say the sky looks green, but you can prove that it really looks blue using the light spectrum, then my theory is not an option. Perhaps I'm missing something.
"The theory of the Atom works pretty well for everything from neon lights to atomic bombs, but "proof" for it is almost non-existent by your standards."
But isn't that what we're talking about here? The provability of something? The author of the original post attempts to discredit those who believe in an intelligent designer simply because it cannot be proven, that it's not true science. Within science, faith has to be placed in the knowledge available in order to extrapolate and understand certain things, exactly as you said. Why is there no room for faith in a designer then?
As to my standards, I'm referring to the scientific method, something I picked up in basic science in Jr High -- "SCIENTIFIC METHOD: (n) scientific method (a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses)"-- From Princton Wordnet -- and the word "observation" is quite critical here. If I can't observe it it is not provable, exactly as you say, and so I'll refer you to the previous paragraph...
"ID is not disprovable. Any problem with ID can be patched up with "the designer made it that way". The theory is thus useless except as a philosophical game along the lines of asking whether or not we're all living in someone else's dream or something."
Of course that makes sense if the person you are talking with doesn't care about reality. But what about those scientists, philosophers and general individuals who actually do care about understanding the reality they live in and are willing to lose their faith to gain that understanding, but in the process find that their faith is the basis for their reality?
And besides, if you are looking for hard and fast fact, then you should stop looking to science. Ideas, theories and understanding about the world around us have been shifting since humans started examining it.
"Who created the designer?"
Let's hypothesize for a minute and consider that there is a designer. Would it require a source? I don't know. What if it were indeed capable of making something out of nothing? If it were, in fact, supernatural? Are we capable of measuring the supernatural, if it does exist? Elininating the possibility of the supernatural seems to eliminate a possible solution to knowing the truth about reality. Is that what science is all about? Finding answers that fit certain conclusions?
"ID will never help us fight cancer. It will never help predict the extinction of a species. It will never help us with anything, really. It will do nothing but stop science in its tracks."
I don't think anyone is trying to say, that because there is a God, then screw science (ok, some do say that, but that is a fringe element...discuss). In fact, I would say, that what is learned in science reflects the nature of God...which is exactly why, when in such a time as this, when technology and science are bringing wonders to light, people are examining the possibility of the existence of an intelligent designer.
All I'm trying to point out, in light of the original post, is that to flat out deny the existence of an intelligent designer smacks as much of blind faith as those who don't tolerate scientific thought (ie flat earth/round earth).
wow, that was too long, sorry.
I would like to know how people measure
"complexity." As in, "the human eyeball
is too complex to evolve," and
"a watch is more complex than a rock." There
is no way. Complexity is the sum of
parts, relationships, reactions to stimuli
and context. It can only be compared
within narrow contexts, like, "a watch is
more complex than a sundial."
If God did design us, did we work the first time? Did he not, like Apple's team, make prototypes?
Isn't it possible that evolution is the very mechanism by which God is performing his design?
Isn't it clear that a supernatural force created
the most atomic forces, materials and spirit, then allowed them to interplay for billions of years? The possibility of interference at the level of human organ is left open, but it's hardly necessary. Why, after creating a universe of
a scale that we can just barely comprehend, full of matter that's continuously growing and evolving, would it be necessary to make a few cosmic fixups here and there?
Well, as a computer scientists who often employes
genetic algorithms, I can say that it is often valuable to interfere with them to get past sticking points. So perhaps God has to do the same, because genetic evolution tends to create local minima? However, the sticking points are only on the way to optimal results. Is our existence optimal? That is impossible to answer,
because we don't know why we're here.
Now, I would have no trouble teaching in schools
that "divine interference" could take place, that,
following the creation of all matter, forces and our spirits and letting them interplay for billions of years, the same creator could nudge life along when things aren't going well. However, I would like to see evidence of this. My friends in the biology world are connecting more and more of the world through DNA. This suggests that divine intervention is not taking place, that our creator has simply set up his clockwork and is allowing it to iterate.
Speaking of iterations and billions of years, most
people have no useful way to comprehend just how much iteration is taking place to create the
fantastic spectacle of evolution. There are billions and billions and billions of decision points. If someone says "there hasn't been enough time for that much change to take place," then
kindly ask them how much time they would expect each change to take and how many changes occurred.
They won't be able to, they're just using their intution, which is critically flawed for a problem of this magnitude. Most people don't have enough exposure to the world to even recognize all the species out there. Most don't even realize the recumbent bike was invented in the early 1900s.
Most don't have the ability to critically interrogate tradition, and end up conflating religion with morality. And this is why most aren't designers.
The enduring questions (see Arthur C. Clarke, btw) are 1) how to teach people to trust evolution for themselves. 2) if people are too ignorant to investigate for themselves, is it ethical to teach
them a simplified model of the world.
"complexity." As in, "the human eyeball
is too complex to evolve," and
"a watch is more complex than a rock." There
is no way. Complexity is the sum of
parts, relationships, reactions to stimuli
and context. It can only be compared
within narrow contexts, like, "a watch is
more complex than a sundial."
If God did design us, did we work the first time? Did he not, like Apple's team, make prototypes?
Isn't it possible that evolution is the very mechanism by which God is performing his design?
Isn't it clear that a supernatural force created
the most atomic forces, materials and spirit, then allowed them to interplay for billions of years? The possibility of interference at the level of human organ is left open, but it's hardly necessary. Why, after creating a universe of
a scale that we can just barely comprehend, full of matter that's continuously growing and evolving, would it be necessary to make a few cosmic fixups here and there?
Well, as a computer scientists who often employes
genetic algorithms, I can say that it is often valuable to interfere with them to get past sticking points. So perhaps God has to do the same, because genetic evolution tends to create local minima? However, the sticking points are only on the way to optimal results. Is our existence optimal? That is impossible to answer,
because we don't know why we're here.
Now, I would have no trouble teaching in schools
that "divine interference" could take place, that,
following the creation of all matter, forces and our spirits and letting them interplay for billions of years, the same creator could nudge life along when things aren't going well. However, I would like to see evidence of this. My friends in the biology world are connecting more and more of the world through DNA. This suggests that divine intervention is not taking place, that our creator has simply set up his clockwork and is allowing it to iterate.
Speaking of iterations and billions of years, most
people have no useful way to comprehend just how much iteration is taking place to create the
fantastic spectacle of evolution. There are billions and billions and billions of decision points. If someone says "there hasn't been enough time for that much change to take place," then
kindly ask them how much time they would expect each change to take and how many changes occurred.
They won't be able to, they're just using their intution, which is critically flawed for a problem of this magnitude. Most people don't have enough exposure to the world to even recognize all the species out there. Most don't even realize the recumbent bike was invented in the early 1900s.
Most don't have the ability to critically interrogate tradition, and end up conflating religion with morality. And this is why most aren't designers.
The enduring questions (see Arthur C. Clarke, btw) are 1) how to teach people to trust evolution for themselves. 2) if people are too ignorant to investigate for themselves, is it ethical to teach
them a simplified model of the world.
Interesting hypothesis, but starts with a flawed premise. "If God did design us, did we work the first time? Did he not, like Apple's team, make prototypes?
Isn't it possible that evolution is the very mechanism by which God is performing his design?"
This kind of logic places man at the same level as God. The thing that makes God, God, is that he is omnipotent. (Which I know we design all think we are too, oops) Man was created perfect, with the responsibility of free will which and Adam and Eve choose to sin and ruin perfection for the rest of us. (Although I sin everyday so I can't criticize; casting the first stone and all) So the idea that the mysteries of why the human body is flawed and why we eventually expire, is not an error on the designer/creator, but a result of the misuse of the product.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD: (n) scientific method (a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses)"
If we are unable we are unable to observe the "fantastic spectacle of evolution" then it is not scientifically sound and can then hardly be called a theory, but more appropriately and rough guess.
In both instances we are taking about faith. Faith to believe that random chance and positive mutation (which is the biggest oxy-moron I have ever heard of) formed life as we know for no apparent purpose;
or faith that we and the rest of creation was wonderfully made by a loving God whose final gift rest in the forgiveness of the sins that plague our existence, and the promise of a life of perfection in heaven.
I choose the latter, not because I am convinced by the inspiration of nature that surrounds me or because I observed creation, but because God said He did it in the oldest documentation that exist in this world, the bible.
Faith covers all things that are not explainable, it's just a matter of what you have faith in.
Isn't it possible that evolution is the very mechanism by which God is performing his design?"
This kind of logic places man at the same level as God. The thing that makes God, God, is that he is omnipotent. (Which I know we design all think we are too, oops) Man was created perfect, with the responsibility of free will which and Adam and Eve choose to sin and ruin perfection for the rest of us. (Although I sin everyday so I can't criticize; casting the first stone and all) So the idea that the mysteries of why the human body is flawed and why we eventually expire, is not an error on the designer/creator, but a result of the misuse of the product.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD: (n) scientific method (a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses)"
If we are unable we are unable to observe the "fantastic spectacle of evolution" then it is not scientifically sound and can then hardly be called a theory, but more appropriately and rough guess.
In both instances we are taking about faith. Faith to believe that random chance and positive mutation (which is the biggest oxy-moron I have ever heard of) formed life as we know for no apparent purpose;
or faith that we and the rest of creation was wonderfully made by a loving God whose final gift rest in the forgiveness of the sins that plague our existence, and the promise of a life of perfection in heaven.
I choose the latter, not because I am convinced by the inspiration of nature that surrounds me or because I observed creation, but because God said He did it in the oldest documentation that exist in this world, the bible.
Faith covers all things that are not explainable, it's just a matter of what you have faith in.
Ryan, you have it all wrong. I intended to write "disproven".
Because scientists recognize that there is always knowledge that is more advanced than the knowledge we currently have, theories never claim to be final facts. A real theory is something that can, potentially, be DIS-proven. If it cannot be disproven, then it's not legitimate science. It must be testable in tests that aren't guaranteed to succeed. You can never test a theory that claims that an invisible and unknowable force is responsible for a phenomenon. There is no way to test ID. None. Thus, it fails the most basic premise of science.
All recognized and accepted scientific theories are disprovable. Any scientist worth their salt will point out many ways in which their theories can be proven wrong. In fact, that's what science is all about, finding holes in theories and using them to make new ones.
People have been finding holes in Darwin's theories for over a century, and it's changed every step of the way. There are variations within the body of evolutionary theory. This is a sign that the theory was healthy to begin with, and that it's gotten more healthy as more scientists have added more data to the collective knowledge.
Remember: Science makes NO claim to prove anything. Ever. ID claims to be the truth, yet it offers no tools to permit scientists to predict the results of experiment, and, in fact, offers no method of experimentally testing itself whatsoever.
Here, let Steven Hawking explain it to you:
A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.
Because scientists recognize that there is always knowledge that is more advanced than the knowledge we currently have, theories never claim to be final facts. A real theory is something that can, potentially, be DIS-proven. If it cannot be disproven, then it's not legitimate science. It must be testable in tests that aren't guaranteed to succeed. You can never test a theory that claims that an invisible and unknowable force is responsible for a phenomenon. There is no way to test ID. None. Thus, it fails the most basic premise of science.
All recognized and accepted scientific theories are disprovable. Any scientist worth their salt will point out many ways in which their theories can be proven wrong. In fact, that's what science is all about, finding holes in theories and using them to make new ones.
People have been finding holes in Darwin's theories for over a century, and it's changed every step of the way. There are variations within the body of evolutionary theory. This is a sign that the theory was healthy to begin with, and that it's gotten more healthy as more scientists have added more data to the collective knowledge.
Remember: Science makes NO claim to prove anything. Ever. ID claims to be the truth, yet it offers no tools to permit scientists to predict the results of experiment, and, in fact, offers no method of experimentally testing itself whatsoever.
Here, let Steven Hawking explain it to you:
A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.
Daniel, you are welcome to your beleifs, including your beleif that the theory of evolution is an act of faith. But by your logic, we shouldn't give credence to atomic theory (we cannot observe atoms), either.
What you don't understand is that no scientists "believe" in evolution anything like the way that a faithful person might believe in God. A scientist sees the theory of evolution simply as a tool, not as some kind of "truth". And they know that at any moment the tool might change or even be taken away entirely and replaced with another one (as Copernicus made Ptolomy's theories obsolete, or as Einstein expanded on Newton's theories).
Are there holes in the theory of evolution? You bet. Scientists are perfectly aware of these holes. But as it happens, it's still the best tool for, say, trying to conduct scientific research to find a cure for cancer.
Faith in God won't help scientists in the lab find a cure for cancer. The theory of evolution already is helping.
What you don't understand is that no scientists "believe" in evolution anything like the way that a faithful person might believe in God. A scientist sees the theory of evolution simply as a tool, not as some kind of "truth". And they know that at any moment the tool might change or even be taken away entirely and replaced with another one (as Copernicus made Ptolomy's theories obsolete, or as Einstein expanded on Newton's theories).
Are there holes in the theory of evolution? You bet. Scientists are perfectly aware of these holes. But as it happens, it's still the best tool for, say, trying to conduct scientific research to find a cure for cancer.
Faith in God won't help scientists in the lab find a cure for cancer. The theory of evolution already is helping.
"Remember: Science makes NO claim to prove anything. Ever."
That's a very interesting statement. I think what strikes me most about it is the seeming contradiction it creates in light of the post we are discussing - which seems to imply that evolution is cold hard fact. No where in the post is that mentioned, but I couldn't help coming away from reading it with that feeling.
If Tom was writing from that perspective then perhaps I shouldn't have written so much in "rebuttal". I'm curious - does the author believe evolution to be merely a theory? (does he care at this point? :-)
"There is no way to test ID. None. Thus, it fails the most basic premise of science."
Are you suggesting that there are ways to test the big bang?
"Faith in God won't help scientists in the lab find a cure for cancer. The theory of evolution already is helping."
How? (I don't mean to sound like I'm laying the gauntlet down, its a sincere question. This ideas has been mentioned several times in the comments, and I'm wondering specifically what the study of evolution or related sciences bring to the table in the way of helping to cure cancer.) I would respond, that faith in God won't hinder scientists from finding a cure for cancer either.
That's a very interesting statement. I think what strikes me most about it is the seeming contradiction it creates in light of the post we are discussing - which seems to imply that evolution is cold hard fact. No where in the post is that mentioned, but I couldn't help coming away from reading it with that feeling.
If Tom was writing from that perspective then perhaps I shouldn't have written so much in "rebuttal". I'm curious - does the author believe evolution to be merely a theory? (does he care at this point? :-)
"There is no way to test ID. None. Thus, it fails the most basic premise of science."
Are you suggesting that there are ways to test the big bang?
"Faith in God won't help scientists in the lab find a cure for cancer. The theory of evolution already is helping."
How? (I don't mean to sound like I'm laying the gauntlet down, its a sincere question. This ideas has been mentioned several times in the comments, and I'm wondering specifically what the study of evolution or related sciences bring to the table in the way of helping to cure cancer.) I would respond, that faith in God won't hinder scientists from finding a cure for cancer either.
I'd like to ask a philosophical question, if I may (and even repeat myself a bit): What if there really is a designer? Does science allow for that? If there really is a designer and science ignores it, what does that say about science? I'm not trying to set up a straw man here, I just find it hard to seperate science from the possibility of the supernatural, or something that might be outside the realm of natural laws, since that possibility has huge implications. Ruling it out simply because it doesn't fit science seems too easy, in the same way that the author finds the finger-pointing to an intelligent designer to be too easy, a cop out.
I'd like to ask a philosophical question, if I may (and even repeat myself a bit): What if there really is a designer? Does science allow for that? If there really is a designer and science ignores it, what does that say about science?
it says it's not religion.
jesus, people, get a clue! you find it hard to separate science from religion because you don't know anything about science!
why don't you go on over to pharyngula.org and try to learn something, instead of yammering about how we can't see atoms so how do we know they're there? All i can say is thank god these people are graphic designers, rather than, say, architects. Because you can't make a building stand up by stuffing the cracks with wishful thinking
it says it's not religion.
jesus, people, get a clue! you find it hard to separate science from religion because you don't know anything about science!
why don't you go on over to pharyngula.org and try to learn something, instead of yammering about how we can't see atoms so how do we know they're there? All i can say is thank god these people are graphic designers, rather than, say, architects. Because you can't make a building stand up by stuffing the cracks with wishful thinking
Oops, started skipping around too soon--I see the invisible-atom-thing was an example, not someone's actual opinion--at least, no one has yet said it out loud. However, based on some of the fatuous comments I've been reading on this topic, we may expect to hear it soon. If IDists want to bring their children up to be know-nothings, they are certainly welcome to do so, but why must they attempt to impose their intellectual confusion or willful blindness (whichever it is), on the rest of america's children? And if so, do I get to impose my universe-is-a-bubble-rising-slowly-through-a-really-large-bottle-of-fresca-(or-possibly-Tab)-that-fell-on-the-floor-and-got-all-fizzy theory? It's very intelligent. And it would be fun to see if the kids believed it. so cute--like santa claus!
If you follow the method, then you get to call it science. That means you have evidence to back up your assertions, that evidence is empirical (measureable) and can be reproduced reliably. Evolution has 200 years of accumulated evidence to support it.
I don't know you, so I don't know why you say it. But Darwinism is both a) a great insight that seems right to some degree, b) full of holes. If you study the situation and don't agree to b, you're probably practising Scientism, as many Darwinians do.
Science is full of Scientism. It is also full of scientists who actually follow scientific method.
I don't know you, so I don't know why you say it. But Darwinism is both a) a great insight that seems right to some degree, b) full of holes. If you study the situation and don't agree to b, you're probably practising Scientism, as many Darwinians do.
Science is full of Scientism. It is also full of scientists who actually follow scientific method.
If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause. Do you agree with this? If so, what caused the First Cause? If not, why not? thanks.
I don't think I said that everything has a cause. That's the whole deal with the first cause idea. Everything has a cause, with the exception of the first "uncaused" cause. Is this idea beyond reason and the starting point of faith? Or is it bad reasoning and the starting point of bunk?
By my analysis, the answer depends entirely on the relative sweetness of your sunday school teacher. I don't care what Aquinas says. If your sunday school teacher wasn't sweet, faith will always make you cranky.
I don't think I said that everything has a cause. That's the whole deal with the first cause idea. Everything has a cause, with the exception of the first "uncaused" cause. Is this idea beyond reason and the starting point of faith? Or is it bad reasoning and the starting point of bunk?
By my analysis, the answer depends entirely on the relative sweetness of your sunday school teacher. I don't care what Aquinas says. If your sunday school teacher wasn't sweet, faith will always make you cranky.
I don't know you, so I don't know why you say it. But Darwinism is both a) a great insight that seems right to some degree, b) full of holes. If you study the situation and don't agree to b, you're probably practising Scientism, as many Darwinians do.
Science is full of Scientism. It is also full of scientists who actually follow scientific method
That some scientists confuse the unprovable with the nonexistent does not justify the deliberate attempt of IDists to substitute sophistry for science in our public schools. Postulate all the magic hands you like, if there is no way to test for magic hands, you aint got science. And there is no way to test for magic hands.
The difference between scientists and IDists in relation to the gaps in evolutionary theory is that scientists see this as an opportunity to do more science, and IDists seem to think that whatever we do not already know is unknowable. It's the talking barbie approach to understanding the world: "gosh, biology is too hard!"
Science is full of Scientism. It is also full of scientists who actually follow scientific method
That some scientists confuse the unprovable with the nonexistent does not justify the deliberate attempt of IDists to substitute sophistry for science in our public schools. Postulate all the magic hands you like, if there is no way to test for magic hands, you aint got science. And there is no way to test for magic hands.
The difference between scientists and IDists in relation to the gaps in evolutionary theory is that scientists see this as an opportunity to do more science, and IDists seem to think that whatever we do not already know is unknowable. It's the talking barbie approach to understanding the world: "gosh, biology is too hard!"
The scientific approach benefits from experimentation. It can help prove or disprove theories. Have any one of you'll tried using random variations (mutation) on your designs?
It is worth a try. It may answer many questions.
It is worth a try. It may answer many questions.
anyone interested in what Young-earth creationists actually believe, why they believe it, what they think of the ID movement and evolution, should check out www.answersingenesis.org
"IDists seem to think that whatever we do not already know is unknowable. It's the talking barbie approach to understanding the world: "gosh, biology is too hard""
Evolutionist are searching for the answers to how did things come to exist. What Idists are saying is, we know why everything is here, it's not a mystery and it's not hard. If you accept the truth that God created all life the question of "how" goes away and shifts to the question of "why". Here is where the lines of science and religion merge.
If there is such a collective acceptance of holes and gaps in the theory of evolution then why is there such loyalty to only the one idea. Should there not be acceptance of other theories and ideas. If evolution is considered a work in progress and not a finished thought then why can't that be taught and presented to students in that manor so that they can have an honest understanding of what it really is and along side of that, be allowed to hear other theories on how the world came in to existence. Those scientists who write so educatedily on the process of science, how is it that the thought of contradicting a weak theory is so offensive. I would think true scientists would be open and accepting of ideas that provide a different look and some answers to the unsolved questions.
The idea that mutations are responsible for the harmonious and balanced world that we live in is ridiculous. Mutations by definition are negative. The ratio of negative mutations to positive mutation is very high. Yet you believe that millions and billions of positive mutations happened without the affects of the corresponding trillions and zillions of negative mutations not affecting the intricate relationships that nature has in place. Come on, talk about a leap of faith. That really all this boils down to is a question of philosophy. What other answers than God creating the universe can we dream because we, as a rule, can't accept the premise of God himself?
P.S. Jesus loves you even if you don't love him. Pretty cool huh!
Evolutionist are searching for the answers to how did things come to exist. What Idists are saying is, we know why everything is here, it's not a mystery and it's not hard. If you accept the truth that God created all life the question of "how" goes away and shifts to the question of "why". Here is where the lines of science and religion merge.
If there is such a collective acceptance of holes and gaps in the theory of evolution then why is there such loyalty to only the one idea. Should there not be acceptance of other theories and ideas. If evolution is considered a work in progress and not a finished thought then why can't that be taught and presented to students in that manor so that they can have an honest understanding of what it really is and along side of that, be allowed to hear other theories on how the world came in to existence. Those scientists who write so educatedily on the process of science, how is it that the thought of contradicting a weak theory is so offensive. I would think true scientists would be open and accepting of ideas that provide a different look and some answers to the unsolved questions.
The idea that mutations are responsible for the harmonious and balanced world that we live in is ridiculous. Mutations by definition are negative. The ratio of negative mutations to positive mutation is very high. Yet you believe that millions and billions of positive mutations happened without the affects of the corresponding trillions and zillions of negative mutations not affecting the intricate relationships that nature has in place. Come on, talk about a leap of faith. That really all this boils down to is a question of philosophy. What other answers than God creating the universe can we dream because we, as a rule, can't accept the premise of God himself?
P.S. Jesus loves you even if you don't love him. Pretty cool huh!
Daniel,
I repeat: you don't know what you are talking about when you talk about science. You don't know the meaning of the word "theory". You don't know the meaning of the word "mutation". Religion and science do not merge. You would just like them to do so.
It's nice for you that you think you know the answers, But since I am not a christian or a jew, I don't believe that the bible is revealed truth. To me it has exactly the same credibility as the classical greek creation myth. Interesting but possessing zero value as an explanation for how the universe works.
You are welcome to present your point of view to anyone who wants to listen. In a religion class. In a school funded by a religious organization.
I repeat: you don't know what you are talking about when you talk about science. You don't know the meaning of the word "theory". You don't know the meaning of the word "mutation". Religion and science do not merge. You would just like them to do so.
It's nice for you that you think you know the answers, But since I am not a christian or a jew, I don't believe that the bible is revealed truth. To me it has exactly the same credibility as the classical greek creation myth. Interesting but possessing zero value as an explanation for how the universe works.
You are welcome to present your point of view to anyone who wants to listen. In a religion class. In a school funded by a religious organization.
To veer away from the virtually pointless debate of scientific theory vs. faith-based notion, I'd like to address krish's post:
The scientific approach benefits from experimentation. It can help prove or disprove theories. Have any one of you tried using random variations (mutation) on your designs?
I take it from your question you're not a designer, but to give you an answer, we do. Experimentation with shapes, colors, typefaces etc. is how we often accomplish the most affective way to communicate the idea or concept we started with. I think every designer has spent countless hours sketching thumbnails on tracing paper, only to discover what Bob Ross called a "happy accident."
Additionally every designer has opened up that developmental stage to outside influences such as the thoughts of his/her peers, or client input, or commercial media, or whatever. Consider that the solar radiation that puts our own designs to the test, possibly changing, or even killing them in the process.
Then we put the final product out into the world and it either sinks or swims. And sometimes it's handed off to the client and they royally screw it up and drive it into the ground.
Oh, and to call a mutation a "random" variation isn't really accurate. Although they may seem random, mutations (in nature and in design) are always caused by something.
The scientific approach benefits from experimentation. It can help prove or disprove theories. Have any one of you tried using random variations (mutation) on your designs?
I take it from your question you're not a designer, but to give you an answer, we do. Experimentation with shapes, colors, typefaces etc. is how we often accomplish the most affective way to communicate the idea or concept we started with. I think every designer has spent countless hours sketching thumbnails on tracing paper, only to discover what Bob Ross called a "happy accident."
Additionally every designer has opened up that developmental stage to outside influences such as the thoughts of his/her peers, or client input, or commercial media, or whatever. Consider that the solar radiation that puts our own designs to the test, possibly changing, or even killing them in the process.
Then we put the final product out into the world and it either sinks or swims. And sometimes it's handed off to the client and they royally screw it up and drive it into the ground.
Oh, and to call a mutation a "random" variation isn't really accurate. Although they may seem random, mutations (in nature and in design) are always caused by something.
I knew I couldn't say much about ID or evolution without invariably setting off some culture wars, but just to reiterate the original point of my post: To counter the cooptation of the phrase ID as we used to know it, and to do so use product design as a metaphor to explore why evolution, whatever its faults, as the best -- and only demonstrable -- theory for explaining the progression of the natural world. This is not a theological or spiritual discussion, but a discussion of what we actually know about the world in which we live, and design things. Barring any input from On High, let's keep faith out of it.
1
Nice one, Mr Vanderbilt.
I'll lay it out my views, trash talk the other side a bit, you know, goad them to answer back, then tell them to shut up when they do.
2
I'm often amazed & saddened by the lack of a sense of wonder among design folks (of all people!). Let's all be right & shout at the people who disagree & generate a few back slaps from the people on our side, but most of all hide from the fear that we might be wrong.
Fuck being right! Go buy a sense of wonder. Go be afraid.
Nice one, Mr Vanderbilt.
I'll lay it out my views, trash talk the other side a bit, you know, goad them to answer back, then tell them to shut up when they do.
2
I'm often amazed & saddened by the lack of a sense of wonder among design folks (of all people!). Let's all be right & shout at the people who disagree & generate a few back slaps from the people on our side, but most of all hide from the fear that we might be wrong.
Fuck being right! Go buy a sense of wonder. Go be afraid.
"They are forcing their religion into science, while claiming that all they do is science."
And the failure is ours as a society. Because to us, science means universities, white lab coats and test tubes, and to the extent that we have those trappings we get to call them science. To those who have an education grounded in critical thinking and science we can see through it very clearly. Unfortunately, most of us would rather take the appearance than the work. (anyone remember "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV?")
Ryan wrote: "It's fine to agree with a theory, but, unless I misunderstand scientific method, the only time science can actually claim to prove something is if it tests a hypothesis and the results agree with that hypothesis. "
Even then science can't claim proof. The only thing you can do is say the evidence suggests that the hypothesis is true. When you do an experiment, teh first part of it is to do a literature review where you review other attempts at proving a theory. You add your results to the previous ones. If you asked the question, did we evolve from other species, and looked at the evidence, the evidence would be overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. I would like to see the evidence for ID. SO far I have seen none.
When you do science you are also required to investigate other possible explanations for your results and record those as well. Becasue when you get peer-reviewed, if you don't do it, you can rest assured they (your peers) will. Ask anyone who has ever had to defend a dissertation.
Finally,
"If God did design us, did we work the first time? Did he not, like Apple's team, make prototypes?
Isn't it possible that evolution is the very mechanism by which God is performing his design?"
and
"If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause. Do you agree with this? If so, what caused the First Cause?"
In addition to being a designer and an advocate of critical thinking I am also a mystic. According to the Kabbalah, God did have a first cause...it is called Tzimtzum, where God contracted and made "space" for creation to exist, thus creating teh spearation between creation and God. Then came "let there be light" ...the singularity which separated matter from energy.
Also there may have been other Creations. In the Hebrew, of Genesis, the first words translate more accurately to "At the beginning of this Creation..." not "In the beginning..." leaving the possibility open to other creations at other times. Also before Eve was Lilith, and don't forget the Nephilim who were destroyed in the Flood. Reading teh Bible you see God screws up, changes his mind and makes alts all the time.
If you read the Bible and study the mystical writings carefully (in Hebrew helps) you'll see that they actually support evolution.
But still, it ain't science.
And the failure is ours as a society. Because to us, science means universities, white lab coats and test tubes, and to the extent that we have those trappings we get to call them science. To those who have an education grounded in critical thinking and science we can see through it very clearly. Unfortunately, most of us would rather take the appearance than the work. (anyone remember "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV?")
Ryan wrote: "It's fine to agree with a theory, but, unless I misunderstand scientific method, the only time science can actually claim to prove something is if it tests a hypothesis and the results agree with that hypothesis. "
Even then science can't claim proof. The only thing you can do is say the evidence suggests that the hypothesis is true. When you do an experiment, teh first part of it is to do a literature review where you review other attempts at proving a theory. You add your results to the previous ones. If you asked the question, did we evolve from other species, and looked at the evidence, the evidence would be overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. I would like to see the evidence for ID. SO far I have seen none.
When you do science you are also required to investigate other possible explanations for your results and record those as well. Becasue when you get peer-reviewed, if you don't do it, you can rest assured they (your peers) will. Ask anyone who has ever had to defend a dissertation.
Finally,
"If God did design us, did we work the first time? Did he not, like Apple's team, make prototypes?
Isn't it possible that evolution is the very mechanism by which God is performing his design?"
and
"If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause. Do you agree with this? If so, what caused the First Cause?"
In addition to being a designer and an advocate of critical thinking I am also a mystic. According to the Kabbalah, God did have a first cause...it is called Tzimtzum, where God contracted and made "space" for creation to exist, thus creating teh spearation between creation and God. Then came "let there be light" ...the singularity which separated matter from energy.
Also there may have been other Creations. In the Hebrew, of Genesis, the first words translate more accurately to "At the beginning of this Creation..." not "In the beginning..." leaving the possibility open to other creations at other times. Also before Eve was Lilith, and don't forget the Nephilim who were destroyed in the Flood. Reading teh Bible you see God screws up, changes his mind and makes alts all the time.
If you read the Bible and study the mystical writings carefully (in Hebrew helps) you'll see that they actually support evolution.
But still, it ain't science.
Mr Vanderbilt, upon reflection in the hazy morning light of Welsh summer I must admit that you did allow a lot of shouting before you said Shut Up.
Still, the Wonder & Fear thing.
Still, the Wonder & Fear thing.
I remember once hearing that the design for the heavenly city appeared to one of the gods in a single drop of sweat, perfect and complete in every aspect. This is such a tempting metaphor for any designer searching for an answer. We have all been inspired, but as the cliche goes, design is 10% inspiration and 90% persperation.
I liked this post in that it put the lie to that vision. The iPod did not fall from a lump of clay or spring whole and loaded with the complete Grateful Dead from Steve Job's or Jonathan Ives' brow. Anyone who has downloaded an iPod updater or a new version of iTunes knows that.
If the gods created this universe, then they went through much perverse pleasure in granting it not just a present, but a past as well. The Jew in me says that that god (only one for Jews) gave us brains for a reason, and the complex genesis of life from its earlier forms to its more modern forms, and from inorganic forms to organic forms, and from the highly compressed matter of the nascent universe to our era of low density was written in the world for our eventual comprehension. As Einstein put it, "Subtle is the Lord, but not malicious".
Omnipotent creators do not need to recycle genes and proteins. Why should yeasts and humans share the chemistry of their fear reaction? Why do so many life forms have cytochromes for energy management? Why is everything built from Legos and nothing from K'Nex save that Legos were invented first and it would have taken too much work to switch over to K'Nex?
Steven J Gould once described a theory proposed as a compromise: god created the world a half an hour ago, and you were created with your memories of childhood and with breakfast in your belly. This is satisfying, in that it gives the supernatural its due, while still explaining all of the natural world. Unfortunately, it does not explain why the universe was not created 45 minutes ago, and it is a sterile idea in that there is no way to find out exactly when the world was born or learn anything else about its creation.
If we accept the premise of Intelligent Design, that all the world was created in a six night charette, and that the creator carefully and tediously provided meaningless evidence indicating a much longer and more complex history, we are left with nothing but faith, and that longer and more complex history. Religion is about talking to the gods; science is about listening to them. Through reason we can behold the earth and listen to that fascinating tale that was divinely encoded for our entertainment and enlightenment.
I liked this post in that it put the lie to that vision. The iPod did not fall from a lump of clay or spring whole and loaded with the complete Grateful Dead from Steve Job's or Jonathan Ives' brow. Anyone who has downloaded an iPod updater or a new version of iTunes knows that.
If the gods created this universe, then they went through much perverse pleasure in granting it not just a present, but a past as well. The Jew in me says that that god (only one for Jews) gave us brains for a reason, and the complex genesis of life from its earlier forms to its more modern forms, and from inorganic forms to organic forms, and from the highly compressed matter of the nascent universe to our era of low density was written in the world for our eventual comprehension. As Einstein put it, "Subtle is the Lord, but not malicious".
Omnipotent creators do not need to recycle genes and proteins. Why should yeasts and humans share the chemistry of their fear reaction? Why do so many life forms have cytochromes for energy management? Why is everything built from Legos and nothing from K'Nex save that Legos were invented first and it would have taken too much work to switch over to K'Nex?
Steven J Gould once described a theory proposed as a compromise: god created the world a half an hour ago, and you were created with your memories of childhood and with breakfast in your belly. This is satisfying, in that it gives the supernatural its due, while still explaining all of the natural world. Unfortunately, it does not explain why the universe was not created 45 minutes ago, and it is a sterile idea in that there is no way to find out exactly when the world was born or learn anything else about its creation.
If we accept the premise of Intelligent Design, that all the world was created in a six night charette, and that the creator carefully and tediously provided meaningless evidence indicating a much longer and more complex history, we are left with nothing but faith, and that longer and more complex history. Religion is about talking to the gods; science is about listening to them. Through reason we can behold the earth and listen to that fascinating tale that was divinely encoded for our entertainment and enlightenment.
Josh points out that - every designer has spent countless hours sketching thumbnails on tracing paper, only to discover what Bob Ross called a "happy accident."
Design may result from happy accidents, the unhappy ones die creating a bad name for mutation and 99% perspiration. The nice thing about computers is that you can create and kill designs. You can implement some parts of evolution; there are many good examples in the web.
I have tried to implement the same for product design, it works remarkably well - if you let the computer do the generation and let the human do the selection. You may view some results of my experimentation in www.genometri.info
Design may result from happy accidents, the unhappy ones die creating a bad name for mutation and 99% perspiration. The nice thing about computers is that you can create and kill designs. You can implement some parts of evolution; there are many good examples in the web.
I have tried to implement the same for product design, it works remarkably well - if you let the computer do the generation and let the human do the selection. You may view some results of my experimentation in www.genometri.info
There was a line in the Jody Foster film "Contact" where the religious leader asked the scientist, "Did you love your father?"
"yes" she said.
"prove it."
"yes" she said.
"prove it."
It's almost embarassing to state, but until we find the bones of Adam and Eve or the aliens (god) returns as promised, we will never know the truth of it all. We all have theories, who decides what should be taught in science class. In my science class it was called Darwin's THEORY of evolution. Never claimed it was fact. Lets teach that in theology and social studies class then.
Before Darwin, Organized Religion (at least in Western Civilization) was the ultimate arbiter of truth on Life's origins. So naturally, Darwin was (and still is, in some circles) maligned for his supposition and subsequent assertion that the story of the universe played out differently than in the Bible's account. But in time his writings found interest in the scientific community and now, though few will go out and say "Fact", evolutionary theory is widely accepted.
Along comes ID today. Asking questions, supposing otherwise than the status quo. Now the Scientific Community is arguably the ultimate arbiter of truth on life's origins. With the benefit of almost 200 years of scientific study, effort, funding and resources, it becomes easy to dismiss ID theory. Especially in cases where the scientists practice religious belief, ID seems like somebody trying to sell you a relic and saying it's brand new. Yet here's a group ballsy enough to explore a different theory, starting from square one, using scientific methods (where that hadn't been done by the church before). And because there aren't the 200 years of time, money, research, and humanpower under its belt, the effort is quashed and ridiculed. IF any overwhelming scientific evidence of ID to be found, it will take time, just as Evolutionary Theory has.
If we've got a bunch of ordained ministers trying to talk science, that's one thing. But would a 19th-century legitimate scientist who explored I.D. be derided by Darwin, or would he lick his chops and welcome the argument?
Along comes ID today. Asking questions, supposing otherwise than the status quo. Now the Scientific Community is arguably the ultimate arbiter of truth on life's origins. With the benefit of almost 200 years of scientific study, effort, funding and resources, it becomes easy to dismiss ID theory. Especially in cases where the scientists practice religious belief, ID seems like somebody trying to sell you a relic and saying it's brand new. Yet here's a group ballsy enough to explore a different theory, starting from square one, using scientific methods (where that hadn't been done by the church before). And because there aren't the 200 years of time, money, research, and humanpower under its belt, the effort is quashed and ridiculed. IF any overwhelming scientific evidence of ID to be found, it will take time, just as Evolutionary Theory has.
If we've got a bunch of ordained ministers trying to talk science, that's one thing. But would a 19th-century legitimate scientist who explored I.D. be derided by Darwin, or would he lick his chops and welcome the argument?
The theory of evolution should not be taught in a theological seminary, nor a social studies class. It should be kept where it belongs: in the science classroom. Since there are different notions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science#What_is_science.3F) of what science does/is, however, it is all but impossible to clearly define where science ends and theology begins anymore.
On the other hand, if a modern thinker wishes to have a more open mind, then why not be a student of more than one subject? From an empirical perspective, I see no irresolvable philosophical conflict between these subjects.
I'm not certain if this concise piece by Steve Falkenberg has been linked to yet, but here it is anyway (http://people.eku.edu/falkenbergs/iderror.htm). As I see it, unless this illuminates the argument more precisely for ya'll, then, it seems to me that the whole quandary is reducible to one of the dilemmas posed in Plutarch's Moralia.
Basically, the true issue here is being dodged. Public education funding is at an all time low. If our public educators were really doing, and being provided the means to do, their duty -- providing the means for our nation's children to become functioning members of our modern society -- then the problem of what makes it into the science classroom as science would be avoided. There would be required courses in philosophy, social studies, or even theology, in which students would not only study those subjects, but also the histories of those subjects from a humanist perspective. Not to mention a required civics course, for goodness' sake.
The Intelligent Design vs. Evolution "controversy" is the result of an attempt to band-aid the gaping wound of poor scholarship in our country. For shame.
On the other hand, if a modern thinker wishes to have a more open mind, then why not be a student of more than one subject? From an empirical perspective, I see no irresolvable philosophical conflict between these subjects.
I'm not certain if this concise piece by Steve Falkenberg has been linked to yet, but here it is anyway (http://people.eku.edu/falkenbergs/iderror.htm). As I see it, unless this illuminates the argument more precisely for ya'll, then, it seems to me that the whole quandary is reducible to one of the dilemmas posed in Plutarch's Moralia.
Basically, the true issue here is being dodged. Public education funding is at an all time low. If our public educators were really doing, and being provided the means to do, their duty -- providing the means for our nation's children to become functioning members of our modern society -- then the problem of what makes it into the science classroom as science would be avoided. There would be required courses in philosophy, social studies, or even theology, in which students would not only study those subjects, but also the histories of those subjects from a humanist perspective. Not to mention a required civics course, for goodness' sake.
The Intelligent Design vs. Evolution "controversy" is the result of an attempt to band-aid the gaping wound of poor scholarship in our country. For shame.
folks, you can't possibly have an intelligent discussion if you don't even know the meanings of the words you use. i just skimmed the discussion and saw that there still are people who say, "it's just a theory, not fact!" Yet, if you just had a look in a dictionary, you would find out that in the context of evolution, we're talking about a theory in the sense of the scientific method, which means (citing wikipedia) "a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them [...] a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, testable, and has never been falsified."
ID, OTOH, is a theory in the sense of belief, speculation, a conjecture, an assumption. It's based on an understanding of the world that is more limited than that of natural scientists.
I'd have a lot more to say, but this thread is already so long it's cumbersome to read, so I'm keeping this comment concise and just emphasise this one important point: as long as you don't understand or ignore the meaning of the statements made, you're essentially reading and/or writing meaningless gibberish.
ID, OTOH, is a theory in the sense of belief, speculation, a conjecture, an assumption. It's based on an understanding of the world that is more limited than that of natural scientists.
I'd have a lot more to say, but this thread is already so long it's cumbersome to read, so I'm keeping this comment concise and just emphasise this one important point: as long as you don't understand or ignore the meaning of the statements made, you're essentially reading and/or writing meaningless gibberish.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Tom Vanderbilt writers about architecture, design, technology, science and other topics for a wide range of publications, including: The New York Times, Wired, The Financial Times, Smithsonian, Slate, Metropolis and others. He most recent book is Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) (Vintage).More >>
DESIGN OBSERVER JOBS
MORE BY Tom Vanderbilt
08.15.11: Interface Time08.17.09: Significant Objects: Marines (Upside-Down) Logo Mug
10.22.08: Fanfare for the Common Commuter
07.23.08: Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do
04.03.08: Blast-Door Art: Cave Paintings of Nuclear Era
11.27.07: Discipline and Design
06.13.07: On the Squareness of Milk Containers
09.13.06: Small Worlds
04.26.06: Wacky Packages of the Global Economy
05.13.05: Material Issue
More by Tom Vanderbilt >>
RELATED POSTS
Mr. Vignelli's Map
Vignelli Celebration: Massimo Vignelli's 1972 New York City subway map is a beautiful example of information design that was ultimately rejected by its users.
Reflections on The Ephemeral World, Part One: Ink
An elegy to the makeready — those sheets of paper, re-fed into a press to get the ink balances up to speed, leaving a series of often random, palimpsest-like, multiple impressions on a single surface — in the digital age.
Cranbrook Commencement Address
"I come to you, like all commencement speakers, as an emissary from the future." The commencement address delivered by Julie Lasky at the Cranbrook Academy of Art on May 9, 2008.
Greening the Grocery Store
It turns out that the "recycling symbol" at the bottom of my yogurt container had nothing to do with its recyclability. So why was it there? My curiosity led to findings around which I built a design class.
O.H.W. Hadank
Paul Rand held Hadank in the highest esteem because he practiced modernist formal principles even though he did not follow its dogma or style. And most important, as Rand said “Hadank was then and always an original. A profile of O.H.W. Hadank by Steven Heller...
As for the lack of perfection in joints and other miscellaneous parts, those "good old creationism" types have an edge over the ID camp. Let's just say this Intelligent Designer was the God of the Bible. He created a great thing and laid out a simple, yet effective plan. As part of a result of mankind going against the plan, our DNA has been constantly degrading over thousands of years. so much for "beneficial mutations."
In the "real world" design goes through constant evolution, fair enough, and yet... all this time it's being guided by what could be considered "higher intelligences." Go figure.
- a flaming, wild-eyed young Earther
08.07.05 at 10:34