The Vatican Loves Science!

A couple weeks back when we were talking about Intelligent Design, somebody brought up that the Catholic C [...]

I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
On a white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth –
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches’ broth –
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.

What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall?–
If design govern in a thing so small.

My answer to the question of whether ID requires an infinite regress can be found in my blog titled Does ID require an Infinite Regress? where I show that this question requires certain assumptions that are not necessarily true.

Jeez, I mean sometimes I dont really know why I believe what I do about certain things except for that I must just believe what I want to, because it makes my life more interestng or fun to do so.

rev, i think you’re reading god’s mind.

what if “random bullshit” is the purpose? if the purpose (like belief) is ours to choose, then from what array of options shall we choose? ideally, from an optimal diversity of emergent phenomena. now take a look around.

without random bullshit there is no free will. without free will there is no random bullshit. that is god’s purpose.

the “conflict” between intelligent design and evolution is artificial and stupid. it doesn’t matter which side you pick, just pick one already so we can control you.

we’re a self-organizing system, a fractal hologram. that is god / intelligence / design. we’re alive! ain’t no mystery on acid.

…most education doesn’t teach kids how science works. They don’t teach the philosophy or the method. They just teach facts as irrefutable. That to me is the real problem here, and the source of confusion.

Is this true? I learned scientific method in, like, the seventh grade. They’re not teaching that any more?

For me, I reached a point of realizing that there are certain questions worth asking and ones that are not worth it.

I agree with that, but I disagree with this:

The thing that I like is that they are starting a conversation, and it’s a conversation that’s catching on. That’s extremely hard to do on a large scale and the questions they are asking really are good questions.

Proponents of ID are not asking good questions. They’re substituting a political (and often religious) agenda for science.

When you really apply this wholeheartedly, you find that there’s really no certainty. Hence doubt, anxiety, existential angst and atheism. For me, I reached a point of realizing that there are certain questions worth asking and ones that are not worth it. I think Christians understand this same thing intuitively if not explicitly. Certain questions lead you to places that aren’t worth going.

Well I have to say that I can certainly see the irony, I mean on one thread I’m holding forth on the varieties of spirit possession and on another I’m critiquing the ID movement’s stealth assualt on methodological naturalism. Jeez, I mean sometimes I dont really know why I believe what I do about certain things except for that I must just believe what I want to, because it makes my life more interestng or fun to do so.

they know what the scientific method is they just don’t like it.

Ive been thinking about this issue for months. What the scientific method does is shows you how to ask questions of everything. When you really apply this wholeheartedly, you find that there’s really no certainty. Hence doubt, anxiety, existential angst and atheism. For me, I reached a point of realizing that there are certain questions worth asking and ones that are not worth it. I think Christians understand this same thing intuitively if not explicitly. Certain questions lead you to places that aren’t worth going. And you have the ability to put your foot down and make that call. I think that’s what they are doing. They want to guard against the creeping uncertainty by saying: Yes! Life does have purpose and design! It’s not simply random bullshit! It’s worth living and it’s worth living by certain rules.

I think it’s the culturally conservative Christians who are confused.

People like Dembski and Behe aren’t confused at all, they know what the scientific method is they just don’t like it. And he realize they can’t compete with their message on those terms so they try to disguise it. It very disingenuous.

Since you’re all talking about this, you all should really be watching “The Daily Show” this week. The theme this week is “Evolution Schmevolution: A Daily Show Special Report” and it’s where I heard Vonnegut’s comments.

Plus, the show is so fucking funny!

most education doesn’t teach kids how science works. They don’t teach the philosophy or the method. They just teach facts as irrefutable. That to me is the real problem here, and the source of confusion.

that’s what I meant. yes.

Tim: Not just Christians… most world religions make no account for their God’s creation. There’s an African creation myth that only states that there was a drop of milk, then God showed up and made the rest of the world. There’s also an old Gypsy creation theory about God baking humans in an oven: the burnt ones were black, the undercooked ones were white, and the perfectly cooked ones were the Gypsies. The Norse myths say that the world was a “yawning gap” with two lands– one of fire, one of ice –either co-existing with or springing from the gap.

btw: Himmler was into the “fire and ice” theory and it may have contributed to the Nazis’ faulty invasion of Russia during WWII.

Anyway, so who designed the Designer? My answer: he (or she, or it) didn’t need to be designed or created. The idea of creation and origins is a human one, and if there really is a God, he (or she or it) has always been, and will always be. There is no beginning or end to God/The Creator/Designer, and it’s useless for humans to try and wrap our heads around it.

Actually, I think that’s probably close to what mainstream Christian theologians would argue.

Like I said, we don’t need to agree. We simply need to have the conversation. The problem is not that they started the conversation in too limited of a fashion. They did what they did for their reasons. Now it’s our responsibility to take the conversation in new directions and expand it beyond to suit our purposes

thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the issue is WAY grayer than anyone on either (illusory) side wants to admit. there most certainly are idiots out there who are hijacking id theory for political reasons,

Well therin lies the rub, my friend. WHen I first started researching ID I thought it was just another interesting fringe theory like the strong antrhopic principle - a non-falsifiable metaphysical argument with fascinating theological implications.

But when you research it you find out that this has been a well-funded attack on the scientific method from the outset. The IDers are all culturally conservative christians who really do see ID as a wedge they can use to overthrow darwinism and thus materialistic atheism.

And when they discovered that no professional scientists would go for it, they launched the “teach the controversy” campaign which basically is a cynical ploy to sell ID theory directly to the scientifically illterate public and do an end-run around the academy altogether.

Problem being, kids are already confused by science, I’m all for ID having an actual research program but so far they have nothing to research. Its just a hypothesis.

SO there is no reason to introduce it alongside evolution in science classes yet, unless you want to get into other speculative scenarios like panspermia or simulation which actually do make predictions and don’t rely on inexplicable and unpredictable supernatural interventions to bridge the gap.

I think people have a fear of Intelligent Design because George W. has recommended the theory being taught in schools. This is a knee-jerk reaction, of course: I hate Bush just as much as anyone, but not everything he says needs to be attacked. I have a news clipping of Bush saying that Islam is a peaceful religion and that even though we were at war with fanatical Muslims sects, Islam itself should not be maligned.

Maybe he made this statement about Islam to appease his Saudi allies, or as a political tactic, but I clipped the item because (1) it was buried in the Religion section of the L.A. Times when I felt it should’ve been front page news, and (2) I wanted evidence that Bush actually said something worthwhile for once, just in case nobody believed me.

Anyway, so who designed the Designer? My answer: he (or she, or it) didn’t need to be designed or created. The idea of creation and origins is a human one, and if there really is a God, he (or she or it) has always been, and will always be. There is no beginning or end to God/The Creator/Designer, and it’s useless for humans to try and wrap our heads around it.

One can argue that the Designer designed itself, which is alright by me.

I am frustrated with it at the same time because I am trying to write an article about it and trying to disentangle all of the bait-and switch political maneuvering from the implications when the agenda is built right into the theory is like trying to separate water droplets from mist.

I really wish it wasn’t so politicized, so Christian. The Christians frankly admit they want to do away with the scientific method and win back the culture for Jesus. OK.

WHat gives them a monopoly on this idea though? No damn fair. They’re ruining great pataphysics by turning it into an evangelical cultural pressure point. That’s the part that pisses me off.

I agree with tim that that what began as a bait-and-switch could well lead into x-files territory according to the law of unintended consequences which the christians will not be able to control.

Also I agree w. Jeremy - ID ultimnately points to incompetent deisgn by multiple designers who were themselves created.

WHat about Panspermia? Or the Fermi Paradox. Or the simulation argument. Or multiverse theory. All of these things are implied strongly by ID once you get past the Christain politicized thumbnail sketch short version of it. That’s where the insanity is, IMHO. And I mean that in a good way.

Tim, I honestly don’t think that “Intelligent Design” is “starting a conversation.” It’s a sigil, a media virus,

Like I said, we don’t need to agree. We simply need to have the conversation. The problem is not that they started the conversation in too limited of a fashion. They did what they did for their reasons. Now it’s our responsibility to take the conversation in new directions and expand it beyond to suit our purposes.

it’s meant to conceal stupidity and further an agenda while simplifying the debate to the point of absurdity and therefore curtail debate: it’s poor logic but good propaganda.

You’re utilizing the same tactics that you’re accusing them of, you realize. You suggest they are trying to curtail debate, while simultaneously doing so yourself by refusing to entertain anything beyond your already set opinion. What separates you from them now?

the issue is WAY grayer than anyone on either (illusory) side wants to admit. there most certainly are idiots out there who are hijacking id theory for political reasons, just as there are idiots out there who want to just toss the baby into the trash with the bathwater instead of actually looking into it. it’s become one of those stupid rhetorical cesspools where people can barely discuss it without their brains turning into reactive mush, sort of like the conspiracy theorists immediately after katrina or any bulletin board featuring posts about ‘zionism.’

as for me, a diehard gnostic, i personally go for “UD,” *unintelligent* design. i think that’s a far more logical and provable approach to the question.

as to who created the creator, that’s a question that will *never* be answered. when it comes down to it, the whole issue is moot, really. all we can do to make a stab at explaining it is to create myth, but then folks start taking myth too seriously and we all know what happens then.

In a courtroom situation, the reason one calls witnesses to the stand is to introduce exhibits like documents, recordings, etc., as evidence. In most cases–I work as a paralegal–it’s not Law & Order, it’s a counsel only calls a witness to the stand to introduce exhibits. In the same way, the only reason these ID activists have made noise is to pass legislation demanding the teaching of a shitty theory and where possible eliminationg a much more workable theory.

Now, Max has made a good point, Intelligent Design, having come from a group not the most skilled at logic or, for that matter, policy, contains the seeds of its own destruction. I’m going to post a form letter to my site addressing the need to teach “competeing theories” like Flying Spagetti Monster, and I will be sending it to my representatives.

ID merely looks at the evidence in nature and sees samples of highly complex systems which are organized only with the aid of the massive amounts of information found in DNA strands, and says that Darwinian evolution cannot account for this (not “has not” but “cannot” account for this)

I keep seeing this argument coming from ID proponents. Please take a look at the page about genetic algorithms on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithms
These are mechanical processes where an initially random set of solutions is subjected to transformations inspired from the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. The goal is to evolve efficient solutions to complex problems which cannot be solved analytically.
The results of these algorithms are as good as or better than those of more traditional algorithms. IMHO it is patent that the “genes” of the solutions acquire information through Darwinian evolution.
ID proponents keep saying that “random” mutations cannot produce information, but they overlook the role of the environment. Evolution theory is based on the interplay between “random” mutations and the environment. Organisms acquire information from their environment through mutation AND selection.

For example they claim that scientists have a bias towards “methodological naturalism” and so ID is just expanding the frontiers of inquiry a bit. But methodological naturalism really just means the assumption that a given hypothesis is based on and in the natural world, physical laws, etc. - something that can be experimentally tested and verified. That’s the scientific method.

So once you get rid of methodological naturalism and start positing supernatural intervention than the scientific method becomes useless - there is no coherence to the proccess anymore and it isn’t science, at least according to Karl Popper.

So if the IDers want to remian underneath the umbrella of science then of course there are alternatives that can be tested. For example, ID theory doesn’t necessarily implicate a “God” - by definition a being who can bend or suspend the laws of physics at a whim. ID theory as Behe, Dembski et a readily admit could just as easily imply panspermia, eg aliens.

Well then that opens up a whole different kettle of fish. Was this panspermia (the spread of life to earth from space) accidental or directed as Hoyle and Crick believed?

Was there one alien or many? Certainly no reason to think that ID implies monotheism, if anything polytheism or multiple designers seem more likely.

Look at all of the “design vs. design” biological arms races in nature, e.g., male vs. female, predator vs. prey, host vs. parasite, etc. Plus then we return to the original question, well if aliens planted life here, where di t hey come from?

ID’ reliance on inductive reasoning stems from an inability to comfortably contemplate open systems. They need, want resolution. But when they use indictive reasoning like this they take the cork out of the bottle and release the genie and then there is no particular reason to say that this line of speculation needs to stop anywhere! In fact if you follow it long enough it really does resemble gnosticism more than anything else.

You tricked me, Tim.

Here’s Wikipedia on Irreducible Complexity

That’s easy: The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it on a dare from J.R. “Bob” Dobbs.

Next question.

So they follow inductive reasoning and say well then we can account for the irreducible complexity by positing a designer. B

ut you are correct, the clear logical progression would show that the deisgner itself must then be irreducibly complex and so that implies an infinite regression of designers.

Unless the original designer created life through a computer simulation as nick bostrom argues. In which case the buck may stop there. But then we are not talking about a god but an advanced civilization of some sort.