(http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1590782,00.html) Earlier this month, the Kansas state board of education discarded the last remnants of the Intelligent Design movement's political foray into the state's science curriculum.
This weekend, I was struck by a book presentation by Neil deGrasse Tyson. As part of his book, and in real life friend-of-the-court briefs, he has opined about Intelligent Design (ID). I realized that he has already put many of my beliefs on this subject into elegant words (see references below).
My beliefs are:
- Believing that God is the origin of the universe is a safe bet.
- Belief in (1), should not stop me from looking at what God created and how it actually works.
- Scientists are explorers.
- I only have the capacity to know a little bit of God. It is narcicistic hubris to think that I have the capacity to know what God has planned beyond what God has already set in motion.
- Man has free will (re: Apple/Sepent incident).
- God has not preordained the decisions of man. God did not take that away when Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden.
- God is not a micro-manager.
- Science does not have all the answers. Today's theories and hypotheses may be tomorrow's debunked examples. Theories are only as good as the evidence and experiments support.
- ID and other creationist drivel in the science classroom is just plain lazy. As Neil points out, it has happened many times from the greatest minds. When some scientists were stumped or reached their limits, they attributed the answer/action to God.
- Our particular universe is about 14 billion years old.
- Our solar system is a little less than 5 billion years old.
- After some mantle cooling, volcanic stabilization, extraterrestrial impacts, and about 1.5-2.5 billion years, some very simple life forms began to form and, after that, cells capable of photosynthesis. The photosynthesis is important because we require oxygen.
- Sometime around 65 million years ago the dominant species was wiped out, leaving a niche for our progenitor species to emerge and thrive.
- Either through mutation or selective breeding, an ancestral primate emerged with the capacity to vocalize complex language several million years ago.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Life on Earth reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/21438?fulltext=true
http://brembs.net/gould.html
=========================================
I'm frequently asked the famous chicken-or-the-egg question. Which came first? My response is quick, "the egg." The follow-up question is most likely, "but what laid the egg?" My response is always "a pre-chicken (biological chicken ancestor)." Maybe they expected God to lay the egg or snap his/her fingers to create our modern chicken from the clay (if you can assume that God has gender or appendages or even fingers to mold the 'cosmic chicken clay').
What God put into play those 14 billion years ago has come to fruition in the form of man and a wealth of other life on this third rock from the sun. Ta-Daaa! I celebrate that and cherish that, but I not so delusional as to assume that I'm the pinacle of intelligent life possible on the planet. In Neil's book presentation, he leaves the audience with an interesting hypothesis...If there is only 2% difference between our DNA and the DNA of chimps and orangutans (our closest genetic relatives), what would be the capabilities of another species that is 2% different from modern man? It's a idea that keeps him up at night. It was an idea that prompted me to write this blog.
The Perimeter of Ignorance
A boundary where scientists face a choice: invoke a deity or continue the quest for knowledge
by Neil deGrasse Tyson
http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php
Note: This essay is one of the chapters in Neil's most recent book, Death By Black Hole
If you prefer watching video to reading, Neil also spoke on this subject at Beyond Belief 2006. Select Session 2 at
http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/
If you just want a synopsis, here is a blog comment on Neil's presentation:
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/02/neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design.html
12 comments:
Mark,
Thank you for your blog. I find that several of your beliefs line up directly with mine.
I do believe, however, that words like "drivel" and "delusional" are not in the spirit of this blog. One of the goals of this blog is that it is a safe haven for the expression of beliefs. Not in the sense that the reader and writer need to feel everyone believes the same as themselves but in the sense that people will not feel denigrated.
This type of venacular often leads to people shutting down in frustration and anger instead of processing what is said and stating their own beliefs. They may refrain from sharing their own beliefs in fear of being labeled as delusional.
Checked out Neil deGrasse Tyson's presentation. I loved it. Thanks for the connection.
I was a little disconcerted by how lightly this presentation by Neil deGrasse Tyson and the discussion thereafter takes belief in a God, almost to a point of condescending hubris. The funny thing in my mind is that this very attitude that people need to be convinced somehow that believing in God is not necessary is the very substance of which drives the likes of people who want to include creation and intelligent designs in the classroom.
Although I do find Neil deGrasse Tyson's point about the God of the Gaps as an oppressing factor on progress in science especially historically as very relevant, I do not see it as a justification to the end of a belief in God, nor the promotion of such an ideology. Nor do I see the fact that a correlation exists between education and disbelief in God as a proof against God's existence. Possibly this is only a proof of man's capability regarding hubris and narcisism.
What this discussion fails to delineate, in my opinion, is that many scientists are finding it possible to separate their exploration of nature from their theology in a way that does not provoke dead ends in research around ideas that are defined as "explainable only by God" or intelligent design as defined in this presentation.
I know of none or few God-fearing scientists that stop thinking or conduction research when they reach a tough problem or question only to say, "Well, Only God can explain that.". No, they continue on in the research. The above statement which Neil deGrasse Tyson assigns to several highly competent scientist throughout history is not a reasonable response for many main-line God-fearing scientists now, although they do exist.
I fear that people like Neil deGrasse Tyson have rubber-stamped in a sense a God-fearing people and as a result don't fully understand what it is they are trying to achieve as they educate the public regarding scientific thought and progress.
Paul,
The "creationist drivel" conext was a science classroom. I am using the following definition for (noun) drivel:
"childish, silly, or meaningless talk or thinking; nonsense; twaddle."
It wasn't meant to attack any person, rather to point out how misplaced ID is in a science classroom. The teaching of ID concepts is perfectly acceptable in any of the following classroom settings:
* philosophy
* history of science
* religion or comparative theology
I did pause when I used "drivel" because it might be received negatively. It did seem to be the most appropriate word to convey the out-of-place juxtaposition of ID and a science classroom.
I used "delusional" to refer to my own state of mind if I were to think that no form of human life could surpass me in mental or physical capabilities. I already see examples of superior humans in fighter pilots and astronauts. I'm not calling anyone else delusional. I will be happy to have any conversation about the advancement of the human species and never use this word. It was self ascribed only.
=============================
Here is a Real media format of Neil's Book TV (CSPAN2) address I saw this past weekend.
http://www.booktv.org/ram/feature/0207/btv022507_4c.ram
I think it's better than the BeyondBelief presentation.
You might have misunderstood Neil's examples of famous scientists throughout history that tossed the answer to God when they reached their limit. He wasn't impuning any scientist, past or present, that gave up or failed to solve a problem. He accepts that they searched for answers and may have come up short. He ascribes hubris or ignorance to those great minds that stated a solution must be the domain of God, since they were unable to find the answers. (implying no mere human being could do it -- only God)
=============================
I'll view the BeyondBelief presentation again. I do recall that the scientist on the discussion panel crossed into philosophy when placing the conference and the role of scientists.
My impression (which may change from another viewing and your comments) was that panel members considered religion as an emotional crutch or mental bridge for lots of people, much to their detriment. Give me a couple of days to get back to you.
I certainly agree with you about their condescending attitudes.
Mark,
The problem with using a word with drivel is that it insinuates silliness on the part of those who would actually do it that way. You are definitely entitled to feel that way about it; however, I would rather you give your explanation for why you think it is "lazy" to teach this way.
The delusional thing is in reference to yourself and you are not referring to yourself as delusional but "not delusional" which tells a person who thinks the opposite of you that they are delusional.
Later in Neil's speech he does refer back to how each of these scientists were more than capable of answering the questions that they came up against but did not advance because of their reliance on intelligent design.
The complicated thing here is that Neil has redefined intelligent design as a boundary between understanding and the, as of yet, inexplicsble. I personally don't define intelligent design this way (although I don't like to use this word period), but others like Behee (author of Darwin's black box)do. I don't see intelligent design as an explanation for the workings of systems in nature but a credit to its cause. So if I design a car for example it runs according to how I put it together, but I don't explain it that way. I would explain, as I see it, the function of the car relative to everything else that is interacting within the car. Or take, for instance, the connoisseur who is eating and delineaeting a grourmet dessert. The connoisseur is not going to attribute the taste on his pallet to the Baker, but rather to the ingredients in the cake and how they interact with each and the tongue. This is not a perfect analogy but it works at many levels. I am not sure where I am eally going with all of that.:-)
Paul,
I've already blogged my belief about the dangers of literal interpretation of the Bible. I think my use of "creationist drivel" is a consequence of the assumption that literalists are trying to use the Bible as a verbatum description of historic record.
When pressed, it is acutally humorous to hear about fossil and geologic evidence about the age of the Earth and the species that have existed being described in the Bible by literal interpretists. Here are my top three chuckles:
"There were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark."
"Since God is omnipotent, He can certainly create the universe, solar system, and life in six solar days."
"What makes you think that God didn't put fossils in the ground just to fool you into thinking the Earth was much older than it really is."
Maybe there are better adjectives than "drivel." (childish) Some of the other "drivel" synonyms may require a different use, since literal interpretists are trying to make the conflict of the physical evidence 'meaningful' in light of the infallible holy words they read in the Bible. I'll do some more digging for a better descriptor and accept suggestions from your blog readers.
I would like to discuss the advancement and potential of human beings before I use the "delusional" descriptor. After some introspection, I asked myself what mental state would allow me to know/think that our current human form, body and mind, are the pinnacle of possible development. "delusional" was my answer. There may be others. Without some feedback or further discussion, I'm left with that descriptor.
I can look back just a few hundred years and see a tremendous change in the physical characteristics of humans. A lot of that was from improved diet. Doesn't that mean that we have adapted to these conditions and evolved? With the majority of humans living in urban settings, we seem to have selected for height and attractiveness characteristics. It doesn't mean that all the changes are beneficial or that we are completely removed from our 100,000 year ancestors (look at our propensity to over-eat).
Here are two cartoons that help illustrate two points being made in this discussion and the media links:
Miracle Happens Here:
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery/math/math07.gif
This famous cartoon illustrates the use of 'higher power', in this case a miracle, when solving some mathematical proof/equation. It is so easy to relegate the hard stuff to miracles, but that is why it is also considered lazy and not acceptable in science. Shortcuts aren't allowed unless they are reproducable by others.
Another way to look at this is in the field of medicine. I'm not saying that modern medical practices are perfect or complete. However, the exietence of a 'miracle' happening that cures someone's cancer is not something that can be duplicated by other patients or doctors. It's not like doctors don't look at miracles or religion to help their patients. There was a study, concluded in 2006, that looked at intercessory prayers for hospitalized heart patients. Earlier studies had found benefits from family prayers and patient prayers. Would distance prayers or prayers by strangers help?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical6.htm
http://www.dukemednews.org/news/article.php?id=9136
There was no measurable difference in patient outcomes, except when the patient knew others were praying for them -- the patients had worse outcomes. The current hypothesis is that the patients correlated the prayers with the severity of their condition.
I've read some critiques of this study. The most 'interesting' question I've read is "What is to say that God didn't intend for those patients to get worse?" I am inclined to put this critique into the lazy thinker category -- let's discount the statistical population size, double-blind construction of the experiment and chalk undesirable outcomes to God's will.
===============================
Here's your proof:
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery/math/math22.gif
I've encountered this phenomenon in all sorts of settings. When required to 'prove' or 'explain' something, shouting replaces logic and teaching ability. When shouting fails, anger takes over and attempts to beat the answer into the question-asker.
Mark,
I would love to encourage you to blog some of the rational that you have put down here in this comment section.
For example: You miracle discussion and fossil discussion. Frame it in the context of how these things provide evidence that cause you to believe in a certain way rather than in the context of how you know it will be perceived. Maybe we can get some responses.
Mark,
I saw on a previous blog that you mentioned the apple from story of adam and eve as a component of your belief in free will. How does that work if you don't take the Bible literally. You believe that this story happened? Or do you believe it is folk lore intended to grasp how the Jewish people felt about their current human condition? If it is the latter what gives it the authority to dictate how you perceive free will.
Paul
My interpretation of the Adam and Eve story is one of the rise of consciousness in mankind. Early homo sapiens were instinctual. The advent of 'human beings' (Adam & Eve post garden) corresponds with the ability to rationalize and consider much bigger pictures of population (Us vs Me) and time (what's coming next?).
I believe the Garden of Eden was a bit like God's personal petting zoo. Man was still an animal and knew nothing but life and the wonders of nature.
Paul,
My God is not a trickster, although she does like a good laugh. Creating phony fossils to trick or test us is below the dignity of God. Besides, dinosaur fossils date back far enough that we can see evidence of species evolution (a contradiction to the anti-Darwinians) and the dinosaur fossil record ends long before the rise of primate species, which long predates Noah.
The comments I've heard and read from ID/creationists to account for fossils is also something that I find amusing. Of course I usually wince before I smile (laugh). Back in my college days I would confront these people about their beliefs. I soon realized that many people need their literal biblical beliefs to be true. Belief helps them get through the hard times and I had no right to kick their crutches out from under them. So I stopped undermining Christian belief systems.
This brings up a good opportunity to ponder Occam's razor:
"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
In some sense, it is simpler to say "God did it." or "It is God's will." Unfortunately, that isn't even looking for cause and reason. It is turning one's back on the reality of the evidence in front of you. I think this would also fall into Neil Tyson's "lazy science" attribution.
I have family members like that, who say "Let's not think about that." or "We don't talk about that." I've learned to smile and go about my business.
I'm still learning how to go about my business.
Post a Comment