Whoever Wants To Discuss Creationism, Let’s Get Down
Posted in Creationism, Science on | 1 minute | 20 Comments →
No post here, this is an open thread for whoever wants to discuss creationism.
Matt
says...Hi cl,
Most explanations I’ve heard for why the vast majority of scientists reject creationism (at least the variety that denies evolution) is that their bias towards atheism causes them to accept evidence for macroevolution and deny evidence for creationism (or ID). Is there an explanation that is less conspiratorial? The standard scientific view used to be the much less creation-friendly infinite universe, but scientists have come to accept the Big Bang, a view that is less atheism friendly. If the evidence really is against macroevolution, why haven’t scientists come to accept it the way they accepted a finite universe?
While I agree that science tends to select philosophical naturalists because they are more likely to adopt procedural naturalism (something that I would say is necessary for science in most cases) the naturalist can at least admit that evolution has been falsified even if it does not lead them to believe in God. Yet after 100 years of general acceptance they have not.
I’m new to this blog and have been looking around your creation tagged posts. I hope I’m not bringing up something that has been discussed at length but I haven’t seen it.
cl
says...Hey there.
I’m not a fan of the “scientists are part of grand conspiracy” argument, either. I would suspect that most – if not all – of those explanations are religiously-motivated. I’ve heard many a religionist accuse scientists of bias, but I think that’s the easy way out, personally. Don’t get me wrong – scientists succumb to bias just like anyone else. I honestly believe that most scientists who reject creationism do so for scientific reasons, with lack of evidence and the inherently unfalsifiable nature of the claim. Personally, when I look around, I see some facts that are consistent with the idea that humans were created less than 10,000 years ago – for example, our written records. I realize there are written records presumed to be older than 10,000 years, but I’ve not heard of such an instance that doesn’t rely on radiometric dating to make its case. However, that evidence is not of the caliber that could sustain a legitimate scientific inquiry.
I agree.
What evidence are you alluding to? Or, are you asking me what evidence I’m alluding to? If the latter, I’m hesitant to respond, because different people mean different things when they use the word macroevolution.
Sometimes theories take hundreds of years to overturn. I also agree that philosophical naturalism and evolution are not mutually-exclusive. Recall that science is not only a practice, but also an institution, which means conflict-of-interest issues loom. Personally, I’d like to see more focus on anomalous evidence, for example, tools found in Aixen-Provence limestone that dates to 300 myr [The American Journal of Science and Arts, 1:145-46, 1820].
I don’t write much on creationism, so I doubt it. The last related post I wrote on creationism had to do with the macro/micro issue.
Either way, thanks for stopping by.
Matt
says...My question was phrased specifically for people who believe that the scientific evidence is against evolution. I know there are creationists who would simply say, “I trust the Bible more than I trust science” or have a view of the Bible as a cheat sheet “eventually scientists will discover that creationism is true” but I was thinking more along the lines of the Discovery Institute types who claim that scientific evidence goes against evolution. I know that Intelligent Design advocates are not necessarily creationists but I’m thinking specifically of the creationists who cast their lot in with the Intelligent Design crowd.
The evidence I’m alluding to:
Things like irreducible complexity in specific organisms and parts of the body, statistical improbabilities, and gaps in the fossil record.
What I mean by macroevolution:
I read cl’s macro/micro post and I was using the definition from the post: evolution at or above the species level. I should have been more specific because I have also seen people mean different things when they say this. I’m not talking about the origin of life. To me that is a separate issue though I understand many scientists are very optimistic that a natural explanation is imminent.
I was not trying to make a point about the compatibility of philosophical naturalism and evolution (though, yeah, I agree with you). What I was getting at was that I do not think atheism forces acceptance of evolution any more than gaps in scientific understanding force theism. It seems like there is no good reason why a scientist who is an atheist would cling to evolution out of a desire to confirm atheism (perhaps I’m giving many scientists more philosophical credit than they deserve).
So, for those who believe that using statistics, irreducible complexity and gaps in the fossil record (to name a few arguments) as evidence against evolution at or above the species level: are there any reasons you can think of besides “grand conspiracy” that the vast majority of scientists would have to reject this evidence?
PS- I know this is old news, but congrats on your award cl!
cl
says...Hey thanks! Reactions to this blog are quite varied.
Well said. I agree. However, scientism seems to force acceptance of evolution, and many atheists adhere to the philosophy of scientism. I would imagine they simply don’t see any other alternative. I imagine they would say something like, “Well, evolution is the only thing we have any solid evidence for, so that’s what I have to believe. Of course, as you seem to imply, there’s no good reason an atheist couldn’t believe in transpermia or some other theory.
Gotcha. I’ve read Uncommon Descent and various Discovery Institute literature, and I think most of the people who reject ID – scientists, philosophers, whoever – do so because they say it’s a “God of the gaps” fallacy. Typical responses are that Behe never proved his case with the eye or cilia, and that unguided evolution actually *can* account for such complex structures. Of course, it doesn’t help that Darwin’s falsifiability criteria invite an argument from ignorance:
Notice he frames the criteria negatively: “could not possibly have been…” The way I see it, this is inherently flawed because it requires that any counterargument must take some form of an argument from ignorance. For every argument of the type, “Structure X cannot have evolved by minute gradations,” we’ll find a rebuttal of the type, “Just because we don’t know how structure X could have evolved by minute gradations doesn’t mean it didn’t.” For this reason, I prefer positive evidence – like the Aixen-Provence discovery, to name one. Consider the inherent logical differences between, “claim X seems theoretically impossible so evolution is false” vs. “empirical discovery X directly confronts the evolutionary hypothesis.” While the superficial and seemingly intractable ID vs. evolution battle rages on, potentially legitimate anomalous evidence goes unexamined.
If we take “macroevolution” to mean “evolution at or above the species level,” then I’m unaware of any direct, empirical evidence against macroevolution. I understand that certain ID advocates believe the things you mention constitute such evidence, but evolution at or above the species level has been documented [cf. Stanley, Polynesian butterflies, Devil’s Pupfish].
As far as statistical improbabilities are concerned, that’s where I think many who reject ID – scientists, philosophers, whoever – might be reasoning inconsistently. I guess many just chalk it up to luck, or don’t think about the matter in earnest.
As far as gaps in the fossil record, the claim is often considered a strawman argument, and punctuated equilibrium is a common response. Unlike their predecessors, today’s evolutionary scientists don’t expect a full fossil record. Again, notice we have a negatively-framed argument: “Fossil X is not there, so evolution is false.” However, fossil X could be found at some later date. Or, perhaps there’s no need to find fossil X at all. What I’m getting at is, scientists seem near-unanimous in the opinion that a complete fossil record is unnecessary in proving the veracity of evolution. At best, gaps in the fossil record constitute evidence against traditional Darwinian gradualism – but evolution has evolved quite a bit since then.
Still, to get to the meat of your question, I believe that plain ol’ human bias is among the main culprits here. Evidence that directly challenges the evolutionary hypothesis is often marginalized or discredited. There’s also the “institution” and “political” factors: there are really strong stigmas against anyone who questions evolution – just as there were really strong stigmas against people who questioned geocentrism. For a scientist to question evolution is a HUGE risk. I think that’s rather unfortunate for a discipline that claims to be provisional, but, what can we do? Most people are going to believe the whitecoats without question.
Anyways, I hope I supplied something closer to the answer you were looking for. If not, I’m willing to try again. I haven’t put much mental effort into the evolution / ID debate lately, so I apologize if this comes across as rusty.
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe
says...@cl,
I’m no philosopher nor do I follow anything that’s science, so my evaluation doesn’t have much merit, but you do make a lot of sense. It’s really sad if your claims are accurate, that scientists are acting like bigots when it comes to the case of evolution.
cl
says...Hey there. While I’m glad that at least you think I’m making sense, I would like to make one thing very clear: I’m not claiming “scientists are acting like bigots when it comes to evolution.” That would be an example of a non-conservatively stated claim. To say “scientists” would imply most or many scientists, and “bigot” isn’t even the right word. What I’ve said is, in some subset of instances where some subset of scientists refuse to directly confront evidence which seems to challenge the evolutionary hypothesis, I suspect that bias, politics and institutional conflicts of interest might be at play.
I hope the difference is clear. To just say “scientists are acting like bigots” is a gross over-generalization, and we shouldn’t use gross overgeneralizations in ostensibly logical arguments. I do think it’s rather unfortunate that in a discipline whose findings are supposed to be considered provisional, that so many people treat things like the age of the Earth or the origin of species as rigid facts. I want to think we’ve learned from the inductive track record of science. Many, many times we’ve been dead-wrong about things that seemed totally straight-forward and unquestionable.
As for the age of the Earth, there are people over at Common Sense Atheism [and other blogs] who would like you to believe that I’m just another “creationist” who disputes the facts without understanding the evidence. This is so far from the truth I can’t help but chuckle. I understand the evidence, but consider: we don’t actually know that 4.55 billion calendar years have passed since Earth began to exist. Yet, in textbook after textbook and educational program after educational program, we preach this doctrine as truth. Imagine if sometime this century, scientists overturn some fact or principle that legitimately calls this age into question. Then, all those textbooks and educational programs were wrong, and not because the evidence or the science was wrong, but because the writers refused to state their claims as conservatively as possible.
Whereas, if we explained to children that we don’t actually know 4.55 billion calendar years have passed since Earth began to exist, and that we just infer that from various evidences, and that it could be wrong – then, maybe children would have a more questioning attitude towards science. Then, we wouldn’t have textbooks and educational programs full of non-conservatively stated claims.
It’s just sad to me that so many people are entrenched in the culture wars of religion vs. science and evolution vs. creation that they seemingly can’t think outside the confines of these artificially constructed dichotomies.
Anyways, thanks for dropping by, I intend to work on the desirism post we talked about today. Cheers.
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe
says...I was aware of my blatant over-generalization, and am sorry for that (I did the reply too quick to be careful).
I agree with what you say in your reply, except that I don’t know how they came up with the 4.55bn value. For practical purposes, if there’s consensus on that value, isn’t it okay to preach it as gospel? Or maybe there isn’t a consensus?
cl
says...No worries at all. I wasn’t trying to “come at you” or criticize anything you said, I just wanted to make sure my point came across crystal-clear.
As for the 4.55 billion year value, several lines of evidence suggest that as a base figure for the age of the Earth. As far as whether that’s okay to preach as gospel, I’m sure everyone will have an opinion. My opinion is, no, it’s not okay. It obscures the fact that the findings of science are supposed to be considered provisional, although, I believe that should apply more to non-observational science than observational science. I would have no problem with preaching “gravity” as gospel, for all the reasons outlined in the scientific anti-realism post. IMHO, there are simply too many unknown variables and assumed premises to proffer the age of the Earth with any real certainty.
But, I’m pretty burned out on discussing it, to be honest. People will think whatever they’re going to think.
Anyways, thanks for coming around. I really do take your criticisms to heart over at CSA. At the same time, I think there’s a lot of history you’re unaware of, and I think too many commenters refuse to hold Luke and Alonzo to the same standards they hold theists, but, I don’t hold that against you. I just treat what you say as the input from an unbiased observer, and, that’s always important.
So, cheers.
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe
says...When there’s comments/questions on your views, just point them to your posts. It looks to me you are an excellent writer anyways (and hopefully, a careful one, and seemingly thorough one) just to avoid getting tired.
PS: I guess I should go over your blog a bit more. I’m going to add your feed.
Matt
says...It seems like science is about (or at least supposed to be about) following the evidence. If the majority of the evidence points to an ancient Earth, why not simply state it as a fact in a science textbook? Maybe students need a philosophy of science class before they are allowed to take a science class so they understand the nature of scientific truth, though I suppose they would have to make leaps in the demarcation problem before they are ready for that.
Maybe if the ID crowd called themselves evolution critics that would help their case. They could present evidence against macroevolution without making the leap to saying that it proves a creator.
cl
says...Tshepang Lekhonkhobe,
Thanks. I often include links to or names of original posts, but not always. I’m always trying to improve my writing in general. Blogging is a really great means towards that end.
Matt,
For the same reason we shouldn’t have taught kids “there is no gravity in space.” Or, for the same reason we shouldn’t have stated the “superiority of the caucasian race” in a science textbook. Or, for the same reason we shouldn’t have declared the appendix a “useless vestigial organ” in a science textbook. Or, for the same reason we shouldn’t have presented misleading evolutionary diagrams in science textbooks. Or, for the same reason we shouldn’t have taught kids gum takes seven years to digest. The findings of science are provisional, and I think inherently more so when the science in question is non-observational.
An unrelated comment from Richard Feynman:
Other interesting reads:
Science Textbooks Full of Errors
Exploring an Error-Prone Universe
Those are just surface-scrapers.
I would imagine that many do profess to criticize evolution. I still don’t really know what you’re alluding to by “evidence against macroevolution,” though. I provided some examples of change “at or above the species level” in previous comments. Would you care to clarify?
Matt
says...I seem to be writing in a confusion way. Sorry about that.
First off:
“For the same reason we shouldn’t have taught kids “there is no gravity in space.” Or, for the same reason we shouldn’t have stated the “superiority of the caucasian race” in a science textbook. ”
Good point. I suppose there should be a provisional truth unit in school science curriculum so students (and then the greater population when they grow up) understand the nature of scientific truth and that it is different than the metaphysical truth philosophers offer.
As for the clarification:
When I said that IDers should call themselves evolution critics I meant they should re-brand themselves (I should have capitalized the words “Evolution Critics”). As I said earlier “I do not think atheism forces acceptance of evolution any more than gaps in scientific understanding force theism.” It appears to be a logical leap to evolutionists (both theist and atheist) to say that criticizing evolution proves life was intentionally created. After all, evolution is not called Atheistic Inference (though there are many scientists who would like that). If I missed something in the ID literature that makes a positive case for a creator without simply saying “evolution didn’t happen/is incomplete, therefore there was a creator” then I take back the comment. I have to admit that most of what I’ve read about ID comes from apologetics websites and not any published material, though I have read popular articles by Behe and Dembski online. So I may have made a statement out of ignorance.
I should not have said “evidence against macroevolution,” I meant the evidence that the ID crowd tends to produce that we mentioned earlier.
cl
says...Though I see your point, I’d also say that IDers already suffer from that charge. That ID is just “creationism reinvented” is a common argument. Though I believe the argument to be misleading at best and outright false at worst, it’s certainly effective at the popular levels, where people tend to adopt beliefs from media soundites and celebrities. I think that if IDers did this again, they would be opening themselves up to even worse criticism than they currently receive.
I think they should go on the proactive, and expose the bad argument for what it is. When presented in terms of information theory, the argument for “intelligent design” is an entirely different beast than the religiously-framed arguments for creation. Though the two ideas can be complementary – that is, religious creationists can certainly use ID in their arguments – ID is not in and of itself a religious theory.
I think that would be the “information theory” part of the equation. That seems to be a major component of the IDers case. Though, like I said, I haven’t really looked at much from the ID camp in a while. I have a few unpublished posts on the matter; maybe I’ll turn back to them in the weeks to come.
It’s funny, because there are some atheist haters who are already criticizing me on other blogs for mentioning the book here, but read Uncommon Dissent if you haven’t. It’s a good introduction to the ID arguments from a variety of angles. Agreeing or disagreeing is not the point here – if nothing else, reading it will certainly facilitate a more informed judgment, and that’s what counts.
Thanks for the good conversation.
mojo.rhythm
says...The falsity of creationism is an uncontroversial fact. If one is inclined to accept all the tenets of Young Earth Creationism in accordance with a traditionalist understanding of the Bible, that person is either:
(a) In a domain of willful or involuntary ignorance.
(b) Fighting tooth and nail to show how it is logically possible to fit the evidence with this prior interpretation, rather then inferring to the best interpretation.
This is precisely why I am sick of debating evolution with creationists as a pastime. Rarely do they change their tune.
With respect to ID, there are a litany of philosophical arguments that sweep the rug out from under its feet. It is minimalist creationism hiding behind the vacuous pretense of science and always has been. Take The Design Inference by William Dembski, one of the leading cdesign proponentsists. In this book, he gives an inductive argument for the validity of what he calls “specified complexity”, a putative earmark of design by an intelligent being. His argument roughly amounts to saying that any and everything that exhibits specified complexity has always been revealed to have been intelligently designed when subject to video camera observation (you always catch a worker/s designing a car, making a watch etc.). What Dembski probably knows is that this by definition places an extremely onerous burden on counterexamples which would totally destroy his proposition. There is no way for us to obtain a video-camera like certain causal history of all of life! Hence, natural selection is necessarily excluded as a potential defeater. This is one of many fatal problems inherent in ID as most biologists and philosopher of biology see it.
dguller
says...A great website for atheistic arguments that I find particularly compelling is at:
http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/
Check it out!
cl
says...mojo.rhythm,
Well, it would help if you delineated “all the tenets” of Young Earth Creationism. As it is, you leave me to guess what you’re alluding to. Still, I’m pretty sure I don’t accept your conclusions at gospel truth.
Personally, I think that’s beside the point. I haven’t read the book you allude to, but from what you cite, it seems Dembski is simply noting that since intelligence precedes specified complexity in all other instances–or perhaps the overwhelming majority of them–that intelligence preceding specified complexity in biological life and the universe is reasonable. If that accurately summarizes his point, I think he’s right. I agree that specified complexity is generally “a reliable marker of design by an intelligent agent.”
I would reiterate that natural selection in the sense you’re using it applies only to biological life. Anticipating a reference of Smolin and/or analogous ideas, I find Silk and Polkinghorne’s criticisms to be sound, personally.
dguller,
I’m familiar with McCormick’s blog. I would consider him a perfect example of an atheist for whom these criticisms don’t apply.
dguller
says...cl:
>> it seems Dembski is simply noting that since intelligence precedes specified complexity in all other instances–or perhaps the overwhelming majority of them–that intelligence preceding specified complexity in biological life and the universe is reasonable.
Isn’t the main problem with this whole idea that although we have lots of experience of human beings designing and creating complex things, we have no experience of divine entities doing the same?
I mean, we see complexity all over the place. One theory is of divine entities creating them all, but we have no experience of such entities doing this. Another theory is evolution, which we have lots of experience and evidence of.
Doesn’t it make sense to prefer the latter explanation to the former?
Christopher
says...‘As for the age of the Earth …we don’t actually know that 4.55 billion calendar years have passed since Earth began to exist. Yet, in textbook after textbook and educational program after educational program, we preach this doctrine as truth.’
Sorry for a massive delay on this, but I try to be an impartial reader/commenter and like to dig randomly for conversations concerning the ‘important’ ideas in life.
Should science textbooks have disclaimers in them stating ‘the following content is the best possible explanation we have for idea x’, or should it be mandated that science educators inform their students of this?
dguller
says...cl:
And here’s another problem of postulating a creator for a complex entity such as the universe.
The creator with either be more complex, as complex, or less complex than the universe.
If he is more complex, then he would be in need of explanation, especially because the main problem with the universe is that it is so complex to begin with. Postulating something more complex than the universe would just complicate things further.
If he is as complex, then the same points above apply.
If he is less complex, then it is possible for more complex entities to be generated by less complex entities, and thus you lose your objection to evolution by natural selection, because that is exactly what is going on.
This is Dawkins’ argument, and I find it quite compelling.