E-mail on the end of Evolution. Intelligent Design, Creationism.
Hi,
You asked my opinion on the web page your brother thought was so great about the end of Evolution.
Here goes:
It was a long article where there was a lot of ranting and raving. Creationists do a lot of criticizing without any evidential alternate natural explanations.
Now I'm going to do some of the same -- ranting and raving but some explaining.
Some brief points:
(1)
Intelligent Design (ID) and Creationism generally have one explanation for anything that cannot be explained by current science, that an Intelligent Designer or God did it (they almost always mean the God of the Bible, even though they don't say so. I've had some dealings with Muslim Creationists [they are all creationists] and they mean Allah of the Koran).This explanation really doesn't explain anything -- it is a way of covering up ignorance and dissuades any further scientific research -- they use the God of the Gaps for anything not clearly explained by science.
(2)
Creationists may unite in opposing Evolution but are actually very diverse, some are New Earth Creationists, some are Old Earth Creationists, Progressive Creationists, Theistic Creationists, ID Creationists, and everything in between. Also they are divided religiously, some are Christian, some are Muslim, some are Native Creationists -- there are many, many kinds of cultural creationists.They often do not get along. If somehow Creation 'Science' becomes the future 'science' (in schools for instance) there would be bedlam due to all these groups. About a year ago I e-mailed the Editor of Scientific American asking if he was receiving Islamic Creationist e-mails, as I was. His answer was Yes, but he couldn't see how, in the final analysis, Christian and Muslim Creationists can agree on anything fundamental.
(3)
The question of public debates between Scientists and Creationists: I think these public debates are a waste of time and effort. Creationists are mainly interested in publicity, not in discussing the issues. If these debates are set up by the Creationists it is certain the people in the audience will be overwhelming Creationists that have their minds 'made-up'. Publicity is their main goal!(4)
ID Creationists and Creationists generally call into question the methods of science and it's basic characteristics. They (not all ID) are opposed not only to Biological Evolution, but also Astronomical Evolution, Linguistic evolution (they believe all languages began with the fall of the Tower of Babel), Geological evolution (they [except some ID people] believe Noah's Flood was the cause of most of the geological events), and anything else that God didn't create on the spot.(5)
Proof texts are often used by Creationists: The real motivation is not even to prove the Bible via scientific evidence but just by believing it -- find the biblically correct answer to any question -- support an argument by finding the "texts" that are the 'proof' of God's answer -- search the Scriptures for a proof text. Science be-hanged!(6)
The essential characteristics of science are:(1) It is guided by natural law.
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law.
(3) It is testable against the empirical world.
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, -- are not necessarily the final word.
(5) It is falsifiable
.This makes science so powerful and successful, and so different from all other ways of gaining knowledge of reality.
Compare these characteristics with the characteristics of religion such as Creationism.
Ask yourself:
How far would science develop if supernatural causes (e.g. God, gods, miracles,
holy ghost, evil spirits, heaven, hell, angels, long dead deities) were
acceptable
in explaining processes? The death of science would follow soon thereafter.
(7)
Science also addresses the "should". Science provides values.(8)
Three items about the article:(1) The article talks a lot about the popularity of views. My comment: Reality explanations do not depend on popularity.
(2) The article claims the idea of Natural Selection and it's ramifications have always been advanced by Creationists. Since when do Creationists support Darwinian Evolution?
Some of the proponents of ID do, sort of. See my Book Review of Darwin's Black Box by Michael J, Bede at:
http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Darwin's Black Box.htm
Michael Bede is an ID Creationist -- I wrote this review a few years ago.
(3) The article does not really deal with all the DNA evidence that shows a common ancestry for all living things and the evolutionary relationship of all.
Even if there was no fossil record the common ancestory and relatedness of all organisms, including humans, would still be as biologically evident because of the DNA studies . Now-a-days fossils are only a bonus -- another source of evidence for confirmation.
O. Hooge