Irreducible Innanity
I was looking for MovableType resources and I stumbled upon something I wish to share from andersja’s blog: Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist nonsense
I think that this is a must-read for anyone who finds him or her self caught up in one of those endless evolution/creation debates. So many of the creationist argument stems from fallacies such as begging the question and argumentum ad infinitum.
“Intelligent” design theory
Intelligent design theory is a god-of-the-gaps theory, and very little else. Its aim is to find any spot where science has no answer, and jams the wedge of religion in its place. Certainly, the foremost claimants in the field with beg to differ, it is obvious that it is a theory that begins with assumption instead of hypothesis. That’s truth with a capital “T”, lest you forget.
“Sure,” the creationist says, “you found the intermediate fossil between birds and lizards, but what about between the intermediary fossil and birds, or lizards?” When you concede that the intermediary fossils will probably not be found, you can bet they take that as a ‘win’ for their argument. If you cannot explain the theory, then it must mean something made it that way. This something is called ‘creator.’
I think you can see where it goes from here. It becomes a direct devolution of intelligent conversation. You can’t argue with someone who things they are right because they have “God on their side.”
Experience dictates..
I have been caught up in cyclic debates before, and they end up a mire of maddenning futility. Where the science-oriented mind is always ready to follow reasonable arguments to their logical conclusion, the closed mind is unable to accept anything but truth with a capital “T.” And thus, opinion becomes fact.
That is always the first thing I have to call out: either argue it on facts, or don’t argue with me. I can understand faith as a reason for people to think something is so, but it doesn’t make it an absolute objective truth.
The resource fork..
For an example of absurd arguments reference reader comments under creationism at skepdic. Their further reading section at the bottom of creationism is an excellent read as well.
Eric 14:35 on 2003/06/09 Permalink
The real heart of the debate is not about whether we will allow some conniving fundamentalist to inject religion into our educational and scientific discussion, but whether we will allow an open dialog about the weaknesses of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
It is appropriate that you mention the fossil record, because that was one of the areas that Darwin hoped would amply vindicate his theory (there being little evidence during his day) and provide a myriad of transitional forms. However, the fossil record uncovered since Darwin’s time has revealed a great paucity of so-called transitional forms, and in fact has provided evidence of the large-scale appearance of numerous forms, fully formed and functional, most notably during the Cambrian.
Now an unbiased look at this physical evidence might say, “Wow, perhaps this theory of transition from one species to the next and to the next is not correct. Perhaps these species came on the scene in some other way.” This kind of unbiased analysis of the evidence is the kind of dialog that an increasing number of scientists are hoping to open up.
Or, you could dogmatically say, “I believe in evolutionism, and therefore the forms must have evolved from some previous form, because I will not entertain the possibility that it didn’t happen that way.” This difficulty with explaining evolutionism from the fossil record is precisely the reason why evolutionists have revised their theory to include a concept, with which you are no doubt familiar, called “punctuated equilibrium.” Punctuated equilibrium of course doesn’t explain anything at all about how these forms could have evolved so abruptly, it just states that it must be the case, because after all, that is the only explanation there can be if evolutionism is correct. This is not unbiased scientific analysis of the data, but is simply an exercise in forcing the evidence to fit the “correct answer.”
The fossil record, however, is just one example of the many problems running throughout evolutionary theory. Much more significant problems include the concepts of complexity, information content, aesthetics, and consciousness. These problems are not the realm of religion, but rather must be taken into account and adequately addressed by any theory that seeks to explain, as does evolutionism, the existence of life as we know it based on a strictly materialist and naturalistic premise.
The bottom line is that the Intelligent Design position does not seek to turn scientific discourse into religious discourse, but simply seeks to allow individuals the opportunity to (i) hear and understand weaknesses in evolutionary theory; and (ii) be exposed to alternatives based on the evidence and an impartial scientific method.