I am a Deist. That means that I believe in God whole-heartedly but reject all religious dogma. My beliefs are a combination of certain elements from Hinduism, Sufism, and Buddhism and I try to pray and meditate daily and abide by a belief in karma. During the day I am a Fellow at the Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. I study the oldest life on Earth (dating back to ~4 billion years) in order to unlock the secrets of life, how it began, and how it evolved until the present. I am an example of how one can embrace God and still believe at the same time that scientific explanations should always trump religious ones.
Over the last two days Deepak Chopra has been making arguments that basically support “Intelligent Design” on the liberal Huffington Post blog (which is an excellent website). Such an embarrassing event can occur when you have too many bloggers in one space and can’t keep track of it all. I am not a Deepak Chopra reader. I find his writings too…elementary. I don’t begrudge anyone that does enjoy his writing though. We all have different tastes is all. Chopra however has a lot of people that listen to him and take his words as “gospel.” That is why I was pained greatly to read his post. Here are some “scientific questions” he poses in order to demonstrate an openness to divine intervention:
1. How does nature take creative leaps? In the fossil record there are repeated gaps that no “missing link” can fill.
Wrong. It is the rock record that is incomplete. Tectonic activity is continually resurfacing the Earth and destroying the rocks containing fossils. Nature does not take “creative leaps.” The biggest such “leap” occurred around 535 Ma at the Cambrian boundary and over the last 40+ years the “gap” has been slowly filled in with solid fossil evidence showing gradual evolution.
2. If mutations are random, why does the fossil record demonstrate so many positive mutations — those that lead to new species — and so few negative ones?
Because organisms with negative mutations die out sooner making their preservation potential less. Only a tiny fraction of dead life survives the fossilization process without being destroyed. That’s why you don’t find dinosaur bones in your backyard.
3. How does evolution know where to stop?
Evolution never stops. Many prokaryotes (single-celled life) have remained virtually “un-evolved” for close to 3 billion years. This is because they are generalists that are suited for life in extreme environments and because they reproduce asexually which allows for less mutation. Give them an environment extreme enough though and they will either evolve or die. Evolution doesn’t stop at some perfect “design.”
I am going to stop here. Rest assured that I could systematically de-bunk every pseudoscientific point Chopra makes and I don’t even have my Ph.D. yet. Maybe Razib and his pals at GNXP want to take a shot at swatting down a few more (although I fear I’d be insulting their intelligence with such an easy task).
As you can imagine HuffPost readers let him have it in the comments following his post. In fact he had to write a follow-up post containing seven more fundamentally flawed arguments:Reviewing the negative reactions to yesterday’s post, I was struck that both “secular humanists” and fundamentalist become extremely emotional when the debate on evolution is brought up. However, new ideas are attacked with emotional vehemence some times and then turn out to be right.
Yes, its always easy to counter a rational attack with a wave of ones hand and then point to some historical examples of “persecuted ideas,” as if his argument has anything in common with them.
If you are opposing my comments with passionate vehemence, I’d suggest that you are not friendly to the open discussion of evolution, no matter which camp you belong to.
This coincidentally is almost verbatim what IDers say. Also let’s clarify. There is NO SUCH THING as “Intelligent Design.” Years ago the Creationists realized that the word “Creationist” was a conversation stopper. They then repackaged it and came up with a new word that was easier to swallow. Their PR people are brilliant.
There is also some poetry thrown into Chopra’s rebuttal in-case real scientists are still angry with his arguments:
You and I are such islands, and there is no reason on the face of it why we don’t blow away and disperse in waves of radiating heat the way a rock cools off after a hot day, the same way a star eventually expends its heat and dies.
Chopra promises to answer his thirsty minions in his next post which I eagerly await:
In my next post I will offer a picture of how these questions might be answered.
A picture is after all worth a thousand words.
If you would like to learn more about the truth then here are some links:
Note: Andrew Jackson and others, please read. Very easy. More details, also go to http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/index.html
From http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/paleo_geo_evol.html
Written by John Pojeta and Dale Springer
Paleontologists generally come much too late to find anything but skeletons. However, they find something denied to the biologist — the time element. The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory (paraphrased from Kurtén, 1953).
In Darwin’s day, the fossil record was poorly known, but this is no longer true. A major focus for geologists is establishing the times of origin of the rock formations in the crust of Earth — the science of geochronology. For paleontologists, it is important to know which rock formations were formed at the same time and thus can be correlated, which rocks were formed at different times, and to put the formations into a time sequence from oldest to youngest in any area under study. Fossils are key to establishing the sequence of the ages of layered sedimentary rocks, and they are the direct proof of the changes that have occurred in living organisms through time on our planet.
In the mid-1600s, about 200 years before Darwin published his theory of evolution, the Danish scientist Nicholas Steno found that it was possible to establish the order in which layered rocks were deposited. He recognized that particles of sand, mud, and gravel settle from a fluid according to their relative weight. Slight changes in particle size, composition, or transporting agent result in the formation of layers in the rocks; these layers are also called beds or strata. Layering, or bedding, is the most obvious feature of sedimentary rocks. The study of layered (sedimentary) rocks is called stratigraphy.
Sedimentary rocks are formed particle by particle and bed by bed, and the layers are stacked one on another. Thus, in any sequence of undisturbed layered rocks, a given bed must be older than any bed on top of it. This Principle of Superposition is fundamental to understanding the age of rocks; at any one place it indicates the relative ages of the rock layers and of the fossils they contain. Because rock types such as sandstone, limestone, and shale are formed repeatedly through time, it is usually not possible to use rock types alone to determine the time in which rock formations were formed, or to correlate them to other areas. To determine the age of most sedimentary rocks, scientists study the fossils they contain.
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, English geologists and French paleontologists discovered that the age of rocks could be determined and correlated by their contained fossils. Rocks of the same age contain the same, or very similar, fossil species, even when the rock units extend over a large area or the exposures are not continuous. They also noted that there was a distinct, observable succession of fossils from older to younger rocks that did not repeat itself. These geoscientists were the first to use fossils to correlate the time of formation of the rocks in which the fossils occur. Three concepts are important in the study and use of fossils: (1) Fossils are the remains of once living organisms; (2) The vast majority of fossils are the remains of the hardparts of extinct organisms; they belong to species no longer living anywhere on Earth; (3) The kinds of fossils found in rocks of different ages differ because life on Earth has changed through time.
If we begin at the present and examine older and older layers of rock, we will arrive at
a level where no human fossils are found. If we continue backward in time, we successively come to layers where no fossils of birds are present, no mammals, no reptiles, no four-footed animals, no fishes, no shells, and no members of the animal kingdom. These concepts are summarized in the general principle called the Law of Fossil Succession. The kinds of animals and plants found as fossils change through time. When we find the same kinds of fossils in rocks in different places, we know the rocks are of the same age.
BB wrote
science in general is not as absolute as we would like it to believe. I will reiterate an earlier statement that every scientific law is a leap of faith. The difference among us is how much we question before we make the leap. If we accept the status quo – we live life by those parameters – ‘earth is flat’, ‘light is corpuscular’, ‘atom is indivisible’, ‘speed of light can not be exceeded’ etc. – until the parameters change.
I appreciate your passion. But I feel my point was lost. I was admiring Dr C’s ability to cajole an unreceptive audience into grudging admiration, an “ill-posed” problem to put it in a mathematical context.
More…………..READ THIS. Please……Please………
From http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html
Examples of Evolution The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features. Evidence from the fossil record is unique, because it provides a time perspective for understanding the evolution of life on Earth. This perspective is not available from other branches of science or in the other databases that support the study of evolution.
This section covers four examples of evolution from the incredibly rich and wonderful fossil record of life on Earth. We’ve chosen examples of vertebrates, animals with backbones, primarily because most of us identify more easily with this group rather than with sassafras or snails or starfish. However, we could have chosen any of many studies of evolutionary changes seen in fossil plants, invertebrates – animals without backbones such as the Chesapecten scallops (above), or single-celled organisms. We’ll examine the evolution of legs in vertebrates as well as the evolution of birds, mammals, and whales.
Evolution of vertebrate legs The possession of legs defines a group of vertebrate animals called tetrapods – as distinct from vertebrate animals whose appendages are fins, the fishes. In most fishes, the thin bony supports of the fins are arranged like the rays of a fan; hence these fishes are called ‘ray-finned’ fish. Trout, perch, and bass are examples of living ray-fins.
Certain fishes are called ‘lobe-finned,’ because of the stout, bony supports in their appendages. Lobe-finned fish first appear in the fossil record in early Late Devonian time, about 377 mya. The bony supports of some lobe-finned fishes are organized much like the bones in the forelimbs and hind limbs of tetrapods: a single upper bone, two lower bones, and many little bones that are the precursors of wrist and ankle bones, hand and foot bones, and bones of the fingers and toes that are first known in Late Devonian amphibian-like animals from about 364 mya. These animals were the first tetrapods. Many similarities also exist in the skull bones and other parts of the skeleton between Devonian lobe-finned fishes and amphibian-like tetrapods. In fact, in certain fossils the resemblances are so close that the definition of which are fish and which are tetrapods is hotly debated.
In 1998, a lobe-finned fish was described from Upper Devonian rocks from about 370 mya in central Pennsylvania (Daeschler and Shubin, 1998). This fish has bones in its forelimb arranged in a pattern nearly identical to that of some Late Devonian amphibian-like tetrapods. The pattern includes a single upper-arm bone (humerus), two forearm bones (radius and ulna), and many little bones connected by joints to the forearm bones in the positions of wrist and finger bones. However, the finger-like bones look like unjointed fin rays, rather than the truly jointed finger bones of tetrapods. Should the animal be called a fish or a tetrapod? It’s hard to say. On the basis of the finger bones, it could be classified as a fish, whereas, on the basis of the large limb bones, the animal could be classified as a tetrapod.
Remember that we humans created the classification scheme for life on Earth, and we choose where to draw the boundaries. When dealing with transitional forms of life this is not an easy task!
Evolution of birds Most paleontologists regard birds as the direct descendants of certain dinosaurs – as opposed to descendants of some other group of reptiles. Paleontologists and zoologists have long accepted that birds and reptiles are related. The two groups share many common traits including many skeletal features, the laying of shelled eggs, and the possession of scales, although in birds, scales are limited to the legs. Among modern birds, the embryos even have rudimentary fingers on their wings. In one modern bird, the South American hoatzin, Opisthocomus hoazin, the wings of the juvenile have large moveable claws on the first and second digits. The young bird uses these claws to grasp branches.
The descent of birds from dinosaurs was first proposed in the late 1860s by Thomas Henry Huxley, who was a famous supporter of Darwin and his ideas. Evidence from fossils for the reptile-bird link came in 1861 with the discovery of the first nearly complete skeleton of Archaeopteryx lithographica in Upper Jurassic limestones about 150 million years old near Solenhofen, Germany. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is clearly dinosaurian. It has a long bony tail, three claws on each wing, and a mouth full of teeth. However, this animal had one thing never before seen in a reptile – it had feathers, including feathers on the long bony tail. Huxley based his hypothesis of the relationship of birds to dinosaurs on his detailed study of the skeleton of Archaeopteryx.
One of the leading scholars of the bird-dinosaur relationship is John Ostrom of Yale University, who has summarized all the details of the skeletal similarities of Archaeopteryx with small, bipedal Jurassic dinosaurs such as Compsognathus. Compsognathus belongs to the group of dinosaurs that includes the well-known Velociraptor, of Jurassic Park fame, and Deinonychus, which Ostrom called the ultimate killing machine. The skeleton of Archaeopteryx is so similar to that of Compsognathus that some specimens of Archaeopteryx were at first incorrectly classified as Compsognathus. Ostrom regarded Archaeopteryx as being on the direct line of descent of birds from reptiles.
New fossil specimens from Mongolia, China, Spain, Argentina, and Australia have added to our knowledge of the early history of birds, and many paleontologists now reckon that the turkey on our Thanksgiving tables is a descendant of the dinosaurs.
Evolution of mammals The oldest reptiles having mammal-like features, the synapsids, occur in rocks of Pennsylvanian age formed about 305 mya. However, the first mammals do not appear in the fossil record until Late Triassic time, about 210 mya. Hopson (1994) noted, “Of all the great transitions between major structural grades within vertebrates, the transition from basal amniotes [egg-laying tetrapods except amphibians] to basal mammals is represented by the most complete and continuous fossil record…. Structural evolution of particular functional systems has been well investigated, notably the feeding mechanism… and middle ear, and these studies have demonstrated the gradual nature of these major adaptive modifications.”
A widely used definition of mammals is based on the articulation or joining of the lower and upper jaws. In mammals, each half of the lower jaw is a single bone called the dentary; whereas in reptiles, each half of the lower jaw is made up of three bones. The dentary of mammals is joined with the squamosal bone of the skull. This condition evolved between Pennsylvanian and Late Triassic times. Evolution of this jaw articulation can be traced from primitive synapsids (pelycosaurs), to advanced synapsids (therapsids), to cynodonts, to mammals. In mammals, two of the extra lower jaw bones of synapsid reptiles (the quadrate and articular bones) became two of the middle-ear bones, the incus (anvil) and malleus (hammer). Thus, mammals acquired a hearing function as part of the small chain of bones that transmit air vibrations from the ear drum to the inner ear.
Evolution of whales During the 1990s our understanding of whale evolution made a quantum jump. In 1997, Gingerich and Uhen noted that whales (cetaceans) “… have a fossil record that provides remarkably complete evidence of one of life’s great evolutionary adaptive radiations: transformation of a land mammal ancestor into a diversity of descendant sea creatures.”
The trail of whale evolution begins in Paleocene time, about 60 mya, with a group of even-toed, hoofed, trotting, scavenging carnivorous mammals called mesonychians. The first whales (pakicetids) are known from lower Eocene rocks, that formed about 51 mya; the pakicetids are so similar to mesonychians that some were misidentified as belonging to that group. However, the teeth of pakicetids are more like those of whales from middle Eocene rocks, about 45 mya, than they are like the teeth of mesonychians. Pakicetids are found in nonmarine rocks and it is not clear how aquatic they were.
In 1994, Ambulocetus natans, whose name means “walking whale that swims,” was described from middle Eocene rocks of Pakistan. This species provides fossil evidence of the origin of aquatic locomotion in whales. Ambulocetus preserves large forelimbs and hind limbs with large hands and feet, and the toes have hooves as in mesonychians. Ambulocetus is regarded as having webbing between the toes and it could walk on land as well as swim; thus, it lived both in and out of the water.
From late Eocene time onward, evolution in whales shows reduction of the hind-limbs, modification of the forelimbs and hands into flippers for steering, development of a massive tail, etc.; all of these changes are modifications for the powerful swimming of modern whales. The fossil Rodhocetus from the upper Eocene rocks, about 38 mya, of Pakistan already shows some of these modifications.
Hello Kush Tandon,
“Science = Tangible.”
“How about photoelectric effect, atomic theory, oil exploration, medicine, airplanes, trains, cars, computers and algorithms? In this modern world, almost everything is linked to science, directly or through engineering.”
There seems to be the temptation to conflate science and technology here. They are separate enterprises.
It is as easily said that in this modern world everything is linked to jurisprudence, semiotics, mass media, etc. – or even the unique failures due to the rise of specialisation in the professions (i.e., science).
As a general observation, I will suggest that a beginning education in Science might be the realisation that it is not an all triumphant monolith ever in the vanguard of truth. It is as factious and riven by internicene conflicts and jealousies as any other endeavor. Over the period of several years, I had the opportunity to witness an example of this give-and-take nastiness at one of the premier Brain Imaging laboratories in the world. Collegues confirmed this situation as the norm and not the exception.
Abhi has noted the public aspect of science, especially in the instance of funding. It is just that phenomenon that irresistably radiates enormous pressure to publish untenable, speculative and quickly dismissed results.
regards, Christopher
i know this is not a good representative sample of all browns, but this thread is what i’m talking about in terms of the central tendency of browns being secular. my kind of browns, educated, thoughtful, science savvy, etc. polls for several decades have shown that about 80% of americans prefer “equal time” (i even got into an argument about this issue with my earth science teacher in high school!). about 1/2 of americans reject evolutionary theory with no qualifications. but though this entry probably drew a lot of science people, nonetheless, the relative agreemant that ID is bunk is not that far from a thread on the secular site internet infidels.
if people want to learn about the new intelligent design vs. the old creationism robert pennock’s Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism or paul gross’Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent are good. a more sympathetic treatment can be found (though not polemical necessarily) in By Design: Science and the Search for God. i did a survey on my weblog a while back contrasting the main players in intelligent design with those in the old creationist movement. my basic conclusion is that ID is a philosophical movement, not a scientific one. additionally, on a peculiar note, phil johnson, the doyen of the ID movement, has some post-modernist sympathies.
the argument that there have been scientific controversies in the past, etc. etc. ignores the fact that science is a ratchet or helical process. some controversies, like intelligent design, are from the 19th century. science has moved on, progressed (yes, i utter that word with pride!). reductio ad absurdum, obviously we won’t be recapitulating the debate between the heliocentrists and geocentrists, similarly, it is the scientific community which by consensus draws the line between tenable and untenable hypotheses. they are not infallible, but their general tendency is toward conforming to the empirical data and predictive models. iz the best system we gotz. ID (and the post-modernist) have a critique,* but no alternative.
Over the period of several years, I had the opportunity to witness an example of this give-and-take nastiness at one of the premier Brain Imaging laboratories in the world. Collegues confirmed this situation as the norm and not the exception.
yes, but one shouldn’t map the day-in-day-out the social and political nastiness of science with the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy. people get nasty over competing hypotheses in new areas of science. you know this because you say you did a study. then you also know that nastiness in response to astrology or neo-creationism is a different beast altogether.
let’s not get bogged down in typological thinking, science is not 1- A: absolutely objective, empirical and rational …or… 2- !A.
the nastiness might give one a cosmetic impression of similitude, but the underlying cognitive motivations are not the same between those throwing barbs in a hotly contested field and the rearguard action that has to be taken against those who are anti-science. remember, as i note above, intelligent design is simply a subset of an overall philosophy which aims at the heart of modern science itself, methodological naturalism. this different than sniping between neuroscientists or particle physicists.
CJ says
sure thing… scientists are as petty as the worst of us and scientific fraud is on the rise… but how does it counter Kush’s point that our day to day life is enriched by research?
Science has its prejudices and everything else……it is run by humans after all.
Over time, it self-corrects itself and therefore, peer-review. Subramanium Chandrashekar (Chandrashekar Effect), Wagner (Continental Drift Theory) were considered bad ideas initially but later data showed that were correct. In Chanrashekar case, Einstien and Paul Dirac immediately spoke up and said that his ideas were right-on.
Every technology starts as a scientific idea and endeavor. Some biggest examples are Einstein’s photo-electric effect, Otto Han’s chain reaction theory, Alan Turing’s work on Computing.
I can go on and on. Publish or Perish……..tell me, I am in the game.
This is exactly right. Americans as a cultural trait beleive in fairness which they often equate with equal time. That cultural trait has spilled into an arena in which it doesn’t belong. Arguments saying that ID should be taught the same as Evolution seems fair to someone ignorant of the bigger picture. Unfortunately the general population is ignorant of the facts in this debate.
Hi Dhaavak,
“CJ says”
“As a general observation, I will suggest that a beginning education in Science might be the realisation that it is not an all triumphant monolith ever in the vanguard of truth. It is as factious and riven by internicene conflicts and jealousies as any other endeavor. etc.”
“sure thing… scientists are as petty as the worst of us and scientific fraud is on the rise… but how does it counter Kush’s point that our day to day life is enriched by research?”
I don’t wish to counter Kush’s sensible point. We all enjoy the benefits of scientific research -and suffer its harms. My intention was to bring a little balance.
Christopher
Science never seeks “truth” but the best possible explanantion about nature in a very methodical way.
The explanations change with time and also the people but the methods remain the same.
Chris, I agree, it is not a monolith and science should never be worshipped.
Note: That is why I always use the word “hypothesis testing”
yes, but one shouldn’t map the day-in-day-out the social and political nastiness of science with the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy. people get nasty over competing hypotheses in new areas of science. you know this because you say you did a study.
the nastiness might give one a cosmetic impression of similitude, but the underlying cognitive motivations are not the same between those throwing barbs in a hotly contested field and the rearguard action that has to be taken against those who are anti-science. remember, as i note above, intelligent design is simply a subset of an overall philosophy which aims at the heart of modern science itself, methodological naturalism. this different than sniping between neuroscientists or particle physicists.in response to astrology or neo-creationism is a different beast altogether then you also know that nastiness
Hello Razib,
Your distinction regarding “rearguard action” is a useful one.
I don’t, however, agree with your premise of methodological naturalism. That is something that has to established on philosophical grounds. Nothing I’ve seen persuades me of its special validity or superiority.
regards, Christopher
“In many cases, theories are just a set of proof’s which may not even be ‘testable’.”
For a theory to be scientific, there must be a way to disprove it.
For example “God exists” is not a scientific theory because there’s no way to disprove it.
“faith in God is placed higher than individual transformation.”
That pendulum swings back and forth over time.
Here we go folks. The grave becomes deeper:
I’ve met Shermer as he spoke at my research group’s annual banquet. I am NOT an Atheist. At the end of his talk my faith was shaken. That is how it should be. The man is both intelligent and eloquent. His rebuttal to Chopra is a must-read in it’s entirety which is why I won’t excerpt. Chopra’s response to Shermer?
Skeptic magazine lives in fantasy land? Ummmm. I also love how Freud and Marx were just made IDers by association.
So christopher, the preceding four centuries of advances made in natural sciences haven’t persuaded you of its superiority? What other methods (ontological etc.) have you as options. When you go to the doctor to fix problems in your body, doesn’t the methological naturalism that spawned the medical field not convince you? Is there any shamamic or faith-healing sessions that you would rather go to?
Hello Babloo,
Methodological Naturalism is a recent movement that is in no wise responsible for the origins or development of modern medicine.
Personally, I’m quite open to the various schools of philosophical naturalism. But other work in philosophy must be done before arriving at them. For instance, an acceptable epistemology must be established/explored a priori before developing explanatory models for observable events. Some scientists hate to admit this because it acknowledges philosophy as a world view competitor.
It also subordinates the work of science to other more central concerns. That is correct. One of the many limitations of science is that it does not provide a morality.
To take your example, if I abnegate or lose the moral choice to visit a physician, then I am rendered an automaton or something equally impotent; something that is discreetly without human agency or personality.
Science has nothing to do with this crucial situation.
regards, Christopher
chris, you seem to be expanding this conversation a lot in terms of its scope and breadth. we come here to bury ID, not to explore the philosphical depths of the “idol” of science.
Chris,
True, that is where your personal belief, philosophy, theism, and religion steps in. Please do not view science as anti-religion or all-encompassing. However, putting religious beliefs on the same metric as scientific methodology is very dangerous and harmful. Science has to govern itself in the best possible transparent way.
When Robert Oppenheimer quoted Gita at Trinity Hill or later, then he was seeking personal moralism through Gita at a difficult hour, yet he was finest scientist of 20th century. One of most brilliant India is Ramanujan, also a devout Hindu.
Millions of scientists do it through their own faith, and some in unconventional ways. Most importantly, their personal belief system is not brought upfront (it might color them in hidden ways) while they are doing science, medicine, and engineering.
Dr. Strangelove
Wonder if the neo-cons know that they are now in bed with Marx.
1 cup Philosophy of the Mind 1 cup of psychology 1.5 cups of sociopsychology 1 lb world history 5 cups philosophy of religion – focus on Kierkegaard, Sartre, Camus, Swinburne, Socrates and Aristotle.
Stir. Shake. Consume.
Bloody creationists. Bloody atheist evolutionists. All too damn elementary and reactionary in their thinking.
Bloody atheist evolutionists. All too damn elementary and reactionary in their thinking.
Bloody round-earthers.
Bloody electromagnetists.
Bloody gravitists.
A alot of the comments on this site are just beating around the bush.
Cut the crap and recognize that Intellignet Design for what it is – Creationism in disguise, intelligently designed to bypass the 1987 supreme court desicion to ban the teaching of creationism in public schools.
I still don’t get what the ID theory is about. Seems to me, all they do point out small inadequacies in evolutionary theory, usually by saying that X cannot be explained by evolutionary theory.
Basically all they are saying is we don’t know so God (erm… the intelligent designer) did it.
This is not a scientifically valid argument, and should not be taught in science class. If you want to do a critique of naturalism in philosophy class that’s fine by me.
B.S. epoch,
The reason this is getting play at all is that the current batch of ID advocates have gotten a little more sophisticated lately.
There was a good New Yorker article a couple of months ago on the work of people like Michael Behe. Allen Orr gives the more scientific supporters of the theory space to explain their ideas (before dismantling them).
Also, Radio Open Source did an interview with Ken Miller (author of Finding Darwin’s God) on ID a couple of weeks ago. You can download the MP3 and put it on your IPod here.
Abhi, the link to Shermer’s article was excellent. You probably know that Amardeep covered some of this in his blog. The point that came out in the comments there is that Hinduism and Orthodox Judaism doesn’t have this problem Shermer is mentioning. It is precisely because both religions (at least in Sanatana Dharma in Hinduism) the focus is on the Divine law rather than the Divine. In this case science becomes a natural pursuit of man. There is no competition between the two. Vigyana after all is the root Gyana modified by Vi (like Vishesh, specialized). It is one of the high roads (marga) to salvation.
Manish, My beef isn’t with science. My beef is with those who declare with total and unbridled confidence that evolution is the ultimate evidence for atheism.
Has there already been mention of the New York Times series on G/god and evolution? The first(?) article–Do God and Science Mix? More Now Saying Yes–in the series was published on Tuesday, 8/23, which is the same day that that blurble on arranged marriages got every South Asian in the universe… Excuse me, the “universe” as defined by both sides of the debate, to read the NY Times.
“My beef is with those who declare with total and unbridled confidence that evolution is the ultimate evidence for atheism.”
Atheism doesn’t need evidence, it is the default scenario. Deism makes up such silly stories, it’s the one which needs evidence, and it has none, zip zero zilch nada. I believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
“Atheism doesn’t need evidence, it is the default scenario. Deism makes up such silly stories, it’s the one which needs evidence, and it has none, zip zero zilch nada.”
Statements like that would scare me if two of my hobbies weren’t apologetics and philosophy. However, thanks for the laugh.
I read that article 3 days ago…It is well written. Anyone will tell you that there are religious scientists and agnostics, atheists too. They all work with the same rules of scientific inquiry and their work is evaluated irrespective of their belief system.
However, remember the difference between science and belief [from the same article] as below:
“For Dr. Miller and other scientists, research is not about belief. “Faith is one thing, what you believe from the heart,” said Joseph E. Murray, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1990 for his work in organ transplantation. But in scientific research, he said, “it’s the results that count.””[Dr. Miller himself is religious]
That is why I went through exampple of religious scientists like Ramanujan, etc. in my earlier post. Newton wrote more about bible than physics.
In the same vien…..Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan were openly atheists….all of them fine scientist and human beings.
Please do not judge scientists by their belief system but by the quality of their work. I think NYT is full of themselves when they claim “new age” scientists are now finding religion too.
NB: NYT has already published 3 articles in last 1 month. Science and Nature has lot of ongoing material being published too. Usually, their stuff is more cutting edge.
“Statements like that would scare me if two of my hobbies weren’t apologetics and philosophy.”
Here’s another one you should pick up: learn the meaning of “burden of proof.” Regarding laughter, feeling a little threatened, my friend? 8^)
razib,
I have no agenda here other than learning what others think (and learning from others) and making my own contribution (such as it is).
Kush Tandon,
I agree with your last comments. Thank you for the Oppenheimer anecdote.
Sandeep
I like your recipe, but I definitely have to promote Aristotle and Socrates to the front of that list!
Christopher
My beef is with those who declare with total and unbridled confidence that evolution is the ultimate evidence for atheism.
well, abhi’s post said he was a deist. so again, trying to move the post off topic.
God & the scientists.
god and the social scientists.
snip:
larson & witham general survey of american scientists in 1996:
Believe in personal God? yes/no/not sure 39.3% 45.3% 14.5%
larson & witham general survey of american national acedmy of sciences scientists (ie; elite) in 1998:
Believe in personal God? yes/no/not sure 7.00% 72.2% 20.8%
(deists would fall into the “no” in this survey since the deity is not a personal god)
you know, i don’t mind richard dawkins rather strident atheism, because i think there is a double standard at work. dawkins aggressive atheism is obnoxious, but the fire & brimstone sermons by religious intolerants is often not held up the same opprobrium because religious ideas are considered privileged. it isn’t like dawkins is ever consulted by tony blair, but (until he retired) billy graham has had a pipeline to every president since nixon.
Yamuna, lol not in the least, dear. But since you asked…
Tekton Kierkegaard Swinburne Plantinga
Concerning spirit/mind/consciousness: Read here..
Although, it must be said that no amount of links can really verbalize personal experience. Though, that was probably obvious.
Tekton
Sorry, messed up on that link.
Thanks, boy, you’ve read many great Wikipedia entries. Will you speak for yourself, Cyrano?
with all due respect, who are you abhi to call out anybody? not sure that i’ve seen you published anywhere. not sure that i’ve seen you recognized by the likes of time magazine, institutions, garnted awards and grants, honored by the likes of amit goswami. it’s so easy to take potshots from the perch of a blog where the only filter is yourself. just unfortunate you need to tear down those that have blazed the trail for you to do it. you should be ashamed.
just unfortunate you need to tear down those that have blazed the trail for you to do it. you should be ashamed.
with all due respect, what the hell are you talking about?
With comments like that I’d say “I’m your daddy.”
gentlemen like Deepak have created platforms for minorities like us to be taken seriously. some respect would be in order. or you could just keep up with your jokes, “daddy.”
My name is Gotham – Deepak’s son – and a fan (still :)) of your site. Ironically, so is (was :() my dad since I recently pointed your site out to him. Seriously, despite your attacks I’m sure he’ll stick. Noble defense Rahul – the fam apprciates. Gents – curious if you’ve read any of the books or don’t feel the need to? The Nobel Society has recognized my dad and made him legit – anymore and I sound defensive. Probably already too late.
later
gc
gentlemen like Deepak have created platforms for minorities like us to be taken seriously.
? again, say what? he doesn’t represent brown people, he is a brown person who represents his own views.
The Nobel Society has recognized my dad and made him legit
Really? Googling Nobel Prize (Nobel Society gets nothing) and Deepak Chopra immediately gets me references to him winning the 1998 Ig Nobel Prize for Physics, for his “unique interpretation of quantum physics as it applies to life, liberty, and the pursuit of economic happiness.” 😉
The only other references I can quickly find are the fact he edited a book about Tagore, a Nobel Literature winner. Regardless, I don’t doubt Chopra is fine for new age people who dig the eastern spiritual stuff, I’ve got no beef with that, but come ON! Get with the 21st century. How can you possibly defend someone whose fuzzy pseudoscience is SO EASILY disproven by actual facts? What does he stand to gain by promoting something as backwards as ID? I love my daddy too and think he’s the smartest guy I know, but sometimes his opinions are a bit weird and his rural upbringing comes out when we least expect it. 😉
There is no Nobel Society, Padre. There is “The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences”. I do not think they make people legit, aka mafiaso style.
OK maybe, for his ideas on Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
I have no objection to his “new age” spiritualism, it fits very well with Amardeep/ Cicatrix’s Indiaphilia. Can I afford him?
But DNA, Evolution, Quantum Physics, No.
“Andrew Jackson, I don’t mean to sound like a jerk..”
Classic. A statement followed by the empirical evidence of its antithesis. Maybe I should have put empirical, and antithesis in quotes ? Relax, im kidding. I’ll admit my questions were pretty muddled. The real questions I had deal mostly with the orgins of flight, mostly in insects. I have read mostly what google has to offer, which isnt much. I still feel horribly disconcerted. After a thorough blog lashing, what is one to do ? “I” “guess” “its” “back” “to” “a” “library” “for” “me”. priori.
I didn’t mean it to be a lashing. I will look for a paper for you when I get to school.
Also try the “Google Scholar” search engine
this is the real Gotham Chopra. Someone turned me onto my supposed posting here last night. Unfortunately it wasn’t me. Not sure what the “Nobel Society” is either. Don’t feel any need to defend my dad – his record speaks for itself. And congrats for using his name to drive traffic: well done.
Yes, but as the comments on this thread seem to indicate, the vast majority of the debate is not about the scientific merits of the Intelligent Design vs Evolution, but rather about the place of science and religion in society.
That is may be a fair debate, but it has no place in any science class.
Have a look at this nightline episode the guy arguing for intelligent design ultimately concedes that the reason for teaching ID is political / religious not scientific. http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002290.html