[Vision2020] Wrong URL & Intelligent Design
Nick Gier
ngier@uidaho.edu
Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:29:20 -0800
--Boundary_(ID_tepo19y7l3Cc66HTxAysiQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Greetings:
I regret that I left out "class" in the link for my article "Religious
Liberalism and the Founding Fathers" at
www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/foundfathers.htm.
Clearing out my "to do" list for V2020 postings, here is a belated reply to
Gordon Wilson's talk on Intelligent Design, which I was unable to
attend. The comments below, I'm sure, are still relevant.
GOD IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS
by Nick Gier
Our creationist friends appear to have at least two new strategies
to advance their agenda. John Guyer, a brief Moscow City Council member,
has generously allowed that evolution should at least be taught as
history. (A former Moscow state representatives subsequently agreed with
this view.) I am not sure what they actually mean by this. Perhaps they
hope that evolutionary theory will soon be recognized as simply a
historical artifact, or more aptly, a fossil.
I would rather give this a very different twist. History will
show that creationism has been rejected by U. S. courts as an illegal
intrusion into our science classrooms. History will also show, much to our
nation's discredit, that only the U.S. has experienced such a concerted
attack on its science educators. History will also show that in the late
20th Century American students did not rank very high in international math
and science testing. Is there perhaps a connection between these last two
facts?
History will also show that irrepressible creationist debater
Duane Gish lost his wager with Russell Doolittle, professor of biochemistry
at UC San Diego. Gish foolishly claimed, citing a high school science
project, that humans were genetically closer to bullfrogs and chickens than
to chimpanzees. Even today Gish continues to wow uninformed audiences and
he has never conceded any of his false or misleading claims.
The other new strategy by creationists is the "Intelligent Design"
movement. I participated in a 2000 panel on Idaho Public Television set up
to respond to the PBS series on evolution. One of the panelists was a
sincere and articulate Boise man who presented the theory quite well. I
was able to find information about this movement from the Discovery
Institute in Seattle. It appears to be affiliated with Seattle Pacific
University, a conservative evangelical Christian institution.
In my philosophy of religion course I taught the "design argument"
for the existence of God, and even though most philosophers reject the
argument as unsound, I myself am inclined to accept it. (See
www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/305/existGod.htm.) Richard Swinburne, a
Christian philosopher at Oxford, has offered a defense of the design
argument that actually makes it quite compatible with evolutionary
theory. Swinburne believes that the argument proves that God may have been
the creator of the laws of nature, but it cannot prove that God created the
order and structure of the universe. Interestingly enough, Darwin, in the
first edition of the Origin of Species, was willing to embrace this
idea. Darwin was actually supporting the second type of divine power that
I discuss at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/305/3dp.htm.
Using God as a hypothesis for the order and structure of the
universe fails as a scientific explanation. Christians claim that with God
"all things are possible." Therefore, whatever order and structure the
world might possibly have had, God could have created it. With biological
science, however, all things are not possible. Its task is to offer
specific reasons for the specific development of this particular world's
creatures. With science only certain hypotheses test true, but with God
all hypotheses could be verified.
Creationists can point to no specific reasons or mechanisms; they
can only say "God made it that way." A hypothesis that explains all
possible order and structure explains nothing. In a 1980s debate at WSU
Duane Gish showed slides of the metamorphosis a butterfly and challenged
his opponent to account for it. Anthropologist Grover Krantz humbly
admitted that he did not think biologists had an answer to that
question. But Gish's triumphant "God must have done it!" offers no
scientific explanation at all. "Scientific creationism" is a contradiction
in terms.
Overall evolution has proved itself to be a very successful
scientific hypothesis with regard to specific development, but it has
nothing to say about ultimate origins. At this point people should turn to
philosophy and theology and choose their own answers to nonscientific, but
critically important, questions such as "Why is there something rather than
nothing at all?" The scientific method cannot answer this question, but
the world religions have lots of interesting and worthy answers to consider.
The Discovery Institute has been running a full-page advertisement
in national journals. It lists 100 scientists and philosophers, who object
to the recent PBS series defending evolutionary theory. Interestingly, the
Institute's website cites one of the scientists, who admits that he had not
seen the program but that he had signed the statement because he was a
Bible-believing Christian! With faith running amok, where can there be any
reason?
The Institute was invited by PBS to offer empirically tested and
peer reviewed experiments supporting Intelligent Design. They were unable
to meet this requirement, so they were offered a spot on the last show that
covered religious responses to evolution. They rejected this offer as
demeaning to their theory.
As I have tried to explain, Intelligent Design is a theological
hypothesis, not a scientific one. As long as people continue to ignore
this essential distinction, this controversy will continue with negative
consequences for our cultural stability and the integrity of science
education. What concerns me greatly is that the sophisticated thinkers at
the Discovery Institute and the faculty at Seattle Pacific University
should already know and respect this crucial distinction between science
and theology. Has their faith clouded their reason on these fundamental
questions?
Articles of related interest are "Creationism: Bad Science; Wrong
Religion" (www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/creationism.htm) and "The Three
Story Universe" (www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm).
Nick Gier
--Boundary_(ID_tepo19y7l3Cc66HTxAysiQ)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
Greetings:<br><br>
I regret that I left out "class" in the link for my article
"Religious Liberalism and the Founding Fathers" at
<a href=3D"http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/foundfathers.htm"=
eudora=3D"autourl">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/foundfathers.htm</a>.<br><br>
Clearing out my "to do" list for V2020 postings, here is a
belated reply to Gordon Wilson's talk on Intelligent Design, which I was
unable to attend. The comments below, I'm sure, are still
relevant.<br><br>
<div align=3D"center"><font size=3D4><b>GOD IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC
HYPOTHESIS<br>
by Nick Gier<br><br>
</b></div>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Our
creationist friends appear to have at least two new strategies to advance
their agenda. John Guyer, a brief Moscow City Council member, has
generously allowed that evolution should at least be taught as
history. (A former Moscow state representatives subsequently agreed
with this view.) I am not sure what they actually mean by
this. Perhaps they hope that evolutionary theory will soon be
recognized as simply a historical artifact, or more aptly, a=20
fossil.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>I would
rather give this a very different twist. History will show that
creationism has been rejected by U. S. courts as an illegal
intrusion into our science classrooms. History will also show, much
to our nation=92s discredit, that only the U.S. has experienced such
a concerted attack on its science educators. History will also show
that in the late 20<sup>th</sup> Century American students did not rank
very high in international math and science testing. Is there
perhaps a connection between these last two facts?<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>History
will also show that irrepressible creationist debater Duane Gish lost his
wager with Russell Doolittle, professor of biochemistry at UC San
Diego. Gish foolishly claimed, citing a high school science
project, that humans were genetically closer to bullfrogs and chickens
than to chimpanzees. Even today Gish continues to wow uninformed
audiences and he has never conceded any of his false or misleading
claims.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>The other
new strategy by creationists is the =93Intelligent Design=94 movement.
I participated in a 2000 panel on Idaho Public Television set up to
respond to the PBS series on evolution. One of the panelists was a
sincere and articulate Boise man who presented the theory quite
well. I was able to find information about this movement from the
Discovery Institute in Seattle. It appears to be affiliated with
Seattle Pacific University, a conservative evangelical Christian
institution.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>In my
philosophy of religion course I taught the =93design argument=94 for the
existence of God, and even though most philosophers reject the argument
as unsound, I myself am inclined to accept it.
</font><font face=3D"Times New Roman, Times" size=3D4>(See
</font><font face=3D"Times New Roman, Times" size=3D4=
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/305/exist</u></font><font=
face=3D"Times New Roman, Times" size=3D4>God.htm.)</font><font face=3D"Time=
s New Roman, Times" size=3D1>
</font><font size=3D4> Richard Swinburne, a Christian philosopher at
Oxford, has offered a defense of the design argument that actually makes
it quite compatible with evolutionary theory. Swinburne believes
that the argument proves that God may have been the creator of the laws
of nature, but it cannot prove that God created the order and structure
of the universe. Interestingly enough, Darwin, in the first edition
of the <i>Origin of Species</i>, was willing to embrace this idea.
Darwin was actually supporting the second type of divine power that I
discuss at
<a href=3D"http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/305/3dp.htm"=
eudora=3D"autourl">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/305/3dp.htm</a>.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Using God
as a hypothesis for the order and structure of the universe fails as a
scientific explanation. Christians claim that with God =93all things
are possible.=94 Therefore, whatever order and structure the world
might possibly have had, God could have created it. With biological
science, however, all things are not possible. Its task is to offer
specific reasons for the specific development of this particular world=92s
creatures. With science only certain hypotheses test true, but with
God all hypotheses could be verified.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Creationists
can point to no specific reasons or mechanisms; they can only say =93God
made it that way.=94 A hypothesis that explains all possible order
and structure explains nothing. In a 1980s debate at WSU Duane Gish
showed slides of the metamorphosis a butterfly and challenged his
opponent to account for it. Anthropologist Grover Krantz
humbly admitted that he did not think biologists had an answer to that
question. But Gish=92s triumphant =93God must have done it!=94 offers =
no
scientific explanation at all. =93Scientific creationism=94 is a
contradiction in terms.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Overall
evolution has proved itself to be a very successful scientific hypothesis
with regard to specific development, but it has nothing to say about
ultimate origins. At this point people should turn to philosophy
and theology and choose their own answers to nonscientific, but
critically important, questions such as =93Why is there something rather
than nothing at all?=94 The scientific method cannot answer this
question, but the world religions have lots of interesting and worthy
answers to consider.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>The
Discovery Institute has been running a full-page advertisement in
national journals. It lists 100 scientists and philosophers, who
object to the recent PBS series defending evolutionary theory.
Interestingly, the Institute=92s website cites one of the scientists, who
admits that he had not seen the program but that he had signed the
statement because he was a Bible-believing Christian! With faith
running amok, where can there be any reason? <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>The
Institute was invited by PBS to offer empirically tested and peer
reviewed experiments supporting Intelligent Design. They were
unable to meet this requirement, so they were offered a spot on the last
show that covered religious responses to evolution. They rejected
this offer as demeaning to their theory.<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>As I have
tried to explain, Intelligent Design is a theological hypothesis, not a
scientific one. As long as people continue to ignore this essential
distinction, this controversy will continue with negative consequences
for our cultural stability and the integrity of science education.
What concerns me greatly is that the sophisticated thinkers at the
Discovery Institute and the faculty at Seattle Pacific University should
already know and respect this crucial distinction between science and
theology. Has their faith clouded their reason on these fundamental
questions?<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Articles
of related interest are =93Creationism: Bad Science; Wrong Religion=94
(</font><font size=3D4=
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/creationism.htm</u></font><=
font size=3D4>)
and =93The Three Story Universe=94
(www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm).<br><br>
Nick Gier<br>
</font></html>
--Boundary_(ID_tepo19y7l3Cc66HTxAysiQ)--