if creationism was scientific…
Imagine giving a presentation to a group of people and being heckled by a couple of vocal critics who don’t like what you’re talking about. Everything you present is met with doubts and every single piece of evidence you use is criticized out of existence whether fairly or unfairly. Then, the hecklers take the presenter spot to pontificate on mysteries and when they present their evidence, they don’t even bother to explain what it may be or how it came to exist, deferring to the supernatural and the spiritual to answer questions.
Not exactly what you’d call fair, is it? After all, you had to defend every other word out of your mouth and your hecklers just defer to the unknown to justify their opinions. The fact that they don’t know and can’t explain something is used as the evidence for their sweeping conclusion. If only you had it that easy during your presentation. But unfortunately for you, you played the part of a scientist in this analogy. Every conclusion you made has to be backed up by fact and there’s no shortage of angry creationists who want to take issue with your proof, fairly or not. Meanwhile, they get to waltz onstage, show some things they define as “complex,” butcher all sorts of scientific theories to give them new meanings in strawman fallacies, then argue that their lack of knowledge is evidence of a deity.
If creationism was anything like science, its adherents would have to prove that there’s such a thing as a supreme designer. Not by a book. Not by what they feel in their hearts. Not what their authority figures told them in their formative years. They would need to create experiments by which we could see a designer and obvserve him/her/it at work, doing actual designing. They would also need to conclusively prove that there’s only one designer since our universe is vast to say the least and it would make perfect sense that there could be many designers in specific regions of space, doing their individual design work. Finally, they would need to create explicit documentation that would allow anyone with the right equipment to replicate the experiments in question and subject them to peer review. Only then could we call creationism scientific.
With all the thousands of scientists that Casey Luskin claims support creationism… err, I mean “intelligent design” as a valid theory for how biology works, wouldn’t at least one or two of them have raised the possibility that there’s more than one designer or how to prove that there is a designer and identify how or what it is through scientific means? They are after all, scientists, right? Well, aren’t they?
On a quiet 1970′s fall day, near a lazy sloping hill’s crest, I stood with an easel explaining how we recognize that life, specified complexity, is the result of intelligent design (I borrow the phrase because it works well). All morning as groups of students waited for the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute bus and departed. This received as much recognition as a billboard ad with no pictures. At lunchtime, the bus stop became quiet and deserted.
Quietly, I considered the possibility of more frustration when the students returned. My dark mood was reinforced by the cigarette butts, coke cans and more discards littering the bus stop’s unloved, dusty ground.
EUREKA! I would make my point, without words.
A scraggly branch was modified to become a boom-like rake. I cleaned the ground until it was pristine and uniform. Stray rocks were brushed to reveal their original finish. Standing back I studied the scene and positioned them in reference to where the bus would stop and where passengers exit. I began tracing rhythmic, resonant lines around the rocks. Time flew. I was having fun as I thought of what might happen when the students arrived. Just beyond the hill’s crest the sound of the approaching bus grew louder and I moved out of sight.
The bus arrived. Students left the bus. They hesitating for a moment, the students continued their trek. I smiled. These students proved the point I was trying to make earlier. They avoided the ground etchings as they continued to their destination. Finally, the last student left the bus. He stopped and considered the ground for several moments, and, finally, I emerged from behind the bush. He recognized me from earlier in the day and asked, “Why?”
I smiled and explained. I wanted to prove that, unaided, we can recognize that life is not an accident. Life, existence, all of this I motioned all around us — is the result of a designer, God, whatever you want to call the creator of all this. I created these patterns in the dust and you noticed and responded. The creator has caused everything we see take this form and in some cases to live. Like you have here, I am encouraging people to look around, pause and ask, Why?
I’m sorry, I don’t get it. Not sure what your actual point is when you go from a sketch in the rocks that kids don’t want to disturb to proof that existence is a function of a designer. You’ve lost me in the esoterica.
I believe his analogy is his painting on his easel and miniature landscaping is like God sculpting Nature gfish.
I have to agree that proving the unprovable is akin to the chicken and the egg conundrum and there’s more evidence proving evolution than creationism.
But evolution isn’t the end-all, be-all either. Witness our own attempts at “creating” (more like engineering) artificial DNA and thus, artificial life itself and the ability to engineer our own “evolution.”
Thousands of years down the road, what will our various descendents say about us via various myths and legends?
Evolution isn’t supposed to be an end-all-be-all as far as I’m aware. It’s a natural mechanism like weather, plate tectonics, gravity and time. We know it happens and we know how it happens. Whether there could be someone or something with the knowledge and technology to change the rules of nature for certain species is a matter of debate. It’s possible but it carries with it a massive burden of proof which was the whole point of my article.
If you want to prove that something is manipulating life on Earth, metaphors and long winded esoteric stories with a rocket propelled leap from point A to point Z, skipping the rest of the alphabet in the middle, won’t do. You need tangible evidence.
Personally, I’m fine with the idea that life on our planet may have been created by artificial means. What I’m not fine with is the lack of evidence, politicking, willful ignorance and appeals to the Bible and theology rather than backing up the theory with solid science. If you want to play with the big boys, please learn the rules of the game.
Okay, evolution is a natural process, I’m not against that, so don’t go there presuming I am.
I’m just pointing out that you’re neglecting an important feature of human nature; our ability for ingenuity and creating myths.
Hey, I’m for empiricism and all that, but you empiricists keep banging your heads against the wall asking yourselves “why can’t the obviousness of the evidence make sense to these people?”
It’s because you fail to take in account that humans are a story-telling people since the Larrieux Cave Dwellers. More likely before then if the Gobekli Tepi digs prove as old as archaeologists guess.
If the politicing, willful ignorance make you angry, well, it’s human nature unfortunately and will probably be around until we genetically engineer it out of ourselves or blow ourselves up.
evolution is a natural process, Im not against that, so dont go there
Didn’t even try to go there. Actually I was trying to humble evolution’s standing in nature if anything. =)
if the politicing [sic], willful ignorance make you angry, well, its human nature
Angry is too strong of a word. Irritated might be more like it. I have and idea about human nature and people’s ability to tell tall tales. It’s just that when those tales are being passed on as science and the storytellers are demanding that they be given equal footing with tangible fact… That’s different than just telling stories.
I apologize for the strong tone, it just seems that most empiricists are angry about peoples’ blind faith, especially here in the good ol’ USA. And the last eight years of the political “leadership” *cough-cough* we’ve had, well, I really can’t blame science folk for that.
Religion however, is a result of ancient story-telling over the passing millenia and generations. And religion and science were inseparable for most of this cycle of civilization, it’s only recently that the two were seperated ( Age of Enlightenment ).
Human beings still fear the unknown and the biggest unknown is death. People want that reassurrance that “they” will continue on after it. And religion gives them some comfort.
As for wanting equal time with science, they’ll always demand it because until “God” can be disproven, people will always “believe”.
Science is secular and the whole point of secularism is to be separate from faith. Not overturn it. Not contradict it. Not prove it right or wrong. Just to start with a blank slate with as few preconceptions as possible and see what you find. And you’re right, science and religion split very recently.
In this case, it’s not so much demanding equal time for religion to confirm their beliefs and feel better about the world around them, as much as it is using equal time to proselytize.
1familyman’s story is a simple variation on the watchmaker’s analogy. The numerous flaws in this sort of argument have been widely known for a very long time. Apparently, 1familyman never bothered to pay attention in class.