How to lose a debate: ID vs. Evolution
Updated: How to lose a point–write a post after getting no sleep. You’ll see the correction below and laugh–thanks Spacemonkey!!!]
Let’s take the Intelligent Design/Evolution issue, which up until this point I’ve avoided like the plague. No more; I’m fed up with people acting like jackasses about it.
I’ll preface this by saying that I “believe in” the science of evolution as I “believe in” math. I also believe that it’s no accident; that there is Divine guidance. Don’t bother trying to change my mind on it either, unless you are stupid enough to think you can change my faith in a blog comment. Gimme a break.
Here’s my beef with the whole blasted issue.
IDers/Creationists:
1. Those who accept evolution scientifically are NOT GODLESS. I’m not “Godless.” Tell the Catholic Church they’re Godless–no, wait, I forgot. Some of you already do. Well guess what, I think those of you who say the Catholic Church is Godless/hellbound/whatever are full of it and I’m not interested in a single thing you have to say about faith. Period. (And for the record, no, I’m not Catholic.)
2. Quit arguing by attacking Darwin and saying, of all stupid things, that evolution supports racism. There have been racists/eugenicists who use “survival of the fittest,” to be sure. Don’t forget though that there have also been plenty of religious people who distort the Bible to support religion [Uh, oops. I meant "distort the Bible to support racism and other evils] as well. It’s a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid argument, and does NOTHING to support why ID SHOULD be accepted.
3. Speaking of which; start arguing the merits of ID rather than squawking about the “evils” of evolutionary “theory” (scare quotes intentional).
Evolutionists:
1. You aren’t getting my support, either, because I don’t want to be on the side of anyone who calls God and faith “magic.” That really makes me want to just slap you in the face, if only I could through the computer. You want someone to listen to you? Insulting their faith is NOT the way to do it, dumbass. And you claim to be the “intelligent” and “educated” ones?
2. News flash: You are not necessarily the “intelligent” or “educated” ones. It doesn’t take postgraduate or even undergraduate education to know about evolution and accept it. You may not realize it from your ivory tower, but there is such a thing as a devout Christian/Jew/whatever that has extensive education, even in the sciences. Calling someone “ignorant” because they believe in God (as opposed to “magic”) IS ignorant. Maybe you need to get off the computer and get out more often to meet people and find that out, or at least think about what an asshole you are.
Now I used to think “teaching the controversy” wasn’t such a bad idea myself, because I suppose I gave people too much credit–I really didn’t think there was a hidden agenda there. Maybe it’s because the people I know in Real Life™ are just regular people who also accept evolution, but also believe in God–and wouldn’t push for literal Creationism to be taught in schools. Apparently, after seeing how the more fervent IDers frame the argument, I was wrong. I’m certain that most people pretty much think the way I do about evolution and God, but don’t see a big deal in presenting it as an alternative theory, in a very basic and brief way.
No more. Once again, extremists with a hidden agenda have lost a supporter in the basic discussion.
But wait–don’t forget, you evolution fire-breathers aren’t getting any moral support from me, either; not that you want it, because I’m an “ignorant fundie” who believes in “magic.”
My solution? Teach ID–but teach it in a PHILOSOPHY class, because the whole issue is about the origin of existence, and the soul. (Note that I didn’t even say teach it in a religion class, either.) High school students and college biology students don’t “need” to learn it in science class; I didn’t need it and neither did you. If parents want their kids to learn about it, take them to church. It doesn’t cost anything to learn religion, you know.
As far as “teaching the controversy” goes, I read the simplest and most cogent argument yet over at Sissy Willis’ post, in comments:
I’d be fascinated to see the response if Bush had called for “equal time” for, say, non-abstinent sex ed. You know, because there’s a scientific “controversy.”
Posted by: Jim Anderson | August 6, 2005 10:48 PM
In the words of Forrest Gump, “And that’s all I have to say about that.”
See also: this post, Some thoughts on Discussing Evolution.
This Blog Is Full Of Crap says:
Let’s ask the cats about the Shuttle coming home
Who cares what I think about the Shuttle coming home? It’s time for a new feature of TBIFOC called Ask The Cats! What do you think about the Shuttle coming home? Nardo: Hey, Piper! I think I saw it pass…
Cap'n Wolff Larsen says:
What does neo-Darwinian evolution teach?
1) Who we are (i.e. ape-descended-humanoids)
2) Why we’re here (i.e. no reason…just because)
3) What it’s all about (i.e. you really need a reason?)
Those are questions that should be answered by philosophy, not science.
Only a small fraction of the Intelligent Design theory has to do with the questions that evolution seeks to answer–which are outside the realms of science. The vast majority of what ID theory speaks to is hard science. Geology. Biology. Astronomy. Even Meteorology. Neo-Darwinian evolution cannot unify the scientific disciplines and, through an understanding of an astronomical process, be able to understand hominid biology. Evolution speaks only to one aspect of biological processes, namely the ability of lifeforms to adapt to changing environmental conditions. It can offer no explanation for observed phenomena in other scientific disciplines. Sine it cannot accurately predict how astronomical or geological phenomena should behave (and when that is attempted, evolution proves grossly inadequate,) then evolution’s use as an all-encompassing explanation for life, the universe, and everything–which is how it is currently taught to our children–is, for the most part, beyond the realm of real science.
There is a quote from NASA’s Dr. von Braun that speaks to this debate. It is really brilliant, as was he. It’s last night’s entry at my blog: IntellectualPrivateer.org
Contrary to what you have posited here, Intelligent Design theory vastly outweighs evolution in it’s ability to help scientists predict what effects should be observed in field work, which means it is mostly about hard science, and not philosophy. On the other hand, evolution tries to answer philosophical questions about Man, the Universe, and why we’re here MORE than it can offer consistent explanations of physical phenomena.
It’s not ID that should be taught in philosophy class, but neo-Darwinian evolution.
oregano says:
Hugh Ross has written several books about science and creation, most notably The Fingerprint of God. He attacks the obstinance on both sides of the debate, then seeks to intelligently join the two. A thesis on Romans 1:20 suggests that the qualities of God can be seen in creation. In other words, the divine makes himself known through the material.
bill says:
The more we know, the more we find out what we don’t know.
Didn’t we just recently conclude the inviolate laws of science don’t apply to black holes once you pass the event horizon?
We simply don’t know, what is wrong with that as a conclusion. What is wrong with telling science and all students that is where we are?
Daryl Herbert says:
:evil:
What’s so damn offensive about referring to the supernatural as “magic”?
:?:
You threw down the guantlet, so I expect you explain it.
But your explanation should include the FACT that many other world religions consider magic a normal part of religion, and aren’t offended at all by its mention.
Daryl Herbert says:
The more I think about it, the less inclined I am to apologize.
The only 2 times I said “magic” were 1) to say that atheists don’t see anything special about nature that compels us to look there for moral guidance and 2) that if the building blocks for consciouness are not encoded in our DNA, then they must have a supernatural source.
If a process is not scientific, then it’s supernatural. The process for creating consciousness in a living being–natural or supernatural? Scientific or magical? That’s one of the questions I was addressing.
If a priest said something about “God’s magic of breathing life into Adam” or something like that, I doubt you’d complain. I used the term “magic” to describe the EXACT SAME PHENOMENON–GOD CREATING CONSCIOUSNESS–and I got grief for it.
You grouped me in with the assholes who say things like “if you don’t believe in evolution, then you have no education.” I resent that.
Housewife says:
As usual, very well done. :mrgreen:
MaxedOutMama says:
Beth - I think you expressed this very well.
ID at this point expresses something that is not properly a part of the realm of science proper. Science doesn’t purport to explain everything; it consciously limits its own scope to the whatever can be tested or observed.
Personally, I strongly suspect that God actively took a part in creating life. However, I don’t think my theory can have a place in a science classroom, because I can’t imagine a way to prove it.
Beth says:
Daryl–I answered you over at Sissy’s. But that said, to me, “magic” is just the wrong word to use because it implies something else to other people. To me it implies hoax or trickery, as opposed to “magick” of Wicca etc. Anyway, it reeks of mockery–of which normally I am a fan, but in this case, NO.
I’m not even the kind of person many would even CALL a Christian, which is stupid but it should give you an idea where I’m coming from. If it bothers me, a non-dogmatic, non-church-going, non-denominational Christian, then you can bet it really pisses off those more “married” to it. All I’m saying is those mocking Christians and Christianity are much more harmful to the arguments for evolution than any of the ID/Creationists will ever be.
Should you apologize? No, I don’t expect it and it really doesn’t matter to me. Besides, God knows you’re not the only one who’s said it. It’s just my opinion from the sidelines. Note that the title of the post is “how to lose a debate.” :wink:
Daryl Herbert says:
No, I should apologize, for assuming ill will on your part and taking all of this too seriously. (going into attack mode :evil::evil::evil: was a mistake–I won the flame war and lost the debate, exactly like you said).
I read too much into what you said (specifically how much of it was directed towards me, and not similar-sounding things other people have said).
It was frustrating to me because I’m trying to work on not offending Christians. As you can see I’m still working on it :mad:
Andrew says:
Dear Beth,
I’m sorry if my comment is a bit sketchy. It’s very late for me and I am terribly busy tomorrow. This post deserves a much deeper response than I am able to give you.
Your post would be absolutely correct, *IF* creationists were simply advocating a philosophy, or a religion in the mythical sense. If, however, Creation truly happened, if the Lord truly “breathed into Adam,” or “created the Heavens and the Earth,” then that places intelligent design theory in a different category altogether.
Science deals with the realm of facts. If it is (or could be) a fact Creation occured, then it can be considered science, and debate and research of it considered scientific.
It is true that you cannot “test” creation, and thus it is not “science proper.” Creation occurred but once, and never will again. Scientist cannot travel back in time and test their hypotheses. But in the same manner, you cannot test evolutionary theory. It, too, would have occurred but once. Too eliminate ID theory on this ground would be to eliminate not only evolutionary theory, but all anthropology, archeology, and much of many other sciences.
Yes, ID theory does invoke the supernatural. But this objection, like the last, is simply a matter of semantics. If we seek the truth, then we must seek the most likely explanation, or admit that we believe a less likely explanation “on faith.”
I cannot argue the scientific weight of Creationism. A full statement of the arguments in favor of intelligent design would require much more space and time than can be reasonably asked here (and more importantly you said you didn’t want to hear it). But the evidence exists (I strongly encourage you to read “The Case for Creation” by Lee Strobel).
I would much rather leave the issue of Creation vs. Evolution to the children’s parents or the children themselves. But evolution is currently taught in schools not just as “science,” but as a proven fact. I am in High School right now, and I know. Since we cannot remove evolution from the classroom, then why not allow ID theory to be taught, and see how “science” stands up against cold reason and hard facts!
jody says:
I believe in evolution (little “e”) as in God gave species ability to adapt and aclimate to new environments and challenges and this has happened. I believe in God creating the universe and we are all His creations…but what do I want taught to my daughter when/if she is public school? Math, science, reading, and grammar. She can learn all the theories she wants, she’ll just know from me what we believe. Not too difficult, not contraversial, not a big deal. No one is going to “lose their religion” learning something like Darwinism or the Big Bang Theory unless they were already inclined to lose it. I would rather the public school system teach their stuff and leave religion completely out of it…I’d rather take the responsibility to teach my daughter what she needs to know.
sisu says:
That’s debatable
Check out the comments to this post on ID and Darwinism. They provide a variety of viewpoints on this subject; reading them has helped me get my mind around the issue, writes blogger Jason Broander of MaroonBlog re the feverish
Jason says:
I don’t much have a dog in this fight, in that I’m an evolutionist, but I have a hard time elevating it to the point of “fact” in that so many things that are at one time believed to be fact turn out to be wrong, or at the very least quite modified from our original thinking. Also, the use of the scientific method can, on occasion, result in providing support for theories that are wrong. Actually, probably more often than “on occasion.”
That being said, what I find interesting about the debate is there is presumed to be a separation between science and philosophy, which is simply not the case. Elevating science, or the scientific method, over other “ways of knowing” (I hate writing stuff like that) is, in itself, a philosphical position. Namely, the reliance on science, logic, and objectivity is largely a position associated with positivism or post-positivism. That’s not to say that science or the scientific method were not used before these philosophical movements, just that they elevated them in importance.
What’s interesting now, is that colleges of education (as well as others) are filled with professors who subscribe to postmodernism and other related philosophical movements. I’m far from an expert on postmodernism, but I suspect many of those who call themselves postmodernists are not either. Anyway, from what I’ve been exposed to, postmodernists tend to either a) reject science, or b) have an expanded definition of what constitutes science. Under this view, science is a patriarchical doctrine which ignores other “ways of knowing” (there I go again), namely things like emotion, intuition, etc. Science, or at least the exclusive use of science, is considered oppressive, in a sense. Anyway, without getting into it too much, postmodernism is popular in colleges of education, not to mention gender and ethnic studies classes, anthropology, sociology, and increasingly psychology.
Anyway, I guess my point in getting into all of this is that, while some believe that ID should not be taught because it is “unscientific,” an increasing number of people, esp. in academia, believe that being “scientific” is a weakness rather than an asset. I’m not saying this is a good thing, just pointing it out. For examples, check out the quantitative vs. qualitative research debate that’s been going on for years in the social sciences.
Anyway, I guess my point in all of this is that science and philosophy are intertwined, and an individual’s views on what constitutes “science” (or value he or she places on science) may be dependent on his or her philosophical views. In some circles, relying on science may be considered every bit as dogmatic as relying on faith.
MikeT says:
The problem I have with the theory of evolution is the implausibility of it. The odds that the first protocells would survive, reproduce and be able to evolve into high-level sentient beings is nearly impossible. The kind of sophistication needed in the design of the original cell would be too complicated and unlikely that they’d survive to reproduce in the primordial soup.
Andrew says:
Do you ever wish you had an “edit” button so you can go back and fix your comments after you post them?
I’d like to clarify my earlier post. Microevolution, aka linear adaptation, or “evolution with a little e,” is a perfectly legitimate subject to teach students in school science classes. It is easily demonstrable, readily testable, poses few moral ramifications, and is fundamental to a student’s understanding of biology.
Macro-evolution and pre-biological evolution, aka Evolution with a capital “E,” is not appropriate to teach in school science classes, unless in context of a discussion of its validity, which would thus allow consideration of alternative theories. Evolution can neither be proven nor, at least to date, demonstrated. * Evolution poses severe moral and religious questions. And, most significantly, it is inconsequential to a student’s understanding of science. While the origin of life is a weighty question, it is an inherently moral and religious one.
As to Jody’s comment that “No one is going to ‘lose their religion’ learning something like Darwinism or the Big Bang Theory unless they were already inclined to lose it,” this simply is not the case. I know many students who have renounced their Christianity in response to what they learned of Evolution in school. Lee Strobel, the author I previously mentioned, came back to faith later in life only after a long and critical review of the evidence of Creation vs. Evolution. When he was first taught of evolution in school, he realized that either Evolution was false or the Biblical account of Creation was false. They are wholly incompatible.
Teachers hold a great deal of respect and authority in the eyes of students. When Evolution is taught as a proven (or even a near-proven) fact, few students are inclined to believe that both their textbooks and their teachers are ignorant or are liars. Furthermore, the exclusive presentation of Evolution in a science class frames the issue in a context of “science vs. magic,” which alone pushes students towards Evolution.
I have seen students lose their faith time and time again, and it saddens me: not just that they have lost their faith in God at an insecure time in their lives, but that they have lost it because they were not exposed to the whole truth. If we cannot keep Evolution out of schools, then we must allow ID theory to be taught as well so that we may avoid this tragedy. After all, if evolution really is the “scientific” belief, then what harm could become of it?
BTW, kudos to Jason for his comment explaining that the division of science and philosophy is, in itself, philosophical. That is a little of what I meant in my last comment.
*PLEASE don’t bother me by mentioning the Miller experiment. I’m tired of explaining it.
Curtis Bach says:
Andrew,
I am Christian, and I am skeptical of evolution. But I don’t mind my children learning about evolution because I don’t doubt the strength of their faith! If teaching evolution in school has caused children to renounce their Christianity, then surely the faith of these children was weak to begin with. Sooner or later they would have renounced their Christianity anyway. If a person has a strong relationship with the Lord, then the words of a liberal science teacher are not going to have any effect at all.
Andrew says:
Yes, these students are weak in their faith, which allows them to fall victim. But many students are weak precisely at the point in their lives when they are pressured with Evolutionary doctrine most. Many such students are brought back from the brink later in their life, but this is much more difficult to do if they have accepted Evolution.
Also, not everyone harmed by Evolutionary indoctrination was a Christian. I have a friend who was raised as an atheist and is looking for God, but is having difficulty accepting Christianity because she was taught that evolution was a scientific fact.
Schools ought to educate, not indoctrinate. And, if this cannot be avoided, then at least allow ID theory to compete on more level ground.
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly says:
[...] n trackback post, and you can’t even work up a good rant because you blew it all out two days ago? Hand out reading assignments and linky love! W [...]
Shane McBryde says:
Here, Here! On the evolution -v- creation commentary.
shane
Dante says:
I’ll sum it up this way: Evolution is a theory, yes, but it’s a theory backed up by a HELL of a lot of evidence. It’s not a question of whether evolution exists or not, people - it does. And you know what else? Evolution is God’s plan for the planet, it is the way God deigned things to be. To all those who don’t accept evolution in the name of Christianity, don’t be idiots. To all those who think Christians are idiots because of a few fools like these, stop insulting my religion. More people were killed in the twentieth century by regimes that hated religion than have EVER been killed in the name of religion. Stick that in your craw. Evolution is fact, Evolution is God’s master plan for the species on this earth, people need to accept evolution as fact, and people need to stop insulting Christians, dammit!