A Fleeting Moment

i am not a biologist.  i am not even a scientist.  and i am not a philosopher.  my only relation to these "categories" of people is my interest in them and their subjects.  AND - and this is very important - my knowledge of these subjects, while it may be rudimentary and/or incomplete, is not uninformed, or unintelligent, or narrow in its scope, application, and understanding.  i do not profess to know everything on any of these topics (i.e., science, biology, evolution, philosophy, logic, etc.), and i sincerely doubt that anyone would, but i am confident in my ability to think, analyse, evaluate, and reason, and by those means think critically and logically through the observation, analysis and evaluation of ideas, old and new, to which i am exposed - especially those ideas which i have a vested interest in as a functioning member of society (ideas which i feel it is my responsibility as an individual to think about, evaluate, and respond to so that i am not in ignorance of my place in the world).

on this front - that of science and logic - there is a great and utterly rabid debate between proponents of intelligent design (ID), who assert that evolutionists themselves throw away the rules of scientific inquiry to espouse a theory full of gaps and misinformation in an effort to debunk religion; while evolutionists vehemently denounce ID-ers, citing the same reasons:  that intelligent design is an assault on true science meant to subjugate free-thinkers with the shackles of dogmatism.

i like to think of myself as a free-thinker.  i am also a proponent of intelligent design.  i have never thought that that made me less of an intelligent or logical person, but i’m sure there are those who would say so.  by the same token, evolutionists make very little sense to me.  not that i wish to do them any disrespect, but i do not think they have all understanding so that they can dismiss obections to their theories with a wave of the hand and a curt "you don’t know what you’re talking about".  to this end, i’d like to respond to an article entitled Why Intelligent Design Isn’t About Evolution on a semi-point-by-point basis.

(all quotations from the article intended to exemplify the author’s points, not take them out of context.  if you feel that an idea is improperly represented, please let me know.)

"[Jonathon Wells] and Michael Behe and Dembski like to make an "argument from complexity." Basically they haven’t got past the 3rd grader’s observation of "Wow, the world is complicated…"

The view that "Wow, the world is complicated…" is hardly a 3rd grade observation in that people of all ages and educations can, and have, made it.  it may be a simplistic one, but it is nonetheless true.  this is not to say, however, that the observation should stop there; it is merely an opening remark.  to allege that an "argument from complexity" is made and contained in that observation is itself simplistic, ignoring both the truth of the statement, and denouncing the arguments that follow based on the non-complexity of the statement.  conversely, it seems illogical to propose the opposite:  that the world is simple, as science would have little to explain, much less continue to discover, if that were the case.  so we don’t disagree that the world is complex, but the implication here is that for ID theorists, the argument, and thus the discovery, ends there.  this is hardly the case.  there is no less impetus for the ID crowd to discover, re-discover, explain, and refine the "hows" of our universe than there is for the evolutionist.  simply because the IDer pre-supposes that the universe came into existence by design, intent, purpose, and forethought does not mean that all questions must cease with the "great mystery of creation".  of course not.  ID merely acknowledges that the complexity of the universe, it’s laws and systems are beyond our (humans’) ability to re-create.  explore and understand, to the infinite magnitude of its (and our) existence, definitely; but not create or re-create.  evolutionists start with the presupposition that all this complexity arose by chance, natural selection and processes and therefore must eventually be reproducable in a test tube, so to speak.  this argument however, is not logical, since for an organism to create or develop intelligence or ability beyond itself is beyond itself.  (more on this in a future post)

"[The Argument from Wowness] presupposes a view that humans are either incapable or not allowed to mentally dig beyond the Wow Observation using the same mental tools as before. The supposed intractability of such Wow Observations ("It’s just too complex!!") implies that we’re either supposed to be omniscient, or that we’re intractably retarded."

an interesting point.  it actually implies neither, but it is understandable how one could assume so.  first of all, humans are neither intractably retarded nor omniscient.  given.  the so-called Wow Observations could not possibly imply that we are incapable of learning, since the mere acknowledgement of complexity needs some basis of understanding of the many and varied functions of a system, regardless of the system in question; but they imply neither that we must have all knowledge to understand.  it does mean that we must first be capable of understanding, which we are, but on a limited basis.  we are finite beings, not infinite ones; therefore, we are limited to finite knowledge.  supposing that we were able to create a universe in a lab, we would be able to understand it - we brought it into being, we "contain" it.  but if we can’t - we can’t understand - fully - how it came to be.  we may be able to understand the mechanisms and the processes, but we cannot comprehend that which is beyond our capability.  that is why science demands that a hypothesis be testable in order to be considered "science".  there is an interesting parallel here in physicists’ string theory, which some scientists write off as non-plausible and unscientific because it is, at least at the present time, untestable; this, i think, is perfectly legitimate.  string theory is merely an idea - numerically, it works, as far as we know, but that’s all we know.  it could be right, it could be wrong.  we can’t prove it either way.  does this mean that string theory has nothing to do with science?  of course not.  it simply means that until further developments, we can’t watch it in action.  but it is still valid as an idea, because all scientific hypotheses are ideas - some are right, some are wrong, some are testable, others are undeveloped.  do scientists have any right to dream up ideas that are untestable?  it would be spurious to for any self-acclaimed free-thinker to say no, but are those ideas then automatically relegated to the dust-bins of non-science?  somehow i don’t think that’s necessarily what happens - or what should happen.  but it’s definitely worth some thought.

"ID is not just an alternative viewpoint, or an a-scientific position, it’s an anti-scientific concept, because if it’s accepted as a valid way of investigating the world… all investigation stops! You don’t get past the point of wonder…Put away your calculators and test tubes, lock the lab door behind you and go to church. That’s all you can do."

again, this is a misunderstanding of the ID concept.  ID does not negate the value of investigation and inquiry.  it merely ackowledges its limitation - which is not limiting at all, actually, since it is only the limit of everything we can possibly understand plus the tipping of the cap to the idea that there may be things we cannot understand simply because we are human.  on the other hand, it seems illogical to expect that from chaos and mere chance, an evolutionist can expect to understand and make predictions about future scientific happenings.  put away your calculators and test tubes, lock the lab door behind you and go to church.  that’s all you can do, because you can’t possibly hope to explain something that has no meaning.  right?  but wait…there are laws.  rules.  patterns.  even "chaos" theory is a set of mathematical equations that explain patterns in seemingly random occurences.  the point being, there is design, there is order, there is room for learning and understanding.  we do not disagree.

"ID proponents claim that ID is compatible with science, but basically they’ve just worked hard to explain away all the methods and knowledge that already exist."

not to belabor the point, but it is compatible with science, not because it replaces science, or even because it is science, but because it does not deny science.  no (legitimate) IDer will try to "explain away" the methods that exist; but the accuracy of those methods (and knowledge) can be challenged; should be challenged; always will be challenged, refined, further developed and expanded.  they will be subjected to "especially harsh scrutiny" on both sides of the fence.

"Apart from their explanations being logically, scientifically and philosophically wrong (and they’re very good at selling these invalid arguments, preying upon subtle and common errors in thinking and language), this sort of approach doesn’t let you do anything truly new…Science stalls, knowledge stops, thinking vanishes."

i guess i would need a more specific example here to actually comment on.  obviously, i’m not going to admit to an invalid argument, subtle or common errors in thinking or language until they are pointed out to me.  as for the rest of the comment ("…thinking vanishes"), well, if my thinking has truly vanished, it won’t do me any good to try and refute that, now will it?

"ID is not about evolution. It’s not even about biology. It’s about how to think, and that applies to all branches of science, all areas of intellectual activity, all human action."

this is very much true.  and most people don’t get that - which makes it, in fact, a very important assertion.  no matter what you think you know about the world, you had to start with some presuppositions.  you had/have a viewpoint.  evolutionists start with the assumption that matter sprang spontaneously into being, since God can’t be proven.  IDers start with the assumption the matter was brought into being by intention, since God can’t be disproven.  granted, i happen to think, based on those and many other ideas that IDers have one up on the evolutionists - but it’s really a matter of where you start; and where you start has more to do with "religion" than "science".  after all, secular humanism is just as much a religion - or system of beliefs - as any Western (or Eastern, for that matter) religion you could name.  it just starts with man as the center, instead of God.

"ID is nothing less than a veiled advocacy for a return to the Dark Ages."

the author is under the mistaken assumption, once again, that IDers are playing the traditional role of the "Church" (and by this i mean the establishment of religion that did indeed subjugate scientists and philosophers - in addition to musicians, artists, teachers, explorers, and many others - throughout history to maintain its hold on the political and ideological fronts that gave it power) in today’s society.  ID is a proponent of science, not an antagonist toward it - IDers have absolutely nothing to gain by attempting to rein science back from growth and discovery.

"…I can have sympathy for the Average Joes of the populace getting hoodwinked by ID, who have only mediocre levels of science education or intellectual agility…Because ID proponents prey on people’s thinking skills…."

this, i have to say, is just offensive.  i will freely admit that i do not have the most extensive science education, but i will put my "intellectual agility" up against the best of them.  period.  to discard a person’s intelligence along with their ideas or beliefs is arrogant at best, and bigoted at worst.  i am a musician, and a highly trained one at that; but i would never judge a person’s intellectual abilities based on their knowledge - or lack of it - of music.  in the same way, just because i don’t know all there is to know about science doesn’t mean i don’t know how to think about it.  and i do a lot of reading, so i’m not entirely uninformed.

"What this problem requires is unabridged thinking - showing people how to think accurately, usefully, and cumulatively about the world…It doesn’t require omniscience…."

again, very true.  but i disagree with - and take a certain amount of offense to - the implication that all IDers are deficient thinkers.  that is a wholy egocentric, uninformed insinuation.

"At the end of the day, ID is an assault on epistemology, not evolution. Evolution is the convenient voodoo doll through which ID is trying to kill the human mind."

true, epistemology; not true, trying to kill the human mind.  i think both sides would agree that they’re trying to "wake the others up".

"I hold the most knowledgeable people - the Wells and Behes and Dembskis of the world - explicitly culpable…I will freely and knowledgably denounce them to the ends of the earth, in defense of my own mind and the world in which I live."

incidently, i have never read any of Wells, Behe, or Dembski; i haven’t even heard of two of them.  and while i ackowledge the point - those with power or knowledge have more responsibility than those without - i hardly think that a such a denunciation will have any effect on my mind.  why?  because i, like the author, demand the recognition of having my own thoughts.  i will not hold any one else responsible for what i choose to think.  there may be influential persons, but my thoughts are my own.  (anyone could say this)  i have not been subjugated, propagandized, brainwashed, or indoctrinated; and i contend that even though i do not believe that from random mutations arose the incredible array of life and intelligent beings that exist, i am not stupid.