We should also note that intelligent design just leaves us with the question of the origin of the designer (or designers).

To me, the attempt to introduce "intelligent design" into a science class is ridiculous. It is not scientific and has no place there. But I am troubled by the arguements presented.

While there is plenty of evidence that complex systems and behavior can arise from mundane and unintelligent sources, the logic used here to refute "intelligent design" is faulty. It presumes that the design must be perfect if it was designed by a perfect being. It ignores the possibility that the design is sufficient to meet the need - as any engineer, as I am, would tell you is the true test of any design. Who cares how long the larygeal nerve is if it works and the penalty for its length is negligible?

Your car is not perfect, but does that mean that it could not have been intelligently designed? I guarantee you that the designers noted several less-than-optimal characteristics of the design, but did nothing to improve them. Why? Because the car still gets you where you want to go.

One could argue that current scientific thought on our origins - the universe began with an explosion of space-time (a.k.a., the Big Bang), matter coalesced, etc., culminating in life on Earth and creating humans via evolution - represents the ultimate in intelligent creation: God provides one spark with the right physical laws, and the rest creates itself. You could also argue that if physical laws had been different that we wouldn't be here to have this discussion, and the fact that we are here is just random chance.

The bottom line is that we do not and can not know scientifically whether the universe is a random, unintelligent event or an orchestrated plan. The very nature of the universe is that we can only learn what is within its confines (ask any physicist). Asking how the universe was created can be answered by science. Asking why it was created is an unscientific question, and has no place in a science class.

Thank you for your comment and analysis. Unfortunately, the point is NOT whether they're right or wrong. They know they're right and no amount of argument on your part will change that. Their God has told them people such as you will heap scorn and ridicule upon them. And they are promised good seats at your burning.

Now for the bad news. If the 20th century could be characterized as the century of science and secular political philosophies, the 21st will be one of global trade and religious political philosophies.

It looks like it's their century. Brace yourself for a rough ride.

Dale Andersen

You are right that trying to convince the advocates of intelligent design that they are wrong is futile. But my arguments are not for them. They are for those that would ask "what is wrong with letting them express their point of view?" Well, nothing, except it belongs in a theology class, not a science class.

Simply put, don't accept the terms of the debate as they present them. Debate where their ideas should be heard, not whether they should be heard.

Mike, your point is excellent, and puts me in mind of a piece that was blogged in Plastic a few weeks ago (and which I can't find to link to, sadly). It argued that the problem with America is that it suffers from too little theological education -- not too much. The average Christian, despite their searing devotion, spends precious little time reading the actual Bible, above and beyond the carefully-selected snippets their priests tell them to; and they read almost nothing from the wonderfully rich, nuanced history of Christian philosophy -- to say nothing of never reading the texts of other faiths. In Europe, where theological education is widespread and extensive, people grow up knowing much more about world faiths (and their own faiths) than most Americans. This is partly why it becomes harder for Europeans to have the monomanical sense of being the chosen few who understand God's word.

I had the same experience in college. I took Northrop Frye's course -- "The Mythological Framework of Western Civilization", if you can dig that title -- and he had us read a simply enormous amount of stuff from religious traditions in dozens of countries. And after you've read the ancient Mesopotamian creation myth of Tiamat and Marduk, and noted how precisely it resembles Genesis 1:6-10, it's a lot harder to believe that the Bible is a text delivered in toto by God to humanity. That doesn't mean it's not a spiritually and philosophically deep and meaningful basis for a religion -- in fact, the deep similarity of all the central stories in most world religions would seem to indicate that there's gotta be some basic human craving these stories fulfil, which was precisely Frye's point in getting us to study them.

That said, Dale, yep, we're in for a rough ride. and Jay, indeed, that's the ultimate turles-all-the-way-down question, eh?

Clive, could you please explain turles-all-the-way-down?

Thanks.

Forgive my ignorance here, but how is Darwinism "tested"??

Dave, he meant to type "turTles all the way down" - used as a euphemism for the unexplainability of the "origin of the originator" (Clive's response to Jay's first comment) or, more generally, the difficulty of proving ANYTHING.

Here's a link with the whole Turtles story.

Ah-hah. Thanks, Laura.

Thanks for the link, Laura!

Darwinism is tested the same way any scientific theory is tested: By collecting data and seeing if it conforms to the theory. In this case, the evidence supporting Darwinism is overwhelming. In recent years, scientists have even found that natural selection can take place incredibly quickly -- some European scientists found that a type of fish would evolve noticeably over only a few generations to adapt to changes in the stream in which it lives.

Perhaps more importantly, Darwinistic theory can make predictions: The theory can not only explain what we've already seen, but it can accurately predict what we haven't seen. Thus, the theory of natural selection can predict that species on remote, sealed-off islands will undergo specific types of evolution that won't be seen in similar species that live on continents where the individual animals can interact with a greater genetic base.

One important reason why intelligent design does not qualify as a scientific theory is that it cannot be used to predict anything.

Since everyone seems to be talking into a void, I figured I'd chime in as a Christian who does believe in intelligent design. Yes, the basis for the argument comes from the Bible, which I accept on faith as 100% accurate. But, in order to have a discussion about the topic, you'd have to either accept that idea or we'd have to discuss the topic without bringing faith into the equation. I believe intelligent design stands on it's own without having to make the leap of faith.

Most of my views are just kind of cobbled together from my own ideas, so I'm sure I'll be stomping on some intelligent design principles, and probably opening some gaping holes, but my basic view is that it takes an irrational thought process to believe that intelligent life came into existance by accident. Great that you have a few examples of animals who seem unintelligently designed. But back up a second. The argument has to start with the existance of the universe, not animals. Think of the various galaxies surrounding us -- the irrational view is that they all came into existance by a cosmic accident. Not one, not one hundred, but every single one of those galaxies should have imploded by now. What is holding them together? What keeps the stars from constantly crashing into one another? And why does this force that does keep them from crashing even exist?

I think, if you start with the inexplicable, then science never has an answer. Scintists always want to start with things like, why is the sky blue. They want to ask questions that have answers. But if there is no answer for the existance of the universe, then why even bother using an argument closer to home (such as animal defects) to prove your view? First convince me that the universe could come into existance by accident -- show me the formula -- and we'll work our way down to animals. Otherwsie, your providing small answers to small questions -- and kids can do that. Start with the why and how of universal origin, and we'll talk about the specifics of design.

- JB

Heh. Dude, if science operated the way you advocate, we wouldn't have electricity or aspirin.

I prefer to stick with scientific processes that have shown they can explain the universe. The mere existence of the unexplainable is hardly a justification to abandon the scientific method; the scientific method exists to probe the boundaries of the inexplicable.

For the record, I'm Christian too, though clearly I don't believe the Bible is literally true.

JB - Glad to hear your point of view. I too am a Christian. My disagreement with avocating the inclusion of intelligent design in a science class is that it is not science - it is based on faith. Science can not answer questions of faith.

As Clive points out, it focuses on gathering data to validate theories. It is a method - a way to find answers. It is not perfect and can result in incorrect theories (see phlogiston). But the history of science is one of continuous improvement. Incorrect theories are exposed as our understanding increases.

We currently do not understand the fundamental laws that govern the universe. But we appear to be close to a "Theory of Everything" where the formula(s) you ask to see may be available. But even if we succeed, knowing HOW the universe operates still says nothing about WHY.

Science can provide context for faith, but will never supplant it. And as long as science sticks to answering HOW and faith sticks to answering WHY, they will not be in conflict.

Well, I'm not advocating abandonement. Science obviously has a place -- for example, in helping me with a headache. But my point is that science cannot be used to determine the origin of the universe -- by reason of the very principles you mentioned, such as testing a theory and advancing when you have developed false arguments. The point is about using the mutatiosn of nature to somehow disprove the origin of the universe. And it is a slippery slope argument. There are only a few options:

1. God is God and created the universe and all spieces. The Bible is true.
2. God is God and started the ball in motion, but evolution started the day God stopped creating. The Bible is false.
3. There is no God and evolution is all there is to the known universe.

Let's start with option 3. Since your only other optiosn are 1 or 2, then 3 seems particularly irrational. It doesn't answer any of the questions about why, just how. It's like saying I know how someone died in a car accident -- the car was moving at this speed, the person stepped on this road at this time - but then never grieving over the loss of life. Option 3 is ultimately nihilistic.

Option 2 doesn't sit well with me because it means two things are true about God: one, he is impersonal, and two, he is a liar. It means some of the Bible might be true, but some of it is bogus. So, which parts are true? And if God is impersonal, wouldn't it be better to just go with option 3?

Option 1 requires faith -- but I think this idea of a cosimic accident requires more faith. And, at the end of the day, all your left with is some statistics, a crumbled car, and skid marks.

- JB

Well, I'm not advocating abandonement. Science obviously has a place -- for example, in helping me with a headache. But my point is that science cannot be used to determine the origin of the universe -- by reason of the very principles you mentioned, such as testing a theory and advancing when you have developed false arguments. The point is about using the mutatiosn of nature to somehow disprove the origin of the universe. And it is a slippery slope argument. There are only a few options:

1. God is God and created the universe and all spieces. The Bible is true.
2. God is God and started the ball in motion, but evolution started the day God stopped creating. The Bible is false.
3. There is no God and evolution is all there is to the known universe.

Let's start with option 3. Since your only other optiosn are 1 or 2, then 3 seems particularly irrational. It doesn't answer any of the questions about why, just how. It's like saying I know how someone died in a car accident -- the car was moving at this speed, the person stepped on this road at this time - but then never grieving over the loss of life. Option 3 is ultimately nihilistic.

Option 2 doesn't sit well with me because it means two things are true about God: one, he is impersonal, and two, he is a liar. It means some of the Bible might be true, but some of it is bogus. So, which parts are true? And if God is impersonal, wouldn't it be better to just go with option 3?

Option 1 requires faith -- but I think this idea of a cosimic accident requires more faith. And, at the end of the day, all your left with is some statistics, a crumbled car, and skid marks.

- JB

And I just learned not to take the internal server error message very seriously.

This is not that great an argument. It looks at individual organisms instead of the biosphere system as a whole. It also lacks a sophisticated understanding of evolution. You have to think at the species level and above.

Crudely put, evolution depends on suboptimal design to work properly. Evolution depends on constant influx new generations of individual organisms. By the same token, this influx can only work if the older generations die. There must be diversity in the gene pool of every generation, because if there isn't, then there could be no species-wide adaptation to new climate conditions or environments. The definition of "optimal design" keeps changing, because what's optimal in one climate may not be optimal in another environment. Thus, species (and biosphere) survival depends on a diverse genepool, so that a wide array of traits are available to deal with a changing environment. Suboptimal design is actually what makes evolution work most efficiently.

When I said that "this is not that great an argument," I was referring to the article that argued that intelligent design is actually not intelligent.

It's quite possible, however, to reconcile intelligent design with science. (Except, of course, arguing that the Bible is literally true, which I think few of us would argue.) You can't get to intelligent design without first observing nature, the cosmos, etc. and remarking how cool all if it really is. It's separate and apart from science, which only asks one question: "gee, I wonder how this works..." which doesn't really address the question of whether the universe was created by something smart. A scientist could, for instance, say that God was the guy that created and designed the big bang. I think that scientist's name was Einstein or something...

"Heh. Dude, if science operated the way you advocate, we wouldn't have electricity or aspirin." - clive

A-HAHAHA! Great quote, you just made my morning.
I'm fascinated with the way in which any posts pertaining to religion seem to bring out a surprising number of hyper-religious posters, though this one doesn't appear to be as bad as the "Earthquake Affects Earth's Rotation" post from December.
Seriously though, why would folks with such irrational and unwielding views have any interest in a sci/tech/culture blog such as Collision Detection?
I picture every one of them being akin to the teacher in Donnie Darko who coaches "Sparkle Motion". The moment when she confronts Donnie's mother sums it all up to me - "Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion".
I gotta say kudos to JB though for being polite and articulate with his opinion, those kinds of posts are at least engaging as they tend to keep the dialogue open and fluid.
I think it's a fair assumption to say that most of us around here have no desire to be preached to - be it in meatspace or online - regardless of religious views.
As for what to teach kids in school these days?
Bill Bryson's latest book, "A Brief History of Nearly Everything" should be mandatory high school science reading...

Yup, we're all blathering dupes. Not some, not a high percentage, but all. Nice!

"What is holding them together? What keeps the stars from constantly crashing into one another? And why does this force that does keep them from crashing even exist?"

It's called gravity.

" It doesn't answer any of the questions about why, just how. "

The universe needs the how, only the human ego needs a why.

JB, your thought process is pretty solid.

"And if God is impersonal, wouldn't it be better to just go with option 3?"

Yes, it would.

Mike, if the only the human ego needs a why - and I do agree, otherwise there wouldn't be 23 comments (and counting) on this post - HOW on earth did we evolve?

I mean, of what evolutionary benefit is an ego, or a superego, for that matter! Conscience gets in the way of the "survival of the fittest"!

I don't think you can separate the How and the Why quite so conveniently from either side of the argument - pro- or anti-evolution.

On a purely evolutionary level, the ego (or superego) is unneccessary, and actually conterproductive. Like the 20 foot long laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, the human brain's growth in capacity to store and analize stimuli may have been a simple mutation, but a mutation that gave those who had it an advantage over those who didn't. (It certainly seems like this is still the case with out species). With the develpoment of the brain, our species also developed a sence of itself outside of our baser instincts of eating and reproducing. We are the only species that activily hunts and kills itself, and a lot of the time it is because of constructs of the ego, be it wealth, power, status, whatever.
Or mabye that's the point for our species. If we keep populating the plant at the current rate, there may come a point where Earth will no longer be able to sustain not just the human race but all life. Maybe the ego is the failsafe in the eveolution of our species - a way to keep in check the dominant population of our planet.
Just a thought...

Laura - Consciousness (which is what I assume you meant) is what's allowed us as a species to adapt our environment to us, rather than adapt to our environment. So for now, anyway, it contributes a great deal to survival of the fittest. Of course, it's a double-edged sword. And it remains to be seen whether or not we all end up chewing handfuls of Celexa under huge piles of our own refuse.

I think I have an idea why humans developed an ego to survive. We are social beings. One of the factors in determining who gets to choose the most/best mates is what the group thinks of him. Intimidating rivals and impressing the opposite sex is good way to improve your odds. Somebody with a big ego tends to protect and try to enhance his image, and acts quickly to any challenge to it. Case in point - the dominant male in chimp groups regularly makes a display of his prowness - roughing up the lower males, making a lot of noise, throwing branches, etc. The whole point is to show everyone who's top dog. You have to have an ego to put on that kind of display. A big ego can be a competitive advantage.

I like Dave's point re:Einstein. Many scientists believe in God, and have no problem reconciling their faith with science.

The only thing i see wrong with that point is that a lot of animal groups do that - lions, for example. Staking your claim to territorial and mating rights are not uniquly human endevors. What you are describing is more of the Id. What I was describing was the superego, or conscience and ethical side of our minds. Lions don't really think about (as far as we know) the ethical and moral ramifications of beating down another lion to take over his property and females. Unfortunately, some humans still don't have that sense.

I've always wondered if "bible-literalist" Christians believe in the possibility of life on other planets, and if the people on other planets have their own bible?

Mike said at February 23, 2005 05:22 PM:
"Or mabye that's the point for our species...Maybe the ego is the failsafe in the eveolution of our species - a way to keep in check the dominant population of our planet."

Mike, I thought that evolution defies any kind of meaning or purpose to our existence - that there can't be a "point" to a certain species. Doesn't purpose denote design?

Because, why would evolution "care" to "make" a "failsafe" to keep the dominant population of our planet in check? How does that fit in with the survival of the fittest?

Also, on February 24, 2005 02:18 AM, Mike says:
"Unfortunately, some humans still don't have that sense." (Referring to the moral conscience, or superego.)

This is a curiousity to me. Why do you think it is unfortunate? With an evolutionist world-view, it doesn't seem rational to make a moral judgment on anything happening in our world.

I'm not picking on you, Mike, promise! You've just said some very interesting things that I'd like followup on. Have a great day!

Well, I would first like to say that I don't consider myself a strict "evolutionist" per say. While I perscribe to the theory of evolution as how the planet developed, I think that 'natural' evolution has become overwhelmed by 'human' evolution. In other words, the human ability to change itself has surpassed nature's.

You are correct that "evolution defies any kind of meaning or purpose to our existence". Species have, however, evolved thier own 'purpose' or created purose for other species. The most prime example of this being the food chain. Bees and flowers being another - flowers being unable to fluroish, mutate, and evolve without the bee cross pollinating them and the bee unable to survive without the flower's necter. While you could easily look at the bee and flower and say they were created for each other, you could also say that the reason each of these exists is because early bee species discovered that certain plants contained a nice food source and that these plants then benifited by being able to propagate easier and fast than some other species that pehaps did not have a necter that the bees could digest.

I'm rambling...
My point is that purpose is a human superego construct. We see purpose and design in bees and flowers but it is just millions of years of evolution perfecting itself.

As for you question "Why do you think it is unfortunate? With an evolutionist world-view, it doesn't seem rational to make a moral judgment on anything happening in our world." Thsi would be absolutey correct if as humans we were going about our existance simply following the instincts evolution laid out for us. The world would be a pretty simple place and we certainly wouldn't be discussing it over electicaly powered machines. But, that is not the case. The superego and ego's development in the human brain as evolved us into creatures witha moral and ethical sense of our actions. While you really can't make moral judgements on anything you may see on "Wild Kingdom" because (we assume) the rest of the animal kingdom does not have this sense, you can make moral and ethical judgements on things you see on CNN because (we asume) the rest of mankind has this sense and should know whether thier actions are right or wrong.

As for my idea of a 'failsafe' in human beings - I was just spouting off an idea that just popped in my head. In retrospect, I does seem like a pretty silly idea.

Star, life on other planets -- sure thing. Whether they need their own Bible probably depends on whether they sin or not.

LOL, Mike. Thanks for your honesty!

Another question: As you said, we do hold the animal kingdom accountable to our human moral law.

Yet if we evolved from the same animal kingdom, how did we end up with more than an id?

The sensibilities of the moral conscience - compassion, empathy, a sense of right and wrong - are things that would immediately be preyed upon in the animal kingdom, right?

If I'm a cheetah that even begins to evolve an inkling that it might be morally wrong to "murder" a gazelle, I'm more likely to starve to death than propogate a line of morally-aware cheetah descendents.

According to the law of Natural Selection, how would the superego - or sense of conscience - even have a chance at getting developed?

If this is what you mean by "human evolution," could you explain that for me? I've never heard the term.

Oops!

As you said (and I agree), we do NOT (not not not!) hold the animal kingdom accountable to our human moral law.

tee hee. :)

Actually (total tangent here), in medieval times, animals were held accountable to the moral law and put on trial for the sin of bestiality, among other things.

This practice was the subject of a really awful film starring Colin Firth called The Advocate. Firth plays a French lawyer who finds himself defending a pig against the charge of disfiguring and killing a young boy.

That pig case is taken right out of history and you can read about it in this really cool article.

Laura, you've hit upon a question -- the evolutionary role of altruism -- that is of enormous interest to evolutionary scientists!

On a very simple level, a "moral" act -- for example, sacrifing one's life so that one's family could survive -- fits perfectly within an evolutionary framework. The simple answer would be that it's just a way for you to make sure your DNA is carried forward; this is sort of central premise from which flows the work of, say, Richard Dawkins. Within this framework, human morality is really just a scrim we use to explain our innate, evolutionarily-driven impulses.

Mind you, that's the very simple reading of it. Most evolutionary scientists think the moral dimensions of human behavior and thought are way more complex than that. Either way, though, your presumption -- that the sensibilities of a moral conscience make an organism less fit for evoutionary survival -- is not really correct.

Darwin's Cathedral, a fascinating book by the evolutionary theorist David Sloan Wilson argues that religion itself is an evolutionary impulse at the "group", or society level.

Another way of putting it: Societies can be regarded as single organisms that "compete" with other societies for survival -- and societies that develop religion tend to survive better than those that don't.

Clive, that does seem too simple.

I get the concept - repackaging "altruism" as genetic selfishness - but it only make sense if I'm laying down my life for my progeny, or possibly my mate.

How do the evolutionists explain the complexity of what we really have going on here in the human race - self-sacrifice for perfect strangers: people giving up their lives for people they've never met, or just the (relatively) simple blood or organ donation?

It seems a pretty common internal urge to "help the helpless" regardless of your religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

I've read reviews of Wilson's book before and I'm probably going to have to go get it at the library now. This is a fascinating interpretation, but I am finding it difficult to grasp the nuances!

Laura,

Altruism still makes sense from an evolutionary prespective even when applied to prefect strangers.

We are simply protecting our species in general. Couple that with our uncanny ability to recognise patterns and anthropomorphise everything.
We even apply it to animals we concider "cute". (Indeed I think "cute" is a degree of alive-but-non-threatening-looking but that's another discussion).

On the other hand not all our traits have to be based on evolution: Our flexible, learning brains, can be trained by our environment to consider anything normal and moral.

Which brings me to the point that it is unwise to make generic statements about the moral traits of humanity in general, without attaching some conditions. E.g. "in this century", "in our country", "for this group of people" etc.

So the "urge to help the helpless", well that's probably human conditioning (see cultures that consider the helpless deserving of their fate, something that America is fast becoming), coupled with our ability to reflect to the past and project to the future. Our understanding that we could be in their place one day, or if we have been in their place already also helps. E.g. Most of the donations to various charities come from either victims or family of victims.

Add into the mix that altruism in not a human condition and you have your answer.
In this instance meerkats, kookaburras and other group-living animals forgoe reproduction to help other parents with feeding, babysitting, and other activities see National Geographic

I remember a lecture in an Evolution class I took in which we discussed altruism in naked mole rats. Specifically whether they could smell kinship.

From my (spotty) memory,a mole rat can roughly determine the amount of kinship to a fellow colony member via their smell. Per the results of this "smell test" the mole rat will fall into a genetic pecking order. Resources distributed accordingly...

What a wonderful discussion taking place here. Hope I'm not too late to add my two cents.

I want to pick up the thread where KMan and Laura left off in talking about the evolutionary basis for altruism. This is a fantastic topic.

Kman, your argument that altruism is about "protecting our species in general" is a tempting one to make, but ultimately debases biological theories of evolution rather than reinforcing them. Most group selection theories (survival of the fittest *species*) have been tossed out because such explanations require selection to happen in a way that has not ever been observed.

Perhaps more importantly, the "selfish gene" is really all that is required to explain what at first glance appears to be the work of a group selection process.

Human altruism, for instance, can largely be viewed as the by-product of a "genetic arms race." These "arms races" happen not infrequently in nature, where offsetting traits in competing species (or inside the same species) evolve past the point of "reasonableness" from the view of maximizing efficiency.

Take the cheetah and the gazelle. What benefit can a cheetah possibly achieve in evolving a body that can travel 60 mph? None, unless it is the only way to catch its primary prey, which has evolved a body that can travel only 50 mph. One can easily imagine how each generation, the cheetah and the gazelle became incrementally faster, the cheetah to catch the gazelle and the gazelle to avoid being caught. Each generation, each species ups the ante -- a genetic arms race results.

Theories of human altruism suggest a similar runaway phenomenon might be responsible for the growth of the human brain and resulting altruism.

In this case, the race is not about predator and prey, but about cheaters and catching cheaters.

It turns out that many species exhibit some form of cooperation among members. But, doing so is ultimately selfish, because it typically helps the helper get something he needs in the long term (you pick bugs off of my back now, I'll pick bugs off of your back later).

One of the biggest challenges in cooperative arrangements is the detection of cheating. If I provide a benefit for you today, how do I know you will return the favor tomorrow?

One way to solve this problem is to develop a larger capacity to remember who has helped you in the past and who has not. This tends to lead to a bigger brain. Bigger brains, however, are also very useful for crafting strategies to "cheat" -- to continue to receive cooperative benefit without providing any benefit back.

And so, more sophisticated cheating strategies evolve as brain size increases, requiring even larger brains to counter the new strategies. Another genetic arms race.

The result, in human terms, is a sophisticated system for keeping track of cooperation as well as detecting and punishing cheaters. This looks an awful lot like altruism -- selflessly doing things for others. In reality, it's quite possible that even those who are most visibly altruistic (say, Mother Theresa), may receive some real benefit from their altruism.

There are some great books on all of this.

Pinkers "How the Mind Works" touches on it, as does Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". Perhaps the best short (popular) work on the subject is Matt Ridley's "The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation"