There is a quote I love from Einstein.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
The issue of the recent court case in Pennsylvania I think is a pretty clear case of Religion being blind without science. However, the recent article about the science achievements of 2005 being the additional work done in support of evolution is a great example of how Science is lame without religion. Why is this?
First off let me be perfectly clear. I am in the camp of evolution. The evidence that life changes over time is pretty damn overwhelming. The evidence that all life currently in existence on earth shares common ancestry is equally overwhelming. Hence somehow we started from one thing and became what we are today. However, while evolutionists do a great deal to try and explain the mechanism's of this change, as yet ALL proof of it is speculation and extrapolation. Including all the work listed as the greatest scientific achievement of 2005. There is no directly observed evidence of evolution. There is an awful lot of indirect evidence obviously. Genetic similarities, Shared DNA sequences and a host of other insanely technical issues surrounding the inner workings of genetics. Yet there does not exist in the annals of science one single case of observed evolution of one species into another. Nothing so similar as a chimp into a man, and certainly nothing on the scale of say single cell organism's becoming complex living organism's.
The Creationist folk have faith in the almighty. The scientist faith in the scientific process and peer review. There is no doubt in my mind which is more 'factual'. Yet both require elements of faith. Direct evidence has shown we share common ancestors. Yet we have never seen any new species born. Thus all theories regarding how the change occurs is speculation. No matter how educated it is, that means it is a guess. Evolution is a very logical, very well supported guess. Belief that it is correct without direct observation is almost by definition 'Faith'.
In the end this whole fiasco is an issue of philosophy. Even if we have Evolution hammered out to the nth degree. It still does nothing to answer the age old question of 'why'. If life is just the random mutation of inanimate material into animate life which eventually becomes us then what is the damn point? This is the very lameness of which Einstein is reffering too. The end game of science is depressing in the extreme. There is no reason. Just existence of a collection of cells that perform a number of biological activities observed down to the minutest level the combination of which we call life.
Frankly if my choices are that of belief in an immortal soul with a benevolent ghost that has imparted upon me the gift of free will, Or belief that I am just some statistical fluke of the random interactions of atoms/quarks/sub-quarks/muons etc... etc.... Well, I have no doubt which one is more attractive.
Now. The title is Evolution vrs Intelligent design and yet up above I said Creationists as if it were interchangeable. Let me take the time to say that equating Creationists to Intelligent Design is a rather faulty assumption if you ask me. True there are many Creationists that have latched onto the basic argument of ID with which to champion the teaching of Christian Creationisim in America. The Court Case recently in Pennsylvania was an excellent example of this. But do not lump in the central concept of ID to simply be a smoke an mirrors concept with which to make creationism pallatable in a scientific society. The central concept being that of irreducible complexity.
When giving examples of evolution and taking something like say the neck of a Girraffe it is easy to work out how this might of occurred due to Evolutionary principles selecting for survival of animals with longer necks. But how does this work for say an Eye ? There are many parts of an eye that require other parts... all very highly specific and integrated to provide the marvel that is an eyeball. If it developed as a vestifle appendage with little utility then the concept of selection for survival breaks down. If it was a central advantage of survival how then did the creature survive in the midst of development when much of it would have been useless? The argument of ID adherrents is essentially that in some cases you encounter irreducible complexity and they say that the only way for such a development to occur is through an intelligent choice. They do not even really try and answer where that choice comes from. Christian Creationists supply 'God' with all of the dogmatic trappings that come along with it. Many in ID simply use God as a catch all phrase for some as yet unknown factor which influences the course of evolution. Often people assume that belief in ID precludes a belief in evolution. Like most stereotypes, this one is false with a hint of truth at its core.
It isn't that ID means you can't belive in evolution. It is just that ID is for those who don't think evolution can hold the entire answer.
If you want to really think about it then instead of delving into this issue by studying the highly charged issue of man being descendent from lower primate life (chimps/gorrillas etc...) take a look at the transition of inanimate material into animate life. IE the formation of first life. Evolution has natural selection, mutation, etc with which to support its basic thesis of how life has come to be. Yet those arguments founder just as hard on the issue of first life as do Christian Fundamentalists encountering things like shared DNA sequences and the fact that all life on earth has far more in common at a genetic level than it has different.
What good is it to an eternal mineral to become a life? What advantage to survival? Questions such as these sound equally silly as fervent statements that the earth is only 6000 years old because the bible says so the evidence be damned. The issue of first life is another area where it has never been directly observed. Some guys took some basic elements of life, stuck them in a tank, zapped it with electricity and wound up with some basic amino acids or amino acid components or some such (the begining of the building blocks of life in other words) and yet they still have not seen inanimate things come to life. The fervent belief of scientists creationists alike is in that of immaculate conception. One in the virgin birth, The other in life from unlife. Strictly limited to observation, life begets life. how then do you get life from something which is not alive ? In other words the age old question of which came first. The Chicken or the Blasted EGG.
Those that argue in favor of ID, Evolution, Creationism etc are no different from all arguments through time used to explain life. Science is better at reporting truth about how life works, yet it runs aground just as hard on its ignorance as religion when the issue of first life arises. In fact it probably does so more dangerously because just as those before who placed their faith in religion, they think they have the means to find the answer. And it is a futile argument that scientists have more proovable/demonstrable knowledge of the mysteries of life than the priests/witchdoctors/philosophers of old. But in the end it is an argument that probably cannot ever be solved no matter how well we understand the process of life.
If for example we genetically manipulate ourselves or another animal into an incompatible new species designed intentionally by us which breeds true. What then? To do so would in and of itself proove that intelligent design is possible because we would be capable of it. You could then use the basic principle that generally speaking if something happens once it can and will happen again, and argue that it could have happened before. If we do accomplish this feat then who is to say that we were the 'first' to achieve intelligent design of life? Ok so lets say at that point Intelligent design comes to hold the upper hand over evolution in the issue of why change occurs. Does it then answer the question of first life? Most people are scared of genetics for the simple reason that we can indeed become inteligent designers of life. But their fear resides not in our intelligence, but in our ignorance. That we would not be intelligent enough to actually design in a worthwhile manner. That any such design would run amok and cause endless unforeseen problems. This is a fear shared by creationists, ID, and evolutionists alike. What I find ironic in that is that you then turn around and evolutionists say while we arn't smart enough to do it intentionally, it happens quite easily by accident given a long enough time scale.
In the end I like it all as always. To settle down with one is to ignore what the others have to offer. It is quite possible to pick and choose the good stuff from each. Afterall This is how new ideas evolve ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment