Daniel C. Dennett argues in this New York Times op-ed piece that intelligent design seems reasonable to a lot of Americans because they don’t understand the concepts behind evolution. It is easy to discredit something that few average Americans really understand. He writes:
“Brilliant as the design of the eye is, it betrays its origin with a tell-tale flaw: the retina is inside out. . . . No intelligent designer would put such a clumsy arrangement in a camcorder, and this is just one of hundreds of accidents frozen in evolutionary history that confirm the mindlessness of the historical process.
“. . . Yes, eyes are for seeing, but these and all the other purposes in the natural world can be generated by processes that are themselves without purposes and without intelligence. This is hard to understand, but so is the idea that colored objects in the world are composed of atoms that are not themselves colored, and that heat is not made of tiny hot things.”
It would be nice if all Americans had to take a college-level physical anthropology course before deciding their views on evolution. It is difficult to argue with the theory of evolution when you understand how it works — and see evidence supporting it.
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
32 Comments
I believe that Intelligent Design is worth discussing if you are interested in it. But it does not belong in a biology or anthropology class.
Intelligent Design also should not be required teaching in the public schools.
I get tired of the same old left-wing philosophy, “If you were intelligent or educated you would agree with me.” What a load of arrogance. Just because someone holds a different view doesn’t automatically make them stupid or uneducated.
Evidence, understanding, college level science courses? Huh? That’s all a bunch of phooey.
ID’ers get everything they need to know directly from God. Of course, so did those that burned witches at the stake.
Way to go, Melissa. Intelligent design is a theory that’s fine for the home or the church. I say let’s leave a religious concept there and teach the proved evolutionary theory in school.
IDer’s use the current polls as fuel for their argument. Since more the half of Kansan’s want it in schools, it should be in schools. But science isn’t based on majority rules! How many times have you heard people say that they will never use algebra in their jobs? Should we only teach the basics of math because the majority of the people think it is unnecessary?They also say that evolution is being taught as fact and that there needs to be criticism of it in the classrooms. That argument in itself shows the total lack of understanding about how science works. The scientific community is always examining new findings and re-testing them. It takes years and years for something to become a theory.Evolution is a theory, not a law. There is the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and so on…these have been tested and retested in science and thought to be correct. But there are some researchers that are testing the limits of these laws and asking questions; that is the nature of science.Einstein’s theory of relativity (E=mc2) is still just a theory. It has not been proven and is not a law. Evolution is still a theory and the mechanisms are still being argued in the scientific community. It is true that there are holes in the fossil record. We have only been digging for a couple hundred years. The fossil record is slowly being filled. It may take a couple hundred more years for the theory of Evolution to evolve into a law, but it probably will become one despite religious pressures.
Excellent, excellent, Melissa. My faith in the Eagle is restored when I read entries like that. Faith- get it? A kneeslapper!
One of the best blogs about science and evolution happens to also be about progressive politics. Great reading every day.
http://pharyngula.org/
Check out
http://www.talkorigins.org/
for an excellent, detailed, disxcussion of the science.
Some further “unintelligent design” features of human beings:
Cancers are caused either by a random mutation or a carcinogen. The mutation causes the mechanism that regulates cell growth to run wild. A mutation is one of the agents of evolution. If there is an intelligent designer, why would a designer create such a mutation?
From an engineering perspective the human eye is a terribly inefficient organ. The human eye has blind spots, and it suffers from the interference of blood vessels positioned in front of the nervous terminals, which can cause detachment of the retina. Squids, octopuses, and other cephalopod mollusks, have a very similarly constructed eye, but with the blood vessels positioned at the rear of the nervous terminals. Consequently, they do not suffer retinal detachment. Why would an intelligent designer design squid eyes to be better than human eyes?
Goosebumps are the result of contractions around hair follicles. In hairy primates these contractions served to cause the hair or fur to stand erect, thereby improving its insulation value against the cold. In dangerous situations this reflex would also make the animal look larger and more intimidating to an attacker. Since humans have relatively little body hair compared to the other primates, goosebumps are another vestigial reflex we inherited from our primate ancestors that serves no purpose. Why would an intelligent designer give humans a vestigial reflex?
All male mammals have nipples. Obviously male nipples have no useful function. Male nipples are in fact worse than useless; they can be dangerous. Men can get breast cancer. Why would an intelligent designer design male nipples? The simple biological-evolutionary answer to the existence of male nipples is that all human embryos are structurally female first, but later in fetal development the male hormones kick in and modify the feminine genital structures into the masculine. What is the simple “intelligent design” answer?
Humans must have vitamin C in their diets. Without it, we develop scurvy and eventually die. Interestingly, we have a gene for producing vitamin C ourselves; only it’s broken. It is what is known as a pseudogene, which is a broken gene that cannot produce protein. Why would an intelligent designer give us the gene to make Vitamin C, a substance that we can’t live without, but then make sure it didn’t work? Why would an intelligent designer design a broken gene at all? The gene for Vitamin C isn’t the only pseudogene you have, right now; every strand of DNA in your body is filled with them.
jana,
You need to separate the empirical evidence for evolution from the theory called evolution. Perhaps it would be better to refer to the latter as the theory of natural selection of the theory of natural descent.
There is plenty of empirical evidence proving that evolution happens. The questions reside in the theory of common descent.
The force of gravity is an empirical fact. The explanation as “intelligent falling” or Newtonian gravitation are the theories. Gravity “happens” regardless of the explanation.
Evolution “happens” without the need for any theory attempting to explain the mechanism. I refer you to my postabove for the Talk Origins web site which summarizes the evidence, the theory of common descent (including its shortcomings), and ID as a theory (ROFL).
Yes, Melissa, but there are people who have gone through medical school, who are practicing physicians, and yet still believe in Creation or at least Intelligent Design. When you conclude that a whale is descended from a goat-lie creature there is something wrong with the process paleontology (not antrhopology) and the conclusions made, thereof.
As for the complexity of the eye, as well as so many other aspects of animal and human physiology, esp things like the sodium pump in each cell and the contraction cycle in muscle movement, for instance, are all an argument AGAINST chance.
Sorry, that should be “goat liKe”
Sean, there is no “chance” about evolution, obviously you don’t understand it, or you’d know what you’re talking about. Doctors are not scientists and evolution nor intelligent design are taught in medical school.
“I get tired of the same old left-wing philosophy, “If you were intelligent or educated you would agree with me.” What a load of arrogance. Just because someone holds a different view doesn’t automatically make them stupid or uneducated.”
Now if the Newocons would just beleive that we might all get along.
Sean doesn’t know, and sez:
“for instance, are all an argument AGAINST chance.”
“When you conclude that a whale is descended from a goat-like creature there is something wrong with the process paleontology (not antrhopology) and the conclusions made, thereof.”
This is exactly what Melissa is talking about. To dismiss the evolutionary lines between whales and their land-based ancestors is simply foolish. There’s so much evidence for it, you’re just dismissing the entire scientific process by doing so. Humans have pretty limited imaginations compared with the mysteries of nature, and that’s why we have to rely on evidence, and an objective process for putting that evidence together into theories about the natural world – the scientific method.
Just because it may or may not be intuitive for humans does not mean it didn’t happen.
Quantum physics seems to go against everything that’s common sense to us. Objects seemingly sharing information across vast distances instantaneously, while objects appear and disappear when they get very cold. Because this seems weird, and goes against our instincts, does that mean we should simply dismiss quantum physics with a wave of our hand? Of course not! As it turns out, it describes the natural world with amazing precision.
Here is a great article about the amazing evolutionary tract and solid science behind our fellow mammal, the whales:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
Sean,
Howe are any of your examples arguments AGAINST chance?
First of all, miraculous explanations are even less likely than random chance. That’s why they’re called “miracles”. If they were common they would be just normal everfyday experiences.
Tossing a coin is a perfect example. Imagine tossing a coin once and getting tails. Now toss it again, and you get tails..luck I guess. Now toss it again and get tails..really lucky (you hit the trifecta). Keep tossing and getting heads…improbable but not impossible. At what point does your tossing switch from improbable to “miraculous:…5 tails in a row? 25 tails in a row? 200 tails in a row?
Imagine tossing the coin 10,000 times. The probability of getting ANY exact sequence like TTTTTTT….. or HTHTHTHTH….. or HTHHHTTHTHTTHHTHT…is always the same. All tails is no less likely than the first 5,000 being heads and the last 5,000 being tails…or alternating heads or tails.
However, most people aren’t interested in the exact sequence of heads and tails. They simply see that there are more runs that contain both heads and tails than there are runs with only heads or only tails.
Now with regard to evolution. You have a situation where there are thousands of independent coin tosses going on at once all over the world. The coin tosses sometimes come out badly but occasionally they come out EXACTLY right..like all tails or all heads. The sequences that aren’t right either don’t improve trhe species or they actually make it worse. So, they die out. The tosses that come out “right” by improving the species are retained.
Evolution need not violate anyone’s religious beliefs. The theory of common descent only proposes a mechanism by which the diversity of life appeared on earth..it doesn’t say anything about the origins or the originator of life.
Tou da man, GetReal!!
Well said, Brian!
ID and evolution can both have their respective places in the real world, and both can be correct. I have no problem whatsoever that both ID and evolution interplayed in the creation and formation of intelligent life on this planet.The stories in the bible were written to relate to the people living in those areas at the time.For instance, the story of Noah’s Ark has sound science behind the fact itself. There was a flood that created the Black Sea a little over seven thousand years ago when the Mediteranean sea breached a thin straight and poured in the sea for what was estimated to be a month and a half. The energy released by the flood caused severe rain storms that contributed to the flood. It may indeed be true that Noah loaded a ship with pairs of KNOWN animals of the area, via God’s command, and weathered the storm. But the fact remains that, to the people living in the area, the KNOWN world, to them, was destroyed by flood. The epic of Giglamesh closly matches the story of Noah , but the Genisis version appears to be the earliest.But the important point to remember is that to these people, their world was destroyed. They had no knowledge of north or south america, etc..So if you extrapolate that with other writings in the bible, then I see no problem with ID and evolution co-existing. At least in my view.ID allows for God, evolution allows for the natural order of things.
What??? I agreed with GetReal??? I must be slipping!
JM,
Welcome to the side of sanity.
GR,I’ve considered myself sane for at least a week now, or at least that’s what the board told me!
Brian…I appreciate your clarification on the matter, but I didn’t need it. I understand completely. I was pinpointing my argument toward the people that believe in creationism and ID. THEY call it the theory of evolution. I have posted many times in previous discussions the correction biological terms, and a lot of people don’t “get it” or just don’t care to “get it”.You need to keep in mind that this blog isn’t scientifically based.To win the war that is raging against the theory of common descent (most un-scientific people just say EVOLUTION), we scientists need to get off our intellectual high horses. These people have the political power right now. The scientific community can’t assume that we will never become intellectually censored in this country.
Janabanana says:
“The scientific community can’t assume that we will never become intellectually censored in this country.”
I know! I’ve been fighting the inevitable future as forseen in Planet of the Apes, when Dr. Zaius will declare science heresey. Talking humans – ha!
Sorry Janabanana,
I’m just tired of the constant terminology miscues that citics of evolution seem to have. First, they always misidentify the evidence for evolution (common descent) with the theory that attempts to explain the evidence (natural selection). Then they misapply the common usage of the word “theory” when discussing scientific theories. Sigh, I think you’re right. In fact, I’m more pessimistic. I’m becoming convinced that evidence is pretty far down on the list of factors that help a person make up her/his mind. Makes you wonder about the legal system too.
Thanks guys!The problem lies within the christian fundamentalist culture. They will not read any of the links you provide. They will not learn the terminology. The reason for this is because they will not read anything that isn’t church approved. They get their information from the pulpit only. They will not read these things because they don’t want to be confused by “the devil”. That is why I am reading their arguments so I can come at it from their point of view. Even though this kind of blantent ignorance angers us, we need to respect their point of views to gain their attention.
janabanana..
That is a sad sad commentary on Christian fundamentalism. Many are well educated and very well read. Anyone who thinks otherwise is only fooling his or her self.
I have met many well informed and educated Christians also. I am not making a blanket statement about all Christian churches. I am generalizing. We are all guilty of doing so.I have met and have known many people whose faith prevents them from further studies on many topics. This may be because they belong to a church that actively discourages reading of non-Christian materials or church approved materials. I have known people that attend such churches. Some may just think that their churches won’t approve and take their “faith” to a level that isn’t or shouldn’t be expected of them.But generally, these are the types of churches that are actively pushing for ID in the classrooms. They want Christian approved curriculum taught to their children and all other children to spread “the word of God”.These are my observations and my opinions. I would love to hear others.
Also –
When did athiests become un-American, or religion-hating? What kind of crazy programming happened to get people to believe that? Are they that paranoid and insecure?
Hey, Eagle.
I have to say, watching the news- and the student news, and reading the newspaper lately, has really showed me just a sample of what the Hurricane Katrina victims are going through right now, and it hurts me to see all the suffering, but obviously nowhere near what the victims of the hurricane are going through. Alright, I’m just a kid but, still, I can be sensible, right? Well, hopefully, we’ll be able to help the Katrina vitims more than we already have, but I still have to say, why haven’t we done more? I believe that we could put the same effort into helping the victims that we’ve already put into the war in Iraq. Does America really care more about its wars then its own people in need?
Sincerely,Alex Rowe
GR:
What you are referring to is a result of the philosophical weed patch that we are living in today- brought about primarily, if not totally, by a lack of consciousness.
Just for fun, check out some of the audio files on this webpage:http://www.mum.edu/podcast/
The funny thing about evolution… it’s roots trace back much further than Charles Darwin. Try ancient Babylon. Evolution is a theory just like intelligent design. What is so difficult about asking public educators to professionally present both sides of the argument without trying to influence their students to fall in line with their personal views?
RL,Maybe because one is science and the other is thinly-veiled theology?