Showing posts with label Creationism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Creationism. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
Q&A: intelligent design
The theories behind intelligent design
Anna Seward
Monday November 27, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design is a movement that says that life is so complex that it must have been designed by a higher intelligent being, and not via the Darwinian theory of natural selection - widely accepted by scientists. Followers argue that the scientific community is not as convinced by evolution as we are led to believe, and urge that we are more critical in our consideration of evolution.
Surely intelligent design is another name for creationism?
Intelligent design does share a number of similarities with creationism, and the phrase appears in several examples of creationist literature. They both argue that evolution is unable to account for the vast array of species, and both promote the concept of a designer.
But there are fundamental differences. First, intelligent design accepts that the earth is millions of years old, not adhering to the creationist, biblically derived argument that the earth was created some 6,000 years ago.
Second, intelligent design accepts that species do undergo small amounts of change, whereas creationists believe that all forms of life were created in their current form at the time of the earth's creation. However intelligent design claims that these changes are the result of a guiding hand, not the result of random genetic mutations and natural selection.
Intelligent design also differs from creationism by not specifically naming the creator as God. Proponents use this as justification that their argument is not religious. However despite avoiding making a public association, almost all statements directed at supporters of intelligent design declare openly that the designer is believed to be God.
What evidence is there to support intelligent design?
A number of academics support the intelligent design argument, maintaining that it is soundly supported by scientific disciplines. They argue that intelligent design provides empirical proof for the existence of a super-intelligent being, and that this proof is freely detectable in nature itself.
However it is very difficult to find definitive evidence in support of the concept, since it has no theoretical background, and the movement is fuelled more by belief than by experimentally derived proof.
What are the arguments against intelligent design?
Critics argue that intelligent design cannot be classed as science. It cannot be tested, and is therefore merely a philosophical concept. It lacks the necessary theoretical basis from which hypotheses can be tested and is therefore unable to provide any basis for new directions of research. As a result, it has made no contribution to agriculture, forestry, pathology, or any of the other areas of biology that evolutionary theory has provided insight into.
Intelligent design is frequently accused of following a socio-political agenda rather than being interested in scientific issues. Critics argue that it is merely a poor attempt to disguise a creationist agenda, and to sneak religion into science lessons.
Intelligent design simply aims to fill in existing gaps in evolutionary theories, such as gaps in the fossil record, with speculative beliefs. As critics point out, just because our current understanding of evolution hasn't given us the answers to everything so far, that doesn't mean that we should turn to intelligent design instead.
Many of the arguments used to defend intelligent design are directly related to creationist arguments that have previously been refuted. Evolution theory, on the other hand, has repeatedly generated predictions that have proven to be true and that have never been disproved by other scientific theories. Rather than attempt to discredit the scientific evidence that contradicts their concept, followers of intelligent design simply choose to ignore it.
What does flying spaghetti have to do with any of this?
A recent development has been the growth of so-called Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, a satirical 'religion' created by Bobby Henderson, a physics graduate of Oregon State University. He wrote to the Kansas Board of Education in June 2005, alerting them to the many people who believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, and demanding that science lessons be split three-ways: "One third time for intelligent design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
Henderson's point is that the concept of a Flying Spaghetti Monster is every bit as rational a concept as intelligent design. He has received sympathetic reponses from members of the board who also oppose intelligent design, as well as attracting overwhelming support from 'followers' all over the world.
Anna Seward
Monday November 27, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design is a movement that says that life is so complex that it must have been designed by a higher intelligent being, and not via the Darwinian theory of natural selection - widely accepted by scientists. Followers argue that the scientific community is not as convinced by evolution as we are led to believe, and urge that we are more critical in our consideration of evolution.
Surely intelligent design is another name for creationism?
Intelligent design does share a number of similarities with creationism, and the phrase appears in several examples of creationist literature. They both argue that evolution is unable to account for the vast array of species, and both promote the concept of a designer.
But there are fundamental differences. First, intelligent design accepts that the earth is millions of years old, not adhering to the creationist, biblically derived argument that the earth was created some 6,000 years ago.
Second, intelligent design accepts that species do undergo small amounts of change, whereas creationists believe that all forms of life were created in their current form at the time of the earth's creation. However intelligent design claims that these changes are the result of a guiding hand, not the result of random genetic mutations and natural selection.
Intelligent design also differs from creationism by not specifically naming the creator as God. Proponents use this as justification that their argument is not religious. However despite avoiding making a public association, almost all statements directed at supporters of intelligent design declare openly that the designer is believed to be God.
What evidence is there to support intelligent design?
A number of academics support the intelligent design argument, maintaining that it is soundly supported by scientific disciplines. They argue that intelligent design provides empirical proof for the existence of a super-intelligent being, and that this proof is freely detectable in nature itself.
However it is very difficult to find definitive evidence in support of the concept, since it has no theoretical background, and the movement is fuelled more by belief than by experimentally derived proof.
What are the arguments against intelligent design?
Critics argue that intelligent design cannot be classed as science. It cannot be tested, and is therefore merely a philosophical concept. It lacks the necessary theoretical basis from which hypotheses can be tested and is therefore unable to provide any basis for new directions of research. As a result, it has made no contribution to agriculture, forestry, pathology, or any of the other areas of biology that evolutionary theory has provided insight into.
Intelligent design is frequently accused of following a socio-political agenda rather than being interested in scientific issues. Critics argue that it is merely a poor attempt to disguise a creationist agenda, and to sneak religion into science lessons.
Intelligent design simply aims to fill in existing gaps in evolutionary theories, such as gaps in the fossil record, with speculative beliefs. As critics point out, just because our current understanding of evolution hasn't given us the answers to everything so far, that doesn't mean that we should turn to intelligent design instead.
Many of the arguments used to defend intelligent design are directly related to creationist arguments that have previously been refuted. Evolution theory, on the other hand, has repeatedly generated predictions that have proven to be true and that have never been disproved by other scientific theories. Rather than attempt to discredit the scientific evidence that contradicts their concept, followers of intelligent design simply choose to ignore it.
What does flying spaghetti have to do with any of this?
A recent development has been the growth of so-called Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, a satirical 'religion' created by Bobby Henderson, a physics graduate of Oregon State University. He wrote to the Kansas Board of Education in June 2005, alerting them to the many people who believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, and demanding that science lessons be split three-ways: "One third time for intelligent design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."
Henderson's point is that the concept of a Flying Spaghetti Monster is every bit as rational a concept as intelligent design. He has received sympathetic reponses from members of the board who also oppose intelligent design, as well as attracting overwhelming support from 'followers' all over the world.
Lone voices special: God said, let the dry land appear
* 09 December 2006
* NewScientist.com news service
* Peter Aldhous
Few earth scientists believe that our planet was created some 10,000 years ago and maintain that the Biblical account of Noah's flood is the literal truth. To have published papers in Nature and Science while holding these views is almost unheard of. John Baumgardner, creationist and geophysical modeller, tells Peter Aldhous how his Christian faith has shaped an unusual scientific career.
You've said that your primary goal as a scientist is "defence of God's word". Is this consistent with the scientific method?
Most scientists try to make incremental contributions. There are a few who are strongly driven by their world view; Richard Dawkins is a pretty dramatic example. I would put myself in that same category, although I hope that I'm not as abrasive. If people can do it on the other side, why should I shrink back?
What led you to geophysical modelling?
My original training was in electrical engineering. Later, I had a Christian conversion. After four years working on laser optics in the air force I had three years with Campus Crusade for Christ. During that time I started doing lectures on the origins of the Earth as described in the Bible, and found myself doing a lot of background research. In 1978 I realised that the Genesis flood had to involve rapid large-scale tectonic change. So I started a PhD in geophysics at the University of California, Los Angeles.
During your PhD you developed a computer model for the interior of the Earth that has been widely used. Tell us about that.
It models convection in the Earth's mantle, treating it as a viscous fluid and partitioning it into a large number of cells. We model the flow of rock as the result of solid-state creep: the rock is solid, but it deforms and flows like a fluid. The Los Alamos National Laboratory, where I had developed the model, was impressed, and in 1983 made me an offer to work in its theoretical division.
How does this work relate to the Genesis flood?
My main interest is in modelling catastrophic plate tectonics. Laboratory experiments show that silicate minerals can weaken by a factor of a billion under relatively modest stress change. As a slab of rock descends into the mantle, there's deformation in the zone between the slab and the surrounding mantle. As the stress increases, the material becomes weaker, allowing the slab to fall more rapidly. This increases the stress, so you have positive feedback. This allows plate motions that are generally understood to require hundreds of millions of years to unfold to occur in a few weeks. It results in significant deformation in the height of the continents' surfaces, and the height of the ocean's bottom. Apparently, the continents were largely submerged. In roughly a year's time, we have almost a complete resurfacing of the planet. At the end, we have a wrecked, desolate planet that is struggling to recover.
You have conceded one major problem, which is how the newly formed crust could cool so quickly.
That is a problem. There would have been supersonic jets of steam, which I once thought might have carried heat into space. But I'm persuaded now that you can't cool the plates by that mechanism. Still, I believe that this accounts for the 40 days and 40 nights of rain: ocean water was carried up with these jets. Most of what I've described involves the present laws of physics, but there are a couple of issues where I believe there must have been some form of divine intervention. One has to do with accelerating nuclear decay rates, which can explain why radioisotope methods seem to give dates for some rocks of hundreds of millions of years. The second is a mechanism for cooling.
For most scientists, this is hugely problematical. They cannot invoke divine intervention in this way.
I don't deny that most people would come down on the side of the conventional view, right now. Until the case is strong enough, it's foolhardy of me to ask and insist that my peers buy into it. I personally have confidence that it's true. My close peers, at least, know my position and are interested in it. But most of them want to continue to be in good standing with their colleagues.
You don't seem to worry much about peer approval.
I was in college during the radical sixties. Even though I did not participate in protests, I think I came away with that kind of radical outlook. The Biblical Christian also sees himself as a kind of revolutionary. True Christians generally haven't enjoyed a lot of approval.
“The Biblical Christian also sees himself as a kind of revolutionary”
Your papers in Nature and Science assume conventional geological timescales. How did you reconcile your authorship of these papers with your own views about the Earth's history?
I admit that I struggled with that. Basically, my rationalisation is that there's nothing wrong with the underlying physics that I described. There were a few points where I had some editorial input and tried to tone down some of the language. My colleagues felt strongly, since it was my computer code, that I should be an author. So I allowed it to go through. I believe God has called me to participate in the scientific community, not to be a Lone Ranger.
Tell me about your interactions with colleagues.
At Los Alamos, I found that my colleagues gave me a lot of respect. Not that they agreed with me, but they respected me for explaining and defending my position. A story about my work in US News & World Report in 1997 made more people aware of where I stood. About two weeks after that article appeared, I attended a workshop with about a hundred geophysics colleagues. There were two senior faculty from Harvard. One of them commended me for making clear what I believe and why. The second would not even make eye contact. I heard from others that he was incensed that somebody like me would be given standing in the earth science community.
In general there are three views: some people are positive, some are negative, but most senior colleagues don't want to engage. But at the American Geophysical Union meeting about three years ago, the younger geophysicists were genuinely interested.
Yet the AGU has stated that "creationism is not science". There are ideological people who lobbied to get that in there. I have protested. To give free rein to these atheists to bash people of faith is simply not the way the AGU should conduct itself. All I can do is say this is not appropriate. But I derive great benefit from being a member of AGU.
From issue 2581 of New Scientist magazine, 09 December 2006, page 54-55
* NewScientist.com news service
* Peter Aldhous
Few earth scientists believe that our planet was created some 10,000 years ago and maintain that the Biblical account of Noah's flood is the literal truth. To have published papers in Nature and Science while holding these views is almost unheard of. John Baumgardner, creationist and geophysical modeller, tells Peter Aldhous how his Christian faith has shaped an unusual scientific career.
You've said that your primary goal as a scientist is "defence of God's word". Is this consistent with the scientific method?
Most scientists try to make incremental contributions. There are a few who are strongly driven by their world view; Richard Dawkins is a pretty dramatic example. I would put myself in that same category, although I hope that I'm not as abrasive. If people can do it on the other side, why should I shrink back?
What led you to geophysical modelling?
My original training was in electrical engineering. Later, I had a Christian conversion. After four years working on laser optics in the air force I had three years with Campus Crusade for Christ. During that time I started doing lectures on the origins of the Earth as described in the Bible, and found myself doing a lot of background research. In 1978 I realised that the Genesis flood had to involve rapid large-scale tectonic change. So I started a PhD in geophysics at the University of California, Los Angeles.
During your PhD you developed a computer model for the interior of the Earth that has been widely used. Tell us about that.
It models convection in the Earth's mantle, treating it as a viscous fluid and partitioning it into a large number of cells. We model the flow of rock as the result of solid-state creep: the rock is solid, but it deforms and flows like a fluid. The Los Alamos National Laboratory, where I had developed the model, was impressed, and in 1983 made me an offer to work in its theoretical division.
How does this work relate to the Genesis flood?
My main interest is in modelling catastrophic plate tectonics. Laboratory experiments show that silicate minerals can weaken by a factor of a billion under relatively modest stress change. As a slab of rock descends into the mantle, there's deformation in the zone between the slab and the surrounding mantle. As the stress increases, the material becomes weaker, allowing the slab to fall more rapidly. This increases the stress, so you have positive feedback. This allows plate motions that are generally understood to require hundreds of millions of years to unfold to occur in a few weeks. It results in significant deformation in the height of the continents' surfaces, and the height of the ocean's bottom. Apparently, the continents were largely submerged. In roughly a year's time, we have almost a complete resurfacing of the planet. At the end, we have a wrecked, desolate planet that is struggling to recover.
You have conceded one major problem, which is how the newly formed crust could cool so quickly.
That is a problem. There would have been supersonic jets of steam, which I once thought might have carried heat into space. But I'm persuaded now that you can't cool the plates by that mechanism. Still, I believe that this accounts for the 40 days and 40 nights of rain: ocean water was carried up with these jets. Most of what I've described involves the present laws of physics, but there are a couple of issues where I believe there must have been some form of divine intervention. One has to do with accelerating nuclear decay rates, which can explain why radioisotope methods seem to give dates for some rocks of hundreds of millions of years. The second is a mechanism for cooling.
For most scientists, this is hugely problematical. They cannot invoke divine intervention in this way.
I don't deny that most people would come down on the side of the conventional view, right now. Until the case is strong enough, it's foolhardy of me to ask and insist that my peers buy into it. I personally have confidence that it's true. My close peers, at least, know my position and are interested in it. But most of them want to continue to be in good standing with their colleagues.
You don't seem to worry much about peer approval.
I was in college during the radical sixties. Even though I did not participate in protests, I think I came away with that kind of radical outlook. The Biblical Christian also sees himself as a kind of revolutionary. True Christians generally haven't enjoyed a lot of approval.
“The Biblical Christian also sees himself as a kind of revolutionary”
Your papers in Nature and Science assume conventional geological timescales. How did you reconcile your authorship of these papers with your own views about the Earth's history?
I admit that I struggled with that. Basically, my rationalisation is that there's nothing wrong with the underlying physics that I described. There were a few points where I had some editorial input and tried to tone down some of the language. My colleagues felt strongly, since it was my computer code, that I should be an author. So I allowed it to go through. I believe God has called me to participate in the scientific community, not to be a Lone Ranger.
Tell me about your interactions with colleagues.
At Los Alamos, I found that my colleagues gave me a lot of respect. Not that they agreed with me, but they respected me for explaining and defending my position. A story about my work in US News & World Report in 1997 made more people aware of where I stood. About two weeks after that article appeared, I attended a workshop with about a hundred geophysics colleagues. There were two senior faculty from Harvard. One of them commended me for making clear what I believe and why. The second would not even make eye contact. I heard from others that he was incensed that somebody like me would be given standing in the earth science community.
In general there are three views: some people are positive, some are negative, but most senior colleagues don't want to engage. But at the American Geophysical Union meeting about three years ago, the younger geophysicists were genuinely interested.
Yet the AGU has stated that "creationism is not science". There are ideological people who lobbied to get that in there. I have protested. To give free rein to these atheists to bash people of faith is simply not the way the AGU should conduct itself. All I can do is say this is not appropriate. But I derive great benefit from being a member of AGU.
From issue 2581 of New Scientist magazine, 09 December 2006, page 54-55
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)