Darwinism completely refutes Intelligent design

[Dr.Phool]

Daniel Dennett has a lot of smart things to say here. Long interview, but a good read.

And a bonus: Eve gets naked in church.




SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH EVOLUTION PHILOSOPHER DANIEL DENNETT

"Darwinism Completely Refutes Intelligent Design"

Intelligent Design is once again making headlines in the United States. But what is the attraction? Daniel Dennett spoke with SPIEGEL about the attraction of creationism, how religion itself succumbs to Darwinian ideas, and the social irresponsibility of the religious right in America.

Can Darwinism explain the creation of the universe as well?
Zoom
NASA / ESA
Can Darwinism explain the creation of the universe as well?
SPIEGEL: Professor Dennett, more than 120 million Americans believe that God created Adam our of mud some 10,000 years ago and made Eve from his rib. Do you personally know any of these 120 million?

Dennett: Yes. But people who are creationists are usually not interested in talking about it. Those who are actually enthusiastic about Intelligent Design, though, would talk endlessly. And what I learned about them is that they are filled with misinformation. But they've encountered this misinformation in very plausible sources. It's not just their pastor that tells them this. They go out and they buy books that are published by main line publishers. Or they go on Web sites and they see very clever propaganda that is put out by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, which is financed by the religious right.

SPIEGEL: In the center of the debate is the theory of evolution. Why is it that evolution seems to produce much more opposition than any other scientific theory such as the Big Bang or quantum mechanics?

Dennett: I think it is because evolution goes right to the heart of the most troubling discovery in science of the last few hundred years. It counters one of the oldest ideas we have, maybe older even than our species.

(snip)much more at

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,392319,00.html

[benburch]

1. Thanks for this pointer!

:yourock:

[slackmaster]

2. ID doesn't even present a falsfiable alternative explanation to evolution

It doesn't even qualify as a proper hypothesis. It's a collection of critiques of evolutionary biology contrived by religious zealots in order to bamboozle clueless school boards into teaching fundamentalist Christian creation mythology as alternative to evolution and natural selection.

[giant_robot]

7. I was thinking about this last night..

If we go strictly by scientific method, id proponents must develop a hypothesis, then state a null hypothesis. Since it is very difficult to logically prove anything, they would then have to disprove the null hypothesis. When the null hypothesis is disproven, the hypothesis is accepted.

Their null hypothesis would have to be something along the line of, "There is no intelligent force driving evolution." So in a nutshell, the onus is upon the proponents of id to disprove years and years of evidence supporting the idea that evolution is driven by the natural selection of desirable traits over many generations.

If they can't adhere to the scientific method, they have no place in the science classroom.

edit: typo and clarity

[bryant69]

3. This is one of those issues where the core issue is never discussed

The core question is "Does Darwinism / Evolution prove the non-Existence of God?" For most people the answer to this question is probably no (at least that's my take, based on conversations on the subject).

For many of the most partisan on both sides (particularly on the I.D. side) the answer is apparently yes. That's why they get upset that their kids are learning Darwinism; they believe it is an attack on their faith. And compounding that is the fact that many of the most vocal opponents of Intelligent Design do also seem to have something to say about Religion.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[the other one]

4. Good interview. nt

[BushOut06]

5. Nice, but wrong on one point

They think the universe was created 6000 years ago. I've even heard some say that dinosaurs never existed, that God simply placed the fossils in the earth to confound humans. Of course, other creationist schools of thought hold that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. I don't know which is more preposterous.

[Dr.Phool]

6. The ones who say Satan planted the fossils

To trick us.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. That's not thinking it through --

to do that, Satan would have had to create the fossils, and creation is purely the province of God. Satan cannot create.

Which leaves us with, God created the fossils. In order to test our faith, e.g., to trick us into damnation.

Interesting concept.

[BushOut06]

14. Believe it or not, that's the argument I heard

God planted the fossils to test man's faith in him. For those foolish enough to actually believe they are real fossils millions of years old - to hell with them! Hehehehe

[C_U_L8R]

8. A Good Mind - A Good Read

Smart & Well-Thought Argument Against the Paleo-Freeps
and a sober warning to us all...

"But I can say, the alliance between fundamentalists or evangelical religion and right wing politics is a very troubling phenomenon and this is certainly one of the most potent reasons for it. What's really scary is that a lot of them seem to think that the second coming is around the corner -- the idea that we're going to have Armageddon anyway so it doesn't make much difference. I find that to be socially irresponsible on the highest order. It's scary."

[Ready4Change]

9. I've a slightly different take on this than Dennett.

I don't think Evolution Theory debunks God or Intelligent Design. As there is no evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to NOT consider the possibility that a greater being sparked the existance of our universe billions of years ago, and tweaked that spark precisely so that the laws of physics could give rise to what we see in our universe today.

To me, in the void of any evidence, that idea is just as valid as the idea that it all happened out of pure chance. There is just no, zero, evidence one way or another.

Now, humans have some developed some really science regarding the universes very earliest moments, and how those moments progressed to today. That science is based on observations and repeatable tests, which clearly indicate a universal age in the billions, rather than thousands, of years. Any suggestion to the contrary, such as "God just created things so they'd LOOK old" is unsupported conjecture.

To me, just because God (or the FSM) is all knowing and powerful, doesn't mean it won't do things in an efficient manner. So I wonder, would it make more sense for such a being go through all the effort to create an old looking universe? Or does it make MORE sense for such a being to create rules by which the universe would create itself? To me, the latter not only makes more sense, but it is a great deal more miraculous when you try to imagine the immense control it would require.

Heck, such a being might create rules of pure chance, which would spark an infinite number of universes, one of which is ours. Thus, both chance AND the FSM could be true.

I think fundamentalists are shooting their dogmas in the foot when they insist on continued literal interpretations in the face of scientific findings. I think a far more compelling picture can be formed by accepting the findings of science and then seeing how religion fits around them.

(And no, I'm not convinced there is a being who created all this. I love toying with the concept, but I need convincing evidence.)

[DanCa]

11. ID is just a way to get prolife politics into the school system

It's kindof like how regannomics were introduced into economics courses. I also think that ID design is just the first step in an attempt to merge all religions into a generic conservative brand.. After that the national church of prolife is a stones throw away. Gawd I miss President Clinton. Despite his faults he didnt care for this crowd.

[porphyrian]

12. Dennett is studying religion as a meme, whether or not he knows it.

He talks about propagation and evolution, which are prime memetic characteristics.

[DFWdem]

13. I disagree

I don't think intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive. I believe in god, and believe that the universe was created by god, but I also believe that everything god created is constantly evolving. Essentially, god created the heavens and earth, got the ball rolling if you will, and then nature took over. Of course, I don't think intelligent design should be part of a science curriculum.