Credibility

November 25, 2005

Dilbert's Scott Adams gets to the nub of a communication issue. He's talking about the evolution-education controversy. But in general, when contempt on one or both sides of any issue runs high, how is someone inquiring from the middle with a reasonably open mind to judge? Playing to the galleries of the already-extreme does not win votes, or shed light.

The average person (me) has no credible source of information on the topic of evolution.

Let me say very clearly here that I’m not denying the EXISTENCE of slam-dunk credible evidence for evolution. What I’m denying is the existence of credible PEOPLE to inform me of this evidence.

The people who purport to have evidence of evolution do a spectacular job of making themselves non-credible.

Disagreeable. Too busy&smart to deign to marshall and explain evidence and answer objections without a pose of weariness and exasperation. Condescending, contemptuous, and throwing a tantrum that the mere earthlings would dare to question Us. Us!

Persuasion score: Needs Improvement.

Always-useful questions:

• What can I learn here?
• How might I improve my position?
• How can I serve my fellow man in this matter?
  

Comments

[Jeff Hull]

I see the ID debate as one end result of the spate of "religious cleansing" in the US, the asault by organized liberalism (ACLU et al) on religious symbolism in public spaces, "under God" in the Pledge, etc. This has polarized and energized the religious "base" to strike back. They sense (correctly, I think) that the fight in the courts is irretrievably lost. Hence, religionists have taken up arms in a venue where they might win; unfortunately, that venue is public education - where school board members are elected locally and are perforce responsive to voter desires. For a century, Christian religion and science have honored a cease-fire of sorts: render unto science that which is of science, and unto God that which is His. The search for truths concerning the material world and the search for Truth in the spiritual were held to be separate endeavors that could co-exist. Hence the long roster of famous scientists who were and are professing believers in God.

But now, a sham battle is waged on that last field of combat, the ground around the schoolhouse. The bald fact is that ID advocates want some semblance of religion to be taught in public schools, but courts have forbidden about all they can forbid, and leave little wiggle-room. So religionists have latched on to the ID issue and drawn something of a desperate line in the sand. "Here, we will stand."

Since ID is such a uniquely American chimera of teleologic pseudoscience, it almost amounts to an establishment of a US state religion - the Founders would blanch. But the ID fight must be, viewed in the historical time frame, a temporary and ultimately doomed rear-guard action on the part of religion. Whether it dies a natural death in a few years, or is given the coup de grace by the Federal judiciary is anyone's guess.

Mr. Adams sehnsucht for reasonable voices to chat reasonably about ID pro and con is unconvincing for me. I am surprized the "debate" is as civil as it is, given the enormity of what ID advocates propose: the "spiritualization" of science education. But I suspect that is because most scientists do not take the ID side seriously, and the ones who do take it seriously are too busy getting their children out of public schools and into private secular education. One more blow to public schools, one more group of educated and involved parents - lifeblood of any school - abandoning ship. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

So at the end of the day, the ACLU has gone a long way to achieving its ends by provoking the worst possible response from unwitting religionists and conservatives, who have played right into the trap. As usual, the real losers are the bright children of the not-so-wealthy in public schools where ID will be taught. They might have learned some science and gone on to achieve something. But nature (undirected by Divine intervention) corrects all imbalances eventually on the way to the bottom of the entropy well; the ID boomlet will ultimately fade into the history books as a quaint footnote on early 21st century history.

And we may take heart in this as well: American children learn standard science curriculum so poorly now - the prospect poor that they will have any clue about the principle tenets of ID.

[Robert Godwin]

What is ironic is that science is thoroughly rooted in Judeo-Christian metaphysics. In short, it rests on a foundation of revelation that is completely unwarranted by science itself. This has been understood ever since Whitehead's "Science and the Modern World," and is being re-emphasized by scholars such as Rodney Stark (his latest book is called The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and and Western Success." As as overall explanatory paradigm, scientific materialism is a non-starter.

[Robert Godwin]

Also, the fear that belief in ID will somehow damage one's capacity to do science is completely unwarranted. It never interfered with Newton or Einstein. If anything, it will get people even more interested in pure science. In other words, science is much more intellectually (that is to say, philosophically) appealing if stripped of its unwaranted scientistic trappings.

An interesting little article makes this point at techcentralstation:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/100705C.html

[Robert Godwin]

And another thing. America is by far the most religious developed country, and by far the most scientifically advanced. If one believes that science and faith are at odds with each other, one would have to explain this huge anomaly. One would also have to explain why the most purely atheistic regimes lag so far behind the US scientifically. One would think they would jump out ahead because they are so rational, but I believe atheistic cultures will always lag behind us. Where's the joy and meaning in working as a godless scientific drone in a Marxist workers paradise, like China?

[Jeff Hull]

"What is ironic is that science is thoroughly rooted in Judeo-Christian metaphysics."

Only in that Judeo-Christian metaphysics is a way-station on the journey back to Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics.

"In short, it rests on a foundation of revelation that is completely unwarranted by science itself."

Untrue. In fact, any revelation not "warranted by science" is inadmissible. This is what the whole debate is about, and I'm afraid your assertion hops right over that fact as if it were not there.

"As as overall explanatory paradigm, scientific materialism is a non-starter."

This assertion will come as news to scientists. I am curious how ID advocates who make such assertions feel justified to dip into materialism anyway as they pick and choose? That is, they will go along with evolution (materialism) to a point, but then want to suddenly warp out into another dimension of spiritualism to explain a supposed teleologic event of evolution. Evolve, evolve, evolve, MIRACLE, evolve, evolve ...

"Also, the fear that belief in ID will somehow damage one's capacity to do science is completely unwarranted. It never interfered with Newton or Einstein. If anything, it will get people even more interested in pure science. In other words, science is much more intellectually (that is to say, philosophically) appealing if stripped of its unwarranted scientistic trappings."

I don't know what the scientistic trappings are that you mention. I believe I alluded sufficiently to the idea that "ID or not ID" is a political question, not a scientific one, and has no bearing on whether a person can "do science" competently as long as the ground rules of scientific investigation are observed. It is indeed possible to believe in ID or bald creationism, and still be both a good scientist and a good Christian. This is achieved by compartmentalization of thought and activity (Orwell called it doublethink, and we all do it all the time), in the analogous way that some scientists are politically liberal or conservative. Whether a scientist votes for Bush or Kerry is irrelevant to the molecular weight of his new chemical compound. Likewise, he can believe in miraculous intervention to "guide" evolution to the present state of life on earth, all the while making useful new chemicals. However, if he wants to inject God into his test tube to explain his new compound he will have a hard time convincing his colleagues.

Likewise, should he attempt to inject God into the study of evolution, he will have (at least) two related thorny problems: one is that in order to assert that God made the species differentiate, he will have to come up with a test that if positive will disprove his assertion - that is, only supernatural intervention could explain this result, but lo and behold, we found a non-supernatural cause. ID is advocated as a competing theory, and as such must obey the rules for theories: they are temporary approximations of truth, subject to refutation and improvement. No such test or refutation has been advanced to date; game over. The other more interesting parallel to the first difficulty is that any assertion that teleologic force caused species suddenly to change is in constant peril from any new paleontological discovery that fills in prior gaps in the fossil record. It is for just this reason that religion attempted to suppress science in the bad old days: fear of what would be found. ID advocates say, "Look at the gap in the fossil record. That proves there had to be supernatural intervention." Which sets up ID for immediate disproof when the gaps are filled, which is precisely what has been going on for the last century, and will doubtless continue. More and more of the fossil record gets filled in, and DNA analysis traces the descent of species even in the absence of bones for the museums.

"And another thing. America is by far the most religious developed country, and by far the most scientifically advanced. If one believes that science and faith are at odds with each other, one would have to explain this huge anomaly."

Science and faith are not at odds with one another, any more that the English language and the Chinese language are "at odds with one another." Each language is a different way to discourse about the universe. Each language has its own vocabulary, grammar, idioms, and syntax. They can coexist in harmony, but one is well advised to stick with one or the other in conversation, or there is going to be one heck of a misunderstanding.

"One would also have to explain why the most purely atheistic regimes lag so far behind the US scientifically. One would think they would jump out ahead because they are so rational, but I believe atheistic cultures will always lag behind us. Where's the joy and meaning in working as a godless scientific drone in a Marxist workers paradise, like China?"

I would personally hesitate to accept so unquestioningly the idea that Marxist societies were rational. Regardless of the propaganda produced by the various totalitarian regimes claiming to be governed by "rationality," communism is so clearly antithetical to human nature, that claims these societies were rational in any way cannot be maintained with a straight face.

More to the point, the observation that science has thrived in Western societies that were more or less governed by Judeo-Christian religion and morality is one more support for the idea that religion should keep OUT of science, since (up to now) religion and science had a reached very workable detante. Remember that the West in the dark ages was not just Christian, but almost brutally so, and science was suppressed. The rise of science historically was paralleled by the liberalization of religion, especially in that religion decided to butt out of science. ID apologists are fighting not just the last war, but a war that played out three or four hundred years ago. What they do not see is that attacking science (and it is an attack) is a loser from the get-go. If the Inquisition could not stifle free and unbiased scientific enquiry, what makes them think the Podunk School Board can do it? And what can this ill-advised adventure ultimately gain for religion? Nothing, save humiliation and discrediting, which if anything will push people away from exploring the spiritual - they really might wind up as Godless scientific drones.

Religion has a grand bounty of offerings for advancing the happiness of man. While it may suggest fertile fields for investigation about the nature of man and his relation to his world, religion has, like it or not, nothing at all to offer the scientific method per se. Likewise, the scientific method has a grand bounty of offerings for advancing the knowledge of man in his universe. It may even eventually be able to explain many aspects of human behavior. Nonetheless, science as a method of inquiry has zero to offer religion on the spiritual questions of human or transcendent meaning.

[Robert Godwin]

“Only in that Judeo-Christian metaphysics is a way-station on the journey back to Platonic and Aristotelian metaphysics.

--Other way around. Christianity resolves the conflict between A & P by positing the logoistic metaphysics employed by science

“Untrue. In fact, any revelation not "warranted by science" is inadmissible. This is what the whole debate is about, and I'm afraid your assertion hops right over that fact as if it were not there.”

--That’s just wrong. For example, Christianity posits the existence of truth and free will, both necessary to science but unprovable by it.

"As as overall explanatory paradigm, scientific materialism is a non-starter."
This assertion will come as news to scientists.

--Agreed. Few scientists think about the metaphysical implications of science.

“I am curious how ID advocates who make such assertions feel justified to dip into materialism anyway as they pick and choose? That is, they will go along with evolution (materialism) to a point, but then want to suddenly warp out into another dimension of spiritualism to explain a supposed teleologic event of evolution. Evolve, evolve, evolve, MIRACLE, evolve, evolve ...

--That’s a charicature. I no more “dip into” materialism than I “dip into” having a body. Vertical causation is not a miracle.

“I don't know what the scientistic trappings are that you mention.

--Reducing the hierarchy of being to a single level, flatland ontlogy that can never account for the upper storeys, such as the existence of scientific minds that may know truth.

“The other more interesting parallel to the first difficulty is that any assertion that teleologic force caused species suddenly to change is in constant peril from any new paleontological discovery that fills in prior gaps in the fossil record. It is for just this reason that religion attempted to suppress science in the bad old days: fear of what would be found. ID advocates say, "Look at the gap in the fossil record. That proves there had to be supernatural intervention." Which sets up ID for immediate disproof when the gaps are filled, which is precisely what has been going on for the last century, and will doubtless continue. More and more of the fossil record gets filled in, and DNA analysis traces the descent of species even in the absence of bones for the museums.

--Disagree. ID does not hang on the thus far non-discovery of the thousands of transitional fossils that should have been discoverd by now.

“Science and faith are not at odds with one another, any more that the English language and the Chinese language are "at odds with one another."

False analogy--Chinese and English are parallel, whereas philosophy and science are perpendicular--you can’t reduce philosophy to science. Or I suppose you could try again to resuscitate logical postivism.

“I would personally hesitate to accept so unquestioningly the idea that Marxist societies were rational. Regardless of the propaganda produced by the various totalitarian regimes claiming to be governed by "rationality," communism is so clearly antithetical to human nature, that claims these societies were rational in any way cannot be maintained with a straight face.

--Then what in your mind accounts for their being irrational about everything except the rational belief in the non-existence of God?

“More to the point, the observation that science has thrived in Western societies that were more or less governed by Judeo-Christian religion and morality is one more support for the idea that religion should keep OUT of science, since (up to now) religion and science had a reached very workable detante.

--Exactly. Scientists should stop making metaphysical pronouncements about ther findings, and leave it to the experts.

“Remember that the West in the dark ages was not just Christian, but almost brutally so, and science was suppressed.

--Respectfully, a cliche. Modern scholarship has debunked that view. There are very well understood reasons why science developed only in Christendom and no where else.

[dilys]

All I can say, fatuously, is that I always wanted to host a salon. I frankly believe Drs Hull and Godwin have brought Chez Dilys as frabjously close to the shade of Mme de Staël as ever it is possible or desirable to be.

Terribly superficial, I know, in contrast to your really fine joining of the incidental issue.

I'll just go join the dancing monkey on the sidelines now...

[Jeff Hull]

I think my position is clear enough, as is yours. We're on opposite sides of the fence, and as Mr. Adams observed, are talking past each other. I have made the assertion that ID advocates are choosing the wrong fight at the wrong time with the wrong ideas for the wrong reasons. It is a disaster in the making for religion, and it is a senseless and futile exercise. ID advocates want ID to be taught as a "theory," when it is not. It is an assertion, and not just any assertion: it holds as its central tenet "irreducible complexity," which is to say that because ID advocates cannot imagine how life could evolve without "intelligent design" (supernatural intervention) it could not have done so. This is argument at its most pathetic.

The facts offer cold comfort to ID advocates. Their "theory" neither explains nor predicts anything in the physical world. The future for them looks even more bleak. Politically, they cannot win more than temporary token victories in parts of the country. These "victories" will consist of turning over to predominantly liberal science teachers the job of teaching this "alternative theory" with as much gusto as they teach American history with a neutral outlook. Good luck.

And finally, when the political pendulum inevitably swings back to the left and ID loses any semblance of political support, this affair will be trotted out as exhibit A in the indictment of conservatism and the demonizing of religion as refuge of the ignorant and malicious. The religious cleansing of the country's public life will accelerate.

I am reminded of what Sir Thomas More said to the treacherous Richard Rich in the film, "A Man for All Seasons": "Richard, the Lord said that it did not profit a man to gain the whole world if he lost his soul. The whole world, Richard ... but for Wales?"

I admit the possibility that my interpretation of events and predictions for the future may be wrong. It is after all, simply my theory - there is that word again. But I shall leave to the judgement of history whether I am right or wrong. My theory will be tested empirically. "Intelligent design" cannot.