Open Letter to Emeryroolz: Evolution, Science and Reality

Emeryroolz, MG, and anyone else on the opposite side of the fence should take note that BenTheGreen's stance is not strictly ID, but that of a devout Catholic espousing ID. ID doesn't specifically mention God, god, or what have you.

Living things HAVE been proven to change and adapt to changes in their environment.

To change or perhaps broaden the conversation somewhat, I am wondering if, while we are taking about the scientific merit of ID (which I am still hoping someone will explain), we might also include in the discussion the scientific merit of ET. Because as regards the latter, I think we need to make a distinction between the observed microevolution that occurs within a species -- such as Darwin observed in the finches on the Galapagos Islands -- and the hypothesis of macroevolution in which one species is transubstantiated into another by a purely natural process.

Microevolution (or "decent with modification" as Darwin called it) says quite reasonably: If there is a struggle for existence, and if individuals vary in terms of their traits, then certain individuals will have traits that make them more successful at surviving and reproducing than other individuals. And if some of these variations are inherited, then traits that promote success will become more common in future generations because individuals possessing them will leave more offspring.

Macroevolution, on the other hand, says: If we breed dogs long enough we can get horses.

(Only one of these is based on clear scientific evidence. Can you guess which one?)

At this point, without advancing any position, I would like to point out that many people who have a religious belief in creation also have a scientific belief in microevolution -- whether they be pure creationists who think that life as we know it is the result of an unspecified intelligently guided process, or Biblical creationists who believe more or less in the Genesis story. (I don't know if ID theorists believe in creation or not. Anyone?)

Wikipedia isn´t exactly a source complied by experts, but their treatment of ID is exceedingly fair, in my opinion - pros, cons, and origins.

I make this point, Emeryroolz, because there seems to be in your writing an unstated assumption that religion and science are not just in a state of tension but fundamentally irreconcilable; yet many of the great scientists themselves professed a religion of one kind or another (be it Christianity or Pythagorean mysticism). It would be a discredit to their genius to write that off as a quirk.

Also, the fact that the universe is contingent is really, really obvious evidence for ID, and also for creation (of any sort). You don't need a monotheistic religion to tell you that the universe is contingent; even the ancient pagans knew as much.

Since I'm too lazy to look up proof in the bible, I'll let this guy do it for me.

Edward Babinski's arguments are invalid because he deduces a scientific conclusion from a non-scientific text. In short, the Bible is for instructing us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

It was this RELIGIOUS belief that lead to Galileo's trail for HERESY.

Before you buy into the authorized version of a "lonely champion of the enlightenment being oppressed by a blind, despotic Church," let's consider some facts.

Fact number one: Copernicus' "De Revolutionibus," published after the author's death in 1543, was not put on the Index until 1616, after Galileo started misinterpreting it.

Fact number two: The Vatican's chief theologian, Cardinal Roberto Bellarmine, was a professed Copernican, and he said at one point that if Copernicanism were verified, "it would be necessary to use careful consideration in explaining the Scriptures that seemed contrary, and we should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say that something is false which had been proven." (qtd. in Galileo's Mistake) This was nothing new; over a thousand years ealier, St. Augustine had said: "Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, . . . and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn." (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 19)

Fact number three: Galileo could not account for the apparent lack of stellar parallax, and without this his theory could be reasonably doubted as an exact description of physical reality. (This was later was discovered by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel in 1838.)

Fact number four: In May of 1611, Galileo travels to Rome where he is honored for his astronomical discoveries at a banquet by the mathematicians at Collegio Romano.

And, finally,

Fact number five: Thus encouraged, Galileo in 1615 published his "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina," in which he argued that not only had the Copernican thesis been conclusively demonstrated, but that the new scientific method had shown its clear superiority over Scripture as a guide to the universe.

I would suggest (though I am not entirely convinced of it myself) that the trial of 1633 was not about Copernicism per se but instead about Galileo's misunderstanding about the nature of science. Galileo said in The Assayer: "For this reason it appears that nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question." Galileo was not proposing the Copernican system as a new model to understand the movements of the heavens, which is what Copernicus did; rather he was saying that this system was exactly descriptive of reality (which it wasn't, not exactly anyways, but the corrections came later). Galileo is saying that empirical evidence, or "that which sense-experience sets before our eyes," is definite and unchallengeable, that it is known without uncertainty.

To be fair, though Galileo was wrong about the nature of science, it is precisely this Enlightenment idea of trusting your senses first and foremost, before all else, that gave rise to the boon in science we still enjoy today. The argument may need a bit of rewording - a picture of Galileo misunderstanding science when science as we know it today was just beginning to wake up isn't quite accurate, since the Church didn't have this kind of science yet either.

That is of course obviously wrong, and the whole history of science testifies against it. Scientific models of nature are not pre-existing truths but human constructs. They are mappings of the phenomena. To say we have come to the end of these mappings is to say there will never be another scientific revolution in which the accepted model is overturned and a new one is created. Sure, you can think that if you want. Until the next genius comes along and proves you wrong.

Wade Rowland makes the following comments in his book "Galileo's Mistake":

The interesting question that arises out of this historical fact is why did the Church formally and vehemently reject Copernicanism, even though it harbored strong suspicions of its validity? To ask that question is to begin to realize that Galileo's dispute with the Church was not about Copernicanism per se. In other words, it was not about whether the Earth moves. What, then, was it about?

The dispute was over two conflicting views of the nature of truth and reality and about the roles religion and science ought to play in defining the world we live in. Of far more fundamental concern to the Church than the details of the Copernican hypothesis was Galileo's belief in the reality of number, his conviction that the Universe was essentially a mathematical entity, in some literal way composed of numbers . . . .

For the Church, a mathematical, mechanistic interpretation of nature could never be more than a model, an intellectual artifact. Between theory and reality there would always be a gap that could not be bridged by human reason.

Roeland's argument, as a whole, isn't entirely convincing (it actually accounts for several facts, except one which lies right at the heart of the matter). But at least he takes into consideration some of the historical facts that the usual Galileo myth overlooks and can't explain; like the following quote of Galileo from The Assayer:

Philosophy is written in this grand book the universe, which stands continually open to our gaze; but the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and to read the alphabet in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one wanders about in a dark labyrinth.

These silly scientists; they think their particular mode of knowledge is the only one.

Thanks for contributing, Ben. And here are the questions someone needs to answer in a rebuttal or argument for either side:

1. Whether or nt ID is a fully scientific theory based on current definitions of science,

2. Whether or not it should be considered for teaching, whether or not it fits the current definitions of science, and

3. What the hell is science?