Prove it or admit you can't

[MDM4AU 336]

AL.com - The Birmingham News, December 11, 2005

Prove it or admit you can't

Sunday, December 11, 2005

The debate over evolution, natural selection, creationism and intelligent design seems to me mostly a jumble of intellectually dishonest arguments. As with so many of society's debates, polarization of political positions has resulted in mere thinly veiled, snide attacks on the intelligence of those hold- ing the opposite position.

Darwin hypothesized two essential prongs for his theory of evolution: (a) that species "evolved" one from another through some process; and a bolder one, ( that the process was exclusively one of natural selection (survival of the fittest). Many people, and apparently most scientists, have accepted both prongs as fact. (See National Geographic Magazine, November 2004.)

Some religious people - the creationists - are troubled by the first prong, because it appears inconsistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis' description of creation.

Scientists are dismissive of creationists because of the fossil and geological records of the Earth's development. Creationists are hard-pressed to cite scientific evidence opposing that record, and Darwinists then claim victory for both prongs of Darwin's theory. Here, the scientists abandon their intellectual honesty.

Most people uncomfortable with Darwinism find trouble only with the second prong of his theory - the more speculative theory that development of species occurred solely through a process of natural (random) selection, without input of any "supernatural" or "intelligently designing" force. These believers in "intelligent design," if they are religious, may view Genesis as allegorical and not literal.

On the second prong of Darwinism, however, "intelligent designers" have the widely held view (88 percent, according to National Geographic) that an intelligent force has been at work in the universe with a role in the development of species.

Darwinists who attack intelligent design have scant evidence for their second-prong theory - that change occurs exclusively by natural selection, in no way attributable to intelligent design. Their best argument is that slight variations appear in species that could in theory have occurred naturally.

Understandably, they are in the uncomfortable position here of proving a negative. Consequently, they most often resort to two other arguments, both fundamentally dishonest.

First, they often obfuscate the debate by falling back on the weightier evidence for Darwin's first prong. Second, they define away their proof problem. Since they cannot prove that intelligent design did not cause the changes or proliferation of species, they argue that such a notion is inherently nonscientific, and that such a causation is out of bounds in any scientific discussion.

A little intellectual honesty is in order. Having stated a theory that expressly excludes intelligent design, science should admit it is incapable of proving or disproving intelligent design. Such proof is simply beyond the tools available to mortal man.

Having admitted that, they should admit - to that extent - that Darwin's second prong, natural selection of species, is not proven fact and cannot be proved fact, but merely a valid scientific theory that cannot be proved to be the ultimate causation of development of species, to the exclusion of intelligent design. They may legitimately state it is the only "scientific theory," but they must be willing to admit clearly the implications of that phrase.

As a believer in intelligent design, and one with some training in science, I can live with schools teaching Darwin's theory so long as this truth is admitted clearly within the context of that teaching. It is not asking too much of science that it admit what it can and what it cannot prove. Attorney David M. Wooldridge lives in Homewood. His e-mail address is dwooldridge@sirote.com.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Curious. Yesterday I watched Inherit the Wind for the 1st time. It's the play made into a movie based on the Scopes Monkey Trial from back in the 1920's. Having been interested in this issue myself, I found that many of the arguments raised in the movie were the same ones I've heard before, and still hear today. Intelligent Design, to some , brings a new wrinkle into the debate, but does not further the understanding of HOW evolution works.

[WarTim 3,457]

Brings to mind a line from the movie "Contact". Jody Foster's character is asked "Did you love your Father?" She says "yes, Very much."

..............."Prove it.".....................................

[vatz22au 142]

I think the topic of the thread is misguided. The article is not stating that evolution is wrong or that someone needs to prove it....but more in the sense that someone needs to prove or disprove if "natural" selection is "intelligent design."

It is not asking too much of science that it admit what it can and what it cannot prove

Its not much to ask religion that same question either. Yes, religion involves 100% faith in what is being told to you is the truth.... But isn't that a little unfair to science when debating? Here we have people saying," Well...it just is," and that argument is supposed to be respected with little or no proof at all, whereas science's theories need a great load of proof and history for it to prove true, and even then you have religious scholars saying," Wheres your proof?"

I do believe in a God, but I dont believe all of this was created the way the bible portrays it. Do I believe in intelligent design? I guess you could say I believe in some type of intelligent design...but my version of intelligent design is much more complex than what most like to think of it as.

[quietfan 233]

The issue isn't, or at least shouldn't be, whether intelligent design is true or false. It is whether intelligent design can be discussed from a scientific basis. Proponents of teaching intelligent design in science classes overlook two essential elements of scientific reasoning:

1) Every legitimate scientific hypothesis must include the element of "falsifiability". That is, every legitimate scientific theory must include a means to prove it false if indeed it is false. For example: "The moon is made of green cheese" is a legitimate scientific hypothesis because there is a means to test it and demonstrate its falsehood--which indeed we did by actually going there and taking samples. "Isaac Newton was the smartest man that ever lived" is not a legitimate scientific hypothesis because there is no way to prove it wrong even if it is wrong.

There are several ways that the traditional view of evolution might be proven wrong. Discovery of a stone age spear point embedded in a dinosaur bone with the bone showing healing around it would clearly demonstrate that early man lived simultaneously with dinosaurs. Discovery of a new species with DNA so radically different from all other DNA on the planet that it could not have evolved from the same roots as all other living things would also go a long way toward disproving the conventional view of evolution. Legitimate scientists LOVE to prove cherished scientific ideas wrong--those are the sort of discoveries that lead to Noble Prizes! I have yet to hear of any means by which "intelligent design" can be tested and proven false if it were false.

2) Secondly, proving one hypothesis false does not imply another idea is true. Intelligent design proponents spend a lot of time attacking evolution. The flaw in that approach, from a scientific viewpoint, is that even if evolution were to be proven false, that would be no proof that "intelligent design" was correct. [Conversely, supporting evolution is not saying that intelligent design couldn't have occured, it simple says there is a natural process by which life as we as we know it could have happened, regardless of whether there was a "designer" or not.]

I have absolutely no problem with someone believing in intelligent design. I happen to believe in a creator myself. But don't call it science, teach it in a comparative religion class (or preferably outside of the state-supported schools entirely. IMHO). Teaching it a science class is like teaching the value of a straight flush poker hand in a chess class. Different rules-different classes.