![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dreamer_easyThe latest New Scientist (16/12/06) reports on a change in tactics by proponents of Intelligent Design. One reason they've been thrashed in court for promoting religion as science is that they've done no scientific research. Funded by organisations such as the Discovery Institute, a handful of scientists are doing research with a view to its use in promoting ID, probably in the courtroom.
This is a clever move. Pointing out that ID is "not science" sounds like an insult, rather than a fact crucial in a First Amendment court challenge. (It's not poetry, either.) If ID proponents can get some papers published, they have a chance of giving their religion the cachet of "science" - perhaps even of convincing judges.
Creationism and ID are both "God of the gaps" stuff. When their proponents are not actually lying, they highlight areas of biology which are controversial, or still not well understood. Doing actual research is a radical step. But if the research NS describes is going to be typical, it's not much of a move forward from the standard claims. NS cites two papers by the same scientist. One experiment showed that multiple mutations in an enzyme can stop it from working; but evolution occurs in small steps, not by sudden transformations (this idea of "saltation" is a scientific relic). The second paper is a calculation of how likely it is that a random sequence of amino acids will turn out to be a functioning enzyme. This is saltation again; it's also the common myth that evolution is a random process. Chance plays a role in natural selection, providing the raw material it works on, but selection itself is the opposite of random chance.
I think this last point is important because of the creepy idea that we might be here for no reason at all - alone and pointless. The fact that natural selection works automatically, without needing someone to oversee it, is counter-intuitive to that gut feeling that there's some purpose to this muddle of a world, let alone how it knocks down the idea of someone lovingly designing every detail of every creature. But natural selection, and the idea of some purpose to the universe, are not mutually exclusive ideas; many people believe that the Divine works through powerful natural laws like natural selection, which are therefore part of a greater plan.
(I suppose the first paper could be used to argue that abiogenesis must have had an intelligent helping hand - although the same issue of NS reports yet another experiment which shows that the basic molecules and processes of life could have occurred spontaneously. I'm always struck by how our bodies and biochemistry are both incredibly complex and incredibly simple.)
I also wanted to mention that, according to Discover, a curious Richard Dawkins had the God Spot in his brain stimulated and was disappointed he didn't have a mystical experience. This adds fuel to my personal theory that some people have the gene and the neural structures for religion, and some don't, and wonder what on earth the rest of us are on about. :-)
This is a clever move. Pointing out that ID is "not science" sounds like an insult, rather than a fact crucial in a First Amendment court challenge. (It's not poetry, either.) If ID proponents can get some papers published, they have a chance of giving their religion the cachet of "science" - perhaps even of convincing judges.
Creationism and ID are both "God of the gaps" stuff. When their proponents are not actually lying, they highlight areas of biology which are controversial, or still not well understood. Doing actual research is a radical step. But if the research NS describes is going to be typical, it's not much of a move forward from the standard claims. NS cites two papers by the same scientist. One experiment showed that multiple mutations in an enzyme can stop it from working; but evolution occurs in small steps, not by sudden transformations (this idea of "saltation" is a scientific relic). The second paper is a calculation of how likely it is that a random sequence of amino acids will turn out to be a functioning enzyme. This is saltation again; it's also the common myth that evolution is a random process. Chance plays a role in natural selection, providing the raw material it works on, but selection itself is the opposite of random chance.
I think this last point is important because of the creepy idea that we might be here for no reason at all - alone and pointless. The fact that natural selection works automatically, without needing someone to oversee it, is counter-intuitive to that gut feeling that there's some purpose to this muddle of a world, let alone how it knocks down the idea of someone lovingly designing every detail of every creature. But natural selection, and the idea of some purpose to the universe, are not mutually exclusive ideas; many people believe that the Divine works through powerful natural laws like natural selection, which are therefore part of a greater plan.
(I suppose the first paper could be used to argue that abiogenesis must have had an intelligent helping hand - although the same issue of NS reports yet another experiment which shows that the basic molecules and processes of life could have occurred spontaneously. I'm always struck by how our bodies and biochemistry are both incredibly complex and incredibly simple.)
I also wanted to mention that, according to Discover, a curious Richard Dawkins had the God Spot in his brain stimulated and was disappointed he didn't have a mystical experience. This adds fuel to my personal theory that some people have the gene and the neural structures for religion, and some don't, and wonder what on earth the rest of us are on about. :-)
