That Darwin poll (hat-tip to [livejournal.com profile] miss_s_b)...

Feb. 12th, 2009 11:30 am
djm4_lj: (Lizard)
[personal profile] djm4_lj
You know the poll, the poll conducted by Theos which suggested that over half the population of Britain believed that the theory of evolution cannot explain the full complexity of life on Earth, and of which Paul Woolley, director of Theos said: "Darwin is being used by certain atheists today to promote their cause. The result is that, given the false choice of evolution or God, people are rejecting evolution."

Hold that quote by Paul Woolley in your head, and now read what the poll questions, presumably set by Theos, actually were.

I couldn't have said 'yes' to any of those. I don't believe in God, so options 1, 2 & 4 are out, but I also don't think evolution makes belief in God either unnecessary or absurd. Dennett, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, argues that the theory of evolution, by successfully explaining one of the great mysteries that was previously only explicable by reference to a god/gods (or else left unexplained), knocked away one of the main pillars used to support belief in God. I think Dennett is probably correct when he identifies this as the source of much of the church's hostility to Darwin, but it evolution in-and-of-itself doesn't render God either unnecessary or absurd, and it's something of an abuse of the power of the theory to use it in that way, IMO.

Additionally, if 34% of people believe "Atheistic evolution - the idea that evolution makes belief in God unnecessary and absurd" is definitely or probably true, and 44% of people believe "Theistic evolution - the idea that evolution is the means that God used for the creation of all living things on earth" is definitely or probably true, I make that 78% support for evolution even before you cout the people like me who think: "Evolution is probably true, and there is overwhelming evidence for the theory. This is independent of my belief or otherwise in God."

Theos report here. Theos survey data here.

Date: 2009-02-12 03:29 pm (UTC)
djm4: (Default)
From: [personal profile] djm4
It's not science unless they explain how it works.

I sort of see what you mean, and 'Intelligent Design' does fail at this hugely, but I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. Darwin himself did some moderately well regarded science without explaining how most of it worked; that understanding came bit-by-bit over the next century. It didn't stop his systematic compiling of observations, and hypotheses about their interpretations, from being science in the truest and best sense.

Date: 2009-02-12 03:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] valkyriekaren.livejournal.com
Yes, it's true that Darwin didn't have all the evidence to prove his theory - and he admits that throughout the Origin. He didn't (couldn't!) know about tectonic plates, or DNA, or the pre-Cambrian microfossils, for example. But I think it's disingenous to suggest that the status of his theory in the 19th century is the same as that of intelligent design today. Darwin was describing a process, a natural mechanism by which diversity could occur, which required nothing beyond the already well known fact that characteristics could be inherited, and that the process by which this happened could be described in terms of rules. ID is describing a mechanism which requires supernatural intervention in an arbitrary way.

Date: 2009-02-12 04:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sinboy.livejournal.com
Status of Darwin's work aside, Intelligent Design needs to be judged on the merits of it's own claims. And there's no real scientific proof being generated by it's proponents, just criticism of Evolutionary Biology. The problem is, Evolutionary Biology criticizes its self with provable criticism. Intelligent Design proponents are using "God" as something that can't ever be found with science.

Date: 2009-02-12 04:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] valkyriekaren.livejournal.com
Indeed. And without usefully defining what they mean by 'God', which makes it a pretty vague term which can be twisted to mean anything they feel like. I'm beginning to see this as the root of the problem of debating the subject with (most) religious people, actually - they can define God any way you choose, and cite half a dozen theologians to back you up, and then if they're still not winning you over, play the good old 'ineffable' card. "Oh well, you can't possibly understand what God is/does/wants/means, because it's all so big and numinous and Ineffably Other!"

Date: 2009-02-13 03:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com
without usefully defining what they mean by 'God', which makes it a pretty vague term which can be twisted to mean anything they feel like

I see you've read Spinoza, then?

Date: 2009-02-12 05:20 pm (UTC)
djm4: (Default)
From: [personal profile] djm4
But I think it's disingenous to suggest that the status of his theory in the 19th century is the same as that of intelligent design today.

For the record, I wasn't trying to say that. I suspect I was being too subtle; I basically think 'It's not science unless they explain how it works' is a complete misrepresentation of what science 'is'. Explaining how it works isn't the point - providing evidence for your theories and (ideally) testable hypotheses is.

I agree that ID doesn't do that either. I was defending science against what I saw as [livejournal.com profile] sinboy's misrepresentation of it. I'm particularly sensitive to that because Darwin often gets attacked for not saying how it worked, when (as you point out) he acknowledged that he didn't know this, and didn't need to.

Date: 2009-02-12 05:36 pm (UTC)
djm4: (Default)
From: [personal profile] djm4
Actually, scratch that; I think I'm misreading him. I suspect he means 'explain how it works' to the same degree that, say, Darwin did, rather than '...down to the last detail'. I also think that should have been obvious from context.

Apologies to both of you for going off on one.

Date: 2009-02-12 06:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] valkyriekaren.livejournal.com
That's OK - I had a feeling I'd misunderstood you because I was pretty sure you weren't actually defending Intelligent Design on grounds that further study might corroborate it.

Date: 2009-02-12 04:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sinboy.livejournal.com
Of course it's more complicated than that on the side of evolutionary biology. But with Intelligent Design, it's exactly as simple as I put it - there's not attempt to answer the when or how.

They have to at least try to explain what these "key stages" are, or how "God" did anything. As far as I can tell, ID just stops at some nonspecific time, where some nonspecific alien intelligence did some nonspecific thing.

Profile

djm4_lj: (Default)
djm4_lj

July 2015

S M T W T F S
    1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 12th, 2025 01:01 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios