Evolutionary Response

I am delighted to see a reader who is open to debate on evolution leaving a message after my post about the Kansas school board. So, I will, respectfully, respond.

Lee (In blue): Your comments on the nature of the debate over the curriculum are lacking.

Me: Well, my comments were jokes after all. But, you're right- they were entirely too smug and flippant. Sorry about that.

Lee: As I look into the issue, I have discovered that the local and national evolutionary theories boycotted the event...but why?

Me: I'm not sure what you mean here. I assume you mean that supporters of evolutionary theory boycotted the school board debates. But, according to the UP wires, there have been "months" and actually years of debate over the issue in Kansas, with both sides represented. Both sides were certainly represented at the school board debate in May. What event did they boycott? Are you sure this isn't an Internet-based rumor?

Lee: You can answer that many ways, but ultimately the scientists who believe so strongly in the theory refuse to even earnestly investigate Intelligent Design, which poses very important questions.

Me: Actually, they've spent years debating it. But, investigating? The problem with those "questions" is that they're still purely theoretical and subjective "what if?" questions. How do you empirically study an idea that requires a subjective leap of faith?

Lee: Rather than answering with science they answered with silence at the actual hearings.

Me: Again, I'm not finding that. But, if you want to argue that the scientific establishment is entirely too close-minded and rejects metaphysics out of hand, I can accept that argument. They are, and I'll even argue that many of them act like zealots. Okay, we can agree there.

Lee: Many Intelligent Design scientists were there, eager to debate and address the issues (many of the scientists, unlike myself, are not Christians and do not have any religious investment into the science).

Me: Okay, so the scientists were being wimps. Fine, I'll accept that, although I honestly need some proof that these people didn't show up to the board vote. Also, it may well be the case that Intelligent Design scientists are not Christians, although I'm skeptical of that. The problem, again, is that Intelligent Design theory requires one to believe in something that there is no direct evidence of. We must be theistic to believe in it. Let me explain why I say that.

To elaborate, you can say that the universe is so complex and perfect that it must have been designed by an intelligence of some sort. Fine, I like that idea too. The problem with it is that you can provide no direct empirical evidencce of that. You can show me a human body and say that it is perfect and beautiful and seems logical, and I might agree, but you're still making subjective interpretations. In order to agree with you, I still have to hold a specific, subjective opinion. It has to seem a certain way to me. Moreover, if humans were perfectly designed, why do so many of us have lower back pain? Why should we have to give birth by pushing a ten-pound child through the pelvis, resulting in so many deaths? Why should we have migraines? Why should men loose hair on their heads where it looks stupid and not on their faces? (a joke).

By contrast, the theory that gravity acts on all bodies on the surface of the Earth can be easily tested in a laboratory. There is direct evidence in support of the theory. I don't have to have any specific subjective opinion to believe that my cat falls to the ground when she jumps off the desk. And, contrary to what you may have read, there is overwhelming evidence in support of the theory of evolution.

But, the reason that Intelligent Design theory falls into the realm of faith is that it simply cannot possibly be proven or disproven in a laboratory. It seems to be the case. But, ultimately, it requires me to accept something on faith. I have to accept a purely subjective interpretation of the world as real simply because it sounds good. To be specific- I have to accept a metaphysics that I have no empirical evidence of simply because the physical things that I do have empirical evidence of seem to me like they suggest the metaphysics.

Lee: The evolutionists did not show up, and I think that is ridiculous and a diservice to the nature of science as a field in which conflicting theories go head to head until the theory is refined.

Okay, first, the fact that these people didn't want to debate doesn't prove that they're incorrect. I, frankly, have very little time to "debate" with lots of different people.

And, I'll accept that the theory of evolution should never be carved in stone. In fact, Popper's rule of disprovability would suggest that it would then become an article of faith. We should challenge it. We should ask, for instance, if Darwin wasn't too dependent on Malthisianism, which is, in itself, very questionable. I encourage these sorts of debates. And maybe we will, at some point, disprove the theory.

But, again, how do we pit a subjective emotional sense against a scientifically-tested theory? If I can teach intelligent design in a classroom, why can't I teach that our sadness over the loss of loved ones "proves" that there must be ghosts? Or that the beauty of my wife "proves" that she must be a saint? We can have this debate over evolution -vs- intelligent design, but it is, by definition, not a scientific debate.

Lee: Right now, it seems evolutionists are so fully invested in their beliefs that they are unwilling to be challenged. I would like to hear your thoughts.

Well, you certainly have.
The problem is that the "debate" over the issue can only be resolved on the side of Intelligent Design if we abandon our standards of scientific objectivity. Again, you can offer everything in the world as "proof" of the existence of God, but it isn't direct proof and it certainly isn't scientific proof. To interpret it as such we have to have a specific subjective opinion. Well, there must be a God because it sure seems like there is. You can equally say that I am simply "of the opinion" that there is gravity. But, in response, I can offer a physical experiment that supports my opinion. You cannot. I can have 100 different people do that experiement and at least 99 of them will come to the same conclusion. You cannot. I can repeat it over and over and over again and get the same results. You cannot.

Intelligent design falls into the realm of opinion. Today's sunset is beautiful to me. But, that cannot be objectively proven. The beauty of an oak tree seems like the work of God. But, again, I cannot use any objective methods to prove that.

In fact, the nature of faith is that it requires us to believe in something without evidence. And, that's fine. That is, in fact, the beauty of faith. That is why it makes life sweeter. For the record, I actually believe in the existence of God. But, I'm well aware that He is unlikely to offer me direct evidence of his existence. He may well create many wonderous things, but he doesn't tend to autograph them.

So, if we accept subjective intuitions or feelings as "evidence" we step into the realm of pure faith, of theology. And, we step out of the realm of science. Which may well be why scientists don't feel comfortable debating the issue.

However, this absolutely should be debated- in philosophy, or religion classes, in churches, or blogs, or coffee shops. Heck, even at school board meetings. We may well, one day, disprove evolution. But, it will not be scientifically disproven by the fact that a whole lot of people have faith that there must be an intelligent force in the universe.

Moreover, it is totally inappropriate to tell children in a science class that our standards of objective truth should either be empirical evidence or, failing that, a hunch, an intuition, an opinion, or a sense.

Respectfully,
-CH