A Stitch in Haste

My last post concerned an example of the intersection of economics and politics with artificial selection in agriculture. Farmers made tomatoes "evolve" into something better and apples "evolve" into something worse. Granted, we are not talking about new species of tomatoes or apples, but clearly selection of some offspring over others, whether artificially or naturally, leads to significant changes in life forms over time.

This is fact. It is observable, demonstrable and replicable. It is science.

So why do Intelligent Design proponents insist on calling it "faith"?

True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred. A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution — they are still moths. A population of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics does not illustrate evolution — they are still bacteria. In the biological realm, natural selection (which is operating in these examples) is supposedly the mechanism by which evolution advances, and intelligent design theory certainly does not deny its existence. While natural selection can indeed preserve the stronger and more resilient members of a gene pool, intelligent design maintains that it cannot explain entirely new kinds of life — and that is what evolution is.
...
One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith. Even some evolutionists have admitted as much in their writings. ... From a practical point of view, the intelligent design paradigm is just as useful to biology, and I believe, more satisfying from an intellectual point of view.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

There is not a single piece of evidence, not one, that disproves the theory of evolution. There is not a single piece of evidence, not one, that supports the "theory" of intelligent design (which is not really a scientific theory at all).

Pointing out gaps in a theory is not disproving that theory or a theory in and of itself. Asking questions of a theory that are, for the time being, unanswered is not disproving that theory or a theory in and of itself. Noting that a theory that is less than 150 years old cannot be directly observed given the pesky fact that humans exist in mortal time and not geologic time is not disproving that theory or a theory in and of itself.

The very definition of a theory is that it can never be proven — only disproven, revised or refined based on empirical evidence. The intelligent design crowd first tried to disprove or discredit evolution through the "irreducible complexity" fallacy. Now instead they fault evolution theory for not having been around for 10 million years so that the rise of a new species can be directly observed.

The inability to directly observe the macro- or micro-scale universe, or geologic time, does not make a theory "invalid" or "defective." Only counterexamples disprove a theory. The chronological orders of magnitude involved do not make evolution "defective" as a theory any more than the size of the universe makes cosmological physics "defective" or the unobservably small size of elementary particles makes quantum mechanics "defective" or the metaphysical nature of reality makes the mathematics of complex numbers "defective."

Evolution takes what we see (i.e., the fossil record and examples of artificial selection) and deduces the implications over what we do not see (i.e., geologic time and pre-fossil life).

By contrast, since intelligent design is not based on what we see, and indeed is concerned only with what cannot be seen, it is, by definition, not a scientific theory.

And that which is not a scientific theory, by definition, has no place in a science classroom.

Those of us who accept evolution as the obvious explanation of the history of life on earth do so not on "faith" or "deference to authority." The only "faith" we have is in the evidence of our senses and the capacity of our rational faculty to figure it out. As I commented at another blog:

Lay people may not understand all the intricacies of frontier evolutionary theory (I sure don't), but they can see fossil records, comparative skeletal structures and basic taxonomy, not to mention the primates at the local zoo, and figure it out on their own.

If that's "faith," then I guess I've found religion.

UPDATE: Reason Magazine is stealing my material:

Now, it's quite true that mainstream scientists vehemently reject the idea of allowing evolution and "intelligent design" to compete freely in the nation's public school classrooms. The reason is that "intelligent design" is not science. A scientific hypothesis must be testable—meaning that, if it is wrong, there should be a way to disprove it. (That's why assertions that there is no conclusive proof of evolution are basically pointless.)

See also Where the Dolphins Play. (Dolphins are a great example of evolution, incidentally -- we now know cetaceans evolved from the same line as hippos: some guys stayed around the coastal waters, others started venturing out into the sea. Go figure.) Meanwhile, some quite vocal dissents from North Dallas Thirty (times two) and JunkYardBlog.

It's interesting to watch the flames jump from the totally debunked "irreducible complexity" fallacy to the new nonsense of "sticky species," the idea that, since we have never seen a species "morph" from, say, a fruitfly into a fruit bat, we are therefore guilty of "faith." Again, it took nature a billion years to make a bacterium and 4.5 billion to make us. Any progress we've made, even going from wild boars to domestic pigs or from prehistoric maize to modern-day corn, is pretty damn impressive and pretty damn conclusive given the sheer enormity of geologic time. "Faith" has nothing to do with it. Those who can't grasp that are, quite frankly, arithmetically challenged (and could probably use a new dictionary too).

A blogger cites favorably to this attempt to blur the line between atheism and religion:

Dawkins describes religious belief as due entirely to faith and almost entirely inherited from one's parents, scientific belief as due to rational and skeptical investigation. In doing that, he is implicitly comparing the average religious believer with the professional scientist -- indeed, with the upper end of professional scientists. The average believer in evolution or relativity or whatever is no more able to provide a convincing account of the evidence and arguments for his position than the average religious believer -- both of them hold their beliefs not because of rational investigation but because the people around them told them those things were true.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

Just because I may not know, or want to know, every nuance of, e.g., evolutionary theory, does not mean that I can't go out and learn it. Just because I might not be up-to-date on the latest string theory argument or counterargument doesn't mean that I have abandoned my core metaphysical or epistemological views.

The whole point of "faith" is that certain core truths are forever beyond human comprehension. That is, by definition, the exact opposite of science.

There is no analogy whatsoever between "I can't know God's plan" and "I never actually read Darwin."

More:

And religious leaders, at least some of them, offer arguments for their positions which are based on more than just faith, whether or not those arguments are correct -- offer the evidence of miracles, rational arguments such as those of Aquinas, and the like. It's true that there is more rehashing of old arguments and less new argumentation in religion than in science -- but then, religion is an older project than science, so presumably more of the relevant arguments have already been made.

That is far too generous to theists, most of whom are stuck on the embarrassing logical misdemeanor of "Atheists cannot disprove the existence of god."

The fact that people were debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin long before people were debating whether light is a wave or a particle is hardly a pro-religion data point.

---

Incidentally, that "A" in the right sidebar is my open declaration that I am an atheist. (Hat tip: Freespace.) The OutCampaign uses the expression "come out of the closet." I'm understandably a bit ambivalent about that; it's too confusing, especially from a gay blogger.

Can someone explain to me why apologists for religion so easily get stuck on stupid in this manner?

The inevitable, even clichéd, response on the part of theists to this litany of woes is to ask: what about Hitler and Stalin? Yes, the question resorts to the hackneyed rhetorical ploy of et tu quoque (Latin for "So's your old man"). But at least the question's inevitability forces the atheist to show his hand. Thus Dawkins lamely avers that Hitler did believe in God (of sorts) and, hey, Stalin attended an Orthodox seminary in his youth! If that retort seems a tad desperate, England's most pious unbeliever concludes with this wan distinction: "Stalin was an atheist and Hitler probably wasn't, but even if he was, the bottom line of the Stalin/Hitler debating point is very simple. Individual atheists may do evil things but they don't do evil things in the name of atheism." So it's not atheism that's the problem, only atheists!

Leave it to a Jesuit priest — no blood on their hands, right? — to be so good at obfuscation.

Here's the redux, without the snarky Jesuit straw man prestidigitation about Dawkins:

Atheist: It's reasonable to conclude that perhaps 90% of all killing and 99% of all cruelty in human history has been inflicted in the name of, or legitimized by, organized religion.

Theist: But some of the other 10% was done by Hitler and Stalin, who were atheists!

Atheist: So almost 100% of all killing and suffering has been done either in the name of organized religion, legitimized by organized religion, or replicated by those who merely sought to replace organized religion with another form of anti-intellectual, yield-to-authority, reason-denying worship — of the Volk, the State, or some other anti-individualist, anti-mind, power-greater-than-you construct. How exactly does that help the radically incredulous theist claim that blind faith — in whatever — has been a net positive for humanity?

Theist: But, but — Hitler!

Hitler was a male. Hitler was an Austrian. Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was a Taurus. Hitler was left-handed. Hitler was an atheist. So what? What does any of that have to do with the millenia of unspeakable misery perpetrated upon humanity by organized religion?