Physics professor endorces Intelligent Design

[shunyadragon]

Source: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/19763/

A physics professor at the University of Oklahoma who often spends his time studying smashed subatomic particles at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN laboratory in Switzerland has another hobby – smashing the notion that all scientists believe the universe was created by some sort of cosmic accident.

Dr. Michael Strauss has given some iteration of a lecture he’s titled “Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God” to students and peers at universities across the nation for nearly 15 years, including at Stanford, UT Dallas, UC Santa Barbara, and most recently Thursday at the University of Missouri-Columbia, where he said observable and testable scientific evidence points to a “designer who cares about humanity.”

This is coming from an experimental particle physics expert who also says scientific evidence shows the universe is 14 billion years old, and that it was created through a so-called “big bang” – which many people also hear from the likes of atheist and agnostic scientists.

. . . . . .

In historical times, he said, all scientists believed in God, and it was only more recently, within the last 200 years or so, that science based on the assumption there is no creator has dominated the field.

© Copyright Original Source

As a Physicist he should know better claiming it has been determined that our physical existence has been demonstrated to have a beginning. There are different models of the cosmology that have demonstrated that our physical existence has "beginnings," but it has not been conclusively demonstrated that our physical existence has a 'definite definable "beginning.

I do have strong objections to Strauss's line of reason in that he is using a religious agenda with anecdotal claims and inferences to reach his conclusions. The following quote is highly problematic, and essentially accuses science of being based on atheist assumption which is patently false.

The foundation of scientific methods is 'Methodological Naturalism,' assuming science cannot test and falsify theological questions, and remains neutral to whether any one of the many versions of God(s) exists or not. Some scientists assume Metaphysical Naturalism, and are atheists. This is a metaphysical personal view, and not based on scientific assumptions.

[mossrose]

The theory of evolution is as big a religion as any other.

And it's followers just as zealous.

The foundation of scientific methods is 'Methodological Naturalism,' assuming science cannot test and falsify theological questions, and remains neutral to whether any one of the many versions of God(s) exists or not.

While that may be true in theory, it certainly doesn't stop the majority of scientists from telling us with as much certainty as they can muster that God does not exist.

[TheLurch]

While that may be true in theory, it certainly doesn't stop the majority of scientists from telling us with as much certainty as they can muster that God does not exist.

Just out of curiosity, how many scientists have you actually talked to about this? I've been part of the scientific community to one degree or another since 1987, and I just don't see it happening. Sure, there are a number of vocal ones who will tell you that, but it's important to distinguish a vocal minority from the majority view.

The theory of evolution is as big a religion as any other.

How is "the best available explanation for the evidence we have, coupled with mechanisms that have been repeatedly observed" equivalent to religion?

[mossrose]

Just out of curiosity, how many scientists have you actually talked to about this? I've been part of the scientific community to one degree or another since 1987, and I just don't see it happening. Sure, there are a number of vocal ones who will tell you that, but it's important to distinguish a vocal minority from the majority view.

The majority of scientists I have heard speak on the issue are highly vocal in their view that God does not exist and that all the answers to all of life's questions are held within the realms of science. Those with other views are usually ignored or ridiculed or condemned in some way, just as shuny has done in this op. Some are even fired for not agreeing with the politically correct views of the majority.

How is "the best available explanation for the evidence we have, coupled with mechanisms that have been repeatedly observed" equivalent to religion?

The theory of evolution is not the best available explanation for the evidence we have, neither is it couple with mechanisms that have been repeatedly observed.

It is taught in public schools as fact, and it's proponents reject any other options, such as Creationism, to be taught alongside so that students can make their own decisions. It is a religion and it's followers are as zealous as those in other religions that try to silence their detractors.

[klaus54]

Fundies of any sort - Christian, Muslim, Atheist,... are the root cause of the Science/Faith "conflict".

That Mossrose refers to the Theory of Evolution as "religion" is a PERFECT example of this fact.

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose...

K54

[seer]

I do have strong objections to Strauss's line of reason in that he is using a religious agenda with anecdotal claims and inferences to reach his conclusions. The following quote is highly problematic, and essentially accuses science of being based on atheist assumption which is patently false.

Did you have such a strong objection when Scientists like Sam Harris and the others I quoted claimed that science pretty much prove that the soul did not exist, or when Stephen Hawking claimed that science has shown that there is no need for God? They too are abusing science - correct?

[mossrose]

Fundies of any sort - Christian, Muslim, Atheist,... are the root cause of the Science/Faith "conflict".

That Mossrose refers to the Theory of Evolution as "religion" is a PERFECT example of this fact.

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose...

K54

Personal attacks are all part of the stock in trade tactics of those who will actually have scientists and teachers dismissed from their jobs for disagreeing with them.

You may all carry on with your own ignorance and prejudice. Like little children with their fingers stuck in their ears saying, "la la la", so they won't hear anything that disagrees with their view.

[klaus54]

Personal attacks are all part of the stock in trade tactics of those who will actually have scientists and teachers dismissed from their jobs for disagreeing with them.

You may all carry on with your own ignorance and prejudice. Like little children with their fingers stuck in their ears saying, "la la la", so they won't hear anything that disagrees with their view.

I repeat, ignorance is bliss.

And BTW ignorance is a very different concept than stupidity.

I'm 100% certain that you (and Seer) are ignorant of the real Theory of Evolution.

K54

[mossrose]

I

I repeat, ignorance is bliss.

And BTW ignorance is a very different concept than stupidity.

I'm 100% certain that you (and Seer) are ignorant of the real Theory of Evolution.

K54

Then you are 100% in error. Like most people nowadays, I was taught it in school, my children were taught it in school, I have read about it as an adult and I listen carefully when evolutionists discuss it.

I reject it. 100%.

[klaus54]

I'm a proponent of Intelligent Falling as well.

K54

[shunyadragon]

The theory of evolution is as big a religion as any other.

And it's followers just as zealous.

This accusation is from a religious bias and unfounded. You may be opposed to the Theory of Evolution, but Evolution is based soundly on Methodological Naturalism, as is the Theory of Relativity, and our physics and cosmology.

While that may be true in theory, it certainly doesn't stop the majority of scientists from telling us with as much certainty as they can muster that God does not exist.

I seriously question your use of 'the majority' to represent a highly vocal in your face minority,' as with other posters who are scientists. This also represents the Fallacy of arguing from popularity, when it is even questionable.

[mossrose]

This accusation is from a religious bias and unfounded. You may be opposed to the Theory of Evolution, but Evolution is based soundly on Methodological Naturalism, as is the Theory of Relativity, and our physics and cosmology.

I already stated in another post that the ToE is not based soundly on anything that science uses to base things on. It can't be observed and it certainly can't be repeated. And as I said, while Methodological Naturalism may be "sound" in theory, it is not sound in the way it is used in regards to evolution.

I seriously question your use of 'the majority' to represent a highly vocal in your face minority,' as with other posters who are scientists. This also represents the Fallacy of arguing from popularity, when it is even questionable.

Oh, please. You can seriously question my use of the "majority" all you wish, but it doesn't make it any less true.

[shunyadragon]

Did you have such a strong objection when Scientists like Sam Harris and the others I quoted claimed that science pretty much prove that the soul did not exist, or when Stephen Hawking claimed that science has shown that there is no need for God? They too are abusing science - correct?

Read my posts and the one beginning this thread seer. I have already done that for both theists and atheists that misuse Methodological Naturalism to justify a metaphysical agenda in many threads including this one.

Every time you post seer it is like Ground Hog Day all over again.

[HMS_Beagle]

I already stated in another post that the ToE is not based soundly on anything that science uses to base things on.

Sorry dear lady but I'm afraid you appear to be arguing from your personal ignorance of the topic. Can you give any scientific reasons or evidence to reject ToE? Or just your personal Biblical based beliefs?

It can't be observed and it certainly can't be repeated.

The process of evolution can certainly be observed and repeated. Tests on the evidence the process has left behind can be observed and repeated. Science doesn't have to repeat actual historic events in order to study and understand them. We can't repeat plate tectonic movement or the Chicxulub asteroid impact 65 million years ago either but we have enough evidence to declare them fact.

And as I said, while Methodological Naturalism may be "sound" in theory, it is not sound in the way it is used in regards to evolution.

Why in heavens' name not? Why do you single out evolution for criticism when every other science relies on the same identical Methodological Naturalism?

Oh, please. You can seriously question my use of the "majority" all you wish, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Personal incredulity doesn't make the science any less true either.

[rogue06]

The theory of evolution is as big a religion as any other.

Seriously mossy?

IMHO one of the sillier claims made by opponents of evolution is that evolution, or more properly, evolutional theory, constitutes some sort of religion in that the fact of the matter is that evolutionary theory really does nothing more than attempt to describe a part of nature.

Now while evolution and evolutionary theory may be important to a large number of people does not some how transform a scientific theory into a religion. The only conceivable way that evolutionary theory could be construed as a religion would be to accept an overly-expansive definition of "religion" as being anything pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Unfortunately this so cheapens the definition of religion that it opens it up to practically any activity. Literally anything from stamp collecting to being an avid sports fan (even my girlfriend shopping for shoes) could thereby be considered a religion.

IOW, calling evolution, or evolutionary theory, a religion makes the term religion effectively meaningless.

For instance, many folks are interested in astronomy and following the course of the stars. This has been used as the part of several religions such as Zoroastrianism and Mithraism as some have even imagined how they influence people. And yet that doesn't somehow miraculously transform the science of astronomy into a religion.

Moreover, there are numerous glaring differences between a scientific theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, and a religion that more than makes it more than obvious that evolutionary theory is not a religion of any shape or form.

To start, unlike science, religions seek to explain ultimate reality as well as attempt to describe humanity's place and role within it.

OTOH, evolutionary theory merely tries to explain how life changes and adapts over time and our biological background. And in spite of confused assertions to the contrary, evolution does not even seek to explain how life originated (that is an entirely different scientific field). Nor has it anything to say about the origin or destiny of souls.

Secondly, religions provide moral guidelines and structure for its adherents. In contrast, evolutionary theory (like all scientific theories) does not say anything about values or meanings. Evolution is descriptive, it is not prescriptive meaning that it attempts to describes things, not prescribes how things should be.

While it is true that evolution has been used (and of course misused) by some as a foundation for morals and values, this is only accomplished by going beyond evolutionary theory (the science of evolution) and forming a separate philosophy which should not reflect on the theory itself -- much in the same manner that astrological musings should not reflect upon the science of astronomy.

Likewise, while evolutionary theory has been utilized in studying and speculating about any biological basis for morals and values, merely studying religion does not make the study a religion. Sort of like how using archaeology to study the origins of biblical texts doesn't therefore turn archaeology into a religion.

Third, religion accepts that there is something beyond natural laws, a "supernatural" powers or powers. Religions accept as evidence such things as revealed truth.

Again, like all scientific endeavors, evolutionary theory, does not take such things into account. That is just the way science works since it is seeking natural explanations for the various phenomena that we observe. It's sort of like how your plumber doesn't explain your clogged pipes by using supernatural intervention but looks for a completely natural answer.

Also, unlike religion, the explanations that scientists propose must be subject to falsification and vigorous efforts are taken to demonstrate that they are wrong. In fact evolutionary theory, like all scientific theories, not only welcomes these challenges they are open to being changed or even discarded as new evidence is uncovered. In stark contrast, anti-science types often mock this ability to alter theories in light of new contradictory data[/url].

Fourth, religions tend to have such things as holy texts and laws, prayers, rituals and sacraments, as well as a formal priesthood. This is not the case in science including evolutionary theory in spite of snarky, ill-informed remarks about Darwin being a high priest and his books being scripture. The fact of the matter is they are anything but and many prominent evolutionary advocates have made a name for themselves by challenging Darwin's ideas and showing them to be in need of either modification or correction.

Folks like Conrad Waddington when he proposed developmental evolution (evo-devo) in 1942. And Motoo Kimura when he proposed the neutral theory of molecular evolution (genetic drift) in 1968. And Lynn Margulis when she proposed Endosymbiotic theory in 1970. And Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould when they proposed punctuated equilibrium in 1973. And Søren Løvtrup when he proposed Epigenetics in 1974. And Carl Woese when he proposed horizontal gene transfer in 1977.

These are all examples of controversial theories when they first came out in that they accounted for observed biological changes that did not correspond to the expectations of the neo-Darwinian models derived from the New Synthesis (which itself over-turned pure Darwinian thought and theory). In a religion such "trouble makers" are rarely embraced but instead are generally kicked out and form their own church or even start a new religion.

Fifth, if evolution is some how a religion it must be the only religion that none of its adherents recognize? IOW, if evolution is a religion then why don't any of its adherents recognize it as such? Ask an evolutionist such as Kenneth Miller what his religion is he will tell you that he is a Christian. Likewise for such folks as Francis Collins, Denis Lamoureux, Simon Conway Morris, George Coyne, Richard G. Colling, Keith B. Miller, Karl Giberson, Robert Baker and even the person who co-founded the Theory of Evolution with Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace.

Even the more militant atheists who have been involved in evolutionary theory such as Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers will inform you that evolution is anything but a religion for them.

Nobody, whether theist or atheist will identify their religion as evolution.

What's more, I think some evolution deniers seek to label evolution a religion in a misguided attempt to "level the playing field" but this entire concept is actually implicitly disparaging religion in the process. They don't seem to realize that they are in a sense saying that science needs to be brought down to the level of religion.

To add to the above, some evolution deniers like to quote what Michael Ruse wrote in "How evolution became a religion: creationists correct?" in support of their contention that evolutionary theory constitutes a religion:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today ... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”

Essentially his actual position is the same that has been articulated by those who could be described as TEs over the years such as Benjamin Warfield, the biblical inerrantist par excellence and whose influence can be seen in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, who expressed it well during his class lectures on evolution prepared in 1888 and used until at least 1900:

"The upshot of the whole matter is that there is no necessary antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work apart from law and which does not allow miraculous intervention (in the giving of the soul, in creating Eve, etc.) will entail a great reconstruction of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the detailed authority of the Bible.”

Another influential defender of evangelical doctrine, vocal critic of theological liberalism and a contributor to The Fundamentals, James Orr, also contrasted between naturalistic/materialistic evolution and evolution itself maintaining that God supernaturally guided the evolutionary process leading to humanity (the position advocated by Alfred Wallace -- the co-discoverer of the ToE).

Similarly when John Paul II issued his statement on evolution in his address, "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" in 1996 he clearly distinguished between "materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations," rejecting as "incompatible" with Scripture views, for example, that "consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter."

Even some of those cited as staunch opponents of evolution appear to have held this view when asked to elaborate. For instance Charles Hodge said in "What is Darwinism" that evolution by chance is atheism (p156), but he did in fact allow evolution, "If God made them it makes no difference so far as the question of design is concerned how he made them; whether at once or by aprocess of evolution." (p95). He rejected naturalistic or materialistic views of evolution but accepted that evolution might be established and directed by God.

It is the purely naturalistic/materialistic views of evolution (such as that promoted by Richard Dawkins) that TEs reject and that Ruse is describing in the quote as being like a religion.

That Ruse recognizes this distinction is seen in his later works such as "Is Evolution a Secular Religion?" where he distinguishes between evolution and what he termed "Darwinism" (much in the manner that Orr did) and places much of the blame for confusion on Thomas Henry Huxley and his desire for reform in Britain.

Ruse feels that Huxley saw the Anglican Church as being the primary opponent to social change and reforms in the country and thinks he therefore "saw the need to found his own church" based upon naturalism and employed evolution to this end. This apparently is what he meant when he complained that evolution was "promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality" from the beginning.

IOW, Ruse clearly distinguished between "professional evolutionary biology: mathematical, experimental, not laden with value statements" and "evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation." It is the latter view that TEs have consistently rejected.

This is why Ruse concluded: "if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry" (emphasis added).

And Ruse also has written more upon how his remarks have been misinterpreted with this being but one example.

Finally there is another quote often circulated in support of the idea that evolution is a religion and that is one made by L. Harrison Matthews in the introduction of the edition of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" that was published in 1971:

…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.

According to Michael Ruse, who asked Matthews about this statement, he meant this comment purely as a jab at the embryologist Sir Gavin Rylands de Beer who he had long argued with and was upset at how creationists had misappropriated it and misrepresented him.

Further during McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (the U.S. District Court decision concerning the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act) the defense had planned to use Matthews comments as some sort of trump card to link evolutionary theory to "secular humanism" (and actually included them in their original brief) until they got wind of what Matthews told Ruse and quickly decided to drop it like a hot potato. As Ruse said of the entire incident: "of such molehill things are creationist mountains made."