Public Service: Darwin's Answer to Behe Re: The Complexity of the Eye

[BurtWorm]

Darwin actually anticipated Behe's "challenge" in Origin of Species:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html

Organs of extreme perfection and complication. To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition. Amongst existing Vertebrata, we find but a small amount of gradation in the structure of the eye, and from fossil species we can learn nothing on this head. In this great class we should probably have to descend far beneath the lowest known fossiliferous stratum to discover the earlier stages, by which the eye has been perfected.

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.

He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such startling lengths.

[htuttle]

1. Another factor that I haven't heard pointed out

The eye is hardly an optically perfect instrument. In fact, the raw image it sends to the brain is rather crude.

It's your BRAIN that makes your vision 'look' like it does, and in fact each human (who possesses sight) learns to 'see' after they are born. An infant's eyesight is terrible, and only improves as their brain learns to extrapolate an image out of the raw signal from the eye.

Human vision is at least 1/2 learned behavior.

[Stunster]

2. What's Darwin's answer

for how life came to be? Doesn't give one, does he? Not as far as I know.

Isn't it the case that there is as yet no generally accepted and confirmed scientific explanation for the origin of life?

I read a book by Paul Davies, entitled THE 5TH MIRACLE, which explores this question, and I was surprised to find that the origin of life itself is still a matter of considerable speculation and dispute.

That fellow Fred Hoyle who died recently championed the theory that life came from outer space, didn't he? But that would just seem to push the question back a bit.

Essentially, the natural selection process has to explain why something became a gene in the first place, and the answer to this is not so obvious, or established.

And of course, you then need the natural selection process to explain why the physics and chemistry is like that, and why the multiverse is like that, and why the multiverse of multiverses is like that, etc.

Or do you? And is this really explanatory? For some doubts, see this piece, which really gets to the heart of the matter, I think.

[Az]

4. Natural selection and evolution do not address this question

That is the study of abiogensis. And as it is the search for a singular chemical instance far in the ancient past it is going to be very difficult to pin down. But there are numerous theories. So don't go getting all worked up just yet.

[Dookus]

38. No, Darwin doesn't answer the question

because it's not relevant to his line of inquiry. It's like faulting Pasteur for not coming up with Plate Tectonics.

[trotsky]

3. It is worth noting that anti-science folks...

often take Darwin's words terribly out of context here. They quote:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

Without including the rest.

Not that dishonesty is a new tactic for creationists.

[Selwynn]

12. Dishonesty is not a new tactic for anyone

And everyone is equally capable.

[Az]

13. Some background

I have been involved in many debates on this topic and witnessed many debates. I will not suggest that the tactics I have seen used are common to all creationists but it is diconcerting how many rely on deception and misleading tactics. I will give a primary example.

One of the common arguments creationists like to use is the entropy argument. This is based on the second law of thermo dynamics. Namely that the energy of a sytem always moves towards entropy. The creationists turn this into an argument that order is a derease in entropy. And since life arising is an increase in order it is a violation of the second law of thermo dynamics.

They play this particular card typically in front of large audiences during a public debate. It seems scientific. Its easy to understand. And it forces the scientist to explain a lot of things.

First of all earth is not a closed system. The second law of thermo dynamics only applies to closed systems. Any system that is recieving energy from another source is free of this contraint. Order can increase where energy is being pumped into the system. The sun provides a constant source of energy to the earth.

Second and perhaps more importantly. Even in a closed system you can have pools of increased order. As long as the system over all trends towards entropy the law is not violated. Thus you can have momentary increases in order as the system moves towards equal distribution over time.

Now here is the underhanded part. I have watched creationists try this argument and have the correction presented to them. They are shown they are mistaken in their application of the theory. They abandon it when faced with a proponent that is familiar with the error. But as soon as the audience changes or there is a different opponent they bring the entropy argument back out again.

If this occurred once or twice I could dismiss it as merely someone that does not understand the implications of their actions. But it is a fairly consistant argument and it has been debunked countless times. But they continue to bring it back. Namely because it works on those unfamiliar with the issues. The goal seems to be not one of arguing for accuracy but rather to win as many over as possible and create confusion by any means available.

I am hard pressed not to see the use of these tactics and directly malicious and conscious of their effects. I may be mistaken but I find such actions to be disreputable and underhanded. I am sure my fellow atheists have run into similar situations themselves.

I hope this explains why some attitude is held towards the creationists. From our perspective it does not seem as though they are arguing from a scientifically detached perspective. Instead they have an agenda and they are working to see it through no matter what. I could be wrong but that is the way it seems to many of us.

[BurtWorm]

14. Is it a coincidence that that is how Republicans also operate?

I don't think so.

[Selwynn]

18. I don't know how much of it is deliberate or accidental

I agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there on the side of creationists. I agree that there are absolutely cases of outright deceptive lying by specific people who hold a creationists view - people who know what they are saying is not true, or debatable, and say it anyway as though it is absolute matter of fact.

But I also think a lot of people just don't know that what they are saying isn't true, which isn't the same thing as deliberate dishonesty. For example, you're not going to catch me in a creation vs. evolution or intelligent design vs. big bang (or whatever) debate because I know next to nothing about these topics! Seriously. I acknowledge my own ignorance, and I defer to the opinion of trusted experts until such a time as I am better informed on these matters.... the trouble is I think you could basically devote ten years to studying these subject and only become "basically" informed on these subjects. Which means there will always need to be a certain level at which I say, "you know I don't really know, so I'll have to take your word for it, or just continue to have no opinion about it."

Again, maybe you see me as naive and too trusting of people, but I honestly don't think that the wrong information you hear from "creationists" many times is actually directly malicious nor are the conscious of their inaccuracies. You have said, "it is a fairly consistent argument that has been debunked many times." But I had never heard it before, and I don't consider myself to be incredibly obtuse. I'm not sure that you're "debunking" it for me one time is going to mean that five years from now if I start taking a serious interest in the origins of the universe and I start reading some creationist argument about entropy I am going to remember that you debunked that for me five years ago. And not personally knowing a lot about the laws of thermodynamics myself, I might think it sounds reasonable.

But the difference is that if I'm reminded that this argument is actually bogus and shown why, I am certainly not going to continue purposefully using the argument even after I know that it is discredited. And I know that your frustrations is directed toward the people you've personally encountered who continue using arguments they know to be invalid to try and score some cheap and illogical points.

That bothers me too.

But I think a lot of times people are just ignorant - they think what they are saying is true, because that's what they've been told, and so they say it. I'm not sure that the majority of creationists are actually people deliberately and maliciously lying about facts. I think they just have no idea that they don't have their facts right, and no idea that the source from which they are getting their facts are not credible. I could be wrong about all of that. Like I said, I tend to be a trusting, optimistic person. :)

Sel

[trotsky]

15. Creationists are the specific topic of this thread, Selwynn.

Thank you for your keen observation that anyone can lie. :eyes:

[Selwynn]

16. No problem. Expect plently more keen observations

...whenever there are broad generalizations. :)

Cheers,
Sel

[trotsky]

17. Just curious...

what exactly do you think was the "broad generalization" in my initial post?

[Selwynn]

19. I'm not here to teach you to read.

And I am free to post pretty much whatever I want. Sorry if that bothers you so much. :)

You can see my response to Az for more detail.
Sel


EDIT - oh what the hell: Basically every time you start posts with "theists like to do this" or "creationists are like that" or "religion is like this" I cringe, because I know that what follows is going to be a broad generalization wholly unsupportable when confronted with the light of logical scrutiny.

In this case "Not that dishonesty is a new tactic for creationists." You do realize that "Creationists" don't have a little club. They don't recite a little creed or have an articulated statement of belief. They don't have a "party" or a platform. It is not a "group" with a collective perspective on anything.

There are lots of individuals out there from all walks of life with many different perspectives who have many different kinds of opinions which include - in some way - an opinion that the world was created in some form. But those beliefs are as diverse as the sand. So when you say "not that dishonesty is a new tactic for creationists" your referring to a non-existent entity, which is also why its a false generalization. Are there many people who hold some kind of creationist view who are dishonest in their reasoning? Sure. There are many people for whom that particular critique does not apply too. There is not "creationists" group. There are only many different people with an awful lot of different opinions about the creation of the universe. One person might say he/she believes that the universe was created and have little in common at all with another person who believes the universe was created.

When I make a statement like, "atheists like to make x argument" or "atheists act like y" I always cringe, because I know I've made an unfair generalization. After I say "atheists don't believe in god" there's pretty much no other generalization I can reasonably make that's fair - atheists are all very different. So I don't like using those kinds of generalized statements when I can avoid them because they are frequently wrong.

I'm sure you don't think it matters. Since you could say "a lot of people who hold creationists beliefs say an awful lot of untrue things either ignorantly or deliberately" and that really wouldn't be a problem. I'm sure you think "who the hell cares, its just semantics."

Well I think it matters. You are of course free to disagree, and I am of course free to keep posting about it.

[trotsky]

20. Bothered?

Confused, maybe. But interesting that you have no answer. Carry on, dear Sel!

[Selwynn]

21. I edited to respond to your cheap argumentation tactic.

"interesting that you have no answer"

Yeah, I actually did give an answer - I told you to see my response to Az. And, I think we both know me better than that. So fine, here you go. Edited post above to include more answer for ya.

:eyes:

[trotsky]

23. I think your personal dislike of me is clouding your judgment.

I simply said:

Not that dishonesty is a new tactic for creationists.

You read far, FAR too much into a simple sentence, and I think your personal feelings caused you to jump on it here where you maybe wouldn't bat an eyelash over it elsewhere in a different context.

I don't make the claim that "creationinsts" are a monolithic group, or that they ALL lie, or any of your other accusations. You choose to read your own meaning into what other people write, and then proceed to attack them for it.

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

[Selwynn]

26. Actually I feel the exact opposite.

You and Az are my two favorite people to talk to. Would you be willing to entertain a thought for a moment?

Would you consider the possibility that your assumptions about me, my motivations and what you think I must be thinking or feeling might perhaps be clouding your judgment? Would you consider whether or not your seeing me as a "theist" has created a wall of assumptions that lead you to make conclusions about me that might not be true?

Maybe not. I don't know. All I know is that I like you just fine. Just because I don't think you're arguments are always logically valid doesn't mean I dislike you. Just because I think you fall prey to some cheap argumentation tricks sometimes doesn't mean I dislike you. By the way, let the record reflect I fall pray to the use of cheap argumentation tactics sometimes and have to correct myself - so does everyone. All that matters is that when we realize we've done that, we correct it. No big deal.

Try not to take things so personally. This is an informal Internet discussion board. I really don't have a high degree of personal feelings about anyone. But I will repeat that of all the people I talk to here, I enjoy talking to you and Az the most. We don't have to agree to like each other. That would be kind of boring. I enjoy spirited debate, and you provide it.

And let me make one thing clear -- if I have left the impression that because I argue that you've made a logical error or taken a cheap shot that means I don't like you, I'd like to clear that up. I think that over all, you've been awfully adult in all our conversations, despite that fact that we clearly have some very strong points of disagreement. But I think we have some very strong points of agreement too, and maybe I should do a better job of pointing those out as well.

I just want to say one thing: the "meaning" I read into a statement that includes the subject "creationists" is the same meaning that anyone else who isn't you is going to read into it. By using the term "creationists" you do imply a monolithic group, otherwise you wouldn't be able to say "this is not a new tactic for creationists." You clearly have some "group" belief. In fact what it is is a not-new tactic for anyone, including some ignorant people who hold some kind of creationist belief.

Anyway, I don't dislike you. Just the opposite.
Have a good day.
Sel

[trotsky]

30. The only assumption I make about you right now, Sel...

is that you have this compulsion to search for alternative meanings to words or different shades of meaning, slamming others for having "logical errors" or "cheap shots" once you use YOUR meanings to analyze what they said.

It's almost like you go trolling (pardon the term) for words or phrases that you can isolate and then nitpick to death in some bloated over-analytical subthread.

If we all had to follow the Selwynn Guide to Accurate Use of Language (TM), my original statement would have to be parsed as something like:

In my personal experience, I have frequently observed that some people who are actively promoting the teaching of the literal biblical Genesis creation story in public schools have engaged in a deceitful use of language and science to try and bolster their own personal agenda. I must express my sincere disdain for such behavior.

Although I have no doubt you could probably find something wrong with that, too. It really has nothing at all to do with the fact that you consider yourself a theist (in WHATEVER sense of the term you want to use).

Sometimes you just gotta loosen up a bit, ya know? I just fail to see how you're making a point sometimes other than "language isn't always accurate," which is a complete given. We accept that, and move on with the terms we have.

[Selwynn]

32. Well.. perhaps you're right

Maybe you are right.

I try not to categorically dismiss anything someone else says (believe it or not) especially if its about me.

I'll think more about the possibility that I have a compulsion to search for alternative meanings. Specifically I'll have to think more about what my motivations or agenda actually is. Everyone has one.

You are saying that I need to give people more benefit of the doubt, and not expect micro-technical accuracy (accuracy, by my own special definition of what is "accurate") from other people - a standard which I would be unlikely to measure up to myself. Would you say that is accurate? I'll take that into consideration...

I think my motivation is that I believe that there is a huge, overwhelming amount of ambiguity, equivocation, over-generalization, stereotype, assumption going on the vast majority of the times a theist and a non-theist ever discuss anything. Is that fair? I don't know. It seems like it to me.

I believe that happens on both sides. And I think that it obfuscates any actually dialog that might actually occur. It removes any possibility of actually taking something beneficial away from the conversation. It only serves to reinforce the same tired old assumptions made on all sides that are over-general and really don't correlate to anything particularly truthful. I also think there is a strong tendency to think in absolute terms on both sides in areas where no absolutes are attainable, by any means, ever. I think that also breaks down any possibility of meaningful, valuable dialog.

There is a certain level at which want people to think specifically about what they are saying and mean specifically what they say when they say it. You feel that I infer meaning and intent into a statement that isn't there (i.e. search for alternate meanings.) I feel that I'm taking the words stated in the post at face value, without any other assumptions or guesses as that what you "might mean" beyond what is actually said, while you assume that your implied meaning ought to be clear to any normal person. But in contrast, you feel I'm going way to far in quest for specificity, as well as disagreeing that this is what it actually is, and you might be right.

As far as the other thing: saying this is a logical fallacy or that is a cheap shot, I think you're right. I go too far with that - to the point where I turn it into my own argumentation tactic and cheap shot. I'm not going to stop pointing out something if I don't think its logical - but I can do better about how I frame those opinions.

You may be right about loosening up, but loosen up too far and its right back to the standard (largely) irrational arguments that so many theists and non-theists I know have 90% of the time. Both parties seem equally guilty, in my view. So we have to find some kind of healthy balance between nit-picking and being wholly uncritical.

Thanks,
Sel


PS - I'm not going to lie and deny that I looked at your italicized example of the kind of statement I would want to see and thought "yeah.. that sounds about right!" :) I realize that's unrealistic.

[BurtWorm]

22. Maybe we need to define the term "creationists."

There are surely people who believe in a Creator. Those people are not necessarily creationists, are they? I understand that term to refer to a type of fundamentalist Christian who is so opposed to secularism that they attack it on its turf in the public schools. In that sense, they are fundamentally dishonest. Their whole thrust is not merely anti-evolution and anti-Darwin, but anti-secular. Darwin and evolution are merely symbols of the affront of secularism in general.

[trotsky]

24. Excellent clarification, BW.

When I say "creationist," that's exactly the type of person I mean.

[BurtWorm]

25. The creationists and their ID cronies have very cleverly coopted

liberal Christians, apparently, who are torn between supporting the idea of strict separation of church and state and strict faithfulness to Christian principles. In my atheistic opinion. ;)

[Selwynn]

27. Really? Is that like a widely accepted definition?

I had no idea that's what was commonly understood as a "creationist."

By that definition, I accept a lot of negative statements you'd want to make about "creationists."

[BurtWorm]

28. What do you understand "creationist" to mean?

When did you come to have an understanding of what creationist meant?

[Selwynn]

29. No, don't misunderstand me -

Look I have no horse in this "evolution vs. creation" fight or whatever it is. And I'm not part of any organized religious institution, so those factors may bias me and cause me not to realize that there really IS a pretty big group of people who can be fairly well described with some general statements.

But when I get in conversations with people about the origins of life or the universe, I've never personally noticed a very consistent pattern of beliefs. I've met some people who believed God created the world and had views very much like what you described. But I'd met others who believed in the theory of evolution yet believed in God, and I've met others who also thought the world was created in some divine way with much different views - not all of them were pitting their opinions as a confrontation with science or evolutionary theory.

Even among people who are very strict biblical creation story believers I'm not always sure how much of their motives are deliberately malicious and how much are just ignorant. Anyway - I'm sure that if you have kind of "lived in the trenches" in a big war with the kind of people you describe with the term "creationists" - then you probably have a much different perspective on all of that.

So as far as I'm concerned - Burt, Trotsky, Az - I can stipulate that the term "creationists" means "as so defined by Burt" when you guys say it. :)

Cheers,
Sel

[BurtWorm]

31. Well all that debating is a smokescreen for what's really going on

in the "war." It really is. It's a luxury to debate about the origins of life and the universe, and it's a lot of fun. But while we're all doing that, the creationists and ID types are actually about something else entirely. They're stealing seats on local school boards, while no one but fundamentalists are watching, with the aim of making an assault against secular public education. That's who the creationists were when the term was first born 20 or so years ago, and that's what they're still about.

[Selwynn]

33. Yeah - makes me feel a little chastized...

..I should be more informed. :(

[BurtWorm]

34. I didn't mean to chastise you!

:hi:

[Selwynn]

35. It was self regulatory chastizement ;)

:silly:

I mean more informed about the "war" going on to take over education and other things...

[Stunster]

5. Cosmic natural selection

Assuming natural selection can be or should be the sole ultimate explanatory mechanism in nature, and not something else (such as purposive design by a god), then essentially, the natural selection process has to explain not only why something became a gene in the first place (and, as noted, the answer to this is not so obvious, or established); it also has to explain why chemistry and physics and the other laws governing the universe have the structure and properties they do; and why the multiverse if there is one has the properties it does; and why the multiverse of multiverses, if there's one of those, has its properties, and so on and so forth.

The problem is that natural selection on its own does not seem to be a genuinely ultimate explanatory mechanism, since at every stage there is some kind of order assumed, and to avoid positing some ultimate ontological order but rely only on order that merely happens to be generated by chance, it would seem to have to posit an infinity of unobservables, or at least one infinite unobservable (such as a multiverse, or a multiverse of multiverses, or a multiverse of multiverses of multiverses, etc).

Which kind of defeats the point of introducing the natural selection principle in the first place, does it not? Naturalism does not want to have to posit anything that is infinite and/or unobservable.

The bit about genes was just meant to be merely illustrative of this point.

In other words, natural selection of species works fine as an explanatory mechanism---provided you've got ordered things like genes. And natural selection of genes works fine---provided you've got ordered things like chemicals. And natural selection of chemicals works fine---provided you've got ordered things like matter as governed by the laws of physics. And natural selection of the laws of physics works fine---provided you've got an ordered thing like a multiverse. And natural selection of a multiverse works fine---provided you've got an ordered thing like a multiverse of multiverses. And so on.

See my point?

Incidentally, multiverses etc have to be ordered kind of things in order to be validly posited by science in the first place. For them to be scientifically respectable entities, they have to conform at least to some form of mathematical definition and, perhaps, to be predictive of certain observations.

So you see, there seems to be a need to posit some form of order all the way down (or all the way up, if you prefer). But the point of natural selection as a cosmic principle is that order must be generated by chance selections. And of course, the unwanted features of infinity and unobservability become acute at that stage.

[Az]

6. Is this the only note you know?

Evolution is the study of what the matter present in this universe does when it gets together in complex chains known as DNA. It is the study of these materials in action. You seem to be wanting to discuss physics when we are discussing genetics, metaphysics when we are discussing physics, and anything else but the subject at hand when we try to bring you back into the topic. How bout sticking to the subject and dealing with the problems handed to you rather than tossing tons of nonsense and strawmen at the issues you have trouble with.

:boring:

[Stunster]

7. This is a religion and theology forum (n/t)

[Az]

8. And this thread is about evolution

You have been down right hostile and offensive from day one. I wish you would just grow up a bit and stop with all the petty snarkiness. Deal with the arguments at hand. And people wonder why atheists get angry.

[BurtWorm]

11. At some point you are going to have to rely on faith or patience

for more information. It isn't science's job to apologize for faith.

[Stunster]

9. The basic argument regarding natural selection

Here's a short way to put the argument:

For natural selection to work at all, it must work upon some domain.

To identify any domain whatsoever in the first place, science must find order of some kind pertaining to that domain.

Hence, every domain upon which natural selection is to operate must already be ordered in some way.

Hence, natural selection cannot be the sole explanation of order in nature, unless one posits an infinite unobservable or an infinity of unobservables, which defeats the purpose of relying on natural selection in the first place, which was to explain phenomena without positing anything infinite and/or unobservable.

I.e. Some order, at some level of scientific analysis, must be primitive. It can't all be generated by natural selection.

Or else, one must posit an infinity of some kind, which by definition must be scientifically unobservable by finite scientists.

[Az]

10. Well said but still outside the focus of the issue

The specific issue at hand is whether evolution within the context of this universe is an operable system. The critics of it claim that irreducible complexity create an impassible roadblock. The point of the original post was that the specific example of eyes as used by Behe had already been addressed by Darwin himself in his original works.

Your questions regarding initial conditions are a matter of physics and quantum mechanics. They may very well prove to be good areas to explore but they are not within the confines of this particular conversation dealing with the mechanisms of evolution.

[Sgent]

36. Definitions

As said above about creationists are fairly good.

Young Earth Creationist -- God created the earth in 6 days, and instantly put all animals and plants on the earth fully functional. No death took place before the fall of man. (Southern Baptist, other Fundamentalists)

Old Earth Creationist -- God created the earth in 6 era's, and had a direct hand in the formation of individual species.

Intelligent Design -- basically OE Creationists, but the don't use the word creationist. They pose that life on earth had to have an itelligent intervention to exist as it currently does. Could be God, could be the giant turtle which the planet is sitting upon.

Theistic Evolvution -- God created the natural laws and means to create mankind. Evolution is the best theory we have on how he chose to create man. (Jews, Catholics, liberal Protestants)

Atheistic Evolution -- There is no god, we are chance. (Atheist)

The Scentific approach requires an atheistic approach. Since God is not provable/disprovable, he is a theological question, not a scientific one. Any theory other than atheistic evolution belings in a church or philosphy class, not a science one.

[Az]

37. Science does not necessitate atheism

If there is a god and it has an effect on the universe it is measurable. We may not be able to directly detect the god but it will leave a trail that is detectable. If such a god meddles in evolution in time we would be able to note such an effect.

Science merely studies what is. It seeks to refute what it can and from what is left tries to determine what is true.

[Sgent]

39. Science does not require atheism.

It doesn't require atheism, I probably said this wrong. It does require that we ignore the supernatural when trying to do research.

[Az]

40. It requires that we sit up and take notice when the supernatural happens

Of course the trick is finding the supernatural. It's rather elusive. Sort of like invisible pink unicorns. We know they are pink by faith and they are invisible because no one has ever seen one. Sorry couldn't resist. The IPU is an old standby in the online atheist community. One of our sort of patron saints.

Seriously though, science would love to find something supernatural. It would not shy away from it. Science is just a process. Anything that has properties can be studied with it.

Have you ever seen the movie Sleepy Hollow (with Johnny Depp)? They do an excellent example of how science would react to the supernatural. At first it would be quite skeptical. It would put the issue to serious questioning. But once the evidence was overwhelming it would move on to exploring the nature of the supernatural. Science merely seeks to understand whatever is.