Three sides of a triangle

I continue to read statements from the three sides and I’m, perhaps, slowly but surely sorting out the chaos. Three sides you ask? Yes three sides. We have Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism.

Evolution derives from the application of the scientific method. Collect empirical data and observations, establish a hypothesis to explain the empirical data, make predictions and gather additional data and observations and/or construct experiments in an attempt to validate or falsify the hypothesis. As new information becomes available, adjust the HYPOTHESIS as necessary.

I’m sorry kiddies but regardless of how often people say it to you Evolution is NOT “just a theory” nor does it require any faith for those who are knowledgeable. The only “faith” that might be involved is “faith,” for those with less knowledge, in the scientific community which overwhelmingly supports the accuracy of Evolution.

Is it possible that they’re wrong about evolution? Of course it is. The scientific community has been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future which means it is very likely wrong about some things right now. Is it LIKELY they’re wrong? No it’s not. Given the successful record of the scientific method, the amount of evidence that has been piled up across virtually every scientific discipline and the amount of time the theory has been withstanding challenges, I’d say there are two chances, VERY slim and even slimmer than that.

Creationism starts with the hypothesis that God exists and the Bible relates how he created the universe, the earth and man. Any data or observations which come to light MUST be adapted to fit into the basic hypothesis. The entire discipline of Apologetics exists to insure that data and observations are made to fit the hypothesis in any way possible. While science attempts to identify what is probable, Apologetics is content if something that fits an awkward point into the hypothesis is possible regardless of how unlikely.

This is the critical difference between science and Apologetics. Science looks for the solution that best fits the empirical data regardless of the impact upon the hypothesis. Apologetics looks for any possible solution which allows the empirical data to fit the hypothesis.

At least I can understand this methodology. I think it’s absurd and childish but I understand it.

But where is Intelligent Design coming from? As far as I can tell it’s simply a combination of an Argument from Design, ala William Paley and his Watchmaker, AND an argument from arrogance. The arrogance part comes in when these folks decide that just because they can’t figure out how something came about, then no one else will ever be able to do so regardless of what may be learned as time goes on. Come to think of it, an argument from stupidity might be a better name. For about the thousandth time, if we had let the “god of the gaps” reign supreme and ended every investigation of what we didn’t understand with GOD DID IT, we’d still be convinced that lightning bolts were a manifestation of some god’s anger and be preparing virgins for the next sacrifice.

Now ID does claim its central hypothesis is based upon an attempt to explain empirical observations. What it has failed to do is establish any predictions or any methodology for testing its central hypothesis or any supporting hypotheses. This is why scientists don’t consider it science. It’s relying upon negative and not positive verification. Evolution can’t explain everything therefore you must, by default, accept design and around in a circle we go back to the argument from arrogance or stupidity.

Now creationists view ID as an ally based upon the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The average creationist sees evolution as an attack upon the existence of God and ID as perhaps a way of getting God back into the classroom. But here’s a flash for you kiddies, Behe, among others, appears to accept that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that evolution plays a part in the scheme of things. Now as to whether ID will shed this sheepskin once evolution is dead remains to be seen. I’m betting they would if they could ever kill evolution.

However if they intend to stick with the idea of evolution and design together being the answer on a 4.5 billion year old earth, the creationists may find that evolution and ID have more in common than ID and Creationism. Won’t that day be a chuckle.