The Presumptuous Assumption

I try not to get caught up in the creation/evolution wars, because I don't see any sense in beating my head against a brick wall. East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet. In other words, it's almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion without each side's acknowledging the possibility the other may be right. A creationist/intelligent design advocate may do this to some extent, but the evolutionist/naturalist will never reciprocate.

Having said that, I can't resist sharing this quote from this wonderful book I'm reading:



"First and most generally, the theory of evolution can be viewed as a form of the question-begging fallacy. It demands an initial acceptance of the doctrine of naturalism before any explanation is offered. Specifically, when the biologist is faced with the fact of the enormous differentiation and specialization in nature, he says that these were caused by the proximate method which nature would use, assuming that nature is the only creative force that exists. For example, it is admitted by biologists that complete empirical data for the descent of man from the lower animals is missing. The problem then becomes how to fit into a scheme where nothing is allowed to appear except through natural causation. Thus it is reasoned that if man possesses the largest brain found in nature, it is because it must have been utilitarian for him to develop a large brain. But how can this be proved except by reference to the a priori postulate that nothing develops except through organic need? Again and again in the literature of evolution one finds that things are viewed as "necessary" because they come from this assumed natural cause rather than as proved because they come from a known cause. In other words the fact that things have come into being is used as evidence that nature must have used the evolutionary process to bring them into being. I submit that this reasoning does not prove evolution a fact: it rather assumes that evolution is a fact and then uses it as both cause and effect in describing the phenomena of nature." (Richard Weaver, quoted on pp. 14-15)

To me, this makes a lot of sense. It starts with one great big assumption and goes on from there.

Assumption #1: There is no God.
Assumption #2: Re #1, evolution is the only possible way for life to arise.
Assumption #3: Re #2, everything therefore evolved, and (dubious) theories are created accordingly.

When I see this house of cards, I am reminded of the old adage: Assumptions make an ass out of you and me.

Hubris: Overbearing Pride or Presumption; Arrogance

This is the book I just finished reading. Personally, I thought it was a good, persuasive read, written more in the language of the common person rather than the thick, almost incomprehensible sludge of the researcher. By contrast, I'm still trying to work my way through this tome. Mr. Dembski does have a lot of interesting points, but my goodness, it takes some effort to get to them.

However, if you go to Amazon and read the reviews for the above book, you would be surprised by the vitriol and outright personal attacks posted. Some of the "reviews" are titled thusly:

"Intellectually Dishonest and Logically Fatally Flawed"
"Boring, Old, Redundant"
"Political and Incorrect Nonsense"
"A Designer is Not An Answer"
"The Reactionary Right Strikes Again"
"Science Through a Public Relations Campaign"
"Amazing!! But Only in the Worst Way"
"Just More Creationist Dishonesty"
"Lying to the Choir"
"Pseudoscience At Its Finest"
"My Mom's An Idiot. So is Jonathan Wells"
"Silly Close Minded Creationist. Science is for Thinkers"

And so on and so forth.

However, the most irritating, irrelevant "review" is the third one listed. This review doesn't talk much about the book at all, in terms of actually rebutting what it says; instead the author uses his space to attack people of faith, and paint them as subhuman imbeciles. He posts some studies (no links provided, conveniently) that purport to show religious people to be less intelligent.

The studies range from 1927 to 1980. Aside from the suspicious fact that there is no more current information, it seems to me that the earlier studies, especially, would be products of their era--that is, rife with prejudice. The first study states baldly that religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

Excuse me? Besides not providing a definition of "religiously conservative," this seems to be the sort of sweeping generalization that a good scientist should be avoiding. Since I could not read the study for myself, I could not see whether actual IQs and/or GPAs were provided for study participants.

In any event, this sort of mean-spiritedness (another section of the so-called "review" states: "To be as blunt as possible, only a fool or someone hopped up on Jesus juice will find this book convincing, but then merely being a religious nut in the first place is a good indicator of low intelligence to begin with") does not belong in any sort of civilized discourse. I wonder if it would be acceptable to review a book written by a black person and post "studies" supposedly proving black people to be inferior in intelligence? Or review a feminist tome and post "studies" saying women are dumber than men?

If not, then Mr. N'krumah's "studies" should be regarded with the same kind of contempt.

Jonathan Wells makes the same sort of point in Chapter Seventeen of his book. The book is well documented (the endnotes take up forty-seven pages) and one of the links I followed led to this delightful article published in TCS Daily. In particular, I liked this section:

A reasonable observer might note that many ID advocates appear exceptionally well-educated, reasonable, and articulate; they might also note that ID advocates have pointed out many problems with the Darwinist catechism that even pro-Darwin scientists have been known to concede, when they think the Jesus-kissing crowd isn't listening. And yet, even in the face of a sober, thoughtful ID position, the pro-Darwin crowd insists on the same phooey-to-the-boobgeois shtick that was tiresome in Mencken's day. This is how losers act just before they lose: arrogant, self-satisfied, too important to be bothered with substantive refutation, and disdainful of their own faults. Pride goeth before a fall.

Durned tootin. Sometimes how you say something is just as important as what you say. A bit of humility goes a long way in getting people to listen to you. Too bad the above "reviewer" didn't take that into consideration.

In any case, I would recommend this book. I am in the process of finding other ID books to read, and I will report on them periodically.