Rhetoric 3302 Questions

Well chapter 26 was a very interesting read on intelligent design and how people portray God and what he did for this universe. It brings in ideas from all over the place which got a little confusing on what they were talking about at the exact moment, but I think I got it down. I thought it was very interesting when some of the theologians said that they believe God helped create govern the universe, but he did not help create the universe. Then who created the universe if God didn't? That's the only question I really had for this chapter. Now I'm going to talk about the Devolution reading online. Scientists are scared to talk about intelligent design because it has some scientific truth to it that they don't want to believe I think that's bullshit. They always talk about how something has to have scientific proof for them to believe it and they have it, but they deni to talk about it or even say the word. They say I.D. instead that's unbelieveable!! This is carzy now I guess intelligent design agrees with evolution to a certain extent like they agree that something had to make the animals because the complex DNA of an animal is to complex for scientists to explain in evolution or natural selection, but evolution does have involvement in itelligent design. How does Dambski know that mirocbes slowley evolved into people how does he know that God or natural selection did not do it? That's my question. So in intelligent design people believe that God helped humans develop, but God did not make us himself. That's really interesting to me that people think that way. The handout that we got in class was very interesting to!! I liked how it talked about intelligent design. All these readings kind of say the same thing about intelligent design so it is like I'm reading the same things over and over again like a record player they do have there sliht differences though!! Well that's all I have to say about the readings this week.

I found chapter 26 interesting in the way it traces the evolution, if such a thing can be said, of the Intelligent Design argument. But after reading it the whole idea still carries the flavor of the, “God of the Gaps” idea, that at some point biology gets so complicated that it must be the work of God. While such a belief is admirable in religion, that is the very definition of faith, it is not good science. Behe presents his flagellum as proof of a creator, but Kepler did the same thing with lunar craters. Kepler was wrong, what makes Behe any less so?

I think Orr does a good job in expressing why Intelligent Design is dangerous to science. It confuses the debate, makes issues out of things that aren't, and distorts the issues that should be up for debate. Like Behe's flagellum, arguing over whether or not the thing is evidence of an Intelligent Designer takes time away from the more important issue, understanding how it works. Those things are complicated bits of biochemical machinery.

Lastly, Junod's article was one of the most engaging articles I've read all semester. I always got hung up on the scientific implications of Intelligent Design that I never really bothered with the theological issues. In particular the idea of suffering and evil in an intelligently designed universe, and then conforming that idea to a specific God. If the world conforms to God's will then why is there a need for Christ? Would this mean that God got it wrong? If God gets creation wrong then is it really Intelligent Design, or more of an Intelligent Trial and Error?

The Case for Intelligent Design: The whole idea of intelligent design as “a discipline of indiscipline” seems like an incredibly confusing concept. Within the reading, it says that God’s wanted to create perfect humans and vegetarians, but we messed it up by not obeying his orders. I don’t understand how God could create ANY of us in the way he (supposedly) wanted, yet create us to make mistakes against his authority. It would be like purposely engineering a robot with a defect! What would be the point in that? I don’t see how God would even be portrayed as “really, really smart, but limited.” It is quite a blunt statement, and sort of degrading.

Chapter 26: It is unique how certain aspects of the universe turned out to be the way they are – and to say that they were “intelligently designed” does make sense. There are many “close-calls,” or miracles that happen every day, and who’s to say that it wasn’t by some divine intervention? As we’ve stated in class before – there are some things that just cannot be explained – and can only be reflected upon some sort of higher power.

Devolution: Sticking to the beginning of the article – I find it intriguing how people are often offended by the way evolution is being taught in the schools. I understand that the subject may be sensitive to some people (for it coincides so closely to their religion) but we’ve got to be more open to different perspectives. There are so many interpretations, that I find it hard to believe that we will ever come up with a compromise. Besides, the majority of what a person believes in comes from what they learn at “home”– therefore, if a family wants their children to believe in a certain perspective, the child probably already knows the history of that particular viewpoint and does not need it to be taught in the classroom.

To keep my post short, I'll only comment on a few things, and hopefully save enough new stuff for my weekly essay. First off, there were two sections in chapter 26 of the book that stuck out for me. The first of which was just a simple line in response to Darwin's theories, "God might still exist, but the physical world no longer required him to exist." To me this is a powerful point in understanding the appeal of intelligent design. With Darwin, evolution and natural selection, God didn't need to exist for life to occur. But few people are going to readily throw out the idea of God just because you don't "need" him to explain how the world came to be. So you through in some I.D. disclaimers and credit it all to God. A nice happy medium, but to me, it doesn't do justice to science or religion.
The second section of chapter 26 that I liked was the anthropic principle. I guess because the conditions for human life are so specific, the fact that we exist is proof enough of a divine creator. I personally believe that is bogus, as the book commented, for every one successful situation, there are billions of ones that didn’t work. I thought the lottery winner analogy was pretty good, sort of puts it in perspective.
On a final note, I kind of liked “The Case for Intelligent Design”. It brought up a lot of points, but I’m not sure if it’s anything new to me. A lot of the article seemed to focus on the “if God’s so loving, why is there evil in the world?” But at the end it did touch on a very important topic. Like I said early, while I.D. is a nice happy medium, one side has to lose. Junod talks about this in his last paragraph stating that Christian orthodoxies and Darwinian orthodoxies cannot coexist. I also agree with Junod that I.D. should not be taught as a science, because it simply isn’t one. By allowing I.D. in as “science” you might as well call Miss Cleo’s Psychic Hotline science too.

Chapter 26 "The Design Argument" by William Dembski

Chapter 26 was a good introduction into the Intelligent Design Argument. In this chapter, it touches on two examples of intelligent design. One was with Johannes Kepler, who thought the craters on the moon were intelligently designed by moon dwellers. But he then was later proved wrong that craters were actually formed by blind natural processes. To eliminate this mistake, design theorists say to reliably locate design in biological systems. But for Behe, irreducible complexity is a sure indicator of design. He is the one who considered the bacterial flagellum to be an irreducible complex biochemical system. He further goes in detail about how the flagellum survives, and if one protein was absent there would be a result in the complete loss of motor function. So is Behe right on his theory? Or could he have mistakenly concluded this theory?

"The Case for Intelligent Design" by Tom Junod

This article brought up a lot of interesting questions within the article. First, it starts off talking about how God created or designed the thorns on Jesus's crown that he was forced to wear when he was crucified. If he truly did, does that mean God was responsible for creating everything? Then to go on further, did he indeed parcipate with Jesus's death by creating the thorns in his crown? I have never thought about this. This kind of struck me by surprise. I never really thought of it to be that way. It is said that religion can't change science, since you can't change the terms of creation. So if you switch the question around, can science change religion? I'm curious on how it can. Religion was created, was it not?! Another good point in the article was once again about God creating things. It said that God created things that were not so good, such as the thorns, mosquitoes and viruses, diseases, and other not so good things. Why did God create such things; isn't he suppose to be good and powerful like the article had said. But it further goes on in the article to say that it isn't God's fault for creating these things, it is ours. I thought that was interesting. I think that was a good point, because when he created Adam and Eve, they disobeyed by eating the fruit. But I don't believe God created these bad things to get back at us for not listening and obeying him, like Adam and Eve who ate the forbidden fruit. This article brought up a lot questions that question God.

"Devolution" by H. Allen Orr

This was another good article that introduced Intelligent Design very well. Do they really teach intelligent design in schools? Or are they wanting to teach it in schools? I don't know if it is a good idea to teach it. People should know about this particular scientific theory, but I don't know that they should all believe it. Is it a true scientific theory? If it is, then I guess then it should be taught. But if it is something that people choose to believe in or not, then no, I don't think it should be taught in schools. Once again, Behe's famous theory about the flagellum is stated in this article. But in this article it compares the flagellum with a mouse trap, which I thought was an interesting comparison. If one piece of the mousetrap is missing, then the entire thing might not work. This would be the same as the flagellum. If a part of that was missing, it to would not work. Another point that was made was if you confront a biologist with a particular complex structure like the flagellum they sometimes have a hard time saying which part appeared before the other parts. This reminded me of a question, "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" This would be one of those things that biologists would have a hard time answering. Overall, interesting articles this week.

New Yorker: Bravo! Clearly directly refutes ID's bizarre examples with direct counterpoints and evidence. ID is starting to sound more and more like Sophistry with rather twisted agenda. I also liked how the author pointed out that evolution and religion can coexist. There is no reason for all the hassle if one is willing to be reasonable and approach it from a logical standpoint.
Junod: So did he come up with ID on acid? That should tell you just how much sense it makes! Drugs are bad, mkay. Drugs--and beliefs impact the brain in an interesting way. You can see something that is not there and believe in it. Is creationism simply an extention of the brain's power to create? Junod really disses "traditional" science as being only about measuring and proving things. And this is bad because..... ? Unlike illusions in the mind, science deals with measurable, quantifiable things, and describes processes through observation and experimentation. It is surly better than the tripped out fantasies that this guy claims are better. Also, by classifying his thoughts as ID categorize them in terms of science, which he said is too limiting. So we should believe him because he is advocating a scientific (or at least
logical") theory, but we should not fully believe in that evolution stuff because it's a scientific theory. Wait, that doesn't make sense. Maybe he should go back on the acid.
Ch: THe whole basis for design arguments seems to be: Well, everything *looks* like it was designed, and there's no other good explanation, therefore it all was designed. But how can you categorically tell if something is designed or looks designed? And where does some form of evolution take over parts of the ID world (since several of the ID advocators did not exclude evolution in its entirety)? It seems like such an unfulfilling let alone huge logic leap to claim that. The critisms in the chapter help to point out many of the problems this belief has, especially Kant's idea that architect does not equal creator. He's got a good point!

An overarching point: ID seriously seems to lack the rigorous merits of science, and allows conclusion-jumping a greater role in determining origins. The ancient Egyptians were quite innovative, and designed things like irrigation, level building sites and many other things without the wheel, the mathematical concept of "0", and modern engineering. Lots of people can't figure out today how they managed do make much of the things they did. Now a scientist would look at the tools, the evidence and the existence of the structures they left behind and say "wow, those egyptians were crafty fellows!" and then keep trying to determine how they did it. Now someone who did not look through the eyes of science, but with preconceived beliefs and notions would say "ALIENS built all that stuff! It is impossible, we can't prove how the Egyptians managed it, and it was OBVIOUSLY created by a people of great intelligence (egyptian bashing here?)-- THEREFORE aliens are clearly responsible." And those individuals would prompty stop looking for more information. That is the difference between scientific theory--like evolution, and psuedo science-- like intelligent design.

Chapter 26: This article like most things dealing with Intelligent Design, deals with God in the Gap. I think that this works to a point, but what happens when science starts filling in those gaps. Intelligent Design will then lose its creatable.
The Case for Intelligent Design: This article was really interesting but I really couldn't tell wither the author was for or against I.D. It sounded like he wanted, but a lot of what was said in the article sounded badly. I really thought the things about the dinosaurs. I really though that the reason the dinosaurs were extinct was because they wouldn’t fit in Noah's Ark. I also thought it was funny how the main point was the God was a really smart person but not a very moral person. I think that shows in the other reason dinosaurs are extinct is because God thought they were perfect when he created them, (god created animals and they were perfect...) then after a while he thought no they are not perfect so he wiped them out. Now why didn't they have a dinosaur Jesus?
Devolution: This article really showed what I thought Intelligent Design was about. I always thought it was a common ground between evolution and theology creationism. It really explains some of the Gaps in Science, and religion. The point that I really don't like is the author Behe, who wrote a book on the matter, and then when questioned about it, he abandon his views and said that he was wrong. He doesn't stand up for what he believes and that makes me not trust what he says at all.

After learning about intelligent design, I can see how it would upset creationists and evolutionists. ID discredits God’s role for many traditional creationists, and it undermines evolutionary theory. At the same time, there isn’t much substance to ID--the basic concept is fairly simple with a few exceptions. For example, Orr does not think ID is coherent since its followers do not have identical interpretations of how ID is affected by Darwinism. I question the credibility of ID in our readings when seeing the irrelevant metaphors followers use to describe it. Dembski compares design to the scrambled letters of a word. Cicero argued for design by comparing it to machinery, like an orrery or clock. I’m sure these comparisons were made to further illustrate the concept, but in reality they are making a poor attempt at oversimplifying the entire universe.

Before these articles, I had not read anything on I.D. I am slowly learning though. Through the articles we read, it appears that I.D. is generalized. The New Yorker helped me understand it by saying it shuns creationism all together but doesn’t really accept evolutionary. But then I was kind of confused. What is it really believing?
Then, I got confused in Junod’s article when he said, “I as a Christian have no trouble believing that God used evolution to make me”. Then this doesn’t agree with I.D., correct?

With the ID article from the New York Times, I enjoyed focusing on just two scientifically credible people voice their opinion on ID. But the author immediately bashed as soon as he wrote about. I want to be swayed and moved by ID thought because it is an idealist view, but I have not been impressed with the scientific and logical arguments. I believe that non-fundamental Christian ID is bound by too much dogma, but there can also be other forms of ID that could be quite logical and open-minded. Such as ID which finds God in the origin of life, or in the existence of a species that has the ability to contemplate about the nature of God. In these questions, that science cannot answer, an Intelligent Designer could be found. I believe ID can be a very logical and can be used to supplement and compliment known science, but a conservative Christian view has proven to me to be silly. I cannot accept that dinosaurs were on Noah’s arch, and that the Earth is 6 thousand years old. I also cannot accept weak arguments like the one brought up in the article about how complexity indicates the existence of a designer.

In response to the Junod article, I could relate to becoming confused by trying to analyze God from biblical texts. It seemed like he was true moved while doing aid in a dessert, and found this form of God to be illogical and cruel. The actions of the biblical God and what they imply for humanity is confusing. Why did God create us just so we could serve him? Why would God need that kind of reinforcement from specs on dot in the middle of a universe? What kind or weird joke is God playing, why does he test us with horrendous events? The biblical God and its implications can raise much confusion as Junod illustrated

ch. 26
this chapter presents a good amount of information about the debate within the world of science. while much of the other chapters gave more extreme examples, this chapter demonstrated the debate within the scientific realm. i found it interesting how much contraversy lies within beliefs such as whether god created the universe, or whether he manipulates an already created one. also, i enjoyed reading about the difference between believing in god's intelligent design of the universe vs. god's intelligent design of specific beings, specificially humans. these seemingly small distinctions seemed to have caused much debate. i also thought that this was really the first chapter to present, in my humble opinion, a good argument for design. this was shown by the anthropic principle when it gave an example of slight alterations of gravitational pull. any small effect on this would make life impossible. i think that this principle makes some powerful arguments for its cause

The Design Argument

This was an interesting read with some especially satisfying parts in it. The distinction between the Anthropic Principle and the concept of Intelligent Design is one I had not considered so closely (instead viewing them as basically synonymous). Dawkins’ comment that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” seems to have been based on his belief that for a long time, design was far and away the best explanation for biological complexity given the information available through history. So Darwin’s theory gave these ‘atheists’ (and other scientific dissenters) a theory of their very own to cling to while rejecting the design argument. Finally, the argument that “if the universe weren’t perfectly fine-tuned to accommodate human existence, we wouldn’t be around to appreciate the absence of such fine-tuning” is something I’ve had an interest in before. That argument, made to refute the notion that cosmological fine-tuning proves intelligent design, can be countered with the argument that such a stance requires an abundance of failed universes. (If there is in fact only ONE universe [as I think most would agree to be the case], the “we wouldn’t be here to appreciate an absence of fine tuning” argument does seem to lose validity, because we are dealing with only one chance for perfection or failure… with the odds for un-aided design stacked toward failure)

The Case for Intelligent Design

I thought the author’s analogy concerning the intelligent design argument was fitting: a student who, not having studied for a test, answers every question with “God”—he fails the science test but passes the intelligent design test, solely because of a difference in how each test wishes to frame the question. The point he makes, too, that religion can’t change science (“science is the only branch of human endeavor that does not rely on humanity for its existence”) but science can change religion, is especially important when considering the fervor on both sides of the intelligent design argument.

One interesting side-point made by the author was the discussion of God’s creation of thorns, thistles, evil, and the bloody nature of nature. If the Bible really states that God cursed all of creation after humans disobeyed him (and He subsequently redefined the terms of creation), can’t it be pointed out that God should have KNOWN it would happen before creating humanity, and therefore is still wholly responsible for the outcome? Still responsible for the world of mosquitoes and viruses and blood and suffering – because He, being an all-knowing creator, KNOWS exactly what will happen in the course of everyone’s life? The ‘disobedience and subsequent punishment’ argument seems like a good excuse for sadistic action.

Devolution

I think the argument that biological entities are ‘irreducibly complex’, so that no single part can be removed or it will fail to function, is a flawed way of looking at creation. It is used to flat-out deny the possibility of evolution. The flaw, though, is the assumption that the biological entity (say the flagellum of a bacteria) would fundamentally fail to function at all without “component x”. The argument assumes that what would have to come before the flagellum WITH “component x” was a flagellum identical but with a gap where “component x” would be. Of course this thinking leads to the conclusion that the flagellum has to be created in its current state by a designer! In reality, what would likely exist before the most “current model” of flagellum is a nearly identical one that somehow doesn’t rely on “component x” in quite the same way or to quite the same extent (even though it still has “component x”, which it acquired through selective processes). There was probably no HUGELY dramatic change in the structure of the first flagellum to have “component x”. This dramatic change would occur over many generations, after the biological potential of that component can be fully exploited by the organism. “Component x” initially sort of shows up unannounced to be utilized by the flagellum, but does not jump into place in a system ready and waiting for it (as the ‘irreducible complexity’ theory seems to assume). There would be, in reality, an extraordinarily fine gradation from the early ‘primitive’ flagella to the most complex flagella. A flagellum before “component x” simply cannot be assumed to have needed “component x” in the same way as a flagellum evolved to heavily incorporate it in its structure.

(sorry about the above… I get a little carried away!)

I was a little surprised to hear about this school in Pennsylvania that has banned the teaching of evolution and replased it with this new intelligent design. I really hope that this does not become the new standard in all schools across the country. I think this ID is just a loop whole for religion being taught in school which the constitution clearly says there needs to be separation. I can't believe they compare the components of a cell to a mouse trap saying that evolution could not have affected cells because all parts are necessary for proper function. They feel natural selection and random mutations could not be responsible for all the variation of present life forms. I do not agree with that at all. I think that natural selection and random mutations accurately explain why there are variations. Also, they argue that mathematics prove that most evolution processes are not plausible. I guess I do not know much about that, but I would be interested in hearing more about that.
In response to Tom Junod's article, I thought he tried to show that science is and will always be out there and it is up to us to learn more about it. Religion tries to discredit science, but science, in the end, will change religion if we let it. He says there is only one science while there are many "Gods". I think this is a good point because humans did not create science like they possibly did religion. He goes on to say that he has no problem thinking that God used evultion to create humans. I personally don't believe that but atleast it is a compromise so hopefully science and evolution will continue to be taught in schools.
I thought the chapter in the book did a good job of expaining what the design theory is all about. I guess I'm happy that religious people are finally trying to incorporate science into the religious belief of creation. It is a step in the right direction, but I just don't agree with the whole idea of one divine designer.

Three enjoyable articles this week!

The Design Argument
This was generally a good article, but I was a little confused at how it said the selection-effect antidesign argument is “easily rebuffed.” The article states “What makes chance a viable alternative to design in the lottery analogy in the existence of other lottery players. The real reason lottery winners are surprised at their good fortune is because most lottery players are losers. . . For a selection effect successfully to refute a design argument based on cosmological fine-tuning requires an ensemble of universes in which most universes are losers in the quest for human observers.”

I don’t follow this logic at all, and the “refutation” seems to be a response to the analogy rather than the argument, and not a very good one at that. In the analogy, the point is that the odds were extremely poor against that SPECIFIC person winning. None of the other lottery losers are important in the slightest, except in that they represent the large odds against that particular person winning. They do not have to physically exist for the odds to be low for that one man to be the winner, and they are there only for the purpose of the analogy.

Applied to the universe, then, the implication is not that every conceivable life-unfriendly universe must physically exist for the selection argument to work, as the article claims. There do not have to be hundreds of billions of physically realized “loser” universes for our “winner” (life-friendly) universe to exist. Rather, the lottery losers of the analogy are the POSSIBLE configurations of the universe that COULD have been life unfriendly. There are a great number of those, and those are the odds against the universe working out in our favor as it did. Saying that because a lottery has losers that actually exist, there must be “loser” universes that actually exist for the selection effect argument to hold water seems ridiculous to me.

Devolution
I found this article extremely interesting, because it finally went into some of the specific arguments and counterarguments being used in the intelligent design debate. Good stuff, and I’d be interested in reading more of this type.

That said, what I find basically bothers me about the ID argument is that, for all the exact detailing on “irreducibly complex systems,” it seems to boil down to “We can’t currently explain this. Therefore it must have been created!” Not that it would ever be phrased in quite those terms, but since it relies on the supernatural intervention of an unspecified supreme intelligence, and is justified with arguments like “Behe and his followers now emphasize that, while irreducibly complex systems can in principle evolve, biologists can’t reconstruct in convincing detail just how any such system did evolve,” I don’t think it’s too unfair of a characterization.

Perhaps current biologists can’t explain everything about the natural world. So what? Our understanding of the specifics of evolution is not the same as it was back in the 1800s. It has continued to expand as we discover new things about the world and gain additional insights about the ways evolution works. It’s rather arrogant and naïve to expect that our knowledge is absolute and anything we cannot currently explain must be the work of the creator.

For example… Back before we knew about DNA and how it works, exactly WHY mutations occurred would have been essentially inexplicable. The current knowledge of the day was not able to “construct in convincing detail” this aspect of evolutionary theory, because the mechanism had not yet been discovered. Perhaps an ID advocate of the day could have argued “Organisms change because God makes them change! Current science provides no clue otherwise, so this is the only reasonable answer.” It’s just not convincing.

Perhaps current science provides no specific, convincing explanation for the complexity of bacterial flagella, but is it so unreasonable to think that some biologist of the future could come up with the answer? Gaps in knowledge do not discredit an entire theory, and falling back on “well, it must have been designed to be that way!” when something difficult is encountered seems unimaginative for a scientist, and maybe a little egotistical.

The Case For Intelligent Design
I thought this article was interesting (even though the title was a bit misleading) because it raises some good questions about the theological implications intelligent design has on Christianity. I also thought it was a bit flawed, because it seems to refer to a version of intelligent design that scientists are not really advocating: that all organisms on earth were SPECIFICALLY designed; the section in which he talks about dinosaurs is a good example of this. I felt like he never really gave an accurate account of the claims of ID, or at least the type of intelligent design that was detailed in the Devolution article, which is by far the most compelling. I don’t know if he was trying to stick solely to the way he thought Christians were likely to think about ID or if this was really his understanding of it, but it seemed a little incomplete.

The article asks if ID is really compatible with Christian theology beyond the idea of an intelligent designer at the origin of life. The question I’m struggling with is this: is ANY creation story which is not the Christian creation story truly compatible with Christian theology? It seems that some aspect of Christian orthodoxy, whether it’s the specifics of creation, or original sin and redemption, must always be compromised if it is to coexist with another creation story. Without compromise, you have fundamentalism, which is unsatisfying. I know Christianity and evolution have been successfully reconciled by many in the past, but always with some reinterpretation and compromise on some religious issues. Is the authors concern about the implications of ID thus primarily an issue about what would need to be compromised for it to work with Christianity? Are his objections even valid, with his apparent misunderstanding of ID?

This was probably a little (lot) longer than necessary.

The article that stuck with me the most was the one by Tom Junod. However, it was also very confusing. Thought the whole thing, it seemed like he was switching sides. At one point he seems a devout Christian, and at another, a devout scientist who is completely throwing creation out the window. And then sometimes he seemed to float in the middle! His comment about dinosaurs was interesting. He said that they are not mentioned in creation, so we don’t know God really created them. However, not many animals were mentioned specifically, so he can’t really base it off that.
In addition to this, the whole argument of intelligent design being taught in school is almost comical. You are telling one group of people that their theories can be taught, and another group that their theories can not be taught. I am not saying that creation should completely replace evolution, but why not give students a choice? Are science teachers afraid that if given a choice, some students might actually choose creationism?

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! jptzmobwjnr

Well, I haven't read this book that you are talking about, but still hope i can add to what you people are saying. I'm not s ure if annyone will read this, but the point of religion is to NOT have evidence, it tests our FAITH, not our reasoning. Also there are some things that only GOD knows, we humans are much less than GOD, therefore we cannot expect an explaination for everything(although we still look for them), its like a blind person looking for a needle in a palace, when really, the needle is on another planet. Actually more complicated than that but still! I HOPE SOMEONE READS THIS!!!! :]