RE: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist

[Douglas Laycock]

Agreed.   Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX  78705    512-232-1341 (phone)    512-471-6988 (fax)   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 4:59 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Kansas and Intelligent Design: A Twist Douglas Laycock wrote: I agree with Ed Brayton's posts on the limits of science.  My take on the line between science and religion in the Intelligent Design debate is this:  the defined task of science is to produce the best naturalistic explanation possible.  That explanation is random variation and natural selection (fully elaborated, with multiple mechanisms of selection). I know this is nitpicky, and a tad bit off the subject of this list, but I would add here that not all mechanisms of evolution are selective. The question of just how ubiquitous natural selection is as the dominant means of fixing traits in a population is a matter of some disagreement among evolutionary biologists, but all would agree that there are non-adaptive mechanisms, like genetic drift, that are also a factor. How much of a factor is still a bit up in the air, but it's clear that not all traits have to be selected for in order to be passed along. When folks like Richard Dawkins say that evolution is purposeless, he has either left science and started talking about religion -- he believes God did not guide evolution and that it has no purpose -- or he is speaking carelessly and what he really means is that purpose is not part of the scientific model.  This sloppy usage, if that is what it is, does real harm to the public discourse.  Purpose is no part of the scientific model, but neither does science negate religious claims of supernatural purpose or intervention. I agree with this, and I have often criticized Dawkins and others. It's reasonable to say that we don't see any evidence of purpose or teleology in evolution, that reading intent or purpose into the evidence is superfluous. But then insisting that there is no guidance is also superfluous. From the standpoint of biological research, it's just not a relevant question. The evidence is clear that life has evolved and that we share a common ancestor with other species. Whether that was intended or not, we simply can't know because there are too many contingent factors. Consider this: had the dinosaurs not gone extinct as the (likely) result of the Chixilub meteor impact 65 million years ago, human beings would almost certainly not have evolved as mammals would have continued to be confined to small ecological niches due to predation. Human existence, then, is likely contingent on that event. Can we rule out the notion that said meteor was sent intentionally by God to facilitate the eventual evolution of human beings? Of course we can't. Science can answer the "how" question; it can't answer the "why" question. Ed Brayton

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.