The New York Times weighs in on ID/Creationism (again).

[LauraG]

From: The New York Times Editorial-Op/Ed Section

NYT-Editorial Observer
Grasping the Depth of Time as a First Step in Understanding Evolution
By VERLYN KLINKENBORG
Published: August 23, 2005

Last month a team of paleontologists announced that it had found several fossilized dinosaur embryos that were 190 million years old - some 90 million years older than any dinosaur embryos found so far. Those kinds of numbers are always a little daunting. Ever since I was a boy in a public elementary school in Iowa, I've been learning to face the eons and eons that are embedded in the universe around us.

I know the numbers as they stand at present, and I know what they mean, in a roughly comparative way. The universe is perhaps 14 billion years old. Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. The oldest hominid fossils are between 6 million and 7 million years old. The oldest distinctly modern human fossils are about 160,000 years old.

The truth of these numbers has the same effect on me as watching the night sky in the high desert. It fills me with a sense of nonspecific immensity. I don't think I'm alone in this.

One of the most powerful limits to the human imagination is our inability to grasp, in a truly intuitive way, the depths of terrestrial and cosmological time. That inability is hardly surprising because our own lives are so very short in comparison. It's hard enough to come to terms with the brief scale of human history. But the difficulty of comprehending what time is on an evolutionary scale, I think, is a major impediment to understanding evolution.

It's been approximately 3.5 billion years since primeval life first originated on this planet. That is not an unimaginable number in itself, if you're thinking of simple, discrete units like dollars or grains of sand. But 3.5 billion years of biological history is different. All those years have really passed, moment by moment, one by one. They encompass an actual, already lived reality, encompassing all the lives of all the organisms that have come and gone in that time. That expanse of time defines the realm of biological possibility in which life in its extraordinary diversity has evolved. It is time that has allowed the making of us.

The idea of such quantities of time is extremely new. Humans began to understand the true scale of geological time in the early 19th century. The probable depth of cosmological time and the extent of the history of the human species have come to light only within our own lifetimes.

That is a lot to absorb and, not surprisingly, many people refuse to absorb it. Nearly every attack on evolution - whether it is called intelligent design or plain creationism, synonyms for the same faith-based rejection of evolution - ultimately requires a foreshortening of cosmological, geological and biological time.

Humans feel much more content imagining a world of more human proportions, with a shorter time scale and a simple narrative sense of cause and effect. But what we prefer to believe makes no difference. The fact that life on Earth has arrived at a point where it is possible for humans to have beliefs is due to the steady ticking away of eons and the trial and error of natural selection.

Evolution is a robust theory, in the scientific sense, that has been tested and confirmed again and again. Intelligent design is not a theory at all, as scientists understand the word, but a well-financed political and religious campaign to muddy science. Its basic proposition - the intervention of a designer, a k a God - cannot be tested. It has no evidence to offer, and its assumptions that humans were divinely created are the same as its conclusions. Its objections to evolution are based on syllogistic reasoning and a highly selective treatment of the physical evidence.

Accepting the fact of evolution does not necessarily mean discarding a personal faith in God. But accepting intelligent design means discarding science. Much has been made of a 2004 poll showing that some 45 percent of Americans believe that the Earth - and humans with it - was created as described in the book of Genesis, and within the past 10,000 years. This isn't a triumph of faith. It's a failure of education.

The purpose of the campaign for intelligent design is to deepen that failure. To present the arguments of intelligent design as part of a debate over evolution is nonsense. From the scientific perspective, there is no debate. But even the illusion of a debate is a sorry victory for antievolutionists, a public relations victory based, as so many have been in recent years, on ignorance and obfuscation.

The essential, but often well-disguised, purpose of intelligent design, is to preserve the myth of a separate, divine creation for humans in the belief that only that can explain who we are. But there is a destructive hubris, a fearful arrogance, in that myth. It sets us apart from nature, except to dominate it. It misses both the grace and the moral depth of knowing that humans have only the same stake, the same right, in the Earth as every other creature that has ever lived here. There is a righteousness - a responsibility - in the deep, ancestral origins we share with all of life.

Now, why is that so hard to grasp for some people?

[Noble Ire]

Humans, by their very nature, fear what they do not understand. Whether it be because of sociatal pressures, upbringing, and simple gullibility and self-importance, some cannot or will not accept that they are meaningless in the grand scheme of things, merely parts of some omnipresent chain reaction. They cannot accept that they are not unique, important somehow in the universe, and cannot function without the belief that the world is too impossibly complex to have been formed without an intellegent hand, a hand that then gives them meaning and purpose. It is beyond many peoples comprehension, and thus they refuse all reason and logic, instead latching onto religion, which as been adept at manipulating these basic human fears since its inception. Obviously, given proper education, interest, and upbringing, humans can break free of this misconception, but for some, it is an integral part of their psyce.

[FSTargetDrone]

I guess the quick and dirty answer is that for many people, they just cannot accept that something seemingly complex and "special" as life (particularly human life) could be nothing more than an accident. They cannot conceive that life arose without purpose or design. There must a be a "reason" and/or a Creator (one who made humans in its image, naturally). It's not enough to accept that life has no "meaning" or that is all just a cooincidental result of certain chemicals mixing in a specific way under ideal conditions.

Likewise those people who believe that life exists only on earth (made by God) and life elsewhere is unlikely or even impossible. They cannot fathom that in the sheer numbers of potential places (planets) that surely exist outside of our solar system, where life could arise under similar conditions (or very different ones), life could possibly occur again. And certainly not human life.

[wolveraptor]

I like that philosophy: I think it inspires people to get out there and do something, something recognizeable, something that makes you a little less utterly insignificant in the pages of history. It gives you ambition.

[LauraG]

I have to say it's one of the more interesting takes I've seen on the matter. It shies away from the commonly heard "ID is not science" or the "There is no debate" (both are true, though) and steps into the very territory ID pretends to use in its favor, but it's not the morality of religion it argues, it's the immorality of willful ignorance pushed upon a race born to thirst for knowledge by a few who are filled with fear of it.

[Vicious]

Wow, I like that article.

Several people pointed out that accepting the realities of the universe mean accepting how utterly insignifigant the entire course of human history is. I'd just like to reiterate some of the numbers that were presented in the article. Recorded history spans, what, 6,000 to 8,000 years, maybe? Modern man has existed for less than 200,000 years, and the most distant ancestors still recognizable as something approaching human for no more than 6 or 7 million years. Compare this to the 135 million year reign of the dinosaurs, if we take the fossils the article mentions as the oldest dinosaurs. Or the 3.5 billion years life has existed.

All of these factors lead one to conclude that humans are not special or in any way more important than any other life. In fact, until we've outlasted some of the longest lived species on this planet, such as the dinosaurs or modern sharks and crocodiles (who are anatomically unchanged when compared with their Paleozoic ancestors), we can't count ourselves successful by life's standards. This isn't counting the longevity that various insect species have shown. Both in time of existence and quantity, they bury us utterly. Man is sentient, but there are a staggering number of species which are vastly more successful from nature's standpoint: quantity and duration of existence.

All this shows that Man has got to get his shit together if he ever wants to go down in history as a successful species, not from his point of view, but from nature's.

[Guardsman Bass]

Noble Ire hits it on the nail, as far as I can see it, from both my interactions with strong religious believers in my personal life, and the information I have found at Mike's site and beyond.

I think it is something partially below the thinking, rational area of the human brain, almost like an emotional parasite. Literally, in most believers, the conviction is there, along with the feelings associated with it, that we aren't alone; we are children, being watched over or created specially for a reason that may be beyond our comprehension. I even noticed a bit of that when I was reading the dogma of the Left Behind books; coming from a christian religious background before my atheism, the books actually started getting a bit under my skin.

Once that foundation is there, it is easy to rationalize, and usually the more intelligent you are, the better at rationalizing. I've seen biology students who studied genetics, environments, food cycles, the food chain, and the like, but suddenly when 'evolution' was said, the mental walls close down.

[Zero]

Wow, I like that article.

Several people pointed out that accepting the realities of the universe mean accepting how utterly insignifigant the entire course of human history is. I'd just like to reiterate some of the numbers that were presented in the article. Recorded history spans, what, 6,000 to 8,000 years, maybe? Modern man has existed for less than 200,000 years, and the most distant ancestors still recognizable as something approaching human for no more than 6 or 7 million years. Compare this to the 135 million year reign of the dinosaurs, if we take the fossils the article mentions as the oldest dinosaurs. Or the 3.5 billion years life has existed.

Dinosaurs weren't one specific species, so I think comparing them to humans isn't fair. The point still stands that humans haven't lasted longer then other species, but I don't see what the hell this has to do with if something's special or not. Going by measurement of time, nothing that lasts for only a lifetime of a human is special in any way at all. That seems awfully pointless, considering that the word itself was derived for use by humans, and that by this notion of what special is, it'd be quite rare to find something 'special.'

I'd say we're special simply because of our self-awareness, and our abilities, which do extend far beyond that of other animals in many ways.

[wolveraptor]

*snip*

You're taking a one-sided viewpoint. In terms of longevity, mammals in general, whose species last, on average, 6-7 million years, seem pathetic compared to reptiles, whose species can last for as long as 10-20 million years. However, in terms of environmental dominance, adaptability, and more dynamic qualities, humans really can't be beat. What we have managed to do in 200,000 years is beyond any other animal. We can fly to other worlds, make rain, and, of course, destroy. We could very nearly kill everything on Earth, if every nuclear-powered nation got together and covered every square inch of the world in nuclear blasts. Deep sea life might survive, and microbes deep within our mantle would always be there.

[Vicious]

In response to both Wolveraptor and Zero132132: Yeah, I know I underplayed Humanity's accomplishments there, I was in a bit of a funk when I wrote it and my cynical side tends to show when that happens. Sorry 'bout that.

Funk's passed, and re-reading it seems sorta stupid and, well, cynical.

[Darth Wong]

Noble Ire hits it on the nail, as far as I can see it, from both my interactions with strong religious believers in my personal life, and the information I have found at Mike's site and beyond.

I think it is something partially below the thinking, rational area of the human brain, almost like an emotional parasite. Literally, in most believers, the conviction is there, along with the feelings associated with it, that we aren't alone; we are children, being watched over or created specially for a reason that may be beyond our comprehension. I even noticed a bit of that when I was reading the dogma of the Left Behind books; coming from a christian religious background before my atheism, the books actually started getting a bit under my skin.

Once that foundation is there, it is easy to rationalize, and usually the more intelligent you are, the better at rationalizing. I've seen biology students who studied genetics, environments, food cycles, the food chain, and the like, but suddenly when 'evolution' was said, the mental walls close down.

That's because of naked fear. Sooner or later, when you study biology, astrophysics, or even philosophy, you are bound to realize that the concept of personal immortality is absurd. When that happens, your fear of death, the result of billions of years of evolved survival instincts, kicks in and causes you to reject this conclusion out of hand. In your terror, you will seek any solace, no matter how much of your intellect you must sacrifice in the process. And that's where religion comes in. Like any good salesman, religion seeks to find your point of vulnerability and exploit it.

[wolveraptor]

In response to both Wolveraptor and Zero132132: Yeah, I know I underplayed Humanity's accomplishments there, I was in a bit of a funk when I wrote it and my cynical side tends to show when that happens. Sorry 'bout that.

Funk's passed, and re-reading it seems sorta stupid and, well, cynical.

Ok. You were sounding a bit PETA-ish at first, with all the Homo sapiens bashing.

[Stark]

I guess some people just can't handle the moments you get when growing up - realisations like the scale of the universe, the insignificance of our little corner of it, and that eventually even the universe will die. Eventually, for all of us, there will be nothing. Everything dies: religious people - like children - desperately claim it is not so.

The 'unknown zone' is getting pretty damn small these days: stone age man could simply imagine the sky being full of gods like him, the world being full of unpredicable, magical events, and wonder where people 'go' when they die. Today it's down to things like an undetectable, invisble, unnecessary 'soul' that 'goes' 'somewhere' that isn't where it's supposed to be, or uncritically accepting documents thousands of years old while subjecting modern science to the most ludicrous scrutiny.