Many supporters of Darwinism fear that if intelligent design orientations find there way into mainstream science it will retard or halt progress. They claim that instead of scientists doggedly searching for the "real" causes of things, they will invoke design and no progress will be made. But is this a realistic fear? Perhaps if they had a bit more faith in their own paradigm they could rest a lot easier.

Darwinists staunchly believe in the power of natural selection. It is a cardinal principal. Some kind of change happens in a system and natural selection weeds out that which is unfit. But where on earth could one find a more competitive arena with enormous selection pressures than in science. Scientists have to compete mightily for research funding, prestige, tenure, peer acceptance, etc. Scientists who do not produce, quickly find themselves "selected out".

If a design orientation is such a vacuous approach that will truncate real progress, how long will those who adopt it survive the brutal selection pressures. Surely Darwinists who have a little faith should rest easy that scientific IDers will quickly disappear from the scientific arena, just one more failed fossil on the selection heap.

Perhaps the fear is not that ID will ruin science but that it actually might enhance it.

It seems we're having some good discussions in the comments (so good, in fact, that other blogs are linking to it). It also seems as if we're sometimes straying from the topic of the original post, which can either be viewed as a result of a lively discussion or derailing commenters, depending on your perspective. In either case, I'm opening up this thread to discussions that, although interesting, doesn't quite fit in elsewhere. So, if a post or a comment makes you think of something, but you aren't sure if it would derail the flow of the discussion, go post it here, preferably with a link to what it was that inspired you. This will also decrease the risk of one of us having to move your comment to the Memory Hole.

My goodness there is a lot of attention paid to motives in this debate. But why? It seems to me that judging from the emotional intensity of many on both sides, motives are absolutely rampant. So? Who among us is not motivated by something to be involved in this debate. Some may be motivated by scientific and intellectual interests, some by religious convictions, others to defend a worldview, and still others for the thrill of battle. While some motives might be considered more noble than others, who would even want to debate someone with no strong motive to engage.

Seems to me that resorting to an argument-from-motive at best reflects a laziness to address the issues, and at worst is an unscrupulous attempt to cast aspersions on the intellectual integrity of someone. Or even worse yet an appeal that whole groups who hold certain worldviews are ignorant, stupid, or incorrigible somehow.

Fact of the matter is there are no fields of exploration where motives have no play. Certainly personal motives create a bias, but that in and of itself is not a negative. Instead it provides the impetus and drive for those explorations. Can motives result in distortions? Sure. However, I think history has shown that those "who get it right" are somehow able to hold their subjective bias in abeyance enough to "let the argument and data talk".

An argument-from-motive is like a racist remark that appeals to a stereotype to sway opinion, but is really an attempt to avoid engaging in debate with integrity. It's an easy way out but when it becomes a mantra, as it has, it is also so transparent to weakness that it loses points instead of gaining them. In the final analysis it will be the power of arguments that win the day. Appeals to motives will only delay the inevitable.

Over on Panda’s Thumb, Ed Brayton gives us an update on the Dover ID trial, noting that William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and John Campbell have all been withdrawn as expert witnesses in the case.

Brayton sees things through the prism of the conspiracy theory, but that doesn’t really matter here. What’s more significant are the following comments from Brayton:

The DI has been in a bind from the moment this case started. For the past few years, both sides in this dispute have been waiting for the case - the legal test case that would determine once and for all whether ID can be taught in public school science classrooms or whether the previous precedents against teaching "creation science" will be applied to ID in a similar manner.

On the other hand, they know that if the school board loses this case - particularly if it gets appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and loses there - it's pretty much the end for ID in public schools. That would set a nationwide precedent that would ban ID from public school science classrooms.

Of course, this can only be good news for our side. There is no more eloquent a defender of ID than Stephen Meyer and no more credible a scholar in favor of ID than William Dembski.

I’m going to upset many ID proponents, but I have to tell you that I personally hope that some Court will eventually rule against inserting ID into a public school curriculum. Let me explain.

Read the rest of this entry »

It is often claimed that before the intelligent design movement can be considered a scientific enterprise it must have a research program. Even ID proponents admit that currently there isn't much of a research program in place. Still, there are current efforts to explore an ID oriented approach to research like Jonathan Well's TOPS and Mike Gene's considerations here.

Read the rest of this entry »

This week there's been two good articles about how much of the machinery of animals dates far back. The first is by Frank Zimmer in The New York Times, titled "Plain, Simple, Primitive? Not the Jellyfish". The jellyfish is part of the cnidarians, the family relationship of which is depicted in the figure on the left (click on image to view it in full scale). Cnidarians are radially symmetrical, meaning that they're symmetrical around several axes, like the spokes in a bicycle wheel, whereas all the organisms depicted to the right of the cnidarian are bilaterally symmetrical, meaning they're only symmetrical around the head-to-tail axis (except for the echinoderms, which evolved radial symmetry independently). Bilateral animals use a special genetic toolkit for constructing their bodies, and cnidarians were thought to be an evolutionary relic from before this toolkit evolved. But recent findings have overturned this belief:

Read the rest of this entry »

One of my particular interests of late has been the scientific study of consciousness. Consciousness studies have in the past decade and a half moved well beyond the reductionist ranks of cog-sci and neuroscience, thanks to a large influx of dedicated funding and the participation of some leading lights in a number of pertinent fields. Quantum physics plays a large role in the developing theoretical framework, participating along with optical physics, molecular and cellular biology, biophysics, medicine, field dynamics, nanotechnology, information theory (and subs, including cryptography), nonlinear sciences, and even computer science - in the role of quantum computational theory and engineering.

There are some very interesting developing theories out there, providing reason to think we just might have a workable understanding at some point [optical physicist Stan Klein predicts 200 years for a clear consensus definition]. I'd hope for sooner, but it doesn't really matter. The important thing is that the quest is engaged. It'll proceed in fits and starts, as all of science does.
Read the rest of this entry »

The internet has often been compared to a giant brain, with the individual computers acting as neurons. And just as brain activity is dependent on the thousands of billions of connections between nerve cells, so does the internet rely on one being able to find several juicy links about one's favorite subjects in one place. Neurons have been firing, keyboards have been smoking, and the wires of the internet have been glowing to bring you this collection of blog posts about intelligent design. So, turn your retinal cells in this direction and enjoy the changes of membrane potential as you read these pixels.

Also, keep an eye on The Burning Panda, who will be hosting the next edition.

Read the rest of this entry »

Over at the Stranger Fruit, John Lynch is still bothered by my little blog about John Maynard Smith. One should first read my blog and the comments to appreciate the context of my reply below.
Read the rest of this entry »

Jason Rosenhouse points to this interesting review by biologist Massimo Pigliucci, titled "Expanding Evolution". The review is only available to subscribers, but here's some excerpts:

Read the rest of this entry »