A decent, popular article on intelligent design
by bipodThe American Spectator has given us an insightful popular discussion of intelligent design, managing to put some of the important ideas out on the table of public discourse. Now I'm not familiar with the American Spectator, but it appears that they are a right-wing publication, based on some of the advertisements I see on the site. Nonetheless (right-wingers must not be all that bad despite my deepest intuitions – IJ), the article stands as an excellent example for future pop-journalism on the topic.
When's the last time you've seen an article on intelligent design start off like this:
IMAGINE A NANOTECHNOLOGY MACHINE far beyond the state of the art: a microminiaturized rotary motor and propeller system that drives a tiny vessel through liquid. The engine and drive mechanism are composed of 40 parts, including a rotor, stator, driveshaft, bushings, universal joint, and flexible propeller. The engine is powered by a flow of ions, can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm (ten times faster than a NASCAR racing engine), and can reverse direction in a quarter of a rotation. The system comes with an automatic feedback control mechanism. The engine itself is about 1/100,000th of an inch wide — far smaller than can be seen by the human eye.
Most of us would be pleasantly surprised to learn that some genius had designed such an engineering triumph. What might come as a greater surprise is that there is a dominant faction in the scientific community that is prepared to defend, at all costs, the assertion that this marvelous device could not possibly have been designed, must have been produced blindly by unintelligent material forces, and only gives the appearance — we said appearance! — of being designed.
As you may have guessed, these astonishingly complex, tiny, and efficient engines exist. Millions of them exist inside you, in fact. They are true rotary motors that drive the "bacterial flagellum," a whip-like propulsion device for certain bacteria, including the famous E. coli that lives in your digestive system.
August 5th, 2005 at 8:31 am
No wonder you think this article is great; it reads like a DI press release.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 5, 2005 @ 8:31 am
August 5th, 2005 at 8:40 am
aagcobb, why do you say "no wonder."
i stated the reason i like the article: "anaging to put some of the important ideas out on the table of public discourse"
it gets closer to the heart of the intuitions that drive intelligent design and teleological perspectives in general. it seems to put the basic ideas behind intelligent design in the best light that i've seen in popular media.
but i still don't understand your comment. maybe you could elaborate.
Comment by bipod — August 5, 2005 @ 8:40 am
August 5th, 2005 at 9:58 am
You just said it yourself, "it seems to put the basic ideas behind intelligent design in the best light that i've seen in popular media." The DI couldn't have written a more glowing report; there is no balance whatsoever.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 5, 2005 @ 9:58 am
August 5th, 2005 at 11:49 am
But Aagcobb, you've got to admit that on a meta level, the balance of treatment of the issue by the popular media has almost wholey(sp?) been either:
1. pseudofairness, where ID is mischaracterized as an argument from mere complexity
2. outright dismissal as pseudoscience or creationism
Anyway, we're talking past each other because we're talking about different things. I'm just saying that, when it comes to an accurate presentation of ID, this article is rare. Maybe its not balanced in that it doesn't present criticism. But at least it accurately paints a picture of the major ID intutions.
Comment by bipod — August 5, 2005 @ 11:49 am
August 5th, 2005 at 11:56 am
I think that's the problem. The article is supposed to focus on whether design arguments and intuitions are even permissible as rational discussion fare, or whether they must be thrown out on some technicality, such that thinking peoples may not even consider them in the first place, while still being thought of as thinking peoples. To actually detail what those arguments and intuitions actually are in their own right – why that's just beyond the pale of fair reporting! It unfairly sides with the side of the debate that thinks the other side's points may be debated.
Comment by Deuce — August 5, 2005 @ 11:56 am
August 5th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
Hardly, Deuce. Even though Mr. Peterson thinks Dembski's and Behe's ideas have scientific merit, he could have sought more information from mainstream scientists and presented their views more objectively. The problem with the article is that it fawningly presents Dembski's and Behe's arguments as obviously true and the opposition to them as being a few diehard atheists. He has completely misled his readers about the nature of the debate.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 5, 2005 @ 1:39 pm
August 5th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Come on Aagcobb. Do you pose the same complaints when someone is making unfair, disparaging comments about ID? Are you concerned about the potential for the reader to be mislead in those situations?
Would you please point to something particular in the original article that is misleading about the nature of the situation.
Comment by Doug — August 5, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
August 5th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
I think Aagcobb has a point; for a newspaper article, it was quite one-sided. However, for something to refer readers to as being worthy of discussion, there's nothing wrong with it. Whenever the guys over at PT links to something that takes the stand they want to hear, I don't think to jump in to call it biased.
Please, let's not let this turn into some meta-discussion over what "reads like" what, whether the journalist behaved in the correct matter expected of journalists, etc. Let's talk about the points the article made about the topic of interest to this blog: Intelligent design.
Comment by Krauze — August 5, 2005 @ 2:35 pm
August 5th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
I loved the article and I'm not a even theist. Theism is not the only alternative to materialism. The materialists really only have one mechanism — accidental DNA mutations somehow acted upon by "natural selection". Some claim evolution consists of "more than RM&NS", but no one has come up with another unguided, deterministic, materialistic mechanism to explain the origin of intelligently functioning biological systems. Intelligent organization or undirected, random, materialistic processes are the only two alternatives . Intelligent organization or materialism. Whether that organizing intelligence is an innate aspect of living systems or God is not relevant. The question is — Should materialism be a mandatory metaphysic?
Comment by Bert — August 5, 2005 @ 3:42 pm
August 5th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
A couple points: the article was biased towards one side, but so what? It's an opinion article in an opinion magazine. It's to be expected that it's going to try to advance a particular argument. That's not a reason to dismiss it.
And secondly, it's focus is primarily on intelligent design itself, rather than on the debate about whether intelligent design is debatable. That's what I (and bipod) like about it. It actually provides a pretty good description of the teleological reasoning behind ID on its own terms. You could read 99.9% of other articles on ID, pro or con, and hear hundreds of quotes about whether it was it is/isn't science, whether it is/isn't creationism, etc, and not have any idea what the actual concepts being put forth by ID are.
Comment by Deuce — August 5, 2005 @ 4:10 pm
August 6th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
I am puzzled. Is this article considered insightfull because of the way it immediately infers the existance of God from ID arguments:
then completely rejects the notion that ID could be creationism:
Or is it insightfull because it lies by claiming that darwinism is commited to atheism:
Or is it just the way it completely accepts ID arguments without criticism, and rejects darwinian criticisms without consideration?
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 6, 2005 @ 12:09 pm
August 6th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
ElvenRanger, why would you post copy-pastes of the article you're misrepresenting if you wanted your misrepresentation to be convincing? I don't get it. Perhaps you are dizzy from all the spinning.
Comment by Joy — August 6, 2005 @ 1:41 pm
August 6th, 2005 at 7:18 pm
Joy, because I have not misrepresented the article.
However, as a matter of interest, do you have any form of argument beyond denying the obvious?
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 6, 2005 @ 7:18 pm
August 7th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
You offered your 1-sentence interpretations of sections of the article that bear little resemblance to what the article actually says. What you understand from the words is not what I read, even though the article is indeed a pro-ID fluff piece.
First, I agree with you that the "Big Intelligent Agent" is an inference to God/godlike being.
"then completely rejects the notion that ID could be creationism"
I see no complete rejection, I see an appeal to "the science" (sans scientific analysis), which is asserted to belie the "stereotype" of creationism.
"Or is it insightfull because it lies by claiming that darwinism is commited to atheism"
Are you denying that neodarwinism is primarily defended against ID by appeals to naturalism/materialism, asserted to rule out the possibility of a designer as a matter of principle? Are you also denying that dueling metaphysics underlies [to a great extent] the current "culture wars?"
Now, one could certainly infer atheism from such arguments, just as one can infer God-as-designer from the title "Big Intelligent Agent." But the citation you provided does not contain the word "atheism" anywhere, thus does not stand up to your charge of lie. It's spin, nothing more.
Finally, you said:
"Or is it just the way it completely accepts ID arguments without criticism, and rejects darwinian criticisms without consideration?"
Actually it's kind of refreshing to see a pro-ID article. We've all seen at least a hundred articles over the years accepting neodarwinist arguments without criticism, while rejecting ID criticisms without consideration. One in a hundred is hardly some kind of propagandist coup.
Neodarwinism has a full protection racket – lawyers, tenured gatekeepers, journalists, and "expert witnesses" – who battle tirelessly to prevent criticisms of its Absolute Truth [TM] from being voiced in compulsory education settings or published in the scientific press. But that [plus some well placed shills in the mainstream media] is the entire extent of its power. Neodarwinism can't control what individual scientists or public citizens choose to believe, nor can it abrogate First Amendment rights for anyone outside its quite small exclusive domain.
I can sure understand why you'd reject the article's scientific 'authority', since it claims none. It's an analysis of a sociopolitical issue from a particular sociopolitical point of view. You'll have this whenever there's an issue people outside small, exclusive domains care about.
Comment by Joy — August 7, 2005 @ 2:14 pm
August 7th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
From my quote, the article continues (with my comments inserted in square brackets):
The proponents of ID base their arguments on biological and physical data generally accepted in science. [This is incorrect. ID advocates frequently mistate the facts, either subtly (as in Meyer) or not so subtly (as in Wells and Johnson).] They use the same kinds of analytical methods and mathematical tools as other scientists. [In fact, one of the distinguishing features of ID is that it defends as legitimate two inference types not accepted by science in general, from IC and from CSI.] The ID theorists do not reason from religious premises. [Most ID advocates do employ religious reasons as a theoretical filter. They decide that Darwinism is wrong for religous reasons, then look for other reasons to support that conclusion. This is very evident in the case of Wells, and apparent in the case of Johnson, Behe, Dembski, and Meyer. (This does not by itself mean their arguments are unscientific.)] Neither do they attempt to prove the truth of Scripture, or of any particular religious views. [In fact, many do exactly that as for example when Dembski says that ID is just the Logos theology of John restated in the language of information theory.]
[Nor as a rule do they contest that the earth is only 6 thousand years old, and that there is no common descent.]
Thus the article denies of ID all the stereotypical features of creationism. The evident purpose is to deny that ID is a form of creationism; a denial which would mean this article is adhering to the ID party line. I will concede that a sophisticated thinker could make those claims and still believe ID to be creationism. But such a sophisticated thinker would in making those claims without qualification be misleading by ommission. The intent of the passage is clearly to deny that ID is creationism. As my comments indicate, it is at least contentious as to what extent that denial is plausible.
Neodarwinism is primarily defended against ID by demonstrating the ID arguments to be based on factual errors, strawman stereotypes of neodarwinism, and errors of reasoning. It is also pointed out by many defenders of neodarwinism that ID violates methodological naturalism, but those same neodarwinists point out that methodological naturalism involves no metaphysical commitment to naturalism. The neodarwinists who point this out include atheists, agnostics, pantheists and theists – including theists who accept philosophical arguments to design, but deny that they have scientific status. Other neodarwinists reject methodological naturalism as a principle of science, and are able to do so because the evidence for neodarwinism does not depend on a methodologicaly naturalist premise.
As to "culture wars", what ever culture war there is between the DI and the NAS, or between DI and the ACLU is not based on metaphysics, but on epistemology, ethics and legal theory. It is portrayed as a battle of metaphysics on one side in order to rally the troops.
The citation I quoted contains the words "here are two competing philosophical visions: one that automatically rules out the possibility of God (and therefore a designer) as a matter of principle". That is a statement of (an extreme version of) atheism. That it is intended as such is shown by its immediate contrast with the competing philosophical vision which "affirms God, or is at least willing to entertain the possibility of a designer." Now, which camp would Kenneth Miller fall into? He is mentioned by name in the article, he emphatically believes there is a God, and a God who actively intervenes in religiously significant ways in the universe (eg, Virgin birth, ressurection, real presence). So he would fall into the later camp, right? But not according to the article. He's in the atheist camp for Peterson, for only so can the proper stereotype of the "culture war" be preserved.
Are you suggesting that there have been hundreds of popular articles explaining neodarwinism which have not included criticisms from a fringe group, not all of whom agree that their criticisms are scientific, and all of whose critics agree that they are not? Scandalous! I here there have been many popular articles explaining orbital mechanics which do not mention criticisms from geocentrists as well. What is the nation coming to.
Or are you suggesting that there have been at least a hundred popular articles discussing the ID controversy that do not at least summarise the ID arguments before presenting criticisms? But in that case, I believe you are wrong.
Science education has a small band of defenders who work to ensure that material presented in science classes is actually science, and well confirmed science. Unfortunatly, it is true that they are opposed by a well funded lobby who think it is more important to spend money on pulic relations than on research. This religiously backed lobby thinks it more important to teach such "scientific controversies" whether or not life on Earth is related by common descent than to teach genuine scientific controversies.
I object, however, to your sugestion that neodarwinists are trying to infringe first ammendment rights. When a teacher teaches science at the behest of the government, then it is the government's duty to require that the teacher teach science. That is no more an infringement of the teacher's first ammendment rights than it would be for Ford to sack a salesman who continuosly advised customers of the virtues of the Toyota model and the vices of the Ford.
The ability to use public relations and religious sentiment to generate a social-political controversy does not entitle non-science to a place in the science class.
Actually, it purports to look at the science, and merely caricatures the "sociopolitical" controversy. The question is, however, not what it does, but why does bipod (and apparently you) consider it "insightful" when its "sociopolitical" analysis plainly negatively stereotypes and misrepresents one side of the controversy, and whose "scientific content" is pure DI boilerplate? Why, for example, is it "insightful" rather than just another depressing vilification (of the media) to write:
?
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 7, 2005 @ 9:39 pm
August 8th, 2005 at 11:52 am
"ID advocates frequently mistate the facts, either subtly (as in Meyer) or not so subtly (as in Wells and Johnson)."
Lots of people misstate facts, and then there are non-facts that people assert quite liberally. I have seen this occur in popular and science press articles often, and more often in debates. The nature of the rhetorical game, n'est ce pas?
"In fact, one of the distinguishing features of ID is that it defends as legitimate two inference types not accepted by science in general, from IC and from CSI."
I am quite familiar with the standard scientific application of 'irreducible complexity' in nonlinear science. They call it "Emergence," which is specifically defined as higher-level properties of a system that cannot be reduced to any property/ies of the substrate – thus "emerge" full-blown and 'irreducibly complex'. As for 'complex specified information', some scientists would suggest something very much like this as the encoded substrate property from which higher-level properties "emerge." Others just remain stumped.
Since both "emergence" and complex information-specific dynamics are indeed legitimate areas of study in several subdisciplines of biology and physics, your claim that they are not legitimate science is false.
"Most ID advocates do employ religious reasons as a theoretical filter. They decide that Darwinism is wrong for religous reasons, then look for other reasons to support that conclusion. This is very evident in the case of Wells, and apparent in the case of Johnson, Behe, Dembski, and Meyer. (This does not by itself mean their arguments are unscientific.)"
You want to indict the honesty and legitimacy of "most ID advocates" on the basis of your personal impression of 5 peoples' religious beliefs? Don't you think that's overkill? I mean, I could employ this same fallacious argument against Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker, et. al. and support it with their appeals to their own metaphysical beliefs, then claim that "most DarwinDefenders [TM]" filter their theoretical conclusions through their [anti]religious beliefs. That wouldn't convince you, would it?
"In fact, many do exactly that as for example when Dembski says that ID is just the Logos theology of John restated in the language of information theory."
Who cares how Dembski interprets the evidence when speaking to or writing for fellow members of his faith? Has he attempted to sell it to science AS science? How individuals fit scientific theory and/or knowledge into their metaphysical worldview is their own business IMO. It is not the legitimate business of science to dictate or control.
"Thus the article denies of ID all the stereotypical features of creationism. The evident purpose is to deny that ID is a form of creationism; a denial which would mean this article is adhering to the ID party line."
I personally don't see that it matters what any individual's personal metaphysical beliefs are, or how they fit scientific knowledge/theory into their belief system. Policing the beliefs of individuals is not a job science is chartered to attempt. Thus it is a sure sign of corruption whenever science/scientists rely upon ideological litmus testing to pronounce upon the legitimacy or illegitimacy of scientific hypotheses.
"Other neodarwinists reject methodological naturalism as a principle of science, and are able to do so because the evidence for neodarwinism does not depend on a methodologicaly naturalist premise."
Of course neodarwinism doesn't depend on methodological naturalism. It's a historical fairy tale dependent upon a priori assumptions that cannot be demonstrated empirically. Which helps to explain why so many biological researchers use the phrase "challenge to Darwinian Orthodoxy" in their published papers and press releases, concerning research that contradicts neodarwinian assumptions.
"I object, however, to your sugestion that neodarwinists are trying to infringe first ammendment rights. When a teacher teaches science at the behest of the government, then it is the government's duty to require that the teacher teach science. That is no more an infringement of the teacher's first ammendment rights than it would be for Ford to sack a salesman who continuosly advised customers of the virtues of the Toyota model and the vices of the Ford."
My issue was the attempt to enforce conformity of beliefs in science, in education, and in public. You mischaracterize it. Outside the quite small sphere of control science exercises, it has no mandate and no power to insist on ideological conformity.
I haven't claimed the article at issue is "insightful." In fact, I said it was pretty much standard rhetorical fare from a biased sociopolitical source. That source is not subject to scientific oversight or pre-publication approval, so complaining about it is pointless. A fact of sociopolitical life that isn't going to change.
Nor have I advocated for ID to be 'taught' in high school science classes. I think it's much more effective a selling point – considering that the target audience consists of terminally bored teenagers – to have ID stamped "CENSORED" and mention of it forbidden in classrooms. That situation is fine with me.
Comment by Joy — August 8, 2005 @ 11:52 am
August 8th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
Come on, be honest, Elven! Don't you view ID supporters as "Bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging, Scripture-spouting, hellfire and brimstone-preaching, rightwing, gun-toting, bigoted, homophobic, moralistic, paternalistic, polyester-wearing, mascara-smeared, false-eyelashed, SUV-driving, Wal-Mart shopping, big hair, big gut, fat butt, holy-rolling, shake-handling, Limbaugh-listening, Bambi-shooting, trailer-park-dwelling, uneducated, ignorant, backwater, hayseed, hick, inbred, pinhead rubes?" I see they forgot my personal favorite anti-ID pejorative – "Luddites."
How many of those descriptions automatically pop into your mind when you encounter ID supporters in person, in the media, or on internet discussion forums? Do you have some personal favorites that aren't listed?
Comment by Joy — August 8, 2005 @ 3:01 pm
August 8th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
I don't know about Elven, but my view of IDists are slick used car salesmen bamboozeling the bible thumping knuckle draggers.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 8, 2005 @ 3:22 pm
August 8th, 2005 at 6:10 pm
No, Joy. I do not. There is a strong correlation between ID support and conservative religious belief, and a strong correlation between ID support and right wing politics. And most ID suporters, as are most of the population, woefully ignorant of science (which is not the same as being ignorant simpliciter). These are important facts for understanding the socio-politics of ID, but not defining features of individuals. Actually, ID suporters (as distinct from creation "science" suporters) tend to be moderately well of, and to have post secondary education outside the sciences.
As to most of the epithets, they indicate mostly just different culture (which I like), poverty (which is not even slightly dishonourable) or religious passion. Personally I would rather a religious person be passionate than a tepid vomitous mass (Revelation 3: 15,16).
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 8, 2005 @ 6:10 pm
August 8th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
No, it is not part of the rhetorical game; and especially not when you are lobbying (as the DI is) to have those falsities taught in schools.
This deserves a short answer and a long answer. The short answer is that both IC and CSI can be legitimately defined (or at least, close analogues of them can be). But Behe and Dembski argue that from IC or CSI respectively, the existance of a designer can be inferred. This is an invalid inference, and is not used in any science (not even archeology or SETI). Thus, ID uses inference patterns not used in science (as I originally claimed).
The long answer is that "emergence" is not IC, and emergent structures need not be IC. Examples of emergent structures include waves in the sea, hurricanes, tornadoes, the spiral structure of the milky way, convection cells. None of these are IC. Further, IC structures need not be emergent. A mouse trap, for example, is IC, but not emergent. Thus you have no evidence of even the concept of IC being used in science, let alone the inference.
CSI, on the other hand, is either trivial (every complex system has it), anthropocentric (it only picks out the property of being complex and interesting to humans), or incoherent(it picks out the property of having many parts and low Kolmogorov complexity). In no case is it an informative property, which is why it is ignored by scientists.
So neither concept is even used by scientists in reasoning, quite apart from any concern about inference paterns.
No matter how you spin, it remains the case that all bar one published defenders of ID have clear religious connections, and clear religious reasons for their commitment to ID. This is also true of fellows of the DI; and also true of most, if not all ID organisations. (They may have more than just religious reasons for that commitment, but whether you think they do, or not, depends a lot on how you assess the validity of their arguments.) In contrast, a significant portion of the founders of neodarwinism had clear and diverse religious commitment; and a significant number of defenders of neodarwinism against ID and creationism have clear and diverse religious commitment. Some of the most famour defenders, while not having religious commitment, are also clearly friendly to such commitment (Pennock and Ruse), though some are clearly not. The primary organisations defending neodarwinism quite clearly have no relidious commitment (though there individual members have quite diverse commitments). So while I can run my argument using a representative sample; to run your counter argument, you would have to deliberately cherry pick the data. That should tell you something.
It is very relevant to socio-political analysis of the ID movement that all its major proponents have strong religious commitment, and employ ID actively in religious rhetoric.
I could not agree more with your first statement. I am as delighted by Simon Conway Morris' mini-statement of faith, and clear Christian influence on his view in "Life's Solution" as I am by Dawkins' similar excursions in "The Blindwatchmaker". I love both Gould's passionate and eloquent defence of non-hostile agnosticism and Kenneth Miller's equally passionate and eloquent defence of theism ("Finding Darwin's God").
But, when a group of educated people clearly use specious arguments to erect a "science" without experimental suport; and advocate teaching that science (in practice if not in name) in schools before it has significant suport in the scientific community, or any scientific successes to its name; and only want "controversies" taught in science when the subject matter causes theological problems to many of their co-religionists, it is sensible to ask whether it is really commitment to science that drives them, or are they rather another brand of creationist.
Of course, scientists do not rely on "ideological litmus testing" in rejecting ID. They reject ID because its arguments are without merit as science.
While I notice in the comment guidelines that the discussion here is to take place in a "a pleasant and fruitful atmosphere", you never let a chance go by to phrase your comments in an offensive manner. Apparently the role of a guest at Telic Thoughts is to have themselves and their beliefs insulted continuosly, but to always be pleasant in responce. That, however, is not a game I am interested in. Calling neodarwinism a "historical fairy tale" shows you to be either utterly rude, completely ignorant of what you discuss, or blinded by bias (or possibly all three). There are experimental and theoretical challenges to neodarwinism, and have been since it was formulated. It has overcome those challenges in the past, and may overcome current challenges. Regardless of whether it does or not, it has been one of the most fruitfull theories biology has seen; and has a proven track record.
It puzzles me that you cannot respect a theory that has commanded near consensus from biologists for 50 years. Yours is clearly not an evidence based approach to science.
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 8, 2005 @ 8:06 pm
August 8th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
As funky or unfriendly Joy may or may not be, I don't see how a general characterization of neodarwinism has anything to do with rudeness, and to call her either rude, ignorant, or blinded, could equally be considered rude. I am going to go out on a limb and say that it is.
Comment by matt_nadler — August 8, 2005 @ 9:09 pm
August 8th, 2005 at 10:26 pm
You do not think it impolite to dismiss a theory that thousands of very intelligent people have spent tens of thousand man/years developing and subjecting to experimental test under (often) very difficult circumstances as "a fairy tale" To dismiss peoples life work and greatest intellectual acheivement as no more than implausible, fantastical invention? I would not be so dismissive of theological beliefs with which I disagreed.
But, for the record, here is a sample of Joy's impolite comments in just one thread:
"Perhaps you are dizzy from all the spinning."
"Neodarwinism has a full protection racket …"
not to mention her disparaging epithets:
"most DarwinDefendersâ„¢"
Absolute Truthâ„¢
You want to go out on a limb and say that calling Joy either rude, ignorant or blinded is rude. Well she has repeatedly suggested that all neodarwinists are blinded by bias. In fact, calling neodarwinism "a historical fairytale" repeats the same suggestion. She has strongly suggested that I am bigoted with her comments of 3 pm, so by your own standard she has been rude.
I agree, however, that calling her either rude, ignorant or blinded is itself rude. As I said, I am not going to play the game were the guest out of politeness ignores the continuos insults by the host. If she wishes to repeatedly use disparaging terminology, repeatedly suggest ideological blindness, and ideologically driven attempts to control information then I will inform her that her behaviour is the exact opposite of what this list requires of guests.
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 8, 2005 @ 10:26 pm
August 8th, 2005 at 11:33 pm
ElvenRanger,
I am a guest like you. To be honest, I find this blog puzzling in some ways and fascinating in others. Maybe that's why its one I check often right now-its fun for me to see whether I will disagree wildly or agree with whoever posts something, and a lot of other times I see a differing perspective. This conversation may be getting a bit too meta-, but I really don't know what to think of Joy's comments. Its clear that she intends to convey much irony and sarcasm, as with using trademarks to denote words she finds Orwellian and so on (or is she trying to be Orwellian herself with double irony–what's her deal?). Because I am philosophically a (non-vulgar) absolutist of sorts, I do tend to see such irony as having destructive potential if used improperly. But I'll keep from doing a thorough study right now to see to whom my opinion might even apply. I do agree with you that the comment "Perhaps you are dizzy from all the spinning…" is something that I would consider rude if I was spoken to in that way–it can only be considered a joke at my expense. Who would be spinning but myself? But then who is the dizzy one? But the dizzy one is the one who is incoherent, and nobody wants to be that guy. Then again, I like that a little bit–I grew up in a Jewish home, and quippery is sometimes a way of showing love. Luckily I haven't produced a shrewd enough argument (on ID or Darwinism) for anyone to get away with even calling me a spinster. The rest of Joy's comments that you characterize as rude are pretty amorphous to me, and may reflect an opinion without too much added punch, save for irony and sarcasm (only rude if you are disgusted with those rhetorical devices). I enjoy straight talk as much if not more than irony, and frankly I don't need arguments to be given to me with much spice. But then, others like spice, and even need spice to feel that they their food is basically edible. My Sephardic friend of Morroccan descent would be one such example–there is much spiciness in her foods, or rather the foods that her Morrocan father desires, but her Ashkenazic mother is basically unaccostumed to make (and for this she recieves some occasional jesting). Although my metaphor is probably streched to its most absurd breaking point, what I am trying to say is that while sometimes I like spicy foods, there are other times when spicy foods are not so much to my liking, but most of the time I am able to digest either. And if its recieved in an attitude of thanksgiving, then it is good food. This was also Paul's instruction to Timothy, though I would be a most odd interpreter if I were to try to make direct application to this situation. However, there are other places in 1 Timothy for example where Paul's speaks not about foods, but about arguments and not being contentious. And perhaps we would be better off if we all tried to avoid contentiousness when dealing with such already charged issues. And now I realize that some of my comments to Aagcobb and probably also E Darrell from long ago may likewise have been hastily posted in a spirit of contentiousness. In this contingency, let us start anew and try to understand each other. Me most of all, for I am probably the least well-read on these issues out of anyone here, and thus most in need of understanding, before coming to any agreement or disagreement. I have way too much fun here to have to feel nervous about what is said, but the possibility of causing undue offense to others and then making trouble does create such an atmosphere. And well, that sucks.
Comment by matt_nadler — August 8, 2005 @ 11:33 pm
August 9th, 2005 at 1:25 am
As neodarwinists do not describe their beliefs as "Absolute Truth", and do not typically describe themselves as "DarwinDefenders", she is not making ironic comment on Orwellian terms. Beyond that, I do not know what she intends beyond the obvious purpose of disparagement.
I think comparing neodarwinists to a criminal conspiracy to prevent the dissemination of knowledge ("full protection racket") goes well beyond sarcasm or irony. Likewise the strong hint that if I were only honest, I would admit to being outrageously bigoted.
Nor can Joy's general comments be characterised as merely "spice". In one abyssmal episode, she described "Science as Socio-Political Absolutism" Political Absolutism is the theory that one ruler should have absolute power, with recent examples including Hitler's germany, Stalin's Soviet Union and Hussein's Iraq. This definition is the same in both sociology or in political science, so Joy's title not so subtly compares scientists with the Nazi regime. This may not have been her intention – she may merely be ignorant of the meanings of the words she uses. But she argues in that blog that neodarwinism is an evidence free enterprise in which "intuitional mind worship" trumps empericism (attributed unsurprisingly to ID, which even if it is science, has yet to conduct a single experiment) and which as a result has become only "socio-politics", and attempt to control beliefs by political means.
This is without question offensive rubish, and given her choice of words, it is intended to be offensive.
While quite happy to avoid contentiousness, I am not prepared to take it as a one sided burden. So if Joy insists on using phrasing intended to be offensive, I will point it out.
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 9, 2005 @ 1:25 am
August 9th, 2005 at 11:22 am
Aagcobb said:
How sad.
Elven responded:
"Strong correlation" meaning what, in real-life terms? Your blanket generalizations do not apply to me, for instance, nor am I the only liberal in the ranks that I know of. As for general ignorance of science, this is hardly surprising in a specialized society. "Most" are also ignorant of real estate law, software development, highway engineering, auto mechanics and "creative" accounting as well. This does not mean the seller's agent is not liable for falsifying termite inspection reports on a house, a software developer isn't liable for spyware gratuitously inserted into the program, the highway engineer isn't liable for cutting corners on a retaining wall, an auto mechanic isn't liable for neglecting to put oil in the engine, or that a "creative" accountant won't go to jail for robbing investors blind.
Science is oddly (considering its pretense of authority) held blameless for all its many shortcomings and mistakes of theory and/or interpretation. This will tend to make regular people dubious toward the pretense if they are aware of how little scientific authority actually counts in the realm of everyday reality. Heck, the attitude itself will tend to alienate half or more of the people science seeks to convince, on psychological grounds alone! Humans are notoriously contrary, and having made specific, highly invested, heartfelt commitments important in their own lives, they do not well tolerate condescension or name-calling [see above list] from intellectual elitists. A quirk of human nature scientists should have recognized and learned to work with centuries ago if they're as smart as they bill themselves to be.
And why is it – exactly – that the inference is invalid? Is it because science has investigated the inference in depth and in detail by every empirical means its methodology can invent, and found that no design or designer is possible? Were that so you would have volumes of research material to offer that would demonstrate this assertion factual. But the truth is that teleology and teleological design is verboten by philosophical/ideological fiat, not by evidence or by legitimate exercise of induction/deduction from evidence.
This situation is not nearly as hidden from either scientists or interested observers as the 'Old Guard' turf-protectors would love to believe it is. Your targets [Behe, Dembski, Wells, et. al.] aren't laypersons laboring under a general ignorance of science – they are, in fact, scientists. There are many other scientists, ex-scientists and upcoming future scientists all over the world who do not subscribe to the neodarwinian equation as explanatory of life, its origins or its evolution. They may not self-identify with ID, but they often challenge "Darwinian Orthodoxy" with their findings and generally pay it no mind when designing research. This is how "scientific revolutions" begin. By the time definitive falsification of the old paradigm is accomplished – and that is the inevitable fate of provisional theory – the 'Old Guard' will have retired or died and the 'New Guard' will shrug and say they knew it all along.
Such is the way of things, given the fact that science was never chartered to establish absolutes or institute any ideologically-based "Orthodoxy." This makes the current pretense to absolute authority in such matters utterly transparent to anyone who knows better. I have tried many times to tell the defenders of neodarwinism that they compound the harm to science being done by the pretense, but they are apparently deaf. My hope is that the collective endeavor of science itself will survive the damage being done by current rust and delusions of grandeur, so it can continue into the future to serve humanity (and not just itself).
You of course don't have to believe anything I have to say about it. But if you choose to take on the role of DarwinDefender [TM] in this debate while spewing stereotypical falsehoods with condescension toward the 'other' camp, you will have to come prepared. When one jumps to the front line intending to do battle, one cannot start crying and complaining when they meet resistance. Your weapons won't protect you from people who can be fully expected to parry the thrusts. You'll need some appropriate armor.
That is metaphoric simile. You will encounter some of that along with hyperbole, rhetorical device, satirical farce, genuine lampoon and occasional well-aimed darts in this debate. Worse, sometimes they'll come in a packaged unit, so you may wish to work on your horsemanship as well.
Comment by Joy — August 9, 2005 @ 11:22 am
August 9th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
Matt, I thank you humbly for your defense and hope most of our guests have some feel for the rhetoric of this debate so as not to take personal offense where none is warranted. In law (a sociopolitical construct) they call it an "adversarial system," and that is precisely what it's designed to be. This means actual 'truth' means less than the effectiveness of the arguments, and any lawyer worth the title is able to argue effectively from either 'side' of any issue. Any high school debate student understands this, as it's thoroughly inculcated into the system itself. Science works in this way as well, which is why you'll inevitably find "dueling experts" on either side of any issue that appeals to scientific support – in science or in law.
That said, I must admit to having a bad attitude [I've seen it called "impish," and you know what they say about "imps"). A quirk of my nature and experience that others will either tolerate or not - I have zero expectations of winning any personality contests. The list of epithets contained in the original article linked atop this page is not the least bit facetious, you know. I have seen those insults tossed time after time, and I've seen both better (more clever) and worse (more unacceptable language) too. Thus I do not see calling a Darwin defender a DarwinDefender [TM] as particularly insulting. Any defender of neodarwinism who takes personal insult at being labeled a defender should probably avoid participation in these debates.
Comment by Joy — August 9, 2005 @ 12:53 pm
August 10th, 2005 at 8:54 pm
You insist on painting me as a bigot just because I do not support ID, don't you. I made no blanket generalisation about ID supporters, and was very careful not to because I do not accept such blanket generalitations. Strong correlation means that, where around 20 to 50% of US citizens have conservative religious beliefs (depending on how you define them), around 80% (or more) of ID supporters have conservative religous belief. Where around 55% of US citizens support conservative politics (as at the last election) better than 80% of ID supporters suport conservative politics.
I am not going to make the fallacy of refusing to recognise the correlation because of the 20%, and nor am I going to automatically ignore the individual beliefs of that 20% just to fit your stereotypes.
I think most people will recognise that science, the rigourous pursuit of trial and error as a way to find out about the world, will inevitably result in frequent error. As a result, they will applaud scientists for their insistence that they do not know "AbsoluteTruth". Common sense will tell them, as will the technological benefits from science, that ideas which have withstood millions of person-hours of trial and error testing are probably close to the truth. At least, they will if not hoodwinked by people who decide to take an "adversorial approach", placing more empahisis on "effectivness of arguments" than on truth, and roll out extensive public relations campaign to convince them otherwise.
As you know, neodarwinism makes no effort to prove that there is not a designer of the universe or life. You know this because numerous, and vocal neodarwinians have believed that the universe and life are teleologically designed, and in some cases have explicitly endorsed the teleological argument for the existance of God. What neodarwinism does do is provide a testable theory for the origin of diversity and adaption within life that makes no appeal to teleology as an "efficient cause".
The effectiveness of neodarwinism as explanation (and it has been very effective) suggests there is no need to invoke teleological efficient causes to explain lifes diversity and adaptiveness. But the reason the arguments from IC and CSI are rejected is because they are bad arguments.
IC, if given a clearly non-tenditious definition, is a property clearly found in life, and which clearly cannot evolve by "direct means". This fact allows Behe to establish the argument:
1) There exist IC structures in living things;
2) IC structures cannot evolve by direct means;
3) IC structures cannot evolve by indirect means;
Conclusion: Therefore IC structures cannot evolve.
But Behe's only argument in suport of 3 is:
p 40, DBB
But how would Behe know? He is rejecting indirect routes, sight unseen. Further is probability assumption assumes that indirect routes must assemble all components of a system at once – something neodarwinians reject, and which is not an element of any neodarwinian scenario. So premise 3 is supported simply by a strawman characterisation of neodarwinism, coupled with an argument from incredulity. It is not rocket science to conclude that an argument from incredulity does not make good science.
Dembski's argument (for the conservation of CSI) is even worse. In effect, he argues that because chance cannot increase "specificity", and because selection cannot increase "complexity"; therefore successive sequences of chance and selection cannot generate "specified complexity". However, chance mechanisms do increase "complexity", and selection does increase "specification". All that is needed, then, for the successive operation of chance and selection to produce specified complexity is that, on average, the operation of selection does not reduce complexity at a faster rate than chance introduces it; and that on average, the operation of chance does not destroy specificity at a faster rate than selection introduces it. Darwin showed clearly that in some cases this situation is met.
Dembski's argument has the same form, and the same validity as the argument that a Boeing 727 with engines (but no wings) could not fly across the atlantic, and a Boeing 727 with wings (but no engines) could not fly across the atlantic, so therefore, a 727 with wings and engines could not fly across the atlantic. What is more, it is known emperically to be false because computer simulations repeatedly generate CSI using just such sequences of repitition.
Even a sceptic about neodarwinism ought to reject the arguments of ID, for their conclusions either do not follow from the premises (CSI), or they are based on unfounded premises (IC).
Behe and Wells do indeed have scientific qualifications, but that does not mean much. I know a scientist (a PhD in Astronomy, and Professor at a university) who is a geocentrist. I know a noble prize winner who rejects common descent. Convincing individual scientists with an ideological agenda means nothing. Convincing the scientific community, on the other hand, can only be done with ideas having genuine merit.
It is true, of course, that many biologists are challenging core assumptions of neodarwinism. Such challengers are not excluded by gate keepers. Rather, like Kimura and Margulis, if even partially successfull they are hailed as heroes of science. Even before they establish their ideas, as with Cairns and Hall, they become scientific celebrities. Scientists, even neodarwinians, love scientific challenges to neodarwinism. What they don't like is philsophical fallacies passed of as science in the service of ideology – hence their rejection of ID.
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 10, 2005 @ 8:54 pm
August 11th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
ElvenRanger responded:
I'm not painting you at all, Elven. I don't care one bit whether or not you "support ID." I'm just responding to the public charges you have lobbed in this blog, which you wouldn't bother with if you were not positively "anti-ID" and personally concerned that people – including me, since I am the one you've responded to here – might "support ID."
You charged "strong correlation" to conservative religious beliefs and political positions in ID supporters, and I informed you that this blanket generalization is erroneous. Now you further break it down so as to account for supporters such as myself – because I called you on it – but that in no way negates the implication of your original generalization. You've merely 'allowed' me into your indictment.
However, your dislike of people who have conservative religious beliefs and tend to vote conservative politically has absolutely nothing to do with whether RM-NS is simplistic pablum that doesn't accurately describe evolution, and absolutely nothing to do with whether ID represents something more realistic. Science pollutes itself with religion and politics at its own peril, though that doesn't seem to stop scientists from polluting it anyway.
Many scientists are honest about the provisional nature of their theories. Many others [and their groupies] are not. Surely you have not missed the absolutist pronouncements so often asserted in these debates and discussions by those pretending to "speak for science." I'm sure you haven't missed the outrageous corruption of science indulged by Richard Dawkins, et. al. either, in their public insistence that science – most particularly via RM-NS neodarwinism – leads inexorably to an atheist metaphysical philosophy. And if you haven't missed all that, you shouldn't be the least bit surprised that a majority of the public is dubious of the value of forced indoctrination of their children.
I don't know if ID can ever come up with a viable scientific theoretic. Scientists are certainly free to try, and should be encouraged to do so. Primarily because RM-NS is no longer considered satisfactorily explanative of the mechanisms or processes of biological evolution. There never really was a need for the "random" qualifier per organismic variation beyond the uncomfortable fact that it's a statistical veil – scientists can't predict specific variants in any individual organism. But that's their own statistically-derived ignorance, not an absolute description of causation or even nature in any individual organism. This has become readily apparent in research over the past few decades.
Evolution does appear to proceed by variation leading to adaptation, and adaptation is generally attuned to the ecology of the environment to which organisms must adapt. That doesn't mean variation mechanisms are random (lots of incoming evidence incoming that it's not), it doesn't mean that all variations are subjected to positive or negative selection (most now appear not), or that environmental contingencies don't lead directly to induced generation of variants – making mutation definitely NOT "random wrt fitness" (even if many generated variations are non-adaptive). RM-NS has been soundly falsified. Why is it still force-fed to 15-year olds, while criticisms are forbidden by law? What kind of science needs a protection racket?
I see that situation as political and dueling-metaphysical just as you do. But since it's not science's job to dictate politics or metaphysical beliefs, I consider it a gross corruption of science rather than a dangerous attack on science. Science is supposed to seek knowledge of nature for the practical purposes of control, and the subsequently developed technologies of control are supposed to be usefully employed by humanity for its collective benefit. Science is supposed to SERVE humanity, not thumb its nose. The public directly finances science, and we work hard for our money. Science thumbs its nose at public sensibilities at its own peril too.
I keep thinking someday it'll grow up and join humanity in the adventure of life in nature and time. Then I see self-proclaimed 'scientists' fighting tooth and nail against the very idea that humanity might question its methods and motives, throwing insults and self-aggrandizement. That's sad and shameful. Too bad science proper doesn't reel in the radicals and remind them that their little theory isn't absolute. Charlie won't mind becoming history instead of 'cause', honest. He died a long time ago.
Comment by Joy — August 11, 2005 @ 12:11 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 6:34 am
A "strong correlation" is not a "perfect correlation". Had I wished to make a blanket generalisation I could have said "perfect correlation", and then your charge would have made some sense. As it is, your claim to have "called me on it" only demonstrates that you know nothing of which you talk. In a loose classification, a strong correlation is taken as a correlation between 0.6 and 0.8, so my original claim was actually weaker than my claim once I broke it down. That claim, in turn, almost certainly underestimates the correlation, but I do not have statistical data to support a stronger claim.
In the meantime, I tire of debating someone who not only cannot be polite, but cannot be bothered to understand the terms she uses in her vapid rants.
Goodbye.
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 12, 2005 @ 6:34 am