An Historic Tidbit
by BradfordEd Brayton has published a blog entry related to Nick Matzke's Panda article which was mentioned at Telic Thoughts. Nick had made the point that the term intelligent design can be traced to the 1989 textbook Pandas and People. Nick argues that this was a response to the 1987 Edwards decision which, in his words, "made creationist terminology difficult to use in textbooks." Of course readers are no doubt aware of all those science textbooks that were loaded with creationist terminology right? Remember all the editing that went on after 1987? Brayton's blog entry titled Crowther's Lies on the Origin of Intelligent Design contains this remark:
This is simply a lie. Nick did not claim that the phrase intelligent design was invented for the first time in late 1987; he said that this was the first time the phrase was "used systematically, defined in a glossary, claimed to be something other than creationism, etc." In other words, it was only after the Edwards ruling that this phrase began to be used by anti-evolutionists as a label for their alternative position, and thus began to be used as the label for their movement.
Intelligent design was defined in a glossary that very few would even know about if it were not for Nick's article. What do people know of off the top of their heads? For one, the fact that William Dembski employed the use of the phrase "intelligent design" frequently during the 90s. I first became aware of the phrase through Dembski not the referenced glossary. So did many others. Dembski authored a book entitled 'Intelligent Design.' It was copywrited in 1999. Behe and Dembski had both published much prior to 1999.
Did Dembski employ the phrase because he coopted it from an obscure glossary? Was there an ongoing conspiracy that is coming out now? Intelligent design was popularized by the likes of Dembski, Behe and others. We've all heard of them Ed but who has even read the glossary item? If you have verifiable information on the Edwards conspiracy please come forward.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:06 am
We swim in a sea of red herrings. To my mind the debate is straightforward: Darwinism claims that between all of the levels in biological taxonomy exist conceptual pathways in which the vast majority of steps require a random change which is itself likely to occur and which improves the organism's chance of reproducing. If such pathways can be shown to exist, Darwinism obtains and design inferences are invalid for biology; if such pathways cannot be shown to exist then Darwinism is at best a speculative hypothesis and design inferences are compelling. All the 'it's not science' and 'who designed the designer' and 'it's really a creationist conspiracy' stuff is empty rhetoric.
Comment by BenK — August 22, 2007 @ 2:06 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:41 am
But if you can't answer the question and don't like the obvious implications for your worldview of not being able to answer the question, what are you left with but this sort of empty-headed rhetoric ?
Comment by thesciphishow — August 22, 2007 @ 3:41 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:39 am
Pandas wasn't obscure, all the major ID players contributed to it or endorsed it. It was the subject of a great big article in the Wall Street Journal in 1994. This was the first national attention the ID movement received, unless you count the Kenyon battle at SFSU in 1993, which was about Kenyon using Pandas material in his classes. It was also the place where Behe first published his irreducible complexity argument (in the 1993 edition, he wrote pp. 141-146 on blood clotting, which we didn't know until the Kitzmiller case), although for reasons that remain mysterious, he was listed as a reviewer rather than author. There were battles over the book from the very beginning, throughout the 1990s to Dover in 2004. The section of the book by Stephen Meyer (the director of the DI ID program from the beginning in 1996) and Mark Hartwig (longtime ID guy, has worked at ARN, FTE, etc.) has been posted on the websites of the DI, ARN, Leadership U, etc., probably since about 1996 when they first put up their websites. That 1993 chapter by Meyer & Hartwig is basically Meyer's manifesto for bringing a new gameplan to the creation/evolution dispute. The book is endorsed in various law review articles put out by the ID guys starting in the late 1990s. What more do you want in terms of historical significance?
Comment by nickmatzke — August 22, 2007 @ 4:39 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:43 am
And yes, Dembski got the phrase "ID" either from Pandas or from the people who produced Pandas — Charles Thaxton, Dean Kenyon, Stephen Meyer, etc. If Thaxton & co had picked "creative design" or "intelligent cause" instead of "intelligent design" as the post-Edwards replacement for creationist terminology, we'd all be using that other term instead. It is literally that simple.
Comment by nickmatzke — August 22, 2007 @ 4:43 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:32 am
Case in point.
Comment by BenK — August 22, 2007 @ 5:32 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:35 am
Bradford asks:
Dembski, from his expert witness report for the Dover trial:
And how does Of Pandas and People use the phrase?
How did previous drafts of the book define creation?
So here we have a book that defines "creation" and "intelligent design" absolutely identically. Dembski confirms that this book is the first to use "intelligent design" in its modern sense.
Bradford, what are you complaining about, again?
Comment by keiths — August 22, 2007 @ 5:35 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:51 am
It is that simple only to a simple minded view of things. It matters not at all where Dembski took the phrase intelligent design from. What matters is that Dembski provided a theoretical framework that others added to. It was Dembski's books, essays and ideas that supporters rallied to and opponents seeked to debunk. Creationist terminology is abundant if you look in the right place- the Bible. It takes a good dose of chutzpah to portray the written works of Dembski, Behe et. al. as substitutionary for creationist terminology. It is the arguments of Dembski, Behe, Berlinski and others that have attracted attention and it is their books (not Pandas and People) that are found in public libraries and bookstores.
As for the conspiratorial replacement of creationist terminology with intelligent design, you have yet to make a case. All you've managed to do is associate events and impute motives. Yours is a very weak circumstantial case. And can we have a list of textbooks with creationist terminology and the schools where they were used?
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 5:51 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:58 am
A moronic argument that seeks to associate the use of the phrase intelligent design with a sinister end run around a legal problem. If Dembski is part of of a vast ID conspiracy then where is the evidence? If he is not then what is the point of the Pandas and People glossary notation?
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 5:58 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:59 am
The challenge still stands. Nick, Keiths, anyone?
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 5:59 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:18 am
Bradford wrote:
Bradford, you're funny.
Let's hear your explanation of why, in this graph presented by Barbara Forrest at the Kitzmiller trial, the use of the word 'creation' in Of Pandas and People just happens to plummet after the 1987 Edwards decision, while the use of the word 'design' just happens to soar — particularly when the book defines 'creation' and 'intelligent design' in exactly the same way.
You can stick your head in the sand, Bradford, but don't expect us to tamp it down for you.
Comment by keiths — August 22, 2007 @ 6:18 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:28 am
The use of creation in Of Pandas and People declines huh? So what? Nobody cares about Of Pandas and People. Since the 80s people have been reading shelves of books and essays that have defined ID. Since you ignored it the first time I'll emphasize that those writings have names like Dembski, Behe, Berlinski and others attached to them and it is those men who have popularized ID. Your focus on a book noone reads or cares about illustrates the opportunism found among anti-IDists.
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 6:28 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:57 am
Nick Matzke wrote:
(Like Horigan), Charles Thaxton used the term "intelligent cause" before Edwards. See for example his paper "DNA, Design and the Origin of Life" (1986), where he used the term "intelligent cause" about 20 times (and introduced the term "specified complexity").
Comment by Analyysi — August 22, 2007 @ 6:57 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:07 am
In order to perpetuate the idea of an ID movement you need to assign sinister motives to a handful of powerful individuals and ignore the vast majority of IDists. I was influenced by reading DBB and books and essays of Dembski. I never heard of 'Of Pandas and People' until the Dover case and have never seen it. I suspect other IDists have had similar experiences.
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 7:07 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:43 am
Hi Bradford,
You posted this last night and by 7:30 in the morning several very relevant points have been made with more still to come. There is a saying about choosing your battles well. I suggest your may have chosen the wrong battle in this case.
Not "intelligent design" but "Intelligent Design" (capital letters). And, yes it does matter. Dembski is being supported by and supporting the ID Movement. You don't get to choose which part of the baggage you want and don't want. You also don't get away with using the same term to mean two different things depending on the audience you are
preaching/speaking to.Dembski chose to use the proper name "Intelligent Design", that choice has consequences. MikeGene and you have also made that choice. As much as you may like to have it be different, both liabilities and benefits come with the decision. It is all in the baggage.
The term "Intelligent Design" is a marketing term. It is a brand name. Think of "Coca-Cola". The owner of "Coca-Cola" would like to down-play its origin comes from cocaine, but it is part of the baggage they must endure.
The alternative would be to use a different name.
The shelves are full of bombastic books written by PhD types. About the only people who care and argue about them are other PhD types writing bombastic books.
To a majority of the ID proponents, Dembski is a walking argument from authority. How many ID proponents would even recognize this equation…
χ = "“log2 [ 10^120 "¢ Ï•S(T) "¢ P(T|H) ].
…much less know it is Dembski's mathematical definition of Specified Complexity?
Shall we discuss the merits of Dembski's mathematical treatment of ID found here? I think it makes for a fascinating discussion. It becomes immediately obvious that Dembski is presuming a perfect design (thus presuming a perfect designer).
Behe is a little less bombastic. But you are fooling yourself if you think the ID Movement had nothing to do with the popularity of Behe's books.
Note, as much as the Discovery Institute would like to pretend otherwise, the ID Movement is a popular movement, not a scientific one.
LOL
- I won't spoil Nick's fun on this one, but once again we are talking about Intelligent Design (capitals). Or would you like to have another try at discussing how the standard, dictionary definition of intelligence includes the ability to learn or adapt?
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 22, 2007 @ 7:43 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:57 am
As far as I know Dembski financially supports himself. His books help but they were authored by him not a movement. As for moral support so what? I'm sure Nick gets plenty of that from his fellow anti-IDists.
There is baggage to any name. Look what has been done to the term Darwinist or neo-conservative. The opposition always tries to tag you. I've got to run. Will return later.
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 7:57 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 am
Thought Provoker:
It is a fact that Coca Cola originally contained cocaine. However it is a fact of no relevance for the Coca Cola of today if one is merely concerned with the contents of today's Coca Cola.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 22, 2007 @ 8:20 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 am
Where did it claim in Pandas and People "intelligent design is not creationism"
But anyway hardly any ID proponent since then has used that glossary definition:
Pandas and People Definition:
That 1987 definition was close to creation science, but that 1987 definition of ID is not used any more.
Discovery Institute:
and ARN and Bill Dembski
It was unjust that the former Liquor Control Board Director, John E. Jones would suppress the 1993 version of ID because the 1987 version of ID which was close to creation science, and further, that 1987 version of creation science was not the same as Biblical Creationism where Biblical Creationism makes appeals to the authority of a sacred text.
Should Mr. Liqour Control Board implicate an entire movement that defines ID one way based on ID defined another way?
It appears Jones' cut and paste ruling was little more than expression of prejudices and willingness to admit errors of fact in a judgement.
But even further, if we get to the point we rule out factually argued theories because they happen to coincide with a religiously inspired idea, we'd have to throw out all of science, because many of the greatest ideas of science coincided with a religious idea.
For example, the famous lecture by Maxwell which introduced atomic theory James Clerk-Maxwell (1831-1879):
I suppose by the standards of Mr. Liquor Control Board, Ed Brayton and Nick Matzke, we'd have to suppress Atomic Theory, Universal Gravitation, Occams Razor, the Law of Biogenesis, Kepler's Celestial Mechanics, Principles of Least Action (practically most of physics), Heliocentrism, because of their religious roots and associations.
If presentation of fact-based theories is ruled out because the motivation may or may not be secular, then we've got serious problems. That was ironically on reason I'm glad the Cobb County issue didn't go to a second trial because the Judge stupidly wished to apply the lemon test to motivations even though he admitted the sticker conformed to secular purpose.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 22, 2007 @ 9:15 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:18 am
I would just like to announce that the underwater lair is closed because of mold infestation, so we'll have to have our monthly infant sacrifice ritual at the volcano hideout for the rest of the year.
Could someone get word to Dr. Behe to ask him not to bring the microbial vials this time? We lost almost three-quarters of our low-level henchmen because of a clumsy lab janitor, and you know how OSHA goes out of its way to find piddly violations once they get onsite - the lack of a safety catch on the Launch Ultimate Secret Weapon button alone would cost us five million bucks.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 22, 2007 @ 9:18 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 am
Salvador T. Cordova wrote
Science itself has religious roots.
From Allen R. Utke's article
"CHEMISTRY: WHAT DOES ONE NEED TO KNOW?":
Comment by Analyysi — August 22, 2007 @ 10:11 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:58 am
J.P. Moreland used the term Intelligent Design in "Scaling the Secular City" - I think this was written in 1986.
Comment by Doug — August 22, 2007 @ 10:58 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:01 am
Bradford, the only relevance ID has is as a vehicle to inject pseudoscientific creationist arguments against evolution into public school science classrooms. The conspiracy isn't imaginary; its purposes are clearly spelled out in the wedge document. The conspiracy didn't end with Kitzmiller, either; the DI is working to get its new anti-evolutionary tome, Explore Evolution, into public school classrooms. Whether or not you personally are a creationist or not is insignificant. You and the rest of the internet ID dabblers are irrelevant; you are never going to make any discernable impact on biological science.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 22, 2007 @ 11:01 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:09 am
April 15, 1744, the Principle of Least Action is presented by Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis. Here is an English translation of that work.
Derivation of the laws of motion and equilibrium from a metaphysical principle
What is the significance of the ID-inspired least action principles?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 22, 2007 @ 11:09 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:38 am
Bad example. Molecules (by which Maxwell means the atomic elements) have evolved. They are manufactured naturally in the bellies of stars and artificially by humans, changeable and impermanent.
Zachriel: Excellent example! The least action principle has the intuitive feel of teleology, but it turns out there is an underlying symmetry. Rather than a least action path, quantum mechanics stipulates that bodies take *all* paths. With large bodies composed of large numbers of particles, this results in the appearance of a least action path as a result of the Law of Large Numbers rather than teleology.
Comment by Zachriel — August 22, 2007 @ 11:38 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:43 am
TP
Which is why there are so many scientists engaged in serious scientific discussion about ID away from the glare of the public spotlight and web-blogs. I personally know several scientists who take ID seriously and see it as holding scientific promise. If it were just a popular movement, they wouldn't waste their time.
Comment by DonaldM — August 22, 2007 @ 11:43 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
But that goes to show that a religiously inspired idea even with its flaws led to a major breakthrough, namely, the advancement of atomic theory. Maxwell (a creationist) and Boltzmann (a Darwinist) were the courageous defenders of the idea.
Thus it is a good example that a religiously motivated idea, even if flawed, if argued factually can still have substantial merit, and the religious ties should not pre-empt furtherance of an factually idea (like atomic theory).
If criticism of Darwinism is factually based, even if religiously motivated, this should not prevent its exploration or discussion in the classroom, even if there are some supposed unsavory associations with how the idea was conceived, and even if the original conception had its flaws.
But for the record, if Darwinist parents want to keep the wool over their own kids eyes, that's their right and privilege. I'm not advocating that truth be served to kids against their parents wishes. So I suppose, in the interim Darwin must be studied reverntly in the classroom and immune from critical analysis.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 22, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:12 pm
BenK
Very well said, Ben.
A huge red herring is all this is. It goes to show the paucity of arguments that the anti-ID crowd really have in their arsenal. Further, behind the whole made-up brouhaha over the "formal" origin of the term ID is a thinly disguised argument that employs the genetic fallacy. ID = creationism and we all know creationists are IDiots, so therefore IDP's are idiots, too. That is the gist of Brayton's and Matzke's argument. In fact, it appears to me to be the only reason either of them dwell on it!!! But, even a first year logic student knows that an argument built on the genetic fallacy is no argument at all, no matter how often or loudly it gets shouted.
On a side note, I am glad to see that Matzke has resigned his position as the Minister of Disinformation at the National Center for the Selling of Evolution and is going to pursue an actual degree in Biology. I wish him well.
Comment by DonaldM — August 22, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Hi Salvador,
You wrote…
I love talking about the Dover case. It was an everyday obsession of mine to read and reread all the briefs and testimony. Judge Jones' opinion was anti-climatic, every thing he wrote was a given based on the trial.
Once again, I am impressed with your ability to see what you want to see. In this case, it is more likely you are just saying what you want to say. How is the label "Intelligent Design" being treated any differently than whatever is meant by the label "Creation Science"
Judge Jones ruled on the "Intelligent Design" presented in his courtroom. I believe his ruling was completely understandable and appropriate.
If you really want to go step-by-step through the trial briefs and transcripts and compare it line-by-line with Judge Jones' opinion, I will be happy to respond to your analysis of the case. But, please, limit your analysis to only the court record, not on the Discovery Institute's talking points.
If you want something to start with. Both sides offered their version of what they wanted Judge Jones to use in his opinion. Here is what the defendants asked Judge Jones to copy and use in his opinion…
(citations omitted, finding 630 and 631) link
Now, if Judge Jones had copied and pasted this verbatim, isn't it likely you wouldn't be calling him "Mr. Liqour Control Board" and, instead, praising this republican Judge for using common-sense rather than being ethically restricted to following legal precedent and ruling on the case presented to him?
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 22, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Hi DonaldM,
Ah yes, the ever popular unnamed scientists who never do any actual ID research and who, of course, must remain anonymous lest they be burned at the stake by "Darwinists". What scientific promise have they told you they think ID holds?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 22, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
A realization there is more to the foundation of life than randomness.
Maybe a realization there is no such thing as randomness.
While I might be a pseudonym, I am not hidden.
Penrose-Hameroff aren't hidden either.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 22, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Aagcobb:
And don't we see evidence every day that school boards are opting to teach the biblical story of creation?:roll:
Ah but the wedge conspiracy was not what Matzke and Brayton were focused on were they? Their conspiracy was of a different nature. Try gettting a jury to rule in your favor based on Matzke's evidence.
The man protests too much.
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
LOL! You can't make this stuff up! Maybe this is an example (yet another) of ID being self-refuting. How can one who understands the complexity and specificity of comedy believe that this stuff writes itself? LOL!
Comment by JAllen — August 22, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Salvador Cordova:
LOL. This is their evidence? This only shows how dishonest crtics are. ID has not been defined that way since Dembski, Behe, Berlinski etc. In other words ID has never been so defined ever since it developed a coherent position by its founding fathers.
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I know. History shows Dembski was part of a conspiracy to legally circumvent the Edwards decision.:roll: None of the anti-IDists addressed the following or provided enough evidence of a conspiracy to indict the proverbial ham sandwich:
It was both comical and disingenuous to portray ID by this definition:
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
That statement is obsolescent because Bill Dembski and Jonathan Wells have written a new ID textbook with an new definition of ID. See: College level ID textbook to be released March 1, 2007 (chapter 1 available online)
And the present use of Intelligent Design has been changed in the new ID textbook Design of Life:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 22, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I would add that this is why Matzke's whole essay is both irrelevant and misleading. The writer of the foregoing does not share the views of Dembski, Behe and the actual founding fathers of ID. Nor does the view reflect a definition that guides less prominent IDists.
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Aagcobb
Apparently you are unaware of the several attempts to deny IDP's degrees for not toeing the Darwinist part line, or the attempts to deny tenure to professors who publicly express doubts about Darwinism, or the outright firings of university faculty for expressing views contrary to the enforced dogma. If some choose to remain "unnamed", they have excellent reasons. Just ask Dr. Rick Sternberg about that!!!
As for whether or not they are doing research, many are. But you know very well that the ideological gatekeepers -er, I mean peer reviewers — will not allow publication of any paper that even hints of ID. Again, as Dr. Sternberg about that, too. (you remember the Sternberg brouhaha over the Myer paper, right?)
But of course there is no real enforcement of dogma going on…its all just plain vanilla science. Yeah, right!!
Comment by DonaldM — August 22, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Dembski did, and he says that it was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use. He said this in May, 2005. Again, May of 2005, not 1993. Was he intentionally lying? Maybe he was just trying to bullshit a federal court, and didn't really know what he was talking about? How do you spin it?
Comical and disingenuous? Well, gosh, what rubes wrote Of Pandas and People?
Why did these heavy hitters in your mythos participate in this comical and disingenuous portrayal of ID? If you could submit a full chapter, or even just a few pages, to a book about ID; but ID would be portrayed comically and disingenuously elsewhere in the book - would you still contribute? Would it depend on the $$$? Would you lend your name and material to a work, but not review its other content? If the comical and disingenuous portrayal were added behind your back, would you remain silent once you found out?
Comment by JAllen — August 22, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
It's a conspiracy "theory," and Matzke has an upcoming book to peddle on this same topic (no?) Irrelevant and misleading is just what these guys do. Did anybody here expect someone like Matzke to make an objective, rational argument? This guy has managed to make himself a nice little living off being an ID critic. He's not gonna just kill that cash cow… not much money in advocating mainstream geography. Plus, it's probably lots of fun to be a witch-hunter. Ruining careers, writing outside your area of expertise and speaking through a panda hand-puppet… who wouldn't take that job. Meanwhile, thanks to these ass-hats, guys like MikeGene have to write under a psuedoname, else the hunters get 'em.
Good times.
Comment by Rob R. — August 22, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:31 pm
This is the usual shallow thinking that typifies ID critics. The glossary definition looks like a summary of the Book of Genesis and Matzke cites this as part of a strategy to make an end run around Edwards. Like Matzke, you make an issue out of the use of the phrase intelligent design even though its definition, as taken from Of Pandas and People, does not accord with the substance of anything Dembski advocates. But why focus on the substance of ID's most prominent spokesman when you can obfuscate about a phrase?
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:54 pm
http://www.expelledthemovie.co...
Get 'em, Ben!
'something d-o-o darwinism, anybody, anybody… voo-doo, that's right voo-doo Darwinism'
*Is this thing On*
Comment by Rob R. — August 22, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Bradford
Because the doing the latter is what gets you pats on the back from your fellow anti-IDists who think red herrings and ad homs add up to actual arguments. Doing the former challenges their logic, reasoning and worldview…something they, apparently, don't like to do deal with.
Comment by DonaldM — August 22, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Hi Bradford,
I have focused on what Dembski has said. He may be using more intelligent-sounding terms and logic, but his agenda and focus is clear.
"The problem is not that evolution implies God does't exist. The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility."
June 16, 2006 version of Dembski quote updated later. link
IDM is about displacing mainstream evolutionary theory with a God-only alternative.
P.S. Do you want to discuss the implications of Dembski's…
χ = "“log2 [ 10^120 "¢ Ï•S(T) "¢ P(T|H) ].
Now? (perfect design = perfect designer)
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 22, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Hello TP,
What's wrong with Dr. D's statement? It's a blind walk or it's a guided one, no? Guided=God for him; he's just being consistent. You don't have to agree with him on the designer, but he doesn't have to capitulate to your atheistic world-view. No? Besides his PhD in mathematics the man has a PhD in philosophy, a Masters in theology (I believe) and is a Christian. This is certainly within his area of expertise. His thoughts on ID implications wrt theology and philosophy have never been secret. Just 'cause he can dance on both sides of that NOMA wall, doesn't mean he's some sort of theocratical conspirator (now that's just good english right there).
So, I guess I'm asking, where's the beef?
Regards.
PS,
Still following along, as best I can, with your Third Choice. Much thanks and appreciation for the time you've been spending on that. Hard for a layman like me to keep up, but interesting and Thought_Provoking never-the-less. So, again, thanks for all your hard work.
Comment by Rob R. — August 22, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:17 pm
From the late Creationist Henry Morris, regarding Dembski et al, for what it's worth:
Would it be fair to say that ID is a subset of Creationist arguments, excluding from its domain such questions as the identity of the Designer, the age of the earth, and special creation?
Comment by 2ndclass — August 22, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Hi Ron R.
You are welcome. Please don't hesitate to ask questions.
no.
Is a Mandelbrot Set a blind walk or a guided walk? (new one)
Because he dances ON the NOMA wall instead of to either side of it. He uses his knowledge and intelligence for the purpose of befuddlement instead of providing explanations.
He knows what he is doing. Rather than promote legitimate ID science like EAM or even front loading, he is the walking (dancing?) argument by authority for a popular movement. Behe at least tries to say something substantial. Dembski is extremely adept providing little or no substance but sounding authoritative while doing it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 22, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:15 pm
`
Comment by johnnyb — August 22, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Hi DonaldM,
I noticed in your rant that you didn't mention any actual scientific promise ID has, and I noticed that the only "persecuted" scientist you mentioned was Sternberg, who wasn't fired from anything. Can you identify a single article concerning original research on IDism that was spiked? The DI produces lots of books and videos; why don't they publish any of this alleged research?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 22, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
johnnyb, is that a tidbit I see in your comment?
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 9:34 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:38 pm
2ndclass writes:
IDists and creationists often make parallel arguments. In most cases support for ID can be used as support for creation. I'll take this up some more with Aagcobb.
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Aagcobb:
I could mention a number of studies supplying data that is supportive of the following statement which Salvador indicated would appear in a new ID textbook:
But I have a question for you. What determines whether research is supportive of intelligent design in your view? Is it the views of the researchers themselves or the hypothesis the research is centered on?
I've brought up the following matter before a number of times and I'll do so again to frame the "scientific promise" issue. A number of studies have been conducted and others are currently active that seek to identify a minimal genome. While the organisms studied and the numbers yielded vary, all research results indicate that, at the very least, scores of genes are needed for minimal function. Are these research results supportive of the contention that the related genetic patterns are best explained as resulting from intelligence? What is the reason for your answer?
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 am
Hi nick,
Obscure is a relative term. Obviously, for those who wrote and promoted the book, it was not obscure. The problem here is your wedge-centric, DI-centric view of things. For most of us here, the book is indeed obscure, as it has played no role in the development of our ideas and opinions. We did not write the book, promote the book, or even read the book. In fact, you yourself confirm this for us. We only became aware of these aspects of this book and its history because of all your hard work. If this stuff was widely known, you'd have no discovery to share with us, now would you?
Nick, your wedge-centric perspective blinds you to the significance of another piece of history. For most people, ID began with a best-selling book called Darwin's Black Box. As such, there are at least two populations in play. The first is the DI and leaders of the ID movement and your stuff is relevant there. The second is the much larger and much more diverse set of people who read this book and took it from there, and your stuff is irrelevant here.
It is the wedge-centrism that results in a basic confusion that stirs up arguments like those in this thread. On one hand, people like Nick insist on painting us all with the wedge-centric broad brush. So we correct him. Then, when we do this, wedge-centrism has people like Nick thinking we are trying to erase this history, and thus he defends his discovery.
So again, it is important to realize that Nick comes with a wedge-centric, DI-centric view of things. But we all don't share this perspective.
Comment by MikeGene — August 23, 2007 @ 2:19 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:30 am
Note to all — the "Intelligent design means…" quote everyone is talking about in this thread is not a sentence from the Pandas glossary, it is a prose sentence found on pp. 99-100 of Pandas. Tell me again about who knows what they are talking about and who is obviously biased?
Bradford and Sal have sunk their own case and proved all my points:
Victory is mine then. The 1987 definition is identical to the definition in the 1993 edition of Pandas, and the 1993 edition of Pandas was coauthored by Behe and defended by Behe and Dembski in 2005. And as noted repeatedly, Dembski himself traced the ID phrase back to Pandas, before it became embarrassing.
See above. The former Liquor Control Board Director was better informed in 2005 than you are now, Sal.
See above for Behe and Dembski. And has been pointed out, the IDers all say Thaxton, Kenyon, etc. were the founding fathers of ID, in their very own histories. (Thaxton edited Pandas and Kenyon was a major author).
So you think Kenyon and Thaxton had a comical and disingenuous idea of what ID was?
I guess I was right all along then.
Comment by nickmatzke — August 23, 2007 @ 2:30 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 am
Your point being that ID is only about getting creationism into the public schools? LOL! You're a victim of your own fabrications.
Do you think IDEA was formed to get creationism into the public schools?
How about the Discovery Institute. Do you think it would have been easy to recruit Michael Behe or David Berlinski or for that matter William Dembski or Michael Denton (briefly) or Hubert Yockey (briefly) into a movement which called itself the creation science movement? Ah yes, we can imagine the Pajaro Dunes conference and Phil Johnson inviting everyone there soley in order to promote creationism in the public schools. (NOT!)
Nick, you fail to grasp that college professors and researchers friendly to the design argument might be a little discomforted to be associated with Answers in Genesis or the ICR, but they might feel a bit more comfortable with an outfit like the Discovery Institute and group that de-emphasized religious affiliations and didn't require a profession of YECism to join.
A new name and affiliation (such as ID) might just be the catalyst to attract talent like Behe, Dembski, Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen, Gonzalez, etc. into the movement (none of whom are YECs).
Do you think the misery Kenyon, Gonzalez, Dembski, Sternberg, and Crocker went through was about public school issues? I can tell you that Dembski, Crocker, and Sternberg would not call themselves creationists.
Do you think I'm in this primarily over public school issues? C'mon Nick, snap out of it, man.
You're arguing that the label was changed and maintained soley or primarily in relation to the public school issue, and that may not be the case at all. You might be presuming that a Bible believer might not have a strong desire to see a design hypothesis argued strictly from empirical evidence and physical theory rather than from theology. If you presume that, you are wrong. The design argument is believable for the very reason it is not argued from theology but rather from cold hard facts and logic.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 3:32 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:54 am
Hi Sal,
In regards to Crocker, if this article is accurate, she refused to teach evolutionary theory in a biology 101 class. That isn't about academic freedom, its about an untenured professor refusing to do her job. Even if she believes evolutionary theory is false, she has an obligation to teach it to her students because it is currently the central organizing principle in biology.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 23, 2007 @ 7:54 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:12 am
All I can find in the article is that she criticized the foundations of Darwinism. Where does it say she did not teach the fundamental premises of evolutionary 'theory'? To delve into criticism of Darwinism, one needs to explain the basics first. Again your drivel makes no sense.
Comment by Jean — August 23, 2007 @ 8:12 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:53 am
But she misrepresents the basics of evolutionary biology. Let's start with this statement by Crocker: No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory.
This is presented as a counterexample to macroevolution. It fails on multiple counts. The Theory of Evolution specifically precludes such an event from ever occurring. The Theory of Evolution precludes any such event from spontaneously occurring in observation timescales associated with laboratory experiments. And it mangles the scientific method.
Even if the Theory of Evolution is false, dog to cat is still a strawman misrepresentation of what is predicted by the theory.
Comment by Zachriel — August 23, 2007 @ 8:53 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:19 am
The claim that the first chapter of genesis is literal and inerrant and the claim that life shows evidence of design are simply two different claims. All the rest is bosh.
Comment by BenK — August 23, 2007 @ 9:19 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:03 am
Hi Jean,
You should probably have read the entire article before you bloviated. It says:
Also if she had explained the basics of actual evolutionary theory before she criticized it, her students would have recognized the lies she was telling. She needs a classroom of students who aren't familiar with actual evolutionary theory, but only the strawman version she thoughtfully knocks over for them.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 23, 2007 @ 10:03 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:25 am
Dembski does advocate Of Pandas and People. From Dembski's expert witness report that Keiths links to above:
He says that he knows it better than anyone - so not knowing what he is talking about is not an option for you. So, either he is misrepresenting himself and ID to a federal court or Dembski regards this definition -
- as accurate for the present (as of May, 2005) use of "intelligent design".
You try to re-direct me to the "substance" of what Dembski advocates - perhaps you can give some examples (besides this).
Maybe a worked-out example of the EF - preferably from biology, something like the flagellum would be great. There is a 19 page thread on the EF over at thesciphishow, feel free to pick the best example from there.
Or, how about this:
With just the information and technology available to Kepler, can you show how to use Dembski's method(s) to avoid Kepler's mistake? Please show as much detail as possible and cite any significant sources. Thanks.
Comment by JAllen — August 23, 2007 @ 10:25 am
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Don't play games with me. You know of the books Dembski has written and should have read at least one of them if you intend to engage in serious discussions about ID. His essays can be accessed on the web. They are available to all. So Dembski states the book is accurate and that means he would not have altered anything in it to make it more precise? If you wish to argue that ID signifies life begining abruptly with all features intact or did until 2005 you are free to do so and will be understandably ignored. If you wish to argue that the Pandas and People definition was a vehicle through which to make an end run around Edwards go ahead and do so. Fashioning a Genesis like paradigm for change was exactly the type of thing that would fool the courts.:roll:
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Nick:
Nick, you were arguing that the definition was part of the subterfuge to avoid the consequences of Edwards. A summary of the Genesis creation account was some kind of subterfuge.:wink:
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
But that was an obvious figure of speech, and besides evolutionary theory argues fish turned into birds, the fish turned into cows and then whales, that fish turned into rats that became bats. And that things came from a primordial soup contrary to what we know about spontaneous generation.
That's even more outrageous than dogs turning into cats. I'm sure if she gave the standard line, it would even sound more unbelievable.
But first a couple details. She held joint appointments at NVCC and GMU.
Dr. Crocker was dismissed from GMU in May 2005. The content of what she taught can be found
http://tinyurl.com/mtay5
So while she was dismissed from GMU in May, she still worked at NVCC up through the fall of 2005 , and then got a job as a full-time reseacher in industry also in the fall of 2005. A bio 101 professor will get paid a few thousand dollars per class per semester.
She actually resigned her post from NVCC after that class was taught, and was already employed elsewhere while she taught that class. So that hopefully paints the picture of what is going on.
But it is entirely possible the reporter covered only the evidence being presented against mainstream theory. But how is teaching the truth wrong? Was Urey-Miller correct, were the Kettlewell butterflies correct, or the transitional fossils that get discredited periodically?
Is there proof that Darwinian evolution mechanism of macro evolution? I'd say that was one of the most accurate bio lessons ever taught at NVCC regarding Darwinian evolution.
Besides, I've never known a professor to get fired for mis-teaching a 1 hour lecture. But thank you for confirming the fact you'd be party to dismissal of qualified academics because they refused to state falsehoods on behalf of the academy to their students. Stein's account is entirely believable.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Come on, Bradford. Dembski claims to know the book better than anyone and does state the book is accurate. He also states that it is the first and only ID textbook and that it was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use. Why would he say this in his expert witness report for a federal court? Why would he say this about a book that gets the very definition of ID wrong? And not just a little imprecise, but "comical and disingenuous" as you put it. If you could see it as "a summary of the Book of Genesis", why couldn't he (when preparing his report to a federal court)?
I am aware of Dembski's work (you may have noticed that I quoted from some of it already). That is why I am asking you about this "substance" you mention. In The Design Inference, Dembski describes the EF and then goes on to talk about the relevance of the design inference in the evolution-creation debate - but no worked out examples of the EF for biology. Has there been any in the 9 years since? In the quote about Kepler above, there is the empty rhetoric about precise methods for discriminating design from non-design, but no examples - no substance. Maybe Dembski hasn't had time to show any work, but if he has provided the tools, maybe you could? How could have Kepler employed these tools to avoid his mistake? Is there any substance? Please don't play games with me. I am not asking you to solve the OoL, just how Kepler could have avoided the false positive design inference from Moon craters.
Comment by JAllen — August 23, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
So you defend a misrepresentation with more misrepresentations. Cows did not evolve into whales, nor did rats evolve into bats. They share a common ancestor.
The entire concept of dogs into cats is contrary to the Theory of Evolution. Can you tell us why?
Doesn't matter. The Theory of Evolution predicts that dogs will never evolve into cats. Using it as an example is handwaving at best.
I take it you reject Common Descent, then. You can't really discuss the details of evolution while ignoring one of the most profound unifying facts in biology.
When it is not the truth.
Urey-Miller is experimental observation. Similar experiments have been replicated under a wide variety of conditions with similar results. Complex organic molecules are even found in stellar nebula.
Yes, and more refined observations have validated the original conclusions.
All science is subject to revision in the light of new evidence. The evidence strongly supports Common Descent.
Common Descent is a valid scientific theory supported with evidence from paleontology to genetics to embryonics.
Your views are contrary to the vast majority of scientists in the relevant specialties. A university has every right to make sure that students are provided an appropriate education.
She doesn't have to teach introductory biology at George Mason if it offends her conscience.
Comment by Zachriel — August 23, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pm
And where is the *evidence* she really did not explain the basics of actual evolutionary theory? Newspaper articles are hardly evidence. Can you show me the college sheets she used, or testimony from her students as to the contents of her lectures, rather than a simple newspaper article? You're bloviating all on your own, Aagcobb. If some similar claim was made about an ID critic based on a short newspaper article you'd be all over them, blaming IDiots for presuming too much and showing disinterest in the actual whole story.
Comment by Jean — August 23, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
You mean like Dawkins pointing to dog breeding as evidence for his case?