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.com/playground.php
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?
You can dish it out, but can't take it yourself. Pathetic.
Comment by Jean — August 23, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:21 pm
LOL! It does no such thing, it's not even a theory in the scientific sense, it's a post dictive just-so narrative. If it predicts fish evolve into birds, why does it predict dogs cannot become cats (which is a much smaller transmutaion)?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
She didn't teach intro bio at GMU, she taught cell biology.
She taught intro at NVCC, and then resigned because it bothered her concience.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Perhaps you mean Darwin's Origin of Species, whose first chapter is "Variation Under Domestication". In any case, that is not dogs to cats.
Comment by Zachriel — August 23, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
That's a good starting point for another post but this one is centered on a serious charge initiated by Matzke and picked up by other anti-IDists. The charge in this case involves an alleged attempt to circumvent the 1987 Edwards decision by citing a glossary definition within the book 'Of Pandas and People.' The definition of intelligent design in that book has all the earmarks of a summary of the creation account of the Book of Genesis. Based on that we are led to believe that nine Supreme Court Justices would be fooled into thinking that the definition is something other than what was outlawed by Edwards. That's an implausible assertion but one that is consistent with the demonization of IDists which has ocurred since the outset. It needs to stop.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:05 pm
What??? You guys have never heard of Catdog??
Comment by DonaldM — August 23, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Hi Jean,
If you think Crocker actually taught evolutionary theory in her Biology 101 class, even though she was quoted in the newspaper article as saying she wouldn't, why don't you ask Sal if the article was accurate or not? He seems to know Crocker pretty well.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 23, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Does anyone else agree that the 2nd definition is vague enough to encompass the 1st?
Comment by BoZ3MaN — August 23, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
*Dance*, skip, _spin_, ~avoid~ – In other words, there is no substance. So, your attempt to sidetrack the issue -
- has failed and now you want to get back on topic. Okay, I'll re-ask the on-topic questions I posed to you earlier:
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?
Dembski says (in 2005): "Having worked so closely in revising, expanding, and updating the second edition of this book, I feel I know it better than anyone." and "Of Pandas and People was and remains the only intelligent design textbook. In fact, it was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use." and "the book is accurate"
Mike Gene says: "Anyway, from here we know that Denton's book influenced Behe, Thaxton's book influenced Kenyon, and that Thaxton, Kenyon, and Behe worked on Pandas."
Bradford says: "The glossary definition looks like a summary of the Book of Genesis" and "It was both comical and disingenuous to portray ID by this definition"
Again, 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? What do you think is going on, Bradford? Dembski supports the book, Behe went to court to defend it, and none of the big names have come out to denounce it as you have. The two obvious choices are financial gain and inserting Creationism into the public schools. How do you explain it?
As for demonization, I note that the "Eugenics" category has as many entries as the "Design Inference" category here at TT. I eagerly await the next entry that will continue to impugn Darwinian thought while completely ignoring that eugenics is a purposeful, goal-oriented process undertaken by intelligent agents and that an ID paradigm could be subverted to justify eugenics just as easily.
Comment by JAllen — August 23, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
You misunderstood the humor. The comical part lies in the fact that Matzke, with some backing from you and others, depict a Genesis like description of ID with something that was meant to circumvent the Edwards decision. None of you critics have addressed this since I have repeatedly raised the issue. Anyone wanting to circumvent Edwards, would supply a definition very much unlike the one existing in the book.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
It does encompass the first but goes beyond it to also include ID evolutionary and OOL theories.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Every organism is a result of its own particular history. That history can be discerned in the various characteristics of the organism. Understanding divergence and convergence are essential to understanding evolutionary biology.
When you attempt to refute a theory by posing predictions not made by the theory as actual predictions of the theory, then you have erected a strawman.
Comment by Zachriel — August 23, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
You forgot that it also includes that transcendental intergalactic sexual healing bit that Dembski linked to on UD.
Comment by BoZ3MaN — August 23, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
I could have mentioned a lot of things such as the fact that phenotypic changes were all thought to be inherited at one time. Giraffes kept stretching to reach fruits in higher branches until… The point is the false notions can be sifted out over time.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
[adapted from UD]
Does Nick think I'm in the ID movement primarily to get creationism taught in the public schools? Does he think Behe wants creationism (as in no common ancestry) taught in the public schools? Does he think the IDEA clubs were formed to get ID into the public schools?
Actually, even Forrest and Gross admit IDEA wasn't formed to get ID into public schools. Their own twisted and inaccurate assessement said:
Even by that rather twisted and faulty characterization, it would seem the ID label was to also help recruit at the college level, not public schools. That just utterly destroys Matze hypothesis that ID was aimed primarily at the public schools.
Oh well, Nick Matzke, believe what you want.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 pm
If that is the issue you have been repeatedly raising, I for one have missed it because it is so inane. It shows that you have completely misunderstood the whole argument. (Either that or you are going to bat for the conspiracy.
) Creationism is what it is – you can't redefine it. You can relabel it – but you can't redefine it. The ones that are in it for the $$$ can't change it too much or their core audience won't buy it. The ones that really are Creationists won't redefine it because, to them, it is True and the Truth is their whole raison d'etre. So, again:
Dembski says (in 2005): "Having worked so closely in revising, expanding, and updating the second edition of this book, I feel I know it better than anyone." and "Of Pandas and People was and remains the only intelligent design textbook. In fact, it was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use." and "the book is accurate"
Mike Gene says: "Anyway, from here we know that Denton's book influenced Behe, Thaxton's book influenced Kenyon, and that Thaxton, Kenyon, and Behe worked on Pandas."
Bradford says: "The glossary definition looks like a summary of the Book of Genesis" and "It was both comical and disingenuous to portray ID by this definition"
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? What do you think is going on, Bradford? Dembski supports the book, Behe went to court to defend it, and none of the big names have come out to denounce it as you have. The two obvious choices are financial gain and inserting Creationism into the public schools. How do you explain it?
Comment by JAllen — August 23, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:07 pm
JAllen, what say you to the other reasons I offered for relinquishing association with the phrase "creation science" or "creationism".
How do you explain the existence of IDEA and IDURC. Are those public school initiatives?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:58 pm
JAllen, if you're advancing the tired cliche that intelligent design equals creation irrespective of its definition then we can stop wasting time with this. Matzke stated the Edwards decision "made creationist terminology difficult to use in textbooks." Whatever else you think about the author of the ID definition he or she was unafraid to use creationist terminology. The revisionist history is DOA.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Yes indeed!
And it would appear that dropping the label "creation science" enabled what is now the ID movement to recruit two of its major thinkers who are not creationists: Willliam Dembski and Michael Behe.
Pandas has consequently gone through 3 revisions, with the last revision so radical, it resulted in a title change: The Design of Life.
The definition of ID there is decoupled from the last vesitges of creation science:
So this is the 3rd edition for Pandas, and the definition is a radical departure from 1987.
It would be interesting to see what version of ID did Judge Jones rule on!
The 1987 version or 2007?
If he ruled the 2007 (2005) version as "religious", then that's the epitome of stupidity.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:20 pm
There is nothing disingenuous about the ID definition. It was simply too restrictive. ID was in its infancy at the time and it is not surprising that a few years later the definition was revised to make it possible to include ID friendly concepts like FLE and more.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Ah yes, in a pre-Dover 1997 moment of Truth, Eugenie Scott tells it like it is:
Antievolutionism and Creationism in the United States
That was Eugenie Scott accurately describing the ID movement in 1997!
Nick Matzke loses this round. I was right, ID was aimed for another audience. Nick did some clever revisionism in arguing ID was for public school consumption.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 24, 2007 @ 3:24 am
August 24th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Is IDURC still active? The link to the ARN discussion forum is broken (ARN shut it down years ago, as it was only used by some pro-ID ARN regulars as a playground to avoid the "serious" ID discussion elsewhere.) There is also a link to the ISCID forums. I am sure that it is a coincidence that the last issue of the PCID Journal came out as the Dover trial was wrapping up. It probably has to do with the lack of substance that I was showing Bradford earlier. The last entry under IDURC's "What's New" is: "Samuel Chen succeeds Tristan Abbey as new director of IDURC (January 2006)." I'm sure the lack of activity since the Dover decision was handed down is just another coincidence. To check this, I looked at some of the submissions to the "Student Writing" section. There are 5 entries, the first 3 are from the above mentioned Tristan Abbey, while he was still director. Of the other two, one is written by Zach Stearns who notes in his review of Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe:
Nope, no Creationism here.
As for IDEA, well it couldn't have a better spokesman than you, Salvador:
It's all about the science.
I know your comment was some time ago, and you have scrambled to amend those rules since then, haven't you? Or is it still "Christian Only" to be part of a real IDEA chapter? Here is some good stuff I found at the Baraboo, WI Chapter
and the Univ. of Oklahoma Chapter:
Nope, no Creationism here.
I could go on, but don't really need to. You can splutter and bluster all you want – the fact that the attempt to get IDC into public schools failed does not mean that it was not attempted.
Comment by JAllen — August 24, 2007 @ 11:56 am
August 24th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Yes it is, no matter how many "Historical Tidbit" type posts you trot out to try and revise it. Look at you scramble to revise the history of this thread here and now, Bradford.
8/22/07 1:43pm
"It was both comical and disingenuous to portray ID by this definition"
8/22/07 2:07pm
"The writer of the foregoing does not share the views of Dembski, Behe and the actual founding fathers of ID."
Once shown that Behe and other actual founding fathers of ID were among the authors of the book – and still no trace of them speaking out against the definition – plus Dembski's endorsement of the book in 2005, the revision is on. It turns out that Bradford meant it was comical and disingenuous of me to accept the definition as written (by some of the founding fathers of ID and endorsed by Dembski in 2005).
And now:
"There is nothing disingenuous about the ID definition."
~Squirm~, _twist_, *duck*, dodge, re-rite, re-right, re-write. Pathetic.
Good luck digging up some actual substance, if you can find the time between ignoring what has actually been going on and arguing against the obvious.
Comment by JAllen — August 24, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
JAallne sarcastically says:
OTHER ARGUMENTS means the creation argument is another line of argumentation. DUH!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 24, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I say that the IDEA Center holds the Creation argument as a line of argumentation, and that the IDEA Center identifies the Intelligent Designer as the Christian God of the Bible. DUH!
Comment by JAllen — August 24, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
But not as the same line of argumentation as ID, it is a separate line of argumentation.
So what if the differing lines of argumentation lead to comaprable conclusions. You're showing your willful resolve to blind yourself to nuances.
That's fine. Confirm your biases all that you want.
You fail to realize that even a creationist like me would be glad to have a line of argumentation outside of theology that affirms ideas comaprable to my personal beliefs.
You seem to think that arriving at comparable conclusions implies the same line of argumentation. That is like saying there is only one road leading to Rome.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 24, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
The definition had evolved and expanded prior to Dover. IDists had long since abandoned the book definition. It was only the ignorant and dishonest ID critics who pretended the book definition adaquately described ID.
The revision is the assumption you are promoting which claims the definition in the book is a means to make an end run around Edwards. The claim is not supported by the definition itself.
Behe and Dembski would both concur that evidence supporting the definition would be evidence for ID. They also believe evidence for ID can be much broader than the definition. That's not so hard to understand. Where's the deception?
Comment by Bradford — August 24, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Salvador:
Exactly. I would only add that he and his fellow critics are seeing one road because they do not want to see the others.
Comment by Bradford — August 24, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
JAllen to Sal:
I don't understand your objection, J. Looks to me like IDEA is a club for Christian students who believe God created heaven and earth and everything therein. ID is one of their interests, used as a line of argument to support their a priori beliefs – much as Neodarwinism is used by the NAM ['New Atheist Movement'] to support their a priori belief in a fortuitously accidental existence.
I wouldn't guess that you'd begrudge the NAM their faith-support in NDS. And I suspect you would have no problem at all with NAM student groups in colleges where true believers get together to mutually support each other's atheism or develop arguments from Neodarwinism for purposes of proselytization.
So what's your real problem with IDEA student groups?
Comment by Joy — August 24, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Joy,
Thank you.
For the reader's benefit, about 75% of the kids and faculty in the IDEA clubs I've been involved wtih come from Christian homes. About half are YECs, and the rest whatever else.
Now why in the world would they want to study ID if they are already creationists (like myself)?
Half of them are science students, many are biology students. They hear all of these things they learn in biology class. They are berated and ridiculed (ah yes, professors tee off on the beliefs of these kids and their parents, how endearing of the critics).
The kids would like to believe the Genesis account, but simply reading the Genesis account does not give them satisfying answers. Some YECs out there might be little infuriated that I would even dare to say that God's word alone might not be enough to quench such kid's curiosity for answers about origins. Many would like to hear the independent line of argumentaton free of appeals to theology, because exclusive appeals to theology as "proof" of design becomes very circular.
For example, one IDEA biology major was conflicted over whether the Darwinian account was correct. She was a junior. Realizing her doubts, did I tell her to read the Bible? No. I realized she was taking physiology that semester. I merely suggested she politely ask her teacher what the theoretical transitionals were leading toward a 4-chambered heart.
She did as I suggested, and came back the next week to our club meeting absolutely beaming ear to ear. The response by her physiology professor was predictable. I knew exactly the answer she would get, and that professor would do more to assure her of design in biology than any preacher….
Heck, I hardly have to do anything these days because the other side is doing a better job convincing the next generation that there might be something to ID after all.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 24, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
No answer, just an evasion.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 24, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Earlier Bradford wrote:
I am surprised that no one as yet has mentioned Michael Denton. It was Michael Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,(1985) along with, The Mystery of Life's Origin(By Thaxton, Bradly & Olsen, 1985) that were responsible for launching the current "intelligent design" movement. I believe Thaxton and Bradley identify themselves as Evangelical Christians. Denton, on the other hand, describes himself as a religious agnostic and has always eschewed the creationist label. It was Denton's book that directly influenced Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe who both described themselves as ardent Darwinist's before reading Denton's first book. (He has since then authored, Natures Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe, 1998) In his book, Doubts About Darwin: A History of intelligent Design, Thomas Woodward dedicates the better part of 2 chapters recounting Denton's influence. Why is it ID critics never mention Denton's role in the emergence of ID? Do you think maybe it is because Denton simply doesn't fit their stereotype?
BTW I am also surprised that no one has mentioned the Dr. Seuss book, The Cat in the Hat, it "˜s been rumored that nearly all the prominent ID'ists read this book as children. There has got to be some kind of connection here with something or another. It's so obvious. Can't you see all the links? It is even rumored that Mike Gene read, The Cat in the Hat. I know that he claims that he read nothing but bunny books, but we all know that that can't be true.
You probably think that I'm not making a serious argument here. Actually I am. It's Nick et al. that I am having a hard time taking seriously. This conspiracy stuff has got to be a joke. Right?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 24, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Glad you mentioned Denton. He played a big role in getting ID untracked. Like any other belief system ID has a history to it indicating who influenced its founding fathers and from what precursor ideas theories were formed. And yes, you are right in thinking ID critics are well aware that Denton does not fit their stereotyping that seeks to portray ID as being all about religion or more specifically, right wing politics. Don't you love the transparency of their propaganda machine?
I don't think Mike would mind if I divulged that he is familiar with 'The Cat in the Hat' but he once drew a rabbit from the hat and the rest is history.
No, it's a serious attempt to smear the reputations of ID notables and the practitioners of the smear tactics draw their inspiration from the Willy Horton story makers and other noble muckrakers of lore.
Comment by Bradford — August 24, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Perhaps to tie up loose ends, I invite readers to consider my essay and subsequent notes and comments at Uncommon Descent: Eugenie Scott defeats Ed Brayton.
May the Wedge of Truth be with you.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 26, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
For the record Michael Denton very concisely states his position in, Darwinism Defeated: The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins. (Regent College Publishing, Vancouver, 1999)
Once again my point here is not that I agree with Denton's position, (we part company on several points) but that Denton's book, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, was very influential in shaping the thinking of the early leaders of the intelligent design movement, especially Behe and Johnson. They have, in fact, said so themselves. Indeed, I would argue that if you really want to have an understanding of Intelligent Design you need to begin with Denton.
Secondly, Denton doesn't fit the caricature that opponents have painted for the ID movement. Denton clearly was not (nor is) a fundamentalist or biblical creationist of any kind.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 26, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 11:25 am
It was made known to you that Thaxton, Kenyon, and Behe among others wrote the text and that in 2005 Dembski endorsed it.
Suddenly the 'Of Pandas and People' definition is genuine and, apparently, old news rather than something comical that you had never heard of before. So, when ID was in its infancy, and some of the founding fathers of ID were writing the Pandas text, this was a legitimate definition:
Yes, indeed. It is quite reasonable to make a connection of ID and Creationism. Especially since that definition bears no resemblance to biology as was known quite well in the 1980s. So it is more than just some obscure glossary item. It is the actual history of ID. Why weren't you upfront about it? Did you just learn about it during the course of this comment thread? What have changed your argument to now?
As I pointed out before, Creationism is what it is – you can rename it (a rose by any other name…), but you can't re-define it. If you want to teach Creationism, or if you just want to sell books to the people who want to teach Creationism, you have to give them Creationism. You seem to be saying that since the definition is so obviously Creationism, they couldn't truly be trying to circumvent Edwards – they must have actually found merit in that definition. Do you find it reasonable that they could – independent of Creationism – survey the biology of the 1980s and find merit in that definition? If so, how is that going? What aspects of ID thinking – if independent of Creationism – led them to that?
Comment by JAllen — August 27, 2007 @ 11:25 am
August 27th, 2007 at 11:59 am
You must have missed it, here you go: answer
Speaking of no answer – you didn't answer my question about IDURC – is it still active? I say no; its last entry in the "What's New" section is from Jan. 2006 – right as the Dover trial was wrapping up. If not a public school initiative, why did IDURC pack it in once ID was officially barred from public school?
As for IDEA, your quotes of Eugenie Scott couldn't be more obvious in explaining the plan: A focus on colleges and universities to recruit the teachers and decision makers of tomorrow – then on to public schools. Too bad the Dover folks jumped the gun, huh? And, like IDURC, is IDEA still active? When was the last chapter formed? How many of the established chapters are still active? Poking around the IDEA site, I see a lot of old news and broken links – but you would know better, how is it going?
Comment by JAllen — August 27, 2007 @ 11:59 am
August 27th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
IDEA is receiving many requests for new clubs, we don't yet have the staff to process the requests.
I wouldn't count them out because of what you see going on on the website. If Ben Stein's movie makes an impact, it could re-energize our funding base.
In the meantime, you're welcome to make a donation to help remedy our current shortfall in resources.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 27, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
An objective observer might have made the above comment except for one thing. This verb tense is wrong. The 'Of Pandas and People' glossary item is not a currently functional definition. You might have acknowledged that had you not been blinded by your own partisanship. There was a creationist influence on the founders of ID but then again there were non-creationists like Denton and Berlinski who your side ignores because they do not fit the stereotyping.
Why stop with the 80s? The Panda definition entails abruptness and an absence of an identifiable incremental process accounting for the observed outcome of life. Is that applicable to any stage of history? Yes, its origin. The relevant biological entity being the cell.
Comment by Bradford — August 27, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
JAllen
It is reasonable to make a connection between the ID movement but not ID science. ID science is not dependent on any particular brand of creationism or the Biblical Genesis or any other religion.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 27, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
You are the one blinded by partisanship – this is very the Historical Tidbit you argued against by starting this topic.
Your argument, initially, was that the Pandas text was an obscure reference – that Behe, Dembski, and others popularized the term "Intelligent Design". It was then brought to your attention that Behe, Kenyon, Thaxton, among other leading lights of ID, contributed to the Pandas text, and that – as recently as 2005 – Dembski endorsed the text, saying "Of Pandas and People was and remains the only intelligent design textbook. In fact, it was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use". That buries your argument, but you cannot admit you're wrong and keep digging.
Quickly switching tacks, you concede the Pandas definition as accurate for the time it was written, but bizarrely claim that it is too obviously Creationism to actually be an attempt to promote Creationism.
Well, the Pandas definition that you describe as a "summary of the Book of Genesis" was in the 2nd edition of Pandas. Salvador reports that the 3rd edition (renamed Design of Life) defines ID as:
You acknowledge that this definition encompasses the earlier, Creationist definition – but let me guess, this one is too unlike the first to be an attempt to circumvent Edwards, right? I know that it is a moot point as the Dover School Board jumped the gun and spoiled everything just before the 3rd edition was due to be published. Quite a coincidence, huh? In Dembski's Expert Witness Report (linked above), he says Design of Life was due to be published in 2005. The 2nd Edition came out in 1993 – with over a decade to update/revise/correct it, the 3rd edition just misses the trial. Of course; 2005 finished out, 2006 came and went, and now Salvador says it is due out this year (any news, Sal?).
Did Denton and/or Berlinski – unbeknownst by Dembski – use the term "Intelligent Design" prior to Pandas? When Denton reversed his opinion of common descent, was that due to new findings – or did he just review long available information instead of relying on his preconceptions?
The Pandas text was written in the 80s (it's that Historical Tidbit thingy again).
Do you think that is a reasonable conclusion based on the data available in the 1980s? It isn't some issue of nuance or about ID in its infancy trying to make do with Creationist terminology – it is flat out wrong.
Pandas doesn't say "a cell with membrane, nucleus, etc…"; it says "Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.". Again, it isn't some issue of nuance or about ID in its infancy trying to make do with Creationist terminology – it is flat out wrong. You keep pointing back to the OoL. Does ID offer anything to help unravel the OoL, or does it just sit on the sidelines criticizing the method and pace of progress all the while impotent to contribute?
Comment by JAllen — August 29, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
That is a good point, kornbelt. Another distinction to be made between the ID Movement and ID science is that the ID Movement exists (and so the shell game can be seen for what it is). If you don't agree, maybe you could step in for Bradford, here.
Comment by JAllen — August 29, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
August 29th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
It is obscure today despite attempts to spin the importance of the 1987 glossary definition. Its significance, according to Matzke, lies in its evidence of a conspiracy to circumvemt Edwards but its very definition makes conspiracy theories look silly. The definition of intelligent design in that glossary has parallels to a creationist paradigm but bears liitle similarity to ID as presently defined. That buries the ID=creation argument.
The importance of Denton and Berlinski (and others for that matter) lies in their arguments; not the label they attach to those arguments. Neither man is a creationist which further discredits the ID=creation meme.
The Pandas definition does not reference cells etc. but that is just further evidence of its currrent irrelevance to an accurate description of ID and more evidence that the ID=creation charge is erroneous to put it politely. The creationist terminology can be forcefully argued within the context of OOL. Imputing ID at point of origin signifies that whatever took place subsequently would be a causal fruit of an ID cause. In other words confirmation of ID's validity. ID's approach to OOL is focused on the encoding nature of nucleic acids. We anticipate results that support this approach possibly from Baylor and elsewhere.
Comment by Bradford — August 29, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
March 1st, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Just an update…
Comment by JAllen — March 1, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
March 1st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
JAllen citing Dembski:
The definition relevant to the blog entry:
Bradford quoting Brayton:
Brayton's central theme remains linked to the claim that the definition was claimed to be something other than creationism. Yet when one views the definition itself one finds it very compatible with the Genesis version of what took place. So why would IDists use a definition that is very scriptural in tone if the intent is to make it seem something other than creationism?
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2008 @ 4:12 pm