A True Scientist
by BradfordKen Miller just can’t win is an unusual title for an acclaimed Ivy League professor but Miller has been a target of some very disparate groups. This might explain the motives of his latest detractors:
The source of their concern: Miller, a practicing Catholic, has made a very public bid in the last decade or so to square religion and science; to mix church and state, in their view. "It's an effort to reconcile a legitimate discipline," says biology professor and prominent atheist blogger PZ Myers, "with foolishness."
A true scientist, the New Atheists argue, must renounce God. Must acknowledge the fundamental incompatibility of an empirical science and a revelatory faith. Miller couldn't disagree more.
Remarkable is it not? The NA attitude does not square well with that which nourishes science- rigorous intellectual endeavor and freedom of thought. But Miller seems to have retained his serenity:
And if the New Atheists' attacks get to him, he doesn't let on. Miller says the long hours he has devoted to baseball and softball umpiring have left him immune to even the sharpest digs. "Do you have any idea what people say to an umpire in a ballgame?" he says.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:32 am
What a truly poor article. Three general schools of thought are presented in conflict. Those conflicting ideas come from the aethists, Ken Miller (representing the theistic evolutionist position), and ID.
The jounalist's Code of Ethics makes several reccomendations in an attempt to impose fairness and truth-value on storytelling. Among them are to avoid stereotyping and to give voice.
So with that in mind, lets look to see if anyone was stereotyped in this piece.
First among the group is Ken Miller himself. He obviously wasn't stereotyped – the entire article was about him, given several times in his own words. Next on the list are the atheists, who are pictured as somewhat recalcitrant to the idea of religion on any grounds. Coyne is quoted in context, and it seems there are mentions of articles he has written on the subject matter. PZ is given a blurb – hardly at odds with his general demeanor. Anyone wishing to see if Meyer's antics are representative of the image given in the article need only go to his website and read the comments generated from the article itself. He's upset because he feels atheist are shown in a bad light, so he adds "It's more bullshit about how science has to compromise with the public's version of spiritual superstition, rather than remaining true to the evidence….well fuck that noise". His minions are only too happy to follow suit.
And how are IDist presented? Well of course, the only pertinent thing to do if you are a journalist is to start off by placing ID in the same basket as creationism: "creationism's latest iteration, intelligent design". It's a well worn tactic, so why not use it? Right?
Then after wrapping ID up into a political party (as if information processing inside the cell is a Republican idea), then simply note that ID is the primary target of Ken Miller's books – and never mention it again.
Perfect.
And if there is no further mention of it – then there is certainly no voice given to it. All in all, its par for the course.
Comment by Upright BiPed — March 8, 2010 @ 3:32 am
March 8th, 2010 at 8:11 am
A very on target analysis, Upright BiPed.
Comment by Bradford — March 8, 2010 @ 8:11 am
March 8th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne comment on the article:
Myers
Coyne
Comment by pelagius — March 8, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
From the Myers' link:
A paranoid tard-like rant.
Comment by Bradford — March 8, 2010 @ 2:36 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
If Myers and Coyne had been working on scientific research, they would have been too busy to comment on Miller. They talked to the journalist because they were not absorbed in any scientific research and wanted the personal attention – they wanted to see their names in a mainstream paper. Well, they got the attention. So why are they whining?
Comment by MikeGene — March 8, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
It is interesting to see Coyne and Meyers ramble on about journalists slanting stories anyway they want.
Funny how this never is a problem with ID stories. In that particular case, slanting the story is all the better.
On second thought, I think it was a fine article. /sarc
Comment by Upright BiPed — March 8, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
They need be in combat mode. It gives them a reason for living. If they don't have enemies, they have to make them. The world of sports would not exist if their were not opponents. Same is true in the blogsphere of PZ and friends.
That is why the Wedge and religion will live on! PZ and friends will keep it alive!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 8, 2010 @ 10:31 pm
March 8th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
I think Miller wins this little squabble hands down.
In my view, it is perfectly ok to question God's existence, to question whether religion, on the whole, is or is not a good thing for mankind.
I tend to think there something out there beyond mindless matter, which we call God. I acknowledge that it requires a bit of a leap of faith, but I do think there is some solid evidence for this position as well (complexity of DNA; ex nihilio argument, etc, etc). Reasonable minds can differ.
Also, it's perfectly ok to question scientific conclusions — perhaps the data doesn't fully support the conclusion, perhaps there are competing interpretations of the data. Certainly, we've seen a plethora of shoddy science out there, such as this exaggerated, unscientific threat of global warming.
Science, at its basic level is simply a method — nothing more. It is a wonderful method, no doubt. I love science and love scientists (when they do it right). It is a tool for ascertaining truth, but only a limited tool. You need science, and philosophy and history and imagination to figure out the really important things in life (whether God exists; what love is; what the mind is; what information is, how did we come to exist, etc, etc.)
So, when you see these fairly noxious scientists tackling the God question in vociferous terms, with only fleeting inquiries into philosophy, history and metaphysics — it's kind of embarrasing. They've spent a lot of time and thought with test tubes, fleas, frogs and mice, but too little time with Aristotle, Aquinas and Augustine.
This is just my opinion, of course, and I don't mean to denigrate anyone.
Comment by David S — March 8, 2010 @ 11:46 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 1:27 am
David S, I think you've made the point well and in a balanced way, without any unnecessary hostility. Yet, it does need to be said, as you point out, that when people from the sciences try to pontificate outside their field, e.g. about philosophy, history, metaphysics — yes it can be embarrassing.
It is as though the emperor scientist walked out of his lab, not realizing that without his lab coat he has nothing on. The grand clothes of science do not cover him when he steps outside onto other turf.
Comment by eric — March 9, 2010 @ 1:27 am
March 9th, 2010 at 8:10 am
Science can say quite a lot about history. Also, it is within the scientific purview to state that the Theory of Evolution is a strongly supported scientific theory, including historical claims about Common Descent, and that Intelligent Design (as normally construed) has no scientific merit.
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 8:10 am
March 9th, 2010 at 8:58 am
Science can say nothing about ID because the rules state that empirical non-answers are attributable to an absence of knowledge. Philosophy predetermines mindsets toward ID.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2010 @ 8:58 am
March 9th, 2010 at 10:50 am
There are some aspects of history that are open to scientific inquiry, such as looking for the tell-tale markers of past comet/asteroid impacts. The inference is made, not because we can go back and see it, but because the observable effects are uniquely associated with a particular cause.
The trouble is, you cannot make that case without undermining your own claim "that Intelligent Design (as normally construed) has no scientific merit." ID, properly understood, uses the same method of inferring a cause from the uniqueness of its ability to produce the observed effects. For the origin of life, intelligent causation is the best inference one can make, by virtue of the same process of reasoning we employ with other unobserved events of the remote past.
Comment by eric — March 9, 2010 @ 10:50 am
March 9th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
What is an "empirical non-answer?" What is an "empirical answer?"
It takes no particular philosophy to recognize that the ID Claims of Dembski and Behe are fallacious.
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
We take that as a clarification.
Hypothesis-testing. (Distinguishing, if not unique.)
That's precisely why we can say ID has no scientific validity. Either its proposed hypotheses are too vague to lead to specific and distinguishing empirical entailments, or it's simply false.
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Meyers has made a very convincing case (imo) that ID is the best hypothesis out of all the OOL hypotheses for the OOL. If you haven't read Signature in the Cell yet, then you should. Meyers has advanced the case for ID quite a bit, or if ID isn't the proper word (as ID seems to be many things to many people) then substitute the phrase "OOL is the effect of an intelligent act" for ID.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — March 9, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
The uniqueness of a conscious intelligence source's ability to generate symbolic mappings within coding systems, where no such systems or mappings hitherto existed, is specific and distinguishes the claim from its alternatives.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
That's not a valid scientific hypothesis. It should be of the form
If X then A, where A is as specific and distinguishing from alternative hypotheses as possible. Verification is not considered proof, but support.What we have is a set of "symbolic mappings (S)," and we have at least two classes. Some S are caused by a conscious beings (C). Another class is genetics (G). This is the fallacy (assuming a rigorous definition of S),
C is a subset of S. G is a subset of S. Therefore C is a subset of G.You say it's specific, but there's nothing in your statement that is empirical at all. It's just words rearranged.
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 7:04 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Fine. Take a human and place him in a lab. Do the same with a prebiotic soup concoction. I'll take the human and spot you odds on which source generates a code first.
Comment by Bradford — March 9, 2010 @ 8:22 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
HI Zachriel,
You have a good, highly technical definition of a scientific hypothesis above.
Do you think that the Multiverse (multiple universes) hypothesis satisfies your definition?
Here's a chapter by Steven Weinberg discussing the Multiverse hypothesis.
Even if the Multiverse theory does not meet your definition of a scientific hypothesis, are scientists permitted to think and write about it in scientific journals, books and papers?
Myself, I put ID and the Multiverse hypothesis (perhaps even the Search for Intelligent Life) on fairly equal "scientific" planes, and I'm not bothered by scientists writing and thinking about either of them.
Comment by David S — March 9, 2010 @ 8:44 pm
March 9th, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Developing a new theory or hypothesis is certainly part of the scientific method. A new theory can come from almost any source, deep-thought, a hunch, a dream, an inspiration, or from fanciful thought-experiments. There can a long period of time between the development of a hypothesis and its test; or between the observation of an anomaly and its explanation.
Multiverse is an outgrowth of String Theory, but is still untestable at this time. No one claims to have verified these speculations, and everyone knows that a theory has to eventually lead to empirical predictions to have scientific credibility.
There's nothing wrong or necessarily unscientific with thinking about ID. The problem is that ID claims more than it delivers. Most in the ID Community incorrectly claim they have evidence of Intelligent Design, and that they have disproven evolutionary theory. But their arguments are fraught with fallacy and equivocation.
This is entirely different from String Theory, which incorporates and predicts quantum phenomena (but can't yet and doesn't claim to be able to distinguish itself from other competing theories). Or even science fiction, which can push the bounds of science, but again, not claiming more than a voyage of the imagination.
Comment by Zachriel — March 9, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 12:36 am
Thanks for your reply, Zachriel.
You write: "Multiverse is an outgrowth of String Theory, but is still untestable at this time."
If it's not testable, then it is not science, correct? Whatever it's status, I don't think it unworthy of scientific discussion.
But, I would hold the same for ID. If Dr. Weinberg can write about the Multiverse hypothesis, without being bombarded with rotten tomatoes, I don't see why Dr. Behe can't write about irreducible complexity without the same courtesies.
More so, reasonable minds can differ on whether Dr. Behe's hypothesis is testable, but I'll save that discussion for another day.
Thanks for the your reasoned discourse.
Comment by David S — March 10, 2010 @ 12:36 am
March 10th, 2010 at 8:49 am
It's testable in principle, and the point is to eventually develop tests. There can be an interval between the development of an idea and its observational verification. It might as long as it takes a scientist to grab a beaker after having an inspiration, or it might be years, as it was to verify the prediction of General Relativity with regards to the deflection of light passing near the Sun. Sometimes, you have to a build giant machines, such as space telescopes or supercolliders. Sometimes, you have to wait for a Solar eclipse and mount a difficult expedition between world wars . Sometimes, the ideas are not yet fully formed and take time to develop.
As the scientific method is cyclical, we can only determine whether it was successful (even if a falsification) once the cycle is complete. Not all theories or theoretical musing are going to yield fruit. They can still be considered part of science.
Behe deserves rotten fruit because he has produced a rotten play. His arguments are hackneyed and long refuted, and he claims far more than he can deliver.
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2010 @ 8:49 am
March 10th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Nice bald assertion.
Zachriel talks about hypotheses, but tat is about it- all talk.
He still hasn't produced a testable hypothesis for biology pertaining to blind, undirected chemical processes.
And BTW ID does have positive evidence- people like Zachriel just hand-wave it away all the while never supporting their position.
Classic shield bashing…
Comment by ID guy — March 10, 2010 @ 9:48 am
March 10th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Nice projection Zach.
Is that all you have?
Does your position have a proposed hypothesis based on blind, undirected chemical processes?
Does your position have anything besides equivocation?
If so then please present it.
Comment by ID guy — March 10, 2010 @ 9:50 am
March 10th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Nice? Thank you. It is a bald, though supportable, assertion. The point with regards to David S's position is that there is a distinction between Weinberg's speculations and Behe's unsupportable claims. In other words, Weinberg doesn't advertise more than he can deliver, a tepid defense of the possibility of multiverses. Behe promises the show of all shows, but delivers the Royal Nonesuch.
Please provide an empirically useful definition of "blind, undirected chemical processes."
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2010 @ 10:46 am
March 10th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Are you admitting your position is unsupportable?
Thank you.
As for Dr Behe, his arguments still stand, unrefuted.
And I take it that bothers you.
Good.
Comment by ID guy — March 10, 2010 @ 1:20 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Even sharks don't eat lawyers out of professional courtesy. Meyer's could learn a thing or two from these scavengers of the sea.
Comment by themayan — March 10, 2010 @ 1:41 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Please provide an empirically useful definition of "blind, undirected chemical processes."
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2010 @ 2:13 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Someone who has a difficulty in understanding the concept of a “blind undirected” process should probably not be speaking on the subject of natural sciences. The term is hardly in need of a definition; it is, after all, the primary ideological assumption shepherded by the NCSE, NSA, etc.
When Monod stated “Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, only chance, absolute but blind…” there was no outcry for clarity?
When in the textbook Biology (Miller and Levine, 5th Edition) uses phrases like "works without plan or purpose" or "random and undirected" there is no hint of some perilous misunderstanding as to what’s being conveyed?
So, why the unnecessary contrivance that there is haziness surrounding the meaning of “blind undirected” processes?
The contrivance (and others like it) always pops up when the conversation turns to origins (either cosmological or biological, but particularly biological). Its necessity is as obvious as the definition itself. It’s a flank; a means to move the intellectual focus away from a direct question requiring a direct answer.
But, as Zachriel admits above, there is no answer. And as he also admits there is not even a test from which to produce an answer, and therefore, consequently, it’s not even being tested.
Moreover, the idea of “blind undirected” processes is not merely an untested side issue. It’s not even a hypothesis, or a theory having something to do with reality. It’s been promoted from mere theoretical standing, and now holds a status much more in keeping with its ideological purpose. It is now a fundamental assumption, and as is with all assumptions, it’s placed prior to the evidence.
But these are not issues that people like Zachriel can address in a direct, uncontrived manner. There will always be a maneuver governing their response. For the purposes of debate, it’s plainly much easier to make repeated assertions about something else – anything else. Each assertion propped up by contempt, in lieu of evidence. And there is nothing (but intellectual honesty) at risk in simply attacking your opponents for supposedly wanting to do what you yourself have already done. And, refusing to admit it is nothing more than a manifest step along the way. After all, a consensus among the like-minded will always cover for a lack of honesty, it always has.
The core issue is whether or not “blind undirected processes” are all that is at work in the cosmos. This has been presented as being the absolute truth, free from any ambiguity, by everyone from Monod to Dawkins to Sagan to the NCSE. Yet it is nothing more than an unscientific assertion based upon the promoter’s ideology.
Comment by Upright BiPed — March 10, 2010 @ 8:30 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Are you saying that ID guy is using the term "blind, undirected chemical processes" in the same sense that Monod used "chance" and Miller and Levine used "random and undirected"? Did you ever provide an empirically useful definition somewhere in your comment?
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2010 @ 9:11 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
No Zach,
I said that your rebut is a flank.
Its a flank because you cannot falsify your core assumption that undirected processes are all that is at work in the cosmos, and before addressing the non-falsifiability aspect of your assumption in an honest manner, you will say anything.
As you just did.
Comment by Upright BiPed — March 10, 2010 @ 9:52 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
It was a question, not a rebuttal. Do you mean "blind, undirected" like lightning or hurricanes?
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2010 @ 9:58 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
…as you did once again, and will continue to do so.
Comment by Upright BiPed — March 10, 2010 @ 10:23 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
So you can't answer. Fair enough.
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2010 @ 10:38 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
I already did Zach…
Comment by Upright BiPed — March 10, 2010 @ 11:02 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Hmm.
1st paragraph: says it hardly needs a definition.
2nd paragraph: Monod talking about "chance".
3rd paragraph: out of context phrases used by Miller and Levin.
4th paragraph: a rhetorical question.
5th paragraph: discussion of the obviousness of the definition.
6th paragraph: something about Zachriel admitting to something or other.
Is the empirically useful definition buried in there somewhere? Can you name some phenomena that are "blind and undirected"? You seem to be having a great deal of trouble with this.
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2010 @ 11:11 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
I am sure there is someone somewhere willing to explain your position to you.
A flank is a move into uncontested territoty. Its necessity comes about by not being able to defend the turf you are standing on.
It is not I who is struggling to open up a seperate line of thought, nor is it I that needs to.
Comment by Upright BiPed — March 10, 2010 @ 11:29 pm
March 10th, 2010 at 11:40 pm
The phrase "blind, undirected chemical processes" was introduced by ID guy in a scientific context. Just wanted to know his usage. You indicated you had provided a definition, but that was apparently not true. If you don't know, that's fine.
Comment by Zachriel — March 10, 2010 @ 11:40 pm
March 11th, 2010 at 8:45 am
Seeing YOUR position relies on blind, undirected chemical processes, YOU should be providing such a definition.
IOW Zach all you are doing is proving your position is scientifically vacuous.
Comment by ID guy — March 11, 2010 @ 8:45 am
March 11th, 2010 at 8:47 am
That is incorrect.
Dawkins said that natural selection is blind.
He also says that mutations are undirected chemical processes- ie genetic mistakes.
So have at it Zach- show us that your position is not totally bankrupt.
Show us that you have more than bashing ID with strawman arguments.
Comment by ID guy — March 11, 2010 @ 8:47 am
March 11th, 2010 at 9:11 am
The terms seem to be qualitative and context dependent. Upright Biped said he provided a definition, but for Heaven's Sake, it doesn't seem to be there! But if you want to tell us what *you* mean, then please provide an empirically useful definition of "blind, undirected chemical processes."
He's probably means not being able to anticipate the future, to see ahead. What do you think he means?
Yes, there is scientific evidence that mutations are random with respect to fitness. And there is no scientific evidence of the process being under the direction of an external Intelligent Agent. What do you think he means?
Comment by Zachriel — March 11, 2010 @ 9:11 am
March 11th, 2010 at 9:27 am
It's YOUR position Zach. YOU should be telling us.
Thew only reason you don't is because suppoorting your position isn't something you can do.
Dawkins said that natural selection is blind.
Can't see- period. It is a result- an after-the-fact entity.
He also says that mutations are undirected chemical processes- ie genetic mistakes.
That is irrelevant as to whether or not all mutations are genetic mistakes.
And spellcheck doesn't require an external Intelligent Agent either.
That doesn't mean spellcheck is an undirected process.
Your subterfuge and obfuscation are dulty noted.
Comment by ID guy — March 11, 2010 @ 9:27 am
March 11th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Our position is that "blind undirected" is qualitative and sensitive to context. Hence, the reasonable question is what do *you* mean by the term?
We have fairly good evidence that spellcheck was designed by a peculiar species of verbalizing Hominoidea. But if you take a population of words and randomly mutate and recombine them, they will evolve into other words.
Comment by Zachriel — March 11, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Blind- can't see, can't plan, cannot know what the future requires, cannot perceive nor understand.
Undirected- not planned, not directed nor guided, without purpose.
And spellcheck doesn't require an external Intelligent Agent either.
That doesn't have anything to do with it.
The point is spellchecker does not require an external intelligent agent.
Comment by ID guy — March 13, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
How can we empirically distinguish between a "blind" and a "non-blind" process? For instance, if a stone erodes and tumbles down a hill, is that a "blind" or "non-blind" process?
Comment by Zachriel — March 13, 2010 @ 6:28 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Blind- can't see, can't plan, cannot know what the future requires, cannot perceive nor understand.
You should know that. You should have that down in some rigorously defined form.
If you have to ask all you are doing is proving your position is intellectually bankrupt.
Comment by ID guy — March 13, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
March 13th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
You introduced the terminology. As we stated before, the term "blind undirected" is qualitative and sensitive to context. It's apparent you can't provided an empirically useful definition.
Comment by Zachriel — March 13, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
March 15th, 2010 at 9:00 am
That is false.
Dawkins used "blind" in a biological context well before I ever did.
And genetics departemnts around the world have said that mutations are mistakes- meaning accidents- meaning undirected.
It is up to you to provide an empirically useful definition for your position.
Are you that messed up that you need your opponents to define your position for you?
Comment by ID guy — March 15, 2010 @ 9:00 am
March 15th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Aye aye, Cap'n.
In the Lederberg Experiment, we say the mutations are random with respect to fitness. This means the particular mutations in individual organisms are uncorrelated with the individual's environmental fitness.
Comment by Zachriel — March 15, 2010 @ 9:53 am