A Vertical Playing Field
by KrauzeI've always considered the philosopher of science Del Ratzsch one of my favorite writers about ID. He's well-read on the subject, his arguments are both detailed and clear, and he doesn't care a whit about toeing the line or belonging with the right crowd. Imagine my joy when Dembski posted a link to an article (PDF) of Ratzsch's, reviewing the book God, the Devil, and Darwin by Niall Shanks (also mentioned here). Although Ratzsch makes it clear that he too sees some problems with ID, he makes no attempt to hide the polemical and innacurate nature of Shanks' book, showing that it commits the same fallacies as proponents of ID are usually accused of committing, including: Ignoring the relevant literature about the matter under discussion (in this case, history of science), quoting opponents out of context, comitting elemental errors of logic (confusing the motivations of people with the contents of the view they're proposing), and stacking the deck. In fact, Ratzsch's article isn't so much a review as a detailed refutation of a number of arguments popular among the ID critics one can meet on discussion boards and on blogs.
For example, Ratzsch quotes Shank making this perfectly reasonable point:
"[E]ven if we conclude that the constants were tuned by design, the numbers themselves tell us nothing about who or what did it. To get from the conclusion of mere design to the further conclusion that it was design by the God of religion X will require more than simple observations of cosmological fine-tuning [p. 211]"
Of course, as Ratzsch illustrates, this very point has been emphasized by ID proponents:
"Whether an intelligent cause operates within or outside nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question entirely from whether an intelligent cause has operated." [William Dembski, quoted on p. 154]
"The existence of design is distinct from the morality, esthetics, goodness, optimality or perfection of design." [Dembski, quoted on p. 156]"
So, on this point at least, Shanks concedes that Dembski et al. got it right, right? Wrong: He dismisses Dembski's point as irrelevant, claiming that the ID proponent are really interested in proving the existence of the Christian God, and that in trying to make the point, they're lying to their readers. Ratzsch comments:
"So if Dembski and ID advocates ignore the distinction Shanks demands (and which Dembski of course made above), and try to infer the supernatural character (and other identifying characteristics) of the designer from the proposed fact of design they are making a serious logical error - an 'unwarranted leap' But if they do make the distinction Shanks demands and claim to be separating design from their religious identification of the designer, they are 'telling lies'. This particular playing field isn't merely slanted - it's vertical."
To the ID proponents: Go read this article. To the ID critics: Go read this article too. Ratzsch adresses a number of beliefs common among the ID-criticial community ("ID is an outgrowth of creationism" anyone?), and he does so clear and convincingly. This article contains the kind of arguments you will need to start adressing.
References:
Del Ratzsch, "How Not to Critique Intelligent Design Theory", Ars Disputandi [http://www.ArsDisputandi.org] 5 (2005)
June 18th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Wow. I'm only part way done and its a smackdown. I've always known that those who equate ID and creationism are peddling intellectual slop (or propaganda) born of their simple-minded stereotypes. Ratzsch makes some very powerful, scholarly observations regarding this issue. In the next section, he turns his attention to the way Shanks misrepresents his opponents - a trait that is extremely common among critics. What is especially delicious is that he catches Shanks in the sin of "quote-mining." That critics have never complained about such examples of quote-mining nicely illustrates that their complaints are not rooted in principle.
Comment by MikeGene — June 18, 2005 @ 8:31 pm
June 18th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
I just finished the Ratzsch article and it is very good. What's interesting is that Shanks' book apparently peddles the "meat-and-potatoes" of so many ID critics I have run across. Why do I say this? Because the claims Ratzsch addresses (and smacks down) are the claims I have seen again and again while posting on the ARN forum for the last five years. The excerpt provided by Krauze is a nice example. Critics play the game of "heads I win, tails you lose." They demand to know the identity of the designer, something that cannot be delivered by the methods proposed by Behe or Demski. If you don't engage in such illogical play, they will call you a liar.
If the critics have such a powerful case, why do they so often rely on such rhetoric?
Comment by MikeGene — June 18, 2005 @ 10:18 pm
June 19th, 2005 at 7:54 am
Just read it and it is indeed amazingly familiar, like reading ARN all over again. I'm willing to bet this review doesn't make an appearance on ID-critic blogs.
Comment by Jean — June 19, 2005 @ 7:54 am
June 19th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Hi Jean,
You wrote:
The difference being that when you are an Expert, you can get ARN-like slime published by Oxford University Press. You can then put it on your CV and receive accolades for your colleagues, as they do what they must to prevent the Impending Theocracy from taking hold.
When your hands are full fighting off the Impending Theocracy, there are more important things to do.
Comment by MikeGene — June 19, 2005 @ 12:01 pm
June 19th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Ratzsch:
One wonders what would happen if we reflected Shanks' tactics on Shanks.
One might even say that he is a significant player in another "movement." SATYA, a magazine of vegetarianism, environmentalism, and animal advocacy, offers the following synopsis of Shanks' book, Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation
So again, if we apply Shanks' tactics to Shanks, how might we make "sense" of all this?
Comment by MikeGene — June 19, 2005 @ 12:46 pm
June 20th, 2005 at 3:33 am
Hi Mike,
That synopsis of Shanks' book reminds me of ID critics who've claimed that creationism has killed people, as its rejection of the common ancestry of humans and apes leads creationists to reject the extrapolation from the results of animal testing of medicine.
Comment by Krauze — June 20, 2005 @ 3:33 am