Another peer reviewer
by Krauze"Thought Pimp" is a scientist from Texas. Here's his first post:
Let's bring intelligent design into biology, and take the vague theory and refine it into mutually exclusive families of clearer hypotheses. Each of which we analyze for explanatory power, corroborating and disconfirming evidence, and so on.
And in the process, we will show that the Christian concept of God is scientifically false—we can say with a fair degree of scientific confidence that there is no god much like the God they want.
But of course, that will never happen. They'd accuse us of violating their boundary between "science" and "religion," and taking a "religious" stance. (Well, anti-religious, and in a sense they'd be right on that.) If we said the truth, which is that scientists know orthodox Christianity to be scientifically false, we'd be lynched.
First, it's pretty obvious that "Thought Pimp" is yet another scientist who hears "God" whenever someone says "design".
Second, from his comments about disproving the existence of God, I'm guessing that when he's talking about "refining intelligent design", he really means "tell us who the designer is".
To complete the set of stereotypic misunderstandings, how many are going to be surprised if Thought Pimp titles his next post, "Why Intelligent Design is a Threat to Science and Democracy"
(HT: Evolving Thoughts)
March 2nd, 2006 at 9:45 am
Christianity as scientifically false? I initially that he wasn't being serious in that blurb from his blog. It's kind of disturbing that he would make that comment with a straight face (assuming it is).
I don't know if he'd be lynched, but I'm pretty certain he'd be laughed at if he were to attempt what he believes can be shown under the guise of science.
Comment by Doug — March 2, 2006 @ 9:45 am
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:01 am
Krause,
as already commented at "The ape is on my father's side, mind you", regarding John Hawks, we are definitely into the "Post-Wedgin' Away" era. This sharp polarization of the debate (however daft "Thought Pimps" "˜s post at his blog may be) may appear as adding confusion to the confusion, but in my opinion this is good.
Again, the excellent side effect of this situation, the one most dreaded by people who for too long have accustomed themselves comfortably with the impossible task of keeping their ball in two courts (the "non interventionist" one of strict ToE, and the "theistic" one), is (IMMO) that the room for manoeuvre is getting drastically reduced for "mystics" and "theistic evolutionist" alike. Marvellous!
Yes, Post-Wedgin' Away: from now on that is the only way: from now on both theological stances (the "theistic" one and the "atheistic" one), are bound to get more and more into deep waters. Gradually the rational rebate will emerge not just as the only sensible option, but also as the only possible option.
Comment by Servetus — March 2, 2006 @ 11:01 am
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:21 pm
If its a stereotype, Krauze, I'd love to hear who the designer might be, other than God. C'mon, if you believe in design, you must have some thoughts on the identity of the designer. The good people in Kansas, Ohio and Dover, Pa. have no doubt about who the designer is, and neither do Dembski, Behe or Phillip Johnson. It must be difficult to have to choose between sounding like either a creationist or a Raelian, which is why IDists avoid the subject except when they are talking to the faithful.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 2, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Aagcobb,
That argument is so out-dated, it is almost meaningless.
Comment by Guts — March 2, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Aagcobb,
you asked the question to Krause, so it is for him to reply. Let me intrude, though, to suggest to you that, even admitting, there is a huge difference between the God that we can arrive at by means of rational arguments, and the God of Revelation and/or of "mystical inspiration".
We post-moderns have become so accustomed to taking for granted that the only accessible God is the God of Faith and/or of inner mystical intuition, that we have lost all sensitivity for the difference.
Just to get the gist of it, I suggest you go and read a classic, Thomas Hobbes Leviathan.
Comment by Servetus — March 2, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
March 2nd, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Aagcobb,
Remember that political discussion where one party claimed it was able to nuance issues and the other was just a cowboy? I'm afraid you're on the cowboy side of this one.
It is sufficient for ID to make a conceptual distinction between the two questions here: "is there evidence of design?" and "from where did design (if it exists) come?"
Why this is so difficult to understand escapes me.
Comment by TomG — March 2, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:11 pm
TomG, there is no evidence of design, only discredited creationist arguments spun slightly differently, as discussed here.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 2, 2006 @ 11:11 pm
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:20 pm
The only argument I see in Cob's post is:
D,J,B are ID proponents
D,J,B think the Christian God is the designer
Therefore ID proponents think that the Christian God is the designer.
Unfortunately, this argument lacks logical validity, and if one can't see that then it's nothing a substitution instance with a counter-example can't help. Of course, Cob can always resort to saying "˜I just meant God in general'. But if this is the case then, why, "˜God' has just lost his/her/its religious specificity. And the whole damning ID "“ Christian link has lost its hold. It is rather hard to see why it matters so much that ID may be suggestive of some kind of nebulous thing that could be called "God". Especially when "God" can now mean just about anything.
This issue, furthermore, is entirely separate from the distinction of design per se, and the designer per se.
It seems, then, that this is just an example of what I figured would be the case: many-an-ID critic just can't seem to graduate from the Wedge world into the post-Wedge world.
Comment by Dane Parker — March 2, 2006 @ 11:20 pm
March 2nd, 2006 at 11:29 pm
aacobb
What difference does it make who Dembski, Behe, Johnson or anyone else thinks the designer is? Okay they (and myself) all think it is God…more specifically the God of Judeo-Christian tradition. So what? The scientific issue isn't who anyone thinks the designer is. The only scientific issue is what does the evidence of nature tell us regarding the origin of the diversity of life on earth.
The identity issue is irrelevant. Interesting, but irrelevant.
Comment by DonaldM — March 2, 2006 @ 11:29 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:14 am
Hi Aagcobb,
"If its a stereotype, Krauze, I'd love to hear who the designer might be, other than God."
So, to contemplate design, you first need to have a candidate for the identity of the designer?
Comment by Krauze — March 3, 2006 @ 4:14 am
March 3rd, 2006 at 9:45 am
Hi Krauze,
First, I don't know why you would contemplate design, unless there was some reason to think life was designed, or that there was some reason to think there was a designer. Second, why wouldn't you be contemplating who the designer was? I know why the DI officially divorces the identity of the designer from the "science" of ID (while reassuring the faithful that the ID is God), but you don't care about satisfying the Lemon Test in order to teach IDism in US public school science classrooms. If life on earth was designed, the really interesting questions are who designed it, how, when and why. I have a hard time believing you don't have any thoughts on those subjects.
Take SETI, which IDists love to compare IDism to. They don't have disclaimers about how SETI doesn't have anything to do with who sent the messages they are searching for. They are looking for messages from ETs with advanced technological societies who have evolved on other planets, and the whole point of detecting messages from them is to learn about them, and the reason they think they can detect messages from them is because they have hypotheses about the ETs' technological and intellectual abilities. This notion that the identity of the designer has nothing to do with IDism is a crock cooked up to conceal the fact that the IDism of the DI is just creationism drained of all substance in order to try to get antievolutionary pseudoscience into public school science classrooms.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 3, 2006 @ 9:45 am
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:39 am
You can't discredit anything if you don't understand whats being argued. Rosenhouse never read past the definition of IC in DBB, as most ID critics are prone to do, where he allows for the possibility of co-option. There is nothing like this in what Morris stated. It's not difficult to understand that this approach, which looks at the data that supports the existence of intelligent design in life, is not dependant on what any holy book says.
Comment by Guts — March 3, 2006 @ 10:39 am
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Instead of trying to lead the discussion off topic, why don't you adress the simple distinction TomG pointed to?
Comment by Krauze — March 3, 2006 @ 11:28 am
March 3rd, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Hi Krauze,
I did. So far, there is no evidence of design, yet design advocates continue to flog the dead horses of IC and SC. This is because for most of them, the conceptual distinction between evidence of design and where design comes from is only a facade they maintain for the media and the courts; when talking to the faithful the distinction disappears and the ID becomes God. The point I made about SETI also applies; if you have no hypothesis about the designer and his capacities, how do you form hypotheses about what his design should look like?
Comment by Aagcobb — March 3, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"I did."
No, you didn't. No need to tell me your personal opinion; I already know that you don't think there's any evidence for design and that it's all a charade to have creationism taught in schools. Here's the point TomG made:
"It is sufficient for ID to make a conceptual distinction between the two questions here: 'is there evidence of design?' and 'from where did design (if it exists) come?'"
Try really adressing the logic here, instead of just reaching for the nearest anti-ID slogan. Supppose you had come to the belief that there was evidence of the flagelllum being designed. From this conclusion, how would you identify the designer?
"The point I made about SETI also applies; if you have no hypothesis about the designer and his capacities, how do you form hypotheses about what his design should look like?"
I never said I had no thoughts about the designer and its capacities; I just don't consider them that important when thinking about design.
However, this whole discussion started with "Thought Pimp's" conflation of ID with "orthodox Christianity", which you insisted wasn't a stereotype. Are you telling me that unless I have a candidate for the identity of the designer, I must accept the God of orthodox Christianity?
Comment by Krauze — March 3, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Thought Pimp's posting comes across as bluster. If he is serious about bringing intelligent design into biology and taking the vague theory and refine it into mutually exclusive families of clearer hypotheses, he has to participate in a fair and open-ended scientific investigation that focuses on origins and ID. Not only is this unlikely to happen (for example, I see no evidence that Thought Pimp understands how to approach ID), the moment he takes this step is the moment the Wedge supporters have basis for getting this "˜controversy' taught in the schools. Thought Pimp would be giving ammunition to the forces of darkness and would be berated by an e-mail campaign.
Of course, if he wants to show that the Christian concept of God is scientifically false, he'd have to go beyond testing for ID and come up with a test for the Christian-God-as-Designer. For example, a scientific conclusion that rules out ID simply doesn't negate theistic evolution. In fact, from the theological perspective, an investigation into ID is not about establishing the truth of design, but determining what design can be detected by sentient beings with rather primitive minds and tools.
Comment by MikeGene — March 4, 2006 @ 9:30 am
March 4th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Dane Parker,
"The only argument I see in Cob's post is:
D,J,B are ID proponents
D,J,B think the Christian God is the designer"
You talkin' 'bout me? (By the way, I'm singular, but looking.)
Comment by Douglas — March 4, 2006 @ 11:54 am
March 6th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Krauze asks:
Its not the conclusion that allows you to identify the designer, but the evidence that leads you to the conclusion that something was designed. The evidence that causes you to believe an object was designed should also tell you something about the designer. If you can't tell anything about the designer from the evidence of design, then I have to say that I seriously doubt that you actually have evidence of design. Perhaps you can give me an example of where design of something was detected without revealing any information about the designer.
I'm saying that if you don't have a candidate for the identity of the designer, you lack any basis for detecting design.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 6, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"The evidence that causes you to believe an object was designed should also tell you something about the designer."
Okay. So, let's say you've found the evidence that you considered sufficient to conclude that the flagellum was designed. Now, feel free to use this evidence to find out something about the designer.
Yet on the other hand, we have this:
"I'm saying that if you don't have a candidate for the identity of the designer, you lack any basis for detecting design."
So, you have to investigate the designed objects to find out something about the designer. But before you know what actually is designed, you need to already have a candidate for the identity of the designer. So, what's the point of finding out stuff about the designer, if you've already made up your mind as to who it is?
Comment by Krauze — March 6, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
March 7th, 2006 at 12:12 am
Aagcobb,
"I'm saying that if you don't have a candidate for the identity of the designer, you lack any basis for detecting design."
I'll bet you'd make a good lawyer.
Comment by Douglas — March 7, 2006 @ 12:12 am
March 7th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Hi Krauze,
What's the evidence?
There's a difference between having a candidate and having already made up your mind. The SETI scientists have candidates for sending messages; naturally evolved intelligent ETs who have reached a certain technological level. Apparently, once you formed that hypothesis, you would move on to other things; what the SETI scientists have done instead is formed hypotheses about where and what to look for, and are conducting searches based on their hypotheses.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 7, 2006 @ 11:24 am
March 7th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Douglas says
Thanks, Douglas; I try to be a good lawyer.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 7, 2006 @ 11:28 am
March 9th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"What's the evidence?"
That's up to you. I don't know what would be sufficient to you.
"The SETI scientists have candidates for sending messages; naturally evolved intelligent ETs who have reached a certain technological level."
The assumption about "technological level" makes sense, but how does the part about "naturally evolved" inform their methodology? If a supernatural intelligence tried to contact SETI, would they be unable to detect it?
Comment by Krauze — March 9, 2006 @ 3:14 pm