Another Version of CSI
by MikeGeneTelic Thoughts member kornbelt888 makes a point that I like:
Well, one definition is: Relating to the use of science or technology in the investigation and establishment of facts or evidence in a court of law. Except for an actual "court of law", I think that sounds closer to what is going on with Mike and his fellow-travelers. I don't normally think of detectives when I think of "philosophers", and I think of this as more detective work than anything else. Plus I just like the sound of the word "forensic."
The analogy between The Design Matrix and a police investigation is useful in many ways. Here are three:
1. The analogy helps us appreciate what the DM is. A police investigation is an attempt to use empirical facts and our knowledge of other intelligent agents (humans) to determine what happened in the past. It is not purely subjective, but neither is it purely objective or science. It exists somewhere on the continuum between the subjective and objective and makes use of both. This is all similar to The Design Matrix.
2. The analogy helps us understand how the DM relates to science. A police investigation can make use of scientific findings without itself becoming science. Just because a detective may use DNA fingerprinting as part of his investigation does not mean the detective is trying be a scientist or imply his investigation is science. Likewise, The Design Matrix makes use of scientific findings without trying to imply it itself is science.
3. Finally, the analogy helps us understand how the DM relates to critics/skeptics. Most critics/skeptics seek to pass judgment, wanting precise definitions, evidence, and even a complete theory. But this is akin to playing the role of judge or jury, something that does not come into play until after the investigation is completed and deemed successful. The judge and jury do not pass judgment on the investigation while it is in progress. Only the investigators themselves are making judgment calls. The Design Matrix outlines the characteristics of a good investigator on page 33.
The Design Matrix will not help you win the Culture War or Convince the Skeptics. But if you have an open mind and share in the suspicion of design, and would like to join the investigative team, The Design Matrix is your training manual. 
We salute you, Mr. Design Matrix Reader Guy
.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:51 am
The big difference being Grissom knows a crime has been committed by a person. You don't have a crime, and not only don't you have a suspect, you aren't even looking for one.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 5, 2008 @ 2:51 am
June 5th, 2008 at 5:09 am
Remember Mike's imagary is intended as an analogy. As an analogy one does indeed have a crime- the advent of life itself. One could take it further and believe that multiple crimes and charges are in order because not only does an initial cell require explanation but so too does the diversity of life. Our detectives believe the detectives previously handling that part of the case overlooked some evidence.
You're right about one thing. The suspect is not believed to be a person in the usual sense that we use that word. Rather the suspect is believed to be implicated in the appearance of persons.
Continuing with the analogy, as for whether or not we are looking for our suspect I think you are overlooking the difference between a forensic pathologist who I believe is a scientist and a detective who is not a scientist but who utilizes scientific evidence provided by the forensic pathologist. Detectives are also free to use non-scientific evidence such as testimony to locate their suspect. It may be heresay or even direct testimony not admissable in court but nevertheless useable by our crack detective squad.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2008 @ 5:09 am
June 5th, 2008 at 9:38 am
A detective will use their skill of observation, experience, hunches, and a whole array of tools. Then, when they have a reasonable theory, having already tested it for themselves, they put their theory and supporting evidence before the court where it is then tested against competing theories.
I have no objection to shoe-leather. Indeed, I strongly support such an approach. The problem is that the putative spokespersons for the ID Movement claim to have strong evidence of the perpetrator, can't name the suspect, and their theories are rejected as vacuous or simply false by the courts.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2008 @ 9:38 am
June 5th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Higher and lower profile IDists point to a designer as IDists and the Designer within their varying religious denominations. The judges doing the rejecting want the designer to testify in court. That necessitates a change in venue before a jury of peers prepared to see the issue before them as it really is- a problem of epistemology.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2008 @ 11:12 am
June 5th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Personally I don't want my police detectives using the same line of thinking the ID movement uses. I don't want police detectives to say, "Todd committed this crime! Now what crime are we investigating and how does this evidence finger Todd as the perp?" This is where your analogy breaks down, a genuine investigation does not start with the conclusion.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 5, 2008 @ 11:14 am
June 5th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Zachriel,
Then TT should not be a problem for you.
Seeing as I have never heard any of the TT principals make these claims, nor are they the putative spokespersons, nor do they attempt to name the designer, and most seem to not really care about whether ID is accepted by the courts, I have to wonder why you continually preach this sermon here.
Seriously, if you have some kind of gospel you want preached, the usual place to evangelize is where the sinners are. There are no "Putative Spokespersons For ID" working here, nor any of their accolytes. Indeed the spokesmen you speak of are often hostile to the views expressed at TT.
Perhaps if your message were original, instead of the the same old repetetive pablum, you'd actually get an audience at your Zachriel blog and possibly win a few converts. Try an original spin on your worldview. That's what Mike has done, and because of this he is actually enjoyable to read.
Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2008 @ 11:30 am
June 5th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Same goes for you, Todd. This post is not about "The ID Movement's" approach. Rather than acknowledge the DM's investigative approach, you simply choose to rant about "The ID Movement", as if it were some kind of boogeyman that will be summoned if the word "ID" is uttered.
Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2008 @ 11:36 am
June 5th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I try to take each claim on its own merits (nor is Telic Thoughts devoid of those who make unsupported scientific claims). As to the rest of your rant, keep in mind that I appropriately extended the analogy. Putting on a Deer Stalker and smoking a Calabash doesn't make one a Sherlock Holmes.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Sorry, chunkdz. I completely missed your own contribution to the extended analogy.
I get it now.
Comment by Zachriel — June 5, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Zachriel,
Lol! Actually, Zach, you had nothing to say about Mike's claim. Instead, you used this as an opportunity to rail against the "Putative Spokespersons For ID".
Funny, I don't recall Mike ever claiming to be a great detective. If anything he's more of a Magnum P.I., investigating in his spare time and following that tingly sensation of suspicion wherever it leads.
(Magnum's car is way nicer, though…!)
The fact that you genuinely seem to believe this is what fascinates me.
Perhaps if you actually tried to take Mike's claim on it's merits, instead of just saying that you do, people might find you interesting.
Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Zachriel,
That makes one of us. What law is against me, what facts are against me, and when did I pound on the table?
Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Zachriel quoting:
It's a good time to remind others that IDists and non-IDists alike agree on 99%+ of the factual issues before us. So if the facts are against IDists they are likely against us all. If not some specificity as to "facts" would be helpful.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Here is something I have been thinking about for the last couple of weeks… why do so many athiests seem to mirror the people they so obviously hate or dislike? Personally they seem like clergymen and evangelicals to me.
So quick to make accusations and judgments about another persons belief system even when there own is NO CLOSER to an answer than ID is.
As it has been said on here many times one's own belief's need not interfere at all with the science being done. If it does, then that is a problem. ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS DISCUSSION!
"Tard" has become the new term for "heretic". Personal insults abound.
Are we heading towards another inquisition? seems to me that we may be. Perhaps some of the Biology community that consider themselves athiest should study history more and see where their so called anti-religious leaders may be leading them; down the same dark path that christianity was forced to take long ago by it's so called leaders at the time.
The archiecture for life may have been laid out from the very beginning of our universe, at the beginning of time, or much later, who knows?. Given the presence of gravity the universe seems to be self organizing which may be a clue that a longer term goal may be in place. Who knows? why not ask the questions and see where the answers take you. We must realize that we still know almost nothing about our universe and ourselves, especially since the discovery of the quantum element of our universe. We have identified fair amount of processes….nothing more.
This is why I like TT there seems to be some ego checking going on here and that is definetly a good thing.
Comment by Kuma — June 5, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Kuma,
are you from Manitowoc?
Comment by Doug — June 5, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
That would be an affirmative Doug, why do you ask?
Comment by Kuma — June 5, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
A great deal of the disconnect between ID-think and non-ID-think, I think, comes from the following: IDers believe that once you've identified a cause as being intelligent, you have gained some understanding that might help understand the effect better. Not necessarily science, but at least a sort of research heuristic that could help us to guide our inquiry, yes?
But is this really true in the context of biology? Could it really be that if we infer telic cause, that would allow us to make the additional inferences which would add to our understanding of biology, or would we have to learn something more – something specific about the specific sort of intelligent agent we're talking about?
One good example, I think, is the Junk DNA issue. I don't know if this has been discussed on this board, but I think it is a very telling example. Many ID enthusiasts have claimed that the design inference led them to believe that additional function would be found for junk DNA, on the grounds that our knowledge of human designers suggests that a designer wouldn't stick a bunch of useless junk inside their designs.
I always wondered about that, though – how can we decide if that is a trait of designers in general, or if it is a trait of human designers in particular?
Then, as it turns out, I came across another essay on the DI website, written by another ID advocate. The topic was "sub-optimal design" and the author was explaining why examples of sub-optimal design in biology do not speak against the design inference, because nobody claimed the Designer was perfect. In support of this argument, the author explained that while computer programmers often leave non-functional code in their large, complex programs by mistake, that doesn't mean that the programmer wasn't intelligent!
So here the design inference leads to the idea that biology won't contain useless junk because designers don't do that… unless they do, in which case their designs will be littered with useless junk.
I think it's clear this particular (and widely-touted) case of ID being used to guide investigations didn't really follow from basic assumptions regarding designers at all. I wonder if there are any cases where anyone has successfully outlined a design principle that all designers (human and non-human) can be seen to follow?
Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Hi Kuma,
Born and raised.
Graduated from Roncalli High 1996.
Crazy another person from Manitowoc is on here.
I come up to Manitowoc pretty much every weekend. My mom passed away not too long ago, so I try to spend as much time with my dad as possible.
Comment by Doug — June 5, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Kuma, you're painting a pretty scary picture of the new inquisition. I'd like to ask you for a few real examples that inspire your dark vision. Not the Expelled-type horror movie, but something from real life.
Comment by olegt — June 5, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I got one, olegt.
How about intelligent professors being so embattled in their position they would call someone a 'tard'?
Comment by Doug — June 5, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Doug,
That is pretty crazy, not sure if Manitowoc is known for it's intellectuals, as much as it's beer drinking!
I graduated in '95 (kinda from Lincoln, we can just say that I'm a non-traditionalist when it comes to my education:wink:) my dad was born and raised here, and I have been in and out tof the area my whole life. It seems to me that Manitowoc is like a black hole and I cannot escape it's fierce gravitaional tug on me.
Sorry to hear about your Mom, it's good to see you helping out your dad though.
So what do you do now that your out of Manty?
Comment by Kuma — June 5, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
LOL! That and strip clubs. I was pretty much a straight edge until I turned 21. My mom was an alcoholic…. so seeing what it did to her made me hate the stuff. She, thankfully, was able to go 'dry' for good around 1993.
I loosened my personal constitution after 21, though. Spent my fair share of weekends at Capone's.
95? Just a year apart. My name is Tim Lambert…. don't know if that is familiar sounding to you or not.
HAHA! Maybe that's why I keep getting pulled back myself. Nothing is more depressing than 8th street in downtown Manitowoc. How can one city consistently screw something up? A library right on the river where the Badger tour lets off? Amazing.
Mindless cog at Chase in Milwaukee. But…. hoping on going back to college for a degree in biochemistry at Lakeland (right by Sheboygan).
Comment by Doug — June 5, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Doug wrote:
Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Hey Olegt
I guess I don't mean to paint such a dark picture, who knows what the future will bring. But looking through some of the blogs that I have found linked to this site I find the rhetoric to be of that nature. And that is scary. We must learn from our mistakes, not repeat them. And we know what religious and pseudo-religious extremism is able to unleash on mankind especially when that power is wielded by a select few over many.
And to me it seems that some of the Athiest movement leaders are repeating those same old mistakes. Not all of them mind you, I think some (or many) just want to be left alone in their non-belief, just like there are many who would like the same in their belief.
But when the rhetoric becomes scathing and insulting and brutal and personal over a belief system (to clear things up I see atheism as a belief system) we may be walking into another war over beliefs, and war is never a good thing for the average person on either side.
Personally I find science to be fascinating on all of its fronts, from evolution to quantum physics to computer engineering it's all amazing to me, but we need to realize and remember the one true fact we can say without qualification, that we don't know very much. We can't even define the true nature of our reality. How can we say for sure say there is or is not a creator, designer, god, deity, force, or whatever….we can't.
Given some of the things we have discovered about our universe, and our physical limitations as humans there is a fairly high possibility that we live a flatlander type of existence. My personal beliefs can be stated simply as I believe there is more going on here, and we should keep striving to find out what that "more" is.
Now that being said I think it is our responsibility as humans to keep ourselves in check as far as "definitive" assumptions are concerned. By this I mean the assumptions we make about the nature of the universe and our existence and how we portray, enforce, articulate, those assumptions to others.
When we start making a personal issue of the nature of reality we, as humans, have a documented history of getting very upset when our beliefs are challenged, or when others won't except our beliefs as there own. MANY MANY MANY people have lost there lives innocently over such worldviews, and it's about time we pony up and learn from our mistakes and stop any such possibility of this reoccuring.
In this regards atheism is no different than any other religion in history and we can easily filter through the rhetoric from the extremes of both sides and see that people are getting upset for the same reasons stated above. This is dangerous to humanity as a whole and must be nipped at the bud and stomped out or we may never make it to a point where we can say that we have all the evidence we need to make a call on design or purpose in the universe.
Comment by Kuma — June 5, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I think the crime scene investigation is a beautiful picture of the search for design….
However, if I may augment the concept of investigation with a slightly different viewpoint….
Amongst the creationist in the big tent of ID, there is the notion that unlike a crime scene where the criminal is trying to suppress the clues, the Intelligent Designer is leaving the tools and the clues in a pre-meditated way for the seekers. He doesn't make it easy, but he doesn't make it impossible either. Einstein echoed the sentiment which is engraved at the door of certain hall in Princeton: "The Lord God is subtle, but not malicious"….
The privileged planet hypothesis extends to biology — biotic reality is optimized for discovery. The work of discovery is hard but not impossible….
The quest may ultimately succeed if the Intelligent Designer intended it to succeed…even though Michael Denton is somewhat chilly to ID, his book Nature's Destiny echoes the idea that the universe is optimized for sentient beings to discover purpose in the universe….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 5, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Doug,
yeah 8th street is pretty depressing. Manitowoc should be booming but its instead dying slowly. Personally I don't really drink, not my thing. I too have had some alcoholics in my family which has lead me to strive to seperate that from myself.
Keep up with your education! I seem to be an eternal student. this last year I was attending the center in Manty for my gen-eds and hoofing it down to UW Parkside twice a week for my major in Digital Illustration and minor in Philosophy. Or maybe I'll do a double major…not sure yet. then again I have been thinking about adding some more science to my intellectual menu…. who knows, I just like to learn things.
Comment by Kuma — June 5, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
So Mike posted about his investigation technique, and showed three ways that it is analogous to a crime investigation.
The critics ignored the discussion and launch all-too-predictable attacks on "The ID Movement" or "Putative Spokesmen For ID".
This is nothing new, but it does expose who wants to get off the Culture War Merry-Go-Round, and who wants to keep it going at all costs.
Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
chunkdz:
I agree. This happens too often and olegt, if you are looking in this is partially what is meant by what Kuma spoke of IMO.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I guess we want to talk about scary atheists and theists here instead of the design inference. Ok, then – here's just three points I'd like to make
1) What if I called you a non-believer in voodoo – an avoodooist – and then told you that your belief system was avoodooism? Right – so don't tell me my belief system is atheism.
2) Whenever anybody appeals to science to tell us right from wrong, we're in big trouble. We can obviously use our scientific knowledge to help us understand the consequences of our actions, but never to tell us which consequences are morally correct. I understand Ben Stein made a movie about this recently – apparently Nazis thought evolutionary theory justified killing a bunch of people. Terrible!
3) Because many people interested in ID are confused about the inferences that can be drawn from the scientific evidence, there is a real danger that people will pursue the following argument:
* The evidence reveals a Designer
* The Designer had purpose and intent
* We can infer the purpose and intent of the Designer from the evidence
* We ought to act in accord with these intentions and purpose
Like I said in #2, anything that might tempt us to use science to tell us what we ought to do is big trouble. So we need to be very, very careful to make sure nobody ever makes this mistake! We cannot infer anything about the purpose and intent of any Designer of Life by looking at scientific evidence! Right?
Now, even if we could infer anything about the Designer by means of scientific (or even proto-scientific) investigation, it would require a separate moral argument to show we ought to respect the Designer's purpose and intent, but I think this puts too fine a point on it that people will easily disregard. So I think it is of the utmost importance that everbody understand there really is no empirical method at all for discerning what the purpose and intent of any Designer might have been.
Everybody on board with this?
Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Bradford,
The diversity of life case has been closed. Instead of Grissom, IDists are more like OJ, looking for the "real killer".
Comment by Aagcobb — June 5, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
OK – back to ID.
Given the recent letters confirming that Einstein believed in nothing resembling a personal God, what do you think he really meant by this quote? How can something with no mental characteristics be subtle or malicious?
Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Aagcobb:
Mike's ideas are far from radical in my view but if he is right then there is a "crime" that was overlooked in a rush to judgement. Of course my concept of front loading occurs at the inception of life itself for it appears to me that is the most logical place to start the search. Nevertheless, there is much to learn and we may have just scratched the surface. What is ironic to me is the useage of our state of ignorance. With regard to life's origin ignorance is depicted as a gap which will eventaully be overcome with evidence backing mainstream conceptions- the promissory note. With regard to evolution itself it is as if we know all there is to know for the purpose of settling the telic issue. Not even a molecular sized gap in that regard.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Absolutly AIGUY! for my part at least.:grin: I didn't mean to swing the discussion here off of topic, I apologize for that, but we need to stop acting like 5 year olds in these talks we have here. I think that it is an amazing thing that we ALL have a little corner on the web to knock our noggins together and discuss these topics with minimal interference from moderators and trolls.
We have all sorts of worldviews represented here not just one sided ego inflating. In a place like this we should discuss the meanings and possibilities of our topics and our ideas. In the last month or so of lurking on this board I have seen evoluionists and creationists, christians bhuddists, athiests, taoists, engineers and scientists of all stripes, and even regular Joes and Janes bring there heads together and discuss some of the questions we ask our selves everyday and much more.
DO WE NOT UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL FOR THAT RESOURCE???
Everytime we allow ourselves to slide into the name calling and bigotry we fail ourselves on such basic human level….
Comment by Kuma — June 5, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
The universe is put together in a way that is friendly to scientific discovery. To him, the universe is akin to "The Lord God"….
Irrespective of what Albert meant, my point was merely to offer the perspective of some creationists in the big tent of ID that the Intelligent Designer is deliberately giving us the tools and clues. Whether this is true remains to be seen….
However, from an operational perspective (as in advancing medical technology or any other technology) — the perspective I offer, a perspective Dembski calls "Steganography" , means that biology is full of clues if we are willing to data mine them in ways that trancend selection and phylogeny…..
We're only scratching the surface of data mining. For example, it appears similar nucleotide motifs when doing comparative sequencing among species appear to help identify the active sites of proteins. What if we refine the data mining to the point we are able to do this with almost 100% efficacy? Right now we have to still resort to a mix of data-mining and trial-and-error lab work. There might be a linguistic mapping that will tell us exactly the active sites. But such a mapping is suggestive of a mind that pre-meditated to provide future generations a rosetta stone to decode biology….
But let's say it's all an illusion and the appearance of designs are just artificats of our projection, from an operational standpoint, if such pursuits of imaginary connections yield advancement in technology, I think many would consider it a separate issue as to why it all works, as long as it works and as long as research advances….
I would posit, Dembski's search for Steganography, is better than SETI by orders of magnitude. We may indeed find a message from biology, ReMine has called this, "The Biotic Message"…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 5, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Yeah, sounds really dangerous. Imagine people thinking life might have come about through the deliberate infusion of genetic information into DNA! Can't have that kind of thinking now. No telling what comes next.:shock:
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Kuma,
I'm not sure what you mean by the true nature of our reality. Science doesn't deal with such things leaving it to philosophers and theologians. Science has a much more modest goal of understanding how things work in our Universe, not why.
Comment by olegt — June 5, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Hi Bradford,
It leads Dembski and Phillip Johnson to the conclusion that gay, lesbian and transgendered persons should be discriminated against, because the intelligent designer intended sexuality to only be used for the reproductive function.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 5, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Hey olegt,
I mean that given enough time and research we may be able to have a complete fundemental map of our reality from the quantum up or whatever we find it's really made of. Not meta-physical, but physical reality. We may reach a point in scientific study to bridge the gap between the two to some degree, or maybe I'm just holding out hope. Who knows….I certainly do not.
Comment by Kuma — June 5, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Not sure who Grissom is, but a police investigation doesn't necessarily start with knowing that a crime has been committed. It often starts with asking if a crime has been committed. And that is where The Design Matrix starts.
Comment by Bilbo — June 5, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Can't have that kind of thinking now. No telling what comes next.
Aagcobb:
Wrong. Dembski and Johnson both believe that extra-marrital sex in sinful. Standard Christian thinking that both were exposed to long before they knew anything about cellular biology. Extra-marital is not discriminatory based on sexual orientation. It is sinful for heterosexuals as well. I think you know these things so why the attempt to spin this?
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
aiguy,
But the problem spins around in the other direction as well – many people interested in evolution are similarly confused, such that
* The evidence reveals no Designer
* No Designer means a universe without true objective purpose or values for anyone or thing
* Therefore anything goes if desired and possible
* Therefore might makes right
And the danger in this interpretation (and other variants) is real, and many people do reason in this and similar ways. I'd agree that neither is science, and is really the stuff of philosophy. But I'd disagree that ID introduces some manner of thought that's particularly dangerous. The negative possibilities exist in any situation where people are given to making decisions about values, purpose, and meaning, period.
Comment by nullasalus — June 5, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Agreed, nullasalus, not dangerous. Useless. People sit around fantasizing about the great contribution ID just might make to biology or whatever. It sells books, though.
Comment by olegt — June 5, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
olegt,
Actually, lately we marvel at the great contributions biology is making to ID.
Comment by chunkdz — June 5, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
olegt,
As far as I'm concerned, ID can (and does) contribute plenty to the natural sciences – and I say this as someone who obviously doubts ID or no-ID can be falsified. I favor ID in the philosophical sphere, and the movement alone is encouraging a lot of interest in science, and new ways of looking at the world. I rather like that.
Besides, philosophy is what my reply to aiguy dealt with anyway.
EDIT:
chunkdz,
Ha! So true, so true.
Comment by nullasalus — June 5, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
How does ID contribute to natural sciences, nullasalus?
Comment by olegt — June 5, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I hereby nominate Aagcobb for the next Nobel (assuming, of course, he has the goods to back up that statement)! What a hoot!
Comment by Eric Anderson — June 5, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
olegt,
A number of ways. I see ID as a great advertisement of sorts for religious and similar-minded people to take after their forebears and have a greater interest in science as a whole – for all the flaws of the ID movement, I now see people interested in genetics, evolution, biology, cosmology, quantum mechanics, information theory, and otherwise (including philosophy and deeper theology, of course) that previously wouldn't have been as taken. In no small part due to the 'science (particularly biology and natural history) is atheist territory' canard.
Further, general inspiration and perspective. MikeGene's made a similar point (as did, in a way, Paul Davies), but approaching natural science topics as if design were in play – looking at cells, organs, force interactions, etc and treating them as creations or thoughts to reverse-engineer, rather than as 'stuff that just happened' – is itself valuable. It's just one more perspective.
Maybe you'll argue that generating interest in science is not a contribution to natural science (even if it results in more scientists, or science-literate types), or that promoting new perspectives when exploring nature isn't necessarily beneficial. But I'd just disagree.
Comment by nullasalus — June 5, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
nullasalus,
You present plausible scenarios but no evidence that they actually happened.
Comment by olegt — June 5, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
In case there still is any doubt:
http://www.renewamerica.us/ana...
Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
So what the hell are you doing hanging around here then?
Just slumming?
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 5, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Let's say a "cosmic URL" were found in all genomes that points to a particular area of space and frequency, and broadcast on this frequency was a end-loop multimedia presentation of aliens and their nano-technology, with a clear demonstration of how they created earth-life. Wouldn't that effectively falsifiy the no-ID position in your opinion?
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 5, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Nullasaus
I know that is the case with me. Before ID came along biology in particular seemed pretty boring. I loved astronomy and cosmology but biology seemed to be something like meteorology. The theory was complete and folks were forever trying to tweak their computer modals.
Now it appears to me to have Indiana Jones like excitement. I can't wait to read about each new discovery. It's almost sexy.
I'm of the opinion that the issue will never be settled completely and the excitement will go on forever. Say what you want about ID but a quest for design clues is anything but boring.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — June 5, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
olegt:
Why not look within this very thread olegt? How's this for a comment?
Imagine that. People alleging that anti-gay discrimination is based on intelligent design. Wow. What happened before 1996 when Behe's book DBB came out? Gay discrimination only started after this right? Either that or it took a sudden turn in the wrong direction. But that makes no sense does it?
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I have to agree with FMM on this! It is almost damn sexy!:cool:
Science is really hitting home with a lot of people again. For me it was the free will debate in my philosophy class that got me started and all the science and metaphysics wrapped up in that ball of yarn. Which in turn has lead me here and the prospect of ID. Which in turn has lead me to be more interested in biology and physics and whatever else you can throw at me.
I am no scientist mind you, and I may never be, but the prospect has peaked my interest to at least possibly minoring in science of some form.
Who knows….. it's fun to think about it and discuss the options whether they be scientific, philosophical, or flights of fancy. I just like to learn.
Comment by Kuma — June 5, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
olegt,
It's been my personal experience and observation. And I say this as someone who does have many criticisms with how ID has been handled at this point. If you disagree, that's quite fine.
aiguy,
By all means, quote specifics on that, and I'll engage. The last time we had this conversation, you cited me 3 organizations that briefly mentioned ID in relation to their views. But I've never seen the 'prominent ID author' going 'ID says a personal being created life, therefore (x)..' Hell, one criticism of Dembski and other ID proponents is that they're being dishonest by insisting ID doesn't automatically point to their God – that they say they must make an additional step in reaching that conclusion.
Anti-gay discrimination? Like Freud's classification of homosexuality? How about the APA's (I believe) stance on homosexuality up until, what, the early 1970s? I know I've brought up Peter Singer with you, and his conclusion that even newborn infants aren't 'truly persons' because his definition of person hinges on certain cognitive traits and biological comparisons. How about Lysenkoism, where commitment to political ideology demanded arrests and certain poorly-considered farming methods? What about motions to have great apes considered humans on the grounds of their genetic similarity to us?
Do I really have to bring up the philosophers and individuals who have played the 'science indicates this, therefore (x) is moral, immoral, or morality doesn't exist' game?
Let me be clear: I wouldn't have trouble believing someone would make the spurious claim of 'If ID is true, then (X) is moral/immoral'. The world's filled with people who reason poorly. On the other hand, I've already seen Michael Shermer argue that every presidential candidate is a disappointment to any true atheist, save for Ron Paul. As someone who rather likes Ron Paul, that made me laugh.
kornbelt888,
To a point, possibly. The problem is, when you get to super-powerful beings (not to mention God), you start asking questions like – did they do what they seem to have done, or have they engineered the appearance of doing so? I think we already have abundant evidence and inclination to view the natural world (including evolution and every other mainstream mechanics-sans-philosophy data) as designed. And the reply for some has been 'We have to remind ourselves that none of this was REALLY designed!'
FMM,
I'm much the same way. I actually prefer my science very dry, sans philosophy and such. But I enjoy viewing nature in/with ID perspectives, and it's a welcome change from the past.
Comment by nullasalus — June 5, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Bradford,
Again, in case you missed it:
http://www.renewamerica.us/ana...
Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
From the link supplied by aiguy:
This is too funny. Now we have a new definition of intelligent design whose purpose is to support a social cause. BTW, discrimination is not evidenced by how one defines marriage but that type of discussion is outside the theme of this thread.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Nullasalus,
No, no – sorry, I didn't mean that DI folks filled in the blank (at least in public). Only creeps like the one I referenced for Bradford at RenewAmerica do that. But DI folks do obviously say the first part, just waiting for RenewAmerica fans to fill in the blank for them.
Yes, exactly! Obviously, the point is not what we think about gay marriage; it is about people trying to co-opt science to support moral agendas. Right?
Anyway, I tried to make clear that of course it goes both ways (it was I who brought up those darn Nazi Darwinists, after all). The point I made was that I think it takes a great deal of misconstrual of evolutionary theory or physics or geology to lead to normative consequences, but it's a much shorter step from ID. It's not an important point, however. It's all bad, you're absolutely right.
avoodoism is not a worldview!
Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Bradford,
I bet gay people aren't laughing.
Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
aiguy,
Aiguy, that's not a 'prominent ID author'. Even quoting the wedge document wouldn't bridge the gap here – I find it very hard to believe that ID is all a front for secondary political issues. As much as 'evolution is all a front for atheist materialism'. Are there atheist materialists abusing science to push their points? Yes. But there are still merits to evolution, and I believe there are still (philosophical and otherwise) merits to ID.
I'd also disagree that ID is somehow 'easier to abuse' than no-ID, but I've made the bulk of my points already, so that's that for now.
EDIT: Just for the fun of it, I relate a very, very recent Dembski take on ID. Make of it what you will:
Comment by nullasalus — June 5, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Nullasalus,
We're too far into this point already, but my point was that the prominent authors said the first part, not the second part.
I could quibble with the rest, but we're not in real disagreement. I'll say it again: Anybody who concludes atheism from science is not only mistaken, but is setting up some crackpot or other to appeal to science for justification of bad business.
Comment by aiguy — June 5, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Sure. But that's simply a function of time.
Since, as you know, I am not a spokesperson for the ID Movement nor do I claim to have strong evidence, your problem does not apply to the OP. So I am curious as to why you felt the need to bring up this tangent?
Comment by MikeGene — June 5, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Hi Todd,
Neither would I.
The DM does not begin with a conclusion; it begins with suspicions.
Comment by MikeGene — June 5, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Hi chunkdz,
Stereotypes have a way of triggering knee-jerk reactions. It makes you wonder if some people are focused on one thing "“ coming up with ways to thwart an investigation.
Comment by MikeGene — June 5, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
nullasalus,
ID is first and foremost a front for secondary political issues, as evidenced by the wedge document and the discovery of the transitional fossil between creation science and intelligent design, the "cdesign proponentsist".
Now it is true that not all ID is such a front. Once the ID meme got loose, it has mutated to fit into the niches available in the ecosystems it lives in, human minds. For example, in MikeGene's mind, IDism is a hobby which doesn't constitute science, doesn't promote YECism, and shouldn't be taught in public school science classrooms. But for mainstream IDists like Dembski and Phillip Johnson, IDism is first and foremost a tool to promote the religious right's political agenda, such as the suppression of homosexuality.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 5, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Aagcobb,
Sorry – colorful as the description is, I do not buy it. And I say this having just now reviewed the 'wedge document' anew, while regularly following ID developments on the web and in the news. There's absolutely a philosophical concern, and certainly a lot of religion-motivated attention to ID. But out of the main ID sites and names, I see next to no linking of ID to political causes.
As for ID spreading and changing – if anything, I think that's one more thing that was designed. And I'm very happy with the larger state of it as a result.
Comment by nullasalus — June 5, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Indeed. And it's a hobby that has me thinking more deeply about topics such as molecular biology and evolution. In other words, it's a hobby that encourages life-time learning.
This wedgecentric perspective leaves out important context. Design arguments and teleology have been around for thousands of years. In the 1950s and 60s, a revolution occurred in biology where things such as information theory and cybernetics were imported and began to mold our understanding of the cell. This in turn would "front-load" the re-emergence of a teleological/design perspective. Apparently, many creationists decided to co-opt these arguments and develop versions of their own to give birth to the ID movement.
Anyway, thanks to Dover, the ID movement is largely dead. Yet those teleological/design perspective remains invigorated because biology continues to rely on the telic imports.
Comment by MikeGene — June 5, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
MikeGene,
By the way, O'Leary just tossed up a new post quoting DM. Just a heads up.
Comment by nullasalus — June 5, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
June 5th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
That's the second time you alleged this and neither time did you support your allegation with evidence that the two individuals are suppressing homosexuality. It looks as if you are the one with a political agenda.
Comment by Bradford — June 5, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 7:54 am
It's a function of evidence.
Verrry suspicious.
Comment by Zachriel — June 6, 2008 @ 7:54 am
June 6th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Excerpts from the Wedge Document:
Emphasis added.
Comment by Zachriel — June 6, 2008 @ 7:59 am
June 6th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Zachriel, you refer to multiple political points you highlight in bold language. I have two points in response. First, the Wedge Document is not even on the political radar of serious politicians because it has no political impact. Noone talks about it except for anti-ID junkies. I'll bet none of the presidential candidates even heard of the Wedge Document. It has become nothing more than a talking point for critics.
Second, since almost all the IDists you have exchanges with had nothing to do with the Wedge Document we are yawning at the repetitious blah, blah, blah associated with mention of the term.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 8:10 am
June 6th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Bradford,
Here and here.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 6, 2008 @ 8:23 am
June 6th, 2008 at 8:29 am
The Wedge Document was important in the recent, politically important Dover trial. It demonstrated the motivations and subterfuges of the ID advocates in that trial.
I was directly responding to nullasalus who said he had "just now reviewed the 'wedge document' anew."
Here's a very direct reference from recent times. Yesterday.
I believe this is a valid response to nullasalus's claim. And I have had exchanges with Dembski in the past.
Comment by Zachriel — June 6, 2008 @ 8:29 am
June 6th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Zachriel quoting Dembski:
That's Dembski's opinion. Who cares other than a handful of people absorbed in discussions of intelligent design?
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 8:32 am
June 6th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Aagcobb, I hope you go to court with better evidence than this. You link to Rosenhouse quoting Philip Johnson:
Where is the evidence of suppressing homosexuality in this quote? As for the Dembski blog, there can be valid reasons for opposing a bill which have nothing to do with suppressing homosexuality.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 8:40 am
June 6th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Heh. Good one.
Comment by Zachriel — June 6, 2008 @ 9:32 am
June 6th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Indeed. Dembski has his opinion but where is the linkage of ID to politics? Myers and Dawkins express political opinons too. I suppose that links mainstream evolution to politics by the logic in evidence.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 9:45 am
June 6th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Bradford,
The Wedge Document expressly links IDism to politics. The 20 year goal is "to see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life." How much more explicit does the DI have to be in stating its objectives before you will believe them?
Now, if a design theory that states that men amd women were designed to be sexual for the sole purpose of procreating "permeates our political life", exactly what do you suppose that means politically for homosexual and transgendered persons?
Comment by Aagcobb — June 6, 2008 @ 11:06 am
June 6th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Aagcobb:
ID isn't about the suppression of homosexuality any more than evolutionary biology is about atheistic hedonism. Come on, Aag. Rosenhouse himself says…
So. Dembski once again reveals his personal bias per the identity of the designer. Why is this something new? Why is it scarier to you than any of the other reasons individuals oppose equal rights for black people or brown people or women or people who fall in love with the "wrong type?"
And what does Dembski's prejudice have to do with TT or The Design Matrix?
Comment by Joy — June 6, 2008 @ 11:13 am
June 6th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Joy,
1. Like it or not, Dembski and Phillip Johnson represent mainstream IDism, not TT.
2. Above, I specifically stated that Mike Gene's IDism is not primarily a front for political issues. Its a personal hobby, which is cool as long as he doesn't expect anyone to take his hobby too seriously (excepting his fellow hobbyists, or course).
3. Its not just "Dembski's prejudices". As the Wedge Document expressly states, the whole purpose of their IDism is to develop a cultural and political revolution to transform society based on the realization that humans were designed by God to serve his purposes. The position that human sexuality was designed solely to serve the procreative function is mainstream IDism.
added in edit:
4. I can be concerned about what I please. There aren't a lot of people running around in white sheets anymore. There are a lot of people thumping Bibles who want the state to tell us how to live our lives. And the DI exists to promote the notion that the Bible thumpers' views are based in science.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 6, 2008 @ 11:29 am
June 6th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Aagcobb:
Get in the real world. That is totally irrelevant to the actual world of politics. It has no impact on those making policies and is of interest only to those who are silly enough to think it carries ID bashing currency.
LOL. That's a religious view that has been around for more than a thousand years. Do you actually persuade jurors with this kind of footwork?
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 11:38 am
June 6th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Aagcobb, you don't get it. The DI is of no consequence in the political world. A third rate lobbying firm has more political clout than they do.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 11:40 am
June 6th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Bradford,
I think you don't get it. YEC's in Texas with the support of the DI are likely to get pseudoscientific rot into Texas' science standards this year. It also wasn't long ago that Joy was saying that science has to own up to its share of the blame for the Holocaust. Presumably so that something like that will never happen again. Right now mainstream IDists are using ID "science" to promote discrimination against some of the easiest targets in society.
In the 1920s it would have been inconceivable that a fifth rate rabble rouser who had written a politically irrelevant book would someday have the power to slaughter millions of innocents-by the time people realized how dangerous he actually was, it was too late. If Joy's words mean anything, they mean we can't wait until gays are being required to sew pink triangles on their clothes and are being shipped off to "reeducation" camps before we take the use the DI seeks to make of ID "science" seriously. We don't want to be the people who pooh-poohed Hitler in the 1920s, do we?
Comment by Aagcobb — June 6, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Aagcobb:
What the heck is "mainstream IDism?" You are still confusing the 'Movement' and its leaders with the subject itself, and throwing your confusions here at TT as if they DO represent TT. Since you admit they do not, why derail the topic with YOUR prejudices?
Then your prejudices have even less pertinence here at TT, and on this thread.
Oh, bullshit. Biblical literalists of the authoritarian variety don't need ID to give themselves the political power they desire. The power they desire derives – as does ALL power – from the consent of the governed. Science doesn't have any power to dictate metaphysical beliefs, and neither does ID. Biblical literalism never had that power.
I am an "IDer." I don't know that my support for the inference rises to the level of "IDism," since I'm not very fond of isms. But since I've known lots of people who never had children, I'd say your point is moot. ID says nothing about why people sexually reproduce – fact is, that's how people reproduce. The desirability of reproduction is, like metaphysical beliefs, something people must determine for themselves. We have birth control these days as well as fertility enhancement. Both are products of SCIENCE, not religion.
Do they really have so much control over how you live your life? If so, who gave them that power? Hint – it wasn't me.
This isn't the DI either, Aagcobb. You might want to address them on your issues.
Comment by Joy — June 6, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Aagcobb:
This typifies the trash talking ID critics are known for. You linked to a Rosenhouse blog entry quoting Johnson against whom you have made accusations of suppressing homosexuality. Go through it line by line and point out exactly how this link sustains your charge.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Aagcobb:
No. We might want to hire some mixed martial artists from the UFC to protect us from those paunchy middle aged scientists with a small office in Seattle. No telling what might happen if they decide to put on some brown shirts to go with those red, white and blue capes they have. Isn't this level of threatiness too much even for anti-IDists?
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Aagcobb:
Excuse me? I don't get it, Aag. The gays are steadily WINNING their rights, and that is increasingly known to be "the right thing" for a secular government to recognize. Right now it's down to whether or not states will honor the 14th Amendment, and in the end of course they will. The issue is all over except for the fireworks, the barricades are being sent back to the warehouse as we speak.
No, religious homophobics won't like it. Tough Titty. They didn't want white people marrying black people either, but people did it anyway. There have always been gays. I've known quite a few of them. Some are still around, some are just now finding out, some died of old age, some died of diseases of promiscuity. Everybody's got a life-struggle to deal with, or not, depending on their own circumstances.
The elder gays I've known went about arranging their affairs legally regardless of the fact that they didn't automatically enjoy the rights of sanctioned marriage. Joint ownership of property, joint partnerships in business, specified rights of survivorship and inheritance according to their wishes. As rich folks have always enjoyed (leaving bequeathments to their bastard children and mistresses, making sure rotten nephew didn't get the business, leaving their home to their cats, etc.). It costs more, that is discriminatory, insurance is an issue, and things are being rectified right now. That some people hate gays isn't a consideration, any more than that some people hate blacks. Lawfully speaking, that is.
Those of us who are heterosexual aren't threatened by gays. Honest. Those of us who are married can't blame gays for our own inabilities to make it work. Really. Anti-gay sentiments aren't selling well these days, even in high schools (where kids are notorious for being uncivilized bigots). I think you've convinced yourself to be terrified of nothing.
Comment by Joy — June 6, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Bradford wrote:
Did you meant to say lawyers and PR flaks, Bradford?
Comment by olegt — June 6, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I had some individuals with advanced science degrees in mind. But if you think the DI's lawyers are as threatening as Hitler's brown shirts maybe we could arrange for some MMA protection.
Comment by Bradford — June 6, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I know the folks who finance the operations of DI (specifically of its CSC). They're pretty serious about their goals. Does the name of Howard Ahmanson, Jr., say anything to you?
Comment by olegt — June 6, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Sure. But evidence is interpreted data and thus a mental construct. Data become evidence when the human brain assigns meaning to it. All of this takes time. Yet I have already addressed the issue of evidence in the context of an investigation.
Indeed. Let's begin with the facts.
Fact 1: The opening post is not about the ID movement nor does it claim to possess strong evidence.
Fact 2: Zachriel's reply, the third comment in the thread, raises the spokespersons of the ID movement and their claims to possess strong evidence.
Fact 3: The thread is now actively discussing the spokespersons of the ID movement, the Wedge, and even homosexuality with very little discussion of the points in the OP.
At this point, we ask a question. Did Zachriel try to derail the thread on purpose or was it an accident? Some more facts from this very thread seem to favor the first option:
Fact 4: I reply to Zachriel as follows: "Since, as you know, I am not a spokesperson for the ID Movement nor do I claim to have strong evidence, your problem does not apply to the OP. So I am curious as to why you felt the need to bring up this tangent?"
Fact 5: Zachriel read that reply.
Fact 6: Zachriel's reply deletes the point and question .
Fact 7: Other people, like chunkdz, independently think something fishy is going on.
To this, we could add more context.
A. Zachriel is very smart and very practiced with internet arguments. It is reasonable to believe that he knew his comments would derail the thread.
B. Zachriel has spent a lot of time at TT and thus given many of us a good feel for his cyber-personality and approach. Based on this experience, it is not my impression that he comes to the table in a fair and open-minded manner. On the contrary, he has much more in common with other culture warriors who throw bombs and set traps. I suspect I am not alone in having this impression.
C. I recall that Zachriel has on several occasions changed the topic of other threads, steering them toward more familiar culture war territory.
Yes, it's a function of evidence, and the evidence indicates you tried to derail the thread.
At this point, someone like Zachriel might argue, "But Mike, you have no scientific evidence that Zachriel tried to derail this thread. Until you come up with some scientific evidence, the whole notion of Zachriel trying to derail a thread is vacuous."
Comment by MikeGene — June 6, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Off-topicThe opening post makes an explicit analogy to a police investigation. A police investigation is initiated to determine whether or not a crime has been committed, and if so, to collect evidence sufficient to bring the perpetrator to trial.
My comment was directly to the point, and extended the analogy appropriately. First, by agreeing with you and elaborating on the notion that detectives will use their skill of observation, experience, hunches, and a whole array of tools (shoe-leather); by pointing out that they use these skills to assemble legally pertinent evidence; and by noting that previous investigators have had their cases thrown out of court as being without merit.
Because the way you avoid tangents, MikeGene, is by not following them. Or, to use our analogy, they are irrelevant to the case. Note that I snipped most of chunkdz's off-topic rant, then interjected appropriate analogies (Holmes and Rinkle). Then I completely ignored his next rant.
(I was going to congratulate Bradford on his most excellent opening statement to the jury, but thought the better of it.)
That's why I said "Verrry suspicious," as a reflection on your powers of suspiciousness.
Comment by Zachriel — June 6, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
That's wonderful, Zachriel. Happy to hear it.
Oops. Since when was this thread about any "putative spokespersons for the ID Movement" and any "claim to have strong evidence of the perpetrator" Invalid segue. Very effective, though. Don't ever let anyone tell you you're not a first rate culture warrior.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 6, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
June 6th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Hi Zachriel,
Yes, an analogy with my views/The Design Matrix. And the analogy was never intended to be perfect, but simply cited because it was useful for illustrating three important points.
Wrong. Since the analogy was between my views and the police investigation, your extension toward the ID movement was misguided, inappropriate, and amounted to a topic change. The evidence is clear "“ simply read the comments. The comments discuss the ID movement, the Wedge, and even homosexuality. Such commentary does not follow from the OP; it follows from your inappropriate extension. The thread quickly went off topic because of you.
This rationalization is likewise wrong. Chunkdz accurately noted that you quickly steered this thread toward a tangent and was appropriately annoyed. We're left with the facts:
Fact 1: The opening post is not about the ID movement nor does it claim to possess strong evidence.
Fact 2: Zachriel's reply, the third comment in the thread, raises the spokespersons of the ID movement and their claims to possess strong evidence.
Fact 3: The thread is now actively discussing the spokespersons of the ID movement, the Wedge, and even homosexuality with very little discussion of the points in the OP.
By erasing my comment/question, you were not avoiding a tangent, you were avoiding responsibility for derailing the thread. Don't you understand that these actions work to define you?
Comment by MikeGene — June 6, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
June 7th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Continued Off-topicQuite apparently, as a police investigation is intended to determine if a crime has been committed, and if so, to collect evidence sufficient to bring charges in a court. If your analogy was faulty or leads in directions you don't prefer, don't blame me.
No, MikeGene. Your powers of suspiciosity are faulty. If you want to talk about detectives and their points of similiarity to scientific investigation, that's fine. But I do not consider this continued off-topic discussion interesting or of any value.
Comment by Zachriel — June 7, 2008 @ 7:03 am
June 9th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Hi Zachriel,
If you had simply written this instead of your original comment that injected the ID movement and its claims into the thread, there would not be a problem. But it looks like you made no effort to understand my points in the OP. The DM does not claim to have sufficient evidence to merit a "court trial." Not at all. The DM represents the beginning of an investigation and not the final product (this is the distinction contained within point #3). And yes, collecting evidence is indeed part of the analogy and, as you know, I have already dealt with this.
You are still confused. The OP is not about similarities between detectives and scientists. It is about using an analogy with detectives to illustrate three fundamental points behind my approach. Your reliance on stereotype has triggered a knee-jerk reaction causing you to miss the target, leaving my original essay completely unscathed.
I think it has some value, as it shows how those who want to pass judgment will go about passing judgment. Whether it was animosity or stereotype, the evidence shows that you could not contemplate the message of the OP independent of the ID Movement and its spokespersons.
Comment by MikeGene — June 9, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Zachriel:
Actually, not introducing tangents is the best way to avoid them. You should try this approach sometime.
Comment by chunkdz — June 9, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
MikeGene wrote:
So, umm, Mike, are you saying that ID is more like a paranoid wife than a police detective?
Comment by olegt — June 9, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
But wouldn't that advice go contrary to the culture warrior's prime directive?
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 9, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Hi olegt,
So that's all you got out of it, eh? Very interesting.
Comment by MikeGene — June 10, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Hi Mike,
I also gathered that the wife was in no hurry to hire an investigator, unearth evidence of her husband's infidelity, and press for divorce. She was apparently okay with the status quo.
My working hypothesis is she wasn't paranoid, she was the one who was cheating. How do you like it?
Comment by olegt — June 10, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Hi olegt,
Me thinks we need to test your reading comprehension skills. First, you don't seem able to grasp the basic point of the essay (I'll explore this later) and now this is what your mind sees when you read the essay:
Can you quote the passage(s) from that essay that led you to gather this?
Comment by MikeGene — June 10, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Hi olegt,
Let's get to your interpretation:
No, the "mundane example" of the wife simply serves to illustrate how evidence exists at different levels, a point that is important given that science itself cannot resolve the question about design and life.
I begin the paragraph by noting, "Even though evidence that merely sparks or supports a suspicion is insufficient to effect a satisfactory conclusion to a case, it is an essential starting point for any investigation." Evidence at the front-end of an investigation will be weaker and more prone to reinterpretation than evidence at the back-end of a successful investigation. After all, it is the purpose of the investigation to bring about this very transformation. I also end the paragraph by noting, "the ambiguous data that lead to an initial suspicion ultimately results in a more rigorous attempt to confirm or dismiss those suspicions." As I also add, "Without a suspicion, there can be no investigation. To investigate, you need clues. And without an investigation, where is this stronger evidence needed to move beyond the realm of suspicion supposed to come from?"
As we all know, the debate about intelligent design is highly polarized and ugly, where many on both sides have staked out extreme positions. According to the pro-ID side, ID is not only science, but also the best explanation for certain biotic phenomena. According to the anti-ID side, ID is without any evidence and nothing more than nonsense/wishful thinking.
To fit this to my analogy, it's like a wife who accuses her husband of cheating and the husband accusing the wife of being paranoid/delusional. To settle that emotionally charged dispute, the wife would need to have the photograph in her hand.
Thus, when someone makes a truth statement about our world and proclaims there is no evidence that life was designed, how are we to interpret this? Are they saying there are no clues that would cause a reasonable person to suspect life's design? Or are they saying there is nothing as compelling as the photo?
Comment by MikeGene — June 10, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
That would be the last four paragraphs, Mike.
Here's the short version. Wife suspects that her husband is cheating. She has no evidence. She won't go to court. She will keep an eye on him.
How's my reading comprehension?
Comment by olegt — June 10, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Terrible. Where did the "she has no evidence" claim come from? And you missed the point that data that lead to a suspicion are what trigger the investigation, not a decision to go to court. Keeping an eye on him would, of course, be part of the investigation.
Comment by MikeGene — June 10, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Mike, I have highlighted the relevant passages in the excerpt. Hope this helps.
Comment by olegt — June 10, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Hi olegt,
"No photo" is not equivalent to "no evidence." On the contrary, from an investigative perspective "behavior that is odd and other assorted clues" are evidence. Same with the other highlighted passage: "stronger evidence" is not equivalent to "evidence."
Even though evidence that merely sparks or supports a suspicion is insufficient to effect a satisfactory conclusion to a case, it is an essential starting point for any investigation.
Comment by MikeGene — June 10, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Two points, Mike.
First, you didn't write "no photo, period." You wrote "no photo, just behavior that is odd and other assorted clues." You didn't explain exactly what that meant, but a fair reading would be coming home late from work, failing to buy anniversary gifts, that kind of things. Whatever it is, it "merely sparks or supports a suspicion [but] is insufficient to effect a satisfactory conclusion to a case." It could be the result of an affair or it could be an indication that the husband is a workaholic. The word evidence is a tad too strong to describe such clues.
Second, you write that such clues are are "an essential starting point for any investigation" but the passage that I quoted shows no intent to commence an investigation. The final sentence—All I can do is simply keep my eye on the Rabbit and see where he goes—suggests that you will stay in the present mode. That method has yielded clues but no evidence.
Comment by olegt — June 11, 2008 @ 8:18 am
June 11th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Hi olegt,
Exactly, as I am distinguishing between different levels of evidence.
No it isn't. A clue is a form of evidence. In fact, according to WordNet 3.0 (from Princeton), a clue is "a slight indication" and "evidence that helps to solve a problem."
Instead of viewing "evidence" as an all-or-none phenomenon (evidence vs. no evidence), it is better viewed along a sliding continuum, as there are different levels of evidence (weak evidence, moderately strong evidence, very strong evidence, etc.). In fact, this is what my example illustrates:
This data lead her to suspect he is cheating as the hypothesis of cheating would explain and account for these observations (the abnormal behavior). This hypothesis thus transforms the data into evidence. Yet it is weak evidence. All evidence is open to reinterpretation and at this level, the evidence is especially vulnerable. If the husband was cheating, he could easily deny it and she could easily doubt it and herself. These data could still exist even if he wasn't cheating.
Yet this weak level of evidence is important simply because it serves as the catalyst for triggering the investigation:
Without the weak evidence that triggered the suspicion, she might have easily over-looked behavior and events, treating them as brute givens while her attention is toward other priorities. But once the suspicion arises, the focus, the priorities, and attention to details will change:
Without the suspicion, she would never go through her husband's wallet. Thus, this new evidence arises only because the suspicion existed. And this evidence is not only stronger, but when added to the other evidence, now makes it much harder for the husband to deny infidelity. Not impossible, just more difficult.
Of course, since it is only evidence, and not proof, it may not be true that he is cheating and he would subjectively know this. Thus, from his perspective, none of this is evidence for his cheating because he knows he is not cheating. But she does not have access to his mind and level of certainty, so from her perspective, it remains and is evidence.
So to reach agreement, she needs even stronger evidence "“ something that he cannot reasonably deny and something that should not exist if he is not cheating:
Here, the photo did not poof into existence. On the contrary, the previously acquired evidence had turned the suspicion into a conviction that led to the hiring of the PI.
Of course, if she did not secure the photo, this would not erase all the previous evidence. It would simply mean that she didn't have strong enough evidence to secure agreement.
This example then helps us to understand why the typical critic of ID thinks there is "no evidence" for ID – anything less than a photo would not be considered evidence. From the critic's perspective, it is easier to dismiss those who think such evidence exists as being like the wife who thinks her faithful husband is cheating because she is assigning meaning to data that you would not assign.
Without the photo, the woman is either paranoid while the husband is faithful, or the woman is correct but cannot prove her belief nor disprove the husband's lies. Rabbit/Duck.
It is always a good idea to interpret single sentences in context. In this case, let's include the previous paragraph:
In a sense, the mainstream ID proponents and their critics are engaged in a debate about the existence of a photo (strong evidence). The ID proponents claim to have one and the critics claim it does not exist. But lacking a photo does not mean there is "no evidence." It simply means the level of evidence (clues) is not considered significant or meaningful by the critics going to battle with the ID movement.
Keeping my eye on the Rabbit is a metaphor to continue investigating. To keep gathering clues and testing suspicions. In addition to writing a 300-page book about this, I have since begun to explore all sorts of interesting and neglected aspects of reality: a rational relationship between proteins and nucleic acids, fundamental changes in the way we view evolution, proteins as material that prop up the blind watchmaker , tissue gadgets in single-celled organisms , evolution genes, and more to come. Could there be a deeper relation between it all?
Comment by MikeGene — June 11, 2008 @ 11:48 pm