Cleaning Up The Mess
by MikeGeneOver at The Questionable Authority, Mike Dunford issues the following blanket statement:
The Intelligent Design folks, on the other hand, loudly declare that they are indifferent to religion every chance that they get. They have no choice. Their mission is to destroy good science education for every child in the public schools of America, and they can't do that if they are obviously driven by religious motives.
Since I'm often on the receiving end of such sloppy stereotypes, and I can only speak for myself, I thought I'd better clean up the mess and set the record straight.
According to Dunford's logic, the reason I won't fess up to being "driven by religious motives" is because it would undercut my mission to destroy good science education. There is one problem with this argument - I have no mission to destroy good science education. Neither do I have a mission to insert ID into the public school classrooms. Neither do I have a mission to "teach the controversy" or point out "problems" with evolution in the public school classrooms. On the contrary, I publicly opposed teaching ID in the classrooms years before any Dover decision. Duh. And besides, have we forgotten that we live in the post-wedge world, where a federal judge has powerfully ruled that ID cannot be taught in the schools? Since ID is dead as a "wedge," what sense does it make to keep "hiding" those religious motivations?
Thus, according to the Logic of Dunford, even though I have always opposed teaching ID in the schools, and even though a federal judge has ruled that you cannot teach ID in the schools, I supposedly won't fess up about my super-secret religious motivations because I am on a mission to destroy science by getting ID taught in the schools. After all, I'm just an IDiot.
Yet as you can see, the effulgent conclusion of "they have no choice" does not apply to me. Oh, oh. Now what shall the critics do? How shall they prop up their quest to portray me as someone who is dishonest? I have explained the clear logic of the concept of ID, where a design inference does not mandate a religious assumption or conclusion, but that point does not fit into their rhetorical template and is thus ignored. So what can they do? According to the critical thinking skills of the critics, my unwillingness to fess up about my religious motives MUST be a function of my dishonesty. Remember folks, most ID critics are enslaved to a stereotype where ALL proponents of ID MUST be either stupid, deluded, or dishonest. Stereotypes to the rescue!
[At this point, because most critics think in simplistic terms, I better point out that I am not defending/describing the ID movement or its leaders. I am defending myself against the stereotypes and rhetoric of the critics. I know it's silly that I have to point this out, but I'm dealing with critics, y'know.]
Yet there is always one part that is missing from the critic's rhetorical finger-pointing: details. I have learned from experience that critics love to make ambiguous, self-righteous accusations. But if I am supposed to have these religious motivations for proposing ID, why don't the critics spell out my religious motivations? What are they? They think they know that I have them, but for some odd reason, they are awfully reluctant to spell them out. So please dear critics, tell me what it is that motivates me. Let me help:
MikeGene's religious motivations for proposing ID are……..
August 7th, 2007 at 10:37 am
I had the same reaction, more or less, when I read Dunford's post"”it was an exercise in gross stereotyping. I too count myself among those who are ID-friendly and yet completely dedicated to the ideal of a complete and rigorous scientific curriculum in the public schools.
You may be right that we live in a "post-wedge world," but (1) I think there are quite a few who haven't gotten the memo and (2) even if true, it is a world struggling under the weight of considerable baggage. The intersection between Christianity and science was, not long ago, a pristine and largely non-controversial landscape (nobody cared if we saw God in the data, in fact they (atheists) enjoyed the discussions.) Now, however, the tactics and incompetent leadership of the ID movement has bequeathed to the rest of us something more resembling a Bosnian mine field.
Comment by David Heddle — August 7, 2007 @ 10:37 am
August 7th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Dunford and his ilk live in a fantasy world where IDists are defined any way you wish to define them. Imagination is the only limit to demonization. The same mentality that brought forth the great right wing conspiracy mongering of the 90s provides fertile ground for believing IDists constitute a threat to science education.
Comment by Bradford — August 7, 2007 @ 10:57 am
August 7th, 2007 at 11:20 am
I have wondered about the percentages of different types of IDists. I suspect that 90% are of the conservative Christian culture war variety, especially when you consider their number of followers. Demski-Behe can always get a hearing in a church, that's where the numbers are. They may or may not understand we are in a post-wedge world, but they will continue the culture war because that's what this was and will always be about for them. They are religionists at heart, not scientists. So, I can understand the unfair stereotyping. Especially, when you add in the fact that ID opponents don't appear to want to be especially fair or discriminating regarding the smaller percentage of IDists who do not fit the description mentioned above. So, yes, the critics are biased and distorted. They are mirror-images of their counterparts on the other end of the spectrum.
Then, there's Heddle, who in my understanding occupies the most unique position of all. A conservative-Calvinist (correct me if I'm wrong) who must be experienced as an enemy in the camp by many of his fellow ID religionists. Heddle, keep it up. Interesting, he's a physicist. What's up with these physicists? Are they the only scientists who can be trusted with science and metaphysics in this debate?
Comment by bj — August 7, 2007 @ 11:20 am
August 7th, 2007 at 11:52 am
As you can tell from my moniker, I haven't gotten the memo about the death of the wedge. I believe the wedge is mostly a reaction to a long existing entrenchment and dominance of secular liberalism in academia and if the wedge is loosely defined as a return to the intersection of faith and science being a non-controversial landscape then long live the wedge. There is a real opposition to conservative and religious thought and beliefs that many of us would like to see change and I hope that Dover is not the final word. ID has always been around and it is not going away but it is going to be resisted no matter how competent your leadership or how you package it. Ask Mike Gene
Comment by WedgeHead — August 7, 2007 @ 11:52 am
August 7th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Hi David,
That would not matter as a Judge's decision placed us in the post-wedge world. ID itself was the wedge, as it was supposed to be the concept that would wedge itself into the public school curriculum for socio-political objectives (the theocracy that is always supposed to be on the horizon. That ain't going to happen and thus you'll notice the critics seem a little lost without the hard edge of a plausible threatiness. Ergo, post-wedge world.
But anyway, it looks to me like the movement people did get the memo, as ID has been dropped in their most recent attempts to influence the public school curriculum. Now it seems to be about finding "problems" with evolution.
From where I sit, that has always been there. When I first became interested in ID and argued about it, no one knew of any Wedge and the socio-political dimension was barely detectable. Yet most of the baggage was still there (we're talking about a design argument among many people who are increasingly coming out as Dawkins followers; consider Myers as the prototype). When the ID movement began making a move on the schools, and the Wedge became known, this merely served to turn up the volume, as it functioned to validate the baggage. All that that socio-political activity not only drowned out the concept, but enabled critics to easily dismiss the concept, as it was never strong enough to support the agenda.
There is no doubt the movement itself has poisoned the water. When we hear about "most scientists rejecting ID as complete nonsense," we need to remember that most scientists were introduced to ID through the newspaper stories about the school rooms or President Bush's pandering that received much attention. Those who dug a little deeper because of this were guided by the NCSE types, who clearly were fighting politics with politics. So yes, a Bosnian mine field now exists.
But what the heck, my life has long been a Bosnian mine field, so I guess I'm pretty well adapted to it. In fact, there are some enjoyable aspects of the mine field. For example, while I try to rely on critical thinking as I explore such concepts in an open-minded and open-ended fashion, I find that most of those who oppose me come from a position of stereotypes, emotion, and closed-mindedness. That's pretty handy when you are dealing with a Herd. Besides, scientists pride themselves on their critical thinking skills. Is it too much to ask them to practice what they preach, or is it permissible to abandon critical thinking when it comes to the concept of ID?
Comment by MikeGene — August 7, 2007 @ 11:55 am
August 7th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Hi bj,
Sure, but that doesn't excuse it. People like Dunford pride themselves on their critical thinking skills. But if you rely on stereotyping, you have abandoned critical thinking.
Comment by MikeGene — August 7, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Hi WedgeHead,
It is controversial because many have become convinced that science excludes, not only possible inferences to a creator, but any inference that, as one anti-theist put it, "allows a divine foot in the door." This means that David Heddle's hope that negative consequences of an ID movement could have been averted were doomed at the outset. It is just not kosher to invoke teleology or intelligence as part of a causal explanation. There is that problem of the foot in the door that must be taken care of at all costs. If it can't be done based on arguments from data then conjure up some threatiness instead.
Comment by Bradford — August 7, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Hi Mike, regarding ID critics stereotyping:
Yes, your right, especially when you make critical thinking a hallmark of your particular approach to life.
I am one who believes that prior metaphysics and the needs of human nature are the baseline predominant experience of humanity. Most of our supposed critical thinking serves those biases and needs. Which is another way of saying I don't trust my own and anybody elses critical thinking all that much. I would ask, '"how does your supposed critical thinking serve your own human need." So, when Dunford does this, it doesn't surprise me so much. Same with when Dembski does it. Or for that matter anyone. As I have said before, we are, at heart, all metaphysicists living within the needs of human nature. It's clear the scientistic Dunfords and their kind don't understand this. I think the religionists do. But, then you have to watch for the "God is on my side" crowd.
Having said all that, we do all try to think as best we can. I am grateful to anyone who can help me in that process. We agnostics can use all the help we can get.
Comment by bj — August 7, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Bradford,
If you mean that any movement that tried to get ID-as-science in the science classroom would have, to say the least, ruffled feathers, then I agree. Indeed, it was exactly this ploy, an attempt to get ID in the classroom, an ill-conceived culture-war blitzkrieg whose motivation came from somewhere other than scripture (which teaches no such tactic) that was the movement's biggest disaster. Now it is true that the adverse fallout from the effort was magnified by the especially inept management by people like Dembski, but you are correct that any effort along those lines would have created antagonism.
If, however, you mean that simply popularizing design themes as apologetic arguments would have inevitably met organized resistance, then I disagree. From personal experience, I participated in many friendly design-like discussions in science class, and enjoyed contemplating (at the time, as an unbeliever) comments from science professors about, for example, how "lucky we are" that the law of gravitation is an inverse square law. This was in both private and public secular universities. When I taught at the university level, I used to hold an optional class on things like fine-tuning"”and it never raised an eyebrow (and was well-attended.)
That was then, this is now.
I'll be going back to a university position in January. Even though I will have tenure, I will not behave as I did before. You can blame the secular materialist world for being intolerant. I blame the ID leaders for poisoning the well. If they were offensive for the sake of the gospel, that'd be fantastic. But clearly they had other motivations.
Comment by David Heddle — August 7, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Most of the "criticism" I've seen is crankery and quackery.
What criticism, Mike Gene, do you find most salient, most telling, what criticism have you received that you've taken to heart, that made you wonder"¦? In what way have your critics contributed to your understanding? How have they changed some of your opinions?
When do you agree with your critics?
Comment by Rock — August 7, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
O boy, let me play! The answer is "fighting atheism".
Comment by Aagcobb — August 7, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
HAHAHA!!! Pretty funny.
David Heddle:
Is it just the leadership of the ID movement to blame for the current state of affairs? You can't just blame Dembski. Even when Berlinski was criticizing the strict materialist views his critics were quick to assume motives on his part. Numerous times Berlinski would have to vindicate himself in print by claiming, "I'm an agnostic Jew!".
You can't waive off the actions of a Dunford by saying it's reactionary to a supposedly intolerant Dembski…. because maybe a Dembski acted the way he did because of a seemingly intolerant E.O. Wilson or Dawkins.
Comment by Doug — August 7, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Hi Rock,
Those are good questions, but I'm sorry to say precious little. For a criticism to make me wonder, to contribute to my understanding, or to change my opinions, it would have to be an informed criticism and raise something I had not considered before. To do this, at a minimum, the critic would have to make an effort to familiarize himself with my views and make an effort to understand those views. The vast majority of critics fail in this regard, such that the vast majority of criticism that comes my way stems from uninformed stereotypes and lashes out at my supposed sins.
Luckily, I do not come to the table as a True Believer with an Agenda, as I happen to be the most significant critic of my own views. This explains why I certainly do not consider my views to be science, why I don't go around demanding that others think as I do, and have long admitted there is a very good chance that a crank such as myself is fundamentally wrong. The thing that keeps me going is that I've yet to determine that anyone else truly knows anything of significance about this topic.
Comment by MikeGene — August 7, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Hi All,
This thread is going a lot better than I would have thought from the opening post.
In another thread Mike pointed out I was "rather unique" in distinguishing my opinion of the ID Movement from science, including the science behind ID.
I suggest the discourse of this thread shows that I may not be that unique.
For example, besides being more tactful, David Heddle's comments have a lot in common with mine. He even shares my opinion of Dembski.
There are people, like me, who recognize that the Many World quantum interpretation and an Unidentified Intelligent Designer interpretation are both metaphysical and treat them both similarly.
Mike, I don't know why you seem to have a preference for an Unidentified Intelligent Designer any more than I understand why some physicists have a preference for the Many World interpretation. Granted, the Unidentified Intelligent Designer interpretation has more proponents among the general populous (in the Billions), but you know of my fears/concerns about succumbing to Group Think.
Admittedly, I am probably more concerned than you of the dangers I see in the boldness that is occurring in the name of religion. The "Under God" pledge, the "in God we Trust" motto, unchallengeable "Faith-based initiatives" and the recent Slidel Case are all examples of things feel are signs of trouble.
Unfortunately, the ID Movement is tied up in it. The movement's actions and pronouncements make it clear…
This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.
If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.
link
Dr. Wells said this well after the Dover trial (Sept, 2006) and though I may not be a Darwinist, attitudes like this make me afraid, very afraid.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 7, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Let me get this straight. Are you saying, "MikeGene's religious motivations for proposing ID are fighting atheism!"?
If so, then yes, by all means, let's play.
Comment by MikeGene — August 7, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
So am I the only here who doesn't know what "effulgent" means?
Comment by Bilbo — August 7, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Hi TP,
Was there something wrong with the opening post?
That's why I said "rather unique" and not "unique." Yes, during my experience of arguing with 100s of ID critics, I have run across five or six that are able to make the distinction between the ID movement and the concept of ID. Most can't.
Actually, the Unidentified Intelligent Designer could be unidentified intelligent designers. I've written about these issues many times, so I don't know why you don't know.
Yes, it is not surprising that religious people would be more attracted to an attempt to detect the products of intelligent design than Richard Dawkins' views of evolution (especially since it is becoming clear there is a lot of hate in that particular Trojan Horse). But the Billions are about as relevant to my views on ID as Richard Dawkins' bigotry is relevant to your views on atheism. I, of course, can make such distinctions and don't attempt to define you in the light of Dawkins. Most critically thinking critics can't make such distinctions and rely on the Billions as their Guiding Light.
We've been through this before. Shall we again remind people how bold religion has been in America's recent past?
So you have been terrified by Wells' chest-thumping. Such is threatiness. But let me gently suggest you are being paranoid. Better yet, it's like you have a phobia. Why would I say that? Have you ever known a true phobic? I'm not talking about someone with a fear of this or that, but a genuine phobia. If so, what is a defining feature of their phobia? It's called an addiction to confirmation bias. Phobics obsess on their fear and are constantly looking for reasons to remain afraid (the confirmation bias). A calm, scientific approach does not work with them, because they are only interested in things that support their phobia. Let me suggest your laundry list of concerns listed above qualify as confirmation bias.
Comment by MikeGene — August 7, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
David Heddle:
Your account of what was previously possible is not disputed. Neither is the change in climate precipitated by the arising of ID. I think you and I disagree as to the ultimate cause of the change. The immediate cause was the public school fiasco. My own view is that public schools will teach the reigning scientific paradigms of an era and that any attempt to displace one with another that has not attained consensus status is doomed to failure. If that is true it demands a restraint, fostered by wisdom, on the part of IDists.
My encounters with ID critics however, has convinced me that when ID amasses a certain level of support (my critical mass theory) it arouses opposition that is grounded in metaphysical values that are mirror opposites of the metaphysical views of most (but not all) IDists. IOW, ID bashing was inevitable even if Dover never took place. Linking science to a causal scenario that, in the words of a TT member, "is not strictly atheistic" is intolerable.
You had access to things about which I was not privy. I recall the initial coverage of Professor Johnson when he wrote his books years before Dover. It was relatively benign stuff by a mainstream media that was bemused because they thought he was a Sancho Panza. Anti-ID intolerance was conceived out of a fear that ID, if unopposed, would threaten some core values that critics live by.
Comment by Bradford — August 7, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
This is hard to justify. Michael Egnor, Michael Behe, Denyse O'Leary, Francis Beckwith can hardly be viewed as having any sort of conspiriacy to teach their religious views in public school. I'm sorry to even have to comment on their religious affilliations as that is their business, but in their defense, conisdering their background, it would be hard to associate them with a movement to teach their religious views in public schools.
Their denomination has never been known to be advocating that whatsoever. Dunford is projecting protestant fundamentalism onto roman catholics.
It's almost comical, and shows his willingness project his imagination onto people.
Dr. Michael Egnor took exception:
Dunford, Darwinism, and the Paranoid Style
If Dunford thinks the Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Agnostics in the ID movement can even hypothetically conspire to inject their religious views into public school, he's totally out to lunch.
Not only has Dunford made a mess with people like Mike Gene, he's made a mess with the Behe's, Egnor's, O'Leary's, and other Catholics within the realm of ID.
He's projecting the actions of the Dover creationists onto the ID proponents in the Discovery Institute, projecting protestant fundamentalism onto catholics. Ludicrous!
PS
Despite this, mike remains one of my favorite critics…don't mean to totally trash the guy
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 7, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
The treatment of evolution I had in high school biology wouldn't be allowed under a strict reading of the Kitzmiller decision, which ruled that intelligent design couldn't be taught in science class.
When I took high school biology, we spent a whole quarter on evolution. The very first day, the teacher talked about theories of origins. She mentioned, without enumeration, religious stories of origins. A student asked something like, "You mean like Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden?" And the teacher noted that there were various religious stories, again without elaboration.
She went on to explain that most scientists didn't believe these stories, and that what we'd learn in class was the theory of Charles Darwin. She didn't say that these other stories were wrong, only that it wasn't what most scientists believed and that it wasn't what we'd be studying in class.
As with almost all my HS science classes, we had some historical context, which meant that in order to understand Darwin, we had to understand that before embarking on the Beagle, he was what we would today call a creationist. We discussed Bishop Paley and the argument from design, which would also be a no-no post Kitzmiller.
The judge seemed to think that this sort of thing could be taught in a "history of science" class, but not in a "science" class. Does he understand that these are not always treated as distinct courses? If we are prohibited from teaching ID in science class because it's obsolete science, why is nobody complaining about learning theories that the sun revolves the earth, that metals when heated give off "phlogiston," or that maggots arise spontaneously from decaying meat? I learned all these theories in HS science class, and I imagine they are still being taught.
The orthodox stance, that of the NAS and NCSE, is that ID is not science because it's non-falsifiable using the scientific method. Logically, if a proposition is non-falsifiable, it might be true. Why can't they teach at least that much? I mean, without marching down the hallway to a "history of science" class. Under Kitzmiller, you can't even teach that much, or it so it seems by my reading.
Comment by rachelrachel — August 7, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
rachelrachel:
Adding relevant historic background information as a setup to discussion of evolution is smart teaching. To have to segment that or relegate it to a history class is an object lesson on the foolishness of judicial micromanagement of our educational system.
The answer is that science must be defined so as to forbid any idea that allows for "a divine foot in the door."
Not much thought was put into that position. Anti-IDism is a magnet for those with an arrogant bent.
Comment by Bradford — August 7, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Hi Mike,
I wrote "This thread is going a lot better than I would have thought from the opening post."
You responded…
"Wrong" isn't the right word. "More of the same" comes closer. Just more pots calling kettles black.
The Discovery Institute complains about Mike Dunford, Telic Thoughts complains about Mike Dunford. Just another skirmish in the ID/Darwin wars where you try to demonize the enemy.
Nothing necessarily "wrong", just nothing new.
However, this time the comments were unusually thoughtful. We probably have David Heddle to thank for that.
Whether one designer or multiple designers, it is still metaphysics. You have complained about others not embracing NOMA. I don't understand why you appear to mix the metaphysical with front loading science.
I wrote…."Admittedly, I am probably more concerned than you of the dangers I see in the boldness that is occurring in the name of religion. The "Under God" pledge, the "in God we Trust" motto, unchallengeable "Faith-based initiatives" and the recent Slidel Case are all examples of things feel are signs of trouble."
Yes, please do.
You seem terrified by Dawkin's chest-thumping. He isn't even in this country.
Pot meet kettle.
And your list of actions by naughty critics isn't?
I don't have to go looking. My information makes headlines.
The Supreme Court of the United States hands the President a free pass to promote religion in violation of the first amendment (as long as it is done via an "executive order").
My noticing it is "confirmation bias".
————————————-
A non-american sells a "t-shirt that looks like a uniform".
Your noticing it means there is "…a serious angle on it all" as
"…an example where the end justifies the means, such that if one has to mimic religiosity to have influence, Dawkins and his followers are willing to go down that slippery slope."
————————————-
A Judge in the town of Slidell hangs a painting of Jesus holding an open bible above the words "obey these laws" in a government building (court house). Legal scholars agree that it is a clear violation of the first amendment under long established legal precedent even so there is a likelihood the current Supreme Court will allow it.
My noticing it is "confirmation bias".
————————————-
A relatively minor blogger suggests the ID MOVEMENT (he used that term multiple times) is about religion and backs his opinion up with quotes from ID Movement Leaders.
Your noticing it means his logic applies to you, personally.
————————————-
This somehow adds up to me being the one with the phobia.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 12:40 am
August 8th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Hi TP,
You should have taken the time to actually read the blog entry. I wrote:
and
Pointing out that someone else's stereotypes don't apply to me is not "demonizing," TP. Demonizing is accusing a religious parent of being a child abuser. Do you see the difference?
Indeed. And what did David say? "I had the same reaction, more or less, when I read Dunford's post"”it was an exercise in gross stereotyping."
Was that an observation rooted in metaphysics?
Yes, that's how it appears to you.
Okay, for starters, how about a few questions. Did the public schools ever allow prayer in the class room? Was abortion ever illegal? Did censors ever keep any mention of sex off the TV?
You are the one who said, "Dr. Wells said this well after the Dover trial (Sept, 2006) and though I may not be a Darwinist, attitudes like this make me afraid, very afraid." In contrast, I'm not frightened by Dawkins' attitudes. He is a clown who stirs up some traffic and debate around here. He's also fairly representative of many ID critics who actually think it's all about "the evidence."
My experience with critics teaches me that most rely on stereotypes. It is thus necessary to periodically set the record straight at the place I hang out. Why do you have a problem with that?
Headlines are designed to sell and phobics buy it up.
Sure. Why don't you notice that it was a lot easier to promote religion when you were a young boy?
Indeed. It ties directly into the question of whether or not human beings have been hard-wired by evolution to be religious. If Dawkins and his followers, of all people, are so quickly willing to walk the quasi-religious road, it speaks to humanity's inherent religious nature. You might notice this is something I have brought up around here.
Sure. Why not notice that if this happened 50 years ago, it probably would not be controversial?
Er, no, what I demonstrated is that his logic would fail to apply to me personally. Like I said, I need to periodically clean up the mess, as most critics are prone to being influenced by such stereotypes and then apply them to me. I'm not running over to Dunford's blog to chew him out, now am I? I'm also a relatively minor blogger informing my readers that such memes don't apply to me.
That's how it looks to me. Look, I'm not trying to be offensive here, as you are clearly very passionate about the socio-political stuff. I'm just pointing out that these stereotypes don't apply to me and defending myself against the slimy attempt to imply I am dishonest because I don't confess my supposed super-secret religious motives. In fact, I asked the critics to spell out these religious motives of mine, yet despite their expertise at mind-reading, they predictably failed to deliver. It's not the first time.
Comment by MikeGene — August 8, 2007 @ 1:32 am
August 8th, 2007 at 7:28 am
A short discussion of the history of scientific ideas and how they relate to the process of scientific discovery, and then answering questions from class are *not* unconstitutional. Having a mandatory statement purposefully and deceptively conflating science and creationism under the guise of "Intelligent Design" (as found in Kitzmiller) *is* unconstitutional.
It depends on the exact statement of "Intelligent Design". But such claims have either been found to be false, unfalsifiable or fill-in-the-blanks concerning Gaps in human scientific knowledge.
A few, such as MikeGene, speculate, but carefully avoid making specific claims. Speculation is an important component of developing scientific ideas. But as Francis Crick pointed out, The lesson is clear: speculation is fun, but even correct hypotheses without experimental follow-up are unlikely to have much effect on the development of biology.
Sure. But it still wouldn't be science.
You might try talking to your comparative religion, philosophy, or history teachers. If you have personal faith-based or spiritual questions, you could talk to your parents or family pastor.
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2007 @ 7:28 am
August 8th, 2007 at 8:21 am
There are many valid statements that are not scientific,
… such as those often found in philosophy or the arts.
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2007 @ 8:21 am
August 8th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Hi Zachriel,
You wrote: There are many valid statements that are not scientific
I think this is an excellent point. Whether or not my views qualify as science is not all that relevant to their validity. And this ties in nicely to the Crick quote you just supplied:
Yes, it is possible that correct hypotheses may not become part of science. To derive experimental follow-up, one requires sufficient genius to conceive the experiments and sufficient instrumentation to deliver the relevant information. And even apart from these considerations, it may be that there will never be sufficient information in the present and future to determine what happened billions of years ago.
So was life designed and was it designed to front-load evolution? Who knows? Even if this is a correct hypothesis, maybe science will never be able to determine this. The main complaint about my hypothesis is that it cannot be distinguished from conventional, non-telic views, which is another way of saying there is nothing scientifically invalid about it.
But I dare say that Crick is thinking in one dimension here. While a correct hypothesis may be beyond experimental follow-up in a direct sense, perhaps it is possible for such correct hypotheses to generate a nest of subsidiary hypotheses than can be followed-up.
Thus, it's not about culture wars, its not about religious apologetics, its not about determining the Truth, its about "looking at objects from a different angle. This look is necessarily guided by a certain idea of what this so-called reality might be. It always involves a certain conception about the unknown, that is, about what lies beyond that which one has logical or experimental reasons to believe."
After all, one can fill their belly with something other than the high-hanging fruit.
Comment by MikeGene — August 8, 2007 @ 8:50 am
August 8th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Hi Mike,
For your information, I have been posting on Salvador's blog recently and have managed to be a little too provocative for his tastes (this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone). He politely let me know that by outlining how his policy is different from Telic Thoughts. Here is my response…
Don't worry, this is just a side note…
I will get around to responding to your latest entry in the provocative manner it deserves later.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 8:51 am
August 8th, 2007 at 9:38 am
I daresay this statement implies an intent towards scientific validity:
Looking for "clues" indicates a search for empirical support. The validity of your ideas would then depend on the ability to garner scientific evidence in order "to proceed beyond suspicion".
The examples I provided, such as 'Beauty is truth, truth beauty', are outside the bounds of science.
True. However, the scientific evidence strongly supports the Theory of Evolution, and there are significant indications that life originated spontaneously on the primordial Earth.
That's a very significant objection. We can always suppose Intelligent Design in Gaps of human knowledge. If your "hypothesis" doesn't lead to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions"”at least in principle"”then it is scientifically vacuous.
I am certain that Crick knows about indirect evidence: Nearly all scientific evidence is indirect. Eppur si muove. When Crick speculated about panspermia, he was proposing something that might have left empirical evidence that could be uncovered either in a study of extant genomes, or perhaps in space. He has since distanced himself from the idea saying, Nowadays we would have a more open mind about the nature of the first replicating system… We did not seriously consider the possibility that there was a midwife, a replicating pre-RNA world…
Comment by Zachriel — August 8, 2007 @ 9:38 am
August 8th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Get over yourself.
Sal has been willing to engage people in discussion for years. I've seen him being polite to others who have bashed his character, admit when he is wrong, and admit when he doesn't 'know' the answers.
Comment by Doug — August 8, 2007 @ 10:02 am
August 8th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Hi MikeGene,
Yes, as I understood your post, we are playing the game "complete the sentence." However, it doesn't look like anyone else is playing.
I'm glad you'll play with me! 
Comment by Aagcobb — August 8, 2007 @ 10:50 am
August 8th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Hi Doug,
You wrote…
Excuse me if I didn't make myself clear. I like Salvador. I have even said kind things about him on Pandas Thumb (you can imagine the reaction that induced).
The reason it shouldn't be a surprise that I was too provocative for Salvador's tastes is because I am provocative, not because Salvador is overly intolerant.
It is old news that you consider me arrogant. I suspect you don't like me very much, but that's ok. I happen to have a generally favorable opinion of you.
During the great Smokey/Bradford debates you were earnestly trying to keep up. You even asked a few probing questions. You were so impressed with how Bradford handled himself you recommended his promotion to TT moderation status. That was admirable. While I found it noteworthy that you didn't show much, if any, appreciation of Smokey's contribution, it was understandable considering your obvious alliances.
It is also admirable that I frustrate you so. I look forward to your comments. I wish you would offer more of them. Even if is to point out my failings.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 11:24 am
August 8th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Hi Doug,
After I hit the send button I notice I wrote "It is also admirable that I frustrate you so." which isn't quite what I wanted to say. Unfortunately, for some reason I couldn't edit it.
I meant to say…
"It is also admirable that I irritate you so, it means you think for yourself."
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 11:33 am
August 8th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
This is nice, but it wasn't my intention to show that you didn't like him or wouldn't say nice things about him.
I believe that I understood it as such.
Not too old. I just started thinking it a few months ago.
There's quite a few people who I believe to be arrogant that I still like. There are alot of things about you that I do like. As much as I think that I know about you, I can honestly say that I don't dislike you.
Trying my best.
While I can't completely disagree with this, much of my strong opinion towards Smokey wasn't so much his views but his attitude and some of his tactics and his inability to understand the relevance of IP addresses.
Thanks.
Comment by Doug — August 8, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Out of deference to Mike, can we take discussion about me and my blogs and discussion forum to another place like Buncakes?
PS
I like you too Doug and ThoughtProvoker.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 8, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Aagcobb:
Nice try, but wrong. However, since this is the type of explanation that appeals to superficial thinking and minds held captive by stereotypes, let's pause to consider.
Now, there are various points about ID that I have pounded on for years:
1. ID does not lead us to a conclusion about God's existence.
2. ID is not science.
3. My convictions about ID are rooted in little more than a suspicion.
4. There is a very good chance that ID is wrong (design is not detectable).
Now think it through, Aagcobb. Do these four points look like powerful tools to "fight atheism?" I'm sure atheists everywhere are quivering before these four foundational positions:
Says Mr. Atheist, "Did you hear that some anonymous blogger "MikeGene" has suspicions about ID that are neither science nor lead to a conclusion that God exists?" Says Mrs. Atheist, "I suppose we better start looking for a church!"
Try again.
Comment by MikeGene — August 8, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Hi MikeGene,
I don't think you put much emphasis on points 3 and 4. I, for one, get the impression that you believe that the evidence for design rises to a significantly higher level than suspicion; after all you've written a whole book about the clues which support ID! I'm interested in knowing if you would put on a number on what you think is the likelihood that design is not detectable.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 8, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Hi Sal,
..and don't forget ID Pleasurians such as myself. I recently introduced myself at Richard Dawkin's site. The thread is so short that I am thinking of hiring myself out as a thread-ender.
In response to Dunford claims I would say that "science" is a natural extension and refinement of the human capacity to observe and predict. It is a natural outgrowth of what a human being is. To attack science or science education therefore is to attack humanity — to render humanity blind. Without eyes, a child cannot see oncoming traffic and avoid collision. Without science (physics in this case) humanity cannot "see" incoming asteroids and avoid collision. For my part, I would no more attack science and science education than poke out the eyes of a child. Incoming asteroids are hardly the only dangers facing humanity at this time. In order for humanity to succeed and thrive in the face of the challenges of living in the natural world, science and science education must be as robust as possible.
"Robust" however does not mean "dogmatic." If the materialist core-hypothesis (paradigm) is ones dogma/gospel then, as a materialist, you will think only materialist science is real science. On the other hand, if the theistic core-hypothesis is ones dogma/gospel then, as a theist you will think that only theistic science is real science.
When I came upon ID (in 2002) I was an anti-religious ID supporter. I have since learned to be more tolerant of the religious and I am now merely non-religious. I do not fit (and have never fit) the Dunford-ian model/stereotype.
Comment by William Brookfield — August 8, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
TP:
TP, I think it's high time all the "Culture Warriors" got used to the idea that the MOVEMENT of religious believers in support of their religious beliefs isn't going away just because some don't like what they believe. I am perfectly willing to let the NAM [New Atheist MOVEMENT] wear whatever t-shirts they want and join all the clubs they want to support their anti-religious beliefs, too. The right to believe is a rather big chunk of the liberty we Americans cherish in our way of life. Complaining about it is a waste of time.
Sure, you'll have evangelical religionists who try to convert people if they get a chance. You'll also have evangelical atheists who try to convert people when they get a chance. Neither should get that chance in public school science classes. And for all the well publicized complaining of Warriors on both 'sides' about the other, it's just noise to most people. It's the corruption of science that concerns me.
Deal is, it has been judged unconstitutional to teach either Creationism or ID in public schools. Thus what the majority choose to believe about origins isn't a real concern, and religion isn't corrupting science or science education. They are not "The Problem" anymore.
Neither 'side' will ever accomplish the eradication of beliefs they don't like. Seems to me that accepting this reality would go a long way toward promoting a mellower, happier life. No matter what you believe.
Comment by Joy — August 8, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Hi Zachriel,
I guess it all depends on how people personally define "scientific." I go through each day basing personal decisions on empirical support, but I hardly consider that scientific. Neither would I consider a detective to be a scientist doing science. And just because a prosecutor may incorporate the findings of forensic science does not mean the prosecutor is trying someone as a scientist doing science.
So yes, there are indeed findings in science that lead me to suspect life was intelligently designed. I can't help seeing what I see. And yes, I am quite curious as to whether such findings are truly clues. That's one thing that makes me human. But suspicions and acted-upon curiosity are not sufficient to be science. But that they are not science does not mean they are invalid.
So what? Scientifically vacuous is not the same as invalid. But it would seem to me that we need more than "in principle." If we're dealing only with "in principle," that's another way of saying without experiment and without results. In other words, scientifically vacuous.
I agree. That's why I used to word "˜here.'
Comment by MikeGene — August 8, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
I guess it's a matter of perspective. But suffice it to say that if I were to start arguing for theism by using ID, not only would points 1 and 2 be enough to knock me on my ass, but someone would quickly find points 3 and 4. The reason I can make points 1-4 is precisely because I do not think of ID in political or apologetic terms.
Then you should have listened to my interview or read the DM blog. The clues constitute 3 chapters and only serve to arouse suspicion. The whole book is not "about the clues," but about a different way of looking at things and looking for ways to move beyond the level of suspicion.
It depends on the day and what we mean by detectable. If by detectable we mean acknowledgement by a decently-sized group of objective inquirers, today I would guess there is a 70-80% chance that design is not detectable. But it's just a wild-assed guess.
Of course, until I reach the level of certainty, and declare that number to be 100%, the critics will continue to be angry with me.
Comment by MikeGene — August 8, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
William Brookfield,
Your beliefs are your own, and obviously you are welcome to them. I would suggest, however, that there is a possibility, far in excess of the "universal probability bound," that Bill Dembski is cynically using you as a "useful idiot." I mean that in the from-his-perspective sense, no insult intended. So desperate, you see, is the IDM in its effort to support the tenuous claim that ID is not religiously motivated. I suspect you may even realize that if any atheists with traditional scientific credentials (in contrast to your more, er, colorful background) embraced ID they, rather than you (your site, that is) would be getting links from UD. If the IDM ever triumphs, I would not, if I were you, expect an invitation to the Victory Ball.
Comment by David Heddle — August 8, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Hi MikeGene,
I'm not angry, Mike. You just suprise me sometimes. I wouldn't have guessed you would estimate the likelihood of detecting design so low.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 8, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Mike Gene protests too much. He continually emphasizes that what he's doing, whatever it is that he is doing, is "not science." We all have different conceptions of science (and I know far more about Mike Gene's conception of what it is to be doing "not science"), but I don't see it! I don't see you, Mike Gene, doing something differently from what I have observed scientists doing. And done myself!
I (uninformed critic that I am) hate to disabuse you, but what you are doing is science.
I would defy you, or anyone else, to not do science!
Ya can't do it! I dare ya!
You're just as wrong about "science" as all your "critics."
Comment by Rock — August 8, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your tolerance of the off-topic interruptions. Now where were we, ah yes, Chest Thumping…
And you "set the record straight" by reinforcing your presumptions that ID critics apply Dunford's logic to you specifically while taunting them to try to read your mind?
Whether or not it makes me narcissistic, this caused a big grin on my face.
Mike, I don't think you are dumb. I pity any ID critic who makes that false assumption about you.
LOL
You demonize by suggesting they are demonizing! Shield bashing to a fine art.
Impressive.
Like I said, the same old, same old. Both sides do it.
Did you notice that I happened to be commenting on Dunford's thread. I will admit that I sound more like an ID Critic than an ID proponent, but you know how much I like talking about the Dover case. However, I did introduce the concept of quantum mechanics and how Many Worlds interpretation is just as metaphysical as "God Did It". My last post there was clearly off topic since I presented a summarized version of the Third Choice.
I said "Whether one designer or multiple designers, it is still metaphysics."
Yes.
In answer to a request to discuss ""¦how bold religion has been in America's recent past" you wrote"¦
I'm glad Dawkins' attitudes aren't an important issue for you. Telic Thoughts is in the unique position of having the reputation of one of the better Intelligent Design blogs, even by ID critics. The front-loading hypothesis is recognized as an ID hypothesis that has merit.
I am concerned about things you apparently are not. Your science is constructive, IMO. The attention you give Dawkins is destructive, IMO. If your Dawkins posts aren't attacks in the Cultural War, what are they for? Pure entertainment? A marketing tactic for TT?
Because "setting the record straight" wouldn't include taunting ID critics to read your mind.
I would have no problem with you taunting critics by asking them to explain scientific observations. In fact, I would help you do that.
I did notice.
There is a difference between suggesting religion is front-loaded and using connotative phrases like "end justifies the means" and taunting ID critics to read your mind.
BTW, wouldn't you agree the Dawkin's meme hypothesis is also a possible explanation for the existence of religion?
Are you suggesting this is how you go about comparing and contrasting serious scientific proposals?
I wrote"¦"A Judge in the town of Slidell hangs a painting of Jesus holding an open bible above the words "obey these laws" in a government building (court house). Legal scholars agree that it is a clear violation of the first amendment under long established legal precedent even so there is a likelihood the current Supreme Court will allow it."
Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
In 1947, there would have been no question that it was unconstitutional to use taxpayer money to hang a picture of Jesus on a court house wall over the words ""¦obey these laws".
Could it have happened anyway?
Possibly, but it would have been through ignorance or in full knowledge it was in violation of the law with hopes it wouldn't be challenged.
Today, it is done proudly with a sense of righteousness in hopes the question will reach the Supreme Court.
I think there is a significant difference between the two situations.
IMO, going over to Dunford's blog would be better. It would show that you were trying to rectify the situation instead of exploiting it. Taunting ID critics isn't "informing" readers. It might be entertaining them, but it isn't informing them.
I suspect you are too.
I may not be able to read your mind, but I can see how your actions don't match your claims and I have reason to believe you aren't stupid.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
David Heddle:
Why is motivation an issue only for IDists? If an ID critic's motives are questioned the response is usually to point to the irrelevancy of the motive issue and then to present an argument based on how real biological systems function. IDists need to adopt the same tactical response.
Comment by Bradford — August 8, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
TP, is there a better description of the false accusation of child abuse than demonization? Is a truthful response demonization?
Comment by Bradford — August 8, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Hi Joy,
Once again I find it difficult to disagree with what you have said. In the recent past I might have challenged…
…but that scientists-might-cause-an-instant-end-to-the-universe thing you brought up bothers me somewhat.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Hi Bradford,
You asked…
It often is.
A bit of truth enhances the effectiveness of propaganda weaponry.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
TP:
Well… I don't think they have the POWER to do what they're betting they can't do. It's the probabilities they're having a bit of an issue with.
My father once told me - because I'd asked - that the 'rationale' behind the whole MAD thing was that nobody would sacrifice their own people to defeat their designated enemy-people. God wouldn't let them do it, in fact.
Which struck me at the time as being terminally foolish. As well as terminally hubristic. "God" will save you from your own stupidity? You'd DARE God to save you from your own stupidity? That's utterly absurd!
Still, they believed in it 100%. I kid you not. That was the OSS generation. Templars all…
But I've got this Regis Neptunis hanging on the wall right in front of me. Complete with a little note from Dad to his Mom, in 1936 when he was only 18. USS Indianapolis. Really. Google that one if you don't recall your "Jaws" dialogue. It's hard to battle sharks with ceremonial sabers.
We ARE such fools!
Comment by Joy — August 8, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
I am well aware of the significance of the USS Indianapolis.
A small admission; I consider the biggest piece of evidence against atheism to be the fact that we are still here despite our willful stupidity in trying to kill each other.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 8, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
August 8th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Hi TP,
Sure. But it's not a presumption; it's experience. As for the taunting, why not? It's only a taunt to someone who already thinks they can read my mind by assigning vague motives to me. Here's what I wrote:
Notice the word "if." If a critic doesn't think I have religious motives, the taunt does not apply. If the critic somehow "knows this" (wink, wink), the taunt applies.
Nah, pointing out that someone relies on stereotypes is not demonizing. Suggesting that someone abuses their children is demonizing. I'd be demonizing the critics if I argued they were abusing their children. But such extremism is not in my nature.
If true, I think most people will be too busy talking about the next Paris Hilton to notice.