Confirmation Bias and ID
by MikeGeneFor years, I have tried to help illuminate the important role that sociology and psychology play in the debate about origins. For example, if a critic of Intelligent Design hears "God" when "ID" is spoken, just what is that critic reacting to? The ID proposal? A proposal of divine intervention? A belief in God? Furthermore, what if the evidence for ID is subtle and not extraordinary?
Michael Shermer offers a synopsis of a very interesting study that helps us appreciate the significance of these considerations.
Shermer begins with a discussion of his Republican and Democrat friends:
I have close friends in both camps, in which I have observed the following: no matter the issue under discussion, both sides are equally convinced that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position.
As one who has been participating in the ID debates on the Internet for years, I can make the same observation (without making any claim of close friendship) - Both the ID proponents and the ID critics seem to be "equally convinced that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position." Shermer calls this "confirmation bias":
This surety is called the confirmation bias, whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence. Now a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study shows where in the brain the confirmation bias arises and how it is unconscious and driven by emotions.
You should read the entirety of Shermer's report to get a better handle on the brain research (or better yet, track down the actual research paper when it comes out). For example, the researcher explains:
"Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones," Westen said.
Shermer then explains that confirmation bias is not a problem in science:
In science we have built-in self-correcting machinery. Strict double-blind controls are required in experiments, in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know the experimental conditions during the data-collection phase. Results are vetted at professional conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. Research must be replicated in other laboratories unaffiliated with the original researcher. Disconfirmatory evidence, as well as contradictory interpretations of the data, must be included in the paper. Colleagues are rewarded for being skeptical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Yet Shermer, who often comes across as a cheer-leader for scientism, may be displaying confirmation bias here. His ideas about the practice of science seem awfully naïve and idealistic. More significant is that he provides no scientific evidence that the "built-in self-correcting machinery" does always buffer against confirmation bias. At the very least, there may be some issues that are difficult to test and so easily stray into emotion that the "self-correcting machinery" begins to short circuit. Perhaps the topic of Intelligent Design is just one of those issues.
What we do know is that many scientists get extremely emotional about the topic of ID. Furthermore, there are more and more editorials being written in scientific and academic publications that actually seek to arouse emotions by portraying ID as a threat to Science and American leadership, clearly developing a partisan-type mentality when it comes to the concept of ID. What would happen if we could submit such ID critics to a fMRI analysis while critiquing ID?
Shermer ends his report by noting, "Skepticism is the antidote for the confirmation bias." But what if the skepticism is selectively applied? Isn't that the very essence of confirmation bias?
As for myself, I have long tried to take this advice to heart, acknowledging that my own ID views could very well be wrong, while also admitting that my own views are too vague and weak to be labeled "science." I have tried to steer clear of the heavy-handed partisanship by acknowledging that my critics are not being irrational for denying my views, and even showing a willingness to publicly disagree with other ID proponents about significant issues. Over the years, I have found that only a very small number of critics can meet me at this place and show a similar form of reciprocation. For most critics, I am still stupid, dishonest, or deluded because I don't agree that ID is Dangerous Bunk.
Their confirmation bias is showing.
[Let me give a HT to Krauze for first noticing Shermer's report.]
July 9th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Another great post MG. Thank you.
Do you need a friend?
Indeed. Much of science does not proceed as he has described.
Just not in the classroom. And, if Kuhn is to be believed, the skepticism itself is operating from within the same paradigm. ID is a boon to science for that reason alone.
Comment by Mung — July 9, 2006 @ 9:28 am
July 9th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Only in Parapsychology and medical research do we see anything approaching this ideal.
Most science experiments are not conducted blind.
Comment by MatthewCromer — July 9, 2006 @ 10:20 am
July 9th, 2006 at 10:26 am
A giant step down the road towards an unabashed advocacy of metaphysical relativism, if you ask me.
Comment by Art — July 9, 2006 @ 10:26 am
July 9th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
"In science we have built-in self-correcting machinery."
Of course, for colleagues to be skeptical, they actually have to disagree with the hypothesis in question. But when it comes to hypotheses such as the ateleological origin of life, IDists are the only ones doubting it. Soo, did Shermer just make an argument for why science needs intelligent design?
Comment by Krauze — July 9, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
I agree with Art. It seems to me that ID advocates, rather than moving towards productive scientific research, are increasingly embracing relativism.
Comment by Myrmecos — July 9, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
LOL
Q: What is likely to be the primary source or cause of "confirmation bias" when it comes to the subject of origins?
A: Religious belief.
Conclusion - atheists are the best suited to explore matters that relate to origins.
Soo, did Mike just make an argument for why theists should not be trusted when it comes to origins?
Comment by Art — July 9, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Two examples come to mind of confirmation bias in the history of mathematics, a field where one would expect absolute logic and dispassionate inquiry to save the day. By in large, this is true, but 2 major developments were nearly suppressed forever because of confirmaiton bias:
1. Pythagoras (of pythagorean theorm fame) supposedly had Hippasus executed for discovering the square root of 2 was irrational, it went against Pythagorean notions of numbers, and furthermore, one had no direct logical proof of irrationality, it was all through negative proof (much like ID's arguments)
2. Cantor in the 19th century pioneered transfinite mathematics through negative argumentation (again like ID's arguments). Since he was dealing with infinity, something not directly observed but inferred, the arguments by both sides were very subject to confirmation bias.
Math would not be where it is today without the above 2 developments.
There were vicious personal attacks from both sides of the issue. Kronecker (another famous mathematician) labeled Cantor a corrupter of youth. Cantor's pioneering ideas are now taught in elementary school (in the form of set theory), and thus are youth are now permanently corrupted.
Curiosly, the tribal behavior played out in these mathematical issues, and issues with hardly any direct religious significance.
Confirmation bias will happen especially where there is no direct evidence, and conclusions can only be arrived at through inference and not direct empircism.
What's the cure for confirmation bias? I'd say, keep hammering facts and logic. The side least eager for scrutiny and engagement of its theories probably feels that in order to keep faith, one must close their eyes to challenges.
I see that mentality in a lot of Bible Pounding YECs and a lot of militant anit-IDists.
I do not see confirmation bias as much in play with pseudo-IDers like Michael Denton and David Berlinski or IDers like Michael Behe or Scott Minnich, and imho, Mike Gene.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 9, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Art, your parody misrepresents my post. I didn't say anything about not trusting anyone. Why don't you re-read my post and try again?
Comment by Krauze — July 9, 2006 @ 1:47 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Hi Myrmecos,
"It seems to me that ID advocates, rather than moving towards productive scientific research, are increasingly embracing relativism."
Michael Shermer points to some new results with neuroimaging, and notes how people of different opinions will often pick and choose what evidence to pay attention to. Is this "relativism"
Comment by Krauze — July 9, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
It seems to me that the set of those who are "convinced that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position" will be co-terminous (or very nearly) with the set of those who are convinced (or, at least, have convinced themselves that they are convinced) that "the evidence" "speaks for itself."
Comment by Ilion — July 9, 2006 @ 2:11 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Art:
Wrong answer. The correct answer is "˜metaphysics' and there really are only two forms it can take "“ teleological or non-teleological.
As for "religious belief," we have a far greater range in diversity among the origin beliefs of religionists. Here, we have positions that range from Harold Morowitz to Simon Conway Morris to Francis Collins to Michael Behe and Bill Dembski to Hugh Ross to Duane Gish and Henry Morris. In contrast, I don't see the same level of diversity about such fundamental issues among the atheists.
In many ways, the different levels of diversity are reflective of teleology vs. non-teleology. The non-teleological perspective is rather monolithic, invested completely in the idea that natural law and chance explain the origin of life (for example). Teleologists add an extra dimension to this picture "“ mind "“ where differing placements of mind, views about the detectability of its involvement, and views about the frequency of its involvement, offer a wide variety of options which do not even have to be religious in nature. The higher range of diversity among teleologists suggests there is less need for confirmation bias and thus more freedom to break with the herd.
Comment by MikeGene — July 9, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
30 minut time limit:
It seems to me that the set of those who are "convinced that the evidence overwhelmingly supports their position" will be co-terminus (or very nearly) with the set of those who are convinced (or, at least, have convinced themselves that they are convinced) that "the evidence" "speaks for itself."
Yes, it is.
But, heck, we didn't need "science" to tell us this. This truth didn't become more true because a scientist proclaimed it; we've known it for thousands of years: people find/see what they are looking to find/see. It takes conscious and conscientious effort to find/see what one doesn't expect (or doesn't wish) to see.
That's one of the reasons that thousands of years ago our ancestors put a great deal of effort into discovering and elucidating the rules of reasoning. These rules give us an objective standard and set of criteria by which to evaluate the proposed reasons to have confidence in the truthfulness of a claim. These criteria are independent of and irrespective of the content and/or conclusion of any particular line of reasoning.
Getting back to the reference to the belief that "the evidence" "speaks for itself," part of I mean to get at is that this belief serves as a means to side-step the unyielding requirements of rational reasoning while preserving a pretence of having "followed the rules." It may also be that this belief in part serves as a psychological defence mechanism. If one must later, for whatever reason, realize or admit that one's inference was incorrect, well, the error was not in one's thinking, it was in the evidence: "The evidence spoke for itself, and it lied."
Rational reasoning is hard work and it's dangerous: it may show that we cannot rationally support our beliefs, it may even disconfirm or falsify our beliefs. Rational reasoning requires that we admit (really admit, not merely mouth the words pro forma) that we have a bias, that we *want* this or that assertion to be true. Rational reasoning requires that we realise that we may well overlook disconfirming evidence. Rational reasoning requires that we attempt to be objective about ourselves.
It's so much easier to let "the evidence" "speak for itself."
Comment by Ilion — July 9, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
There's one, and only one, kind of skepticism that can counteract confirmation bias: skepticism directed at one's own beliefs. Skepticism of everyone else's beliefs won't help at all, and may well hurt.
That said, has Shermer applied any skepticism to his belief that science is immune to confirmation bias, or is this something that he has accepted uncritically because it confirms his biases? Sure, that's a good ideal, but the same ideal applies in philosophy, theology, history, etc. Has he actually done any tests to see how well the reality has actually held up to the ideal over time?
Going further, has he stopped to apply any skepticism to the question of whether his reductionist materialsm is even compatible with the existence of truth in the first place, and the ability of humans to reason their way to it? Or rather, has he just assumed it, because he and his enlightened associates are all reductionists, and he finds the position so compelling, and so much the conventional wisdom in his circle, that it doesn't require skepticism?
Comment by Deuce — July 9, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
July 9th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
One of the mild amusements of this ongoing "debate" is supplied by statements such as these. The amusement, of course, derives from the ironic nature of the comments.
Comment by Ilion — July 9, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
July 10th, 2006 at 1:50 am
IlÃon-
Of course they are ironic. I can't speak for Art, but that's why I posted my comment. It's amusing to see people who should have no natural sympathies for relativism sliding towards relativistic arguments.
Comment by Myrmecos — July 10, 2006 @ 1:50 am
July 10th, 2006 at 4:30 am
I find it interesting - and ironic - to see a piece about confirmation bias on an ID blog. In my opinion the whole ID movement is based on an exercise in confirmation bias, "the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions" - the preconception in this case being that there is a designer out there somewhere.
It's not just the peer review process that tries to help scientists avoid confirmation bias, the scientific method itself is based on falsifiability - i.e. trying to disprove your hypotheses - specifically in order to compensate for the known human tendency towards confirmation bias.
Not that either of the above guarantees success in filtering out confirmation bias. They are at least a few steps in the right direction. The steps are there and available for any ID advocates to take, if they would like to.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 10, 2006 @ 4:30 am
July 10th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Denying that religious belief is a source of "confirmation bias" is a pretty ludicrous stance. It's a no-brainer - someone whose perceived existence is beholden to some creed is going to be quite prone to ignore, hide from, or misrepresent reality.
And thus many, many reasons to twist or "remove", by theological fiat, the outcomes of HTR. Or, as teleologists wish to do, legislate HTR out of existence altogether.
Utter rubbish. The "non-teleological perspective" has no emotional or theological investment in the studies of nature. Teleologists, OTOH, come to the table rife with pre-conceived notions, with prior commitments to creeds and cults that inevitably frame their approaches to inquiry. In other words, with a strong prejudicial inclination towards "confirmation bias".
On the one hand, Mike whines about the alleged sociological and psychological factors that may sway scientific opinion against "it looks that way to MikeGene". Then he turns around and tries to claim that factoring "mind" into the equation will minimize "confirmation bias". That's turning things completely on their heads. "Mind" is the source of "confirmation bias", as Mike himself has been trying to argue for years.
More Post Wedge World Bizarro-style thinking - black is white, correct is incorrect, right is wrong. Relativism run amok, to be sure.
Aside to Krauze - you just didn't get it. And I've no inclination to explain things. Sorry.
Comment by Art — July 10, 2006 @ 8:28 am
July 10th, 2006 at 11:20 am
The preconception is that there is design and that design can be discovered. Of course, even evolutionary theory accepts the existence of design. It just claims to have discovered a mechanism capable of generating design absent the involvement of any designer. We're still waiting for the demonstration.
So why do evolutionary biologists try to get around falsifiability?
Comment by Mung — July 10, 2006 @ 11:20 am
July 10th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Please excuse Michael, but there's neither an ounce nor a gram of sociology or psychology (except perhaps that it reveals self-psychology) in your post. Tip your hat to those respective fields of study and then continue along with your apparent naturalism. Is that all Telic Thoughts can expect about social sciences, trying to say they are relevant and then practical silence about *how* they are relevant?
Mike Gene himself seems to be an ironic cheerleader for scientism. "˜Design' to him is apparently a non-scientific or unscientific concept!
Then what, do tell, is your forthcoming book presented to be; using statistics, tables, charts and showcasing research "“ mere opinion?
Anthropology, psychology, sociology, philology "“ these all elude the attention of IDists. As scholaryly fields, they find little welcome, other than Wickert's Moral Darwinism, Campbell's communication rhetoric and the British sociologist called to trial in Dover. Doesn't it make onlookers curious as to why i+d theories pay such lip service to fields of study that actually (really do) focus on "˜intelligent agency'?!
How/why does a movement for cultural (and perhaps scientific) renewal avoid the very fields that study intelligent agency/causality, which is what they are trying to infer? It may be that most IDists simply have an axe to grind or chip on the shoulder regarding Charles Robert Darwin. Or rather, they too insist on scientism where "˜soft sciences' are deemed inferior and useless on the topic of "˜origins' and "˜processes' of life.
This statement is obviously untrue. Ever heard of theistic evolutionists or evolutionary creationists? All Jews, Christians and Muslims, in addition to most other religious worldviews consider "˜the' origin of life to be teleological. Isn't this obvious? Maybe you're speaking about the dys-teleology of evolutionary theories, whereby you should then try to establish how agnostic evolutionary-i+d views somehow rebalance the field toward teleological thinking.
This just isn't going to get it done, aside from Sal's good intentions. Mike Gene starts with mentioning psychology and sociology and Salvador Cordova soon chimes in with mathematics (though at least he admits that i+d's arguments are largely about negative proofs "“ might wanna then study apophatic theology instead of kataphatics). Sal's black and white scientism seems an odd pair with his concordist reasoning for i+d (ID).
Nevertheless, Mike once again touches on an important question (or questions). Is the "˜confirmation bias' that he mentions an individual or a social thing? Is it conditioned by one's psychological situation or by the social environment they live in? Exploring this would seem to go some distance to understanding why, for example, i+d-evolutionary teleologics started in the USA, instead of elsewhere.
Arago
Comment by g arago — July 10, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
July 10th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
You've got it backwards, Mung. ID theories accept the existence of evolution, not usually vice versa. Idists just won't often say *which evolution* since doing so would split the 'big tent' and its YEC support.
The ORGA/MECHA question is still live, and it doesn't seem that the i+d movement is a leading voice in how to understand the difference. Rather, obscuring the issue of whether or not organisms are merely collections of machines appears to be the common i+d view. (BTW, didn't we have this discussion already 'Are organisms machines?' at TT's several months ago?)
Have you forgotten the linguistic idea of a participle. 'To teach' implies a teacher. 'To build' implies a builder. 'To speak' implies a speaker. 'To hear' implies a hearer. 'To design' implies _ ________? It's not rocket (or computer) science! Let those who have ears use them.
Actually, the demonstration Mung mentions has already happened.
Didn't you hear the expression: if it works, its obsolete!? We're not waiting for it. It's waiting for us.
Comment by g arago — July 10, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
July 10th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Have any of you read von Mises? Many of these posts bring to mind the following, from Human Action:
Is there any doubt the materialist and theist alike categorize opposing views of OOL and OOS with the last sentence above?
Mises goes on to note:
Mises' epistemological insights have resonated with me since I first read them a decade ago. Human Action and Theory and History speak to this thread (The Challenge of Scientism in particular) and I recommend both to participants.
One last quote, from Theory and History, which relates prior posts:
Comment by todd — July 10, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
July 10th, 2006 at 11:55 pm
Art:
I agree. But then, I did not claim or imply that religious belief is not a source of confirmation bias. Obviously, it can be one powerful source. But you originally offered an answer that was much too restrictive and selective. The primary cause of confirmation bias concerning origin beliefs is metaphysics and metaphysics come in different flavors.
If this is true, why do so many with the non-teleological perspective react with such emotion to teleological claims, even to the point of equating teleologists with the "Forces of Darkness" and labeling them as "Liars!"? Anyone who has interacted with non-teleologists about "the studies of nature" knows from experience that the non-teleological perspective does not rid the person of biases and emotion. The non-teleological perspective does not mean you cease to be human and become a Vulcan.
But here you missed the whole argument. The "pre-conceived notions" that might come with a teleological perspective are many and varied, allowing tremendous flexibility and fluidity, where a pre-conceived teleological notion can be changed into another teleological position in light of perceptions about new data. They can range from the position of someone like Ken Miller to someone like Henry Morris (and perhaps beyond). That's an extraordinary range, encompassing no interventions to thousands of interventions. The non-teleologist, on the other hand, is stuck with one rigid position, one that insists that all of nature be explained by "natural law" and chance alone. If you come to the table with the pre-conceived notion that all of natural reality is ultimately explained by these two factors alone, you will actively seek out evidence that supports such a pre-conception because there is no place else to go.
Consider the OOL as an nice illustration. The notion that life was spawned by geochemical processes (law + chance) here on earth is not the output of "HTR." On the contrary, it is belief that is, at the least,historically linked to metaphysics and "HTR" may function largely to prop it up.
OOL research seems prone to confirmation bias:
If the objective is to look for way things "could have happened" and arguments that "support the possibility," this approach is ripe for confirmation bias. Maybe this contributes to the fact that the origin-of-life field is "at times tarnished by questionable data, contentious debates, or even outright quackery."
The point is that once you have the pre-conception that Earth processes spawned Life, it can be maintained indefinitely by exploring the world of "could have happened." What's more, there are built in metaphysical escape hatches. First, there is the Ever-Promissory note. One can appeal to hoped-for discoveries decades, or even centuries from now, maintaining that one day, we'll demonstrate that natural law and chance did indeed spawn some natural feature. In a way, the success of science itself leads to this form of confirmation bias. Second, there is the Lost-In-History explanation, where ultimately, we can appeal to the ancient nature of the event and all the lost information. We know that the Earth spawned Life, but we can hardly be expected to show it. Certainty about the non-teleological perspective on the OOL can be purchased with these two tactics alone, made to appear all the more "˜rational' with the continued search for things that could have possibly happened.
In contrast, the teleologist has the range of views concerning the OOL. If the Ever-Promissory note is ever cashed in, it will become clear that teleologists such as Ken Miller and Michael Denton were closer to the truth. The teleologist refines his/her position.
First, the human brain is wired to detect "whines" through tone of voice and facial expressions, not through words on a computer screen. Thus, the "Mike whines" editorial comment amounts to nothing more than "it looks that way to Art."
Second, we're not talking about alleged sociological and psychological factors nor are we talking about some MikeGene-centric issue. Perhaps I can use this point to bring focus back to the original argument.
I wrote:
No one in this thread has touched this observation and I don't see any reason to think it is off target. Instead of thinking in one dimension about this issue (i.e., some simplistic "religion vs science" notion), we can make things a little more realistic by going in two dimensions. On one dimension, we have tractability, as not all issues and problems are equally tractable. On another dimension, we have emotionality, as not all issues and problems elicit the same level of emotional response. Tractability connects to the outside world while emotionality obviously references the inside world. So what happens when one range of tractability (difficult to test/assess) overlaps with one range of emotion (likely to elicit strong emotional responses)? Are you sure the "self-correcting machinery" of science works? If you think so, is this because you have scientific evidence that shows it does? Or are you speaking from faith?
From here, I relayed some empirical observations that seem relevant to me (and again, no one touched this part of the blog, so there is no reason to think they are irrelevant):
We know about the emotional scientists thanks to the technology known as the Internet. Over the last decade or so, some of us have witnessed, first-hand, a type of peer review in process. Dozens upon dozens of scientists have made it clear they are scientists in order to speak with authority about these issues. But they also gave us a window into their thinking and review process. We have seen lots of emotion. And worse.
As for the editorials, they are matters of public record. Here, we can see scientists actually trying to frighten other scientists and encouraging them to become more political. Thus, the emotion we witness first-hand is actually be spread throughout the scientific community like a contagion. Of course, many in the ID Movement have fed these emotions, but it's not a blame issue here. It's an issue of the implications that follow. Cause-effect. For example, as even Art himself said:
So why are we supposed to ignore such facts about our human reality when science itself is an expression of human reality? Might it be confirmation bias, where those invested in idealistic pre-conceptions about the way science works, choose to ignore or downplay these facts for political or metaphysical reasons?
Comment by MikeGene — July 10, 2006 @ 11:55 pm
July 11th, 2006 at 12:35 am
Speaking for myself, I'd say our reaction has historical roots in how the folks on the creationism side of the aisle have tended to write long screeds blaming we scientists for Hitler, for being immoral Hedonists, for being tools of Satan, along with all the other venom and bile that the creationists have heaped on professional scientists over the years. That sort of treatment does not leave one with a favorable impression, and it is I would argue the main reason why theistic evolutionists like Miller are loathe to associate with ID.
Comment by Myrmecos — July 11, 2006 @ 12:35 am
July 11th, 2006 at 4:14 am
Mike Gene says:
And we all know why that is. It's plain to see in the Wedge Document. We know what the goals of the Discovery Institute - and all the ID advocates there - actually are. For religious reasons they are attacking science, and what's worse they have been targeting school classrooms. People get irate when other people try to teach their kids religion dressed up as science, especially as it's also against the law.
So far neither you nor anyone else has provided any kind of evidence that 'your version' of ID is any different to the rebranded creationism trotted out by the 'cdesign proponentsists' at the DI.
Actually the scientists will follow the evidence wherever it leads. Show us some evidence that your apparently undetectable designer is actually detectable and either exists or did exist. Show us some evidence of the tools the designer uses/used to produce his/her/it's/their designs. Without any evidence you have nothing to be taken seriously, only a confirmation bias towards design.
Where else is there to look? If it's not natural and not detectable how can we study it? What experiments can we perform to disprove our hypotheses? It what way is it amenable to scientific study?
Is there any evidence to support any of these views? Or is it all just wild speculation? You are of course free to believe whatever you like about the OOL, in the mean time the scientists will carry on generating hypotheses and testing them. What's wrong with that?
We will probably never know for sure exactly how the OOL happened, if you want certainty then you shouldn't be looking to science for it because science doesn't deal in the currency of certainty.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 11, 2006 @ 4:14 am
July 11th, 2006 at 6:52 am
Hi Myrmecos,
"It's amusing to see people who should have no natural sympathies for relativism sliding towards relativistic arguments."
You never answered my question: Is Shermer's article, on how people of different opinions pick and choose what evidence to pay attention to, relativistic?
Comment by Krauze — July 11, 2006 @ 6:52 am
July 11th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Myrmecos:
In other words, non-teleologists, like other human beings, can hold a grudge. So like I said to Art, "Of course, many in the ID Movement have fed these emotions, but it's not a blame issue here. It's an issue of the implications that follow. Cause-effect." Why it is that non-teleologists get so emotional about teleological claims is an interesting side-issue. What matters is that they DO get emotional about teleological claims. So what are the implications that might follow from this behavior?
Comment by MikeGene — July 11, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
July 11th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
OD:
Yes, the emotional responses are often tied to wedge-centrism. Yet why think that such emotional, wedge-centric perceptions will not come into play when it comes to assessing "the evidence?" Did non-teleologists figure out how not to be human?
Thus, my views will emotionally upset you and cause you to perceive my words and arguments through the wedge-centric perspective. You don;t have the ability to tease apart my views from the things that make you angry. This fact alone seriously undercuts your challenge:
Evidence is a function of the mind, as it is the mind, and its background beliefs and experiences, that convert raw data into "evidence." Is your mind ready to convert data into something that would serve the Wedge? Given that the Wedge upsets you so much, that does not seem likely.
Comment by MikeGene — July 11, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
July 11th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
OD:
This "leaked" wedge document argument is so lame, when Philip Johnson has published the wedge position quite openly Here.
Comment by bFast — July 11, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Mike Gene says:
Well, the wedge document is evidence. It was used as evidence in the Dover trial, to show the religious basis of ID. And I would guess that a scientists reaction to the output of some gene sequencing (one kind of evidence) and reading the wedge document (another kind of evidence) would be rather different. Do you agree?
As mentioned earlier in the thread, science tries to protect against confirmation bias by using the scientific method and by peer review. It's not infallible but it's definitely a step in the right direction. When reviewing scientific evidence the scientific community are doing their best to avoid bias.
When reviewing ridiculous cant like the wedge document it's not surprising that a strong reaction is caused - and not just for scientists but for lots of other poeple (including judges) too.
That's not the case at all. I am quite capable of judging evidence and/or a rational argument on it's merits alone. I have reviewed the arguments from the DI - IC, CSI and the EF - and I have found them seriously wanting. I've not seen any evidence from the DI at all. You haven't presented any evidence either, or any arguments that can be distinguished from those of Behe, Dembski et al.
I haven't seen any evidence that would do something like this. I haven't seen any evidence for intelligent design period (excluding human design).
On the other hand, I have seen plenty of evidence that ID is merely rebranded creationism, including the wedge document and the 'Pandas' rewrites.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 12, 2006 @ 8:44 am
July 12th, 2006 at 8:54 am
bFast:
Its not 'lame' when its placed in front of a Judge…
Comment by Odd Digit — July 12, 2006 @ 8:54 am
July 12th, 2006 at 9:21 am
More specifically, they get emotional about teleological claims that are advanced as being "science" in the absence of any hypothesis of ID with specific, measurable/verifiable consequences which would have one set of values if the ID hypothesis were true and a distinctly different set of values if ID were false, and in the presence of "supporting" arguments that more or less imply all non-teleological conclusions are driven by a morally-corrupt adherence to godless materialism. Purely subjective criteria like "I know design when I see it," when presented as "scientific" standards of evaluation, may also provoke emotional responses if repeatedly advanced despite corrections by people who understand science better than that.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 12, 2006 @ 9:21 am
July 12th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Hello Todd,
Yes, I've read Ludwig von Mises. His library at the website you link to is quite accessible. Actually, his insights do, it is agreed, seem quite relevant in several places to the discussions here at TT's and elsewhere in the creation, evolution and i+d, or science and religion/spirituality discourses generally speaking"¦even if von Mises was a "˜mere' economist-plus.
One ought to try telling that to Dembski or Johnson, who just don't seem willing (in reverse) to untangle their references to i+d when it comes to OOL or OOS versus when it could be transferred to human-made things. The mousetrapology fallacy of ID is revealed by von Mises quite correctly.
In "The Challenge of Scientism," in the first paragraph, von Mises notes "The field of the sciences of human action is the orbit of purpose and of conscious aiming at ends; it is teleological." This is the reason I asked above why TT's and/or the IDM don't put more effort into including "˜sciences of human action' or "˜social sciences' in their musings. Dembski's biology-first approach is more than a bit ironical. It seems more like Darwin-fixation, i.e. personal dissent to me! To give him credit, MG doesn't seem so fixated on Darwin, Dembski or Johnson. Behe, however, is another Genean story.
BTW, I wonder if anyone out there could suggest a first usage of the word "˜scientism' other than von Mises's use in 1957. It seems to apply regularly and aptly today with many persons/sides on themes related to the above discourses. Has it been discussed in a feature thread at TT's?
This is an example of circular reasoning, whereby logic is applied to tools, their structure and order. It reminds of how some people argue that things are the way they are simply because "˜they evolved' that way. It doesn't help in the explanation of actual thing-transformation. Did they come to be (acquired) only physically, or also socially, culturally, politically, psychologically, spiritually, etc.? Reduction to physiologism or biologism don't seem feasible after Behe's or Wolfram's IC arguments.
Perhaps there are also places that von Mises, like Dembski and Behe, did not go in his studies. And these places are thus best left for others to carry on where someone else left off.
Arago
p.s. as for the last quote from "Theory and History," perhaps von Mises confuses positivism with other isms. When he says, "The experimental methods of the natural sciences are the only appropriate methods for any kind of investigation," he actually goes against the founder of positive philosophy, August Comte, who felt that a "˜science of society,' that is of reorganizing society for improvement was indeed possible. Comte did reject psychology, but then again, as a field of scholarly/scientific study, psychology was rather un(der)developed in Comte's time.
Also, this von Mises quotation seems relevant for recent TT's discussions:
And this, especially for Mike Gene's quest for depersonalizing (non-scientific) objectivity:
Comment by g arago — July 12, 2006 @ 10:48 am
July 12th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Mike writes that no one has answered his post:
Indeed, there are some elements of truth likely found therein. When topics related to i+d begin to short circuit, straying into emotion appears to increase, especially for such things that are difficult to test.
For example, I still find it hard to distinguish *which* intelligent design, ID, i+d, Intelligent Design, intelligent Design, Intelligent design, is continually spoken about by a commentator, scientist or religious person. Is it IC-centric, specification-centric, pattern-recognition-centric, wedge-centric, etc.? For example, Mike says i+d is not a theory, it is not 'science.' Salvador otoh believes it's both.
Let me verify this dilemma by alerting readers to a comment made recently by Louise Freeman, Psychology Dept:
"As I recall from the Francis Collins talk I attended last fall () he distinguished between 'intelligent design' as a religious belief (which is presumably held by anyone who believes God is the Creator) and 'Intelligent Design' the 'scientific theory' which claims that this design is detectable empirically."
Does Mike Gene believe that "˜design' is a "˜scientific theory' that is "˜detectable empirically?' If so, does it include non-human-made "˜design' or just human-made "˜design' that can be detected by detectives? How could one confirm it either way without being design-centric or intelligence-centric?
G. Arago
Comment by g arago — July 12, 2006 @ 10:54 am
July 12th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
OD:
What, no lame evidence has ever been placed in front of a judge? Oh, you're rich!
Philip Johnson's wedge position is clear — and public. He asserts that the accepance, or lack of it, of the theory of evolution has sociological implications. To deny this is narrow.
That a number of the players at DI have a clear religious perspective is also clear. Dembski, for instance, is currently an instructor at a theological college, and he writes treatises attempting to unify Biblical interpretation with ID. Others at DI, however, are clearly not religiously motivated. Behe, for instance, is a Catholic. As such, his religious perspective does not move him to avoid an evolutionary position whatsoever.
As I get to know the ID community on this and other forums, I find that the ID position is a very poor filter of a person's theological position. I find protestant Christians, sure. I also find Catholics — despite the Catholic view that "'evolutionary theories' are more than just speculation." I find people with all manner of very personal, and often wierd theological positions as well. The agnostic community of IDers is significant. Consider DaveScott, the most active moderator over at Uncommon Descent (UD). His position is clearly agnostic. I have even found some athiests, despite the obvious challenges of being both athiest and ID.
I remember recently chatting on the UD forum recently with a Ph.D. who did his thesis on ATP synthase. Once he was done, his science had forced him to abanond his athiestic position, to move to an agnostic position.
Despite the decision of a recent judge, despite the "leaked" wedge document — now available at amazon as a complete book, it is clear to me that ID does not promote any particular religious view. It does, however, make it less "respecable" to be a scientist and an athiest, and conversely more respectable to be a scientist and a theist. It also makes it more respectable to suggest that there is a higher moral code than the survival of the fittest.
Comment by bFast — July 12, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Could someone clear this up for me. Was there actually some internal memo about the dreaded "wedge" that was leaked and then P. Johnson's book was released because, oh well, the cats out of the bag anyway?
Comment by samohth — July 12, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
bFast:
Well, I don't know much about Dave Scott, and there are many points of interpretation which present issues for me with Dembski and Behe's particulars (but they've got good stuff from which to extrapolate). I do appreciate that you've recognized the diversity of backgrounds and positions represented in the broad "community" of ID supporters. Thank you.
All any of us can do is try to express - in writing, in English - how we see things. That's never an easy project, but if you see things differently from what some 'outside' wannabe authority would impose upon you, learning how to express such things is required. We're all learning to not "just say no," but to say "no, because…".
Not a one of us is in possession of Absolute Truth on these issues. What I like a lot is that there is represented here on Telic Thoughts a significant swath of opinion and knowledge and open minds, as opposed to the monolithic metaphysics of Evangelical Atheism. We already know their issues are theological, as they make no secret of it. Ours don't have to be.
I'll take whatever gods/God/Designers A-Z care to give me as clues to their existence. I'm not invested theologically, though I'm certainly not agnostic. Life looks to me to be intelligently designed. I could write that off to divine interference (and at OOL there may be no alternative), but I don't. Whenever a theological assertion is made in these debates (pro or con), I call to mind Reinhold Niebuhr's immortal words:
It is unwise for a Christian to claim too much knowledge of the furniture of heaven or the temperature of hell."
Comment by Joy — July 12, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Let me also add, I am in that "the Bible is the inspired Word of God" camp myself. As such let me say that ID theory and "Bible-believing" Christianity are a very uncomfortable fit even if you interpret the Genesis 1 days as long. The greatest issues, as I see them, are: the issue of evil, the issue of death preceeding Adam's sin, the whole flood thing (I have found no evidence that man's population was reduced to 7 within the last 10,000 years), and the suggestion that the ancients lived a very long time.
I personally reconcile this conflict by acknowledging the conflict, and by recognizing that a Big Bang cosmology and an ID created life is in less conflict than the steady state theory and the theory of evolution are. Ie, we don't have a good match between science and my faith yet, but we're at least moving in the right direction.
Alas, if ID is not a good fit with Christian theology, it becomes difficult to suggest that the cart of theology is before the horse of scientific discovery. This accusation can easily be made of the YEC community, but not of the ID community. This ID thing is hardly the product of Christians trying to squeeze science into their little mould.
Further, Joy, I personally am very pleased that ID is a big tent position. Its much more likely to be effective that way.
Comment by bFast — July 12, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
bFast,
I generally (80%) believe in a young creation. But ID, imho, is a more comfortable fit that you may think, that is because, unlike YEC theology, ID does not claim to be infallible. It is willing to make assumptions for the sake of argument, and willing to admit it is wrong. It's been my experience, that because of this quality, it has a better chance of drawing people to the truth and helping them stay there.
Paul Nelson, myself, many other pro-ID are quite comfortable making statements about a Cambrian explosion that may not have happened hundreds of millions of years ago. We offer in the context of "for the sake of argument".
Anti-IDists strike me as hardliners. They equate their weakly supported ideas to the theory of gravity. I don't recall a single ID proponent being quite so emphatic.
Finally, ID is the proper context to affirm 2 verses in the Bible Romans 1:20 and John 10:38 (if you can't believe the words, you can believe the works). The Bible, IMHO, suggest even fallen and misguided men, ought to be able to recognize design with a very basic approach to truth decoupled from theology or even Christian pre-conceptions.
IMHO, God promises that the world will, independent of even the sacred texts He gave us, affirm His existence. If theologians censor every idea that's contrary to their pre-conceptions, they are circumventing the self-correcting scientific process which will actually allow the truthfullness of God's promies to show forth as we study nature.
For science to succeed, it must be allowed to occasionally make mistakes and self-correct itself without having to be subject to theological censorship. And it should be given that freedom for the very fact it does not claim to be infallible, but that it trusts that nature is architected to help the scientific method eventually arrive at truth. Theology-free science can be found trustworthy in the eyes of Chrisitans, and some respects more so than theology-infested science (like, well….I'll hold my tongue).
Think about it, all things equal, which arguments carry more weight for people like us regarding evolution, especially when we are doubting:
1. An agnostic like Michael Denton harshly critizing evoluton
2. A theologian with no scientific training arguing from theology
For me personally, an agnostic who has little stake in promoting religion but who is critical of evolutionary theory is more convincing to me than a theologian. And #1 is consistent with what we would expect if nature is as the Bible says, namely, design is self-evident.
So for me, with some exceptions like this post, I side with Phil Johnson rather than Ken Ham.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 12, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Which is not actually a logical/rational mode of thought; it's another variant of evaluating the argument according the the circumstance of the arguer rather than by the content of the argument.
Comment by Ilion — July 12, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
The first time I heard Intelligent Design, even as a Christian, I thought along the lines of "creationism in tuxedo". Behe's book made sense to me and made me re-think ID. Oddly, ID has made me more empathetic with YECers than previously. I probably would still go a few rounds with those who take, say, Naoh's Ark as something other than metaphor. At the beginning of Lent my brand of xtianity reads Genesis and I was reminded of the simple beauty of it and I thought after all it does get the order of things roughly right from a big bang perspective. For a long time now theology has had to change to accomodate science. If Intelligence is a cause, not an effect, I wonder how it would change science and us if we believed that? Go Wedge!
Comment by samohth — July 12, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Thank you for pointing out, my argument was not a logical/rational mode of thought, it was more of what one would do when one wishes to form a tentative conclusion when one has limited data. Being overly rigorous in ones quest for truth can lead to rigor mortis, imho.
When I read Denton 4 years ago, I found it more trustworthy than say (gasp) a lot of things at AiG. I did not have time to track down every citation in Denton's work. As 4 years have passed since I read Denton, I have found AiG to be fast and loose with the scholarship. Lot's of confirmation bias in their writing!
I regret to say it, but I've come to have a high distrust of theology-infested origins "science". I have found that the scholarship is often horrible and will embarrass one in debate.
ID's theology-free science is much better.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 12, 2006 @ 10:58 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
I'm guilty of this irrational thinking also but it is hard to know how much your own logic is swayed by your own philosophical and religious beliefs. Is my affinity to ID based on logic or wishful thinking? Don't you think it helps somehow that there are some who don't share those beliefs yet come to similar conclusions?
Comment by samohth — July 12, 2006 @ 11:05 pm
July 12th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Samohth:
Very well put. I do find it comforting that people with significantly different theological perspectives than my own come to the conclusion that the science is better explained by ID. If it were not so, I would find it reasonable to conclude that the ID position is driven by theology rather than by evidence. I find it particularly intriguing when a Ph.D. abandons athiesm because he was forced to by his Ph.D. thesis as was exemplified on the UD website.
Comment by bFast — July 12, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
July 13th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
This is my first time commenting at Telic thoughts. So, let me introduce myself . I am a true life designer. I design heavey construction machinery for a living, something that requires that I think rigorously not only about how something functions and is utilized but also how in the world are we going to manufacture this thing. No doubt it is my aptitude as a designer that attracted me to ID, which I think raises some interesting questions & ideas.
However, I would not describe myself as an ID advocate. I think as a scientific theory ID over reaches. I think ID's value(and it does have some real value)is from a metaphysical (philosophical/theological) perspective.
However, what amazes me after following the argument on line for several years is some of the utter hostility and contempt towards anything that even suggests a designing intelligence of any kind. These self described defenders of science seem tireless in their efforts to banish ID from the face of the earth. Why is this? Maybe one of these critics could enlighten me? Fair minded criticism is good… shrill hysteria and conspiracy theories strike me as totally irrational. Are you saying new idea's in science are dangerous? I don't understand that kind of thinking. IMO that is exactly the kind of thinking that is driven by some kind of confirmation bias.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 13, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
July 13th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Hello, John. Welcome to Telic Thoughts. You said:
You would find in the history of science that human nature is impossible to separate from the endeavor. This means that individuals will naturally harbor certain loyalties toward mentors and teachers (and their points of view), and that upon gaining recognition in any field, individual scientists will protect their "turf" from encroachment by the young bucks out to make their own names and fortunes. It has always been thus, and some of the turf wars of the past couple of hundred years have been outrageously nasty, deadly to more than one brilliant individual, career-destroying and ridiculously extended beyond all reason and evidence that the reigning "orthodoxy" is flat-out wrong.
It is a penchant of human nature to invest faith in the views, beliefs and pronouncements of some authority figure, particularly those authorities who take the time to notice an acolyte. This penchant works in all realms of collective human endeavor, including religion, politics and science. People tend to assert knowledge they do not actually have, but take as 'given' because one of their heroes says it is so. Science is intelligently designed by human beings to be provisional at all times - there is no such thing as 'Absolute Truth' in any of it. The moment someone asserts their hypothetical guesswork or provisional theory is absolute is the moment you can safely walk away from the empty boast.
If there is design in life biology will eventually get around to it - primarily because a design paradigm would provide a seriously missing element [predictability] that would make it far more useful than Neodarwinism. The measure of science's power is its usefulness. When science's provisional positions become useless they are properly relegated to the dumpster of history.
At the present time Neodarwinism - developed in the 1930s - is being challenged by new evidence incoming from fields where new technologies of observation and manipulation are being deployed. Evolution is no longer considered a simple matter of random mutation sifted by natural selection. There's a lot of funding (money) and power (authority) at stake for the 'old guard', and they will defend their faith investments in the old paradigm as if their very lives depended on it. They will lose in the end, but most True Believers will probably die off before it's over.
It is not a sure bet that any design-like paradigm will take Neodarwinism's place, but design is an up-and-coming contender. If it ever does become dominant, it'll be as provisional and subject to falsification as Neodarwinism was before it.
Comment by Joy — July 13, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
July 13th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Joy is right to some extent: the turf wars fought within science can indeed be brutal and unreasonable. However, they rarely reach the level of outright vitriol (from both sides) that is so frequently inspired by the evolution wars. Clearly the debate over evolutionary theory touches something deeper than most standard scientific debates.
I think the reason is this: in science, both sides share a common language and mode of thinking that allows them to communicate on a reasonably level playing field. There is a set of core assumptions, rarely spoken but almost universally accdepted amongst scientists - things like the assumption that the universe follows logical rules, is amenable to empirical analysis, and so on. However, many of these core values are not shared by a large proportion of anti-evolutionists (by which I mean creationists and the more hardcore ID proponents). Creationists in particular usually believe that the literal truth of their Bible is to be trusted over the empirical evidence, which is anathema to a scientific worldview. When core assumptions are not shared, discussion proves difficult, and the resulting frustration spills over into outright hostility. This hostility can then extend to "off-target" attacks on individuals that appear to be using the same arguments as anti-evolutionists (such as moderate IDists like Mike Gene, who tend not to be anti-evolution per se). It's classic tribal thinking - us vs them.
Another thing to remember is that many of those who argue on the pro-evolution side are not scientists, and indeed often have a fairly poor grounding in the actual science of evolution. These individuals are arguing based on almost pure metaphysics - they have the same deep-seated cognitive commitment to their ideas as the creationists do. It's not surprising that the clash between these individuals and the equally unyielding creationist tribe is characterised by irrationality, hyperbole and character attacks.
It's important to separate this tribal warfare from the actual science underlying evolutionary theory, which is deeper and more sophisticated than the simplistic and outdated models enthusiastically propounded by most self-proclaimed defenders of evolution. Modern evolutionary theory has come into its own over the last decade, and is now being applied with considerable success to the waves of genomic data emerging from labs all over the world. Science certainly hasn't ruled out certain versions of ID - the front-loaded evolution advocated by individuals here at Telic Thoughts is still consistent with the evidence, for instance - but the main tenets of evolutionary theory, particularly common descent, are looking more vastly more solid now than they were a decade ago.
Comment by Mesk — July 13, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
July 13th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
And here, if we wish to understand, we see exactly why there exists
"… the level of outright vitriol (from both sides) that is so frequently inspired by the evolution wars.
Comment by Ilion — July 13, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
July 13th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Mesk:
Hi, Mesk. I certainly agree with you that the level of vitriol in this debate is extraordinarily high, but it's not particularly surprising. The subject is origins, and the competitors are, quite simply, Lowly Origins versus Great Origins. With one side overanxious to claim absolute status, and the other trying to hang on to thousands of years' worth of absolute status.
This turf war is different from most, because it's playing in public TO the public. The gratuitous and unnecessary "unguided, purposeless" qualifiers are a direct challenge to the dominant worldview of humanity [Great Origins]. Neodarwinism is often touted purely as a tool for evangelization of a metaphysical belief system seeking to eradicate religious beliefs (per Dawkins, Wilson, Myers, etc., etc., etc.). It was thus 100% predictable that strong reaction would be generated among the millions of people in this country whose traditional faith informs and guides their lives, and who feel no particular reverence for science, its egotistical practitioners, or its provisional theories.
I realize it's frustrating to many scientists that despite a semester's worth of biology in the 9th or 10th grade, most people who can pass a test on the pablum they're taught choose not to believe in it. That's human nature. Scientists can learn to live with reality and its frustrating inhabitants if they try. Or not. No skin off anyone else's teeth.
Comment by Joy — July 13, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
July 14th, 2006 at 12:33 am
I'm sorry, Ilion - are you capable of adding anything substantive to the discussion, or will we just continue to be treated to your cryptic sniping? I mean, you could actually explain what you think is wrong with my comment, or would that be too much effort for you?
Comment by Mesk — July 14, 2006 @ 12:33 am
July 14th, 2006 at 6:48 am
Hello John_a_designer. You say:
There are many reasons why scientists - and many other reasonable people too - get a bit irate when ID or any other form of creationism is mentioned.
There is a long history of attacks on science in general (and often evolution in particular) from strongly religious people who seem to think that science is a threat to their way of life. There have been a number of court cases which have tried and failed to establish that creationism or 'creation science' or ID is science and so should be taught in classrooms, or tried and failed to show that 'evolution is religion' or 'evolution is only a theory'. People get annoyed when other people try to indoctrinate their kids with religious nonsense in science class. It happens to be illegal too.
There have been numerous attacks on the character and reputation of scientists, often unfounded and verging on libellous. There have been comparisons drawn between scientists and the Nazis and the Soviets. There are all kinds of uninformed opinion spouted all over the internet, which often represents extreme misunderstandings of the actual science. This is also extremely frustrating for scientists who are already pretty unhappy about a very poor level of general science education.
There is also a trend of (completely unfounded) triumphalism that does the rounds on many creationist and ID sites, "evolution is on it's last legs" etc etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. The theory of evolution is in rude health, thousands of advances are being made every year, and all the latest evidence - particularly the genetic evidence - is merely confirming the known evolutionary mechanisms over and over again. The ID movement on the other hand is yet to publish any meaningful research whatsoever.
All of this adds up to quite a backlog of reasons why the pro-science community is running out of patience…
As for conspiracy theories - there is nothing 'theoretical' about the Wedge Document. It states quite clearly the goal of the DI - of overturning science and replacing it with religion and teaching that to our kids instead.
There is of course nothing wrong whatsoever with new ideas in science. Science thrives on new ideas. They do however have to be testable and falsifiable, so we can devise new experiments to find some evidence to actually help to confirm or falsify the idea. I personally can't generate any predictions or testable experiments from 'an unknown designer did it using unknown means at an unknown time for unknown reasons', so the 'theory' of ID is not scientifically useful to me.
Comment by Odd Digit — July 14, 2006 @ 6:48 am
July 14th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Mesk, are *you* capable of adding anything substantive to any of the discussions? Or will you just increasingly trot out the shopworn (and false, and self-serving) stereotypes that serve as "thought" for so many 'modern evolutionary theorists?' Because, to be quite blunt, that's the thing I've been noticing about your posts of late.
.
Is there *really* such a great mystery here? Do you *really* need it to be spelled out for you? What I mean is, you're so bright (especially compared to all us'n Ignernt Creationists), you're so reasonable (especially in comparison to those of us who so unreasonably decline to believe something that isn't even about the truth), you're so straight-forward (especially in comparison to my cryptic sniping). Surely, with all these advantages, you ought to be able to comprehend the content of your own post.
.
You know, it's all well and fine to position oneself as being against "outright vitriol," but the pose looks rather hollow when coupled with comments such as these:
LOL.
.
But, of course, this is not quite the truth. In fact, "scientists" (or, perhaps I should say "biologists," of whom I understand there is a long-standing question whether they are scientists in the first place) increasingly disdain logic; they increasingly assert that "biology is too messy" to be constrained by mere logic.
.
You know, the thing about using logic is that you can't pick and choose; you can't invoke logic when doing so gets you to the answer you want and disregard it when that's what it takes to get the answer you want. I realize that statement will seem overly harsh to many "scientists," but there you have it.
.
On top of which, the very concept that the universe is a logical place came from "creationists." You folk didn't invent the concept, and you certainly don't own it.
And just what would be this "empirical evidence?" As most of you here realize, by "empirical evidence" you mean "theory-laden interpretation(s) of some evidence."
.
And just what is this "scientific worldview" you speak so highly of? There is, in fact, no such thing: 'science' is not a worldview, 'science' cannot give you a worldview. 'Science' is a tool; 'science' may (sometimes) be said to be a method or methodology [though, it should be recognized that there is no such thing as "the" scientific method]; 'science' may (sometimes) be said to be the aggregate of knowledge learned via scientific methods.
.
Worldviews are metaphysics/philosophy/religion.
.
'Science' is not truth and is not about truth. Who can differentiate a scientific statement which just happens to be true from one which just happens to be false? And how? This stupor mundi certainly can't use 'science' to differentiate; 'science' generated both statements in the first place.
.
So, 'creationists' trust that the statements they believe to be true are literally true.
.
On the other hand, "scientists" apparenty believe that 'creationists' are intellectually flawed for declining to believe the truth of statements which they (the "scientists") know for a fact were generated by a methodology which cannot be used to differentiate true statements from false statements, and which statements with regularity contradict prior statements of that methodology.
.
Oh, yeah! That mindset will really work at dampening the "outright vitriol!"
.
This is a fine example of tribal thinking … along with a not too subtle attempt at using a "wedge strategy."
.
The entire paragraph starting with "I think the reason is this:" was bilge.
.
.
Now that we've disposed (let us hope) the bilge, let's examine some more of the fine reasoning on display:
By "pro-evolution," Mesk surely means 'pro-modern evolutionary theory.' But hey! 'Modern evolutionary theorists' do always seem to have such a difficult time differentiating their own statements about "evolution" from "evolution" (whatever they happen mean by that term when they do manage to use it to mean something other than "statements about "evolution"" — there's a reiterative statement for ya')
.
So, these Defenders of Science aren't "scientists." So what? The problem isn't that they're not scientists, the problem is that they mistakenly believe that "Science" = "Truth." They are indeed arguing (to misuse the word) metaphysics, but that's not the problem. The problem is that they refuse to see what they're doing. The problem is that they (as does Mesk) think "Science" is superior to metaphysics; they typically believe that "Science" gives truer truth than any other field of knowledge possibly can.
.
The problem is that they are irrational. Defenders of Science typically "define" rationality according to the conclusions reached rather than the process used. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of the truth of the matter.
So, "the actual science of evolution" is apparently too diffucult for the Defenders of Science to understand? Man! I'd have sworn that I'm always being told that it's nothing but my own willful ignorance that prevents me understanding (and thereby believing the truth of) "the actual science of evolution." All this time and whodda thunk?
Is this supposed to be meaningful? I mean, really! "Deeper and more sophisticated?" Come on! That's emotive language; that's the sort of language one uses when speaking of meaning; that's the sort of language one uses to make one's philosophical opinions sound more profound than they really are.
.
Why is it "important to separate this tribal warfare from the actual science underlying evolutionary theory?" Is there something *true* about this constantly-asserted "actual science" or this claimed-to-exist "evolutionary theory?" Are we supposed to *care* about these things?
.
And what if we don't care about these things? What if we don't believe these things are true? What if we don't believe it's worth a minute of our lives wasted trying to (somehow!) figure out just which parts are true and which are not? What if we just don't give a damn about the alleged importance of these things?
.
Will gravity stop working? Maybe the earth will turn flat? Or, is it that biology will stop working if some of us decline to get on the bandwagon? (Yet, it does seem that "biology" is having a hard time of it among those who are on the bandwagon).
.
"… the simplistic and outdated models enthusiastically propounded by most self-proclaimed defenders of evolution.?"
You know, I could *swear* I've been saying this all along. Yet, somehow, I'm "ignorant" and "willfully ignorant." And "wicked."
Only just now? I could *swear* I was being taught 'modern evolutionary theory' (no doubt simplistic and outd