Coyne, at least get your facts straight.
by BilboI'm slowly slogging through Jerry Coyne's 8 page review of books by Giberson and Miller, when I come across this passage:
But regardless of their views, all creationists [by which he includes all ID proponents] share four traits. First, they devoutly believe in God. No surprise there, except to those who think that ID has a secular basis. Second, they claim that God miraculously intervened in the development of life, either creating every species from scratch or intruding from time to time in an otherwise Darwinian process. Third, they agree that one of these interventions was the creation of humans, who could not have evolved from apelike ancestors. This, of course, reflects the Judeo-Christian view that humans were created in God's image. Fourth, they all adhere to a particular argument called "irreducible complexity." This is the idea that some species, or some features of some species, are too complex to have evolved in a Darwinian manner, and must therefore have been designed by God.
Ya' know, the least the guy could do is get his facts right. No, not all ID proponents devoutly believe in God. Fred Hoyle didn't. Dennis Scot claims not to. No, not all ID proponents believe that God miraculously intervened in the development of life. Obviously not Hoyle. Behe goes out of his way to offer a hypothesis where an uberphysicist could have chosen a universe where certain critical events would happen in natural history, resulting in our present state of affairs. And Mike Gene favors the hypothesis that after the origin of life, no further intelligent intervention was necessary. No, not all ID proponents agree that humans couldn't have evolved from apelike ancestors. In fact, Behe makes the point that humans and chimpanzees share a pseudogene that proves they had a common ancestor. And no, not all ID proponents believe that irreducible complexity couldn't have evolved in a Darwinian manner. In fact, Mike Gene goes into a long explanation of what sort of evidence to look for to determine if a particular irreducibly complex system evolved.
I'll try finishing Coyne's review. Hopefully he doesn't just blather on, screwing up facts and ignoring his methaphysical assumptions.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Let's be honest here. Are atheists (*) (if I may be so blunt to generalize) in general even capable of evaluating the issue objectively? I don't think hey are. They've made up their mind, they seem to hate any form of religion, data is interpreted through that filter.
Evidence for the former is found in the multitude of misrepresentations, fallacious reasoning and sleazy ad hominems you find in atheist forums, publications, etc.
The herdlike mentality of many is even more troubling. I predict that few if any atheist will regard the Coyne article as poorly written and factually inaccurate, even if it contained the most ludicrous blather ever written in a decade. As long as the message equates to religion = bad, atheism = good, the atheist will be content with it. After all, hearing yourself speak is so much more pleasing to the ears.
(*) I'd like to make a clear distinction between atheists like Bertrand Russel and the typical modern "let's put a slogan on a bus which says god does not exist" or "since Dawkins says it, it must be true" atheist.
Comment by Jean — March 10, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
This sounds like something someone that's made up their mind and hates any form of atheism and interprets data through that filter would say.
In other words, when you say "atheists", you have a caricature in mind.
Comment by don provan — March 10, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
This is simply not univerally true. I know that for a fact. Only an idiot could think that for one to believe that the universe was created necessarily demands a devout belief in God. I'll allow that it necessarily implies belief in a creator of some sort, but that's not the same thing, and not all people think they know who or what that creator is or was. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a belief system that has the following two arguments as a foundation:
– Everything that is composed of matter exists.
– The universe is composed of matter.
– Therefore, the universe exists.
– Everything that exists was created somehow.
– The universe exists.
– Therefore, the universe was created somehow.
The conclusion of the first argment is a premise of the second. From these two arguments, one can go forward, not backward, without being hampered one iota by the lack of knowledge about the origin of the universe. In other words, for one to believe that the universe was created somehow, does not mean that he/she has to concern himself/herself with the indentity of the creator. If Coyne ever wants to appeal to people who have legitmate questions about current scientific theory, and suspect that they're being flimflammed because of heated ideological arguments, he better stop talking out of his ass and start thinking about what he's saying. All creationists devoutly believe in God? Jesus H. Frigging Christ!
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — March 10, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I agree that Coyne is wrong here. ID is such a meaningless and empty idea that it can mean almost anything that anyone wants it to mean. Even ID supporters have a hard time agreeing on a definition of the words 'Intelligent' and 'Design'.
Of course, when people say things like "All X are Y" they normally actually mean "The vast majority of X are Y." Scientists should hold all views subjectively so they sometimes assume when they say "all X are Y" that it will be taken as a subjective claim and not a universal absolute. It seems like the most common form of 'debate' these days involves someone saying, "[in implied context A] condition B is true," and someone else responding, "In unrelated context C B is false, therefore you are an idiot."
I also think the phase, "the exception that proves the rule," applies well in this context. For example, ID is so desperate to claim it's not a religious viewpoint that they seek out the few exceptions, but this just ends up proving the rule. Exceptions like TP with his quantum quackery, however, are still rejected because they refuse to play along.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 10, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
March 10th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Todd, if Coyne hadn't written of Behe's book, I might buy what you're trying to sell. As it is, Coyne want to paint all proponents of ID with a broad brush, and then he wants to shove all Theistic Evolutionists in there, too.
Comment by Bilbo — March 10, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Is Behe an exception? Telic Thinkers like to position themselves as entirely different from mainstream, and it's OK for them to object that Coyne's claims do not apply to them. (Although, frankly, the lady doth protest too much, methinks.) But as I understand it, Behe is a devout Catholic, and these four points would seem to apply to him very well, n'est-ce pas?
Comment by don provan — March 11, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Hi Todd,
You wrote…
It's been a while since I have brought out my favorite Dembski quote…
"The problem is not that evolution implies God does’t exist. The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility (well, actually, space aliens who seed the Earth, time travelers, and telic organizing principles in nature are ID alternatives that don’t require God; but these are way down the totem pole for most people)." link
For those who don't know, "way down the totem pole" parenthetical was added to the original statement after the obvious implication was pointed out.
Mike Gene and Telic Thoughts have been very good at allowing me to present my quantum quackery (Joy was especially helpful).
I have developed the attitude of separating the ID Movement from ID Science.
The ID Movement has earned the bad reputation it has.
Unfortunately, ID’s bad reputation is a burden for those ID proponents actually interested in the science.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 11, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Such a meaningless and empty idea that you waste so much time here lecturing about how meaningless and empty it is?
What does that say about you?
If I really viewed something to be "meaningless and empty" I wouldn't waste 1/1000000th the keystrokes you dedicate to it.
I'm religious – a devout and practicing Catholic. My interest in ID is completely independent of my religious beliefs. Most of my religious beliefs fall in the category of "The grace of God"… something which has no relation to anything ID is even interested in.
Most catholics I know (priests, philosophers *like Jim Madden who was a guest poster here*, and general scholars) are very critical of ID.
I can't think of a catholic that I know that is even remotely interested in the topic. I'm by quite a few too. The vast brunt of my interactions are online.
So you're wrong. You made a bold claim (like you usually do), that sounds more emotional (like they usually are) than thoughtful (which they usually aren't) and is easily dealt with.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 11, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I see it exactly the opposite way: ID only has a bad reputation because of claims of science. ID as a metaphysical position is completely reasonable to me.
Comment by don provan — March 11, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
March 11th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Oops! I wrote "…if Coyne hadn't written of Behe's book…." I meant to write, "…if Coyne hadn't written a review of Behe's book." Coyne already knew what he was saying didn't apply to Behe. So he was trying to deliberately mislead people. What's fascinating is watching Miller do the same thing to Coyne. I guess it just comes naturally to some people.
Comment by Bilbo — March 11, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
March 12th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Again: Is Behe an exception? Go ahead about point out people that don't meet Coyne's description, and go ahead and deny it applies to you. From everything I've read by and about Behe, it is a good description of him. What have I missed?
Comment by don provan — March 12, 2009 @ 4:00 pm