David Heddle on the ID movement
by KrauzeDavid Heddle has some fitting words for members of the political ID movement:
News that Cobb County case had been settled, and that the textbook stickers are a thing of the past, made me think of a closing parenthesis. In my mind, and admittedly not in strict concurrence with the actual timeline, the placement of the stickers was the shot across the bow from the Political-Activist Intelligent Design (PAID) movement, and the settlement of the case is the tippy-top of the PAID movement mast disappearing beneath the surface. (Those aren't mixed metaphors, are they? I can't tell.)
I don't have much new to say about the PAID movement. But I thought I would try to restate some old criticisms in graphical form. I'm not sure if the plot succeeds at making my three recurring PAID movement themes: 1) it backfired, big-time 2) it created a cottage industry complete with a cult-like following and leaders with delusions, it would seem, of becoming the White House Science Advisor 3) it was deceptive - it really is about religion - which makes its ends-justify-the-means methods all the more inexcusable.
I think Heddle exaggerates things a bit for effect, but I agree with the gist of his post. Some people thought they could use ID-the-idea as a spearhead for social reform, creating the so-called "ID movement". The goal was a pipedream, as the string of legal defeats have showed, but it gave critics an opportunity to conflate the concept of ID with the movement, drumming up fear among scientists. The Sternberg affair shows how individual careers suffer when their colleagues think they have to squash every ID-friendly expression in the name of Science and Democracy. Had the ID movement not existed, would-be witchhunters would have had to look much harder for things to scare their colleagues with.
December 22nd, 2006 at 5:24 pm
The sticker stuff was silly. The money though is a huge canard. Are there people that want to make money off ID to fatten their bank accounts? Of course. Head over to Barnes and Noble and look for authors of books related to natural history. The bulk of the money flows to mainstreamers. Not a big deal. That's how the world works. But can we have a balanced view of cottage industry?
Comment by Bradford — December 22, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
December 22nd, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Yeah, that sentence jarred my eyes as well, with its talk of a "cult-like following". As I said, Heddle may exaggerate things a bit, but I agree with the gist of what he's saying.
Comment by Krauze — December 22, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
December 23rd, 2006 at 10:46 am
From the VCE (An Australian Senior School Curriculum) Philosophy study design:
'ID-the-idea as a spearhead for social reform' isn't in and of itself a bad idea. I think the heart of the 'dishonesty' surrounding this controversy is that it is in practice a religious dispute both ways. Certainly ID and Darwinism can be viewed dispassionately as competing hypotheses and investigated purely from a liberal curiosity; in practice Darwinism is the only thing that makes the atheistic worldview intellectually respectable and therefore will be defended with all of the vigour of a zealot in defence of a faith. Conversely, anyone wishing to assault that worldview will naturally target Darwinism (people forget that the primary motivation for early, Pre-Darwin advocates of evolution was radical politics and a desire to delegitimise the existing social and religious order of the time).
ID, being mutually exclusive with Darwinism, itself challenges the legitimacy of the postmodern secular order: if Darwinian processes cannot produce biological complexity then the argument from design is practically unassailable, if life was designed then mind predates life, if mind predates life then some sort of theism is strongly suggested, if theism is probable then claims of divine revelation cannot be ruled out a priori; atheism loses it's place of privelege in the university and secularism loses its place of privelege in politics.
Darwinism, and by extention ID, which denies Darwinism, is an idea with powerful philosophical and social consequences; the sticker crowd understood this and it is, I think, the primary motivation for young earth creationism. The fact that the american judiciary have made their bed with the ACLU (did anyone really expect them to do otherwise?) isn't terribly important; this was always going to be a battle of wills and short term legal victories would mean nothing if the 'PAID' people weren't prepared to keep fighting anyway.
I would suggest the 'scientists' are scared mostly as scienticists, not as scientists.
Comment by BenK — December 23, 2006 @ 10:46 am
December 23rd, 2006 at 1:44 pm
BenK, your analysis is thoughtful and pretty much on target but I do not understand your last sentence.
Comment by Bradford — December 23, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Replace 'scienticist' with 'materialist'.
Make sense now?
Comment by BenK — December 23, 2006 @ 6:41 pm
December 23rd, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Considering that not all of the witchhunters are materialists (Elsberry, for example, is AFAIK a Christian), it would be better to say that many scientists are acting as politicians.
Comment by Krauze — December 23, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
December 23rd, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Or high priests intent on protecting orthodoxy.
Comment by Bradford — December 23, 2006 @ 11:29 pm
December 24th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Krauze says:
Allow me to make an argument for a position about 180 degrees opposed to that.
First, I was unawares that the ID movement was behind the the Cobb County stickers. I thought that was a product of folks better described as creationists. Secondly, I think this legal result is better described as a draw. Didn't the appeals court vacate the initial ruling and order a trial de novo? If so, that means back to square one. The settlement as no precedential value.
So what is this "string of legal defeats" you speak of? We have Dover, but then what? And the Dover case raises issues that are ripe for challenges, but will have to await another vehicle.
But more generally, Heddle's position represents the most dominant new "religion" in modern culture. No, it isn't either Christian fundamentalism, nor secular athiesm. It is the cult of victimhood.
Poor Dave. His lunchroom ambience is victimized by the evil PAID movement. And he is forced to bear with science blogs discussing issues with cartoonists. If he is talking about the Scott Adams blow up of a while back, maybe he should have actually read what Adams said, for it was one of the more profound comments I have read on the issue.
If Dave has to cater to the irrational behavior of "scientists" who are his colleagues for career and financial reasons, I can understand that. But that he thinks the rest of us shouldn't point out the obvious because it is uncomfortable during his lunchbreaks, that is absurd.
The poor behavior of his colleagues is the responsibility of them, and them alone. Nobody else is to blame. Not Biblical literalists, nor the DI, nor William Dembski. If his colleagues can't rationally discuss controversial issues, be they scientific, religious, cultural, sporting, etc, they are exhibiting irrationality, and one should approach all their proclamations with caution. They undercut their own credibility with such behavior.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 24, 2006 @ 9:09 am
December 24th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
Roger,
You really cut to the chase. My whole complaint about the ID movement boils down to the fact that I must now endure boring lunches. The whole business about the ID movement calling ID science when it isn't, the business about excluding discussions on cosmology, geology, or radiometric methods"”because they are relevant for the age-of-the-earth question"”which is off the table (it's about science?), about claiming it's not about theism when the Wedge document says otherwise, about claiming that they don't want ID in the curriculum when the handbook says they do, the complaint about methods that are unseemly for Christians, complaining about the fact that the ID movement doesn't get off its duff and do some actual research"”all those issues are just smokescreens. I just miss those lunches. You've nailed me.
Comment by David Heddle — December 24, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
December 24th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
the business about excluding discussions on cosmology, geology, or radiometric methods"”because they are relevant for the age-of-the-earth question"”which is off the table (it's about science?),
These discussions are relevant to young earth claims. They are not off the table when such claims are advanced. They are irrelevant to evidence that minimal genomes necessitate scores of genes; there being no mechanism to incrementally approach this level. They are irrelevant to evidence that cellular functions can be front-loaded at the outset of life. They are irrelevant to the plausibility of current theories. They are irrelevant to whether or not an initial genome could survive environmental assaults on its integrity without repair mechanisms programmed at the outset. They are irrelevant to the question of how information would arise ex nihilo in the absence of intelligence. In short age issues are largely irrelevant to design claims.
about claiming it's not about theism when the Wedge document says otherwise,
David, the number of those who believe in intelligent design far exceeds the authors of the Wedge document. They are numerous and found both in and outside the US. Muslims, Jews and other non-Christians can be counted among them. ID has grown well beyond the Discovery Institute.
the complaint about methods that are unseemly for Christians,
What methods does this refer to?
complaining about the fact that the ID movement doesn't get off its duff and do some actual research"”all those issues are just smokescreens.
This is an outdated criticism. It is time for ID critics to prepare their criticism of research results as they appear. That's the next goal post demarcation line.
Comment by Bradford — December 24, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
December 24th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
David Heddle Says:
[Roger blushes] Thanks for those kind words, but modesty (not to mention honesty) forbid me to take credit for that which you did. You elegantly laid out your complaint. You led this horse to water, and at that point the drinking was a slam dunk.
My meager intellectual contribution was to point out the obvious, that even if we accept your suspect claims about the defining events of the controversy, there is no rational nor logical causal connection to your colleagues behaving boorishly. None.
And the fact that you don't recognize that, is the most fascinating issue in the whole Meta-debate to me. Hundreds of credentialed scientists who haven't even a nodding acquitance with logic and rationality, despite the fact that it is supposedly integral to their stock in trade.
I can understand that you feel uncomfortable about the antagonism that exists on this issue. But you need to tell your colleagues to grow up. They need to learn to handle diversity of thought a little bit better.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 24, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
December 24th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Oh, and if you didn't catch Meet the Press today, it takes on a couple of these issues. You can find it here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30...
Listen especially between minutes 17 - 22, where we have a discussion of the cult of victimhood on both the right and the left, and the lack of a culture of civility.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 24, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
December 26th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
I largely agree with Heddle's assessment. The characterization of Heddle as engaging in the cult of victimhood is just silly.
Comment by bj — December 26, 2006 @ 10:10 pm
December 27th, 2006 at 10:26 am
It is? Let's investigate his "non-denial" denial about the lunch partners issue. From his November archives:
http://helives.blogspot.com/20...
There it is again. And the stickers again. Here we have members of the academic elite who David implies are victims of the school board of Cobb Co GA.
If that isn't engaging in the cult of victimhood, I'm not sure what else could qualify.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 27, 2006 @ 10:26 am
December 27th, 2006 at 11:18 am
I take issue with David Heddle on his complaints about ID.
For one, the actions and initiatives of one group going under the banner of ID (like at Dover) should not be attributed and smeared to another group going under the banner ID (the Discovery Institute, ID network, IDEA, ARN, etc.)
I think his assessment of Cobb county falls under the same category. Where is the word ID in the Cobb county sticker? Where is ID a required standard that should be taught in Kansas or Ohio.
As far as his claims of deception and then attributing it to the ID movement, I take exception. I would even take exception on behalf of Caroline Crocker and the IDEA club students, especially those being persecuted or under the threat of persecution. Does he care to quote the IDEA website regarding the identity of the designer. Where is the deception there?
I take exception to Heddle accusing the movement of trying to deceive the public school when they are in it because they believe it is a viable and important thesis worthy of study. I say that as someone who also accepts the idea of special creation.
His use of strawman characterizations as a broad brush upon his brethren is unbecoming of him. Accusations of deception when he has only speculation is pre-mature at best.
And it can not be demonstrated IDers universally pretend the age of the Earth and geology aren't important. Consider Timothy Standish at Loma Linda University, an advocate of ID and an author in the pro-ID book Darwin's Nemesis, does his organization shy away from issues of geology and cosmology and age of the Earth? Oh, and I seem to recall a chapter in Johson's Feschrift on YEC and ID by Paul Nelson and Marcus Ross.
Finally, consider Nancy Pearcy's book, Total Truth, is there any hiding or deception about whom she believes the designer is.
Finally, it's maddening to hear Heddle pontificate about how IDers should be putting peer-reviewed articles. Heck, does he know my young friends in my semi-clandestine network of students and professors who worry about their careers? Attributing public school deception and lack of initiative to them is outrageous. They are more concerned about merely surviving!
Does he want to apply his charges of conspiratorial deception to the plight of Guillermo Gonzalez, Caroline Crocker, Bryce Paschal, or Nancy Bryson or even non-IDers like Richard Sternberg?
I think Heddle ought to consider a policy of not branding the innocent (like Gonzalez) by the actions of the guilty ( like those in Dover). It's annoying to see careers ruined and threatened, and the Heddle pontificating about how those in the movement don't publish peer-reviewed papers and are involved in deceiving the public school system. Is what's happening to Gonzalez or Crocker the result of their involvement in Cobb county?
I think in deference to them and to those who accept and study ID, he ought to tone down his accusations. He is falsely accusing brethren through his broad brush arguments, and that is wrong.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 27, 2006 @ 11:18 am
December 27th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Christian ID is upset with Heddle because he is one of your own, but has exposed the true motivations and characteristics of the movement. He has shown conclusively that the motivation of Christian ID is essentially cultural and social, not scientific. There's nothing quite like family quarrels.
Roger Rabbit,
Do you think that Sal is engaging in the cult of victimhood in his post to this thread?
Comment by bj — December 27, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
December 27th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
It doesn't matter what the motivations are in the end, but whether the hypothesis is true and worth investigating. Someone can persue science because of a self-serving quest for fame and glory or someone can do it because he feels he will learn more about God by studying God's creation. The fundamental motivation does not negate the validity of enterprise.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 27, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
December 27th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Sal wrote:
So, true. I think we can all be content to let time pass and see what comes of ID as science. Time will tell.
Comment by bj — December 27, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
December 27th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Regarding motivations and Heddle supposedly "exposing" them as religious vs. scientific, I point out what Alfred North Whitehead (Bertrand Russell's co-author and mentor) had to say about the origins of the scientific movement:
Therefore, if religious motivations somehow automatically disqualify a religiously inspired hypothesis as unscientific, then one ought to disqualify most of modern science. Before Darwin's time, and even shortly thereafter, Science was theistically conceived. What is evident is the scientific method, when carried out according to it's fundamental principles of observation, hypothesis and testing is strongly (albeit imperfectly) immune from motivations and prejudices. An atheist and a Christian can carry out the same chemical reaction in the lab and expect the same results. That is one of the things that makes science special.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 27, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
December 27th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
I wouldn't go that far, since he is at least directing his comments to David, who Sal thinks made some inaccurate or overly broad comments. Do I think that approach is generally fruitful? No.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — December 27, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
December 29th, 2006 at 12:08 am
Heddle's right. IDists should shut up and do science.
Some of us suspect they can't do science, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.
ID is the longest running story of "read, aim, aim, aim, aim, aim . . ." in science.
Comment by edarrell — December 29, 2006 @ 12:08 am
December 29th, 2006 at 12:36 am
Heddle's right. IDists should shut up and do science.
Some of us suspect they can't do science, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.
This approach is outdated. There are active research projects underway and your incredulity will not influence their outcome.
Comment by Bradford — December 29, 2006 @ 12:36 am