Earlier, I noted that Richard Dawkins has seriously undercut Judge Jones' decision by arguing that the existence of God is indeed a scientific hypothesis. Listen to Dawkins argue that the hypothesis of a supernatural designer IS science:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
September 29th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Hi Mike,
It must be Golden Oldies time. First Bradford and now you. One year and six days ago I posted these comments…
As much as I hate to admit it, even though this thead is arguing about other people's arguments, this is an interesting topic. Here is my take on the subject"¦
1. Kitzmiller v. Dover was probably the first serious legal challenge to the established legal precedent that appeals to the supernatural are not scientific. Previously, all the religious defendants simply denied any such appeal. Believe it or not, Judge Jones is a non-activist judge and, therefore, followed previous precedent.
2. I agree with Dawkin's that it makes for a clearer debate to allow Intelligent Design proponents to make their arguments their way. Does that mean you all will admit that God is the designer now? (I still like the Telic Organizing Principles of Nature but, apparently, very few others agree with me).
3. Any honest assessment of Kitzmiller v. Dover shows it was a lost cause. The Lemon test (where effect and motives are key) was bad enough, but when it became obvious Judge Jones was going to apply the Endorsement test (would an average person see it as a government endorsement?), it was a very big nail in the coffin. Believe it or not, Judge Jones is a non-activist judge and, therefore, followed a clear precedent established for his federal district.
4. Could an activist judge now find enough wiggle room to now rule ID as non-religious? I still say it would take a very activist judge. Just because an activity has a non-religous purpose and motive, doesn't mean it will pass constitutional muster. For example, say a government-funded, non-religious organization decides to start a learn-to-read program. They find out that they can get a thousand copies of a best selling book for free! The purpose and motives are clearly educational, but using government funds to distribute Bibles is still clearly unconstitutional.
Maybe I will get to argue with someone over Kitzmiller v. Dover again. I still remember the details of that fascinating case.
Since that time a year ago, I have pointed out that it is clear Dawkins rejects Gould's NOMA. He has been consistent with that. I disagree with him and embrace NOMA. Both sides of the debate have people who treat NOMA differently.
As long as people are open and consistent (like Dawkins), I don't have a problem with it. For example, Young Earth Creationists tend to be open and honest about their rejection of NOMA. It is interesting to notice the different reactions of ID proponents.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 29, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
It's all about politics rather than science, regardless. Call it a hunch, but I'd guess Dawkins takes the idea of a supernatural designer to be something science can comment on because he views that tact as best for his polemics. If that turns out to be a net liability, he'll have a change of heart.
Comment by nullasalus — September 29, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Hi nullasalus,
Presuming your opponent will act unethically isn't unusual.
Why, in World War II, they drew fangs and claws on cartoon drawings of Japanese solders. It helps with the demonizing processes. Sometimes it even allows for rationalizing one's own unethical behavior.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 29, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
TP,
I really enjoyed your posts about OOR. But frankly, I am unbelievably unimpressed with your routine moralizing and lecturing from on high with one hand, then making a fist with the 'Group Think' brass knuckles with your other. I happen to believe that humans are complex creatures whose views on matters are rarely as simple as the words they personally describe them with, and high-profile 'representatives' of social and political movements are particularly worthy of skepticism, on all sides.
If that makes you want to cutely equate my view with vile war-era racism, have a blast. I'm not about to get flustered and angrily demand an apology. I'm just going to shake my head and grin. Call it an inside joke.
Comment by nullasalus — September 29, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
This is a nice analogy for the way so many critics label ID folks as 'creationists' or 'liars.'
Comment by MikeGene — September 29, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Hi nullasalus,
It wasn't my intent to impress.
It looks like you managed to draw out most of the subtleties of my comment. Even the part about Group Think which wasn't mentioned. Please note, I didn't "equate" your view with "vile war-era racism". I just put it in juxtaposition with your sweeping presumption that "It's all about politics rather than science" and that "If that turns out to be a net liability, [Dawkins will] have a change of heart."
BTW, I enjoyed reading your interplay with Zachriel on the other thread.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 29, 2007 @ 10:36 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Hi TP,
I hear you. Over the years, I have heard many critics of ID strongly and doggedly argue that science cannot include the supernatural. Well, they did this at least when it came to ID (always remember that their minds hear "God" when "ID" is spoken/written). The same folks have been strangely silent ever since Dawkins has been making this argument.
Comment by MikeGene — September 29, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Good Evening Mike,
You wrote…
Of course it is a nice analogy for whoever is trying to spin or frame the discussion by describing their opponents in an unflattering way.
You also wrote…
I suggest the critics of creation science said it to. I think it was a key feature to the 1987 Edwards Supreme Court ruling.
BTW, was "always remember that their minds hear "God" when "ID" is spoken/written" your suggestion for me to adhere to?
As for being silent. Wasn't there just a debate between ID critics that touched on this subject? I don't know the details. Are you disappointed with the ineffectiveness of the Chamberlainites perhaps?
Does this feel like Deja' Vu to you too?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 29, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
I referred to a habit of yours in writing, not this single engagement with me - "Group Think" came up with Doug, and is fresh in my mind.
You "put it in juxta-position" for a reason, and the intent - I'm using my psychic powers here - was to equate. To draw a parallel between. If this wasn't your intention, well, I'll just chalk it up to your having a particularly bad command of the english language or suchlike.
As far as Dawkins goes, this may come as a shock to you, but in my reading and seeing the man in reviews, interviews, articles, books, and otherwise, I've arrived certain conclusions about how he operates. If you'll dig through my past comments on atheism in general, you'll note how I go out of my way to refer to the motives of some, rather than all. I even most recently posted with regards to Dawkins that a good number of fellow atheists and agnostics were openly critical of his book, despite their being in agreement with some major conclusions of his. If you want to compare what I say - 'to put my words in juxtaposition with' - vile racism, once again, go for it. It says something about one of us, at least.
But apparently, you know The Truth about how Dawkins thinks. You'll have to tell me how you do it. Me, I just form opinions based on what I read and wait for reasons to correct my views.
Comment by nullasalus — September 29, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Hi TP,
I don't recall any such debate. Do you think the folks at Pandas Thumb might put this video on their site and start up a debate?
Comment by MikeGene — September 29, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Hi nullasalus,
I tend to be more presuaded by specifics. Is there a specific example of where you feel Dawkins acted inconsistantly or underhandedly?
A hypocritical example would be ok too, but most of us act hypocritically at times even as we try to do our best to carry through with what we say.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 29, 2007 @ 11:10 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
If Panda's Thumb put this video up I doubt it would result in a debate. A pep-rally maybe, but not a debate.
I thought your revisit of Chamberlainites and the Churchillians was prompted by a recent debate between Laden/Myers and Nisbet/Mooney.
I could be totally missing the point here since I don't know any details. I had presumed the debate was about whether to aggressively challenge the existence of God scientifically or not with the Chamberlainites taking the let's-embrace-NOMA tact.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 29, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
I'd be more than happy to get into the details of my view normally - I've had some nice back-and-forths on TT, and I appreciate the site's focus and general climate. Maybe next time, you'll ask for specifics if you happen to disagree with something I say, rather than "juxtapositioning". For the moment, I really don't care what persuades you or doesn't - the subject has come too close to some kind of odd Godwin's Law event for my taste. Maybe later.
Comment by nullasalus — September 29, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Hi nullasalus,
Fair enough. I agree, my reference to Japanese came very close to verifying Godwin (Goose-stepping SS with fangs?).
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 29, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
September 30th, 2007 at 1:41 am
MikeGene
Why is it a surprise to you?
Dawkins wrote in his last book "The God Delusion" about that so indeed he takes God to be a scientific hypothesis, regardless of at what point will scienice have something to say about it or whether it will have anything to say ever.
It would be incredibly foolish to say definitively that God does not exist and would seriously undermine anything Dawkins would say afterwards so he is not stupid and would not unreasonably kill God no matter what.
Comment by dimasok — September 30, 2007 @ 1:41 am
September 30th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Um, you guys have pretty poor memory. We have had these debates on PT many times. Google PT on "'holy wars' atheism" for instance. After you have had a few dozen of these it ceases to become very interesting and people just decide to agree to disagree.
Comment by Nick Matzke — September 30, 2007 @ 1:58 am
September 30th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Hi Nick,
Thanks for your comment.
Yes, I took some liberties for the sake of trying to add a little levity.
BTW, could I talk you into looking at my latest Third Choice rendition?
If you wanted to put it up as a Guest Post on Panda's Thumb, it might make for some interesting, and timely, discussions.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 30, 2007 @ 9:21 am
September 30th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Hi Dimasok,
I'm not surprised. I'm reminded of Ken Miller's point about Dawkins and other popular science authors being partly responsible for the ID movement. Don't overlook the reach of Dawkins. He doesn't just make this argument on TV, he makes it in his #1 best-selling book. So think how this might affect the thinking of some average religious guy who is only partly paying attention to this whole debate.
Comment by MikeGene — September 30, 2007 @ 9:45 am
September 30th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Oh yeah, I know what you're saying.
If you go to Dawkins official website (or any atheist forum for that matter), you'll see how people are mostly seeking confirmations for their beliefs.. and overlooking some of the obvious loopholes in his reasoning
The average religious folks you mention… well, judging from what I read, I haven't seen that many conversions from their side after reading or gandering at Dawkins book, so I wouldn't be too worried about what that might do to them… Did you see appearances by Dawkins & Hitchens on national tv? Most if not all news reporters there don't give a damn about any evidence at all for that matter - and that gets Dawkins and his pal riled up… they don't understand that even if what they were saying was 100% correct (and it absolutely isn't), that wouldn't reach anyone but other people who already had atheistic tendencies long before they heard of attempts to disprove intelligent design on rational grounds. Wouldn't you agree?
I am worried that Dawkins might be too big for his breeches, but we shall see about that.. hopefully, he is wrong.
Comment by dimasok — September 30, 2007 @ 11:59 am
October 1st, 2007 at 5:40 am
I agree with Dawkins that the question of God's existence is a scientific one, with the caveat that there are some conceptions of God that are empirically untestable, such as a God who uses his power to hide himself from scientific scrutiny. Dawkins acknowledges this caveat in his writings.
Many God concepts do have predictable empirical consequences. For example, the YEC God has empirical consequences — consequences which do not obtain in nature — and so I maintain that the existence of the YEC God has been scientifically falsified.
Like most words, the word "scientific" has multiple meanings. The meaning being used by Dawkins in this context is "investigable (at least in principle) by the methods of science." Another meaning is "well-supported by scientific evidence." These meanings are distinct. It is possible for something to scientific in the first sense, but not the second.
Some ID critics have made hay of the Behe's admission on the stand, at Dover, that astrology is scientific under the same criteria by which he classifies ID as scientific. I think this is a bit unfair to Behe, because he was using 'scientific' in the first sense during that particular bit of testimony. Astrology and ID are scientific in that sense, to the extent that they make testable predictions.
The real disagreement between Behe and his critics is whether ID is scientific in the second sense. Behe clearly thinks it is. Most ID critics (including me) think it is not.
Comment by keiths — October 1, 2007 @ 5:40 am
October 1st, 2007 at 6:45 am
dimasok wrote:
Dimasok,
Could you describe these "obvious loopholes" for us? I'd hate to think that I'm overlooking them.
Comment by keiths — October 1, 2007 @ 6:45 am
October 1st, 2007 at 8:15 am
Keiths
That's a nice clear post - but actually I don't think ID is scientific in the first sense. You cannot investigate ID by anything that I would call a scientific method - not until ID is prepared to say something about who, how, why or when. Until then all ID can do is investigate the improbability of non-teleogical hypotheses.
I think this the crux of Dawkins inconsistency. A specific claim about a supernatural (whatever that means) designer might be treated as a scientific hypothesis. But a generic claim - there is some designer but we are saying nothing about its powers or intents - that is not a scientific hypothesis.
Comment by Mark Frank — October 1, 2007 @ 8:15 am
October 1st, 2007 at 9:19 am
Mark Frank wrote:
Hi Mark,
YEC is considered to fall under the "Big Tent" of ID, and I believe that it has been investigated, and falsified, scientifically. The same with Behe's claims that the blood-clotting cascade is irreducibly complex.
On the other hand, I am certainly not arguing that every proposition put forward in the name of ID is scientific in the first sense.
Comment by keiths — October 1, 2007 @ 9:19 am
October 1st, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Keiths:
eh? — The blood clotting cascade is still irreducibly complex. It has not been falsified.
Comment by Guts — October 1, 2007 @ 3:06 pm