Dawkins Tries to Find God
by MikeGeneMore from Dawkins and his attempt to use science to determine if God exists:
Chamberlainites are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould's "˜NOMA' "“ "˜non-overlapping magisteria'. Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:
To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.
This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science.
I have already addressed this comment here. Since Dawkins thinks science can address the existence of God, let us see if he cites peer-reviewed studies that have attempted such detection:
A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference.
No science - just armchair speculation.
Well, if we had independent evidence of a universe with a god and independent of evidence of a universe without a god, we could use science to determine where our universe falls. Without this independent evidence, how did Dawkins determine what kind of universe goes with the existence of God? His intuition? Metaphysics? His psychological needs?
God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science.
This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. Are we saying that God is supposed to perform miracle tricks for the scientists? Or is Dawkins, like Madalyn Murray O'Hair before him, standing in the rain and daring God to show himself.
Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis "“ by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?)
Back to the DI Payroll - I suppose the prayer studies could also be used to chip away at Dover. So science can incorporate supernatural causes?! One day it's "NO supernatural causes allowed" and the next it is "yes, supernatural causes are allowed." Until the Chamberlainites and the Churchillians can reach an agreement, why take them seriously? The Enlightened Pro-Science mindset cannot even generate consensus on this simple and basic issue.
Oh, and as for the studies, they seem to be measuring whether God, if he exists, typically behaves, on balance, like a magic genie.
Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared.
So what data would count as evidence for God's existence? Does Dawkins endorse the god-of-the-gaps approach? If not, what could this scientific evidence possibly be?
To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of religious people who embrace NOMA, imagine that forensic archeologists, by some unlikely set of circumstances, discovered DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were sincere, they should dismiss the archeologists' DNA out of hand: "Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no bearing on theological questions. Wrong magisterium." Does anyone seriously imagine that they would say anything remotely like that? You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies.
To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of the the Churchillians, ask yourself how Dawkins would respond to such data? Would he throw out all his arguments against God because someone was born of a virgin? Or would he demand that the virgin birth must be explainable by chance and natural law, even if, like the origin of life (see below), "we may never know how it happened."
Either Jesus had a father or he didn't. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it. The same is true of any miracle "“ and the deliberate and intentional creation of the universe would have to have been the mother and father of all miracles. Either it happened or it didn't.
I have already answered this simple-minded approach.
Most of the traditional arguments for God's existence, from Aquinas on, are easily demolished. Several of them, such as the First Cause argument, work by setting up an infinite regress which God is wheeled out to terminate. But we are never told why God is magically able to terminate regresses while needing no explanation himself. To be sure, we do need some kind of explanation for the origin of all things.
Yes, if there is good reason to think something had an origin, then there should be an explanation for that origin.
Physicists and cosmologists are hard at work on the problem. But whatever the answer "“ a random quantum fluctuation or a Hawking/Penrose singularity or whatever we end up calling it "“ it will be simple. Complex, statistically improbable things, by definition, don't just happen; they demand an explanation in their own right. They are impotent to terminate regresses, in a way that simple things are not. The first cause cannot have been an intelligence "“ let alone an intelligence that answers prayers and enjoys being worshipped. Intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.
Yep, that's how Nature works. But God is not Nature and neither is God some part of Nature. Dawkins doesn't seem to realize he is comparing apples and oranges. Look, he thinks that Science can address God's existence, which means that God, could, in principle, exist. Thus to exist, God either had a beginning or he did not. If he had a beginning, he would not be God. Thus, he did not have a beginning. So Dawkins' objections fall apart. Why expect that a deity which transcends and sustains physical reality must conform to the rules of such a lesser reality?
The only one of the traditional arguments for God that is widely used today is the teleological argument, sometimes called the Argument from Design although "“ since the name begs the question of its validity "“ it should better be called the Argument for Design. It is the familiar "˜watchmaker' argument, which is surely one of the most superficially plausible bad arguments ever discovered "“ and it is rediscovered by just about everybody until they are taught the logical fallacy and Darwin's brilliant alternative.
This is a simplistic way of looking at Design and Darwin's brilliant alternative. For a third alternative, check out this book.
September 24th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
To Mike,
Not that you need my approval, but that was a much better response.
I even liked that lead-in to your book!
If I may…
I think you were twisting the "A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference." a bit hard.
Dawkins was making more of an argument than an assumption. It was one of his arguments as to why the God hyposesis was a scientific one. He was, in fact, making the common ID assertion that God's design can be tested! I think if you look at it in context, you will see what I am saying.
Be careful how hard you argue against that, it is kind of an important pillar for ID. Or is it "just armchair speculation" when Dawkins does it?
I think that was about it except for the fact your arguments hint of mixed emotions on the supernatural/natural aspect of the designer.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Hi TP,
I'm careful. I have long acknowledged that ID is not science nor do I think my own ID armchair speculations qualify as science.
Sure, that's why I tease about him being on the DI payroll. From my own perspective, ID does not assess whether it is God doing the designing, but that's another issue. For now, if Dawkins wants to insist the God hypothesis belongs in science, let him use the hypothesis to formulate some relevant testable hypotheses, do the experiments, and then publish his findings in a peer-reviewed science journal. Otherwise, when trying to convert people (or is it de-convert?), he needs to abandon the security blankie called "science."
Anyway, I've enjoyed the exchanges, but I have a date with a toothbrush and then it's off to dream world followed by the real world. I may pop in briefly during the week, but your best chances for finding me with the time will again be next weekend.
Comment by MikeGene — September 24, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Dawkins is talking nonsense here. I can't believe he's that confused about God and science.
"Oh, and as for the studies, they seem to be measuring whether God, if he exists, typically behaves, on balance, like a magic genie."
Yep. That was discussed in detail here
Comment by Lurker — September 24, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 2:34 am
I think it's unethical for Darwin critics to refer to Richard Dawkins.
Really. It's just not fair.
Comment by BenK — September 25, 2006 @ 2:34 am
September 25th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Dawkins:
How about a resurrection from the dead? Oh, wait, God tried that already and many still aren't convinced.
This is a line of argument we've seen many times from atheists: "if only God would [fill in the blank with some miracle], then I would accept that He exists!" The trouble is, they are bluffing when they make this argument, because no matter what turns up, they will always seek some other non-God explanation. It stems from confusing magic with miracle. What they want is for God to perform magic.
What niether Dawkins nor any other atheist has is a coherent scientific reason for telling us that the properties of the cosmos are such that no action taken by a supernatural entity could have empirical consequences in nature, even in prinicple. Dawkins may want his readers to believe that he knows some scientific way to prove that, but neither he nor anyone else have shown us the scientific cards that justify that position. It's just wishful speculation on his part, as are so many other things he wrties.
And he calls himself a "bright". I guess "brights" are dim!
Comment by DonaldM — September 25, 2006 @ 10:58 am
September 25th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Sadly, Dawkins is just confused, period!! And about a great many things, it would appear. I would love to see Dawkins in a live debate with, say, WIlliam Lane Craig or Alvin Plantinga. Using logic such as Mike has presented here Dawkins would get his clocked cleaned. Further, I think he knows that. Instead he hides behind the mamby pamby "I won't debate these silly IDers because I don't want to give their looney ideas oxygen by making it look as thought there is really anything to debate." Transaltion, "I'm too chicken to go on stage and defend my propositions. I'd much rather hide behind my word processor and academic chair and launch irrational tirades. Far more effective, don't you think?!!"
Far more lucrative, no doubt. Atheism has been very, very good to Dawkins!
Comment by DonaldM — September 25, 2006 @ 11:06 am
September 25th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
[...] MikeGene takes Dawkins for another amusing spin; in this post, he reiterates his earlier claim that Dawkins' argument is consistent with the fundamental ID premise that science should be free, in principle, to attribute things to supernatural causes. Most of this argument, though, is dedicated to trying to prove that Dawkins' argument is wrong. [...]
Pingback by Heaven is not the sky » Blog Archive » Caution: too much spin can take you in a direction you don’t want to go… — September 25, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
DonaldM wrote…
What happened at Kitzmiller v. Dover was a debate. What happens in peer-reviewed journals is debate. I suspect what you are talking about is something where saying "You are no Jack Kennedy" is considered a killer argument.
Plantinga and WIlliam Lane Craig are philosophers. No philosopher is wiser than the first one, Socrates. The Oracle of Delphi's declaration was prophetic as well as accurate. I wouldn't be surprised if Dawkins understands that.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 25, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Wrong in both cases. The verdict was in before the witnesses appeared. That's why a public debate would be interesting. There would be viewers who are open-minded.
Comment by Bradford — September 25, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
TP:
You suspect wrongly.
Kitzmiller was NOT a debate. It was a trial. Further, the facts presented were misrepresented in the final decision. Jones made huge leaps of logic to arrive at his conclusions.
Peer reviewed journals do not constitute debate either, especially when one side of the debate isn't given the opportunity of representation, or very, very little, due to a priori restrictions.
You might take a look at Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, which was a debate between William Lane Craig and atheist Quentin Smith. See if you can find one single "you're no Jack Kennedy" line from EITHER side. (hint: you won't!) Dawkins wouldn't last 5 minutes in such a debate, especially using the bad argumets he's fallen into of late.
Comment by DonaldM — September 25, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Bradford wrote…
I would agree that the facts and legal precedents in Kitzmiller v. Dover made the results predictable.
While I have guesses, I don't fully understand why you have that stance on scientific journals.
The birds in the trees are open-minded. You are the ultimate debate judge for yourself. However, how can you be sure of your judgment if you never bring out your debate proposals be tested by others?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 25, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
What made the verdict predictable was Jones's ego. He could not distinguish amino acids from hyaluronic acids before the trial and to this day would be hard pressed to pass a Bio I exam.
However, how can you be sure of your judgment if you never bring out your debate proposals be tested by others?
Test this: The capacity to evolve a protein complex inducing supercoils prior to the evolution of helical DNA or failing that, a functional DNA helix lacking the cited proteins. Smoke that on the water.
Comment by Bradford — September 25, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Trials are a form of debate.
Which facts, specifically?
Such as?
Why is the usually-followed restriction of including new data a problem for ID proponents?
Why would proteins that induce supercoils evolve before DNA?
Why are you specifying helical? Isn't that the basic state of DNA? It looks to me as though you don't understand the concept of supercoiling.
Comment by Smokey — September 25, 2006 @ 4:40 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
To Bradford and DonaldM (and anyone else)…
I would love to debate Kitzmiller v. Dover with you. I studied it while it was happening. I have read every brief, transcript, motion, etc at least once. I have read most of them at least twice. A lot of the material I have re-reviewed as much as six times. To me, Judge Jones ruling was anti-climatic. I was not as excited as others, since it was not a surprise to me.
With that warning…
DonaldM. are you prepared to back up your bold assertion that "Jones made huge leaps of logic to arrive at his conclusions" with actual data from the actual trial?
Bradford, are you prepared to back up your bold assertion that "What made the verdict predictable was Jones's ego" with actual data from the actual trail?
When I say "actual data from the actual trial" I mean more than just the Judge's ruling and Discovery Institute essays.
If you are willing to do that, I am willing to back up my assursion that the Kitzmiller v. Dover verdict was predictable by assuming a non-activist judge, the evidence presented and the arguments made.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 25, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Why would single-stranded binding proteins and DNA topoisomerases evolve prior to DNA helicases?
Comment by Bradford — September 25, 2006 @ 5:02 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
TP,
I predict that neither B nor DM are willing to discuss/debate it with actual data from the actual trial, but neither will be able to admit that he isn't willing.
Comment by Smokey — September 25, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Thought Provoker,
Judge Jones' judgment wasn't worthy of the term.
Comment by Douglas — September 25, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
To Bradford, DonaldM and Smokey,
Who is Carl Woese?
Would you agree that his scientific contribution ran contrary to the "Darwinian" thinking before he presented scientific evidence supporting his claims?
Is being awarded the Leeuwenhoek medal a big deal for Microbiologists?
Is getting the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences similar in honor to receiving a Nobel Prize?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 25, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
TP, to address your questions in order:
1) A guy who attacked prevailing dogma and (pretty much) won. Are you asking me because you don't know who he is?
2) No, his contribution ran contrary to the predominant view, which came from laziness and lack of imagination. Working biologists know that there is much more to MET than Darwin.
3) Yes.
4) Not quite, but he might still win a Nobel.
Comment by Smokey — September 25, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
Smokey asked…
I was asking you because I didn't trust myself to control my spin on this one.
Thank you for your help. Apparently, I needed it.
I understand Behe's book title Darwin's Black Box is a reference to Darwin's lack of knowledge of the inner workings of living cells. Early Darwinists considered simple cells as the building blocks of life. If I understand Behe's argument correctly, it was a big blow to "Darwinism" when it was found out that cells aren't simple.
Using the same line of thinking, another blow happened when the trunk of the Darwinian Tree of Life split into two (Archaebacteria and Eubacteria).
Carl Woese, split the trunk again. Thinking like Behe, that would be just another nail in coffin of Dawinian thinking and the "real" reason Woese was challenged.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 25, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Cleaning up loose ends…
DonaldM wrote…
I presented the example of Carl Woese. You should at least agree that Carl had the cards stacked against him. I think Carl's arguments indirectly supported Behe's. What do you think?
First you ask me to look at one philospher's pontifications, which I did. Now you want me to read a book where two philosophers are arguing over whether Stephen Hawkings knows what he is talking about. I would rather read Stephen Hawkings directly, thank you.
If you want to talk about philosophers, let's start at the beginning. What is your take on Socrates? And why was nobody wiser than him? And why did I claim no philosopher alive today is wiser than he was? Think.
Bradford challenged…
I'll let Smokey deal with the Microbiology part of this (which he did), but I will still give you my general answer (hopefully, you were expecting it).
I very much doubt this is a test of your internal belief system and it isn't a debate topic or a scientific hypothesis.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 25, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
TP
I already know the answer to your question, TP, but I'm not going to play your mind game. If you have a point to make, then just make it. OTherwise, you're wasting everyone's time.
Oh, and you completely missed the point of my comment. Think!!
Comment by DonaldM — September 25, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
DonaldM wrote…
If you know the answer, you should understand my point.
DonaldM wrote…
I very well may have missed your point.
I find it difficult to believe that a debate between two philosophers, popularized in a book wouldn't be tailored for a wide general audience.
…However…
Maybe you were telling me this debate included a clear, debatable proposal like "Dover's ID statement should not be read to in Dover public schools" or a scientific hypothesis instead of some general topic like "Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology".
Maybe you were telling me every argument made in this debate includes tracible references to firm quotes, experiments, equations or other fully referenced documents.
Maybe you were telling me that there were no catchy, hand waving statements like "Naturalism is theism without god" in an attempt to get the audience shaking their heads in agreement.
Maybe you were telling me that they started with an agreed set of assumptions with no logical fallacies committed by either side, yet they came to difference conclusions.
Maybe you were telling me they sounded convincing to you and didn't engage in any Ad Hominine attack.
Maybe you were telling me neither said the actual words "you're no Jack Kennedy"
I guess it is my turn to think and learn, because you are right, I am not sure which you were saying.
Donald, I am sorry if this is frustrating. But please face some things. You say there was more to the phrase "Materialism is theism without God" but you aren't confident enough to argue what that is. I really hope you understand how Socrates and Plantinga arguments are essentially the same.
For my part. I will try to tone down the "mind games". I am sorry if I got carried away.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 25, 2006 @ 11:38 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Hi douglas,
You wrote…
My turn to say "wanna bet?"
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2006 @ 12:04 am
September 26th, 2006 at 6:20 am
So Dawkins: everything lies in the realm of the provable. Still grinding that ol' modernist axe. Shame he hasn't caught up with philosophy.
Gould: the noumenal and the phenomenal are separate. Closet postmodernism.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — September 26, 2006 @ 6:20 am
September 26th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Smokey and TP have asked for some specific examples of misreprentations of fact in the Kitzmiller opinion. Smokey even went so far as to predict, I wouldn't respond with anything. Well, sorry to disappoint you, Smokey.:lol:
In the opinion, Jones wrote:
Apparently, Jones didn't re-read the transcript of the actual trial and attributes to Behe words he never spoke. In the actual trial the q&A where the phrase "not good enough" comes up, went like this:(Behe here having been shown a stack of books and articles purported by the plaintiffs to show that there are all sorts of research demonstrating the evolutionary pathways leading to IC systems)
In Jones's opinion, he attributes the phrase "not good enough" to Behe, when in fact it was Rothschild who used it in an attempt to get Behe to say something he never would have said. There is no way Behe's answer could be construed to mean what Jones implies in the opinion. That is both misrepresentation of fact and a leap of logic in that it employs a straw man to make an argument.
And if that isn't clear enough, a bit later in the trial Rothschild tries again:
In other words Behe goes out of his way to say he is not saying they aren't "good enough" but that these articles address a different subject. But for all that, Jones summarizes Behe's position as saying the articles aren't "good enough", which simply wasn't the case at all.
Comment by DonaldM — September 26, 2006 @ 10:39 am
September 26th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
MikeGene Tries Desperately to Miss the Point…
MikeGene, at TelicThoughts, has an interesting review/criticism of an article– the link to which is broken at the time of this writing– written by Richard Dawkins, in which Dawkins considers how the idea of God, of a creative deity, could b…
Trackback by hell's handmaiden — September 26, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
DonaldM wrote…
While you may have disappointed Smokey, you didn't disappoint me. Thank you for your response. As promised I will now "back up my assursion that the Kitzmiller v. Dover verdict was predictable by assuming a non-activist judge, the evidence presented and the arguments made."
Most of my information will come from actual trial documents found here…
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/k...
My reply will be in three parts; 1) Could a non-activist judge have ruled this way?, 2) Would a non-activist judge have ruled this way? 3) Did Judge Jones rule correctly, but for the wrong reasons?
Please note, the first two parts won't be a direct defense of Judge Jones. I will be presenting the evidence and arguments that Judge Jones saw before making a ruling. The question is, could, and would, a non-activist judge make essentially the same verdict?
Donald, I had to make an assumption of what verdict you were challenging. Is it the following?
"It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."
(as one of four reasons Dover's policy fails the endorsement test)
… and…
"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause."
Before we go any farther, is it is your positition that a non-activitist judge couldn't have reached the above two conclusions?
If that isn't your position. Then is it is your positition that a non-activitist judge wouldn't have reached the above two conclusions?
If you agree that a non-activist just would have reached the above two conclusions, we can skip right to arguing about whether or not Judge Jones used twisted and disingenuous logic to reach an otherwise correct conclusion.
Please state your stance on the above three positions.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Why would proteins that induce supercoils evolve before DNA?
Why are you specifying helical? Isn't that the basic state of DNA? It looks to me as though you don't understand the concept of supercoiling.
Several reasons, but someone who doesn't understand the concept of supercoiling wouldn't understand them.
Why don't you answer my questions first? Your attempt to move the goalposts only confirms my suspicions.
Comment by Smokey — September 26, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
TP
Neither of these represents my position. I really couldn't care less if Jones is an "activist" (however that term is defined) judge or not. I haven't said that I was surprised by the verdict…as it happens, I was not. I figured the case would go the way it did almost before the trial began.
What I am saying is that in the decision itself, Jones uses faulty reasoning to justify an incorrect conclusion. However, we'll have to take this up another day. I've been called away on a family emergency.
Take care.
Comment by DonaldM — September 26, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Thank you for the heads up.
Unfortunately, we will have to deal with the "incorrect conclusion" issue when you get back. Are you saying the following was an incorrect conclusion that Judge Jones made?
"It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
I'm not disappointed at all, Donald! I have no problem admitting when my predictions are incorrect. That's an integral part of science, and an important reason why ID isn't science.
That seems to be the case. I agree that he misquoted Behe, but I don't think he misrepresented Behe's self-contradictory testimony.
Now you're misrepresenting, Donald. The statement from Behe was much more specific than that, and came right from his book:
"We can look high or we can look low in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system."
Donald, is Behe's claim true or false? You'd have to read all of the articles to conclude that it was true, which it's safe to presume you haven't done.
For Behe to have been testifying in good faith, he would have had to have read them too, but he hadn't. Therefore, it's not a misrepresentation to describe his response as claiming that they weren't good enough. Or are you claiming that what he meant was that they were good enough?
Sure there is, given that a reading of the papers demonstrates conclusively that Behe's claim in DBB (which he desperately tried to revise on the stand) is utterly false. It was also a clear case of bearing false witness, because he hadn't even bothered to look in front of his face, much less high and low.
Which was a lie, because Behe hadn't even bothered to read them!
And this was another lie. They all directly address the subject of "answers to the question of the origin of the immune system," which Behe claimed didn't exist. Note that whether Behe agrees with the answers or not is irrelevant. It's a question of existence.
But his testimony was false. They address the very subject Behe claimed wasn't addressed in the scientific literature.
That's an accurate summation of Behe's false testimony. Here's how I would have written that part of the opinion:
In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claims, "We can look high or we can look low in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system." He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted, "They simply just don't address the question that I pose," Examination of the publications by the court conclusively demonstrated that Behe's testimony in this matter was false, as the publications were full of Darwinian explanations (whether Behe agrees with them or not is irrelevant to the question of the veracity of his claim that such explanations don't exist). Moreover, Behe testified in bad faith because he admitted that he hadn't read all of the publications in question before judging their relevance. Behe's unfamiliarity with the primary scientific literature refutes Defendants' claim that he is an expert.
Is there anything inaccurate in my revision, Donald?
Comment by Smokey — September 26, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Mike,
I tried to pre-order your book, but I was having technical issues with the system. It asked me to enter a credit card number
But the continue option is not there.
And then when I tried to add a credit card it said it was already registered.
Anyway, I do want an autographed copy. I hope I'm the only one having techinical difficulties ordering your book.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 26, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Hey, Sal, were you using Firefox, by any chance? On occasion, I've noticed that buttons on some order sites are invisible for some reason. I can't remember if that happened to me while ordering Mike's book or not though, since I did it a while ago.
Comment by Deuce — September 26, 2006 @ 8:38 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Hi Salvador,
I passed it on.
Comment by MikeGene — September 26, 2006 @ 9:09 pm
September 27th, 2006 at 4:28 am
Thought Provoker,
Though you were not asking me, I will answer. Yes, that is most definitely an incorrect conclusion that Judge Jones made. Had he never heard of Mike Gene?
Oh, and for your information - since I was the first of the two of us to use "wanna bet?", only my use counts for anything. (You have a lot to learn about Internet debates, I think.)
Comment by Douglas — September 27, 2006 @ 4:28 am
September 27th, 2006 at 7:11 am
Douglas,
Even Mike Gene does not refer to ID as science - IIRC, he calls it "proto-science" (a term I like). I think most dispassionate observers (if such creatures exist) on either side of this debate would acknowledge that while ID may at some future time become science, it's nowhere near there yet.
Comment by Mesk — September 27, 2006 @ 7:11 am
September 27th, 2006 at 8:24 am
Douglas wrote…
Wasn't Mike Gene the guy who wrote…
"I have long acknowledged that ID is not science nor do I think my own ID armchair speculations qualify as science." (see 2nd post in this thread)?
You may be right that I "…have a lot to learn about Internet debates" because referencing the reasonable, objective Mike Gene who says "ID is not science" doesn't make sense to me as a refutation of Judge Jones' conclusion that "…a reasonable, objective observer would…reach the inescapable conclusion that ID… is not science"
I don't want to speak for Mike Gene (he can speak for himself). I am looking forward to reading his book so I can understand his position on ID better.
Douglas wrote…
"wanna bet?"
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 27, 2006 @ 8:24 am
September 27th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Intelligent design theorists are investigating the observation made by other scientists that certain things in nature look much more like products of nanotechnology than the tinkering of a blind watchmaker. "Much of what we call biology is really nanotechnology," says Michael J. Heller, a professor of bioengineering. Paul Davies says: "The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the nanotechnology of the living cell."
Looking at certain things in nature as if they were products of nanotechnology is a teleological approach. Are those using a teleological approach doing science? Depends on how you define science but Mike Gene has said on several occasions that he sees no reason why a teleological approach can't run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. Del Ratzsch says:
"If things in nature can appear designed, if nature can produce things that are as if designed, if results of natural selection function as if designed, then doing science as if nature was designed - methodological designism - might be a productive, rational strategy."
Do scientists employ this productive, rational strategy or is mainstream biological research devoid of design-type thinking? Michael Ruse says:
"Both history and present Darwinian evolutionary practice have shown us that design-type thinking is involved in the adaptationist paradigm. We treat organisms "“the parts at least — as if they were manufactured, as if they were designed, and then we try to work out their functions. End-directed thinking "“ teleological thinking "“ is appropriate in biology because, and only because, organisms seem as if they were manufactured, as if they had been created by an intelligence and put to work." Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design: Does evolution have a purpose?, p. 268 (Harvard, 2003)
Comment by Jack — September 27, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
September 27th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Douglas wrote:
"Though you were not asking me, I will answer. Yes, that is most definitely an incorrect conclusion that Judge Jones made. Had he never heard of Mike Gene?"
Thought Provoker replied:
"Wasn't Mike Gene the guy who wrote"¦
I have long acknowledged that ID is not science nor do I think my own ID armchair speculations qualify as science."
Judge Jones ruled ID is not science because he thinks it's untestable and essentially useless. That is not Mike Gene's position. Mike Gene says:
"There is no reason why a teleological approach can't run an investigation based on observations, logic, and testing. It is merely an alternative view. It is capable of exploring and interpreting scientific data (thus it can use science) and it can also generate subsidiary hypotheses and predictions (thus it can guide science)."
Comment by Jack — September 27, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
September 27th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Judge Jones allocated over 25 pages (pages 64 to 89) to a section titled "Whether ID is science" that ended with…
"It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science."
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/k...
My very narrowly focused query is to whether or not this is a correct conclusion, regardless of the logic Judge Jones used to reach it. Did the evidence presented at the trail show that a "reasonable, objective observer would…reach the inescapable conclusion that ID…is not science."
We can get into how much of the previous 25 pages included disengenuous and/or twisted logic after this question is answered.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 27, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
September 27th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Mesk, and Thought Provoker,
Addressing the point underlying the following comment,
I say, Mike Gene still lives with his grandmother, as is well known in certain hilly areas. However, there were two parts to the comment by Judge Jones regarding Intelligent Design - the part I was contesting was the part where he claimed that ID was an "interesting theological argument". I don't know what hat he pulled that out of, but that bunny hopped off long ago.
Comment by Douglas — September 27, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
September 27th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Douglas wrote…
Please excuse the confusion. I believe that is a different focus from what I understood DonaldM to be concerned about.
I would marginally agree that Judge Jones made a mistake by saying ID was an "interesting theological argument". I suggest theology wasn't the focus of the "Whether ID is Science" section of his ruling and the phrase was merely a literary reference to the interesting argument. However, this provided room for misinterpretation (intentional, or not) with what exactly Judge Jones was ruling when he used the adjective, "theological".
That being said, there were other, preceding sections of the ruling that directly addressed the theological nature of Dover's policy, which was represented as "ID". This is where things get sticky. Was Dover's policy actually representative of ID? I suspect a lot of people here would think it wasn't. But that distinction wasn't argued in Judge Jones' courtroom. What was presented was quite the opposite.
Dover's policy was wrapped around the book Of Pandas and People and visa versa. This book, in turn, was embraced by the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement as representative of ID. Behe, himself, refused to walk away from the book. That was a fatal mistake, in my opinion. During the trial, I kept asking myself "Why don't they just deny that book has anything to do with ID?" I am still not sure of the answer to that one.
So based on the evidence presented, Judge Jones ruled…
1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism
2. …an Objective Student Would View the Disclaimer
as a Official Endorsement of Religion
3. …an Objective Dover Citizen Would Perceive
Defendants' Conduct to be an Endorsement of Religion
This means, in the town of Dover and in Judge Jones' courtroom, the term "ID" was, by definition, a theological argument. Which is why, after the previous three sections established it, Judge Jones probably felt comfortable with informally referring to ID as "an interesting theological argument" in the fourth section titled Whether ID is Science.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 27, 2006 @ 6:54 pm
September 27th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
This has a parallel to homology arguments. Rather than noting a physical analogy and attributing similarity to an stochastic\selection process, the teleological approach notes a product similarity and attributes causation to intelligence.
Comment by Bradford — September 27, 2006 @ 8:38 pm
September 27th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Theories, by definition, are well-tested, have a track record for making accurate predictions, and lead to new knowledge. ID has none of those characteristics.
Which raises an interesting question: why aren't they making any observations of their own?
And why would you describe analogies and metaphors as observation?
Comment by Smokey — September 27, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
September 29th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Baloney. Cite a reason that is dictated by data as opposed to a story designed to fit a hypothesis.
Comment by Bradford — September 29, 2006 @ 9:42 pm
September 30th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
"Cite a reason that is dictated by data as opposed to a story designed to fit a hypothesis."
Sure. Right after you explain why one would need to invoke "The capacity to evolve a protein complex inducing supercoils prior to the evolution of helical DNA or failing that, a functional DNA helix lacking the cited proteins."
What's the state of DNA in the absence of proteins, Bradford?
Comment by Smokey — September 30, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
September 30th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Sure. Right after you explain why one would need to invoke "The capacity to evolve a protein complex inducing supercoils prior to the evolution of helical DNA or failing that, a functional DNA helix lacking the cited proteins."
Did initial DNA have helicase encoding capacity or not?
What's the state of DNA in the absence of proteins, Bradford?
Non-existent? It's a good question for a MET fan. How is DNA naturally generated in the absence of proteins?
Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
September 30th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
How is DNA naturally generated in the absence of proteins? What's your prediction Smokey?
Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
October 1st, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Did initial DNA have helicase encoding capacity or not?
I doubt it. When are you going to realize that helicase is not responsible for the helical structure of DNA?
Non-existent?
No. One can buy DNA in the absence of proteins, either purified or synthetic, very cheaply. Why don't you buy some and learn something instead of evading simple questions?
It looks to me as though you may have realized that yet another assumption of yours was wrong.
Comment by Smokey — October 1, 2006 @ 5:55 pm
October 1st, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Are you kidding? Of course you can buy DNA. There were no biotechnology vendors in geologic time eras and TT is to some extent about questions like whether DNA would be naturally formed without proteins. Your DNA was intelligently designed.
Comment by Bradford — October 1, 2006 @ 7:53 pm