Doing Science
by BilboIn his book, Signature in the Cell; DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, author Stephen Meyer tells the fascinating story of how James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA. I'll quote from the book, though you can find quite a bit of it at the preview, pp. 58-59, 72, and 137-139.
"Two unknowns in the developing field of biochemistry, James Watson and Francis Crick possessed no firsthand experimental data and a very limited knowledge of the relevant chemistry. Crick hadn't even finished his Ph.D., and the degree he did have was in physics. … (p.58)
"They even got their lab space stripped away at one point. [Reminds me of the Ghostbusters.] Eventually they got it back, but a peek into the Cavendish lab months later would have done little to inspire confidence. Crick hadn't arrived yet, and there was wild-haired Watson at the table tinkering around with cardboard cutouts — a far cry from the sophisticated technology on display at King's lab. (p.59)
"While others approached the problem methodically, steadily gathering data in their labs, Watson and Crick behaved more like gumshoe detectives, heading from one place to another looking for clues to help them weigh the merits of competing hypotheses." (p.72)
Meyer then draws the lesson from Watson and Crick's experience:
"Many people think that scientists spend all their time doing experiments in the laboratory in order to test hypotheses. The discovery of the structure of DNA showed that science certainly involves careful laboratory work. Rosalind Franklin's painstaking collection and analysis of X-ray data played an indispensable role in the discovery of the double helix, one for which she doubtless did not receive sufficient credit. But the discovery of the double helix showed that science also depends upon the synthesis of diverse lines of evidence in order to make sense of the big picture. In this, Watson and Crick excelled. Seen in this light, there was more method — more scientific method — to their mad dash to collect and synthesize all available data than some of their critics have allowed.
Though Watson and Crick were relatively unknown and certainly undercredentialed, they had solved one of the great scientific mysteries of the ages. Moreover, they achieved this feat not by working their way up through the establishment, which typically involves publishing a series of narrowly focused technical papers based on their own experimental research, but by explaining an array of preexisting evidence in a new and more coherent way….
Unfortunately, this understanding of how science works has not penetrated public understanding. Nor do scientists themselves always acknowledge it. Years later, as those of us in the intelligent design (ID) research community began to advance what we regarded as a new synthetic understanding of the origin and nature of life, we were repeatedly maligned for not "doing science." In 2004-5, as the program I led at Discovery Institute suddenly found itself at the center of a frenzy of hostile media coverage, reporters kept repeating the same criticism, namely, "ID advocates aren't really scientists, because they don't do any experiments of their own." Reporters would then demand to see our laboratory, as if doing experiments was the only kind of activity that scientists pursued.
"…In any case, because of my role overseeing ID research at Discovery Institute, I knew firsthand that this critique of the theory of intelligent design was not accurate: many ID scientists do in fact work in labs and conduct experiments.
"But as Watson and Crick's discovery showed, even if advocates of ID weren't doing experiments in labs — as I personally was not — it didn't follow that we weren't "doing science." To say otherwise betrayed a blinkered view of the scientific enterprise. Watson and Crick performed many experiments during their long careers. But the work for which they are best known came as the result of building models based on data they acquired almost exclusively from other sources — from scientific journals, other scientists, and other labs." (pp.137-139)
July 13th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
It's true that Crick & Watson were are not noted for their lab-work: They are theoretical biologists who spent most of their famous years working to explain the results obtained from their experimental colleagues. They were only able to do this because they worked very closely with people whose focus was primarily experimental work.
Real scientists work in communities: The divide is easier to see amongst physicists. There are some who work with white-boards and some people who work with particle accelerators. The theoreticians try to explain the evidence by generating theories and the experimenters are try to validate the theories by running experiments, generating new evidence.
I think it's incorrect to suggest that this way of working is in any way similar to the work of ID proponents, in that I am not aware of a single ID "theory" that sets out to explain any body of evidence at all. There are no ID experimenters trying to test ID theories. I certainly cannot think of a single ID proponent who has solved any "mystery" of any scientific significance.
HB
Comment by hblavatsky — July 13, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 2:59 am
So theoretical biologists do nothing but spend time transforming healthy scientific data into sick -(cough, cough…) Darwinian nonsense. Whats more amazing then the discovery of DNA -information- is how long it took to expose the distortions and ignorance that came along with the baggage. Of course, anything non-Darwin is not science by default.
Comment by computerist — July 14, 2009 @ 2:59 am
July 14th, 2009 at 6:13 am
The test of whether theory good is simply whether it can can explain and predict experimental results better than the other theories. The beauty of C&W's ideas was that they explained away a whole raft of biochemical mysteries and opened the door to a vast expanse of further research.
Prior to C&W it was known that the nucleus of the cell contained information, nobody knew the structure of the molecule onto which this this information was transcribed. That was one of the mysteries that C&W solved.
All of the amazing discoveries you described were the results of theorists and experimenters working together: Creating and testing ideas, discarding the failed ones and keeping the useful ones. Science (especially biology) is a collaborative activity in which researchers of all kinds build on each other's work.
I'd suggest that ID proponents should look at the way this partnership works and seek to emulate it. At the moment ID does not resemble the kind of basic science done by C+W and their many colleagues:
There are people (e.g. Gene, Behe, Dembski) who do a lot of thinking about ID but they never formulate their ideas in a manner which can be experimentally tested. Furthermore, these "theorists" do not work alongside experimenters, so there's nobody to test out ID's ideas. That's why it's very hard to take Bilbo's comparison to C&W seriously.
Comment by hblavatsky — July 14, 2009 @ 6:13 am
July 14th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Hblavatsky wrote:
Having read many of your previous comments on other threads this suggestion strikes me as very disingenuous. I say it is disingenuous because I doubt you have any sincere desire to help ID proponents. Indeed your persistence mystifies me. Most ID research is carried out and funded privately. Why would you care what people do privately? There are people who are out there using scientific instruments trying prove the existence of haunted houses and ghosts. Others are looking for big foot or the Loch Ness monster. Still others are chasing UFO’s. Now I’m skeptical about each of these, however, I don’t spend hours or days at a “ghost buster’s “or a big foot website trying to refute their theories. Personally, I don’t care what other people believe or do with their private time. Why should you?
But why are you lumping Mike Gene in with Behe and Dembski? Does Mike see ID as science?
If you have read anything that he has written you would know that he doesn’t believe that ID is scientific theory. So why would he feel obligated to formulate his ideas about ID in a way that “can be experimentally tested?” It seems to me that, at least for the present, Mike would argue that ID cannot be experimentally tested.
As an outsider how would you possibly know that? A little home work would show you there is quite a bit of privately funded ID related experimental work being done out there.
It is hardly a good criticism when that criticism can be demonstrated to be patently false.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — July 14, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
The proof of the case would be evidence that the reaction to Watson and Crick was at all similar to the reaction to ID. Were they often accused of not doing science? Were their ideas universally rejected as being unscientific once presented?
Meyer may feel better by pompously comparing himself and other ID advocates to giants of biology such as Watson and Crick, but in the end they have to face the fact that Watson and Crick produced a result that was quickly integrated into biology as an essential cornerstone with essentially no controversy whatsoever about whether it was science.
As always, the bottom line is that ID is rejected because it really isn't science, not because the accusation of non-science is erroneous. The important lesson of Watson and Crick is that people not doing hands on science, under-credentialled and under-funded, will still be accepted if their science is valid, so we neen't worry that those are the reasons ID has been rejected.
Comment by don provan — July 14, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
What part of Guillermo Gonzales' work was not valid?
Comment by chunkdz — July 14, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Bilbo
Does Meyer later explain how the scientific method is used in ID's "mad dash"? Or this is quite different to ID?
Just goes to show that if you have science, your credentials and standing do not matter particularly. Does Meyer have the science? Or is this just wish fulfilment and preaching to the converted?
By the same token, we have no reason to suppose ID advocates were "doing science". Lab work would be one indication. Producing testable hypotheses would be another. What does ID have?
Comment by The Pixie Again — July 14, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I wouldn't have any idea. Which parts weren't accepted as valid that you think are?
Comment by don provan — July 14, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I would certainly encourage ID researchers to answer this question!
Bilbo's original article makes a valid point, simply that not all scientists are experimentalists. Many of the greatest scientists in history are theoreticians. We do not think less of Einstein for spending too much time with his black-board.
Unfortunately Bilbo fails to argue that anybody in the ID community remotely resembles any of the great theoreticians. I find it odd that he uses C+W as an example: Their greatness was in part because their theories were so rapidly proved to be correct by experimentalists.
I seem to remember that according to his faculty, that once GG had become interested in ID his rate of publishing and colaborations dramatically declined. As a result he was less able to further the research goals of his faculty than had he maintained the publishing rate of his earlier years.
It's not so much that his ideas were bad, but that he was not particularly productive and that his faculty felt that the areas to which he was dedicating his time were not a particularly good fit with the faculty's goals.
I'm glad to see that GG is now a fellow of the Discovery Institute, I think that's a much better home for him. I'm pretty sure that there are universities who would be glad to have him: Liberty and Bob Jones spring to mind immediately. I think he would be an excellent fit.
Here's a thought: Supposing that Richard Dawkins found himself working for Liberty University. Do you think he'd be a good candidate for tenure?
HB
Comment by hblavatsky — July 14, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
What part of "The Privileged Planet" was invalid?
Comment by chunkdz — July 14, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Francis Crick by his own words, got involved in science to disprove Christian reasoning. Its kind of ironic that the same dna molecule he co discovered is being used by Meyers and others to advocate ID. The fact that once he understood dna better, and because of his understanding, he had to resort to a different type of faith base belief systems which we all now know as panspermia, is even more ironic.
Comment by themayan — July 14, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Marshall and Warren overcame scepticism to their suggestion in 1983 that Helicobacter pylori was a cause of peptic ulcer by lab work, finally receiving a Nobel prize in 2005.
I guess, like Crick and Watson, they had the advantage of being right!
Comment by Alan Fox — July 14, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Never read it. Which parts weren't accepted that you think are valid?
Comment by don provan — July 14, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Oh.
Comment by chunkdz — July 14, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
themayan:
Really? Could you please link to a quote? What is "Christian reasoning" anyway?
Haha. I don't think Crick believed that panspermia caused life on earth. He considered it a possibility. Why is that ironic?
Comment by Raevmo — July 14, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
chunky, what's your point with Gonzales? He's is still a paid scientist, right?
Comment by Raevmo — July 14, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Apparently he had no point, at least none he's interested in sharing.
Comment by don provan — July 14, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Yes, but I'm only at p.300 of a 500 page book. My next thread will be on the distinction Meyer makes between experimental science and historical science.
What I'm enjoying about all the comments here by the critics is the shift from "ID isn't science, because they aren't doing any lab work," to "ID isn't science because …" fill in the blank, but "lab work" has been left out.
Comment by Bilbo — July 14, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
That reminds me: GG included "The Privaliged Planet" on his list of publications in his tenure application form. As I am sure you are aware, this book is considered by mainstream physicists to be little more than an ID polemic and not a serious work of scientific literature. Physicists uphold different standards than your local Christian bookstore.
What was wrong with it was that it showed that GG was unable to make a distinction between the standard of work required to further his department's objectives and the kind of work likely to please a very small minority of ID advocates.
This also illustrates a key difference: For all his intelligence & imagination, GG was unable to pick a field of research which his fellows wished to collaborate in. Did the PP include any empirically testable and significant hypotheses? Not that I'm aware of (but please correct me).
This stands in stark contrast to the work of C+W which provided enough insight to keep many biology departments busy for decades.
Comment by hblavatsky — July 14, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Bilbo,
To my knowledge, the only ID proponent who has done any lab work related to ID is Scott Minnich. And his experiments can be summarized in one word, FAIL.
Comment by olegt — July 14, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
I'll look forward to it, although the question isn't about the difference between experimental science and historical science, but between science and ID practices. Historical science hinges on demonstrating the existence of causes, but ID denies needing to look at its cause at all.
So apparently you don't understand the point, then. There are many reasons ID isn't scientific. We go over them all frequently here.
The secondary argument about not doing any lab work is this: if all the reasons critics use to show that ID isn't science turned out to be invalid for reasons the critics can't see, it would be trivial to demonstrate that — and make the entire ediface of ID criticism as currently constructed collapse — by simply showing some successful results. But not only are there no successful results, there's no one actually working towards any such results. ("Lab work" is perhaps an unfortunate umbrella term for such efforts, but critics would be just as interested in field work or anything else that actually ties ID ideas to concrete evidence. Heck, even theoretical work that suggested some relation to concrete evidence would be a huge advancement.)
So when, as in this case, the ID supporter thinks he's making a case for ID by giving "a good reason" why one or more individuals are only doing "theoretical" work, the natural counter it to review all those original reasons why ID isn't science and to discuss why explaining the lack of lab work — even if it were a successful argument, unlike this case — doesn't support ID in any way but only shoots down one tiny, secondary observation that ID doesn't accomplish anything.
If I were an ID supporter, I'd be embarrassed by the fact that there's no real ID science going on, I wouldn't be trying to come up with empty reasons why it's OK that there's no real ID science going on. It's as if Meyer's is proud of ID's lack of accomplisment.
Comment by don provan — July 14, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
I'd re-phrase the criticism to:
ID is not science because it's proponents neither generate testable theories, nor do they attempt to validate any of their ideas experimentally.
Pretty much every ID proponent I know spends a great deal of time doing one thing: Advocacy.
It's almost as if ID proponents are not even interested in asking the obvious questions implied by their basic proposition: When was it designed, how was it designed, which parts are designed. ID supporters are incredibly vocal in their criticism of rival theories but tend to obfuscate when pressed for details about what ID actually is.
A question I ask almost ever year: So you think you've detected design… what now? Where's this idea of yours going to take you. Can you use it to form a theory that better explains the diversity of life on earth? How does ID explain the fossil record? Can you equip epidemiologists with better predictive tools than the current evolutionary model?
I'd like to see them try – we might all learn something.
Comment by hblavatsky — July 14, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
hblavatsky
So to do science one must pick a field that ones "fellows" wish to collaborate in?
that explains a lot
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 14, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
DP
would you feel the same way if you were a supporter of string theory or the multiverse?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 14, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Yeah I heard he got a job elsewhere. Did you read PP?
Comment by chunkdz — July 14, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
chunk:
You didn't answer the question: what's your point?
No I didn't read PP. I have a lot of stuff to read. Why should I read it? I don't know much about GG, except that I heard he didn't get tenure and some people think it's because he's an IDist. Again, what's the point?
Comment by Raevmo — July 14, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Well, it occurs to me that it's not really a question of whether the science is valid, it's the particular inferences we draw from the science that determine whether we will be rejected or accepted.
Comment by chunkdz — July 14, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
hblavatsky:
When? At the time the first cells appeared. Which parts? DNA and enzymes needed to synthesize encoded end products. How? That will not yield to answers from any approach but if design is real then there should be identifiable functional threshholds. A while ago the biological phenomenon of enzyme optimality was discussed in a thread. Optimality is revealed in enzymes which are found in universal metabolic pathways. The assumption is that natural selection would account for the optimal quality. Ancient pathways contained relatively suboptimal enzymes. Selection pruned local optimization to yield the optimized enzymes we observe today.
Minimal genomic function has been advanced previously at TT. The idea being that there is a gene level correlating to esential cellular function. That level would define cellular viability. Raevmo and others have criticized the view by arguing that ancient cells were relatively less advanced and required fewer moving parts. Those fewer parts would also be less optimally functional.
But the retention of cellular viability in a reverse timeline in which cells become ever less complexly organized to an initial reaction starting point is a challengable presumption. Current thinking holds that the early stages of such a process are unidentifiable due to a gap in our knowledge. If design is a sine qua non to cellular life then genomic size and the optimality of enzymes of essential functions should yield to an identifiable and predictable range below which cellular viability is compromised. The optimization level of enzymes, consistent with function, would correlate to minimal design specifications.
Comment by Bradford — July 14, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Or I should say It's not only a question of…
Comment by chunkdz — July 14, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Chief among them is that ID implies that God just might be real. Atheists hate this implication! Anything that does that (whether it's true or not), cannot be 'science'. This is the reason this line of thinking is so vehemently opposed. It has nothing whatsoever to do with reality or scientific discovery.
Proof?
Tell me again atheists – exactly how did (fill in the blank) evolve?
Didn't think so.
They can't answer (except in generalities) and they don't care. It doesn't matter to them whether science ever figures out how anything actually evolved – so long as they can hang their hat on a theory that doesn't need God. That's the motivation – not science.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 14, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?
Comment by chunkdz — July 14, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
I was encouraged by two examples that (for some reason) are only in the 'extras' of the dvd for the movie Expelled.
There was one scientist who collaborated with an engineer to form a hypothesis about the function of certain blood vessles on the surface of the brain.
Another scientist (who also collaborated with an engineer) had a hypothesis about the structure and function of centrioles and how their malfunction may cause some form of cancer.
Both of these scientist collaborated with engineers because that was where their assumption of design led them.
I don't know why that was left out of the released movie. I think such collaborations might be most fruitful for ID scientists.
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 14, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
July 14th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Well I was thinking of the atheists I've encountered on internet forums like this, Pharyngula, and AtBC. I don't mean to suggest that actual scientists have that motivation (though surely some of the more vocal atheists among them do).
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 14, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 4:19 am
Ravemo: I dont have the link that you requested, but when I have time I will look for it. In the mean time, I would suggest reading some of his own writings on the subject of faith and his up bringing. Panspermia can have different meanings to different people, which include everything from comets seeding life, to extraterrestrials engineering life. This hypothesis was believed by many to be supported by the Drake Equation which is another unproven hypothesis, and is being questioned and challenged by modern cosmologist today. These beliefs require faith, and are not supported by any scientific means. In my opinion, a person who doesnt believe in faith based paradigms, and then substitutes one faith for another, is ironic.
Comment by themayan — July 15, 2009 @ 4:19 am
July 15th, 2009 at 5:33 am
Bilbo
ID opponents have been saying for years the ID is not science because it makes no testable predictions. For example, here is a blog about the Dover trial from four years ago, discussing the falsifiability of ID. Of all the IDists at Telic Thoughts, I find you to be far and a way the one who makes the most intelligent and reasonable posts (in the absence of MG), so I found it rather disappointing that you take this disingenuous tack.
Comment by The Pixie Again — July 15, 2009 @ 5:33 am
July 15th, 2009 at 5:33 am
Danial Smith
Are you sure they hate it (your emphasis)? All of them? Nearly all of them? Just most of them? Or any of them? You know this how exactly?
A lot of atheists disbelieve in God because of the lack of evidence for God. If that evidence comes to light, they stop being atheists. It is as simple as that. Most atheists are not commited to atheism in the way that theists are commited to a specific religious belief, so changing their position is not such a big deal.
I strongly suspect that many Christians think atheists chose to be atheists so they can ignore God's laws and lead debauched lives. I am not way of tthat actually happening ever.
Hmm, I wonder if the reverse could be true. There are many reasons Christiand reject modern evolutionary theory (MET). Chief among them is that they believe MET implies that God just might not be real. Christians hate this implication! I think one could make a far stronger argument that Christians hate the implication that God does not exist, than atheists hate the implication that maybe he does. One of the most "evangelical" atheists, Richard Dawkins, has said, "A serious case could be made for a deistic God." I doubt we could find any examples of evangelical Christians admitting a serious case for atheist could be made.
Frthermore, can you explain how FLE implies that God just might be real? As far as I can see it implies extra-terrestrials just might be real. You should brush up on your ID! Everyone knows ID is nothinhg to do with religion. Honest.
Comment by The Pixie Again — July 15, 2009 @ 5:33 am
July 15th, 2009 at 5:54 am
How many anti-IDists in this thread have read Signature in the Cell; DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design? Among those of you who have not (probably all) how many simply cut and paste variations of same old objections? If you do not familarize yourself with anything but reviews and hearsay (if you even go that far) then of what relevance are your book specific comments?
Comment by Bradford — July 15, 2009 @ 5:54 am
July 15th, 2009 at 7:33 am
How many IDists around it have read it?
I have not read it. I was commenting on what I read in the OP.
Comment by The Pixie Again — July 15, 2009 @ 7:33 am
July 15th, 2009 at 7:46 am
I know at least one that is doing so presently- Bilbo.
Comment by Bradford — July 15, 2009 @ 7:46 am
July 15th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Dear HB, you say you are not aware of an ID theory.There is a theory present in Intelligent Design Message from the Designers, which allows for may questions to be answered in a much bigger framework, than we have had until now.First we had God or Gods, then along came Darwin, where the evidence of progression of design that,was presumed to be nature.Now we have theory that allows for the progression of design by very advanced science.If our scientists can create life, then why not other scientists in other solar systems? This theory allows for a sensible explanation as to why these scientists do not as yet,choose to officially announce themselves. I think this theory would fall into the category, where scientists are in danger of ignoring something, simply because it does not come from a scientifically credible source. Here we have an answer to the original intent behind all the world's religions, and thereby demystifies the past and allows for a spiritualization of science, the de facto new 'religion' or linked understanding of the 21st century. One can now see how in the course of time our scientists will through progression of design, gradually create more and more complex organism, and eventually who knows create man, in their own image' .Then our scientists will have become as those whom our ancestors mistook for gods. In effect what Darwin's theory represents is a retro-engineering of the pathways followed by these advanced scientists who eventually engineered our eco-system and man. Our humanity is on test to itself. The beauty of this argument is that it is self-evident. If we as a humanity do not learn to cooperate, we will go the way of the many humanities that have existed on this very ancient planet. Where is the evidence?.Well you have to look at a lot of issues in the same framework, including the traces present in all the religious texts, in history, what we are doing in science and not least the issue of life in other solar systems.In this theory ,we are on our own but not alone.If you think this theory is science fiction, then within the context of the theory so are the dangers of nuclear war.Try telling that to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. I sincerely hope the ' penny drops' in the scientific community before it will be too late.
Comment by musantk5 — July 15, 2009 @ 9:16 am
July 15th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Florida court sets atheist holy day, kristas blog. All non atheist have to see this!
Comment by themayan — July 15, 2009 @ 11:55 am
July 15th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
No, to get a tenure in a commercially driven science faculty you usually have to do work that invites collaboration, funding, publications and interest.
I suspect that GG was an able researcher but that his chosen path of research was one which was likely to further his department's goals, hence to grant him a lifetime of employment at that institution would have been inappropriate.
According to Wikipedia, GG now has a professorship at Grove City, a Christian College. I think we can all agree that this is a better home for him than ISU could ever have been:
He will be free to develop his ideas in an environment of like-minded intellectuals. Lets just hope that he uses this to produce a testable theory derived from his PP hypothesis. I think IDers and their opponents should all welcome this.
Comment by hblavatsky — July 15, 2009 @ 12:17 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I know this from observation. That's a scientific term describing a scientific method.
Why is it then that most of the atheists I've encountered seem to want to talk about God and Christianity moreso than most Christians I've known? They're much more vocal in their commitment to atheism (at least on the internet).
Speaking again from direct observation, I've seen much more hatred directed towards God and Christians by atheists than the other way around. I don't think it's intentional though. They are completely ignorant of the spiritual battle raging around them, in which they are merely a pawn.
Why then are there no atheist proponents of ID?
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 15, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Absolutely.
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Denial:
There might be a few outliers, but I suggest it's because atheists are on the whole better at objectively estimating the plausibility of hypotheses given the evidence at hand. Of course they are also more intelligent on average, but I know plenty of intelligent theists, so that's not the whole story.
Comment by Raevmo — July 15, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Daniel
Okay. What was your sample size? What confidebce limits have you calculated for your data? How did you determine that atheists hate the implication that god might be real, as opposed to merely rejecting or disliking or pooh-poohing?
Was this really scientific methodology, or your own personal bias?
Perhap because they feel out-numbered? What internet site(s) are you thinking about?
Atheists do not hate God, they disbelieve he even exists!
Because ID is based on the assumption that a designer exists. If you do not come to the table with that assumption, you will not find much to appeal in ID.
Comment by The Pixie Again — July 15, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
July 15th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
This is the first time I recall hearing the argument that ID theorists don't need to do any research because they are as brilliant as Watson and Crick. I wouldn't know anywhere to find an explanation for why that argument doesn't hold water that I could cut and paste. So I wrote my own.
But could you point out where you think you've heard my objections before? I'd like to see if I missed anything.
Comment by don provan — July 15, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
July 16th, 2009 at 2:57 am
Ravemo: I sill haven't found that particular quote yet but if you look in Wik, on his bio you will see the same sentiment echoed. Ive heard it said before that atheist were more intelligent, as you put it, on the average. This is actually something that can be tested with a high degree of certainty, and its a subject of interest to me. I guess my question would be, do you know of any scientific study that can substantiate that claim. I mean that only half sarcastically, Ive actually been looking for evidence myself.
Comment by themayan — July 16, 2009 @ 2:57 am
July 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Let's examine this. Got a cite?
Comment by chunkdz — July 16, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
July 16th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
I submit you're an idiot. Care to back up your idiotic statements?
Comment by Jean — July 16, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
July 16th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Jean:
You back them up just fine without me. Thanks!
Comment by Raevmo — July 16, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
July 16th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Ever been to talk.origins, Paryngula or After the Bar Closes? I've been to all, completely outnumbered with abuse heaped upon me and my God for the "sin" of doubting Darwin. I've had an atheist coworker accuse me of believing in "fairies" because of my religion. I've noticed that atheists often relish the chance to call the God of the bible "sadistic", "retarded", "perverted", "incompetent", etc. I'm not saying this for sympathy – it goes with the territory. Jesus said "They will hate you because of me." I've found that to be unequivocally true.
How much real abuse do you get from Christians?
Comment by Daniel Smith — July 16, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
July 16th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
You think you are being maligned because you are Christian or because you doubt Darwin, but I have to wonder if it's not really because you're just making bad arguments. Have you considered that possibility?
In your specific cases here, I see common issues that often come up in ID conversations. There's very little tolerance for bad arguments in evolution friendly sites because they've heard the arguments all before and have no patience for someone presenting the same old bogus arguments again. Many people presenting evidence supporting the existence of God make arguments which would be equally good to support the existence of fairies. Could that be what your friend was saying? The God in the Old Testament is remarkably unChristian. Are people supposed to ignore that because you're embarrassed by it and insulted when they mention is?
The advantage of thinking of yourself as a martyr is that you don't have to consider other reasons you're getting the reaction you are.
Should we include the idea that atheists the world over are in an evil conspiracy to stomp out Christianity? Or do you just consider that a fact?
Comment by don provan — July 16, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
July 16th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
The smug attitude of atheist critics here is telling. They are smart, IDist are dumb.
I just think they don't yet realize the joke is on them.
Comment by Jean — July 16, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
July 17th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Dont be to hard on Raevmo. We have all sometimes let are mouths write a check that are glut-emus maxi-mus couldn't cash, but this one had to be called.
Comment by themayan — July 17, 2009 @ 12:46 am
July 17th, 2009 at 3:31 am
Daniel Smith
Can you talk me through this. What makes you think that this co-worker hates the implication that God just might be real? Do you think he also hates the implication that fairies just might be real, and sees the God implication as just as detestable? That does not ring true to me. Is he still a co-worker? Coiuld you ask him if he actually hates the implication that God just might be real?
Those atheists at talk.origins, Paryngula or After the Bar Closes who call god "sadistic" hate the implication that God just might be real because their pereception of god from his holy book is that he is one nasty, nasty piece of work, and they would hate for such a sadistic, pervented and incompetent entity to be in charge. I guess that makes sense.
Are you saying a single atheist co-worker and those who post at talk.origins, Paryngula or After the Bar Closes are representative of all atheists? Are you sure that every single atheist at talk.origins, Paryngula or After the Bar Closes relishes the chance to call god "sadistic", etc.?
Is it possible that these site attract the more polemic atheists, and that you tend to notice those that are more venomous in their posting? Have you even consisted bias in your sampling? You did claim you used the scientific method.
Comment by The Pixie Again — July 17, 2009 @ 3:31 am
July 24th, 2009 at 11:07 am
hblavatsky,
Can you produce a testable hypothesis for the non-telic position?
Doing so would help your case.
Is there any lab work related to the non-telic position?
Comment by ID guy — July 24, 2009 @ 11:07 am
July 24th, 2009 at 11:08 am
BTW as ID doesn't have anything to do with God an atheist can be an ID proponent.
Comment by ID guy — July 24, 2009 @ 11:08 am