Er, ah, umm, …it's not relevant
by MikeGeneOver at the DI, Rob Crowther turns the table on a science journalist:
For that matter, what about Ken Chang's own religious beliefs? If it is important for people to know about the religious beliefs of scientists who criticize Darwin, why isn't it important for them to know about the religious beliefs of science writers who defend Darwin? When Crowther asked Chang about his own religious affiliation, Chang replied "I don't want to answer that." When pressed as to whether he was an agnostic, an atheist, or something else, Chang replied "I don't think it's relevant."
March 4th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Chang's just one guy, Mike. Of the DI's 500, most of them are evangelical christians who aren't practicing biologists. So Chang's religious beliefs aren't particularly relevant. The point of Chang's article was that most of the "scientists" who support the DI's position are religiously motivated and don't have a strong scientific basis for their opinions. You can't say the same thing about mainstream evolutionary theory.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 4, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Aagcobb, you might be interested in reading this story:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2...
When the question becomes, why the story was so bent towards the false impression that you got, then Chang's beliefs matter, and they matter very much.
Comment by Guts — March 4, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Guts, you might want to read this story so you can see where the story you linked to is misleading. Which, of course, is what the DI does.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 4, 2006 @ 9:16 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Uhh, no Aagcobb, that article confirms that your impression was a false one:
Comment by Guts — March 4, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Andrea Bottaro posts, on Panda's Thumb:
So why don't tens of thousands of biologists sign the statement, and take the wind out of its sails?
In a similar vein, I am one of the >10,000 clergypersons who signed Michael Zimmerman's "Clergy Letter Project." The letter was so innocuously-worded that I'm sure most of the principals here at Telic Thoughts–who are ID proponents–could have signed it themselves. Except, of course, that they probably aren't clergypersons.
So if the vast majority of biologists could sign a statement that "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged," then why don't they?
Comment by Lutepisc — March 4, 2006 @ 10:43 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Aagcobb,
"The point of Chang's article was that most of the 'scientists' who support the DI's position are religiously motivated and don't have a strong scientific basis for their opinions. You can't say the same thing about mainstream evolutionary theory. "
Sure you can. Darwin/Evolution has made it possibler for atheists to be "intellectually respectable" (or something like that, or at least in their own minds). Some leading evolutionist or evolutionary defender has said that the reason so many so quickly jumped on the evolution bandwagon was because it freed them to justify their sexual mores. Most ardent evolutionists are atheists, as well. And the scientific basis for evolution (common descent, generation of new genetic information) is nil. So, sure you can say the same thing about mainstream evolutionary theory. It's just not politically correct to do so.
Comment by Douglas — March 4, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
"possible", not "possibler" (though that might be true, as well).
Comment by Douglas — March 4, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Here's an interesting comment where the reporter defends another of his articles (which the Darwinians didn't like):
http://pharyngula.org/index/we...
Comment by Anteater — March 4, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Guts, perhaps you missed this part of the article:
Comment by Aagcobb — March 4, 2006 @ 11:13 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Aagcobb, maybe you missed this statement from Chang himself, which contradicts your false impresion and your misleading quote:
Comment by Guts — March 4, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Douglas says
Douglas, for some reason, the scientific conclusions of internet creationists aren't as persuasive as the scientific conclusions of the overwhelming majority of scientists. Sorry.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 4, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Lutepsic asks
Because then the DI would falsely claim it was resounding evidence that mainstream evolutionary theory is teetering on the brink of collapse, because the DI falsely represents that the strawman version of evolutionary theory presented in their petition is mainstream evolutionary theory, and their target audience don't know enough to know the DI is lying. Why would any reputable evolutionary biologist help the DI perpetrate a fraud on the public?
Comment by Aagcobb — March 4, 2006 @ 11:21 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
Aagcobb,
What about the DI statement is a "fraud"
Comment by Guts — March 4, 2006 @ 11:25 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Guts, to be specific, which facts are you denying: that the overwhelming majority of signatories are evangelical christians, that the overwhelming majority of the signatories are not biologists, or that 25% of them admitted that their religious conversions significantly changed their scientific views?
Comment by Aagcobb — March 4, 2006 @ 11:27 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
I'm denying your false impression: "The point of Chang's article was that most of the "scientists" who support the DI's position are religiously motivated and don't have a strong scientific basis for their opinions. " But Chang himself stated that their doubts about Darwinism was scientifically based.
Comment by Guts — March 4, 2006 @ 11:29 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Guts asks
this
Comment by Aagcobb — March 4, 2006 @ 11:32 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Ok, so are you also skeptical of the claim that random mutation and natural selection can account for the complexity of life?
Comment by Guts — March 4, 2006 @ 11:34 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Aagcobb,
I'm not big on the list thing; I just thought it a little funny to see Chang gag on his own technique of probing into other's background beliefs.
It would seem to me that if you are going to fuss about lists, you should at least compare it to the NCSE's list of Steves. How many of those Steves are biologists? Among those, how many of those biologists are doing research that would directly address the question of what shaped the history of life? How many of the Steves are atheists? How many of the Steves attend church?
Comment by MikeGene — March 4, 2006 @ 11:35 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Guts, you are misrepresenting Chang again. he said
Comment by Aagcobb — March 4, 2006 @ 11:36 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
Aagcobb, you are just showing confirmation of the point again, which contradicts your original false impression.
Comment by Guts — March 4, 2006 @ 11:38 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Mike, you're taking the Steve list a little too seriously; the whole point of it was to show how ridiculous the DI's poll was. And if you are going to diss the Steve list, that is an admission that the DI list is bogus as well. I'll happily write off both lists and compare IDism to evolution just based on the scientific research being generated by scientists.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 4, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
Guts says
Yes, it leaves out genetic drift, lateral gene transfer, founder effect and other evolutionary mechanisms. Still no reason to appeal to an ID, though.
No, Guts. The signatories, not Chang, defended their doubts on scientific grounds. First, the vast majority aren't qualified to make scientific judgments about evolutionary theory, and second, just because they claim their doubts are based on science doesn't make it so. The fact that a whopping 25% of them admitted that they changed their scientific views due to religious conversions doesn't mean the other 75% aren't heavily influenced by their religious views.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 4, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
March 4th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Aagcobb,
I just told you I didn't take these lists seriously. But if one is going to analyze the DI list, it would only make sense to conduct an analogous analysis to the NCSE list.
Comment by MikeGene — March 4, 2006 @ 11:48 pm
March 5th, 2006 at 12:00 am
Natural selection and genetic drift work with random mutation. So adding genetic drift makes no difference. Lateral gene transfer is just the transportion of systems from one organism to another and unless you think they originated that way it has very little to do with how mainstream evolutionary biologists envision the origin of such systems. It's interesting to note that Darwinists resisted this concept. Do you really think that adding lateral gene transfer and genetic drift would influence their signing of the document?
Do you disagree with the statement that natural selection is all-powerful with respect to those visible changes that affect survival and reproduction? Do you disagree that natural selection is the only explanation we know of for the functional beauty and apparently 'designed' complexity of living things?
Not sure what you're saying "No, Guts" to here. This sentence makes no sense and is not relevant to anything I wrote.
A cursory look at the list shows many are Ph.D's in genetics, molecular biology, bacteriology, etc. They are certainly qualified. If you are going to complain that some aren't biologists , you're going to have to also show where you complain about the NCSE list as well where many aren't biologists either, if you are going to be taken seriously.
No it means that your original impression that "most have religious motivations" was wrong. You can't just put words in people's mouths.
Comment by Guts — March 5, 2006 @ 12:00 am
March 5th, 2006 at 12:08 am
Okay, I've sort of wanted to stay out of the whole stupid argument as to how many of the signatories are or aren't "conservative evangelical Christians" (a term that can be stretched about as much as the polemicist wants it to be stretched - here it seems to mean "Christian type person who signed the DI's list"). As Keith-Burgess Jackson pointed out, motive-mongering as a means of dismissal is a fundamentally anti-rational form of debate anyways. But "two out of five hundred!" Talk about some bad-faith shilling. Seeing as how Change only interviewed 20 people, he couldn't have shown that, even if the "accusation" weren't elastic. And please don't anybody bother responding with the technicality that the quote says it's only two "known" out of 500.
Comment by Deuce — March 5, 2006 @ 12:08 am
March 5th, 2006 at 12:25 am
Deuce, you'll have to blame the DI for that; they could only identify two signers who weren't evangelical christians: David Berlinski and Stanley Salthe.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 5, 2006 @ 12:25 am
March 5th, 2006 at 12:27 am
Guts says
Guts, perhaps you missed my post where I said I would be happy to throw both lists out and just compare IDism and evolutionary theory based on the scientific research being done by scientists.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 5, 2006 @ 12:27 am
March 5th, 2006 at 12:42 am
Deuce, you'll have to blame the DI for that; they could only identify two signers who weren't evangelical christians: David Berlinski and Stanley Salthe.
Isn't Behe a catholic?
Comment by Anteater — March 5, 2006 @ 12:42 am
March 5th, 2006 at 12:45 am
Gee, do you suppose perhaps they don't keep a list handy of who isn't an "evangelical conservative Christian" on the list to rattle off to reporters, and just gave names they thought of off the top of their head? Anyhow, for your sake, I went and found the list, and took a quick peek. There, on the front page of it, I saw Jeffrey Schwartz (a Buddhist) and Frank Tipler (considers himself an atheist). Took me all of one minute.
Again, the "two out of five hundred!" thing is just bad faith, it's something that Chang couldn't have found in principle since he didn't interview more than 20 people, and trying to rationalize that sort of thing doesn't make a person look particularly reasonable.
Comment by Deuce — March 5, 2006 @ 12:45 am
March 5th, 2006 at 12:48 am
Aagcobb,
"Douglas, for some reason, the scientific conclusions of internet creationists aren't as persuasive as the scientific conclusions of the overwhelming majority of scientists. Sorry."
That's alright. You're just prejudiced.
Comment by Douglas — March 5, 2006 @ 12:48 am
March 5th, 2006 at 12:52 am
I'd like to ask just one thing about the whole "only 2 out of 500" signatories being "evangelical and conservative Christians" screaming meme: What difference would it make?
Comment by Douglas — March 5, 2006 @ 12:52 am
March 5th, 2006 at 12:59 am
Come now Douglas. Every intellectual knows that the only ones qualified to detect design are liberal atheists. Rember the basic rule of the critics: If you take ID seriously, you are either stupid, dishonest, or deluded by religion. If you keep that rule on mind, you'll understand the mindset that 99% of critics bring to the table.
Comment by MikeGene — March 5, 2006 @ 12:59 am
March 5th, 2006 at 1:12 am
If there was clear evidence of design in biology, one would wonder why only conservative christians could see it. After all, as IDists often point out, the ID doesn't have to be God; life on earth could have been genetically engineered by ETs to terraform the planet. In contrast, scientists with all sorts of different religious backgrounds have no problem recognizing the evidence of evolution.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 5, 2006 @ 1:12 am
March 5th, 2006 at 1:52 am
Are you attempting to argue for something here or are you just making an observation?
Comment by macht — March 5, 2006 @ 1:52 am
March 5th, 2006 at 1:58 am
Aagcobb,
After all this time, you really should familiarize yourself with the arguments on my web page. As I have asked for years, what if the evidence for design is not "clear?" Over the years, you have seen me ask scientists what type of data would cause them to suspect ID. Their answers? Either show them the designer in action or prove that evolution is impossible. It's the old notion of "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence." In other words, something that will bedazzle them, something that will completely shock them and instantly turn them into ID proponents.
Add to this the sociological factors I have documented over the years. In fact, we saw some more data points a few days ago.
These are among the peer reviewers who decide what research to fund, who to hire, and what to publish. If there is any truth to ID, can you provide a reason to believe that Dryer and his colleagues would be able to detect and/or acknowledge it?
Comment by MikeGene — March 5, 2006 @ 1:58 am
March 5th, 2006 at 3:39 am
Andrea Bottaro:
"what they signed is a fair representation of modern evolutionary theory that could have been easily signed by Darwin himself."
… and yet, Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry, in their post on PT, used the fact that Sternberg had signed the list as evidence that he was a creationist.
Comment by Krauze — March 5, 2006 @ 3:39 am
March 5th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Krauze, Sternberg signed it knowing the DI uses the petition as evidence that there is significant opposition to mainstream evolutionary theory.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 5, 2006 @ 8:20 am
March 5th, 2006 at 8:21 am
Macht, I was responding to Douglas's post asking what difference it would make if almost all the signatories to the petition are conservative christians.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 5, 2006 @ 8:21 am
March 5th, 2006 at 8:33 am
Hi Aagcobb,
"Krauze, Sternberg signed it knowing the DI uses the petition as evidence that there is significant opposition to mainstream evolutionary theory."
How do you know this?
Another one of the signers is Stanley Salthe, biologist at Columbia University. Is he also a creationist?
Comment by Krauze — March 5, 2006 @ 8:33 am
March 5th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Hi, Mike
I'm just an attorney, so I'm not qualified to judge the merit of your research (perhaps sometime you can explain to me, in layman's terms, how you detect the subtle clues of design in biological organisms). But you're telling me that mainstream biologists aren't qualified to judge your work either. I guess that makes you like Charles Darwin, collecting data and thinking until at some point in time you are ready to publish a full blown theory of design.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 5, 2006 @ 9:06 am
March 5th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Aagcobb:
Again…if thousands of biologists would simply sign the statement, it couldn't be used as evidence of significant opposition; instead, the lay public would recognize that the statement itself represents mainstream evolutionary theory.
Why not get the ball rolling by adding your name to the list, Aagcobb? I know it sounds wild, but I think it could work! (Andrea Bottaro has already virtually joined you…and Charles Darwin would if he could. :-))
Comment by Lutepisc — March 5, 2006 @ 9:31 am
March 5th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Hello Aagcobb,
You seem to be misunderstanding me. Or maybe I was misunderstanding you. I was replying to your argument where you invoke the Mother of All Lists "“ the scientific community, implying if there was evidence for ID, the scientific community would embrace it (and not just some "conservative Christians"). But just as I don't put much stock in the DI's list, I don't put much stock in any list.
If you want to apply a sociological perspective to the ID proponents, then the same approach can be applied to the scientific community as a whole. For example, what we have learned over time is that the vast super-majority of the scientific community equates ID with religion and hears "God" when design is discussed. They also equate ID with creationism and politicking. Many approach the topic of ID with emotions such as fear and hate. Those are facts that must be considered if the Mother of All Lists (scientific consensus) is to be played.
If you couple this sociological dynamic with the demand for "extraordinary evidence," you'll understand why I don't take "˜consensus' at face value.
And no, I'm certainly not like Darwin. I simply question the reality I am handed and am just cognizant of the way human beings play their games. And I notice when people have no counter-arguments to my points.
Comment by MikeGene — March 5, 2006 @ 9:34 am
March 5th, 2006 at 9:51 am
Aagcobb,
I just thought of one more thing. As an attorney, imagine you are part of a case where you are to defend Stuart Dryer, and his faculty, against the charge of being closed-minded about ID. The other side lays out the following position statement as part of the evidence: "The faculty in my department variously regard the ID crowd as insane, ignorant, dangerous, or the butt of jokes. Among our group, ID is considered a not-so-subtle cover for Christian fundamentalist creationism." Does that hurt your case? Would you, as the attorney for Dryer et al., privately wince a little and wish such a statement was not on the records?
Comment by MikeGene — March 5, 2006 @ 9:51 am
March 5th, 2006 at 10:03 am
The argument from design is thousands of years old predating Christianity by centuries, it is obvious, as Dawkins saysit took Darwin to make atheism respectable precisely because organisms are so evidently teleological.
You will find vast numbers of intelligent people who have studied the modern synthesis and find it an implausable explanation for the origin of new adaptations. The fact that relatively few of these people become biologists is a selection phenomenon, as well as a result of the fact that such thinkers are extraordinarily unwelcome in the biology departments across the world.
In the end RMNS evolution retains its status because no other reductionistic explanation is forthcoming, and science has become overly enamored with reductionist assumptions. It is most certainly is not because of a strong match with the observations, because the fit is poor indeed.
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 5, 2006 @ 10:03 am
March 5th, 2006 at 10:15 am
The fact of the matter is that many reductionistic biologists who have looked at mutations in bacteria under selection have concluded from the observations that these mutations are in no way random. In other words, they are teleological. Others privately back up these findings, but keep their mouths shut to avoid being targetted by the torch-and-pitchfork mob of those who enforce reductionist doctrine. Just look what they did to Rupert Sheldrake, for example, for his "heresy".
Of course since these facts fly in the face of the RM part of RMNS evolution, the biology community creates an almost infinite number of explanations why the observations do not really show what they show. Epicycles, anyone?
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 5, 2006 @ 10:15 am
March 5th, 2006 at 11:55 am
MikeGene,
"Remember the basic rule of the critics: If you take ID seriously, you are either stupid, dishonest, or deluded by religion."
I don't think any of those things prevent an individual from doing science.
Comment by Douglas — March 5, 2006 @ 11:55 am
March 6th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
MikeGene says
I'm sorry to hear that, Mike. It would make the world more interesting if there was someone actually working on developing a theory of ID.
If, in your hypothetical, I was trying to defend them against a charge of being close minded to ID, I would prefer that those statements didn't exist. Of course, I don't have to defend them against that charge, since there's nothing particularly wrong with being close minded to ID. Eventually, you have to quit beating a dead horse and get on with what works. Certain ideas have had their day and lost out to better ideas; until compelling evidence to the contrary emerges, there is no particular reason for scientists to keep an open mind about ideas like ID, astrology, alchemy and other such notions.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 6, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Lutepisc says
Thats certainly an intriguing strategy, Lutepisc. I could see the NCSE posting the DI's petition signed by the Steve's, and explaining the bogusness of the DI's position. Noone would care about my signature though; I'm just another damn lawyer.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 6, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Hi Krauze,
Sternberg has a long history of working with creationists. I'm sceptical that a guy as intelligent as he is has no idea what the DI is doing.
No, he's an atheist, but he says he doesn't think much of IDism, either.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 6, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
March 7th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Aagcob:
Don't you think the glaring "signability" of the DI statement highlights the social/psychological dynamic which blocks biologists from signing it, though? This has always been MikeGene's point…that something other than "science" is going on over there, too.
Comment by Lutepisc — March 7, 2006 @ 9:10 am
March 7th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Lutepisc asks
If I were a biologist and I was given a petition to sign announcing my problems with a version of evolutionary theory which noone adheres to, I would probably want to find out why it was being circulated before signing it, and when I found out what the DI's agenda was, I definitely wouldn't sign it. So in a way, you're right; the desire not to be misrepresented by the DI is something other than science.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 7, 2006 @ 11:16 am
March 7th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Hi, Aagcobb. Now I'm quite confused (but I'm a non-biologist, so this really isn't my party).
Was Andrea Bottaro correct when she posed on Panda's Thumb:
?
Or are you correct when you said:
…
I'm having trouble reconciling these two perceptions of the DI statement.
Comment by Lutepisc — March 7, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
March 7th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Allow me to clarify, if I can. The statement is critical of a particular version of evolutionary theory. That criticism is a fair representation of modern evolutionary theory because it criticizes a version of evolutionary theory noone adhere's to.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 7, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
March 7th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Ah. That does it, Aagcobb. I guess I got off track thinking that the vast majority of biologists, including also Darwin, could without hesitation sign a statement calling for criticism of even the version of evolutionary theory to which they did, actually, adhere.
Comment by Lutepisc — March 7, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
March 8th, 2006 at 12:05 am
Actually, scientists do expect serious criticism of their own theories, and evolutionary scientists frequently criticize each other's hypotheses. The criticisms the DI is promoting, however, are repackaged creationist antievolutionary arguments which have been refuted long ago which they nevertheless want to teach to children who don't know any better.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 8, 2006 @ 12:05 am