Freed from the Wedge
by MikeGeneEven though we live in the post-wedge world, some people remain confused about this. They think a truly post-wedge world is one where we would all be non-teleologists and there would be no creationists trying to influence the public school curriculum. But the post-wedge world is not someone's fantasy; it exists as a consequence of a court ruling. Even Wesley Elsberry helps us to appreciate the true essence of the post-wedge world:
Some people thought the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case put paid to antievolution. What it did, and did well, was to blunt the "intelligent design" label, such that it could no longer be the leading edge of the "wedge". But antievolution goes on, seeking to stuff as many of its old, tired, bogus antievolution arguments as possible into science classrooms. (emphasis added)
Indeed. Thanks to the Dover decision, ID has been cut away from "the wedge" and this explains the essence of the post-wedge world. From the perspective of those focused on ID, we are indeed in the post-wedge world. ID was not some peripheral component of the wedge nor was the Dover decision a trivial event. As Elsberry explains, ID can no longer be the leading edge of the "wedge." Thus, objective and reasonable people can no longer view those of us who are interested in ID, and how it relates to biology and evolution, as being part of "the wedge." In fact, if you will recall, many of the contributors to this blog applauded the outcome of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, as it constitutes an important step in considering the concept of ID divorced from the socio-political activity.
Wikipedia has an entry on the "Wedge strategy" that makes it clear ID is no longer part of "the wedge":
Moreover, wedge advocates are now disavowing their own terminology because the term "intelligent design" has become a liability for them since the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Because of the success of the Discovery Institute's public relations campaign to make "intelligent design" a household phrase, and the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that ID is essentially religious in nature more people recognize it as the religious concept of creationism. Having come closest to accomplishing getting ID into public school science classes in Kansas and Ohio where they succeeded in getting the State Board of Education to adopt ID lesson plans, intelligent design proponents advocated "teach the controversy" as a legally defensible alternative to teaching intelligent design. (emphasis added)
But we do not disavow the term "intelligent design," now do we? In fact, several times, critics, who have nothing but our best interests in mind (wink, wink), have encouraged us to disavow the term "intelligent design." Well, this Wikipedia entry should help the reader see the substance of point #4 from one of my earlier blogs.
In the post-wedge world, ID is no longer useful to those seeking to influence public school curricula and is now primarily a concept that can be used to think about biology, evolution, and origins. Since the essence of ID has always been older and deeper than any activist agenda du jour, it currently exists, and will continue to exist, just fine after having been released from "the wedge."
October 6th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Wes Elsberry responds here.
Comment by keiths — October 6, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
October 6th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Apparently, the definition of "wedge" has evolved.
Comment by nullasalus — October 6, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
October 6th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
LOL!!! Oh, my. I much prefer a maul, wedges being too wimpy for the task at hand. Is there an official phobia name for fear of tools?
Comment by Joy — October 6, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
October 6th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
That response was rather Bushesque "if you're not with us then you're with the Wedge", which is of course, simply not true.
Comment by Guts — October 6, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
October 6th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
As you know, I think you should make your independence from the ID Movement more visible. My feelings and motivations are that the ID Movement doesn't deserve you and your support. BTW, I ordered your book a month ago and Arbor Vitae Press sent me a confirmation. End of Nov, right?
I'm not sure how interconnected your book is with the ID Movement. However, what you have been posting on your web site is a "Consilience of Clues" for front loaded information in life, not for an Intelligent Designer.
I think the last time we had this discussion you strongly suggested "human-like" intelligence wasn't a necessary component to Front Loading.
So at the risk of being overly provocative, I still think it would encourage a more correct perception of your ideas to not have it associated with a movement that…
…I'm not too fond of.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 6, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
October 6th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Hi TP,
And how would I do this?
Unless someone is thinking like Bush, I would think it was clear that I don't support the ID movement.
Correct. And I'd sincerely like to thank you for ordering a copy. I truly hope there are at least some parts that you find thought provoking.
It's not connected at all. No one in the ID movement has seen the book or has helped with the book. The book is far more indebted to the people I have met on the Internet.
Of course. As I have argued before, I don't find much use for the designer-centric approach. I'm focused on the design of life, not the designer of life.
I'm not sure it is necessary, but the assumption does help guide the logic of front loading. It's briefly spelled out in chapter 7.
I cannot control other people. If people want to come with me relying on group think and stereotypes, that's not my problem.
Comment by MikeGene — October 6, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
October 6th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
For my part, I'm very glad MikeGene keeps that association with ID-in-general. It goes to show that the concept as a whole goes beyond any individual, or strict metaphysical belief, or otherwise. I've said time and again I'm not personally convinced by the specific claims of Behe, Dembski, or others - and some of the styles of addressing opponents on that side sometimes comes close to the sort trash I've seen Myers and the Myers-like belt out. But there's more to ID and teleology than specific individuals.
I see ID proponents as having had a fantastic starting insight and attitude, while making some political mistakes early on - as in, trying to get involved in school fights at all. But since then, I've also seen it grow and attract new ideas, new ways of looking at and possibly even investigating legitimate scientific questions - the philosophical core is powerful, and the diversity of potential views is considerable. Who knows, maybe that's why some critics just can't stop painting with such a broad brush.
Comment by nullasalus — October 6, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 12:25 am
I found an interesting post at Uncommon Descent from which I quote:
Even in the post-wedgie world, there are plenty who associate ID with socio-political and theological implications, and I have no problem with that. However, I, even in the pre-wedgie and wedgie worlds, have never been interested in such implications.
If we strip away the "fluff" as Mr. Murray seems to do in his post, the question remains: is ID an interesting idea and in some sense support the intuition of ID theorists about the world, wedgie or otherwise?
I think so. That doesn't necessarily mean the idea can be fleshed out in the form of a scientific theory. But at the core, ID can be an interesting way of looking at things. If it is going to make progress, ID will need researchers who embrace the core of the idea, and keep the "fluff" out of the lab.
Comment by Zwischenzug — October 7, 2007 @ 12:25 am
October 7th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Hi Zwischenzug,
Thank you for pointing out that comment in UD. This was in it too…
(emphasis mine)
This was the intent of my Guest Host thread.
Let's do science!
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 12:41 am
October 7th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Elsberry:
Surprise. There will always be people using the same old tired, bogus antievolution arguments to diminish evolutionary science. Such people existed before any ID movement and will exist after the ID movement. In other words, Wesley has found a way to Keep the Wedge Alive in the post-wedge world. I've explained how wedge-centrism is crucial to so many critics before, so attempts to redefine the wedge (note the quote marks) to keep this zombie animated are to be expected. The critics try to downplay the significance of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School because the critics need some level of threatiness to prop up their position (and sense of self-importance).
But consider my point:
Wes Elsberry's response fails to refute this point.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 8:45 am
October 7th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Wes Elsberry:
Comment by keiths — October 7, 2007 @ 9:10 am
October 7th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Like I said, ID has been cut away from the "wedge." The "wedging" Elsberry speaks of is not relevant to those of us who think about and discuss ID. Objective and reasonable people can no longer view those of us who are interested in ID, and how it relates to biology and evolution, as being part of "the wedge."
Elsberry has failed to refute my point.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 9:44 am
October 7th, 2007 at 9:55 am
[As an aside]
I was reading through the Wikipedia article about the Wedge and ran across this:
The source for this comes from a newspaper article:
Is there any evidence that the document was truly stamped "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution?"
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 9:55 am
October 7th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Hi Mike,
When you asked me how to go about making your independence from the ID Movement more visible, this isn't it. You asked…
Other than Matt Duss' assertion, it doesn't look like it. "As an aside" that has little to do with the issues at hand (except to those interested in applying spin).
By the time the general public heard about the wedge, the Discovery Institute had announced its authenticity. I got introduced to the wedge document as part of the Dover trial. I expect a lot of other people did too.
Let's read what everyone agrees are the goals of the ID Movement…
Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
Let's look at some of the five year objectives…
5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:
Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God
6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory
7. Scientific achievements:
An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US
Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities
Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view
Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory
I would like to focus attention on a few items in view of a suggestion that ID critics incorrectly equate ID with religion…
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
"To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."
"Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s) Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions."
And as far as the shield bashing framing that ID proponents aren't the aggressors but merely the victim of a surge in discrimination"¦
Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities
This last one shines a light on Baylor's reaction to Dembski trying to maneuver his way back on campus.
The goals of the ID Movement appear to be clear. I am a critic of the ID Movement. Because of my NOMA stance, I don't have a problem supporting ID Science, but you can't be overly surprised that ID Critics will respond negatively when you appear to be helping the Discovery Institute apply its political spin.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Hi TP,
But don't you care about truth? The claim is out there that this document was stamped like this. Is that claim true?
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
I don't know the Truth. I don't know the truth behind the Kennedy assassination either. I can only make guesses and assign probablities.
My guess is that Matt Duss had reason to believe the document was special. It may have arrived in a sealed, manilla envolope marked "Not for Distribution". Someone could have said it was "Top Secret". I don't know. I don't think it is important except for spinning it.
So let's spin it…
If the document wasn't in anyway a secret, it defeats part of your argument. Exposing a non-secret changes nothing. The plan is continuing as outlined. Yes, there have been some minor setbacks, but the ID Movement appears to be compensating for them.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
TP says:
Everyone? You label something as IDM, then I guess you deserve the right to define it in a self-fulfilling way. But I'm not convinced anybody has that goal, much less many of the folks who are publicly aligned with ID.
And the claim of "Spin" is a pretty sure indicator that the pronouncer is spinning. Just another way for you to avoid discussing the issue.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 7, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Hi RodgerRabbitt,
First of all, this is a thread about a political issue. Of course, I am spinning this. I am presenting my view on the subject.
Which "issue" am I avoiding?
As for who aspires to the goals outlined in the Wedge document. How about its authors?
Are you suggesting the Discovery Institute never had these as their goals?
Are you suggesting the Discovery Institute no longer has these as their goals?
Note that I didn't provide my interpretation, I mostly presented their goals in their own words.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
The DI is not the IDM. A major player in ID thought and recent history? Sure. But the movement has grown beyond any wedge document and narrow political goals. Hopefully it will continue to do exactly that, and there are encouraging signs it in fact will. People should be happy more and more folks interested in ID are so because of the science and subject, rather than for hopes of another school showdown. Instead, they seem downright irritated. Interesting, that.
Comment by nullasalus — October 7, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Hi TP,
I don't know if it is important or not; I'm just curious. When reading the Wikipedia article, this claim jumped out at me. So I checked out the cited source and it was only the newspaper article:
Yet the scanned documents show no such stamps. And when Tim Rhodes first announced and shared this document (link on the Wikipedia page), he makes no mention of these stamps. So again, is there any evidence this document was stamped "TOP SECRET" and "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION?" Anyone?
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
I'm not aware of any.
On the other hand, I'm less interested in what a part-time copy center employee had to say about the document, and far more interested in its eye-opening contents — particularly since the Discovery Institute has acknowledged its authenticity.
Comment by keiths — October 7, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Hi keiths,
The content is old news. Here is a historical claim that is made not only on Wikipedia, but the mainstream media. But, thus far, there does not appear to be any evidence to support this claim. Perhaps Nick Matzke might drop by and shed some light on this.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Hi Mike,
An assertion from a part-time copy center employee is evidence. Granted it is poor evidence, but it is evidence. Shall we issue subpoenas and question people under oath?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Hi nullasalus,
I am more than willing to discuss ID science. You might want to read my recent comment to Joy.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Why give a top secret document that could spell disaster if leaked out to a part time copy center employee?
Comment by Guts — October 7, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Hi TP,
LOL. No. But we are still left with the following bit of investigative journalism:
Yet there is no evidence that I know of to support this historical claim. And apparently, no one else has any evidence (thus far).
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
TP says:
So why these comments:
I assume when you brought up the issue of spin, it was because you felt it was something negative. If it is an "Of course", why did you bring it up twice in this thread? That's why you're not very thought provoking.
Reminds me of the Hillary stuff this week:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10...
And what is she doing? Politicizing science. The irony is delicious. And I'm not saying this just to bash Hillary, because I could very well end up voting for her. The foolish political pronouncements come from both sides. I don't think you understand that very well, if at all.
Who are its authors? Upthread it is credited to "staff". That doesn't tell me much. And since this is "politics" and it goes hand-in-hand with spin, lots of spinmeisters write and say stuff they don't believe. I have no idea if these are or were ever the goals of the DI, nor am I much concerned one way or the other.
Can you explain in simple language why I should be?
I know this seems to be an "A ha!" moment for many ID critics, but the "A ha!" seems to come from their prexisting bias than from anything that shocking in the document.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 7, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Hi Guts,
You wrote…
Are you keeping up with the conversation?
It seems Mike is questioning whether or not the document was secret at all.
After all there doesn't seem to be "any evidence" other than an assertion of the person making the copies which is obviously what the reporters based their report on.
Besides, the Discovery Institude flatly denied they were trying to hide its existance didn't they? Or did they just ask leading questions and make shield bashing innuendo after a few years of silence?
Maybe it is me who isn't keeping up. Do the clearly stated goals outlined in the document "spell disaster" or not?
Let's look at that second governing goal again…
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
Does anyone want to talk about a scientific hypothesis that presumes neither materlistic nor theistic metaphysics?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Guts:
That question will likely go unanswered as will one I have previously posted which asks what palpable damage has been done as a result of the Wedge document? The Wedge is a very overrated story that is kept alive for its political utility.
Comment by Bradford — October 7, 2007 @ 7:51 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
If that part of the story behind the wedge document is a lie, it would be very telling.
Comment by Guts — October 7, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Hi TP,
Why not look to science to provide the answers?
BTW, does anyone know if any ID critic has ever expressed any skepticism about the existence of these stamps?
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Hi Mike,
Loaded question. Yes people have asked. Does that automatically mean they are not an ID critic?
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Hi TP,
I have never seen a critic express any skepticism about this story. Can you provide a link? Thanks.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Hi Guts,
And what would it be "very telling" us?
That reporters believe their sources?
Like I asked. Is it time to issue subpoenas and question people under oath?
I, for one, would like to get verification that these are a true and accurate statements of the Discovery Institute's Governing Goals…
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Are you sure you don't want to talk about concepts that have ""¦real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides." (from TT's About Us)
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
October 7th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Thought Provoker:
It's another example of the "ends justifies the means" strategy.
Thoughts Provoker:
Yeah I do.
Comment by Guts — October 7, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
October 9th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
So I take it there is no evidence for the existence of such stamps?
Comment by MikeGene — October 9, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
October 13th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Let's bring some closure to this neglected issue. According to Wikipedia, the "Wedge" document was stamped "Top Secret" and "Not for Distribution." even though the scanned image of the document does not show such stamping. The source for this allegation is an article from the Seattle Weekly written by Roger Downey.
Notice that Downey reports this as fact. Yet it would seem that his only source of information is the testimony of Matt Druss, who did not mention these stamps in the seven years between keeping a copy of the document and giving the interview for this paper. In fact, when his friend Tim Rhodes first posted the document on the internet, he did not make any mention of the stamps. And the world's leading Wedge scholar, Barbara Forrest, never mentioned the existence of these stamps.
I've asked if there is any evidence for the existence of these stamps and no one who reads TT can provide any. So what can we conclude from all this?
First, despite the fact that the critics of ID posture as if they care about evidence, I have not found a single example of such a critic expressing skepticism and demanding evidence. In fact, consider the performance on this thread alone. When I simply ask for evidence, the critics here acknowledge there is no evidence, yet express no skepticism. Instead, they either attack me and/or try to change the topic. Thus, now we can see why I raised the question in the first place "“ why haven't any critics expressed skepticism about this truth claim?
Second, I have long warned about the limitations of science. Here is a nice example where one such limitation is exposed. We start with a claim about our physical world "“ the wedge document was stamped with "Top Secret" and "Not for Distribution." By all means, do science and get to the truth behind this claim. Y'see, all around me are people telling me that Science is going to answer all these Big Questions, yet Science cannot even tell me if some 8-year-old document was stamped "Top Secret."
Comment by MikeGene — October 13, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 5:19 am
Mike wrote:
I, for one, am skeptical about the stamps. But I don't "demand evidence" because it simply doesn't matter.
It's quite possible that Matt Duss spiced up his story. Embellishment is a common human failing — on another thread, we were just discussing the possibility that a particular miracle story in Luke's gospel was an embellishment.
But whether Matt Druss embellished his story about the stamps is no more important than whether he scored with Mary Lou Findlay during his senior year in high school. Neither question merits scientific investigation, in my opinion. Why? Because the answers are irrelevant to a) the contents of the Wedge Document, b) its authenticity, c) its implications, and d) my assessment of the ID movement and its leaders.
Nobody has tried to answer the question scientifically, so of course science hasn't revealed the answer. That's hardly a limitation of science; a tool can't work if it isn't used. You can hardly blame the hammer for failing to drive the nail if the carpenter doesn't pick it up in the first place.
And why hasn't science been used to answer this question? Because nobody cares enough to bother doing so. If we already know that the Wedge Document is authentic, why should we care whether a part-time copy center employee embellished his story? Why, exactly, is this any more important than using science to establish whether he scored with a particular cheerleader in high school?
Both questions have definite answers, but nobody cares enough about either question to seek a scientific answer.
Comment by keiths — October 14, 2007 @ 5:19 am
October 14th, 2007 at 8:25 am
Hi keiths,
Yes, you have become skeptical because of the questions I asked. There is no evidence that you were skeptical of this claim prior to me raising this question.
So we are still left with the fact that the critics, who pride themselves as being led by "the evidence," never raised the issue of evidence concerning this claim about history. And according to your explanation, whether the issue of evidence is raised depends on a subjective perception as to whether the issue "matters." This whole approach can be easily used to rationalize confirmation bias.
So it is your wedge-centric perspective that kept you from raising the question and expressing skepticism. That people would embrace a false belief about history (that is propagated by the popular Wikipedia and a mainstream newspaper) doesn't matter as long as this false belief doesn't help the Wedge. In fact, one reason not to raise the issue is the fear that it might distract from a)-d), right?
Let's now take a scientific approach and explore your hypothesis of Matt Druss embellishing his story when interviewed for a mainstream newspaper. Do you think Druss would do this purposely or do you think his mind has him hallucinating a stamped document that never existed?
But that is indeed a limitation, as it clearly shows that science is a human expression.
Exactly. What science explores depends on psychology and sociology. That means science is limited by the psychology and sociology of its practitioners.
So whether or not science is used to evaluate a claim depends on whether or not we think the claim is "important."
Yes, but that takes us to the other limitation. We agree that the question about the Wedge document has a definite answer but science provides no guidance. You seem to think science could answer the question if it wanted to . Well, why don't you do science and show us? Let's make the issue more important to you. Either do the science and provide us with the research findings that answer the question or acknowledge that science cannot find the answer.
Comment by MikeGene — October 14, 2007 @ 8:25 am
October 14th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Mike wrote:
True, because my beliefs about the ID movement and its leaders weren't (and aren't) dependent in any way on the truth of the stamp claim.
We also haven't demanded evidence that Duss was, in fact, a part-time employee. What if he was actually full-time? Don't we care whether this claim about history is true? No, actually. Being humans with limited time and energy, we focus on the questions that matter and ignore the ones that don't.
Absolutely. To the judge in the Paul McCartney/Heather Mills divorce case, it is important to know whether it is true that Paul wouldn't allow Heather, an amputee, to keep a bedpan under their bed to avoid difficult trips to the bathroom in the middle of the night. To me, the question is unimportant, and I haven't devoted any energy to finding an answer.
To you, the question of the stamps is an important one, worth investigation. The rest of the world emits a collective yawn and asks, "Why bother?"
Sure, it could be used for that purpose. Do you have any evidence that I am using it for that purpose?
I wrote:
Mike replied:
No. It's because the question is unimportant.
It doesn't matter as long as the false belief is irrelevant and unimportant, like Duss's employment status.
Raise it all you want. You'll find that the response is underwhelming. Why? Because the issue doesn't matter to people. Suppose we discover that Duss lied about the stamps. What then? Would it change the contents of the Wedge Document? No. Would it change the authenticity of the Wedge Document? No. Would it change the fact that the Discovery Institute acknowledged the authenticity of the Wedge Document? No.
Why is it important, then?
'Hallucinating' is the wrong word. A false memory is not a hallucination.
I could see it happening either way. It's even possible for a person to embellish a story, and then come to believe the embellishment after repeating it again and again.
I wrote:
Mike responded:
Who ever claimed that science wasn't a human endeavor?
Again, who is arguing otherwise?
Of course. That's one of the reasons that funding agencies require grant applications.
That depends on the state of the evidence. For example, if we found the stamped original and a matching rubber stamp in Stephen Meyer's desk, and a comparison of the two showed an exact match, down to the level of tiny irregularities in the rubber stamp, then I would say that science had answered the question.
Because the question is a waste of time.
Whoa, tiger. False dichotomy. The fact that I refuse to waste my time "doing the science" on this unimportant question does not imply that science is incapable of providing an answer. As I explained above, that depends on the evidence itself.
You seem to be battling a couple of strawman opponents here:
1. An imaginary group of ID critics who claim to follow every single piece of evidence wherever it leads.
2. An imaginary individual or group of individuals who claim that science can answer every question.
What's up with that?
Comment by keiths — October 14, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Hi keiths,
Ah, but I'm more than happy to agree that not all ID critics follow every single piece of evidence wherever it leads. In fact, as we have seen here, whether or not evidence is pursued is ultimately a subjective choice and value judgment. Also, I am happy to agree that science can not answer every question. In fact, that's a point I have been making for some time now.
Like I said, a sense of closure.
Comment by MikeGene — October 14, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
A sense of closure for two questions that were never open in the first place.
Comment by keiths — October 14, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I'm glad that is true about you, keiths. But the world is not an extension of keiths.
Comment by MikeGene — October 14, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Well, since you're fond of issuing challenges, here's one for you: Supply us with quotes from the many ID critics who claim that
a) they follow every single piece of evidence, no matter how trivial or irrelevant, and
b) that science can answer every question, bar none.
Comment by keiths — October 14, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Hi keiths,
Actually, I'm not fond of issuing challenges; I was simply trying to make the issue more "important" for you. You punted and I politely decided not to pursue it.
Based on your behavior here, I'd guess that you keep files on various contributors. If so, you should not project and assume the same about me. I'm just guessing there are some people out there who bought into the "Top Secret" story (some did at PT) and now because of reading this, realize they never expressed skepticism and asked for evidence. I'm also guessing that there are some people who did not clearly see that "the evidence" before our eyes is a function of previous subjective decisions about whether or not to look. I'm glad we can all agree that science cannot help us get to the bottom of this account.
Comment by MikeGene — October 14, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
October 14th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Mike wrote:
Um, Mike, this is awfully "challenge-like" for a non-challenge:
No, I maintained my original position that the question was irrelevant and not worth investigating.
No. I remember roughly what people have written, when, and on what topics. That usually gives me enough clues to go back and locate exact quotes when I need them.
Yet none of that addresses what you claim were the two open questions for which we now have "closure": a) whether ID critics claim to follow every single piece of evidence, no matter how trivial; and b) whether science can answer every question. If those questions were ever open, it was only in the minds of your imaginary opponents.
Except that we don't agree on that. What we agree on is that science can't answer every question. But as I said before, science may or may not be able to answer the stamp question, depending on the state of the evidence.
Comment by keiths — October 14, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Keiths:
The idea that science can answer all (valid) questions is actually a major theme in books like E.O. Wilson's Consilience and in Dawkins's latest The God Delusion and many more.
Comment by Guts — October 15, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Guts:
And it is a concept firmly rooted in the metaphysical views of the authors.
Comment by Bradford — October 15, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Guts wrote:
Do you have quotes? I've read both books, and while the authors evince a great respect for science, they also seem to be quite aware of its limits.
I don't know of anyone who believes that science can answer all of the following questions:
1. To within one second, when did the Chicxulub impact occur?
2. Did Napoleon Bonaparte pick his nose on the morning of June 12, 1807?
3. What is the single correct phylogenetic tree of all vertebrates discovered to date, both extant and extinct?
4. Did a roughly rabbit-shaped cloud appear over the Africa's Great Rift Valley at noon exactly 3 million years ago today?
Comment by keiths — October 15, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Keiths, check out page 48 where Dawkins talks about examples of questions that people once thought were impossible for science but are no longer, he's making the case that science can answer any sensible question. Also that this was the major theme in Wilson's book is well known:
Comment by Guts — October 15, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Guts,
You're making a huge and unwarranted leap of logic here. Dawkins writes:
Pointing out that some questions turned out to be answerable by science hardly means that Dawkins thinks that every question can be answered that way.
It would be like arguing that because humans now travel faster than our ancestors ever thought we could, there must be no limit to how fast we can go.
Guts quotes Alex Rosenberg:
Come on, Guts, you know better than that. The question is about what E.O. Wilson believes, not what Alex Rosenberg thinks that E.O. Wilson believes. Quote from the man himself. You've read Consilience, right?
Comment by keiths — October 15, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Keiths:
I don't see any such distinction being made anywhere in that book. He basically contradicts your ealier post, questions that you might think are impossible for science turned out to be possible, and thats why he thinks science can answer even the ultimate question of God.
Keiths:
Huh? Don't you think it's strange that two people (at least) contradict you regarding what Consilience is all about? One written in a philosophy of science book? Have you read Consilience?
Comment by Guts — October 15, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Guts has a great point about Dawkins and Wilson. The funny thing is that Wilson (like Dawkins) asserts the spurious claim that science has settled the question about God. Belief in God, he claims, is the product of a genetic algorithm (he doesn't go into great detail about what genes are involved, or the expression pattern, etc.).
Belief in Biology, however, is not genetically based. Read on…
I'm just an average Joe, but even I can smell the schlock. Wilson, like Dawkins, has abandoned science. Let's count the unscientific assertions, just in this tiny paragraph.
1)"…the human mind evolved to believe in the gods. It did not evolve to believe in biology."
Aside from the obvious BS assertion, what in the world does it mean to "believe in biology"
2)"Acceptance of the supernatural conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory, when the brain was evolving."
So Wilson admits that his brain has stopped evolving? Also note the classic circular argument. 'It survived, so it was advantageous. It was advantageous, so it survived."
3)"Thus it is in sharp contrast to biology, which was developed as a product of the modern age and is not underwritten by genetic algorithms."
Hmmm. No genetic basis for "believing in biology" But any belief in the supernatural apparently has a genetic basis. Presumably we could someday produce a genetic screening for ID'ers.
Also, would it be too much to tell us why he thinks that prehistoric societies didn't, or couldn't, "believe in biology?
I don't really feel qualified to criticize a Pulitzer winner, but does anybody else think that Consilience (and God Delusion) reads like a badly researched term paper? Flowery prose does not substitute for well cited research.
Comment by chunkdz — October 15, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Yeah thats what I get from statements like these:
Comment by Guts — October 15, 2007 @ 5:25 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Guts,
You can't be serious.
No, I don't think it's strange at all. I don't agree with everything I read — do you?
If you're making a claim about E.O. Wilson's beliefs, why are you so reluctant to quote E.O. Wilson's words? You do have direct evidence for your claim, don't you?
And yes, I've read Consilience. Now I'll ask you for the second time: have you read it?
Regarding Dawkins, you wrote:
I see. So unless Dawkins explicitly disavows it, you are entitled to assume that he made the same egregious error of logic that you made.
Can you imagine what books would look like if it were an author's responsibility to anticipate and thwart every possible hare-brained misinterpretation (sorry, Mike — no offense intended) a reader could come up with?
Read Dawkin's words, also from p. 48:
How do you get from that — the idea that agnosticism on a particular question might not be eternally necessary — to the bizarre idea that science can answer every question?
Comment by keiths — October 15, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Keiths:
You do realize that Wilson mentions Alex by name in the book, don't you? I could understand if it was just some joe schmoe but do you think it's probable that you are interpreting it better than a prominent philosopher of science who is respected and cited by Wilson? Of course you wouldn't have known this if you didn't read the book…
Keiths:
The reason is that we would have to hold your hand and basically summarize the various statements in the book like this one:
in order for you to see it. Since you have a penchant for redefining basic words to your liking I thought it would be better for you to see what a prominent philosopher of science (whom wilson himsels cites) has to say about what Consilience is all about, who even used your exact words. But I guess I can't please anyone. Why not try reading the book?
Keiths:
So unless Dawkins doesn't explicitely avow it, you are entitled to assume that he doesn't make the same egregious error of logic that I think he makes. I don't really think he believes science can answer all questions ( he might have certain caveats/qualifications as does wilson), but he certainly believes that "we may eventually discover that there are no limits [to understanding]".
Comment by Guts — October 15, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Guts quoting:
An example of a personal philosophy.
Comment by Bradford — October 15, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
October 15th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Hello, I am new here.
chunkdz's response is, I think, deserving of a meta-conversation. It is such a typical response in the realm of ID discussions that it leads me to believe that an effort should be made to examine the dynamics of the conversation itself.
I have not read anything by E.O. Wilson except for a few paragraphs here and there from quotations. I do, however, completely understand what Wilson is saying here:
Wilson's meaning, as a whole, jumps out to me. I feel that I fully understand his intent here, even without any context.
So what is my point? It seems to me that, if chunkdz understood the quote in the same way I do, his response would have been wholly different. Whether one agrees with Wilson or not is not the issue — it's whether one understands his meaning and his intent.
To make a meta-conversation out of it, I would ask, What are the reasons and conditions which lead to chunkdz's misunderstanding? I don't know, but if we could answer that then we would be making real progress, as opposed to the zero-progress which is a hallmark of ID discussions.
I'll try to briefly respond, but keep in mind that my responses are just clarifications of what I take as Wilson's intent.
It's an analogy with believing in Gods, and it only makes sense in the context of that analogy. Humans are not imprinted with the knowledge of biology. On the other hand, humans are most certainly inclined to believe in the supernatural when other explanations are absent. Our knowledge of ancient and modern human civilizations attests to this.
Nothing Wilson said implies the brain has stopped evolving. "When the brain was evolving" only denotes the time period when "Acceptance of the supernatural conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory".
That supernatural belief was advantageous is certainly a plausible idea, and Wilson did not make the kind of circular argument you describe.
There wasn't much need for me to quote your third point above because it is entirely moot; it revolves around the phrase "believe in biology" taken out of context, as I described above.
Comment by Frostman — October 15, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Of course we are not imprinted with biological knowledge but we are equiped with an intellect, an ability to observe and comprehend the natural world and curiosity as well. All these qualities make the development of biology, if not inevitable, then something very close to that. Chunkdz's objection is revealed in your comment which also reveals your preconception. Humans are inclined to believe in the supernatural irrespective of other explanations. The gaps mythology has become a talking point that inhibits genuine analyses on the part of those using it. Many believers in the supernatural came to their beliefs after acquiring an understanding of scientific principles. Some held their beliefs before understanding science and retained them. Why not? Science is limited and unable to explain all life's mysteries.
Comment by Bradford — October 16, 2007 @ 12:30 am
October 16th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Bradford,
Of course many believers in the supernatural came to their beliefs after acquiring an understanding of scientific principles. I did not argue against that. Wilson's statement was about the emergence of the human species, when scientific principles did not exist in their present form. Pre-scientific methods did not place importance on empirical evidence and testable claims. For crying out loud, nobody even thought to test Aristotle's assertion that heavier bodies fall faster until Galileo came along.
In all ancient civilizations and pre-ancient tribal life, people did not come to believe in the supernatural as a result of the knowledge acquired from the scientific method, as we understand the scientific method today. That's a tautology.
I hoped that my point about the flawed nature of the conversation itself would have been more interesting. Perhaps it's an impossible task, but I was wondering if we could examine problems with the conversation itself. My original point was that chunkdz appeared to misunderstand Wilson's quote. In a way, you have emphasized this point by also misunderstanding it. Or, if you understood it, you veered into a different subject.
Does anyone else observe that the conversation itself is strange?
Comment by Frostman — October 16, 2007 @ 9:48 am
October 16th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Only because everything that's being discussed is strange in its own way. But that's what happens when you start to kick around this particular topic. Arguing that beliefs in the supernatural 'evolved' is itself a strange debate - if beliefs or ideas evolve, then obviously they do so in a way that is disconnected from the what evolution means in a biological sense. That a particular belief may provide some survival advantages isn't enough to prove the point.
Maybe what really 'evolved' in humans was a desire to explain things one way or the other. Lacking adequate information to the contrary, the first step with humans was creating a consistent story based on what was observed, then altering the story as more information is available until finally - tada - a science. View it that way, and the difference between belief in the supernatural and belief in the scientific aren't two opposite ways of thinking, but the result of consistent observation along the timeline.
Not to mention that 'supernatural' is a term used and abused to the point of not even explaining false or unlikely concepts. Is the concept of an eternal universe in a steady state a supernatural one? There were some faiths that had such a view, and at the same time some scientists (and some still today) who maintain/ed it. There was also a time when the very idea of time itself having a beginning was written off as nonsense - or supernatural, depending on who you talk to. Maybe the word supernatural has evolved (ha) for some to be little more than another way of labeling a view as incorrect. Especially in a day where the idea of an infinite expanding multiplicity of universes, property dualism, and emergence aren't regarded as supernatural, even by many atheists.
In the end, I find the idea that 'man evolved to believe in the supernatural, but biology is the fruit of achieved wisdom and rationality' to be too much of a shell-game. Along the line of Richard Dawkins talking about how we're all driven by our selfish genes, unless there's a political or social aim he desires, in which case believing with him is an opportunity to rebel against our genes. Sounds almost like we're just making up stories that seem consistent based on what we observe and need. Oops, back to square one.
Comment by nullasalus — October 16, 2007 @ 10:26 am
October 16th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Frostman, contemporary science has no means of testing the central claim shared by most religions i.e. the existence of the supernatural. We can observe and test the natural world all we like and we will end up with an inadaquate set of data upon which to assess the totality of metaphysics. Linking an innate tendency to believe in the supernatural to an adaptive historic event(s) does nothing to affirm or deny whether the supernatural exists or not. If you agree with that then it looks like we are on the same wavelength with respect to this issue.
Comment by Bradford — October 16, 2007 @ 10:56 am
October 16th, 2007 at 11:22 am
frostman wrote:
To continue a point that Mike Gene has been making lately, the world is not an extension of frostman. We all perceive, think, and believe differently.
You seem to think that I simply misunderstand what Wilson has said in that paragraph. What I don't understand is how a member of the Academy of Sciences, Pulitzer Prize winning science author, Winner of the Medal of Science, and winner of the Sagan Award for Public Understanding of Science can claim that belief in gods is the product of a genetic algorithm, yet present absolutely no scientific evidence of said genetic algorithm.
What I don't understand is how a member of the Academy of Sciences, Pulitzer Prize winning science author, Winner of the Medal of Science, and winner of the Sagan Award for Public Understanding of Science can claim that belief in biology is not the product of a genetic algorithm, yet present absolutely no scientific evidence of why he thinks so.
If Wilson wants to claim that one set of beliefs is genetic, and another set of beliefs is not, he needs to back it up with sound testable evidence. Identify the genes, do knockout experiments that eliminate the belief in gods. Perform some biochemical profiles of believers vs. non believers. How about a double blind study? You know, science.
If Wilson wants to claim that belief in biology is a product of the Modern Age, he should first prove that prehistoric societies did not believe in biology. (I rather suspect that prehistoric societies DID believe in biology. Didn't animal husbandry and beekeeping occur in prehistoric societies? I imagine they also studied very carefully which plants were edible and which were not. Perhaps Wilson should clarify what he means by "belief in Biology") But even if we tacitly accept Wilson's claim, we should then expect that a winner of the Medal of Science and the Sagan Award for Public Understanding of Science would offer scientific evidence that belief in Biology is exempt from genetic interference, and was a product only of "The Modern Age", (whatever that means).
Wilson's argument here is all speculative, all opinion, very vague assertions, poorly defined terms, and not a single iota of scientific fact, evidence, or experimentation. It is bad, bad philosophy of science.
That's my take on it anyway. You may read the very same text and still desire to be an apologist for Wilson's "broader intent". If so, I'll apply the same criticism to you, his apologist, as well. Justify the "broader intent" with facts, genetic studies, knockout experiments, historical evidence, blood tests,….something other than vague philosophical assertions.
I don't. But if you are expecting everyone to view the argument exactly as you do, I suspect that it will seem very strange indeed.
Personally, I'd try to exercise a little skepticism when a scientist claims to have wrapped up the issue of belief in God.
Comment by chunkdz — October 16, 2007 @ 11:22 am
October 16th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
One more thing…
I feel compelled to point out this little logical fallacy. I asked what in the world it meant to "believe in biology".
Frostman wrote:
For the sake of argument. let's grant you that it was simply an analogy. Let's see if the analogy is a valid comparison. We have two beliefs - belief in supernatural, and belief in study of life. You start with a condition about biology.
It is well noted that you set the standard at "imprinting" of biological knowledge.
Did you ask whether humans are "imprinted with knowledge" about god?
Hmmm. The standard by which you measured biology was imprinted knowledge. The standard for belief in gods was simply being "inclined to believe", not genetically imprinted knowledge.
Why did you apply two standards to your assumed analogy?
Allow me to choose the other standard and see how the analogy holds up.
Ahhh. Much better. This analogy is fair, and even supportable by scientific data - even for prehistoric societies. (You see, humans ARE life. We eat life. We propogate life. We study life because we depend on life for our own life. We always have.)
Let's then use your other standard for the analogy. We arrive at:
Aha! That one also seems valid.
Do you see how damaging a double standard can be to critical thinking? More importantly, did you ask yourself why Wilson might have used a double standard in this case?
Or perhaps MOST importantly, did you ask yourself why you blindly went along with Wilson's double standard?
Comment by chunkdz — October 16, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
October 16th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Well we agree on that. In fact the motivation of my first post was the curiosity for what I assessed as a totally bizarre misinterpretation of Wilson's quote. "So Wilson admits that his brain has stopped evolving?" I couldn't tell if that was hyperbole or not. Is it? Did you really conclude that? Our minds are surely different.
All theories about the emergence of consciousness, of the emergence of pattern-seeking and causation-seeking minds, are inherently poor and inadequate. We have little data; ideas do not fossilize, nor does behavior, nor do social interactions.
So what do we do? The best we can do is to make poor and inadequate speculations about what happened, and judge them by the poor and inadequate evidence. It would be nice to have a time machine and several life-sustaining planets to use for double-blind experiments. Alas, we are stuck with what we have.
What is the theory you are proposing, which has so much more evidence? If indeed your theory lives up to the high standards you mention, then you should be world famous in no time. Seriously, what is the alternative you have in mind?
Re: "imprinting" vs "inclination". The contrast is stark, on purpose. The point was, How did we get our biological knowledge? A person raised by wolves in the wilderness with no human contact will not know about DNA. So obviously the knowledge is not imprinted. That is the extreme case, for illustration.
On the other hand, humans certainly have a causation-seeking drive (an inclination to seek causes). Sometimes the drive leads to superstition, sometimes to useful empirical knowledge. Superstition often wins because it requires no effort. We probably agree on much of this.
Real scientific knowledge, however, is tremendously more difficult to obtain than "useful empirical knowledge". The scientific method is an unnatural idea to humans, and we have little inclination for it unless it is explicitly taught. Remember my example that it took 1200 years before someone actually tested Aristotle's claim that heavier objects fall faster than light ones. It was an experiment which could have been done at any time, but nobody did it. Why? That is important to keep in mind.
To get back to the Wilson quote, biology is a product of the modern age, that is, a product of the scientific method. We reached the idea of the scientific method after stumbling around for a long, long time with our causation-seeking algorithms, but the scientific method itself is not a genetic algorithm.
Here is some more context of the original quote: