How California Scientists Perceive ID
by MikeGeneScott LaFee, from the San Diego UNION-TRIBUNE, proposed various questions about ID to several different scientists. So crack open a cold one, kick back, and enjoy the show.
QUESTION: How do you define science? Is intelligent design science?
Phil Unitt, an ornithologist from the San Diego Natural History Museum, answers:
Science is a mental activity consisting of observation and experimentation, synthesized by interpretation. The interpretation consists of developing a story that is consistent with the results of observation and experimentation. The key concept that distinguishes science from nonscience is that if new observations and experiments contradict the story, the story must be changed to accommodate them.
The challenge of science "“ the fun of science "“ is to make observations that compel the story to be changed or expanded. A story is not science if it is not open to testing "“ to change "“ by further observation and experimentation. Observations and experiments must be independently verified, or verifiable.
This all sounds good to me. So let's file it away for a later date.
Christopher Wills, a professor of biology from UCSD answers:
Advocates of intelligent design have observed the world, and have proposed the hypothesis that some vast intelligence must have created it because the world (or at least some portion of it) is too complicated to have arisen through natural processes.
I'm not sure where advocates of ID argue that the world is too complicated to have arisen through natural processes, but I can say this line of reasoning is not the basis for any design inference I would make.
Wills continues:
This is their hypothesis, and it is in principle testable.
This is a significant assertion, given that many critics of ID argue the opposite, claiming that ID is inherently untestable.
Wills offers some examples of ways to test ID:
For example, one could look for messages or other evidence for the existence of a vast intelligence (see Carl Sagan's novel "Contact" for a fictional example).
But this is the very approach that is advocated by Bill Dembski. He considers something like a "message," asking what is it about the message that signals its origin from mind and then proposes such a signal (complex specified information).
Wills also adds:
Or, in the case of evolution, one could search for sudden discontinuities in the history of life, in which a new structure or function has arisen without any previous history and no relationship to structures or functions in other related organisms. (Such new structures have not yet been found, by the way.)
Well, this is the approach advocated by Mike Behe, where Behe identifies irreducible complexity as such a "sudden discontinuity."
Now, while the critics are not convinced by Dembski and Behe's attempt to detect design, doesn't it look like Wills is effectively endorsing the basic approach of these ID theorists? That is, he seems to be saying that if ID advocates want ID to be science, they should be looking in the places where Dembski and Behe are looking. This is a significant point given that many critics of ID argue that Dembski and Behe are entirely misguided and are simply trying to rationalize their religious beliefs. Wills helps us to see that if a critic were to stumble upon something that raises a serious suspicion of ID, that critic would likely begin to think along the lines of Dembski and Behe.
Exequiel Ezcurra, director of scientific research at the San Diego Natural History Museum gives us the standard argument about ID violating the basic rules of science:
It is based on the acceptance of the existence of a completely unnecessary conjecture "“ that of a supernatural "intelligent designer" "“ and violates one of the most basic principles of scientific philosophy, the principle of parsimony, which states that natural effects should be explained through natural causes and that unnecessary hypotheses should be discarded when trying to understand the way the natural world works.
So here is not a question of evidence or testing, but a question of requiring a "natural cause" explanation for phenomena. Given that over 90% of scientists equate the concept of ID with a supernatural cause, those who think like Ezcurra are ruling out ID in an a priori fashion. This position paints itself into a very uncomfortable corner.
Dr. Evan Snyder a neurologist and director of the Stem Cells and Regeneration Program at The Burnham Institute gives us the "you better watch out" reply:
If an "intelligent designer" is equated with "God," then, if they are true scientists, they must now spend their time trying to disprove the existence of God. I am not sure if the proponents of ID are prepared to go down that route "“ training a classroom of students to design experiments that rule out the existence of God. Yet, if they wish to add ID to the scientific curriculum, that is precisely what they must be prepared to do.
There are two big problems here. First, ID does not equate the intelligent designer with God. For example, if we consider the approaches of Dembski and Behe (echoed by Wills), neither one is dependent on the assumption that the designer is God. Furthermore, a successful design inference, based on these criteria, is insufficient for concluding that God is the designer. Secondly, ID is an attempt to detect design. Failure to detect design simply means that we failed to detect design with current methods. It doesn't mean that design does not exist. The conclusion of design may still exist in the realm of theology or philosophy, as neither perspective mandates that all of God's design should be detectable. For example, disproving ID does not disprove theistic evolution, as the position of many theistic evolutionists (such as Ken Miller) is that God's designs are too subtle to be detected by science.
We now turn to the next question.
QUESTION: A central tenet of intelligent design is that some aspects of life are "irreducibly complex." That is, certain biological systems are so complicated that they could not have evolved incrementally through random mutation and natural selection. Your response.
The thing that is immediately obvious is that the question fails to accurately describe irreducible complexity, as it is not about being "too complicated." Nevertheless, let's turn to the answers.
Jeffrey Bada, a marine chemist from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography answers:
One cited example, among many, is how life began on Earth. Although we still do not fully understand the origin of life from a scientific point-of-view, research continues to provide vital information about the possible processes that may or may not have been involved.
There is optimism that science will eventually provide an understanding of at least the basic processes. Intelligent design claims that the processes involved are scientifically unknowable and thus must be explained by a supernatural or extraterrestrial creator.
This is akin to the widely held 19th century theory of panspermia that life on Earth began from a spore or seed from outer space. Scientific research subsequently demonstrated that panaspermia was not a testable and verifiable scientific theory and the same applies to intelligent design today.
Bada is clearly replying to the "too complicated" point rather than IC. But there are a couple of points worth commenting on. First, note that while Wills agrees that ID is testable, Bada tells us it is not. As you can clearly see, scientists disagree among themselves concerning such a fundamental issue as the testability of ID.
Secondly, Bada is correct in noting science's emphasis on the process (or mechanism). The problem here is that the non-teleological process may be quite different from the teleological process, such that it would be a mistake to treat the latter as another example of the former. For example, the teleological process may be best thought of as a recipe or protocol and information contained within such processes is extrinsic to the designed artifact. What's most interesting to me is that Bada would apparently be content with "an understanding of at least the basic processes." That's fine. But would it have anything to do with our history?
Moselio Schaechter, adjunct professor of biology at SDSU, answers:
How can anyone say that something is irreducibly complex, thus evolution impossible? How do they know? Could it not just escape our present state of understanding? Weren't phenomena such as how inheritance takes place thought to be unfathomable not long ago?
A very common reply "“ a version of the "god of the gaps" complaint. But wait, didn't Wills just suggest that we look for "sudden discontinuities in the history of life, in which a new structure or function has arisen without any previous history and no relationship to structures or functions in other related organisms?" Isn't the reason we're supposed to look for such a thing is so that we can come up with something evolution could not explain? If we found such a sudden discontinuity, people like Schaechter would simply argue it was a gap. Or what about John Rennie, editor of Scientific American? While dumping on Wells' hypothesis about centrioles, Rennie writes:
Even if the centrioles do turn out to generate a turbine force, that doesn't indicate they were designed to that end. All it proves is that centrioles act like little turbines. Unless they can establish that centrioles couldn't have evolved to function as turbines, they haven't done anything to validate ID.
Did you see that? An editor of Scientific American explains that Wells has to establish that centrioles could not have evolved to function as turbines. In other words, Wells needs to establish the centrioles as a gap, just so someone like Schaechter can come along and complain Wells is proposing gaps. It looks to me like the all the skeptical bases are covered here.
The next two replies don't seem all that persuasive/coherent to me. Dr. Mark Tuszynski, a neurologist/neuroscientist from UCS, thinks the Miller-Urey experiments successfully mimicked the ancient Earth and then argues, with enough time, one can imagine the building blocks transforming into cells. Yeah, I can imagine that.
Dr. Joshua Fierer, a professor of medicine and pathology at UCS, wonders whether sickle cell anemia was designed and its not clear to me if he understands the role of heterozygosity in maintaining such alleles.
Okay, time for a new question:
QUESTION: Many mainstream scientists have chosen to ignore or avoid the debate over intelligent design. Why?
This is going to be good.
Dr. Ajit P. Varki a professor of medicine from UCSD, tells us that scientists have been killed for providing evidence against a flat earth. Does anyone know who he is talking about?
Varki closes with:
Since such positions would be based strictly on faith, there is little point in discussing them, let alone giving them undeserved legitimacy.
Thus, this professor of medicine hears "faith" when he reads "ID." As such, he waves it away with his hands.
It gets better with J. David Archibald, a professor of biology at SDSU:
One should never debate such lunacy. It implies that there is something to debate. It only gives it legitimacy it does not deserve.
In Archibald's mind, ID is lunacy. As such, he waves it away with his hands.
Time for the final question.
QUESTION: One key principle of intelligent design is the belief that there are questions about life and the universe that science cannot answer, now or in the future. Your response.
Now that's odd, as I don't recall reading this as a "key principle" of ID. Anyway, let's check out the responses to this "key principle."
Tom Demere, a paleontologist from the San Diego Natural History Museum, writes:
I have to admit that it is not that clear to me just what constitutes ID. Since I could find no research papers published in peer-reviewed scientific publications on the subject, I have had to rely on Internet sources.
It shouldn't have been too hard to obtain Meyer's article, Behe's book, or one of Dembski's book. But if he's going to look to the internet, I'm partial to this site (even if its not mainstream ID). Anyway, the odd question has Demere thinking that ID entails the abandonment of scientific research. Oh well.
Michael Mayer, an associate professor of biology at USD, says:
I don't know of any working scientist who is ready to throw in the towel on any question regarding the life sciences or physical sciences.
Consider the question, "Were the first life forms designed?" It would seem many working scientists have thrown in the towel on that question, for as Demere just noted, there are no scientific papers that ask and explore this question. Now don't make the mistake of thinking in "us vs. them" terms here. Consider the simple sociological fact that the scientific community doesn't ask and explore that question in its literature. There are either lots of towels on the ground or lots of people don't think the question is interesting.
Lastly, Michael Simpson, a professor of biology from SDS, says:
I believe this is basically a religious or faith question. It seems to me that many who support this notion of intelligent design are doing so to bolster their own religious beliefs, specifically that there is a God, a divine creator. They are disturbed and angry and frightened that what is central in their lives is not generally taught or even mentioned in public schools, and they might view science in general (and evolutionary theory specifically) as a threat, e.g., to a particular set of religious beliefs.
We end with some psychoanalysis from a biologist, yet the psychoanalysis is simply a stereotype. What matters is we have another biologist who hears "religious faith" when "ID" is spoken/written.
Wrap up time.
I appreciate LaFee's effort to recruit various scientists to speak about ID. In fact, there are some "big picture" lessons here. We've seen quite a few perceptions about ID which don't seem to be all that informed about ID. The questions asked by the staff of the Union-Tribune are a case in point. And not only are some of the questions weird, you'll notice a big picture of a Nautilis shell with the following caption:
Proponents of "intelligent design" contend that aspects of life, from the beauty of a nautilus shell to the clotting mechanism of red blood cells, are too complex to have simply evolved through random mutation and natural selection.
Huh? Who has argued that the Nautilus shell is too complex to have evolved?
More importantly, consider the perceptions entailed in the answers from the scientific community: ID=God, ID=religion, ID=faith, ID comes from a tradition that kills scientists, ID=lunacy, and ID is not testable. Remember that the people who hold these views are among the pool of peer-reviewers who are supposed to peer review ID. 
June 18th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
Are we surprised by the responses to LaFee's questions?
The only reason for absolutism in a non-absolute endeavor such as science is invested faith. Some scientists don't even know their faith has been invested because they don't think terms of faith for themselves, though they've been taught to believe that anyone who disagrees with their "orthodoxy" must be acting on a stereotypical "Creationist" faith.
It's this kind of self-imposed ideological blindness that might make me feel sorry for individual scientists who have willingly submitted to enforced intellectual impoverishment. Then I remember that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. There's no point in pity for people who waste 'em on purpose.
Comment by Joy — June 18, 2005 @ 8:05 pm
June 18th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
Joy, it has always struck me that when someone says that a group of people have a "self imposed ideological blindness"; all this shows is that one of at least two groups has such a blindness - but it does not provide evidence one way or the other as to which one. It is no good saying that you have looked at the evidence and seen which theory it supports; for the other group have done the same and think the evidence supports a different theory. Your judgement of the evidence is only relevant if it is impossible for you to have been blinded by ideology.
There is a way to test as to which group does in fact suffer from such blindness - ie, by looking at sociological considerations. Prima facie, the larger of the two groups is less likely to have been blinded; for that requires that fewer people have fooled themselves. Prima facie, the better educated group is less likely to be binded; for they have more knowledge, and better training in the use of knowledge, to avoid traps of self deception with. Prima facie, the most ideologically diverse group is less likely to be blinded; for it is unlikely that several diverse ideologies should lead to exactly the same blindness. Prima facie, the group most strongly committed to emperically testing their theory is less likely to be blinded; for that very commitment both shows confidence in their theory, and means their theory has been continuously exposed to situations that could bring the house of cards down.
There are complications about the first two criteria. IF we include the entire population; then fellow travellers of the ID movement are more numerous than Darwinist's, but they are significantly less educated. If we include only scientists; then Darwinist's massively outnumber ID theorists (and fellow travellers), and are typically better educated in science (but not by so large a margin). On the other criteria, Darwnisms fairs better than ID in every case. Thus while ID theorists include some (but very few) agnostics, it is predominately composed of people strongly commited to theism; and whose commitment to theism normally preceded and motivated their commitment to ID. In contrasts, Darwinists are drawn from across the ideological spectrum, with most Darwinists being theists; though a significant number (especially among the more prominent Darwinists) are agnostics or atheists.
On sociological criteria, therefore, the sensible thing to do is assume the ideological blindness is a pervasive property of ID theorists (without assuming that Darwinists are automatically exempt).
Comment by tom_kbel — June 18, 2005 @ 9:15 pm
June 18th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
Tom writes:
Yet history does not always support this contention. Consider this book about eugenics:
The sociological considerations would have us think Chesterton (the religious zealot) was blinded and could not appreciate the progress that was promised by an enlightened society implementing science. History tells us otherwise.
Nevertheless, I don't think it's a question of ideological blindness. What we can clearly see if that neither the journalists nor the scientists had a good grasp on ID. It's more like intellectual laziness that comes about from reliance on stereotypes.
Comment by MikeGene — June 18, 2005 @ 9:53 pm
June 19th, 2005 at 11:49 am
Well, I suppose I should have expected you (or someone who thinks just like you) to have missed the "some" qualifier in my exasperated statement. But since LaFee only asked his loaded questions of "some" California scientists in the first place, it's a bit difficult to come up with a significant grouping here no matter how you try to twist the issue.
Unless you happen to be looking for what you already expect to see, which is a pretty good example of that which I find to be hopelessly exasperating.
I see nothing "sensible" here, I see a broad-brush assumption applied against a stereotype - the very scarecrow you falsely accused me of engaging. To quote your very words…
"it has always struck me that when someone says that a group of people have a 'self-imposed ideological blindness"; all this shows is that one of at least two groups has such a blindness - but it does not provide evidence one way or the other as to which one."
Comment by Joy — June 19, 2005 @ 11:49 am
June 19th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Joy on "Science as Socio-Political Absolutism"
Now, oddly, I don't see your qualifiers in this little tirade. Here you claim that Darwin's defenders cannot distinguish between the empericism they purport to practise, and the rationalism you claim they actually practise. So did you mean here only some Darwinists are reduced to " 'intuitional' mind-worship" or that all, or almost all of them were.
It seems to me that your view is that all, or almost all defenders of Darwin, including those poor, benighted scientists in their laboratories or the field, who think they are publishing research that supports Darwinism, are unable to follow the emperical evidence because of a prior commitment to Darwinism. Please correct me if I am wrong. Is it 80% of Darwinists you beieve to be following the emperical evidence without distortion from ideological commitment; or 60%, or what? What percentage of Darwinists, as a ball park figure are not "absolutist[s] in a non-absolute endeavour"
This is a serious, not a rhetorical question. If you can come out and say that any significant proportion of Darwinists hold their views on Darwinism because of a reasoned assessment of available evidence; then I will apologise for misunderstanding you, and withdraw my comment.
However, I do not think you can. You certainly did not in your responce to me. Indeed, in that response you wrote:
There is no qualifier here on how many scientists are absolutists in the non-absolute endeavour of science. The "some" qualifier you place so much emphasis on only qualifies those who "don't even know their faith has been invested". This leaves it open that all scientists have their faith invested, but only some don't realise that. Further, though the sample was only of some Californian scientists; Mike clearly attempted to draw conclusions about the scientific community in general, conclusions you did not dispute.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 19, 2005 @ 7:20 pm
June 19th, 2005 at 11:29 pm
Tom:
Now what are you talking about?
Comment by MikeGene — June 19, 2005 @ 11:29 pm
June 20th, 2005 at 1:42 am
Now what are you talking about?
I think the answer was self evident, really. Or are you also going to pretend that your comments refered exclusively to the scientists questioned without any attempt to suggest any inference about the wider scientific community?
Comment by tom_kbel — June 20, 2005 @ 1:42 am
June 20th, 2005 at 2:00 am
Oh, I see. So is it your belief that those perceptions are rare outside of the group selected by these journalists?
Comment by MikeGene — June 20, 2005 @ 2:00 am
June 20th, 2005 at 6:42 am
No, Mike. That is why I criticised Joy's comment, but not your post. For what it is worth, Journalists typically have woefull levels of knowledge on any issue of science or religion. That is illustrated here by the journalist's (or editor's) reference to the "clotting mechanism of red blood cells". Nor would I expect an arbitrary group of scientists to have a clear idea of the doctrines of ID. The question is, not whether arbitrary scientists who have skimmed perhaps an article or two in nature and SciAm (if your lucky) have a clear idea; but whether ID critics have a clear idea of the doctrines of ID (the answer is yes); or whether ID based critics of Darwinism have a clear idea of the theory of Darwinism. Based on publications, Johnson, Meyer and Wells certainly do not. The jury is still out on Behe and Dembski.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 20, 2005 @ 6:42 am
June 20th, 2005 at 8:10 am
Tom:
This has not been my experience. As just one example, most critics confuse ID with religion. For example, notice how you carefully phrase things as an example of such confusion - "doctrines" of ID. Please explain why you chose that word.
If I was on another board with a herd of critics, and I wrote "theory of Darwinism," five or six critics would pounce on me, claiming there is no such thing as a "theory of Darwinism" and then proceed to explain that I am a closet creationist, as only a creationist describes evolution as a "theory of Darwinism."
Did you know that about the "ID critics", Tom?
Comment by MikeGene — June 20, 2005 @ 8:10 am
June 20th, 2005 at 9:04 am
Despite Tom's attempt to handwave it away, the fact that the average scientist relies on stereotypes to think about ID is indeed relevant. For example, consider this report from NCSE, claiming that "the concept of "intelligent design" is viewed by the vast majority of scientists and a clear majority of the public as basically a religious explanation of human origins." Is there any evidence that this "vast majority of scientists" have an understanding of ID above that gained by skimming "perhaps an article or two in nature and SciAm (if your lucky)" The NSCE doesn't present any.
So I take it that Tom agrees with me that such "counting of heads" in the scientific community is irrelevant with regards to the validity of ID?
Comment by Krauze — June 20, 2005 @ 9:04 am
June 20th, 2005 at 10:04 am
Krauze, yes and no.
On the single issue of the nature of ID, the consensus of the scientific community is almost completely irrelevant, because most scientists wouldn't be able to distinguish ID from YEC from the little they know of either. But a major part of the activity of ID theorists is the critique of Darwinism. In fact, I would say it is their only activity if you exclude explicitly apologetic and/or political activities, and those associated with university affiliations were relevant. And the consensus opinion of biologists in favour of Darwinism is highly relevant; and in that case they do know a reasonably comprehensive outline of the evidence favouring Darwinism, and therefore, why the ID critique fails.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 20, 2005 @ 10:04 am
June 20th, 2005 at 10:31 am
Krauze, an additional comment on the two polls reported by the NCSE.
The poll of the Ohian public explicitly asked, "Do you know anything about the concept of Intelligent Design?" 84% responded "No". Unfortunately the Ohian professors were not asked the same question. In both polls, a brief (one sentence) summary of ID was provided before proceding with further questions. Based on that one sentence summary, the majority of Ohians and Ohian professors considered ID a religious doctrine.
The one sentence summary reads:
Three points about the summary. It does not bring in any concept of the supernatural, or even that the "designer" is a person. It focuses on the notion of life being too complex, without explicitly mentioning or defining SC or IC. However, as life is itself a specification, and as the complexity of even the simplest life forms excedes Dembski's UPB, I consider this a fair summary of ID (given space constraints). Any ID theorist who considers Dembski's argument to be valid is thereby commited to the view that "life is too complex to have developed by chance". Thirdly, the question, which was designed by the Cleveland Plain Dealer, by tacitly classifying the alternate theory to ID (ie, Darwinism) as "life develop[ing] by chance" misrepresents that alternative far more than the sentence could be considered to misrepresent Darwinism.
In consequence, I consider the survey results to be interesting, but not hugely relevant. They deserve notice, but not a beat up - and that is all they got from the NCSE. In that notice, the NCSE was very clear about the methodology of the poll. I think it a reach, therefore, to suggest they were arguing from authority. Nor do I think you were suggesting that - but I think it worthwhile to be clear on that point.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 20, 2005 @ 10:31 am
June 20th, 2005 at 10:48 am
In reverse order:
Did I know that some ID critics are pedantic nitpickers? Yes! You get that on both sides. Had I been strictly accurate I would have talked about the core elements of the Darwinian research program (or perhaps, key elements, as I do not think that Johnson, Wells and Meyer are mistaken about everything).
ID is not a religion, but it is a religious movement. I know this because whether you use Popperian, Kuhnian, Lakatosian, or even (and I would recommend against this) Rusian criteria, it is not a science. In fact, the only notable demarcation criteria on which ID is a science is Feyerabend's, and that is because Feyerabend refuses to make a demarcation.
Having determined it is not science, to find out what it is, you look to its origins. The ID movement started as the mere creationism movement of Phillip Johnson; and that movement is clearly religious by any criteria. The main ID organisation is the Discovery Institute, which is funded for religious purposes by a clearly religiously commited man. It is not exclusively so funded, of course; but when seeking additional funding, the Discovery Institute clearly stated its purpose - the over throw of materialism. That is clearly a religous purpose. Further, its main proponents clearly come from a position of strong religious commitment, and are motivated to their activities (if not their views) by that commitment. And finally, they seem unable to avoid such telling comments as (approx), "ID is the logos doctrine of St John in the lingo of information theory".
All this would be irrelevant, on one provisio. Science does not care what your motivations are, or what inspired your ideas, or who funds you - so long as you do science. Given all the obvious connections between ID and religion, ID would still not be religious IF it met the criteria of Lakatosian science. But it doesn't; and as it is not science, that makes it religion.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 20, 2005 @ 10:48 am
June 20th, 2005 at 11:07 am
I take it Tom has not read Del Ratzsch's review of Shanks.
Interestingly circular; ID is religous creationism. Why? Because Johnson is a creationist. How do we know he is a creationist? Because his "movement is clearly religious by any criteria".
Tom, do you seriously fool yourself when you write this up, or what?
Comment by Jean — June 20, 2005 @ 11:07 am
June 20th, 2005 at 4:28 pm
Hi Tom,
Now I'm confused. In your original comment, you attempted to draw a distinction between the average scientists with little understanding of ID and the ID critics who've spent time reading ID material. In your latests comment, you claim that the average biologist is well-equipped to evaluate the truth or falsity of Darwinism. We can get back to whether or not this claim is correct, but for the moment, I'd like to get this straight. You go on to claim that critiques of Darwinism is the "only activity" of ID, "if you exclude explicitly apologetic and/or political activities, and those associated with university affiliations were relevant." So, which ID material is it that ID critics are especially equipped to evaluate? Or are their function primarily of a political and anti-apologetical nature?
Also, if the scientific community is well-equipped to evaluate the arguments for ID, why would there be anything wrong with using its consensus as an argument from authority?
Comment by Krauze — June 20, 2005 @ 4:28 pm
June 20th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
Krauze, I do not understand the basis of your confusion.
As experts in Darwinism, most biologists have encountered similar arguments to those used by ID theorists many times before; and are aware of the rebutalls and refuting evidence for those arguments (or at minimum, know where to find them). They know, therefore, that Darwinism is well supported by the evidence, and that no simplistic arguments are going to overthrow it.
Amongst those biologists, only those who have taken an interest in ID know the particular arguments being used by ID theorists, and the particular lingo they use in presenting them. Only they, therefore, can reasonably be expected to correctly state those arguments if asked. Only they, for example, would know that though ID theorists claim there is evidence that the laws of physics were intelligently designed, they also insist that we cannot know that the person who designed the laws of physics is a supernatural being. Only they would know that while Behe runs the old "the intermediate forms are not as fit as the end points, so evolution could not derive one from the other" argument (also known as, "what good is half an eye"), he dresses it up in modern terminology as "irreducible complexity".
If I can illustrate with an analogy. Any physicist would be able to tell you that geocentrism is bunk. But only physicists who have examined Gerard Bouw's writtings would be able to tell you exactly what his arguments were, and how the standard evidence refutes his views in detail. (I use this example because I assume everyone here will agree that geocentrism is now pseudo-science. I am not intending a comparison on the lines of ID is no better than geocentrism, or any other such nonsense.) Although you disagree with me about the scientific status of ID, you should see from the geocentrism analogy how, if ID was not science, then the situation as I describe it would hold.
As to arguments from authority, they only ever have two valid purposes. The first is, if you do not have time or inclination to examine a matter in detail, it is reasonable to accept the authority of those who have - but only when there is a significant consensus of experts on the issue. The second is to rebut false arguments from authority.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 20, 2005 @ 7:16 pm
June 20th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
No, I had not. My PDF reader was defunct. But having now downloaded v7 of the Acrobat reader, I do not see the relevance. I notice that he agrees with me that methodological naturalism is not a basic principle of science; and disagrees with me as to whether a being who designed the universes laws is a supernatural being.
What I find interesting is Ratzsch's comments in a review of "Intelligent Design Creationism and it Critics":
Where I disagree with Ratzsch is that I think any attempt to develop auxilliary hypotheses (beyond a mere ad hoc basis) to such an extent that ID could in principle contribute to scientific research would so fracture the ID community on the basis of theological commitments that it would cease to exist as a community, and as a research program.
Do you really think that cherry picking just one piece of evidence to form a rebutall really impresses anyone? Or do you really think that Johnson, all of whose related books are published by a religious publishing house, who is on record as choosing to defend "mere creation", who advised creationist to put aside issues such as the age of the Earth and common descent and to form alliance to refute Darwism before discussing those other issues, and when a group of creationists with such a diverse range of opinions forms around him, advises on the formation of an organisation whose stated goal is the overthrow of materialism, whose first conference is organised by a Christian ministery at a Christian university, and is called "Mere Creation", and who describes the "informal movement of like minded thinkers" in which he has "taken a leading role" as having the strategy of "driving a wedge" into "the log of naturalism", is not involved in a religious campaign?
So Jean, were you really fool enough to think I would not notice how you supressed the greater part of my evidence in your reformulation of my argument? Were you really fool enough to think I did not know the overwhelmingly religious nature of Johnson's campaign? Or did you just think your fellow IDists would not care about the validity of your argument, just so long as it argued in the right direction?
Comment by tom_kbel — June 20, 2005 @ 9:19 pm
June 20th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
Tom,
Before I can proceed with an answer to your reply, I need some clarification.
1. You assert that ID is a "religious movement." Does this mean that my web page and this blog are part of a religious movement?
2. Please define "doctrine" (the word you chose twice).
3. I am assuming that you would count yourself among the ID critics who have a "clear idea of the doctrines of ID." What are these doctrines?
Comment by MikeGene — June 20, 2005 @ 10:37 pm
June 21st, 2005 at 12:40 am
Not necessarilly. You may just be fellow travellers with a religious movement. Apparently about 16% of atheists in the US donate time or money to churches. That does not make them religious, or Christians (although in my opinion, it does make them bizzare). You have obviously been influenced by (I would say, misled by) the ID movement; but that does not mean automatically that you adhere to all the doctrines taught by the leadership of the ID movement that makes it religious.
Further, you at least have gone much further down the path that would be needed for ID to become a science than any other ID theorist I know of. Unlike the ID movement itself, you at least do lay it on the line infavour of an old earth, and (mostly) common descent. You have been prepared to invoke motives in an attempt to determine emperical predictions; and I have no reason to believe that, like the core members of the ID movement, you would deny the validity of such auxilliary hypotheses in the event of their becoming inconvenient. ID as you pursue might be a nascent proto-science. That is, you have a long way to go before your hypotheses are testable in principle, but at least you are developing in the right direction.
Of course, I do not know all (or even a lot) about you. You may be as religiously committed as Wells, and that may distort your actual research as much as it has that of Johnson or Wells, or Dembski, come to that. But I only have reason to suspect that because of your association with the ID movement proper, and because of the behaviour of some of your fellow bloggers.
A doctrine is:
That is, it is a key tenet, or belief. I use it deliberately of ID to allude to the religious nature of the core ID beliefs.
The core doctrines of the ID movement are:
1) Darwinism fails as a philosophically and/or scientifically adequate account of the origin of life's diversity;
This is in part because,
2) There exists adequate emperical evidence to prove that life on Earth was originated, and may have been continuosly upgraded by, a designer;
3) Darwinism continues to be accepted in large part because of a strong philosophical objection to the existance of the supernatural;
4) The impact of Darwinism on society has been the widespread acceptance of a materialist, or quasi-materialist outlook; and
5) The best way to end that impact is to supplant Darwinism by a widely accepted ID "science", being taught in schools, and prefferably also being backed by a research program.
ID advocates want us to accept only 1 and 2 as being core theses of ID, and to treat 3 to 5 as merely incidental beliefs of some ID advocates. However, that is not warranted because:
- All the major advocates of ID (Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Meyer, and Wells) are on record as agreeing with all five theses;
- The major ID organisation (the Discovery Institute) is on record as advocating 5 as its purpose; and
- The relative activity of the ID fellows in lobbying Congress, text book committees, school boards, and what have you far excedes their activity in conducting research. That is a sure indicator of the relative importance of the last three tenets compared to the first two for the core of the ID movement.
I am not, by the way, saying that any movement that adheres to the first two tenets is necessarily not science, or necessarilly religious. But for any such movement that was science, or at least aspired to be science in fact rather than just in title, the first order of business would be to develop a clear, cogent, and consensus set of auxilliary hypotheses in order to be able to develop a genuine research program. They would have no interest in getting their science taught, or into textbooks, or anywhere near a school at all until they were getting definite runs on the board in their research program.
The ID movement itself (as opposed to some fellow travellors) cannot do this, because amongst the first auxilliary hypotheses up for debate would be the age of the Earth and common descent; whose impact on assessing the relative merit of the evidence is undeniable. (It is not as though the evidence for an old Earth or for common descent is in the slightest way ambiguos.) The ID movement cannot do this because such clarrification would shatter the "broad church" approach to these issues that they have taken as a necessity to get such diverse religious views under one roof.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 21, 2005 @ 12:40 am
June 22nd, 2005 at 1:30 am
Tom:
Yes, but according to you, ID is a religious movement with an agenda. Its mode of travel is religious in nature and its destination is social change in the image of religion. The "fellow travelers" metaphor is thus misleading, as it conveys the impression we share those same basic features. The reality is that ID is much older and much broader than any current popular expression of it. As such, there are bound to be people whose interests and opinions will intersect at certain points. Focusing only on the intersection points would be misleading, as it would be akin to cherry picking. Therefore, a better metaphor would be that we are cross-talkers.
No, I am not influenced by a movement. My interest in ID is a function of the internet and was sparked by the early cyberspace reactions to Behe's book. That's what got my attention. This led me to read Behe's book. This led me to formulate my own ideas and opinions which have landed me between the two opposing camps. It may be hard for you to believe, but I am capable of having my own independent ideas and opinions; it is a mistake to interpret me through the prism of a movement.
However, I do appreciate the fact that you recognize my views as more of a "nascent proto-science." I have long noted that they are not science (but neither are they religion) and characterized them merely as an attempt to investigate. Because I have so many other commitments and obligations, the "investigation" is mostly a late night hobby.
You define "˜doctrine' as a key tenet, or belief and use the term deliberately of ID to allude to the religious nature of the core ID beliefs. You then identify the five "ID doctrines." I don't accept "doctrines" 2-5 and #1 is not a doctrine (skepticism is not a belief).
Okay, so let's go back to your original claim:
What was it about their replies that led you to think this arbitrary group of scientists didn't have a clear idea of the "doctrines" of ID?
Why do you say the answer is yes? I would bet (based on experience) that if I had asked 20 randomly selected ID critics to list the "doctrines of ID", we get 20 different lists (of different lengths) with varying degrees of overlap. What makes you think that your specific list would have been independently reproduced by a large number of critics?
In your next reply to me, you claim for yourself knowledge that ID is indeed a religious movement. You argue it is not science, thus we must look to its origins. Yet your "looking" is nothing more than Wedge-centrism, a perception of ID grounded in cherry picking. The problem I have with your whole argument is that it's not clear if and when you are talking about the concept of ID and when/if you are talking about the ID movement, as these are two different things. For example, when you originally claimed that you don't expect scientists to have a clear idea of the doctrines of ID, this sounded like you were talking about the concepts associated with ID. But it turns out you are just saying they don't have a clear idea about the details of the socio-political movement. So what? It looked to me that their replies reflected an understanding of the gist of the movement as outlined by you. After all, they equated ID with religion and faith. Isn't this is in basic agreement with your characterization of ID as a religious movement?
If you want to distance yourself from something said by the list of arbitrary scientists, then point out the claim and explain the reason for distance. On the other hand, you have already admitted that this arbitrary group of scientists do not have perceptions that are unique to them. So what's your point?
Comment by MikeGene — June 22, 2005 @ 1:30 am
June 22nd, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Hi Tom,
"Amongst those biologists, only those who have taken an interest in ID know the particular arguments being used by ID theorists, and the particular lingo they use in presenting them."
So the ID critics' function is as translators, reformulating ID arguments for the "arbitrary scientists" to knock down?
It seems like we're ready to revisit your earlier comment:
"But a major part of the activity of ID theorists is the critique of Darwinism. In fact, I would say it is their only activity if you exclude explicitly apologetic and/or political activities, and those associated with university affiliations were relevant."
This only shows that most scientists reject ID because they've only heard negative arguments for it. It isn't the case that the scientific community has investigated whether life was designed, and come to the conclusion that it wasn't. As Mike points out here, that's simply something science doesn't do.
Comment by Krauze — June 22, 2005 @ 2:47 pm