ID critics and proof texting
by KrauzeSome recent posts from Bipod and Mike have inspired me to blog about a phenomenon I noticed a while ago. The "proof texting" of the title refers to the practice of basing one's view on a few selected quotes, whether from a holy book, a guru, an encyclopedia, or any other trusted source. Investigating the arguments for a view and thinking out their implications can take time, and it's tempting to dig up a couple of sentences to support what you already believe. This practice is evident in the many collections of quotes against evolution around the internet, as if the truth or falsity of a theory can be determined by quoting short snippets of the works of scientists.
What struck me was that many critics of intelligent design have also discovered how easy proof texting is, especially when claiming that ID is creationism. Rather than thinking through the logic of a design inference, discussing whether it leads one to accept creationism, a critic can simply point to some quote from Johnson, Dembski, or Panda's and People, and say, "See, these guys say that ID is creationism."
This allows Nick Matzke of the NCSE staff, for example, to respond to the statement, "the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea", by quoting a number of ID proponents, including Philip Johnson:
Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.
At this point, I guess I could write a detailed reply, showing that Johnson is simply wrong, and that the truth of intellligent design does not entail "the reality of God". But I'm in a bit of a hurry, so I'm simply going to proof text one of Matzke's fellow critics, Niall Shanks:
"[E]ven if we conclude that the constants were tuned by design, the numbers themselves tell us nothing about who or what did it. To get from the conclusion of mere design to the further conclusion that it was design by the God of religion X will require more than simple observations of cosmological fine-tuning. Such strong conclusions will involve (among other things) debates about the interpretation of sacred texts and philosophical and theological speculation of a kind that has no place in science."
Niall Shanks, God, the Devil, and Darwin (Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 211
There! Wasn't that easy?
November 12th, 2005 at 8:11 am
And didn't Hume famously diminish design arguments at least partially because they lacked specificity about the nature of the designer. In other words, they gave us very little information - too vague.
In fact, there is textual evidence that in his less skeptical hours (in his writings he would occassionally comment on his more common sense views, outside of the impracticality of skepticism about things like causation, etc.) Hume recognized the force of design argument. Hume thought the design inference was somewhat compelling outside of a radical skepticism, but not compelling towards anything but a vague source of power.
Comment by bipod — November 12, 2005 @ 8:11 am
November 12th, 2005 at 11:51 am
I don't understand your point. Are you saying that Phillip Johnson's ID strategy has not really been "to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." That he's mistaken about his own strategy? Do you have some contextual quotes from Johnson that show he meant something else by the words you quoted?
Or do you mean that the belief which this strategy aims to further is wrong, that intelligent design does not really mean the reality of God and nobody should try to sneak ID into schools?
If so, does the fact that the foundational belief of the ID movement is false change the movement's strategy? According to your own quote, the universally acknowledged father of the modern ID movement, the man who who designed ID's strategy and who remains a very highly influential leader of the movement today, freely acknowledges that ID really means the reality of God and the ID movement's strategy really is to get it into the schools through subterfuge. This is essentially what ID critics have been saying all along.
If all you mean by this entry is that you don't share Professor Johnson's goals, then good for you, but this blog is a very minor and non-typical part of the ID movement. Johnson is the originator of that movement and it's strategy and he is a very important and powerful ID leader. He says ID means God did it and ID's strategy is to use subterfuge to get this belief into the schools. His word is good enough for me.
Comment by TTam — November 12, 2005 @ 11:51 am
November 12th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Hi TTam,
"I don't understand your point."
Weird, as I think it was pretty obvious in what I wrote. As the title, "ID critics and proof texting" might lead one to suspect, my post is about the practice of supporting one's beliefs on short quotes from "trusted sources", rather than engaging with the arguments pro and con. I then give an example of ID critic Nick Matzke engaging in this practice by quoting Philip Johnson, and then I show the futility of this approach by quoting another ID critic, Niall Shanks, back at him. The point being that Philip Johnson's opinions don't count for anything if the reasoning behind them isn't sound.
Now, it's obvious that to you, Philip Johnson is a "trusted source", as he's "a very important and powerful ID leader." Therefore, you feel justified in proof texting Johnson's words to support what you already believe, namely that ID=creationism.
Well, let's drop the mental crutches and examine the reasoning behind the claim that intelligent design "really means the reality of God", shall we? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the bacterial flagellum is designed. How would this conclusion entail the reality of God? What arguments would Philip Johnson use to take me from a belief in the design of the flagellum to the existence of God?
Comment by Krauze — November 12, 2005 @ 1:22 pm
November 15th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
When I said, "I don't understand your point" I was being polite. What I meant to say was that you screwed your posting up royally. You quote Johnson on whether ID is religious or not (he says it is, but ID is using subterfuge to sneak it into secular schools - his quote also comes from American Family Radio, a religious radio network), but Matzke also quotes a paragraph from the DI's wedge strategy, a sentence from Of Pandas and People, more Behe saying ID isn't religious and the Mount Rushmore argument, both in it's original YEC form and it's new ID reincarnation. This isn't "proof texting", it's bringing together many IN CONTEXT quotes from many ID leaders showing that they DO believe that ID is religious in nature, even if they intend to lie about it.
Then you cap off your posting with a weird, totally non sequitur, quote from Shanks to the effect that ID doesn't necessarily guarantee that God exists. You actually seem to think that this proves something. Earth to ID: the fact that a religious doctrine is false doesn't make it non-religious! If that were true, there would be no religion!
I've had a chance to read more of this blog since my original posting and, unfortunately, you're not that far out of line with your blogmates or the rest of the ID world. Sad to say, you appear to be one of the more knowledgeable people on this blog. Talk about the blind leading those who refuse to see!
When you have to go to this kind of length to defend ID, it's time to stand back and do a complete re-think of your position. Untill then, unsubscribe me, I don't have the time to waste.
Comment by TTam — November 15, 2005 @ 4:38 pm
November 15th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Hi TTam,
"This isn't "proof texting", it's bringing together many IN CONTEXT quotes from many ID leaders showing that they DO believe that ID is religious in nature, even if they intend to lie about it."
You still don't get it. The issue isn't whether Matzke's Trusted Sources mean what he says they mean. The question is whether I should adopt them as my Trusted Sources too. Consider these questions, which you didn't answer:
"Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the bacterial flagellum is designed. How would this conclusion entail the reality of God? What arguments would Philip Johnson use to take me from a belief in the design of the flagellum to the existence of God?"
"Then you cap off your posting with a weird, totally non sequitur, quote from Shanks to the effect that ID doesn't necessarily guarantee that God exists."
This is a slight misrepresentation of Shanks' point, which is that an inference of design doesn't entail that a god of any particular religion exists. Which, if correct, is pretty hard to reconcile with the claim that ID is religion in disguise.
"You actually seem to think that this proves something. Earth to ID: the fact that a religious doctrine is false doesn't make it non-religious! If that were true, there would be no religion!"
Earth to TTam: I'm not claiming that a religious doctrine being false makes it non-religious.
"When you have to go to this kind of length to defend ID, it's time to stand back and do a complete re-think of your position."
Has it occured to you that I've already considered the view you're advocating and found it wanting? It would be interesting to see if you can re-think your position, starting with the questions I asked you.
"Untill then, unsubscribe me, I don't have the time to waste."
Sorry, but the software doesn't allow me to unsubscribe members without deleting all of their posts.
Comment by Krauze — November 15, 2005 @ 5:51 pm