Intelligent design, viking style
by KrauzeA reader from the cold North sent me this summary of a Danish news program's coverage of intelligent design. If you're also a non-US reader and stumble upon intelligent design in the media, you're welcome to write a summary in English and send it to me (see my profile for an e-mail adress), in which case I might feature it. Remember to let me know if you want to remain anonymous.
- This evening the Danish news program "Deadline" discussed intelligent design. They had invited Lone Frank, who is a journalist on "Weekendavisen" ("The Weekend Newspaper"), and who had written a very critical article about intelligent design, and Ole Vang, who is a cell biologist at Roskilde University. He defended intelligent design by comparing the cell with a technological invention that was more complicated than anything humans had made. Lone Frank dismissed this as his personal opinion, and said that it was just because he came from a Christian background that he thought this. Ole Vang answered that all scientists have some starting assumptions, and that no one were there when it all happened. Lone Frank said that the point of science was to look at things and try to explain them, and that evolution could be observed when bacteria became resistant to medicine. She also said that intelligent design was a "dangerous flirt" and that the Discovery Institute was trying to mix science and theology. This was what happened during the Dark Ages, where Galileo and Giordano Bruno was persecuted.
Althought it's always dangerous to rely on second-hand accounts like this, Lone Frank's attitude seems to be a classic example of Wedge-centrism at work. She starts out psychoanalyzing Ole Vang, dismissing him because of an alleged religious motive, and then warns about the dangers of intelligent design, drawing parallels to the Dark Ages and Galileo. One question in particular seems to be pertinent:
If Lone Frank ever stumbled upon evidence of intelligent design, would she be able to publically acknowledge it? Or would she thereby be supporting the Wedge, furthering a new Dark Age of Science?
September 14th, 2005 at 3:45 am
As noted so many times motiv is not as important as purpose. It should be evident by now that purpose of ID theorists are to advance science. At least it is evident to me.
Comment by inunison — September 14, 2005 @ 3:45 am
September 14th, 2005 at 11:15 am
I wonder if Lone Frank realizes that the persecution of Galileo originated with the Aristoleans at the universities. Aristotle and Ptolemy were reponsible for pushing the geocentric view- scientifically. It was this "science" that helped convince the "church" the Bible supported the geocenric position.
As for mixing science and theology- is that supposed to be a bad thing?
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein.
Inunison is again correct- what motivates IDists is the "need-to-know" syndrome that afflicts all humans. IOW we need to know the reality behind our existence and we understand that can't be objectively accomplished if the evidence is forced down only one possible path.
Comment by Joe G — September 14, 2005 @ 11:15 am
September 14th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
The summery of the show left out Ole Vangs other "defenses" for ID. He pulled the uniformalism canard – we werent there so we cannot make theories of the history of life. He claimed that there cannot be speciation – and he didn't even seem to know that there is no theory of Inteligent Design, as he argued that both evolutionary theory and ID should be taught only in religion or philosophy. He further claimed that it is impossible to test evolutionary theory.
Actually he seemed very much like the old school creationist, and not so well versed in the talking points of modern creationism.
Lone Frank accused him of using God of the Gaps arguments, which he denied, but then he again said that the inability of ET to explain certain things was what leads to ID. Lone Frank very sensibly said that of all current theories only ET is able to explain life as it is, but that of course there are great areas we can't explain yet – and she assumed that it was his preconceived notions that filled the gaps with an intelligent designer.
There were hardly no debate in the short segment, but there was one winner on g´clean points – Ole Vagn fumbled and didn't make any good points whatsoever.
/Soren
Comment by kongstad — September 14, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
September 14th, 2005 at 6:18 pm
Yes, along with the tooth fairy theory and leprechaun theory.
From the wonderful world of Walt Disney:
When you wish upon a star, makes no difference what your theories are
Anything imagining your heart desires will come to you
Comment by teleologist — September 14, 2005 @ 6:18 pm
September 15th, 2005 at 1:37 am
Hi Teleologist,
Comparing the claims of others with "the tooth fairy theory and leprechaun theory" is inconsistent with the "pleasant and fruitful atmosphere" we're trying to cultivate here. This isn't Panda's Thumb.
Comment by Krauze — September 15, 2005 @ 1:37 am
September 15th, 2005 at 1:44 am
Hi Kongstad,
Yeah, Ole Vang's claims that "all scientists have some starting assumptions, and that no one were there when it all happened" did remind me of old YEC talking-points. However, as you seem to have watched the show, perhaps you can answer the questions I asked in my post:
"If Lone Frank ever stumbled upon evidence of intelligent design, would she be able to publically acknowledge it? Or would she thereby be supporting the Wedge, furthering a new Dark Age of Science?"
Comment by Krauze — September 15, 2005 @ 1:44 am
September 15th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Krauze, answer to your question is, I think, no! Because most Darwinists interpret evidence through prizm of their adopted metaphysics. If one is committed to naturalism every evidence has to be explained accordingly, which is not a problem as such. However detailed scientific explanations for Darwinian mechanism(s) are not forthcoming, even after 150 years of research. All we have is story-telling and hand waving, and of course ID bashing. Regarding evidence Mike wrote few insightfull articles, check this one and also here
Comment by inunison — September 15, 2005 @ 10:57 am
September 15th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
inunison says:
"However detailed scientific explanations for Darwinian mechanism(s) are not forthcoming, even after 150 years of research. All we have is story-telling and hand waving, and of course ID bashing."
I guess you can tell yourself that if you want to, despite the vast amount of research and papers written about evolutionary mechanisms such as genetic drift:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
By the way, where are the detailed scientific explanations for ID mechanisms? What does ID offer, other than Darwin bashing?
Comment by Aagcobb — September 15, 2005 @ 3:24 pm
September 15th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
What are your answer to the questions I asked in my post?
"If Lone Frank ever stumbled upon evidence of intelligent design, would she be able to publically acknowledge it? Or would she thereby be supporting the Wedge, furthering a new Dark Age of Science?"
Comment by Krauze — September 15, 2005 @ 3:27 pm
September 15th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
Hi Krauze,
If she stumbled onto Glofish
http://www.glofish.com/
She could probably acknowledge that they were, to some extent, designed, for how else could fish end up with genes from coral?
Comment by Aagcobb — September 15, 2005 @ 4:00 pm
September 15th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"If she stumbled onto Glofish
http://www.glofish.com/
She could probably acknowledge that they were, to some extent, designed, for how else could fish end up with genes from coral?"
So if the Discovery Institute sent out a press release, citing this article as "evidence that life was intelligently designed", that would be A-OK with you?
PS. How does the proposition that glofish were intelligently designed lead to a Dark Age of Science?
Comment by Krauze — September 15, 2005 @ 5:50 pm
September 15th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
Aacobb:
I guess you can tell yourself that if you want to, despite the vast amount of research and papers written about evolutionary mechanisms such as genetic drift:
Which evolution is that evidence for?
The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. "Blind watchmaker" thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
(Hint: #6 is wjhat all the fuss is about)
It is funny how some people use evidence for minor variations, ie anti-biotic resistance and beak sizes, as evidence for #6. Also if the genetic drift isn't random it is not a Darwinian or neo-Darwinian mechanism:
But to answer Krauze- Do you have a video of this designer in action? How about a step-by-step description of the process that the designer would have left for us? Or better yet can we meet this designer and have him present a transfer of knowledge so we can dispense of this science stuff and all be like the amazing Karnac?
Comment by Joe G — September 15, 2005 @ 10:54 pm
September 16th, 2005 at 4:24 am
Aagcobb, switch and bite tactic is not appropriate here. You know very well what is at issue here. But let me repeat:
The sense in which the word evolution is used is to denote any kind of change of a population is NOT in question here. The change can sometimes occur in response to environmental pressure (artificial or natural selection), and sometimes it can just be random (genetic drift). In this sense evolution has been observed and no one here is debating that.
However if one uses the word evolution (Darwinism as I used it) to denote the descent of all life from a putative single primitive source, it is the grand sweep of this meaning that is supposed to have led from a simple beginning, (a bacterium wouldn't do as it is extremely complex), to all organisms living today, including humans. This descent is supposed to have occurred through purely natural means. Neo-Darwinian theory, (or simply Darwinism) which is the prevailing theory of evolution, teaches that this development occurred through random heritable variations in the organisms followed by natural selection.
Now Aagcobb, tell us why did you choose to ignore distinction between these two meanings of evolution? Also your "by the way" questions show that you ignore claims of ID theorist on purpose. Why is that?
Comment by inunison — September 16, 2005 @ 4:24 am
September 16th, 2005 at 4:37 am
Krauze asks: How does the proposition that glofish were intelligently designed lead to a Dark Age of Science?
See the best arguments against Intelligent Design and in favor of neo-darwinism (argument no. 13) here
Comment by inunison — September 16, 2005 @ 4:37 am
September 16th, 2005 at 9:12 am
My guess would be that if Lone Frank stumbled upon evidence of intelligent design, then she would examine it and publish/report it.
I have no indication that wouldn't happen, she seems a very intelligent, honest and competent person.
Her opponent in the short debate on Deadline on the other hand, has quite another angle on this. He stated quite clearly that he wanted evolution out of science class and into philosophy or religion. Now as a biologist I can't imagine he has met even a small piece of evidence for evolution in his training, so the reverse question about him – what would Ole Vagn do if he stumbled upon evidence for evolution, would be to deny it and go about his business, or just ignore it. In another article in weekendavisen he claims that the earth looks old because God created it old, so I feel quite sure that no amount of evidence will convince him.
He has decided that the earth was created a few thousand years ago, and he has demonstrated that all evidence will be distorted to match this decision!
/Soren
Comment by kongstad — September 16, 2005 @ 9:12 am
September 16th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
[...] grænser. Den populære amerikanske ID-portal telicthoughts kommenterer udsendelsen her:
Postet af Leif Asmark Jensen kl.18:59
[...]
Pingback by Intelligent Design :: Dansk ID pÃ¥ telicthought :: September :: 2005 — September 16, 2005 @ 12:54 pm
September 16th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Hi Kongstad,
"My guess would be that if Lone Frank stumbled upon evidence of intelligent design, then she would examine it and publish/report it."
You forgot my second question: Wouldn't she thereby be supporting the Wedge, furthering a new Dark Age of Science?
"In another article in weekendavisen he claims that the earth looks old because God created it old, so I feel quite sure that no amount of evidence will convince him."
I don't know Ole Vang, so I can't comment on this claim. However, I'll accept, for the sake of argument, that your characterization of him is correct. Now what? Is the acceptance of evolution by the scientific community being prevented because of the belief that God created the Earth to make it look old? How does Ole Vang's beliefs make it past the "So what?" test?
You see, I'm not playing the blame game, claiming that Lone Frank is a lesser person than Ole Vang. I'm well aware that many people reject evolution and an ancient Earth for religious reasons, and if Ole Vang is one such person, my worldview isn't gonna' come crashing down. Instead, my interest lies with the social aspects of all of this.
From what I can gather from the summary, Lone Frank is a dime-a-dozen ID critic: She cannot distinguish ID from the ID movement, which she fears will usher in the Christian Theocracy. Now, many ID critics are trying to sell this view to the scientific community at large, as evidenced by Pennock's article about sociolo-political aspects of the ID movement, published in a journal about human genetics (PDF).
This has widespread sociological consequences. You see, the time one starts being motivated by fear is the same time one stops being an objective investigator. Bear this in mind the next time an ID critic says that ID should go through peer review: This review is going to be performed by the very community that many ID critics are trying to convince that ID is nothing but an attempt to mix science and theology and bring back the Dark Ages.
Now, what if the evidence for ID was subtle and, as is often the case in historical biology, open to multiple interpretations? Is there any reason to think that a group of people, by whom ID is viewed in such sinister terms, is qualified to judge its merrits?
Comment by Krauze — September 16, 2005 @ 5:51 pm
September 17th, 2005 at 11:34 am
One thing I would add is that people don't stumble upon evidence. They stumble upon observations and data. It is up to the mind to translate these data into 'evidence.' And the mind has been shaped by culture, convention, and personality. There is no reason to think Lone Frank's mind has the ability to recognize data as evidence for ID.
Comment by MikeGene — September 17, 2005 @ 11:34 am
September 18th, 2005 at 11:49 am
Hello Telic Thoughts:
Joe G. quoting the Big Al:
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein.
Appeal to authority………
You know very well that if Big Al did not have evidence of "design", then Big Al is just as much in the dark as everyone else……….but nice work getting that Nobel for the photoelectric
effect, huh?
You do know Big Al had a lot of problems accepting quantum mechanics, right? He and Neils Bohr clashed a lot over it.
Guess who won out?
If Big Al said it or believed it isn't evidence in itself-
Be Seeing You.
Dark Matter
Comment by Dark Matter — September 18, 2005 @ 11:49 am
September 19th, 2005 at 5:36 am
"You forgot my second question: Wouldn't she thereby be supporting the Wedge, furthering a new Dark Age of Science?"
Why?
The wedge is a political document outlining the driving force behind the Modern ID movement which is to introduce religion into all aspects of life.
If Lone Frank discovered sign of an intelligence then she would acknowledge that this was where the evidence lead her. My guess is she would share her reasoning, by producing an article an getting critique from her peers. The process would be like any new discovery. I dont think she would do as outlined in the Wedge and try to influence school boards to introduce her new findings. The primary battelefield for the wedge is the media and the schools – for real scientists it is the scientific community and the relevant journals.
/Soren
Comment by kongstad — September 19, 2005 @ 5:36 am
September 19th, 2005 at 9:07 am
OK Dark Matter,
It looks like you missed the point of the Einstein quote. Isn't it an appeal to authority that science & religion must be separated and remain that way? Why yes it is.
Evidence for design? Obviously Big Al had at least some. Heck all one has to do is go outside and open their eyes…
The quote wasn't used as evidence. It was used to show there are/ were scientists who disagree with the premise that the two must be and stay separated.
To Kongstad,
The ID movement- what of the IDists who don't have any religious affiliation? What of the IDists whose motives are to get to the reality behind our existence? And what of the evolutionists who want to push atheism?
Comment by Joe G — September 19, 2005 @ 9:07 am
September 19th, 2005 at 11:29 am
Splitte me timbers Joe
The question posed to me was in the context of Lone frank. She opposed a creatinist in a tv show, who wanted to treat both ID an real science as religion or philosophy.
If someone stumbled upon concrete evidence for design in nature that would be science, but we are still waiting for that to happen.
As to atheists using science to push atheism – that should of course not be taught in school, or be the material for articles in scienctific journals.
/Soren
Comment by kongstad — September 19, 2005 @ 11:29 am
September 19th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
Hi Kongstad,
"If Lone Frank discovered sign of an intelligence then she would acknowledge that this was where the evidence lead her. My guess is she would share her reasoning, by producing an article an getting critique from her peers."
Can one support intelligent design without being a member of the ID Movement?
Also, you seem to share Art's sense of entitelment, expecting me to accept your claims without you having to back them up. Is there any evidence that Lone Frank can think about ID divorced from the ID Movement?
Comment by Krauze — September 19, 2005 @ 2:07 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
kongstad:
If someone stumbled upon concrete evidence for design in nature that would be science, but we are still waiting for that to happen.
Could that be due to the fact the only acceptable concrete evidence the we are still waiting for is a direct face-to-face interview with the designer?
Or perhaps you can provide a reference to the type of concrete evidence you would accept by proving the same type of evidence that demonstrates that life and the universe are the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes.
That would not only provide a reference but would show that you are not applying some arbitrary double-standard.
As to why ID is scientific- please take a few minutes to read the following:
Why ID is Scientific
Comment by Joe G — September 19, 2005 @ 2:13 pm
September 23rd, 2005 at 6:02 am
[...] grænser. Den populære amerikanske ID-portal telicthoughts kommenterer udsendelsen her: http://telicthoughts.com/?p=273
Postet af Leif Asmark Jensen kl.18:59
[...]
Pingback by Intelligent Design :: Dansk ID pÃ¥ telicthoughts :: September :: 2005 — September 23, 2005 @ 6:02 am