Is ID Boring?
by BilboIn the movie, Expelled, the biology professor William Provine complains that Intelligent Design is boring. In fact, if I remember correctly, he repeats it once or twice, just to get his point across: "Intelligent Design is Boring!"
I think there is something to Provine's criticism.
The traditional approach to the question of whether or not intelligent design is true has been for proponents to try to prove that something couldn't possibley have happened, or perhaps it could have happened, but it would have been much too improbable for it to have happened, without the aid of intelligent design. Once the proponents find such a feature, then the critics try to show that yes, indeed, it could have been produced by a non-teleological process. Then the proponents offer counter-arguments, and the critics offer their counter-arguments, and this goes on for a while, until everybody gets bored and moves onto something else.
And so the ID proponent would set about trying to find something that was impossible or too improbable for a non-teleological process to produce. Thus, for example, Prof. Behe came up with Irreducibly Complex systems that he claims can only be produced by very improbable indirect Darwinian processes. People like Ken Miller and Nick Matzke say yes, IC can be produced by non-teleological processes. Behe and others offer counter-arguments, etc.
Well, after a few years of that, things in the Intelligent Design field can get pretty boring.
Which is why I'm thankful for Mike Gene. Instead of getting on the old treadmill, he's been focusing on positive clues or evidence for Intelligent Design. It offers a way for Intelligent Design to become an area for positive research.
This doesn't mean that Behe's or others work is unimportant. Afterall, either Behe's arguments are right or they aren't. If they are, then the argument for ID becomes very strong. But if his arguments seem inconclusive or mistaken to most of the scientific community, ID needs to offer a more interesting way to approach the question.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
It's not so much that ID is boring. It is more that it is not useful. I can add the caveat "yet" if anyone prefers!
Comment by Alan Fox — March 24, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
What happened to the DesignMatrix website? Does Mike need a new host?
Comment by todd — March 24, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Here's how a critic sees the same steps:
1. ID proponent proposes something he claims cannot be done.
2. Scientist shows that it very well could be done.
3. ID proponent says "Does not."
4. Nothing much interesting does or even could happen after that.
The funny part is that the argument has just tripped and fell flat on its face at the very first hurdle. So the proponent never listens when someone points out that even if the claim were true, it just shows we don't know how it happened, it doesn't mean he gets to make up an unconfirmed way for it to happen involving a conscious agent.
I'm glad you're encouraged, but a critic sees Mike's work as basically two things: abandoning a claim of science, and proposing a mechanism that would look exactly like the accepted theory and, so, fails by a simple application of Occam's Razor. I admit, that's better than mainstream, which seems intent on doing nothing but fooling itself and its audience with nonsense, but it's not actually more productive and doesn't really seem any more likely to get ID anywhere. But I do concede it's a less boring approach.
Oh, yeah, good point Alan. And I'll add "so far" here.
Comment by don provan — March 24, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I would have to agree with Bilbo (and my friend and colleague, Will Provine) that one of the main reasons that ID has never appealed to me is that it is, indeed, boring. Having spent a great deal of time reading blogposts and comments here and on other ID websites, it appears that almost all statements of the ID position are relentlessly negative: "it doesn't happen that way", "you can't get there from here", "RM+NS isn't capable of producing CSI", blah, blah, blah.
As a typical example consider this comment on a recent thread at Uncommon Descent ( http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/metaphors-design-recognition-and-the-design-matrix/#comment-309641 ):
And no evolutionary biologist worth her or his salt would say otherwise. This was precisely my point in the posts I made on the subject of the "engines of variation" at The Evolution List:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-is-engine-of-evolution.html
and
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html
As I pointed out, natural selection isn't a mechanism, it's an outcome. Furthermore, natural selection doesn't (indeed, cannot) create anything new at all. On the contrary, natural selection simply removes some of the inter-individual variations that are produced by the "engines of variation".
So, I basically agree that we shouldn't be focusing our attention on natural selection as the source of innovations in phenotypes. Rather, we should be focusing our attention on the various mechanisms by which phenotypic variations are generated. This will, of course, require us to become informed about them, which is quite a task (there are over 50 mechanisms already known, ranging in scope from single point mutations to whole genome fusion).
If I were interested in forwarding the agenda of ID, this is what I would spend my time and energy investigating, rather than posting the same old negative arguments that "RM + NS can't do it". Nobody is now saying they can, nor do they need to.
To kick off this discussion, let me pose a question: Since the "engines of variation" are what produce new, and therefore presumably adaptive phenotypic variations, it seems reasonable to expect that, if there is anything to ID, one should be able to show empirically that the appearance of new variations is not random. Furthermore, if ID is to actually have any ontological force, it should be possible to show empirically that a particular new phenotypic variant would qualify as a "foresighted" variation, thereby biasing natural selection toward favoring it.
Has anyone attempted to approach the question of variation from this viewpoint?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 24, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Also, it would seem to me that taking this path would be much more likely to produce new empirical research that would warrant publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Almost nobody gets published saying "you can't get there from here". Even Einstein had to propose an alternative explanation to the essentially negative outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment in order to get his theory of special relatively published.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 24, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
I think this is what Behe thinks he has shown.
And this is what Mike Gene is trying to do. He offers a few examples in The Design Matrix. I'm not sure if he has succeeded. Showing "foresight" isn't easy. How do we know what the designer was planning? If component A is to play a role in the future, then given natural selection, component A must very well play a role in the present, or it probably won't make it into the future. So how do we go about showing that the "real" purpose of A is in the future, not in the present? It doesn't appear to be an easy thing to prove. At best, we can show that A plays a role in the present, but a role that isn't essential, or might be redundant, but its future role is essential. A rather tricky business.
Comment by Bilbo — March 24, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Todd, go here. According to Mike, his old sites were "hacked into oblivion."
Comment by Bilbo — March 24, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Here's why I think ID is so fascinating.
When experiential phenomenon is confirmed by observation there is a sort of a thrill. Experiential phenomenon include unmeasurable unobservables such as ideas, dreams, and intuition which are common to the human experience.
Science generally begins with ideas. When these ideas are confirmed by observation, it is thrilling. Ideas that don't pan out, less thrilling.
When dreams are confirmed by observation, it is thrilling. Dreams that don't are less thrilling.
And when intuition is confirmed by observation, it is thrilling. Not confirmed? Not as thrilling.
ID, for me, is largely experiential. It is an intuitive perception. One that is shared by most humans. Conscious minds inhabiting highly advanced nano-tech machines simply appear designed to most folks. Not surprisingly, most folks approach the question of design from this overarching appearance of design. Life just looks designed.
For this reason, a discovery which matches my intuitive suspicions gives me a little thrill.
Of course it would be foolish to rely exclusively on intuition. But since my intuition seems to be lining up with recent observation, I think to would be foolish to abandon my intuition at this point.
Comment by chunkdz — March 24, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Bilbo:
Is it not surprising that noone from the defenders of science crowd took issue with this? If a belief seems inconclusive or mistaken to the scientific community then ID needs to offer more interesting approaches? Sounds very Hollywoodish.
This ID stuff sounds boring so let's come up with something that will draw some attention. What's wrong Bradford? Well, for one, a seeming mistake is a subjective thing is it not? I mean the venerable ones can be mistaken themselves. More importantly though if something is mistaken then the reason for that needs to be specified in detail and corrective measures taken. The problem with homology arguments is that, all to often, they lack sequential and detailed causal pathways explaining exactly how complex feature x evolved from candidate precursor y. That can be boring (but that's just my subjective response). Why not take the IC arguments as a challenge to current technology and the present state of our knowledge rather than an attack signaling the dreaded fundies are busy trying to uproot a cherished metaphysical concept known as philosophical naturalism?
Allen MacNeill
Point well taken.
Todd:
Malicious mischief.
Only he can answer that.
Allen MacNeill:
It is boring to Will I suspect (and to others for the same reason) because they rule out the possibility of an intelligent designer. The argument that one could be implicated in design is therefore a fantasy to them and worse a signal that those holding that belief are deluded and possibly even dangerous (although belief in that last part varies considerably from critic to critic). I'm not bored with design because I see it constantly in papers I read. My linkage of specific discoveries to design is an overview not affecting my comprehension of or appreciation for the related research one iota.
I also note with some interest areas of research that have typically been barren with respect to producing the type of mechanisms reserved for anti-teleological arguments. The exact nature of specific sub-cellular structures has much to do with this in my view and only heightens my interests. But what sparks interests are subjective and I've found they are not a good indicator of competence.
Allen, I've found you to be one of the few constructive ID critics out there. For reasons alluded to by Nick Matzke in a prior post ID might fade into the background from a point it was at previously but it will never be extinguished because science is ill-equipped to provide us with answers to all physical questions. Some areas of origins are unbridgeable chasms in my view and not simply gaps. But I would not have anyone reign in their investigative impulses. Or, for that matter, restrict their metaphysical views. Freedom is among our most valued possessions.
Comment by Bradford — March 24, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Boring? What could be more exciting than to believe that scientific investigation actually means something, that the whole universe is imbued with purpose, that there's a reason, an intention, for why things are the way they are? What could be more exciting than thinking that one's research is literally thinking the designer's thoughts after it?
On the other hand, what could be more depressing than Professor Provine's view that life is meaningless, moral obligation is groundless, free will is an illusion, and the universe is just a pointless, accidental ontological burp?
Comment by Dick — March 24, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Except that the ID Community doesn't do any research. And most of the time doesn't show much interest in biology except insofar as it supports their metaphysical predilections. While Darwin's Theory spawned generations of research, entire new fields of study, ID is a deadend.
ID lacks the compassion of religion; lacks the integrity of science. ID is sterile.
Comment by Zachriel — March 24, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Dick,
What could be more exciting than thinking that one's research is literally thinking the designer's thoughts after it?
Grandiose self-delusion like that is more properly the domain of theology and philosophy departments.
I think you are misconstruing what the professor means by "boring" – he's interested in areas of research in which it is actually possible to make progress through the normal application of scientific method. One reason why ID is so profoundly unattractive to scientists is that it lacks any basis to form testable hypotheses.
One way it could be made more "interesting" would be if ID proponents were to find a way to present their claims in a way that is empirically testable.
Comment by hblavatsky — March 24, 2009 @ 8:15 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Seems like you really embrace the confirmation bias. Gaining knowledge is what gives me a thrill, not rationalizing my intuition or pandering my preconceptions. ID and it's mother, Creationism, have been the default assumption for thousands of years and yet they have provided zero knowledge, boring. In a mere 150 years evolution has revolutionized our understanding of the natural world, now that's exciting.
Now the part I find exciting is watching the bizarre lengths ID supporters will go to in effort to justify their preconceptions and avoid gaining knowledge. Posts from the more colorful ID supporters are like driving past a car wreck, its so horrid yet you can't look away. Those posts are what keep me coming back for a good laugh.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 24, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
While Darwin's Theory spawned generations of research, entire new fields of study, ID is a deadend.
Some of the most famous teleological arguments existed hundreds of years before Darwin's time. Even with such a head-start the teleologists amongst us have achieved practically nothing!
I've always wanted to ask ID proponents how they account for the lack of success of their theories versus the astounding success of evolutionary theories? It's a difficult question to answer without invoking elaborate conspiracy theories.
HB
Comment by hblavatsky — March 24, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Bradford wrote:
Actually, knowing Will quite well and hearing him say that ID is "boring" on several occasions, I can confidently state that the reason he finds it "boring" is that whenever something interesting is discovered and somebody asks "why is that the way it is" Will hears ID supporters answer "Goddidit". His opinion of ID is that it's a science-stopper because rather than suggesting new and interesting ways of trying to figure out how something came to be the way it is, he thinks that IDers simply throw up their hands and say "it's too complicated, so God/the Intelligent Designer must have done it".
Personally, I don't find ID boring for quite the same reason, as I don't always see ID supporters resorting to the "Goddidit" pseudoexplanation. No, as I've already stated in this thread, the reason I tend to find most ID boring is it's mostly negative. That is, people like Michael Behe and William Dembski observe something marvelously complicated and say "that's Irreducibly Complex / Complex Specified Information, so it couldn't have evolved via naturalistic means"…and then they leave it at that. No alternative means of creating the marvelously complicated thing is proposed (unless you credit Behe's "puff of smoke" pseudoargument).
And I tend to agree with Zachriel; I don't see ID supporters doing any original empirical research. In particular, I don't see any of them going out into the field (my favorite place to discover things) or into the lab and "getting down and dirty" with some biological phenomenon that they find absolutely fascinating.
My friend, Harry Greene (the world's authority on rattlesnakes) is my idea of a real scientist. He absolutely loves snakes, talks about them at the drop of a hat, has spent his entire professional life studying them in the field and in the lab, and has revolutionized our understanding of the ecology, ethology, and evolutionary biology of reptiles. To me, he's the epitome of an evolutionary biologist, because he has what we call "a feel for the organism" which goes far beyond simply studying it as an experimental subject.
And my friend, Lynn Margulis (the world's authority on microbial evolution) is also my idea of a real scientist. She absolutely loves getting knee-deep in the mud of some tropical lagoon and scraping scum off of rocks to look at under the microscope back in the lab. She's spent her entire professional life studying microorganisms in the field and in the lab, and has revolutionized our understanding of the evolutionary biology of microorganisms. Like Harry, she's the epitome of an evolutionary biologist, because she also "a feel for the organism" which leads her to discover things nobody ever thought to look for before, such as symbiotic bacteria embedded in the cell membranes of symbiotic protozoa from the guts of termites.
I have yet to meet or hear about or read about any ID supporter who does anything like what Harry and Lynn do. Yes, Michael Behe is a biochemist, but the things he does in his laboratory at Lehigh have little or nothing to do with ID. And William Dembski wouldn't know an actual living organism if it reached out and bit him on the ankle.
Biology, and especially evolutionary biology is that branch of the natural sciences founded and maintained by people who loved and were obsessed with nature and natural things. Darwin and Wallace and Fisher and Haldane and Wright and Dobzhansky and Mayr and Simpson and Stebbins and Hamilton and Trivers and Margulis and the two Wilsons: these are my heroes, and they are the "naturalists" (see how the word has another meaning?) who have been the inspiration for my research, insignificant as it is compared with theirs.
And all that IDers can generally do is say "no, you're wrong, it can't happen that way, in fact it can't happen at all without a deus ex machina? Ugh, boring, and most of all, no "feel for the organism".
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 24, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I never understood these arguments about how meaningless or pointless life would be without an imaginary friend to whisk us away after death. News flash, you don't need imaginary gods to give life meaning. Religion is really just a submission of your own ability to make choices to some arbitrary authority (church, prophet, holy book, whatever). Even without god you can still give up your freedom to make these choices to some higher authority (political ideologies, governments, or the will of Todd
).
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 24, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
If ID is boring, it's not for the reason that Provine thinks – which is something along the lines of "ID ends at 'goddidit' GAME OVER".
If it's boring, it's because when biologists actually work, they act as if ID is already true, no matter how many incantations are recited or knees are bent toward St. Darwin.
Fields like biomechanics and biochemistry already treat living things as if they were machines that were designed to do something.
The non-serendipitous advances in medicine (for which we great unwashed masses are supposed to show our gratitude by prostrating ourselves at the feet of the lab-coated priesthood) were made by studying the mechanical and chemical aspects of organisms, with complete disregard to the origins and ancestors of these organisms.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 24, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:
All of this study of science will be completely useless after a certain period of time. All of the work of all these brilliant advanced apes you admire will eventually be useless flotsam in a sea of nothing.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 24, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Is this something you know for a fact based on your extensive research career or is this something you have just made up on the spot?
Can you give an example of how a mechanobiologist might "act as if ID is already true"?
Evidently you believe that the existence of an engineering discipline which uses biological components somehow validates your personal notion of ID? How?
Ahh… the "science is useless" argument. It's variation of the "I didnt want to play with your stupid ball anyway" argument that you might remember from the schoolyard.
Comment by hblavatsky — March 24, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Yes.
However, debating ID is not boring. The critics of ID have actually kept it interesting. The fact there is controversy and taboo surrounding it has kept it alive. Otherwise topics like specified complexity, population genetics, the cambrian explosion, evolutionary computation, would be insufferably boring to me.
But I should add, boring does not mean it is unimportant. Quite the contrary. Some of the knowledge most important to me is not necessarily the most interesting. Facts tend to be fairly dry, but facts are important.
What do I find exciting (aside from debating)? Watching sports, playing video games, and flying airplanes.
As far as interesting things to learn? That changes from time to time. My current interest is in the application of physics to finance.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 24, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
You can give up if you want, but I plan to outlive the heat death of the universe.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 24, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
hblavatsky wrote:
He/she would study the mechanics of an organism as if it were designed to do something, whether the designer was a nebulous being from another dimension, a bearded man in the sky, a bearded man from the North Pole, or a bunch of particles smacking together until they accidently form the ancestor of the ancestor of the ancestor (repeat billions of times) of the organism.
Hence my statement:
"[W]hen biologists actually work, they act as if ID is already true, no matter how many incantations are recited or knees are bent toward St. Darwin."
It's not my argument. It's a restatement of Todd's. I think science is useful because I think human beings are destined for something besides complete oblivion.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 24, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:
I'm going to the Bass Pro Shop in your town for my next camping trip.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 24, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
From the original article:
This doesn't mean that Behe's or others work is unimportant. Afterall, either Behe's arguments are right or they aren't. If they are, then the argument for ID becomes very strong. But if his arguments seem inconclusive or mistaken to most of the scientific community, ID needs to offer a more interesting way to approach the question.
As Prof. Behe conceded in the Dover trial, ID is intended to be a criticism of evolutionary theory and does not by itself lend any support to ID. I think the problem with ID is not so much that it is uninteresting, but that it's proponents have shown no interest in developing the multiple lines of evidence that would be required to overturn evolution which is a very highly regarded theory in science.
This failure to advance is indeed very boring.
HB
Comment by hblavatsky — March 24, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Allen wrote:
Raevmo wrote:
So because you two find it to be boring, every body else has to agree with you?
Why do you continue to participate on ID sites like Telic Thoughts? You have nothing better to do? I’d think by now you would have been bored out of your minds and moved on to something.
To be perfectly honest I find most of the critics here at Telic Thoughts to be not only boring, but incredibly disingenuous. Bored people don’t dedicate the time and effort that some of you have demonstrated. No, bored people very quickly move onto something else. I think there is another agenda here. I have my ideas what that might be, but I’ll leave that to the critics to be honest and up front about their personal motives. You are capable of doing that aren’t you?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 24, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I'm fairly certain that I don't ignore evidence that contradicts my worldview because over the last 15 years my views and opinions have changed markedly.
Sure, but this explicit form of knowledge is not the only kind of knowledge, nor is it the most powerful or useful.
Assumptions don't provide knowledge. But there has been lots and lots of knowledge gained under the assumption that the universe is designed, in case that's what you were getting at.
We were watching animals evolve long before Charlie ever came on the scene. Your average sheepherder 5000 years ago could watch variation and selection in action and make predictions about which offspring were fitter and so on. I agree common descent is a pretty exciting idea. It's one of the things which fuels my intuition.
Comment by chunkdz — March 24, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
He/she would study the mechanics of an organism as if it were designed to do something
I think the person you are describing is Michael Behe.
Comment by hblavatsky — March 24, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
I'll be as honest and up-front about my motives for joining the debate here as I can. It's the same reason I invite creationists and ID supporters to make presentations in my evolution course at Cornell (no, they are not "expelled", they are "welcomed"). By hearing all sides of an issue and formulating my own responses to them, I find that I come to understand my own position (and that of my opponents) much more clearly. And, on several occasions, I have changed my mind about what I thought about a particular issue.
Here's just one example: in debating with Hannah Maxson in the notorious Evolution-Design seminar at Cornell (see http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/04/riding-evolution-design-roller-coaster.html ) I came to realize something of which I had previously been mostly unaware: that natural selection is not a creative force in evolution. Indeed, it is usually a profoundly conservative force, eliminating most of the novel variations that arise in populations. This led me to think long and hard about where "new stuff" actually comes from in evolution, which eventually led me to my now-notorious "47 ways of producing phenotypic variation" list (here: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html ).
So, that's why debating all this is generally not boring, any more than political debates or religious debates are "boring". Most of us find them just the opposite: so stimulating that we generally agree not to talk about them over dinner (lest they result in indigestion or food fights).
Surprise! It's not because I'm an amoral atheist/materialist who's just looking for a rationalization for my depraved lifestyle. Because, in fact, I'm neither an atheist nor a materialist, and while my lifestyle is interesting to me, most people would find it more boring than depraved. Life as a professional academic is generally not one long, lurid debauch, not at Cornell anyway (they won't let us bring vats of wine nor unclad dryads into the library, more's the pity).
So, John T. D., I've shown you mine; now you show me yours (and remember, be "honest and up-front").
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 24, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Allen, do you think Cornell will ever offer that course again?
Comment by chunkdz — March 24, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
I'm planning on offering it again soon, possibly next summer. Our seminar in the history and philosophical implications of evolution changes topics every year, on the following rotation:
evolution and free will: 2005
evolution and design: 2006
evolution and religion: 2007
evolution and ethics: 2008
evolution and free will: again this summer
I will probably return to the question of design and purpose in nature next summer…that is, unless I offer a seminar on evolution and warfare, or evolution and human mating systems, or individual versus group selection, or…ah, the list goes on and on…
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 24, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
hblavatsky wrote:
If you believe so, you need to tell your compatriots that Behe does actual work in biology, then.
In the meantime, think about scientists deciphering how living things go about living, and how much of that work would be called reverse-engineering if it was performed on anything other than living things.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 24, 2009 @ 11:05 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Not sure if you misunderstood or miswrote the last sentence. By showing the flagellum precursors and their usefulness, and by demonstrating that a flagellum is useful even with critical parts removed, Miller showed the flagellum is not IC according to Behe's own definition.
Comment by terrycvn — March 24, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Dembski's approach so far has turned up nothing interesting for me, personally, and I have to put his brand of ID into the "boring" tank. Behe has empirically attempted to show limits to certain kinds of variation, and is more interesting to me. But I don't think he's made his case yet.
If I understand him correctly, it seems that Mike Gene is looking for evidence of front-loading fueled by an intuition (as outlined in his book) in accord with analogs within cells to human engineering, among other things. This is different than either Dembski's and Behe's approach, which both amount to negative arguments. Mike's investigation, and those like it, have the potential to offer positive evidence for telic intent. Mike's approach is very interesting to me.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 24, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
What were the precursors for this?
Comment by Bradford — March 24, 2009 @ 11:36 pm
March 24th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
By the way, the fact that Dembski and Behe are trying to make negative arguments is a good and admiral things. Trying to poke holes in the Modern Synthesis in it's current state is a useful exercise. But even if they are successful, it does not establish telic intent. That's why their approaches are uninteresting to me as ID, and thus are "boring" in that respect.
Mike Gene's approach is a genuine ID approach.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 24, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Having now appealed to Sal Cordova's sense of fair play several times at Uncommon Descent and despite this having my comments deleted without explanation on multiple occasions, I must conclude that either Sal is being over-ruled by his UD overlords or he agrees with them that reasoned argument is not the point and that unanimity of propaganda is. How sad; I would have thought that becoming a graduate student in a legitimate science might have given Sal a somewhat different perspective on the value of differing viewpoints in the advancement of science. Clearly, that is not the case.
Given that I have only limited time to prepare and research the posts and comments I make online, I will no longer be posting comments at Uncommon Descent.
And my sincere gratitude to the authors, commentators, and moderators here for their tolerance of opposing viewpoints. It is refreshing to find a group of people who still believe in the traditional values of the academy: free, open, and spirited debate, carried out in an atmosphere of courtesy and collegiality. I will be commenting here as often as time permits.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 25, 2009 @ 11:49 am
March 25th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Allen wrote:
Here is something I wrote a couple of years ago and posted here at Telic Thoughts.
To further summarize my views from the stand point of my motives. I would say there are basically three things that motivate me. The first is a natural curiosity about the way other people think. ( I majored in psychology as an undergraduate. Maybe that has something to do with my curiosity.) Second, is that I find some of the questions raised by ID are very interesting from a philosophical, theological and scientific POV. Finally, I have a concern in protecting freedom of consciousness and thought. I think these freedoms are presently under assault in our culture.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 25, 2009 @ 11:50 am
March 25th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
You're right about this. Protecting our freedom to believe what we wish to believe is a priority. Institutionalizing group think is at odds with freedom.
Comment by Bradford — March 25, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
John A. Designer wrote (and Bradford seconded):
I completely agree. That's why I always invite people with views opposed to mine to make presentations in my classes at Cornell. As Darwin himself pointed out in his autobiography, one should always pay more attention to one's critics than to one's supporters, especially if the former make reasoned arguments using evidence, while the latter do not. I have always found my debates with ID supporters to help me clarify in my own mind where I stand vis-a-vis these issues. And I have also found that we often agree on a surprising number of issues, and are often willing to consider our opponents' views with a less jaundiced eye.
My wife says I do this because I'm a Quaker, but I say I'm a Quaker because I do this…
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 25, 2009 @ 12:59 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I read this as saying ID is boring before it even gets to its "Goddidit" conclusion.
I'd sum up the boredom this way:
1. ID is boring because it's "theory" involves nothing but sitting around claiming that somethings couldn't happen.
2. ID is boring because no one supporting the "theory" ever gets off their backsides to support the claim that something couldn't happen. (Well, it might be truer to say that those that do get off their backsides soon realize the "theory" doesn hold water.)
3. When ID proponents are done convincing themselves something couldn't happen, they jump to the conclusion that what their religious beliefs tell them happened did happened.
Various critics find various steps the most boring (and, judging from this thread, a lot of ID supporters see the same problem).
A lot of the discussion is boring, too, such the continuous use of defeated arguments.
On the up-side, I agree that Mike Gene tries not to use the old, boring approaches, but on the other hand, I think his new ideas are getting boring for approximately the same reasons.
Naturally that's true, but when critics say "boring", it might be more accurate to hear "useless". Investigate what you want how ever you can, but the fundamental criticism here isn't really that it doesn't make a good movie but that it doesn't lead to any knowledge. I think we'd all be very excited to see someone prove that claim wrong, but most of us have stopped expecting any progress in that direction.
Comment by don provan — March 25, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I'm wondering if I should start a thread called, "Are ID critics Boring?"
Comment by Bilbo — March 25, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I've pointed out in the past that minimal genome studies, indicating that cellular structures require scores of genes to function, lend support to the concept of genomic irreducible complexity. A range value for the number of genes and allowing for variation of specific ones to suit envionmental contingencies and the species involved, allows for predictions and confirmations. The problem lies with a subjective assessment of what constitutes useful. If it is true that a selection/variation paradigm is an unsuitable mechanism for generating a cell with a minimally functional genome then that indicates current thinking is not grounded in reality. Manipulating and silencing genes of unicellular organisms, involved in genomic studies, can yield knowledge useful for understanding some diseases and maintaining health.
Comment by Bradford — March 25, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Are you suggesting that ID should be given some credit for this? I can only bearing imagine why you even think ID is related to such genomic studies.
Comment by don provan — March 25, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
ID critics boring?? I think they're hours of fun for the whole family!
Comment by chunkdz — March 25, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
dp:
I do not care who gets the credit. Advancing human knowledge and understanding is its own reward.
Comment by Bradford — March 25, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Hysterical chunkdz. Are they sold like monopoly boards and can I order one for my daughter's birthday?
Comment by Bradford — March 25, 2009 @ 4:41 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Lol! Didn't know your daughter was a fan!
Maybe Zachriel will be a sport and autograph one for her.
Comment by chunkdz — March 25, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Bradford,
Chunkdz's board is a cheap knock-off. Here is the original.
Comment by olegt — March 25, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
So you weren't arguing that ID is useful? Why did you bring this up if not to suggest that ID should get credit?
Comment by don provan — March 25, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Go for it!
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 25, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Not at all. It could be a motivational factor or a paradigm suggesting an investigation.
It's not about credit. It's about what the study of the genomes of unicellular organisms would suggest.
Comment by Bradford — March 25, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
olegt:
Then maybe I can get an even greater reduction in price. Looks like chunkdz is marketing the Wal-Mart version.
Comment by Bradford — March 25, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Have at um Bilbo.
Comment by Bradford — March 25, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Yeah, sounds like fun Bilbo. Go for it.
Comment by Raevmo — March 25, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Allen wrote:
Good! But, to be honest I have never seen you as causing major problems around here. (It’s a wonder what just a little sprinkle of the salt of civility will do.) It is the other critics, who didn’t bother to respond, never bother to respond, who continue in their obfuscating obstructionist ways. I have a special nickname for these kinds of people. I call them the “get a life” type people, because that is what they need to get… a life. Why Oh why do they persist? Of course, for the most part I now ignore their posts. I just find it annoying (and boring) to have to scroll past them.
Now days Quakers have a reputation (no doubt a stereo typical one) for quaintness. Are you quaint Allen? What does your wife think?
Historically Quakers have not always been known for their quaintness. I was reading about incident that happened in Massachusetts in early colonial times. Apparently, one Sunday a Quaker woman making some kind of protest interrupted a church service of Puritans (Puritans and Quakers did not like each other) by walking down the aisle to the front turning around and walking right back out. She was stark naked. Do Quaker women still do stuff like that, Allen?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 25, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
All hard topics are boring. Assembly is boring for me too, c is less boring for me though.
Darwinian Evolution…very exciting topic!!!
Comment by computerist — March 25, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
I have never heard of the incident of the "naked Quaker", and I've been a member of the Ithaca Friends Meeting for almost forty years. That doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen, I just haven't heard or read about it.
For those who are curious, the actual name for "Quakers" is Friends. When they started out (in England in the 17th century) they tended to call themselves the "children of the light" and/or "the publishers of truth", but by the time they had come to America they had settled on the Society of Friends. "Quakers" was a somewhat derogatory name given to them by their opponents in Cromwell's England.
It is important to note that there are two different kinds of Friends, known as "programmed" and "unprogrammed" (sometimes referred to as "evangelical" and "traditional", respectively). The programmed/evangelical friends are a lot like Methodists: they meet on Sundays in buildings that look like churches (but generally without steeples), there is a minister who gives a sermon, there is often a choir, and the congregation sits auditorium-style facing the front of the "church" where the pastor speaks. Following the service there is generally "fellowship time", with coffee and snacks in the rectory, etc. Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon were both brought up in "programmed" Friends meetings.
The other kind (the original kind, the kind invented by the founder of the Friends, George Fox, and the kind of meeting that I belong to) meets in silence in a simple (often very plain) meeting house, with no minister, no choir, no hymns, no sermons, indeed no "program" at all. Everybody waits in silence for the "gathering of the spirit", usually all facing each other in a roughly circular (or square) arrangement of chairs or short pews. Sometimes a person in meeting is "moved" to stand up and speak (or, much more rarely, to sing). This almost never happens until at least a half hour of silence has gone by. No one comments while they speak, although people sometimes join in with a familiar song. When they have finished speaking, they sit back down and all wait for the silence to "settle". I've never been at a meeting at which more than a hald dozen people spoke, and I've been at plenty at which nobody spoke for the entire hour (and sometimes meetings last longer than that, especially at weekend gatherings).
In an unprogrammed/traditional meeting such as the one in Ithaca there are no officials except for the Clerk of the Meeting, whose responsibility it is to keep people informed of when and where meetings are happening, and to take notes at "meetings for worship with attention to business", which happen once a month. The Clerk also "breaks" meeting by catching people's eye and turning to the person next to them to shake hands. At the "rise of meeting" the Clerk makes announcements and invites members of the meeting to share concerns. There is also a Treasurer, who keeps accounts, but is not considered to be an "officer" and is not elected. Both the Clerk and the Treasurer have assistants, and are usually chosen annually by the committee for ministry and oversight (which used to be referred to as the elders, a now archaic term). I was for many years a member of this committee.
Probably not surprisingly to some at this website, I am generally known among the Ithaca Meeting as a "minister"; that is, someone who is often moved to speak. I haven't done so in about a year, but that's not unusual, especially for our meeting. Some meetings have a tradition of recording and drawing attention to ministers, but this is rare and becoming more so among "traditional" Friends meetings.
Although as one might expect there are a number of Cornell and Ithaca College professors in our meeting, the overwhelming majority of our members are not professional academics. Rather, they are working people from the town; everything from secretaries to lumberjacks to farmers (quite a few of these, as it turns out).
Membership in a Friends meeting is gained by petition to the committee on ministry and oversight, who appoints a "clearness committee" for the prospective member. Clearness committees work together with members to "come to clearness" on particular issues. People can ask for a "clearness committee" to join the meeting, get married "under the care of the meeting" (FWIW, the Ithaca meeting has been recognizing marriages between same-sex couples "under the care of the meeting" for almost thirty years), decide on taking a particular job, pursue a particular academic degree, get divorced (yes, it happens, although not often) or whatever is of concern to them. Anyone can ask to join a meeting, and there is no prohibition against people becoming members of a Freinds meeting while remaining full members of other churches or religions. Indeed, there are a number of agnostics and atheists in our meeting (but I'm not one of them). Because of this process, we say that a person becomes a Friend by "convincement", not conversion, and that "convincement" must come from within, not from a minister or the group.
Perhaps the most noticeable difference between "traditional" Friends and other religious groups is the total lack of a creed or "confession of faith". Instead, we maintain a collection of written "Queries and Advises", which are periodically read and revised by clearness committees. We feel that it is each person's responsibility to come to whatever "measure of the light" we can. All decisions (and I mean ALL decisions) are made by pure consensus. There are no votes taken at any Friends meetings, including those held with attention to business. This means that some decisions take a generation or more to be reached, but when they are finally arrived at, everyone in the meeting has agreed to the decision and will back it wholeheartedly.
Friends are one of the three historic "peace churches" (along with the Brethren and Mennonites). To be a Friend means never to participate in war or the preparation for war in any form whatsoever. I was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War, and remain one to this day.
This doesn't mean that Friends are pacifists, however. Quite far from it; Friends are very active in our "peace witness", often placing ourselves between combatants and doing humanitarian work around the world. The Friends service group, the American Friends Service Committee, received the 1947 Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of Friends worldwide, for our corporate work for peace and reconciliation.
Friends also don't proselytize (indeed, there is a heavy but unspoken prohibition against doing so), and so the foregoing should be considered to be informational only. If you would like to learn more about the Society of Friends, I recommend this website:
http://www.quaker.org/
Here is the website for the meeting I attend:
http://ithacamonthlymeeting.org/
– Given forth at a General Meeting of Friends in the Truth at Balby in Yorkshire, in the ninth month 1656, from the Spirit of Truth to the Children of Light
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 25, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Hi Computerist,
If you want to have some real fun, try programming in APL or Forth.
As to the Thread's topic; I wouldn't use the term "boring". I suggest "frustrating" better describes the situation.
Some ID critics have likened their activities to trying to nail Jello to a wall.
Personally, I lean towards the imagery offered by Meatloaf of "looking for a ruby in a mountain of rocks."
Attempts at trying to focus the search are all too often dismissed by simply appealing to the hugeness of the mountain. After all, there has to be something of value buried in 2.1 billion rocks, doesn’t there?
Unfortunately, I am cursed with a need to actually see the ruby before believing it exists.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 25, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Allen,
I might add that Quakers are responsible for founding some great colleges and universities, among them Bryn Mawr, Haverford, Swarthmore, and Johns Hopkins.
Comment by olegt — March 25, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Hi Allen,
Thank you for that insight into what it means to be a Quaker.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 25, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
March 25th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Indeed, I almost went to Swarthmore, but settled closer to home at the Ivy League university founded by a Quaker, Ezra Cornell.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 25, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Allen:
Lo and behold someone, Lawyer and historian Diane Rapaport, has written a book based on court records about this incident. It is entitled appropriately, The Naked Quaker.
http://www.readinggroupguides.com/guides_N/naked_quaker1.asp
Just a little something to keep this thread from becoming boring.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 26, 2009 @ 12:40 am
March 26th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Seems to me that the “strawman” is attributable to Darwin himself and the Neo-Darwinists and not creationists.
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html
I appreciate the effort involved in compiling the list, from the perspective of a Neo-Darwinist, it is irrelevant.
As formulated (and as I recall Fisher wrote(?)) the source or origin of variation is immaterial to Neo-Darwinism as long as it is random wrt fitness.
In answer to the question posed as a challenge to IDers I will cite the research beginning in the late fifties-early sixties that attempted to explain high levels of genetic polymorphism in terms of “risk-averse” or “bet-hedging” strategies. IOW the answer to your question lies in evolutionary theory and not ID (which has no comparable theory).
My investment portfolio manager insists that such “bet-hedging” strategies (maximizing the mean and minimizing the variance from the mean) is a tried-and-true and perfectly rational, and intelligent way to allocate one’s resources.
From his lips to Darwin’s ears! LOL
Comment by Rock — March 26, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Allen wrote:
I find an interesting parallel between Allen’s religious beliefs (Professor MacNeill has been a member of the Ithaca Friends community, or “Quakers”, for the past forty years) and ID. I think that just like there are two different kinds of friends there are two basic approaches to ID which we could also label formal and informal but I think it would be more accurate to label them organized and disorganized. The organized wing of ID is represented by Johnson, Dembski, Behe and the Seattle based Discovery Institute. The disorganized wing is represented, if it is represented at all, by Telic Thoughts and everyone else interested in ID who doesn’t align themselves with the Discovery Institute. The disorganized wing actually predates the organized wing by a decade or so. In my view the organized wing is a result of certain people, mainly followers of Berkeley Law professor Philip Johnson who attempted, and partially succeeded in co-opting the so called ID movement. In particular it is this wing that is trying to advance ID as a scientific theory. To do so, of course, requires organization and funding.
In general sociologically movements begin informally in a disorganized fashion, usually around a set of ideas, trends or issues. Organization is usually a later development in the life of a movement, and it hardly ever represents everyone who is attracted by the movement.
I would also argue that the movement that spawned ID is actually much broader than ID including people, like Einstein, Alfred North Whitehead and more recently Paul Davies who in some sense see nature as teleological.
The point I am trying to make in all this is that those who find that ID is boring are usually people that for whatever reason dislike (actually hate) the Discovery Institute, the organized branch of ID, which is trying to advance ID as a scientific theory.
So what is it that you find so boring about a potentially new scientific theory? Is it that the work isn’t moving fast enough? Or, are you for some reason afraid of them finding positive results?
Once again, personally I do not see ID as a scientific theory. Rather, I see it as a kind natural philosophy or natural theology. Historically most people have always found questions arising out of philosophy and theology to be interesting. (Many all night college dorm/frat house “bull sessions” attest to this fact.) Yet, on the other hand, there may be insights or ideas generated by ID that may lead to some interesting scientific insights or research. Ironically, many of those new modes of research or theories may in the end not have the ID label attached to them.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 26, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
I think you've hit on an insightful observation John. The DI invariably sparks vitriolic responses from many yet the DI is funding the Biologic Institute and making an attempt to put ID on an empirical footing. You would expect critics to make insufficiency arguments but based on complaints that ID is scientifically vacuous one would also expect some plaudits for effort by the DI. The fact that we find the opposite reaction is attributable to the social agenda linked to the DI. But if that is the real source of dissatisfaction with the DI then that reveals more about ID critics than they would want to acknowledge. It indicates a social issue bias of their own that is opposite to the DI's. The root of the antipathy evidenced is a conflict of social values rather than science centric concerns.
Comment by Bradford — March 26, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Rock:
Olof Leimar has done some interesting work on that lately. Check it out.
Comment by Raevmo — March 26, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Rock:
Genomic "bet-hedging strategies" would be evidence of process design. Whether or not that came about through physical events, that were random with respect to fitness, is more important for philosophical reasons than it is for analyzing biological design.
Comment by Bradford — March 26, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Bradford:
The DI is a bunch of Liars for Jesus. See the wedge document. It's nice though that they fund research – I'm all for that. So please tell me, has this research resulted in any positive evidence for ID?
Comment by Raevmo — March 26, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Raevmo:
I've seen the Wedge document. How is their intent to further a conservative agenda different than the obvious bias in the opposite direction in evidence daily?
Comment by Bradford — March 26, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
A "conservative agenda", Bradford? You are just as dishonest as the DI. It's a religious creationist agenda, as you know very well.
Comment by Raevmo — March 26, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Nice to have a Nobel Laureate posting at Telic Thoughts!
Comment by chunkdz — March 26, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Raevmo, you are a pompous ass. Religious agendas tend to be very conservative. Conservative agenda is accurate. But I see this bothers those with a leftist agenda.
Comment by Bradford — March 26, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Bradford:
A pompous ass? Thanks for that. But of course you know that plenty of conservatives are not religious, and vice versa. So your statement that the DI's agenda is "conservative" is misleading at best.
Comment by Raevmo — March 26, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
The "Wedge Document": "So What?"
Comment by Bradford — March 26, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
The DI's mission statement:
This is about more than religion.
Comment by Bradford — March 26, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Raevmo wrote:
Somebody needs to tell Berlinski.
Also, you don't want to start a wedge document war. That "smoking gun" you feebs wet your pants over ends up being a cap pistol when all is said and done.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 26, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Bradford:
Propaganda and lies for Jesus, that's all it is. Please stop defending the DI charlatans, with their well-documented track record of dishonesty.
Comment by Raevmo — March 26, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Raevmo, you're a talking parrot. Predictably repeating the same lines.
Comment by Bradford — March 26, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
It's time for bed Raevmo. What's a newly wed doing at the computer at this hour of the night anyway?
Comment by Bradford — March 26, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Angry fart:
Berlinski is an immoral gun-for-hire. A failed philosopher wannabe-mathematician. Nobody needs to tell him what he already knows. The fact that you bring up this loser is very telling.
Comment by Raevmo — March 26, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
The wife is about to give birth any day now, and I'm killing some time Bradford.
Comment by Raevmo — March 26, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Great News, Raevmo. Let us know when it happens, so we can throw a party for you.
Comment by Bilbo — March 26, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Hi Bradford,
You provided the link…
I thank you for that. Even though I have read it before, there may be others who have not.
One of the interesting aspects of this attempt at damage control is that Discovery Institute didn’t offer any mitigating explanation for the plain words of the second of their two "Governing Goals"…
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
They were also a little fuzzy on why the name…
CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE
… was changed, or the reasoning behind the evolving banners that originally showed God as the designer.
If the Discovery Institute wants to try to make a case that GodDidIt, they are free to do so. The government even provides for tax exempt status in these situations (for example, the publishing house of Of Pandas and People claimed a religious-based exemption).
The Discovery Institute could even try to claim it has changed its charter and is no longer focused on showing "…that nature and human beings are created by God."
However, it is simply incredible to expect independently thinking people to believe the Discovery Institute was never interested in promoting a religious agenda.
Is this "boring"?
It's not the term I would use.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Earlier in the thread Raevmo wrote :
Today I opined:
Raevmo then wrote: "The DI is a bunch of Liars for Jesus."
Hate.
Raevmo: "'A conservative agenda', Bradford? You are just as dishonest as the DI. It's a religious creationist agenda, as you know very well."
More hate.
Raevmo: "Propaganda and lies for Jesus, that's all it is. Please stop defending the DI charlatans, with their well-documented track record of dishonesty."
And…
Raevmo: "Berlinski is an immoral gun-for-hire. A failed philosopher wannabe-mathematician. Nobody needs to tell him what he already knows. The fact that you bring up this loser is very telling."
Raevmo makes my point, doesn’t he?
Ironically, Raevmo's wife is about to have a baby. What should we feel towards him and his wife?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 26, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
I don't know what we "should" feel, but I feel a sense of anxiety, with a lot of excitement. I think after a while all the regulars here begin to seem like family to me.
Comment by Bilbo — March 26, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
The DI promotes an agenda that includes distinctly non-religious issues. They have a blog devoted to economic, political and other social issues. They also take stances labeled as religious in nature. Here's the boring part. So what? ID critics behave as if this is a secular sin. You know, its OK for Dawkins, PZ Myers et. al. to dabble with God issues but it is simply horrifying when the DI does it.
Comment by Bradford — March 26, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
lol
The Catholic Church has an agenda that includes distinctly non-religious issues.
Dawkins and PZ Myers clearly reject Gould's NOMA and are obnoxiously obvious about their agenda.
Creation Scientists also reject NOMA and are obnoxiously obvious about their agenda.
I don't have problems with people having strong opinions especially if they honestly try to defend them with logic and evidence (e.g. see http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/).
While I think Dr. Walt Brown's logic is faulty and his evidence suspect he is at least trying to make a positive scientific case (i.e. an actual HYPOTHESIS!) for his beliefs.
The Discovery Institute is clearly a political entity whose very apparent agenda is "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
Does this make the Discovery Institute "horrible"?
Maybe not, but it becomes hypocritical if they pretend to be something they are not.
Again, I wouldn't use the term "boring".
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Raevmo wrote:
LOL! I love how you lash out when somebody shoots your little spittle-flecked rants full of holes. THAT'S very telling.
And there's no such thing as immorality. If everyone has a right to form their own morality, then obviously it's impossible to be immoral. Make sure to teach your child that. Maybe Skatje Myers can be her tutor.
Comment by angryoldfatman — March 26, 2009 @ 10:27 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
TP,
Some of the DI's work:
http://www.disco-tech.com for the technology and democracy project, potentially the most important (they fight against things like government taxation of the internet)
The biggest DI center:
http://www.CascadiaCenter.org
which I believe is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, a 9.3 milliion dollar grant
They also have Discovery Institute's Environmental Policy Initiative
http://www.discovery.org/environment/
The one that captures the headlines is the CSC. About 20% of the DI.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 26, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
March 26th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Hi Salvador,
I think you need to check the first two links you provided.
I suspect you wanted to link to http://www.cascadiaproject.org/
I will admit to being lazy in saying "Discovery Institute" instead of "Center for
the Renewal ofScience & Culture.Thank you for correcting my mistake.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 26, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
March 27th, 2009 at 12:00 am
TP,
You are correct. Apologies to you and the readers. The correct first site is:
http://www.disco-tech.org/
and as you pointed out:
http://www.cascadiaproject.org/
I would not characterize the DI as a religious organization. It has strong secular interests as well. Perhaps simple characterizations are inappropriate and inaccurate.
I consider AnswersInGenesis and the ICR as religious organizations. Loma Linda GRI is both religious and scientific. Loma Linda/GRI is a legitimate science organization.
One distinguishing characteristic of a religious organization from a secular one are requirements of credal confessions of faith. The DI does not require this as a condition for employment.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 27, 2009 @ 12:00 am
March 27th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
angry obese male:
I suspect it will be far too easy to be a better teacher than you, seeing as you're setting such a low bar. Clearly you don't understand that people can act against their own morals and thus be immoral. I hope my son will not adhere to your unchristian brand of social Darwinism, nor share your perverse obsession with bestiality.
Do you care to list the objective morals and your proof of their objectivity? This is your chance to save my child's soul.
Comment by Raevmo — March 27, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
March 28th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Raevmo,
Any news, yet?
Comment by Bilbo — March 28, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
March 28th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
It's odd for Zachriel to comment at TT that IDists "show little interest in biology except insofar as it supports their metaphysical predilections." The one striking feature of this blog is how little difference there is about data actually referenced in studies blogged about. Most of the differences are focused on interpretations. On multiple occasions I've posted blog entries, citing and linking to research papers, one can describe as biological, and have seen them ignored or at least not commented on.
As far as supporting metaphysical predilections is concerned one can see in the Phineas Gage thread whose predilections are supported by materialist spin.
Comment by Bradford — March 28, 2009 @ 8:18 pm