It's Getting Easier to Spot the Extremists
by MikeGeneThanks to the news in Kansas, it's getting harder and harder for extremist ID critics to hide their extremism.
Remember all that hysteria about armies of creationists using ID as a Trojan Horse to install a theocracy? I think its time to put that threatiness to bed:
In a landmark vote Tuesday, the Kansas State Board of Education once again adopted science standards regarding instruction in evolution.
The new guidelines reflect an overturn of previous standards, written in part by advocates of "intelligent design," that earned Kansas international ridicule in 2005.
As we move deeper and deeper into the post-wedge world, it gets harder and harder not to ridicule the threatiness that is associated with ID. I'm trying to be respectful here, as I know some people are really sincere in their fear. But at some point, I'm not sure I'll be able to control myself.
Anyway, there is something even better below the fold.
the board has"¦ accepted a new definition of science limiting it to the search for natural explanations of what is observed in the universe.
and
Pigliucci, a professor of Ecology & Evolution and Philosophy at SUNY-Stony Brook, told TechNewsWorld.
"It simply means that science does not (and cannot) deal with supernatural phenomena."
Sure, this is the mainstream position that has been adovacted by the NAS. So what does this mean? When people like Dawkins and Myers insist that science can be used to determine that God does not exist, they are actually advocating a crank position. When they demand scientific evidence of God's existence, they simply advertise their own crackpot understanding of science. In fact, it looks like the typical Kansas student will now have a better understanding of science than Dr. Dawkins and Dr. Myers!
[Pigliucci, BTW, used to buy into Dawkins' crackpot notions about science, but has since admitted his mistake.]
There is, however, one disappointment in the article.
"There is an extremely false idea that evolution and science are atheist," Krebs claimed. "Creationists use that idea to fuel divisive arguments that science and religion are incompatible."
Er,"¦the extremely false idea just happens to be championed by Dr. Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Dr. Myers and Krebs knows this. So why does Krebs omit these data points to make it sound like the creationists alone "use that idea to fuel divisive arguments?" I think he should have said, "Creationists, and many atheists, use that idea to fuel divisive arguments that science and religion are incompatible."
But he didn't.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:50 am
I made mention of the problems with the standard over at PT, but the problems seem to be lost on the guys over there.
Comment by thesciphishow — February 16, 2007 @ 5:50 am
February 16th, 2007 at 7:53 am
It seems to me that Dawkins is wrong in claiming that the existence of a generic God (what he calls "the God hypothesis") is a scientific matter, it isn't. However, he is correct that plenty of specific claims about specific gods can be scientifically tested and refused: if your religion says that there was a worldwide flood 4000 years ago, it is simply wrong, and if that claim is tightly bound with your belief in that god, well, then you are out of luck.
As for Dennett and Harris, I find their claims perfectly reasonable, but they are not saying that those claims are scientific (only consistent with science, which is a wholly different thing).
Cheers,
Massimo Pigliucci
Comment by pigliucci — February 16, 2007 @ 7:53 am
February 16th, 2007 at 9:39 am
There is one problem I noticed with the standards. They define science thusly: "scientific knowledge describes and explains the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces." Unless they are begging the question in favor of philosophical materialism in the school system (which would be un-Constitutional), this means they are using an instrumentalist view of science. But in that case, it is illegitimate to speak of scientific "knowledge". Knowledge implies truth, which would make the sentence seem to imply that the true explanations for everything in the universe are in terms of matter, energy, and forces – which would be essentially a statement of atheistic materialism. In fact, a savvy and motivated parent could probably sue over that.
Comment by Deuce — February 16, 2007 @ 9:39 am
February 16th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Hello Massimo,
Welcome to Telic Thoughts! It's nice to have someone of your stature looking in on our humble blog. And I must confess that I was impressed to read the essay where you decided to distance yourself from Dawkins' extremism.
You write:
Well, I hope it is more than a "it seems to me" situation, as our shared views on this are now being taught to Kansas students. Since science, by definition, is limited to searching for natural explanations of what is observed in the universe, then Dawkins whole argument collapses. He tried to extract some significant meaning out of the fact that science has failed to uncover evidence of supernatural causes. But science cannot fail at something it does not do. It cannot fail at something it will not do. Thus, Dawkins is doing a great disservice to the scientific community by a) misrepresenting what science can do and b) in doing so, feeding right into the approach of the ID movement. As I have been warning here, Dawkins et al. are chipping away at the Dover decision and thus deserve their share of the blame if a Dover II arises (and this time, goes the other way).
Sure. In this case, what is being tested is not a supernatural cause, but a factual claim about our physical reality. Was there a worldwide flood or not? Even if we uncovered scientific evidence for such a worldwide flood, science could not credit this flood to the God of the Bible. If such a flood was caused by God, science would simply hit a dead-end.
Yet none of this really addresses the existence of God. It addresses a particular narrative which, in turn, is a particular interpretation. People like Ken Miller, David Heddle, and Francis Collins show us this.
My problem with Harris is that he is engaged more in propaganda than in science. He does not approach the existence of religion as a social scientist and conducts no experiments to evaluate religion. He simply comes across as an apologist who relies massively on confirmation bias and anecdotes to spearhead his socio-political movement.
As for being "consistent with science," yes, but that does not say much. After all, my ID views are also "consistent with science."
Comment by MikeGene — February 16, 2007 @ 7:12 pm