Krauze and Rosenhouse
by MikeGeneI've been too busy to blog lately, but I'm trying to allow myself at least one blog per week. The recent set of exchanges between Krauze and Jason Rosenhouse caught me eye. Krauze originally wrote:
In Ruse's terminology, evolution only gradually arose from pseudoscience, through popular science, before finally becoming a professional science in the 1930's. You could say that evolution evolved. Similarly, intelligent design has passed from being expressed in creationist pamphlets as a flimsy support for apologetics, to being expressed in popular science books. ID critcs often inquire as to why intelligent design still isn't doing any research, "10 years after Behe published Darwin's Black Box". However, they should remember the lesson taught to us by Darwin's followers: Big ideas take time."
Wow. Dems fightin' words. With extremism like that, Krauze may soon be trying to argue that not everyone who takes ID seriously is mentally ill.
Rosenhouse has problems with Krauze's analysis. While Krauze is just helping us to see that big ideas take time to develop, Rosenhouse thinks he is trying to somehow validate ID by equating it with evolution. He writes, "Darwin convinced just about everyone that common descent was a reality," but Krauze's point does not depend on ID being recognized as a reality by just about everyone. All he is saying is that the concept of intelligent design has begun to inspire people to think about biotic reality, including evolution, from a teleological perspective. Whether something comes of this is for history to decide, not some bloggers on the Internet.
Rosenhouse talks about lots of evolutionary theories prior to Darwin, undercutting his previous claim that it was Darwin who got people to embrace common descent. But these other evolutionary theories were speculations. And yes, some of us have used ID to speculate about biotic reality.
Rosenhouse then tells us, "The idea that ID has evolved over the years is nonsense. ID is today what it has always been: A political and legal strategy for uniting various schools of creationism under one banner acceptable to all." Clearly, he is viewing everything through the political prism. But we at TelicThoughts make a distinction between the concept of ID and the socio-political movment that revolves around ID.
Rosenhouse then writes:
But for all of that, I'd be willing to give ID all the time it wants, if only its propoents were willing to meet me half way. Krauze believes that ID is an infant science that simply requires time to blossom fully? Fine. Let him tell the main proponents of ID to stop writing books with titles like "The Design Revolution." Tell them they should stop comparing their accomplishments to the work of Galileo, Newton and Einstein. Tell them to stop preaching that evolution is a dying theory, soon to be replaced by their own brand of theistic science. And most of all, tell them to stop pressuring school boards to include their drivel in high school science classrooms.
He first misrepresents Krauze, telling us that Krauze believes ID is an infant science "that simply requires time to blossom fully." I didn't see this claim in Krauze's blog. Then, Rosenhouse wants Krauze, an obscure internet persona, to tell other people how to title their books, what to say, and what to do. But this is ridiculous. Krauze, like me, has already told ID proponents to stop trying to teach ID in schools. And while I have not seem him instruct people about the other things, I have never seen him equate ID with revolution nor equate an ID proponent with Galileo, Newton and Einstein. Neither does he argue that evolution is a dying theory. On the contrary, both Krauze and I like to explore the reality of evoluion from an ID perspective.
In other words, it looks to me like Krauze is there standing at the half way point. And what is Rosenhouse's reaction? He miscontrues Krauze's points and views Krauze in the light of the Wedge. He then follows with a declaration about reality: ID is reviled among knowledgable people because the embarrassing emptiness of its arguments is matched only by the boundless arrogance of its leading proponents.
Now there's a half-way type of guy. So what's he goin' to say when he meets Krauze half way? "Krauze, you have to be a stupid idiot not to see that the embarrassing emptiness of ID arguments."
January 25th, 2006 at 8:32 am
It seems to me with all the fear and loathing that surrounds ID you have to be a real glass is half full kind of person to think that one could ever have an objective discussion about ID (or anything even slightly related) with an opponent.
The Krauze Rosenhouse thing is just a further example of this. I know you were looking forward to the 'post wedge' world Mike but is it possible to depoliticise ID?
Comment by willo — January 25, 2006 @ 8:32 am
January 25th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Politicization is context relative. I've had plenty of exchanges with ID skeptics that were genuine and depoliticised. You just have to find the right environment and the right people.
The internet is not the right environment.
Comment by bipod — January 25, 2006 @ 10:33 am
January 26th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Actually, I think Ruse is being too generous. Evolutionary theory did not arise out of pseudo-science to become professional science, it arose out of pseudo-science to become professional pseodo-science.
Evolutionary biologists are quick to liken the quality of their theories to those of physics. Physcists seem unwilling to reciprocate.
I think that's because evolutionary biology is professional pseudo-science. Further, it has little to boast of in it's contributions even in the field of biology.
In fact, evolutionary biologists are not even highly regarded.
To mis-quote Rosenhouse out of context (all right a little humor here), he asserts "ID can claim nothing similar." I would hope not.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 26, 2006 @ 11:12 am
January 27th, 2006 at 4:06 am
If Ruse claimed that evolution "arose from pseudo-science," he got it wrong.
Darwin's methods in some ways paved the way for the more careful, methodical science of the 20th century. Nothing he claims is not backed by observation or research which at least corroborates and in many cases confirms his claims. Did you guys miss the first two chapters of the book?
In the first two chapters he details work especially of animal husbanders and bird breeders. He goes into some great detail about the practical applications of human-imposed selection in the improvement of livestock, based on extensive correspondence and interviews with breeders, and based on a decade of his own experiments in breeding.
Darwin's work was immediately applicable in animal husbandry, and by the time genetics started to take hold, Luther Burbank's work was already in commercial production (the Shasta daisy was introduced commercially in 1901, after a 17-year breeding project) — and Burbank's work was, as he noted, based solidly on an understanding of Darwin's ideas.
Cordova's misrepresentation of Jerry Coyne's work is duly noted. Will ID ever be able to leave the world where its claims can be made only on unfortunate ethical lapses such as that?
Comment by edarrell — January 27, 2006 @ 4:06 am
January 27th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Hi Ed,
"If Ruse claimed that evolution "arose from pseudo-science," he got it wrong."
So if we look at the earliest expressions of evolution, we'll see a fully developed science?
Comment by Krauze — January 27, 2006 @ 9:42 am
January 27th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
"In fact, evolutionary biologists are not even highly regarded."
Salvador - do you have any evidence for this rather inflammatory flame?
I mean, claim?
Comment by derwood — January 27, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
January 27th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Well, there is one evolutionary biologist who is becoming a cult hero: Richard Sternberg. He's highly regarded in my book.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 27, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
January 27th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
"In fact, evolutionary biologists are not even highly regarded."
Well, it was mainly thought that evolution was largely irrelevant for development. It didn't matter how it was formed. Evo-devo claims to integrate them, but so far it only seems to be 'look we created a new field, give us more funding'. True evo-devo would quickly conclude that the current RM+NS framework is absolutely worthless to explain evolution.
No real breakthrough has come over the last decades. It's more mechanisms with unknown functions. The basic questions remain unsolved. The general opinion is 'it is so complex we may never find out how it works'. Who wants to work in such a field?
Comment by AdR — January 27, 2006 @ 5:45 pm