Letters on ID in New Scientist
by KrauzeThe New Scientists have published the letters they've received over last edition's story on ID. They're only available to subscribers, so I've reproduced them below the fold. I especially like the first one, which makes the perfectly reasonable point that "To dismiss arguments for ID merely because they have been hijacked by creationists is like dismissing Darwinism because social Darwinism lead to the holocaust."
From Milton Wainwright, Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Sheffield
Your attack on intelligent design has more then a whiff of bigotry about it (9 July, p 10). You appear to suggest that any criticism of Darwinism is unwelcome. In fact, much of the ID argument is reasoned and based on scientific principles. It may prove to be wrong, but to suggest that this, and all other, teleological argument should be suppressed is irrational.
Alfred Russel Wallace, who was once described as being more Darwinian than Darwin, had no problem with his own version of teleology. To dismiss arguments for ID merely because they have been hijacked by creationists is like dismissing Darwinism because social Darwinism lead to the holocaust. The Darwin-Wallace theory is not a religion and should not be treated as such. If it is durable, it can only be strengthened by rational attempts to attack it.
Sheffield UK
From Michael Abraham, Department of Chemistry, University College London
In connection with your editorial on creationism, someone, somewhere, sometime must have asked the question "Who designed the cosmic designer?" If the answer, most probably, is that no one designed the designer, then one can legitimately ask the follow-up question "If a designer is not needed to design the designer, why is a designer needed to design a butterfly?"
London, UK
From Nicholas Adams
It seems to me that if ID advocates accept the time periods associated with evolution, rather than the pure Judaeo-Christian seven-day creation, then they have created a new question that they must answer: why did the creation of humans take so long? To fit the evidence, you have a designer who created single-celled life, got stuck for a very long time, tried several routes later rubbed out with mass extinctions (the last error being the dinosaurs) and then finally got it right with humans.
Of course, that assumes that He/She/It has got it right this time and we aren't just another mistake to be rethought after another cup of coffee.
Cambridge, UK
From Pasquale Vuoso
It seems curious that the same magazine that a year ago ran an article by Paul Davies suggesting that highly conserved regions of so-called "junk" DNA might represent a very efficient signalling mechanism that far-off aliens employ to alert us to their presence (7 August 2004, p 30) would now take the time to slam the ID movement for suggesting that, indeed, the biological world looks as though it was intelligently designed. Is this the price proponents of ID have to pay for pointing out that King Darwin has no clothes?
Santa Paula, California, US
From Paul Mealing
In Australia, there are a number of clergy who oppose the teaching of creationism in schools. They acknowledge creationism is an intrusion that serves no purpose except divisiveness.
Creationists think science and religion are interchangeable, and are totally unaware that if you bring God into science you stop doing science. Creationism (or ID) answers all questions and gives no explanations, which is why it is the road to the end of science.
Scientists, on the other hand, afford themselves no favours when they attempt to defend scientific theories by claiming they know all the answers, because an important attribute of science is that it is always open to question, a perpetually dynamic knowledge system. Frozen knowledge systems like religion cannot compete.
Ivanhoe, Victoria, Australia
From David Vardy, Emmanuel Schools Foundation
Debora Mackenzie states that Emmanuel College in Gateshead "teaches both evolution and creationism in science classes". This is simply not true.
Emmanuel College follows the national curriculum which requires the theory of evolution to be taught in science. The national curriculum for science also states specifically that students should understand that scientific data can be interpreted in different ways and produce different theories. Both requirements are met fully at Emmanuel College.
The biblical view of creation is taught in religious education lessons. Students are taught to consider opposing theories and to come to their own, reasoned conclusions.
Carrville, Durham, UK
From Geoff Russell
Your editorial on ID seems a little confused. On the one hand you say ID isn't a testable theory, but on the other you say: "Evidence against it is mounting from many branches of science." ID makes claims, and claims can be argued against and demolished.
It is clear that while old-style ID advocates used the eye as the prime example of something that couldn't have evolved, nobody can get away with that after Richard Dawkins demolished it in The Blind Watchmaker.
Adelaide, South Australia
From G J Badley
Creationists often quote a sentence On the Origin of Species in which Darwin admits that "to suppose the eye … could be formed by natural selection, seems, I freely suggest, absurd to the highest degree". What they don't quote are the following five pages, in which he meticulously piles up example after example, link after link, until what at first seemed "absurd" is turned into the convincingly obvious.
Southampton, Hampshire, UK
From Gregory Nicholls
Why all the fuss over attempts to introduce ID in US schools? Let's assume they are successful and an entire generation of children grow up to believe in creationism. So what? The research and breakthroughs will still happen, just not in the US. The end result will be that the US will have crippled its competitiveness in biotech, surely one of the economic growth engines of the 21st century. Rather than heaping scorn on ID proponents, we should encourage them and then sit back and watch a massive experiment in natural selection play out.
Boca Raton, Florida, US
From Scott Schad
It startled me to see my home town of Tulsa, Oaklahoma, mentioned in your magazine in relation to the intelligent design debate. Even though our local park board recently rescinded their plan to add a creationism display to the zoo, the genesis of the mess bears examination. It arose when a single fundamentalist Christian, upset at the display of a relic Hindu elephant carving at the Tulsa zoo, gathered like-minded supporters and steamrolled the local park board. Our mayor, aware of the voting power of the religious right, quickly jumped on the bandwagon. As the embarrassment spread through the news media, Tulsa Earth scientists organised and collected several hundred signatures on a petition designed to kill this foolish idea. We succeeded. The mayor redefined his position, explaining his original intent as openness to other views, not subsidy of religion.
Which illustrates a point. The religious right in the US wields tremendous voting power, albeit myopically. Politicians commonly toss this group a bone in the form of support for closer church-state links, then back off when controversy erupts, earning sufficient political capital for re-election. The religious right, eager to put state power behind their views, never catches on to this game.
It concerns me, though, that the religious right never rests. In April of this year, for example, the Creation Truth Foundation of Oklahoma opened its new Museum of Earth History in Eureka Springs, Arkansas. The museum contains 10 plastic-cast dinosaur skeletons and nine skulls, all dated in some way to 10,000 years BC. The skeletons sit in a lush, tropical diorama and the museum's founder explains that only a few dinosaurs made it onto Noah's ark, and even they soon perished in the climate and environment upheavals that followed. Their website (www.moeh.org) causes a few chuckles, but before you dismiss this as a harmless roadside stop akin to the world's biggest ball of twine (which, oddly enough, resides in Darwin, Minnesota), consider that this new museum joins the 60-acre Great Passion Play complex, which draws 60,000 people each year.
Fundamentalist evangelical churches in the US feed on ignorance. They send thousands of missionaries each year across South America, Africa and Asia, spreading ID and other nonsense. Washed-up PhDs lend their names to such campaigns because it makes them money, and because they know the court that matters is public opinion. With enough of that, they can and will steamroll the rest of us.
Science needs to take your magazine's suggestion and engage in more self-promotion and education. We as scientists can win the game of public opinion, but only by playing our face cards.
Tulsa, Oklahoma, US
From Christopher Ellerby
I believe in God, but I suspect that in attempting to blur the distinction between science and religion, supporters of ID are seeking scientific endorsement of their religion. And that's not far from wanting all of science to conform to some religious dogma. The 17th century church had the same agenda because it wanted to maintain a religious dictatorship. For these reasons, especially the sheer extremism of some of its followers, I think it's important to keep religion out of science classrooms.
London, UK
From Adam James
While the ideological clash between science and religion is unlikely ever to be reconciled, debate on the subject continues to be important, if only for its effect on western politics.
In devoting so much page space to criticising the ID theory, it appears you are lending some sort of credibility to its arguments. The entire framework of ID is dead in the water from the outset, because its foundations lie in describing one theory in terms of another. The crux of the empiricist tradition (which underlies modern science) is repeatability and mathematical logic. Faith is the crux of religious ideology, a claim to know the unknowable, which by definition must be self-justifying.
Harrold, Bedfordshire, UK
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:52 am
[...] ">
August 1st, 2005
Krauze on Telic Thoughts has a nice collection of the responses to New Scientist. I disagree with Krauze on one of the response which said, "To dismiss argument [...]
Pingback by Teleological » — August 2, 2005 @ 2:52 am
August 2nd, 2005 at 11:01 am
I especially like the first one, which makes the perfectly reasonable point that "To dismiss arguments for ID merely because they have been hijacked by creationists is like dismissing Darwinism because social Darwinism lead to the holocaust."
Lots of problems with this. First, IDism wasn't hijacked by creationists, it was established by them. Second, eugenics is, at most, a grossly distorted version of Darwinism, and, I would argue, not Darwinism at all. As critics of Darwin frequently point out, Darwin did not invent the concept of "survivial of the fittest", but he did make a novel use of it in his theory by realizing it had the power not merely to maintain the vitality of the population, but to actually alter the population into a different species. Eugenics, OTOH, viewed "survival of the fittest" in the older sense of preventing the degeneracy of a race and keeping it healthy by maintaining its purity. This is not a Darwinian view of nature. OTOH, creationism is the logical conclusion of IDism; if certain features of life can only be due to intelligent causation, then ultimately life had to be caused by an intelligence which isn't biological life; it can't be ETs in an infinite regress. Creationism is not a distortion of IDism; if anything its the other way around.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 11:01 am
August 2nd, 2005 at 11:41 am
Aagcobb, there is palatable equivocation in the way that you and the Dr. are using the term "creationism" and "creationist." Dr. Wainwright means it as a derisory term for a politically-active group of believers that proceed to make their arguments from sacred texts, often (mis)using science/ID as support (I don't wholly agree with his terminology or assesment, but that's how he uses it). ID simpliciter does not fit into this category; so his point is well taken. But here you make an argument that "creationism is the logical conclusion of IDism." Yet this could, at best, refer to a minimal, philosophical use of the term, one from which we would be hard pressed to exclude theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller. Miller's belief in a God who creates logically implies "creationism," does it not? Certainly it does as much as Behe's common-descent-affirming ID. A clearer example of equivocation could scarcely be be imagined. To create a 'problem' by equivocation renders your argument invalid.
Comment by matt_nadler — August 2, 2005 @ 11:41 am
August 2nd, 2005 at 11:51 am
Hello Matt,
I have to disagree, of course. Behe's God, like a creationist's, has to intervene in the universe to perform an act which otherwise could not happen naturally. Ken Miller, I assume ( I haven't actually read his views), thinks life could have developed without direct intervention by an intelligence, though being a theist he obviously believes God is ultimately responsible for the existence of a universe within which phenomenon occur naturally. I think that is the usual distinction between creationists and naturalists; otherwise, all theists would automatically be creationists, even if they don't believe any miraculous events are necessary to explanation the evolution of the universe and life in it since the Big Bang.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 11:51 am
August 2nd, 2005 at 11:55 am
Aagcobb:
Wrong. Design arguments go back at least 2500 years. They were not invented by creationists. I discuss things like this in the comments section here.
In other words, Aagcobb is eager to take a ham-handed approach in equating ID with creationism, but insists on sophisticated nuance when we compare Darwinism with eugenics.
When you read the writings of the eugenicists, it is clear they had a Darwinian view of nature. A very common argument/complaint was that our acts of charity were thwarting natural selection. In other words, by treating the sick, we were treating the individual at the expense of the human gene pool. This "concern" goes back to Darwin himself:
[HT to Steve Jones ]
Perhaps Aagcobb will now argue that Darwin himself did not understand the Darwinian view of nature. LOL.
Anyway, I think Krauze and Wainwright are on to something here. If one wishes to blur the distinction between creationism and ID, then it becomes very difficult for the same person to tease apart Darwinism and eugenics (and eugenics is alive and well today, people).
Aagcobb is clearly working with a fabrication, defining things for the purpose of labeling ID as creationism. To do so, he relies on "ultimate" conclusions "“ ie, metaphysics. But wait. People like Dawkins and many more think that atheism is the ultimate conclusion we are supposed to derive from Darwinism. Did Aagcobb forget to mention this?
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2005 @ 11:55 am
August 2nd, 2005 at 11:57 am
Aagcobb:
No, that's your fabrication. You are painting targets around arrows.
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2005 @ 11:57 am
August 2nd, 2005 at 12:28 pm
IDists are not required by their position (whether based on Behe's or Dembski's or Paley's or Aristotle's or some other ID argument) to believe in direct intervention by a divine intelligence, or miracles per se. (I believe in all those things, but I'm your creationist letting you know what's up.) Behe's a front loader, which in no way requires intervention in the historical process itself. Miller's creationism would be pushed back to a cosmological level (God created a natural world in which evolution would fully handle life's origin and upbringing), but that in no way saves him from your label.
Regardless of how closely Behe's creationism is like Miller's, your argument is still based on equivocation, which renders it invalid. Dr. Wainwright was referring to a political/religious movement (that is a 'usual' use of the term as well). Your critique of him is vacuous in that you are changing the his use of 'creationism' to a view that rivals naturalism. Now, of course ID is a view that wants to undo methodological naturalism–in place of a more open naturalism, one that is more skeptical of its own presuppositions. That is one of IDs distinctives. But do you really think that is what Dr. Wainwright meant by the term 'creationist'? Nah, me neither. Your 'problems' are inventions by equivocation. Good discussing this with you.
Comment by matt_nadler — August 2, 2005 @ 12:28 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 1:59 pm
I forgot to mention another belief creationists and IDists share; that intervention in biology by a nonhuman intelligence can be detected scientifically. I doubt Ken Miller believes this. The primary difference between creationism and IDism is that IDism lacks content, which is why the Discovery Institute opposses the teaching of IDism.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 1:59 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:16 pm
Since Mike's just made all the points I wanted to, let me just add some more about the Darwinism/eugenics analogy. James Watson writes of a scientist who had such difficulties getting funds for his politically hot research that he had to seek support from a eugenics organization:
Might something similar apply to ID? Imagine a scientist who has stumbled across some clues of design, and, hearing all the rhetoric about lack of evidence being the only thing that holds ID back, decides to test his suspicions. But he quickly discovers that no one wants to fund what is seen as a ploy to bring down science and institute a democracy, so he goes to a conservative organization with ties to the Christian Reconstructionist movement, even though he don't think his research supports such a sociopolitical agenda.
How might critics of ID interprete this, if not as another piece of evidence that ID is just repackaged creationism? And when the researcher denies having Reconstructionist views himself, he's probably hiding his real motivation under of them Trojan Horses.
Comment by Krauze — August 2, 2005 @ 2:16 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Mike said:
"Perhaps Aagcobb will now argue that Darwin himself did not understand the Darwinian view of nature. LOL.
Anyway, I think Krauze and Wainwright are on to something here. If one wishes to blur the distinction between creationism and ID, then it becomes very difficult for the same person to tease apart Darwinism and eugenics (and eugenics is alive and well today, people)."
I wouldn't think it would surprise you, Mike, to learn that Charles Darwin wasn't the last word on evolutionary theory, or that, as brilliant as the man was, he might have been wrong about something. As I pointed out, the belief that natural selection helped preserve the health of the species did not originate with Darwin; his contribution was to recognize its power to alter species. And Eugenics is all about preserving the health of the race, not speciation. Thus, your protestations to the contrary, its very easy to distinguish eugenics from Darwinism, since I just did it.
Matt said:
"IDists are not required by their position (whether based on Behe's or Dembski's or Paley's or Aristotle's or some other ID argument) to believe in direct intervention by a divine intelligence, or miracles per se. (I believe in all those things, but I'm your creationist letting you know what's up.) Behe's a front loader, which in no way requires intervention in the historical process itself."
Then Behe's position is empirically indistinguishable from that of any evolutionary scientist, including Dawkins, if he believes the universe was created with natural laws making the evolution of life possible. But I've been told that Behe believes that IC structures can't evolve. So what does Behe believe actually happens to bring about the appearance of an IC structure in a biological organism, at the time of its appearance?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Krauze wrote:
"Imagine a scientist who has stumbled across some clues of design, and, hearing all the rhetoric about lack of evidence being the only thing that holds ID back, decides to test his suspicions. But he quickly discovers that no one wants to fund what is seen as a ploy to bring down science and institute a democracy, so he goes to a conservative organization with ties to the Christian Reconstructionist movement, even though he don't think his research supports such a sociopolitical agenda.
How might critics of ID interprete this, if not as another piece of evidence that ID is just repackaged creationism? And when the researcher denies having Reconstructionist views himself, he's probably hiding his real motivation under of them Trojan Horses."
IDists need to develop a thicker skin, Krauze. Lots of scientists in a variety of fields, even scientists who hold mainstream positions, get savaged by critics. If you want a good read on how bitterly scientists can attack each other, I recommend "Night Comes to the Cretaceous" by James Lawrence Powell. Your hypothetical scientist needs to suck it up, take the money, and do the research to get the results which, as in the case of Tom Bouchard, vindicates him. After all, he stands to gain not merely a Nobel Prize, but scientific immortality on a level comparable to Copernicus, Einstein and Darwin himself. And if he finds he was wrong, he should publish those results as well, which would demonstrate that he wasn't a tool of the religious right.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 2:29 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Aagcobb:
Aagcobb misses the target. He fails to understand that the argument Darwin raised is the same argument that was raised by many eugenicists for decades. Furthermore, consider this:
From: Paul DB, Spencer HG. 1995. The hidden science of eugenics. Nature. 374:302-4.
Why did more than half of Germany's biologists join the Nazi party (the highest membership rate of any professional group), Aagcobb?
But even here, Aagcobb misses the even bigger point that was explicitly spelled out:
You can tell Aagcobb is fabricating from his reliance on double-standard. Also, note this from Aagcobb:
In other words, his mind is actively patching together a fabrication as it goes along and he wanted to be sure to include this new piece.
Keep in mind that Aagcobb has argued that creationism is a conclusion of ID, which concedes they are not the same thing. Yet concerning this angle, notice what Aagcobb side-stepped:
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2005 @ 3:17 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Can you share examples where the savaged scientists were publicly branded as an Enemy of Science and part of a conspiracy to institute concentration camps across the land?
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2005 @ 3:20 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 3:40 pm
"Aagcobb is clearly working with a fabrication, defining things for the purpose of labeling ID as creationism. To do so, he relies on "ultimate" conclusions "“ ie, metaphysics. But wait. People like Dawkins and many more think that atheism is the ultimate conclusion we are supposed to derive from Darwinism. Did Aagcobb forget to mention this?"
Mike, rather than just going on your say so, want to provide a quote from Dawkins where he said that? More to the point, can you make a coherent argument from evolutionary theory which results in the ultimate conclusion that there is no God? And can you explain the flaw in my point that pursuant to IDism, the ultimate cause of life in the universe has to be a nonbiological intelligence?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 3:40 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 3:41 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"IDists need to develop a thicker skin, Krauze. Lots of scientists in a variety of fields, even scientists who hold mainstream positions, get savaged by critics."
Of course, there's a difference between having someone accuse you of botching your job and being accused of disingenuously aiding a subversive socio-political movement.
"Your hypothetical scientist needs to suck it up, take the money, and do the research to get the results which, as in the case of Tom Bouchard, vindicates him."
Vindication is a sociological phenomenon, the result of the rest of the scientific community finding your conclusions justified. And we all know that the current population of that community is so well qualified to evaluate ID.
"And if he finds he was wrong, he should publish those results as well, which would demonstrate that he wasn't a tool of the religious right."
And if he finds he was right? How will he then demonstrate that he isn't a tool of the religious right?
Comment by Krauze — August 2, 2005 @ 3:41 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 3:59 pm
"Can you share examples where the savaged scientists were publicly branded as an Enemy of Science and part of a conspiracy to institute concentration camps across the land?"
On part one yes. Charles Officer and Jake Page described Luis Alvarez's theory of a cometary cause of dinosaur extinction as being "not merely pathological science but dangerous to boot." I don't think they claimed it would lead to concentration camps, though.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 3:59 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 4:05 pm
"And if he finds he was right? How will he then demonstrate that he isn't a tool of the religious right?"
He publishes his results and makes them stand up in the face of the criticism, of course, just like all scientists who publish paradigm shattering results have had to do. Do you think he should be accorded a free pass from criticism for whining that he doesn't get any respect because he's an IDist?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 4:05 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 4:44 pm
Aagcobb, do you have any evidence that the theory of a cometary cause of dinosaur extinction was widely perceived as something that came from the Religious Right?
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2005 @ 4:44 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Aagcobb:
Okay:
Of course, we can go further than this.
Forrest us thus arguing that the only reasonable conclusion from science is atheism. Dawkins would agree: "the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion" - From a list of quotes Aagcobb might enjoy
You'd have to precisely define evolutionary theory. Dawkins uses science to reach the ultimate conclusions that there is no God: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
And as we just saw, sociobiologist David Barash was using evolution to argue for atheism.
Are you under the impression that there are no atheists who view their atheism as a conclusion of science and evolution? Why do you think so many Atheists are fond of Darwin Fish?
Yes, you are focused on "ultimate causes", i.e., metaphysics. That Francis Crick proposed the hypothesis of directed panspermy does not make him a creationist.
Okay, here's my question for you - Are you trying to argue that I am a creationist?
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2005 @ 4:50 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 7:30 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Krauze: "And if he finds he was right? How will he then demonstrate that he isn't a tool of the religious right?"
Aagcobb: "He publishes his results and makes them stand up in the face of the criticism, of course, just like all scientists who publish paradigm shattering results have had to do."
Again, "standing up in the face of criticism" is a sociological issue. I dealt with this in my last comment.
And how would our scientist avoid being seen as a tool of the religious right until he gets that "vindication"
"Do you think he should be accorded a free pass from criticism for whining that he doesn't get any respect because he's an IDist?"
No, what makes you think that I do? I was drawing attention to a sociological aspect of the discussion that is often overlooked. I laid it out clearly in my previous reply:
"Might something similar apply to ID? Imagine a scientist who has stumbled across some clues of design, and, hearing all the rhetoric about lack of evidence being the only thing that holds ID back, decides to test his suspicions. But he quickly discovers that no one wants to fund what is seen as a ploy to bring down science and institute a democracy, so he goes to a conservative organization with ties to the Christian Reconstructionist movement, even though he don't think his research supports such a sociopolitical agenda.
How might critics of ID interprete this, if not as another piece of evidence that ID is just repackaged creationism? And when the researcher denies having Reconstructionist views himself, he's probably hiding his real motivation under of them Trojan Horses."
Comment by Krauze — August 2, 2005 @ 7:30 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 7:53 pm
He doesn't, and that is a invalid inference to make from the fact that someone doesn't require divine intervention in evolution for his theory. It is not either evolution via 'natural laws' or belief in intervention. The dichotomy is false, thus the inference is invalid.
My guess, again, is that he thinks a front loaded mechanism brings about the IC in a system in the course of the evolutionary process. I could be very wrong about that answer, as I don't have DBB in front of me, and I don't even know if he addresses it in his book. The point is that detection of design is not the same necessarily as detection of historical intervention. The design may be detectable as such, and yet the way in which the design historically came to be in the object is still likely not to be.
Comment by matt_nadler — August 2, 2005 @ 7:53 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 10:41 pm
MikeGene said:
"Aagcobb, do you have any evidence that the theory of a cometary cause of dinosaur extinction was widely perceived as something that came from the Religious Right?"
No, Mike. Is there something special about being perceived as something that comes from the religious right as opposed to being labeled pathological and dangerous?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 10:41 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 10:55 pm
Krauzesays:
"And how would our scientist avoid being seen as a tool of the religious right until he gets that "vindication"?"
He doesn't. Sometimes scientists have to suffer public approbation before they are vindicated. Luis Alvarez was acused of running a scam and of being pathological and dangerous for promoting his theory of cometary collision. Alfred Wegener wasn't vindicated for half a century on continental drift. Other people have suffered far worse fates for their ideas than being perceived as a tool of the religious right, so don't expect my heart to break for your hypothetical scientist.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 10:55 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 11:01 pm
Matt, you have told me what Behe's position isn't; it isn't natural evolution but it also isn't supernatural intervention. You tell me that the instructions for forming life were front loaded into the universe like natural laws, but they aren't natural laws, but they aren't supernatural intervention, either. Can anyone who knows what they are talking about provide a coherent explanation of Behe's ideas, or are they as incoherent as Matt makes them appear?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 11:01 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 11:09 pm
Nothing special, but the two are different. Being labeled "pathological and dangerous" is clearly seen as name-calling, especially if the act of labeling is a one-time thing or comes from an obvious professional adversary. Being accused/perceived as a member of some conspiracy from the religious right is quite different. Do you know how the religious right is perceived in academia? You triggered a trip down memory lane. Look for a related blog tomorrow.
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2005 @ 11:09 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 11:14 pm
MikeGene says:
"Okay, here's my question for you "“ Are you trying to argue that I am a creationist?"
I don't know what your ideas are well enough to label you, Mike. Classical IDism holds that we can infer intelligent design by ruling out the possibility of natural evolution. In my view, that inevitably leads to the conclusion that a nonbiological intelligence, a supernatural creator, is ultimately responsible for the existence of life. You say that this is metaphysics, but I'm not talking about the origin of the universe, but the origin of life after the Big Bang; classical IDism requires supernatural intervention in the universe some place which can harbor life after the universe comes into existence; a phenomenon occurring within the physical universe.
Of course, your idea of what IDism is might differ from what the Discovery Institute says IDism is. Perhaps you think life can arise naturally, but you suspect its possible naturally arising aliens genetically engineered bugs to terraform earth; I don't know. But William Dembski's ID can only ultimately be a god.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 11:14 pm
August 2nd, 2005 at 11:20 pm
Mike, I looked at the quotes you provided, and I didn't see anything Dawkins or any of the others said which demonstrates that the Modern Synthesis leads to the conclusion that there is no God. I know christians who are also evolutionary scientists, so they obviously don't think atheism is incorporated into the Modern Synthesis. Thats just Dawkins personal metaphysics, and he bases it on the entire body of science, not just evolutionary theory.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 11:20 pm
August 3rd, 2005 at 10:06 am
Aagcobb,
You are hilarious. Yes, both design and natural laws can be front loaded, so there is one sense in which they could be called 'like' each other. But that is all speculative and irrelevant. The difference is in empirical detection, which is what you had brought up here.
Design is distinguished from a natural law, even if they were both front loaded at some point. When it comes to us as empirically testable phenomena, it is a different animal (some hypothesize), regardless of how it got put there. There is your difference in what is thought to be empirically detectible between a Behe and a Dawkins, and nowhere did my statements imply otherwise.
As for how it differs from interventionism, (copy, paste) detection of design is not the same as detection of historical intervention. The design may be detectable as such (as Behe asserted with IC systems), and yet the way in which the design historically came to be in the object would not be detectable. Has this not already been said by basically every person interested in or with a distant cousin interested in ID?
If I made Behe seem incoherent, my apologies to him.
Comment by matt_nadler — August 3, 2005 @ 10:06 am
August 3rd, 2005 at 10:36 am
Aagcobb,
Your original argument was that creationism is a logical conclusion of ID. But as Matt spotted, "To create a "˜problem' by equivocation renders your argument invalid." You equivocate because you are fabricating. You fabricate because you have a political agenda. This is also why you have quietly abandoned the attempt to tease apart eugenics from Darwinism while insisting creationism=ID.
As further evidence of your fabrication, I have shown that your logic (X leads to Y, therefore X=Y) could be applied elsewhere, but you object to this. Sorry Aagcobb, but there are many respected members of academia who conclude atheism from science and/or evolution. Your only counter argument is to label this "personal metaphysics" and appeal to sociological data "“ "I know christians who are also evolutionary scientists." Instead of appealing to what people believe, you need to provide the arguments as to why they are wrong. In saying, "I don't know what your ideas are well enough to label you, Mike," you are conceding that ID does not necessarily lead to creationism. Thus, on one hand, you insist ID is creationism because of Dembski's "personal metaphysics" while denying Dawkins' conclusion of atheism from science as "personal metaphysics."
Your decision to label ID as creationism is purely political. The justifications you provide are merely post hoc rationalizations.
Comment by MikeGene — August 3, 2005 @ 10:36 am
August 3rd, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Matt, you still haven't been able to make Behe coherent, and so far noone's jumped in to rescue him. Behe according to you, believes that the instructions for forming IC biological structures was somehow frontloaded into the universe, which somehow resulted, billions of years later, with IC biological structures forming in a nonnatural way. It seems Behe's "theory" leaves a few details out.
Mike, I didn't abanadon my efforts to tease apart eugenics and Darwinism; I've already done it. Natural selection maintaining the vitality of a species was a concept which predated Darwin, as creationists and IDists have frequently pointed out to me, so you can't blame Darwin for it.
As far as ID not leading to creationism, thats true, if one assumes that one can redefine ID however you want to. I would argue that if you have abandoned the belief that it can be empirically demonstrated that biological life cannot form and evolve naturally, then you have abandoned the single idea upon which mainstream IDism is founded; it would be kind of like claiming to be a Darwinist except for the little exception that you don't think natural selection has anything to do with evolution. if you do accept that central tenet of IDism, then ultimately your ID has to be a god. If you concede that biological life can form and evolve naturally, without intelligent intervention, then your concept is as different from the IDism of the Discovery Institute as Lamarckism is from the Modern Synthesis (not to imply that your concept has any more or less merit than DI's, only that its different).
Finally, I would like to mention that in an earlier blog, someone claimed that its primarily the "Darwinists" who engaged in mudslinging whereas the IDists primarily wanted a fair exchange of ideas. I'd point out now that one of us has only been discussing ideas, while the other has repeatedly made accusations of fabrication, and it hasn't been me.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 3, 2005 @ 2:53 pm
August 3rd, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Au, contraire, mon ami! You've cleverly played a semantic game all the way through this thread, apparently in the firm belief that nobody would notice. The game you play is "misrepresentation," and it doesn't work with me.
First, your issue with Behe and IC. If you'll read the little blurb right below the main page header, you'll notice the words "independent blog." That means not only do we not necessarily subscribe to Behe's (or anyone else's) attempts to quantify ID, it's not our job to defend those attempts to you. If you have a problem with Behe's position, take it up with him.
As for you teasing apart eugenics from Darwinism, the only person you've convinced is yourself. Eugenics, as practiced by humans, had nothing much to do with "maintaining the vitality of the species," it had to do with designing the population via negatives [elimination of 'lesser' humans] and positives [human husbandry, selective breeding]. Humans taking over nature's normal evolutionary role to IMPROVE [on somebody's subjective terms] the species, not maintain it. That's documented history, Aag. You can deny it all you like, but you can't expect to convince anyone who can access and read the history for themselves.
You then claim -
Did you really think no one here would object to your claim that to question Darwinism's version of evolution is to question "nature?" Well, I object to it. I've never once claimed that evolution - as ID - isn't perfectly "natural." I've just got a problem with RM-NS, and I am not the only one.
Why not go ahead and say what you mean? Which in fact is - "I would argue that if you have abandoned the belief that it can be empirically demonstrated that biological life cannot form and evolve RANDOMLY, then you have abandoned the single idea upon which mainstream neodarwinism is founded."
You confound "natural" with "random" and pretend that no one can argue your duplicitous point. That's equivocation - being deliberately ambiguous or unclear in order to mislead. Several people here have called you on it, and you keep right on going like the Energizer bunny. What's your personal stake in "random" evolution? Since no one here is convinced that evolution is or must be "random" in order to be "natural," why don't YOU defend your commitment to randomness instead of equivocating on the definition of natural?
Comment by Joy — August 3, 2005 @ 4:15 pm
August 3rd, 2005 at 4:36 pm
Joy, I never said evolution is random, and thats not what the Modern Synthesis says, either. Evolution, to a great extent, is directed by natural selection, thus is decidedly nonrandom.
So the issue actually appears to be, is evolution directed largely by natural selection, or by an "intelligence" You appear to be telling me this "intelligence" which directs evolution is natural. I would deeply appreciate it if you would explain to me what this natural intelligence is, because the only natural intelligence I am aware of is generated by the brains of humans and a few other large brained organisms, and they weren't around to design the bacterial flagellum. I know what the DI's "intelligence" is; Johnson, Dembski and Wells have all made it clear that its God, who is decidedly not "natural". What is your "intelligence"
I will also point out that once again, its the IDist slinging accusations of misrepresentation, even though IDists supposedly rarely do this, while the "Darwinist" is trying to explore the ideas, though I'm the one stereotyped as the mudslinger.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 3, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
August 3rd, 2005 at 5:06 pm
Aagcobb said:
But environmental conditions are essentially random, even in a single generation's lifetime. Which is why you don't see earthquakes and tornadoes "improving" the species (any species). And why you see comets and asteroids wiping out entire forms of life in one fell swoop. You claim that the weather imposes adaptation on hapless life forms at random. I say the life forms adapt non-randomly to hapless weather. All in how you look at it, and the way neodarwinism looks at it doesn't hold much water even in biological science these days.
Admit it, Aag. Your issue is ideological, and goes well beyond what's "natural" or even "real." Poor, pitiful, victimized life! Bad, bad nature! "It's not my fault!"
I don't buy it. You can buy all you want, but if you get a stomach ache from it, tough titty. Learn to deal with it [adapt] or die with it [selection]. It's ultimately your choice, even if you deny it to your dying day.
You know, I don't much care what Johnson, Dembski and Wells have to say about it. I'll respect them for trying, which is all anybody can do if they're short on faith to invest. What I can't figure out is why you are here on this "independent" ID blog among advocates who don't necessarily believe in (or care) what Johnson, Dembski and Wells have to say about it, demanding that we explain and defend what Johnson, Dembski and Wells have to say. That's total garbage, and displays zero respect for the actual participants here. Isn't ARN enough of a cauldron-stew for you to get your kicks with games like this?
"Darwinists" aren't exploring anything but tenure and comfortable retirement. Everybody else is busy doing real research and hoping to make a billion bucks designing nifty life forms or patenting already existing ones.
Times change, 'truths' change, people change. That's the way of life, and the way of science. There's a thread here about Lewontin's latest anti-darwinian lambast, but I don't see you there. Why hasn't he lost his tenure and been blackballed from science?
Comment by Joy — August 3, 2005 @ 5:06 pm
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:10 pm
Joy, don't be so defensive, I didn't ask you to defend the DI gang. I was interested in hearing about what your version of ID is.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 3, 2005 @ 7:10 pm
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:08 pm
Equivocation is a logical fallacy. Its not something people have, it is something that arguments have. It renders your argument invalid. It doesn't render you invalid.
Hi Joy. Just to clarify, I brought up Mike Behe. The original critique of the letter pertained to a general definition of ID, so that was why I brought him up as an example in passing. That explanation could be wrong, and my explanation of him could still be incoherent.
It is not anyone's job to make this view coherent to you. Apparently, the position will only be 'coherent' when you hear historical narrative re: the designer's program and method, regardless of whether there is any way of knowing that. But if the position isn't about a designer's program and method, then it is not a reasonable expectation. This expectation seems to be there because ID is still considered to be a form of creationism (i.e. a perversion of it). But this position has already been shown to be incorrect in this very thread. IDisms primarily deal with signs of designing intelligence simpliciter, accepts at the outset that we may have no evidence of how what intelligence did the designing, but only that it was designed. This is more than enough to distinguish its focus and the nature of its explanation from creationism.
Again, the original point was that you and the Dr. weren't speaking about the same thing. You apparently thought that disagreeing with me on my post meant showing that your definition was right. But that is secondary. Even if the Dr.'s use of the term is wrong and yours is right, your argument was invalid because you critiqued him by employing his terms differently than he did.
Shalom!
Comment by matt_nadler — August 3, 2005 @ 11:08 pm
August 4th, 2005 at 8:06 am
Matt-nadler said:
"IDisms primarily deal with signs of designing intelligence simpliciter, accepts at the outset that we may have no evidence of how what intelligence did the designing, but only that it was designed."
Then I would ask any IDist here how design can be detected (and what I'm asking for is your concept; you don't have to defend the IDism of anyone else) when there is no evidence of how biological life was designed.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 4, 2005 @ 8:06 am
August 4th, 2005 at 10:51 am
Aagcobb:
You left something I out. I said, "This is also why you have quietly abandoned the attempt to tease apart eugenics from Darwinism while insisting creationism=ID." I would agree that we can tease apart eugenics and Darwinism just as we can tease apart creationism and ID. You are the one trying to have it both ways. You are the one eager to take a ham-handed approach in equating ID with creationism, but insisting on sophisticated nuance when we compare Darwinism with eugenics. That clues us in to the fact that you are fabricating.
So we agree that ID does not necessarily lead to creationism.
Wading in the shallow waters of your wedge-centrism bores me. When you start to think of ID without the crutch of the wedge-centric prism, you might start making some interesting points.
You are the one trying to equate ID with creationism. That IS mudslinging, Aagcobb. And I have not made "accusations of fabrication." I have pointed to the evidence that indicates you are doing just that.
Comment by MikeGene — August 4, 2005 @ 10:51 am
August 4th, 2005 at 11:10 am
MikeGene said:
"As far as ID not leading to creationism, thats true, if one assumes that one can redefine ID however you want to.
So we agree that ID does not necessarily lead to creationism."
If ID is a meaningless label. I would like to know, Mike, what "intelligence" is to you. I sometimes feel like I'm shadow boxing, because I can't seem to get an answer as to what IDists are actually talking about when they discuss terms like "intelligence" and "design". I know what the folks at the DI mean (and I'm not asking you to defend them!), but what do those words mean to you within the framework of your ideas?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 4, 2005 @ 11:10 am
August 4th, 2005 at 11:14 am
There is a time and place for everything, Aagcobb. The time is not before I head off for vacation and the place is not this thread.
Comment by MikeGene — August 4, 2005 @ 11:14 am
August 4th, 2005 at 11:26 am
Have a great time!
Comment by Aagcobb — August 4, 2005 @ 11:26 am
August 12th, 2005 at 8:35 pm
"Other people have suffered far worse fates for their ideas than being perceived as a tool of the religious right, so don't expect my heart to break for your hypothetical scientist."
Another example of Aagcobb forcing my arguments into the familiar boxes in his own head. I've pointed out how the "ID=creationism" meme that he and other critics are spreading creates a situation which inhibits ID from getting the very thing that many critics are demanding of it: Widespread acceptance within the scientific community. Instead of dealing with my points or adjusting his behavior accordingly, Aagcobbs misconstrues my argument as one involving sympathy, as if I was demanding to have exceptions granted to the poor ID proponents.
Comment by Krauze — August 12, 2005 @ 8:35 pm