Midgley Misfires
by MikeGeneI think the thing I like best about the Intelligent Design debate is watching highly educated and highly respected thinkers criticize ID. I enjoy this because it quickly becomes clear that many of our culture's leading intellectuals are simply reacting, often reflexively, to popular and sensational claims rather than demonstrating a reflective approach born of independent, critical thinking. The latest example comes from Mary Midgley.
Midgley writes:
Intelligent Design Theory, which claims to provide a scientific rationale for Creationism, is now highly popular in the United States and is gaining ground in Britain. Considered as science it is apparently vacuous, yet its influence is growing rapidly. We surely need to try and understand this phenomenon.
There are two glaring errors here. First, Midgley conflates ID with creationism. This is the common error of the Pop Mind that indicates she is relying on superficial thinking (the intellectual equivalent of the Big Mac). Second, Midgley wants to understand "this phenomenon" rather than deal with the concepts. Fine. If so, then she should adopt an empirical, social sciences approach that actually seeks to gather data and test hypotheses. That's how you understand social phenomena. Does she do this? Nope. Instead, she "understands" "the phenomenon" with nothing more than words that come to her mind, the same mind that hears "creationism" when "ID" is spoken or written.
Midgley continues:
The theory does not, as one might expect, merely aim to add a spiritual dimension to supplement accepted biological views, which would be quite unobjectionable. Intelligent Design (ID) is presented firmly as a scientific theory to displace existing ones.
Given that Midgley's opening paragraph makes it clear she is relying on superficial thinking, it should not surprise us that she would proceed to paint with the broad brush. Instead of speaking in the third person, creating the illusion of objectivity, Midgley should make some effort to cite the people making this claim. After all, it is simply not true that "Intelligent Design is presented firmly as a scientific theory to displace existing ones" in the pages of The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues.
Its central point is that living things are so "˜irreducibly complex' that they cannot have evolved gradually by natural selection. They must therefore have had a designer. He might not be supernatural "“ he might even be an alien being "“ but the special biological kind of complexity could not have arisen without him.
Here it becomes clear that Midgley is talking about Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. But even then, she gets it wrong. Behe does not argue that living things are irreducibly complex.
What makes the complexity irreducible is that a biological device is composed of parts which must all be present if it is to work. The comparison often given is to a mousetrap, which can't work till all its parts are combined. Various integrated natural systems are also held to consist of parts which must have been brought together by some other agency before natural selection could begin working on them, since natural selection can only work on something that's already functioning. Thus, their development cannot be explained without a designer.
Biologists have pointed out the feebleness of the mechanical analogy, of course. Organisms and their parts do not consist of separate items that must be put together deliberately in the workshop, but of continuous tissue, areas of which often have several different functions and can shift between them by what is called "˜co-option'. No helpful designer was needed in order to provide a cow with a fly-whisk: cows themselves acquired one merely by using a rather undifferentiated tail in a new way. But the public which is impressed by ID theory does not read these replies.
Those who have read The Design Matrix might find themselves smiling at these claims.
The disturbing feature about ID theory is its open imperialism. It inserts a Creator not as a metaphysical background but as a necessary part of the physical process. Thus it tries to reactivate the old idea of a stark epistemological Cold War, a contest for dominance between science and religion.
During the last half-century, that military method of "˜progress in understanding' has been going out of favour, because it plainly darkened counsel. Its competitiveness made it very hard for people to see the many less extreme positions that lay open to them.
Okay, so the intellectuals have likened ID to the Taliban, to terrorism, to nazism, and now to imperialism. It's only a matter of time before ID is likened to child abuse. Or puppy abuse. Such rhetoric is common among the critics, as it helps to elicit the desired emotional responses. But what it ironic is that while Midgley positions herself as a voice for the "many less extreme positions," her perspective about ID is completely blind to the many less extreme positions that lay before her.
All in all, Midgley brings no serious intellectual challenge to the table.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Hi, Mike,
You picked on a real light weight there. Take a look at her credentials. Hell, I could've taken her apart. I don't know about you, but I think that being accepted by Science, the way science is trending, might one day be as meaningful as Yassar Arafat being given the peace award. If Science is to regain its lost respect, then some real in-house cleaning has to occur, which has nothing to do with ID. My humble opinion as always.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 1, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
December 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 am
When I look at the comments it is evident that the darkended counsel lies in the minds of those wedded to cliches and spooky views of religion which they impute to IDists.
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2007 @ 12:40 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:04 am
I would not agree that Mary Midgley is a light-weight AnaxagorasRules. She is respected philosopher with a special interest in ethics and human nature. She has been for years open critic of scientific pretension as well as grand claims of high priests of evolutionary theory.
That is precisely why Mike has a good point. In other writings you can find her arguments insightful and compelling. But what happened here? Stereotyping takes over and replaces basic research and valid reasoning.
Comment by inunison — December 2, 2007 @ 6:04 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 6:51 am
Richard Dawkins would heartily endorse your assessment, I suspect.
Well, she is eighty-eight, you know.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 2, 2007 @ 6:51 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:08 am
Hi Alan,
On the contrary, I think Dawkins would applaud Migdley's assessment of ID, as he too is conditioned to believe ID = Creationism. After all, it was none other than Dawkins who exclaims that ID is the American Taliban. Like I said, it quickly becomes clear that many of our culture's leading intellectuals are simply reacting, often reflexively, to popular and sensational claims rather than demonstrating a reflective approach born of independent, critical thinking.
Comment by MikeGene — December 2, 2007 @ 11:08 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:31 am
You must be aware of the long-running enmity between Midgeley and Dawkins, starting with her misunderstanding of Dawkins' use of "selfish" in "The Selfish Gene".
Only recently, Midgeley was quoted as saying: "The ideology Dawkins is selling is the worship of competition. It is projecting a Thatcherite take on economics on to evolution. It's not an impartial scientific view; it's a political drama."
I am sure that is a common fault among many, especially blog posters. Still, in some blogs. dishonest or lazy posters can be criticized, as can lazy or dishonest intellectuals. Issues that are honestly debated seem often to end in the same relativism versus objectivism sort of stand-off.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 2, 2007 @ 11:31 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:36 am
Edit: delete in after many Have I missed the edit facility?
Comment by Alan Fox — December 2, 2007 @ 11:36 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:48 am
You mean the "in" between "among" and "many" right Alan?
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2007 @ 11:48 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:54 am
Yes, probably either in or among would do.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 2, 2007 @ 11:54 am
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Hi, Alan Fox,
I suspected she was getting up there. The credentials at the end of the article had 1980 listed as her last year as a teacher. However, I wouldn't put that as the reason for the shallow thinking displayed in it (or knee-jerk broad brushing of ID to be a front put up by bible toters, "Creationists", if you will). I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, and am assuming that she has full grasp of her mental faculties.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 2, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
December 2nd, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Hi Alan,
Of course, yet I'm still confident that Dawkins would approve of her criticism of ID. Then again, perhaps accusing ID of being a form of "imperialism" might be too mild for Dawkins.
Comment by MikeGene — December 2, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
December 2nd, 2007 at 4:10 pm
"Intelligent Design Theory, which claims to provide a scientific rationale for Creationism"
It does no such thing. One could just as well say that non-intelligent evolution claims to provide a scientific rationale for atheism. Of course there are atheists and creationists who are happy to exploit the issues to advance their agenda. Welcome to human nature.
"Considered as science it is apparently vacuous"
I wonder if she's actually read any of the relevant texts, or had any serious discussions with ID advocates.
"We surely need to try and understand this phenomenon."
She's right about that. But she should take her own advice and get a serious handle on ID, from the standpoint of its advocates and not merely its enemies.
Comment by kornbelt888 — December 2, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:23 am
I find it very surprising that she echoes the ID critics in her rhetoric… since the Wikipedia piece I read about her paints a completely different picture. Here's a quote:
Isn't she contradicting herself here? It's a shame, she seemed like a smart woman before she started bashing the ID movement not after delving deeply into everything it had to offer outside of the mainstream movement that got it all wrong, but after joining the herd. She should read Mike's book
Comment by dimasok — December 3, 2007 @ 12:23 am
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 am
This contention is precisely the opposite of the approach actually being taken by scientists attempting to "create life", such as Craig Venter, and the Nobel Prize winning chemist Jean Marie Lehn. I've not seen any discussion of Lehn's work here. I apologize if I'm in error on that. But I would be very interested in what Mike and others think about the critical role of design (supplemented untimately by selection) in Lehn's effort to develop "supramolecular chemistry".
For example:
Comment by Anton — December 3, 2007 @ 12:24 am
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:48 am
inunison:
In other writings you can find her arguments insightful and compelling. But what happened here? Stereotyping takes over and replaces basic research and valid reasoning.
I suspect that in Mary Midgeley, we have an example of a common phenomenon: Criticism of those you disagree with always seems more insightful and compelling than criticism of those you agree with. ID supporters are inclined to view her criticism of the "high priests" of ID as shallow and stereotyped but her criticism of the "high priests" of evolutionary theory as powerful and convincing. ID critics may have the opposite reaction.
If we compare notes, we may simply conclude that she's full of crap.
Comment by Nick — December 3, 2007 @ 10:48 am
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Nick:
Sounds familiar. When Anthony Flew had the temerity to doubt assumptions sacred to anti-IDists, some critics inferred he was suffering from a decline in mental faculties that can afflict the elderly. That charge has yet to be ressurected with regard to Mary Midgeley but perhaps it will be if she changes the nature of her criticism.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Alan Fox wrote:
Thanks, Alan, for providing us with a fine example of the knee-jerk reactive response that Mike was criticising.
Perhaps in the future you'd like to actually comment on her article rather than make vague references to her vaguely hypothetical state of dementia.
Comment by chunkdz — December 3, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Hi, Nick,
In line with this, I think we are all disposed to trigger on certain keywords and phrases. Whenever I see a definition of ID linked with Creationism, my initial response is that the author is a blind idiot, and I don't care how many degrees or accomplishments are appended to their surname. With effort, and depending on the rest of the article, I can sometimes modify that initial impression to one that regards the author as being simply mistaken, having allowed himself/herself to be led into error by political, economic, or moral biases.
ID simply does not imply Creationism (or If one is an IDist then that person is a Creationist = a false statement, ). Creationists, if I'm not mistaken, are people who take the bible as being literally true. They deny evolution, they deny the age of the earth and the universe, etc. In fact, Creationists are at odds with many IDists such as Behe.
A valid argument might be made that many IDists happen to be Christians. However, many non-Christians are also IDists. In fact, some agnostics are IDists. It seems that most critics of ID are continually linking it with Christianity. Obviously that is their one great fear, and it blinds their mental processes, distorts their reasoning, where they cannot see ID in a broader context. Throw out the baby with the bath water. And meanwhile, scores of assinine conjectures by evolutionary biologists and evolutionary psychologists wind up in science journals and are dubbed as "interesting". Just look at all the BS claims in the September's issue of Psychology Today (Ten truths regarding men and women).
And the blindness and fear extends beyond the origin of life. The ID critics must postulate an uncreated universe, assign everything to a random aglomeration that just happened to produce this universe.
And earth, that insignificant little planet, with its randomly evolved, insignificant little lifefoms, has no broader purpose or meaning.
Just like "junk DNA".
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — December 3, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
December 8th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Sorry, chunkdz, I am an occasional lurker and even more occasional commenter here so I only just saw your comment.
Well, as you ask so nicely, I had another glance through her piece. This comment made me smile:
She still can't let that spat go, after thirty years.
More Midgley:
(link)
I think it can be reasonably asserted that Mary Midgley has succumbed to "knee jerk" comments about creationism, ID and evolutionary biology without taking much time to research her subjects. Though I wouldn't go as far as nick:
Comment by Alan Fox — December 8, 2007 @ 1:59 pm