Mountain or Molehill?
by MikeGeneOver at PT, Nick Matzke writes:
As everyone now knows, even though the ID guys will never admit it, "intelligent design" as such originated in the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People, with "intelligent design" being the new label chosen after the 1987 Edwards decision made creationist terminology difficult to use in textbooks. Pandas was the first place the term "intelligent design" was used systematically, defined in a glossary, claimed to be something other than creationism, etc.
I'm still left with an unanswered question "“ so what? I can understand the importance of such a finding in the circumscribed setting of the court room that came into existence because school administrators told 9th grade science students to look into Of Pandas and People in the library as a resource for Intelligent Design. In that setting, the finding is extremely relevant. And given Nick's role in the court room drama, I can understand why he thinks it is so important. But that's 2005. Beyond that, and in the post-wedge world, why is the history of this text and the socio-political ID movement all that relevant everywhere else? Perhaps someone can explain this.
In the mean time, one thing we can say is that the book, Of Pandas and People, has been quite irrelevant to those of us at TT. It would be irrational to insist otherwise.
August 20th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Mike asks,
I think the supposed logic goes like this:
1. creationism is false
2. even if creationism is relabled to ID, it would still be false
3. ergo, ID is false
The line of reasoning could be sound except for some problems:
1. creationism could be true, it is also accepted by half the US population, and that number is increasing (including next generation scientists), thus the logic of the argument would result in "so what" for many people….
2. ID in current form may not be relabeled creationism, the ID in Pandas and People is not the same as the ID of Behe and Dembski. Even the creation science in Pandas and People would hardly be the Genesis-based variety.
Finally, regarding the claim the idea was invented in 1989, from Letter 3154 "” Darwin, C. R. to Herschel, J. F. W., 23 May [1861]
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 20, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I thought Thomas Woodward hit it on the head with Doubts About Darwin: the most important early 'ID' books were Behe's Black Box and Johnson's Darwin on Trial; both of which were inspired by Michael Denton's Evolution: A theory in crisis.
I've read all three books but never even seen Pandas.
But Matzke's argument is shameless rhetoric, and the fact that the origins of ID are so important to the PT crew says something about the strength of ID claims (isn't there something called a 'genetic fallacy'?)
Comment by BenK — August 20, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Nick's position indicates a lack of confidence in an ability to refute ID without recourse to the police powers of the state. If you simply outlaw ID you no longer have to deal with it. But why would you do that Nick? After all ID has put you on the internet map. You've made a hobby and even a living off ID which is more than can be said about most IDists.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
1. LOL. The reason it's important is that a lot of people are fibbing about the true history of the ID movement. E.g. everything the DI writes about the history of ID is basically shameless propaganda invented long after the fact, to make ID seem like something other than a creationist legal strategy. Ditto for Woodward's book. Now they are trying to cover it up by digging up old instances of the words "intelligent" and "design" stuck together, things which they never cited in ID histories until after Kitzmiller. It's all quite pitiful really.
2. Sal — I myself linked to the Darwin "intelligent Design" quote in the very post linked in this thread. And just today you (humorously) quote-mined it on UD. You're welcome for me pointing it out to you.
3. Of course the Pandas stuff isn't the full story. A lot of proto-ID got started because of the creationist implosion in the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas trial. For the fun history of that, especially all the stuff about Dean Kenyon that ID people universally edit out of the real history, see the forthcoming:
As for why it's important: (a) history is always important, especially if some group is promoting a fake version of it; (b) it shows that an awful lot of the leaders of the modern ID movement have been less than forthright about their own history; (c) the creationists are trying the whole thing again with their new textbook, Explore Evolution; (d) just ask Francis Beckwith:
Comment by Nick Matzke — August 20, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Nick has indicated one more important piece in the anti-ID strategy. Conflate ID with DI at every opportunity. Then keep the lawyers on alert.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I tried to give you credit, but my HT in the comment section got trapped in the spam buffer. Apparently the UD spam buffer trapped my genorous acknowledgement of your research. Hopefully the attribution will appear. If not, I'll make sure it does.
Thank you for pointing out the indefensibility of your position. Darwin had ID on his mind. He must be psychic because according to you the phrase wasn't coined till 1989.
By the way, malice aside, you really were one of the better people at PT and the NCSE. A real gentleman. By comaprison, your replacement at the NCSE totally stinks compared to you. You were the best.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 20, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
For the sake of argument, let us say this is true, if elements of a religious idea are argued from empirical facts, does that invalidate the argument?
With that in mind, I would have to agree with Mike, "so what?" If the motivation for citing secular reseach is religious, does that invalidate the citation? Let us say, for the sake of argument, Darwinism 20 years from now is in such horrid shape it would be scientifically irresponsible and unethical to keep promoting it as an explanation for the emergence of complexity.
Would it be illegal to make students aware of these facts on the grounds that:
1. some religious folk would absolutely be delighted for students to be made aware of the facts
2. the facts might induce some kids to embrace certain religious views
3. ergo, telling them the truth is unconstitutional since the truth would lead to a supposed establishment clause violation
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 20, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Robert's Crowther's views on Nick's take can be read here.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Funny how no one doing ID history ever cited Horigan until 2007…
Comment by nickmatzke — August 20, 2007 @ 9:16 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
The reason it's important is that YOUR MUM is fibbing about the true history of YOUR PARENTAGE.
ROFLTMAOOMGWTFHAXXORZ!!!!
Comment by BenK — August 20, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
You may think that, but I doubt people interested in ID or maybe sitting on the fence think that. I pointed out before, even people with an interest in ID will be hardly swayed if they find some dubious conduct by the leaders of the ID movement. What matters is the truthfulness of the hypothesis, much less so the truthfulness of individuals.
Did Pilt Down, Nebraska Man, or Reiner von Protsch or other proven frauds make Darwinists flinch over the validity of the their ideas? Not one iota.
In like manner, supposed dubious behavior by ID leaders (whcih I don't buy), won't make one iota of difference to ID supporters familiar with the scientific issues.
Even if ID were Biblical creation (which it is not), how is a method of arguing from empirical facts rather than religious texts some sort of bait and switch crime? So what?
If people believe in a creation account, they have the right to explore a fact-based versus faith-based versions of the theory. They have a right to demand demarcations between speculations and directly observed facts, even if their motivations are religious.
If someone wishes to label their theory non-Darwinian evolution, and make only appeals to empirical facts and theoretical deductions, even if the motivation were evangelism, so what? Is inquiry into empirical facts somehow taboo because of a vested personal interest?
At the end of the day, indpendent of motivations and history, the questions and issues still remain. And no, Darwinism isn't fact. Darwinian evolution as a sufficient or majority explanation for the complexity of life is still in doubt.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 20, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Nick, noone cares about ID history except those seeking to construct legal briefs based on it.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Am I the only one who finds the whole 'history of the words "intelligent design"' to be pretty desperate? If a creationist group really did use that term first, it doesn't mean that forever and for all time it's a label for creationists.
Terms can change, and so can movements. So even if "Intelligent Design" was primarily associated with creationism originally - and finding the two words linked together in a 2 decade old book is a weak connection at best -it doesn't follow that the words still mean what they once did, or that it describes the same groups.
Comment by nullasalus — August 20, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
nullasalus, bear in mind that this is all about discrediting ID through the court system. From that perspective it is essential to tie ID to creationists. The contrived "history" based on word useage is a useful tool. It's interesting how Dembski and Behe disappear from view during such tactics. Normally they are a center of focus when ID is discussed.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Hi nullasalus,
However, as Nick pointed out the same people are trotting out the same pseudoscientific anti-evolutionary arguments in the new book Explore Evolution; so, in that instance, the words do still mean what they once did. Outside of that context, the meaning of "intelligent design" to a few mostly anonymous bloggers like MikeGene is about as relevant to the world at large as the words "cold fusion". Its just a hobby, and its never going to amount to anything.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 20, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:44 am
Nick Matzke wrote:
The main reason why I have mentioned Horigan (who was writing about "intelligent design" before "ID movement") are you, Nick Matzke.
You have argued, that "intelligent design" should be (now) defined, as it was done in the glossary of Pandas. You have said, that if someone (like Mike Gene) is using the term "intelligent design", but he/she uses different definition, then he/she should "pick a new name for his views"*. My point is that if the term "intelligent design" was used before there was Pandas, at least then your claim is pointless.
Ps. Horigan's book has been listed for example at Talkorigins::
http://www.talkorigins.org/ori...
http://www.talkorigins.org/ori...
Comment by Analyysi — August 22, 2007 @ 7:44 am
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:23 pm
This whole issue is absolutely a mountain, not a molehill. Of course the phrase "intelligent design" has been around for a long time. That's not the point.
Consider this: what was the "A Ha!" moment for Intelligent Design? In many other fields of study, one can trace progress back to an "A Ha!" moment, like the structure of DNA being determined, or a chemical compound being isolated, or a new antenna detects the cosmic background radiation. What about Intelligent Design? Did someone make an important discovery about the nature or identity of the designer(s)? Did someone make a discovery about how the designers accomplish their design? Did someone observe a design changing from one generation to the next? No. The "A Ha!" moment for Intelligent Design was a Supreme Court case! Busted!
Comment by RedPolygon — August 22, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:49 pm
We know that designed life arose and also know there is no chemically based explanation for it. It's a question open to an ID based explanation.
Yeah, I see what you mean. Following the 1987 Edwards case Intelligent Design grew by leaps and bounds during the 90s. Aha!
Comment by Bradford — August 22, 2007 @ 11:49 pm