17 Responses to “My, how things change.”

1. Aagcobb Says:
   August 2nd, 2005 at 11:05 am

   But Russell Durbin didn't sign it because he knew what game the Discovery Institute was playing; that signing the document would be used as evidence he supported IDism. Is there any evidence that Sternberg was duped into signing the document, and didn't know how the Discovery Institute would use his signature?

Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 11:05 am

2. MikeGene Says:
   August 2nd, 2005 at 11:10 am

   Aagcobb retreats into the shadows. The fact remains that one year, signing the document was evidence of being a creationist, and the next year, "any scientist could, in good conscience, sign the "Dissent from Darwin" statement."

Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2005 @ 11:10 am

3. Aagcobb Says:
   August 2nd, 2005 at 2:33 pm

   So there is no reason to believe Sternberg was duped by the Discovery Institute.

Comment by Aagcobb — August 2, 2005 @ 2:33 pm

4. MikeGene Says:
   August 2nd, 2005 at 2:52 pm

   Aagcobb hides in the shadows - no one knows what Sternberg thought when he signed the document.

   The fact remains that one year, signing the document was evidence of being a creationist, and the next year, "any scientist could, in good conscience, sign the "Dissent from Darwin" statement."

Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2005 @ 2:52 pm

5. ElvenRanger Says:
   August 2nd, 2005 at 3:59 pm

   What Durban said was:

   Hey, I'm skeptical of such claims, too. (It's hard to deny, for instance, that the epochal endosymbiotic event in which the ancestral mitochondrion threw in its lot with the ancestral nuclear genome had a pretty big role in the complexity of life. And I'm by no means certain of the relative contributions of natural selection, sexual selection and neutral drift.) Would the DI welcome my signature, even if I expressly forbid its use to imply support for "intelligent design"? Perhaps the people that are not skeptical of such claims are the "Darwinian fundamentalists" we're always being warned about. (Hard to know, since the term is rarely, if ever, defined.) If so, I've never met one. In fact, I suspect signing the DI's statement has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with supporting its political agenda.

   (Emphasis added.)

   So, one year signing the list is evidence that you are a creationist.
   The next year it is evidence that you are sympathetic to the agenda of a creationist organisation.

   Doesn't seem like much of a change at all.

Comment by ElvenRanger — August 2, 2005 @ 3:59 pm

6. MikeGene Says:
   August 2nd, 2005 at 4:55 pm

   Oh, but I'm not interested in Durban's micro-conspiracy theory. All that matters is that he acknowledges "any scientist could, in good conscience, sign the "Dissent from Darwin" statement." Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry take something that any scientist, in good conscience, can sign and see evidence of creationism. Are you saying that everyone on that list is also a creationist?

Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2005 @ 4:55 pm

7. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
   August 2nd, 2005 at 9:40 pm

   Things are changing. Of late, Darwinists are asking not to be labeled as Darwinists, even though many evolutionary biologists have used that label.

   When Jason Rosenhouse declared the combination of IDists and Creationists now dominate the demographic landscape, I suddenly saw things differently. I saw an academic elite feeling marginalized, in his last bastion of defense in academia. I began to see the world through his eyes, the fear, the dismay of what was happening to the demographics.

   Rather than seeing the IDists as the underdog, I realized in the pro-Darwin academics eyes, they see ID as a powerful idea. Despite their confident public dismissals, they know they're in for a fight…..

   What has happened is it is starting to become fashionable to be an IDist. One is not viewed as a heroic defender of science by promoting Darwinian evolution anymore. The perception of Darwin defenders being obstructionists is beginning to stick. They are beginning to be seen as intolerant fundamentalists, and there are a few in the press saying as much.

   I was recently interviewed again yet a 3rd time by a reporter recently. I am sensing the media continue to be slowly enamored with IDists (minus a few pro-Darwin strongholds like the NY Times). The rest of the press is giving slightly warmer and more accurate coverage. They have to give warmer coverage as a matter of economics, if for nothing else. The press can't continue to allow pro-Darwin forces to be disparaging the rest of the American populace, and labeling them as naive or stupid or ignorant.

   The elitism flowing from academia can be a real turn off. If CNN wants to recover market share to Fox News, they better realize it's time to cater a bit to the audiences that watch their sponsors commercials! Bush perhaps is cashing in on what he senses is a political gold mine. He has taken on a position which he knows will score political points. That means, he knows, and feels it to his political advantage that "things have changed."

   The many polls are telling news organizations that they better allow more respectful coverage of ID. The Wall Street Journal and presumably the community of affluent investors would generally want tolerance and respectful treatment of IDists in public discourse.

   Mike wrote, "So one year, signing the document is evidence of being a creationist and the next year, anyone could have signed it."

   Indeed, times are changing. Some people are abandoning ship, without trying to appear to be doing so. And an American President has joined the new bandwagon!

   I recall this prophetic quote by Rosenhouse:

   We are past the point where we must worry about adding legitimacy to creationism. It is already viewed as legitimate by a majority of Americans. I suspect if you held a vote asking people if they wanted ID taught alongside evolution as a legitimate scientific theory, evolution would lose in every state in the union.

   Jason Rosenhouse

   Indeed, how things have changed.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 2, 2005 @ 9:40 pm

8. ElvenRanger Says:
   August 3rd, 2005 at 7:48 pm

   Oh, but I'm not interested in Durban's micro-conspiracy theory.

   Slandering Durban by calling his views a "micro-conspiracy theory" does not advance your case. Even if his views were totally unfounded, they would still be his views, and in particular it would be his view that signing the statement would be evidence of sympathy with the Discovery Institute.

   All that matters is that he acknowledges "any scientist could, in good conscience, sign the "Dissent from Darwin" statement." Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry take something that any scientist, in good conscience, can sign and see evidence of creationism.

   You have not even established that that is the view of Gishlik, Matzke and Elsberry. They made two charges against Sternberg: that he was a creationist (supported by his association with the Baraminology Study Group); and that he was an "ID fellow traveler". It is possible that they used his signing of the DI promoted statement as evidence of the second rather than the first.

   All you have established is that three neo-darwinists thought that signing the list was evidence of sympathy with the DI's aims, and that later, another neo-darwinist thought signing the list established sympathy with the DI aims. The rest of your case is built on speculation and the ommision of relevant detail.

   Are you saying that everyone on that list is also a creationist?

   No, and neither do Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry. At most they use it as evidence of, being a creationist, not proof. The probability that you are a creationist given that you have signed that list is significantly greater than the probability that you are a creationist given that you have an advanced science degree.

   On a very conservative estimate that the probability of your being a creationist given that you are on the editorial board of a YEC publication is 0.8; and the again conservative estimate that the probability that you are a creationist given that you have signed the DI's list is 0.3; then the probability that you are a creationist rises to 0.84 (compared to around 0.05 for the entire academic population).

   A appeal to a fact as relevant evidence is not an appeal to a fact as categorical proof.

Comment by ElvenRanger — August 3, 2005 @ 7:48 pm

9. ElvenRanger Says:
   August 3rd, 2005 at 7:54 pm

   Correction:

   the probability rises to 0.84 if you have done both.

Comment by ElvenRanger — August 3, 2005 @ 7:54 pm

10. orion Says:
    August 4th, 2005 at 12:03 am

    You have not even established that that is the view of Gishlik, Matzke and Elsberry. They made two charges against Sternberg: that he was a creationist (supported by his association with the Baraminology Study Group); and that he was an "ID fellow traveler". It is possible that they used his signing of the DI promoted statement as evidence of the second rather than the first.

    It is clear though that creationism and ID are meant to be associated.

    BTW, Sternberg's association with the BSG is meant to imply that he is a creationist and yet this is false, see here.

    What is the relationship between the BSG and Richard Sternberg?
    Richard Sternberg is a structuralist and was invited to speak at the 2001 BSG conference on the subject of structuralism. At the time, we were aware that Dr. Sternberg was not a creationist. At the conference this was confirmed in personal conversations between Dr. Sternberg and several BSG members. Dr. Sternberg specifically expressed incredulity about young-earth beliefs about age of the earth and rapid speciation. He was very pleasant and cordial in his disagreements, however, and left a good impression on all he spoke with. When Roger Sanders suggested that we start our own journal, we chose to assemble an editorial board strictly to provide regular peer review of papers. We felt that a critical review from a skeptic would be more valuable than many sympathetic reviews from BSG supporters. We therefore asked Dr. Sternberg to serve on the editorial board. Much to our surprise, he agreed. The journal launched in the spring of 2002, and Dr. Sternberg's name has been listed on our website since then.

Comment by orion — August 4, 2005 @ 12:03 am

11. Krauze Says:
    August 4th, 2005 at 12:32 am

    Hi ElvenRanger,

    "Even if his views were totally unfounded, they would still be his views, and in particular it would be his view that signing the statement would be evidence of sympathy with the Discovery Institute."

    But we aren't interested in his "views", as Sternberg was unable to know what some ID critic would think, almost four years after Sternberg signed the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list. All that matters is the arguments Durbin supplies for why every biologist could sign the statement:

    "It's hard to deny, for instance, that the epochal endosymbiotic event in which the ancestral mitochondrion threw in its lot with the ancestral nuclear genome had a pretty big role in the complexity of life. And I'm by no means certain of the relative contributions of natural selection, sexual selection and neutral drift."

    Yet when it comes to his conspiracy view, Durbin offers us nothing but his own suspicion.

    "They made two charges against Sternberg: that he was a creationist (supported by his association with the Baraminology Study Group); and that he was an "ID fellow traveler"."

    What must one believe in order to be characterized an "ID fellow traveler" Is it possible to be an "ID fellow traveler" without being a creationist?

    "It is possible that they used his signing of the DI promoted statement as evidence of the second rather than the first."

    But later, you say:

    "At most they use it as evidence of, being a creationist, not proof."

    So, did Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry use the list as evidence of Sternberg being a creationist or an "ID fellow traveler" Given that you've stressed the importance of keeping these two terms apart, perhaps it would be best if we have this clarrified before diving into your probability calculations.

Comment by Krauze — August 4, 2005 @ 12:32 am

12. ElvenRanger Says:
    August 4th, 2005 at 3:48 am

    It is clear though that creationism and ID are meant to be associated.

    There are many forms of creationist, and you can be a creationist without thereby being an ID fellow traveler. Conversely, you can be an ID fellow traveler without being a creationist. So it is not clear to me that they are meant to be associated, except that Steinberg is purported to be both.

    BTW, Sternberg's association with the BSG is meant to imply that he is a creationist and yet this is false, see here.

    BSG may claim that Sternberg is not a "creationist", but that is an ambiguos word, given many meanings. Reading closer, we find that Sternberg and the BSG disagree over the age of the earth (Sternberg thinks it is old) and the posibility of very rapid speciation advocated by some YECs (ie, eohippus to equus in just 2000 years). Sternberg himself merely denies being a young earth creationist. In his letter to The Scientist he denies being a "creationist", but also denies that Meyer is a "creationist". Meyer is certainly a creationist, though not a YECist, as is acknowledged by avowed creationists such as Robert Bowman of Reasons to Believe and by Del Ratzsch.

    Sternberg himself, while he rejects the creationist label, he apparently also rejects common descent, saying:

    Moreover, because they focus on formal analysis, struturalists are far more open than neo-Darwinians to the powerful evidence for continuity within species (forms) and discontinuity between and among species. They also allow themselves to wonder about the cause of the amazing repetition of forms across the biological world rather than being forced by prior commitments to accept a major neo-Darwinian epicycle known as "convergent evolution."

    (Nobody who is merely agnostic about common descent would call convergent evolution an "epicycle").

    So it seems quite probable that Steinberg is some form of old earth creationist. He may, however, be merely and genuinely agnostic on historical issues.

    Of course, if he is, he is the only ever non-creationist to serve on the editorial board of a creationist magazine. He would also have the distinction of being on the editorial board while not qualifying to be a member of the group.

Comment by ElvenRanger — August 4, 2005 @ 3:48 am

13. Krauze Says:
    August 4th, 2005 at 8:56 am

    Hi ElvenRanger,

    "There are many forms of creationist, and you can be a creationist without thereby being an ID fellow traveler. Conversely, you can be an ID fellow traveler without being a creationist."

    What is the nature of this "ID fellow traveler" What is it you must do to qualify for that label?

    "BSG may claim that Sternberg is not a "creationist", but that is an ambiguos word, given many meanings."

    Indeed. So why did Gishlick et al. not carefully define this word, before attaching it to Sternberg? Could it be that they know that when most people hear "creationist", this is what they think of?

    "In his letter to The Scientist he denies being a "creationist", but also denies that Meyer is a "creationist". Meyer is certainly a creationist, though not a YECist, as is acknowledged by avowed creationists such as Robert Bowman of Reasons to Believe and by Del Ratzsch."

    From this we can only conclude that Sternberg has another definition of "creationist" than Bowman and Ratzsch. Another reason not to attach the label to people who have not attached it to themselves.

    "So it seems quite probable that Steinberg is some form of old earth creationist. He may, however, be merely and genuinely agnostic on historical issues."

    So, it was on the basis of "it seems quite probable, but may not be the case" that Gishlick et al. publically branded Sternberg a creationist?

    "Of course, if he is, he is the only ever non-creationist to serve on the editorial board of a creationist magazine. He would also have the distinction of being on the editorial board while not qualifying to be a member of the group."

    And what conclusion do you think we should draw from this?

Comment by Krauze — August 4, 2005 @ 8:56 am

14. ElvenRanger Says:
    August 5th, 2005 at 6:18 pm

    But we aren't interested in his "views", as Sternberg was unable to know what some ID critic would think, almost four years after Sternberg signed the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list. All that matters is the arguments Durbin supplies for why every biologist could sign the statement:

    Krauze, Mike's conclusion was "So one year, signing the document is evidence of being a creationist and the next year, anyone could have signed it." The question is whether he has any evidence for his conclusion other than his own "conspiracy view". At the very least, in Durbin's view signing the statement is evidence of being friendly to a creationist organisation.

    To defend Mike's claim effectively, you would need to show not just that Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry thought that signing the document was evidence of being a creationist (which has not been shown); but that they thought it was evidence because only a creationist could agree with the sentiments in the document. If they thought it was evidence because even though a neodarwinist could agree with the views, only a creationist would make the political act involved in signing it; then there has been no change.

    Only an ID sympathiser would sign a political document which was intended to be used in a political debate to support the DI's views on teaching biology. That is Durbin's view. Neither Mike nor you give us reason to think Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry thought or claimed anything stronger than that.

    So, did Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry use the list as evidence of Sternberg being a creationist or an "ID fellow traveler"? Given that you've stressed the importance of keeping these two terms apart, perhaps it would be best if we have this clarrified before diving into your probability calculations.

    I don't know. From their writing, they could have intended either - or both. Mike and you don't know either - but you must purport to know in order to establish Mike's conclusion.

    If GM&E used the list only to show that Sternberg was an ID fellow traveller, they do not disagree with Durbin.

    If they used the list to show that Sternberg was probably a creationist, in that taking the political act of signing is more probable in a creationist than a non-creationist, they do not disagree with Durbin.

    Only if they used the list to show that Sternberg was probably a creationist because only a creationist could agree with the sentiments expressed is there any disagreement.

    Mike does not show that. So he cannot show that Durbin disagrees with GM&E's premises, nor that we have reason to disagree with the conclusion that signing the list shows friendliness to the DI's political ambitions, and at least suggests the signer is a creationist.

Comment by ElvenRanger — August 5, 2005 @ 6:18 pm

15. Krauze Says:
    August 6th, 2005 at 5:40 pm

    Hi ElvenRanger,

    "At the very least, in Durbin's view signing the statement is evidence of being friendly to a creationist organisation."

    Yes, we all know what Durbin believes. The question is whether there's any reason why we should adopt his position. All he offered was his suspicion; can you do better?

    "To defend Mike's claim effectively, you would need to show not just that Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry thought that signing the document was evidence of being a creationist (which has not been shown);"

    I know, you think they used it as evidence for Sternberg being an "ID fellow traveler". I've asked you to explain the nature of such a person twice, and have yet to receive an answer. You see, I'm beginning to think that the term really doesn't have any meaning, and that you're just using it to divert attention away from the accusations of creationism.

    BTW, have you overlooked my response to you here?

    "If they thought it was evidence because even though a neodarwinist could agree with the views, only a creationist would make the political act involved in signing it; then there has been no change."

    What are you talking about? You have yet to show that Sternberg signing the document was a political act. Relying on the suspicions of some ID critic on PT ain't gonna' cut it.

    "Only an ID sympathiser would sign a political document which was intended to be used in a political debate to support the DI's views on teaching biology."

    So all the signees are ID sympathizers?

    Krauze: "So, did Gishlick, Matzke and Elsberry use the list as evidence of Sternberg being a creationist or an "ID fellow traveler""

    ElvenRanger: "I don't know."

    But you were making an elaborate probabilistic argument, based on a "conservative estimate that the probability that you are a creationist given that you have signed the DI's list is 0.3". So signing the list is evidence of one being a creationist?

Comment by Krauze — August 6, 2005 @ 5:40 pm

16. Krauze Says:
    August 6th, 2005 at 6:15 pm

    Oh yeah, for the next week, I'll be unable to read and reply to posts. Due to the whole Bush thing, a lot of my discussions have been put on hold, but I hope to be back with a vengeance soon.

Comment by Krauze — August 6, 2005 @ 6:15 pm

17. ElvenRanger Says:
    August 6th, 2005 at 7:59 pm

    Krauze, I will not be responding to you further on this thread. You have made no attempt to defend Mike's claim - instead subjecting my claims to pointless and in some cases absurd criticism. Not even you, for example, believe that in a nation were over 60% of people want creation taught in school, the majority of people believe "creationist" means less intelligent than a cretin. Nor can I accept that you believe scientists conduct research, or communicate with each other by signing open letters such as the Discovery Institutes "list of scientists who oppose Darwin. Pretending you don't know that that was a political act is disingenous. Nor do I supose you to be so uninteligent as to not know the use of conditionals. (GM&E may only have used the list signing to show that Sternberg was an ID fellow traveler, but if they intended more, that does not show they used the list as proof of, rather than evidence of, being a creationist; and it does not show that the evidence lay in the specific beliefs espoused, or in the participation in a political act.) The logic of that statement is quite clear, and to pretend that it isn't (as you have been) is beneath you. As, of course, is pretending you don't know what "fellow traveler" means.

Comment by ElvenRanger — August 6, 2005 @ 7:59 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.