Mysteries and Fruit
by MikeGeneOver at the Stranger Fruit, John Lynch is still bothered by my little blog about John Maynard Smith. One should first read my blog and the comments to appreciate the context of my reply below.
I post an entry that contains a bare minimum of four points:
1.I note John Maynard Smith was a great/leading biologist.
2.I draw attention to a university web site with Maynard Smith's picture.
3.I post the picture.
4.I ask, "Can you spot the mystery?"
Lynch graciously grants that I understood the basic points of my own writing. But let's turn to Lynch's replies. From this small set of data, Lynch extrapolates to the following:
5. I am arguing that John Maynard Smith was a closet ID sympathizer.
6. I am doing this to clothe ID with some borrowed legitimacy.
7. I am starting a rumor to help ID get taught in schools.
According to Lynch, I am wrong on these points. Yet when it comes to point 5 and 6, Lynch clearly stated that I seem to be "engaging in the same garbage, fabricating a "mystery"" and "attempting to clothe ID with some borrowed legitamacy." Sorry John, but that was not what I was doing or attempting to do. Yet Lynch explains:
Point 5 comes from MGs lack of detail in his post - we don't know what he is thinking, we don't even know why he posted the (non-)mystery, we do - however - have historical precedent for this sort of thing (see the original PT post). Ditto for point 6.
This doesn't explain why I was wrong. Lynch is simply trying to rationalize why it is that he was wrong. And guess what? It's all my fault. Because my post lacked detail, Lynch seems to be blaming me for his need to rely on the "historical precedent" of an experience with one other person in order to attack me. So get this. Instead of following the flow of the blog (to see where it might lead), Lynch is more concerned about what I am thinking and why I am posting. And instead of simply asking me for clarifications, he assumes things because of his stereotypes.
Well, I have plenty of previous experience also. I have found that many critics of ID would rather talk about the person making the argument than the argument. I have found that many critics of ID would rather argue against their extrapolations than the points on the table. And I have found that many critics of ID rely on stereotype and conspiracy theories to guide this approach. Lynch provides us a nice example of all three to consider.
As for point 7, Lynch acknowledges that I was not intentionally starting a rumor to aid the Wedge efforts. But that's not how his original words came across to me. He introduced the complaint with "˜Here's what's happening," and not "Here's what could happen." The "Here's what's happening" claim, followed by the "whether you admit it or not" claim, conveys the impression that I am participating in some active plot. Nevertheless, I thank him for clarifying that he is not accusing me of being part of some plot. So we can put an end to this part.
As for Korthof, Lynch says "I think that his statement is as dumb as MG's." He is still making the distinction. Had he merely complained that my blog was dumb, I would have not taken the time to set the record straight. But he did not say my blog was dumb; he sought to "fill in the details" by painting me as someone trying to imply Maynard Smith was an ID sympathizer to lend credibility to ID. Then he took it a step further and painted this in the context of aiding the Wedge. See the difference?
Finally, we get to his challenge. Lynch says I need to explicitly state why I feel this is a "mystery."
It's a mystery because it is a mystery. None of us know why the book is on his shelf. None of us know how it got there. None of us knows if he read it. Lots of people have different guesses, some reasonable, some silly. But no one knows, now do they? When Lynch notes that it is common for researchers to have copies of books that they disagree with, this is not an explanation that answers my question. One does not explain a specific instance of a specific individual possessing a specific book with a generalization. The generalization only tells us that it is not surprising, it doesn't answer the question.
What's more interesting is that the mystery is made deeper by all the rhetoric from Lynch's fellow critics. As many who follow this debate know, critics of ID claim that ID is superstitious, vacuous, pseudoscientific, anti-science, idiotic Nonsense. Oh, but it's actually worse than this. According to many critics, Behe has simply concocted a "scientific-sounding" argument to hoodwink all the rubes in the Red States to help them install a theocracy. In other words, ID is nothing more than a dangerous pack of politically motivated lies. Y'see John, the mystery deepens as a function of your side's rhetoric.
Lynch overlooks this element of the debate when he tries to explain things:
Surely he knows - if he has spent time in biological science departments - that individual researchers often have copies of books that they disagree with (actively or passively). As I posted in comments, I have all the major ID and YEC books, and I'm sure JMS had many books regarding anti-evolution either bought by himself or sent to him by well-meaning authors and readers.
Sounds good. But we're not talking about some fundamental debate within science. ID is supposed to be Pure Nonsense and Lies that is trying to undermine science for purely religious reasons. And yes, John Lynch has all the major ID and YEC books (it comes with his part-time debunking job), but John Lynch is no John Maynard Smith. Again, if we take some of the most common expressions of anti-ID rhetoric seriously, it means one of the world's leading evolutionists has a book full of anti-science nonsense and politically motivated lies in his library. So yeah, why would such a great scientist even bother to notice such Utter Nonsense? If you look at the picture through the filter of ID critic rhetoric, they are telling us someone like John Maynard Smith spent his time reading books by Ken Ham and Dr. Dino.
My guess is that like most great scientists, Maynard Smith valued skepticism. When Behe's book came out, here was a supposed "biochemical challenge to evolution" written by a mainstream scientist. My guess is that Maynard Smith would enjoy being "challenged" and that he never wrote anything about ID suggests he was not impressed and thought the challenges had been sufficiently answered by others. That is, he felt no need to weigh in on the debate.
But in the end, these are all my guesses. Y'see, when you have a mystery, everyone has their guess.
